Circumcised or Uncircumcised...If you could choose which would you prefer to have? (Males).?

Question

First of all...why was my first question flagged and deleted? Seriously that's messed up. This question is for research purposes and for my own knowledge, and its not in any way inappropriate.

If you are a male and you could chose whether you are circumcised or not, what would you pick?
What are the benefits and cons of both.
I'm not just talking about the sensitivity I'm talking about hygiene.

Answer 1

I am circumcised and hate feeling mutilated. A natural penis is just as easy to keep clean as a woman's genitals. You just pull the skin back and rinse with plain water. In young boys the penis forms as one organ with the foreskin fused to the glans. So there is nowhere for dirt or germs to collect until it separates naturally later on in life. Only the boy himself should do the first retractions and then he can be taught to clean regularly.

Circumcision has been proved to remove the most sensitive parts of the penis. When I was a kid I saw how a friend masturbated, using the foreskin's self-sliding action like a never-ending tube of lube. Circumcision was introduced into the west to try and discourage masturbation. They talked about mental hygiene back then. I hate the scarred, dried up look of my penis too and now I'm older I can't feel much with it anymore.

Geoff

Answer 2

I used to prefer circumcised (when I didn't know any better). Now that I've actually experienced both, I much prefer uncircumcised. Natural is definitely the way to go because it feels a lot better. The reason why a lot of girls say they prefer circumcised is because 1) they are American and they don't know any better because they've never actually been with an intact guy before, 2) they are ignorant of the advantages and only listen to the rumors about it being unclean or dirty and 3) since they're used to seeing circumcised penises, they think that looks normal. And if you look at all the answers from the girls that said they prefer circumcised, you can tell they are speaking from ignorance. I grew up in the US but I live in the UK now where almost all the guys are uncircumcised. My last two boyfriends (including my current boyfriend) are British and uncircumcised. Between the two of them, they were the best sexual partners I've had. So I'm speaking from experience. The natural penis is a lot more sensitive, it feels better for the girl during intercourse, it's way easier to give a guy a handjob if he has a foreskin and now that I'm used to seeing them, I actually think they look better too. It's not any cleaner to be circumcised if the guy has good hygiene habits. It's just like a girl (and most girls don't know that they can also get "cheese" down there if they don't wash themselves properly).

Answer 3

Well, I think what you've probably realized so far from reading your answers is that men's opinions on this topic vary. Some men hate being circumcised. Some men love it. Some men love being intact. Some men hate it.

But...an intact man can always choose to be circumcised if he wants. In this way, he gets to make the choice for himself based on what he percieves the pros and cons as. Because really, the pros and cons are opinions, NOT facts.

But a circumcised man can never choose to be intact. Circumcision is irreversible.



If I had a son, I would NEVER forcefully remove important sexual tissue from his body without his consent. It's just not my decision to make, at all, especially considering it's medically unjustified. His body, his decision to make when he's an adult.



My general opinion on this topic is, if someone is for circumcision, then great, they have their own body to alter and modify. But they have NO RIGHT to alter and modify someone ELSE'S body just beause *they* think it's better.







IMO, circumcision and hygiene have nothing to do with each other. If a man washes his penis, it'll be clean. If a man doesn't wash his penis, it won't be clean. No matter whether is circumcised or not.

Answer 4

A natural penis (what you call Uncircumcised).



Unlike men that have had parts of their penis cut off at birth, I can choose. Like almost all men with a natural penis I would never cut off these parts.



As to hygiene, there is nothing to talk about. A cut penis is no cleaner than a natural penis (just as cut female genitals are no cleaner). The bacteria ideas are primitive, not understanding good bacteria and the harm of exposure to foreign bacteria. The health benefits are bogus, pushed by people (including doctors) that so much want this practice to continue. In the US (CA, EU, JP) there is no higher rate of HPV, HIV and STDs for natural penis men.



This is a creepy thing to do to a baby boy. Of course it is mutilation to cut off erogenous tissue with about 20000 pleasure giving nerves. It is not just skin. Instead it is penis tissue that provides great pleasure for the owner.



