I'm glad I'm cut. I have a handsome head. I'm not huge but guys have commented that I have a good-looking cock.
My late bf was uncut and very hung. He had lots of foreskin, and there was always an odor issue. I've never had a cut guy who smelled.
My late bf was uncut and very hung. He had lots of foreskin, and there was always an odor issue. I've never had a cut guy who smelled.
pacificfiveoh
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Posts
- 129
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3
- Points
- 163
- Location
- orlando, florida
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
well... I like all dick long as its proportioned. I prefer uncut dick though.. something about natural cock that makes me dizzy. Though, some uncut guys dont take care of themselves and end up being stinky/smelly. Lazyness perhaps. :shrugs:
Since, as some of the guys have noted, we can't really change if we've been cut, we might as well like it. And I doubt there is a lot of difference anyway.
Personally, I think uncut makes more sense in that the foreskin protects the head and keeps it more sensitive. Or so I've heard. I'm cut, but loosely so. When soft, most of the head is covered. Best of both worlds perhaps.
Personally, I think uncut makes more sense in that the foreskin protects the head and keeps it more sensitive. Or so I've heard. I'm cut, but loosely so. When soft, most of the head is covered. Best of both worlds perhaps.
I'm Aussie and in my early 40's. I grew up in a small country town and most my mates were cut. How old are you Cutdrew? I thought most younger guys were uncut...?
i love my cut cock and wouldnt have it any other way!
I'm 33, born in a large country town, and just about all my mates were cut. Can only remember one who had a foreskin. To be honest, I was about 10 before I even knew that there was such a thing as circumcision, I used to think we were all born this way. I think it's guys 10 years younger than me who are mostly uncut.
nifty96098 said:
I got cut at age 40 due to phimosis. I wanted to get it done for years prior but you know how guys will put things off.
My foreskin was always tight, to the point that it didn't retract when I was erect, but because uncut ones are rare in the US, and I never saw another hard and this before the internet and all so I didn't know it was supposed to.
I used to have foreskin tearing issues if I ever penetrated a tight vagina some times it would hurt to the point I didn't want to continue even if it wasn't that bad going back for seconds was not what I wanted. As a result I used to seek out women that I fugured were bigger down there, which helped with the tearing issues but because I was only about 6" and average girth they would often quickly become very loose which wasn't very pleasureable.
The first woman that I had sex with after my surgery had been of the "I figured she was bigger group" Our first date was 2 or 3 days prior to my surgery. Ironically despite being 5'7" married for years and having had 4 kids she was very tight, when we did have sex the first time. It was the most pleasureable sex that I ever had in my life, it felt so much better to have to push to get in and have it stay tight rather than just slip in and quickly get loose and sloppy.
An additional and unepected "benefit" is I am although I am now an inch shorter about five but I am now much thicker, I never measured it before but I am almost 6". The "toilet paper roll test" I can bareley fit inside one, sometimes not. Sure I wish I still had that inch but I look so much bigger now and my GF who has had one a little longer loves my "fat cock" and has never had a thicker one.
My foreskin was always tight, to the point that it didn't retract when I was erect, but because uncut ones are rare in the US, and I never saw another hard and this before the internet and all so I didn't know it was supposed to.
I used to have foreskin tearing issues if I ever penetrated a tight vagina some times it would hurt to the point I didn't want to continue even if it wasn't that bad going back for seconds was not what I wanted. As a result I used to seek out women that I fugured were bigger down there, which helped with the tearing issues but because I was only about 6" and average girth they would often quickly become very loose which wasn't very pleasureable.
The first woman that I had sex with after my surgery had been of the "I figured she was bigger group" Our first date was 2 or 3 days prior to my surgery. Ironically despite being 5'7" married for years and having had 4 kids she was very tight, when we did have sex the first time. It was the most pleasureable sex that I ever had in my life, it felt so much better to have to push to get in and have it stay tight rather than just slip in and quickly get loose and sloppy.
An additional and unepected "benefit" is I am although I am now an inch shorter about five but I am now much thicker, I never measured it before but I am almost 6". The "toilet paper roll test" I can bareley fit inside one, sometimes not. Sure I wish I still had that inch but I look so much bigger now and my GF who has had one a little longer loves my "fat cock" and has never had a thicker one.
Isn't a shorter dick what all guys want? Really and truly, isn't that what they really want?phonehome said:
In phonehome's case, what might be happening is: A tight shaftskin is pushing the internal part of the penis downwards into mons pubis. That would also explain it being thicker.
Infant circumcision can also cause shortening but "modern" medicine is clueless about that so-called benefit. During adolescence, tight shaftskin can limit the growth of erectile tissues [corpora cavernosa, corpus spongiosum] resulting in a shorter penis and that's irreversible.
