I've been with, I think, roughly even numbers of circumcised and uncircumcised men. Uncut is better; when the head of the penis comes out it's wet and tender like an internal organ, something exquisitely sensitive, making cut cocks look dry and roughened in comparison. And the way the foreskin slides around inside me is a hell of a feeling for both of us. For these reasons, combined with a total lack of evidence of any benefits, I'll never circumcise any son of mine.
(I'm Jewish... this may lead to considerable family drama.)
But I can't be too vociferous about this, can't really start frothing about "mutilation" and "robbing sexual pleasure" because, well, the circumcised men I've been with have been fucking great. If lacking a foreskin makes sex 1% less fun, something else--enthusiasm or kinkiness or creativity--has always made up for it and more. And maybe they just didn't know what they were missing, but the guys sure seemed to enjoy it. It's hard to say if he's enjoying it to its maximum potential, but a guy without a foreskin can sure as hell fuck and love it and come.
In the end, it's like chocolate and vanilla; if I think about it I can decide I like one a little better than the other, but they're both delicious.
Well, except that to make chocolate you have to perform genital surgery without anesthesia on an infant for no reason. So I'm not way into it.
H - just wanted to say hi and commend you on your valiant and intelligent comments on the "Patriarchy" blog - you're brave to wade in... Good for you.
ReplyDeleteMy head's about to explode :)
I've always been thankful that my parents didn't have me circumcised. Not only does it have benefits in terms of maintaining sensitivity, but, at least in the US, it puts me in what many people consider an exotic minority. I once picked up a guy simply because he'd never had an uncut cock before.
ReplyDeleteAn uncut cock also strikes me as nastier... it's moist and shiny. More organic. Less like a utilitarian appendage.
Of course serious VD rates are much higher for the uncut. By what percentage are you willing to increase your sons chances of getting AIDS?
ReplyDeleteHow big a foreskin is the optimum?
ReplyDeleteOf course serious VD rates are much higher for the uncut.
ReplyDeleteOh please, I hardly find enough evidence of that to reach any conclusion. It might be more accurate to say, "there've been a couple* of studies that suggest higher STI rates amongst the uncircumsised".
Now, weigh your views on the non-consensual surgical modification of a baby's genitals against your views on the conclusivity of a couple* of studies. It may be that you still fear your son getting an STI more than you consider it immoral to alter your baby's penis, but you shouldn't treat preliminary statistical results as fact.
(*I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with "couple". In reality, the only thing I've heard that supports your claim is the story that made the rounds a couple weeks ago.)
GeorgeH- My son will use a condom, thank you very much. The evidence that circumcison makes a difference even for unprotected sex is sketchy at best. I don't do painful surgery on a baby for a "maybe it'll help a little."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Big enough that the head's completely covered when soft and completely exposed when hard. Covered-when-hard foreskins are, like, freaky.
Damn, I'm a "halfsie".
ReplyDeleteEven if circumcised men are at lower risk for HIV, that's hardly a reason to circumcise newborns. Infants aren't really supposed to be having sex anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to recommend circumcision to anyone, they should recommend it to teenaged boys, who are a) old enough to make decisions about their own bodies and b) at some kind of a risk of getting STDs.
[/rational behaviour]
...Without anesthesia?!
Eww.
I like having a foreskin. Just thought this info should be shared with ya. :)
ReplyDeleteI love foreskins! Circumcised guys are way too thrusty for my liking, and they typically dry out your vagina with friction. I LOVE the feeling of a silky foreskin rolling back and forth inside me. Not trying to be mean to circumcised guys - I'd never NOT fuck somebody just because they were cut - but please don't circumcise your sons just because you had it done to you!
ReplyDeleteI suspect that if I had not been cut, I would still have been married to my ex.
ReplyDeleteYou see, sex very often hurt her. Her response to that was, of course, not wanting sex. We rarely got it right.
With a foreskin, a lot of the motion is against yourself. Without, all the motion is against the walls of the vagina.
And for at least one data point, that didn't work so well.
Having said that, I'm much happier now than I would have been, staying in that relationship... but that's not the point.
Circumcision of children is mutilation, I don't personally get why so many people to take that to mean circumcised penises are 'broken' and 'don't work' and rush to minimize the the horrid crime as a result, because that's not what 'mutilated' means.
ReplyDeleteFew people would minimise the cutting of woman's genitals in that way, which makes me wonder however, do people see /their/ genitals as broken items that don't work? Because they do 'work' - they still function as genitalia but the removal of tissue does cause problems as it would. (of course, it's a problem in itself, not something that merely causes problems)