Sorry GranFirs, I don't buy into your theory that "only guys who have had both could really give this an honest answer" That may sound reasonable until you consider that guys tend to defend their penis and tend to say it is great. Also, guys cut as adults almost always had issues. These could either be mental or physical (in the later case, there are alternatives to amputation of the parts), but in either case, the cut removed the issue. In either case, an honest answer is not always available and any answer may not be applicable to a natural guy that has no issues. There is a guy who worked in porn that got cut and provided the famous qote that sex is like going from seeing in color to black and white. There is the Korea study in which most men that were cut said masturbation and sex were harmed (even though those guys had some issues before the surgery). There are a few studies done by pro circ creeps that have mixed views of sex after. IMO. if you have lips, fingertips or a foreskin parts, you can imagine what it would be like to NOT have that sensory input. As such, you can know that natural is better.

Answer 5

I'm not circumcised, and if I wanted to be I would have had it done ;)

There is NO issue with hygiene ... Unless you have a severe phimosis it is not "easier" to clean a cut penis. You just need half a second to peel the foreskin. And no matter what, a penis won't smell nearly as much as a vagina (I'm bisexual). One year ago I didn't even know smegma existed ; some circ'd guy said "at least when circ'd you don't get smegma", and that was the first time I heard about it.

As for "benefits", they are dubious at best, and even if true are just moot as long as you wash yourself and wear condom. I would like to point out that no European country except 2 even bothered to issue a policy about infant circumcision. And those who did, well, see for yourself, link below.

Foreskin feels good for oral&manual play (the tip especially), and sometime in the vagina too, so I prefere having it. But it's not like I had the slightest reason to remove it either.

Answer 6

I had no choice. I was very young at the time. I don't even remember when it happened. I have also never known the alternative, so I can't say I have any basis for comparison, except that my grandfather did mention having to keep it clean so mushrooms wouldn't grow there. He had a tendency to use colorful exaggerations.



I would say that being circumcised has been working well for me so far, for the last 46 years. I wouldn't change it. If I had not been circumcised and I could make that choice today, I would leave it the way it was. I would say what I just did, it's been working well for me so far. So either way, I wouldn't want to change it at this age.

Answer 7

Wow, if you could actually give me that choice i would love you =)



I am circumcised, but if i had the choice i would be natural, uncircumcised, i couldn't even imagine having that much sensitivity, or being normal.



As far as hygiene, stds, and all the other bs, it doesn't concern me because i'm an honest person with myself and others and i can give you my word that all that is just bs created by ignorant,greedy, or envious people.

Answer 8

I have a natural penis and in my 56 years I've never had any problems with it, so I have no reason at all to even consider circumcision.



It's certainly not a problem from a hygiene point of view, I just wash it every time I have a shower, and there is no smell or build up of smegma.



Living in the UK we don't carry out needless cosmetic surgery on unconsenting children, and we don't have any problems because of that. Our rates of HIV and STDs are considerably lower than in a certain country that has carried out routine infant circumcision for many years, so it obviously doesn't help to stop the spread of those.

Answer 9

Well I was very little when It happened and I wouldn't know what being uncircumcised feels like. I'm happy the way I am now so I would say circumcised.

Answer 10

Intact of course. There are no 'cons' to having a normal and fully functional penis. As for hygiene, what on Earth does circumcision have to do with hygiene? No one ever became cleaner by cutting body parts off themselves. If anything, circumcision reduces cleanliness, because the foreskin exists in part to keep the glans clean.

Answer 11

I am circumcised. It wasn't my choice. I think I am happy with my parents decision to have me snipped.



It is fairly easy to keep an uncircumcised one clean from what I understand. You wash it in the shower like everything else.



Not having the the foreskin apparantly desensitizes the most sensitive area of the male body. In terms of sex... men with foreskin are said to get more pleasure. Men without foreskin are less sensitive and can last longer.



I have heard women say that they find the foreskin to be gross. I am sure that women who are used to a man with foreskin probably find a man with no skin gross.

Answer 12

Not a guy, but my intact partner is perfectly happy with his junk and thinks it's bizarre that people cut baby *****. My circumcised ex used to suffer panic attacks after sex. It's a no-brainer for me, really.



There is no medical reason to justify routine infant circumcision. When you compare the risks versus the supposed benefits, the results are staggeringly in favour of leaving them well alone. These are some of the complications: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html and this is a quick comparison of cut vs. intact outcomes: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/cut-vs-in…



If he decides on circumcision when he's older, he's:



-Not at risk of fatal haemorrhage

-Not at risk of fatal infection

-Not at risk of glans amputation, degloving or adhesions and skin bridges.



