I grew up uncut, and while my foreskin was long, the books described the foreskin as shorter, and that macthed the uncut friends I had. Even the french language dictionary from France defined the foreskin as leaving part fo glans exposed in adult. (and all books/friend described foreskin as self retracting during erection). Not sure why the French books had such an idyllic destription, but in Québec, it turns out that while circ rates at birth were lower, those with long skins were likely cut before puberty (and I know the pediatrician would recommed it every check up for me).
When I trimmed my foreskin, I contined at first to consider myself uncut and be against circumcision since I fit tyat description of the foreskin. So when I saw long foreskinned guys , I had some pity and felt superior to them.
Fast forward to late 90s early 2000s when the "uncut generation" got old enough to go to locker rooms. I had already accepted I was semi cut by then, but seeing them confirmed my remaining foreskin didn't qualify as uncut. Long foreskins galore. And very few had/have short ones. I still felt superior to them and didn't have any desire to have my long foreskin back.
Cue porn featuring uncuts, and once again long foreskins were now the norm. Guys whose foreskin still covered glans when erect are common etc. I had already become fully cut by then. The tell of how cut I had become: seeing an uncut piss throuhgh his foreskin is now puking material for me. Having grown iup with foreskin, I know how bad the smell gets and beore getting my trim, had already learned to retract to piss to not get any piss under foreskin. (though after foreskin came back over meatus, the "last drop" would do the smell.
Obviously, an uncut who is "ready" for sex and has been retracted or washed is fine. But an uncut who just pissed through his foreksin, I wouldn't want to get anywhere near it. So yes, I have gained bias against uncuts, not so much because I became cut but rather because my image of the foreskin changed from its "short" version in the 1870s and 1980s to its current long one.
When I trimmed my foreskin, I contined at first to consider myself uncut and be against circumcision since I fit tyat description of the foreskin. So when I saw long foreskinned guys , I had some pity and felt superior to them.
Fast forward to late 90s early 2000s when the "uncut generation" got old enough to go to locker rooms. I had already accepted I was semi cut by then, but seeing them confirmed my remaining foreskin didn't qualify as uncut. Long foreskins galore. And very few had/have short ones. I still felt superior to them and didn't have any desire to have my long foreskin back.
Cue porn featuring uncuts, and once again long foreskins were now the norm. Guys whose foreskin still covered glans when erect are common etc. I had already become fully cut by then. The tell of how cut I had become: seeing an uncut piss throuhgh his foreskin is now puking material for me. Having grown iup with foreskin, I know how bad the smell gets and beore getting my trim, had already learned to retract to piss to not get any piss under foreskin. (though after foreskin came back over meatus, the "last drop" would do the smell.
Obviously, an uncut who is "ready" for sex and has been retracted or washed is fine. But an uncut who just pissed through his foreksin, I wouldn't want to get anywhere near it. So yes, I have gained bias against uncuts, not so much because I became cut but rather because my image of the foreskin changed from its "short" version in the 1870s and 1980s to its current long one.