So if you're intact and you want it shorter, go get it cut and ask for "very tight".:wink:
i dont believe the whole losing inches thing.....there are severe skin conditions where people lose all elasticity of their skin.....theyre entire bodies dont shrink.....it makes no sense to me. Also with all this hollaring about restoring foreskin, one would easily be led to believe frequent erections would be more than enough to stretch out that skin 
The only way i would even come close to believing it is if there were big studies done on american and european guys.....like tens of thousands and it would be able to rule out all variables.....then the uncircumcised should be significantly larger and that just has not been demonstrated
i just dont buy it.....
The only way i would even come close to believing it is if there were big studies done on american and european guys.....like tens of thousands and it would be able to rule out all variables.....then the uncircumcised should be significantly larger and that just has not been demonstrated
i just dont buy it.....
It takes more than just "frequent erections" to cause skin to grow. I wear a TLC/tugger about 8-10 hours per day and it puts a lot more tension on the skin than an erection would. No ka 'oi.baseball99 said:Also with all this hollaring about restoring foreskin, one would easily be led to believe frequent erections would be more than enough to stretch out that skin
Since the thread initiator is Australian, how about Australian guys?
SteveHd said:
I just have a hard time believing you can lose an inch.....not if your penis got chopped off and it was reattached then i could understand it because of fibrosis (scarring) but a circumferential scar (if it even happened with the circumcision) would cut off blood supply not shring the whole thing
i just said american and european bc it was on the top of my head
i just dont buy it.....the anatomy wouldnt make sense and the physiology jsut wouldnt let it happen
I don't know why I am thicker now but I am, much thicker, like I said I never measured it before but if I had to guess I would say it was in 4 -41/2 range I have relatively small hands and before could grip around it easily, after all the swelling from the surgery went down and it didn't hurt to get an erection it was a real handful, about 6"
As far as the missing inch, my theory is that because it is wider the skin/tissue gets "used up" with the extra girth. Think of a circle versus an oval, the oval is "longer" but the circle is "thicker"
I know I look bigger than before and more women comment that it looks big as well. Sex is so much more pleasurable. If I had known it was going to be that much better I would have done it years ago.
As far as the missing inch, my theory is that because it is wider the skin/tissue gets "used up" with the extra girth. Think of a circle versus an oval, the oval is "longer" but the circle is "thicker"
I know I look bigger than before and more women comment that it looks big as well. Sex is so much more pleasurable. If I had known it was going to be that much better I would have done it years ago.
In 1995, in Australia, Durex funded a study to determine if condoms should be offered in more sizes. An unexpected finding was that circumcised men had shorter erect penises than intact men by apx 10mm, that is 3/8in. That doesn't look like a lot but it is an average or mean and it's a difference that shouldn't exist.
Study authors were J. Richters, J. Gerofi, and B. Donovan. Published in Venereology 1995. Note: B. Donovan is a rabid pro-circ'er, equivalent to USA's Edgar Schoen.
Length/Girth findings:
Advice to those who are expecting a boy: If you wish to increase the likelihood of a smaller dick, cut him!
Study authors were J. Richters, J. Gerofi, and B. Donovan. Published in Venereology 1995. Note: B. Donovan is a rabid pro-circ'er, equivalent to USA's Edgar Schoen.
Length/Girth findings:
Unexpected finding:
I'm unaware of the age distribution of when the circumcisions were done. The study might not have inquired into that.
Advice to those who are expecting a boy: If you wish to increase the likelihood of a smaller dick, cut him!
I must say phonehome's situation is unusual even to me. But it's plausible in that it's a kind of reversal of P.E. surgery in which they cut [not a pun] ligaments at the base which thus allows more of the internal shaft to extend away from the mons pubis. Thus, a tight shaftskin I.M.O. could push the internal shaft into the mons pubis.baseball99 said:
SteveHd said:
I'll read the study soon enough, probably next week but im sure its not statistically significant.....meaning they are giving you the exact average, which truly means nothing.....you have to look at confidence intervals, standard error of the mean, etc.....
for example
Uncut
Average - 6"
Standard error of mean - 0.5
Confidence interval 2.0 - 6.0
Cut
Average 5.7"
SEM - 0.2
CI - 2.0-2.5
technically between those two there is absolutely no statistical difference and points to internal errors of group selection, number of participants and other outside variables.....the above example shows average is higher for uncut and totally could have been shifted due to 1 or 2 freak outliers which are 1/10,000 in chance or something
To really understand a study you dont look at "mean" or average.....you look at the mode, which is much more independent of freak outliers