Any surgery is easier on an adult and has fewer complications, and the complications are less serious. The reality is though - in a non-circumcising country, which the USA is fast becoming with a neonatal circumcision rate of 33% (and falling) in 2009, it is incredibly rare for an intact man to want to be without his foreskin.



Some common myths:



- It's easier to keep clean.



It's NOT. An intact penis should only ever be wiped gently like a finger - http://www.fathermag.com/health/boy-care/boy-care.shtml A circumcised newborn's penis is an open wound sitting in excrement. Often, the glans (which is raw where the adhered foreskin has been torn away) begins to heal onto the skin of the penile shaft, resulting in skin bridges: http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm This is a comparison between cut and intact newborn boys:



I'll add to that to say that it's also NOT cleaner in adulthood. Around half my partners have been intact and half circumcised. I've never had a smelly intact partner (except a smoker, who smelled like smoke) but I have had smelly circumcised partners. In intact men, the skin hangs freely over the glans. In circumcised men, it bunches behind the coronal ridge, making sweaty folds. I had a partner who found it very hard to stop these folds from stinking of sweat. Cleaning under the foreskin takes the adult man less time than it does for a woman to keep her vulva clean.



-It reduces his risk of HIV



Highly questionable. The studies in Africa were very poorly conducted and controlled for, only showed any benefit for female-male transmission (most sexual transmission in the USA is homosexual) and one study was abandoned when a similar INCREASE in transmission to women was shown. In any case, 60% was the supposed reduction, when the risk can be virtually eliminated with condom use. Any vaccine trial showing a reduction of 60% would be abandoned. More here: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193



-It reduces his risk of UTIs



False. Circumcision commonly causes meatal stenosis in boys, or narrowing of the urinary tract. It is virtually unheard of in intact boys. For this reason, and because the foreskin is no longer protecting the glans and urethra, it may increase his risk of urinary tract infections. In any case, UTIs are rare in boys - even more so after the first 12 months - and can be treated with antibiotics. More on UTIs: http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html



- It reduces his risk of STDs



Highly questionable. Other studies have shown no difference or an increase in STD transmission among circumcised men - who may be less likely to use condoms as they already have reduced sensation. In any case - newborns aren't sexually active! This is one he can decide when he's older. http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html



- Most men are circumcised



False. Around 80% of the world is intact: http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html



- It's just a snip!



False. In adult males, the foreskin has separated from the glans. In infants, it must be torn away from the glans first - yes, even with the Plastibell procedure, which DOES involve cutting. Circumstraints are bolted to a bench and the infant is firmly strapped in place. You don't have to do this for a heel prick. Videos made by and for medical professionals: Gomco - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0&has_verified=1 & Plastibell - http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/plastibell-infant-circumcision.html

Answer 13

hard question really...only guys who have had both could really give this an honest answer, I'm cut and that's the reference point I come from, same as un cut, if that's all they know then there answer is slighted too...so out of all the guys that have answered you which one has experienced both?, their answer is what your looking for...me?, well if I was un cut and my foreskin retracted with out choking or restricting blood flow, then intact would be cool. but saying that I really don't mind being cut either...but like I said that's all I have ever known

Answer 14

Hygiene is a non issue.



Circumcision was not made common in north america because teenage boys weren't cleaning their genitals, circumcision was made common because they suspected teenage boys enjoyed cleaning themselves too much. It was believed that circumcision would result in less masturbation.

Answer 15

I am circumcised and I have NO idea why any man would actually want the part that makes him a man cut up and mutilated. I wish with everything in me I was intact and natural. Men should be left to function like they were ment to.

Circumcision has no benifits to it what so ever. It's not cleaner. We have soap and water in this country, people need to realize that and get off the stupid hygiene remark. If women can keep what they got clean, obviously men can keep what ever they have clean.



-Connor

Answer 16

If you could be a guy for a short while, which would you choose for yourself? Would you wan to be circumcized and never know otherwise, or you want to be intact first and then decide?

Answer 17

Either way makes no difference. There is no medical reason for doing it, it is purely social.

Answer 18

Well from a females standpoint Uncircumcised is wheres its at!

Answer 19

Ive had both i was circumcised at the age of 20 and for me there is no difference i like both of course circumcised is cleaner

Answer 20

I love both becoz i LOVE penis....true story

Answer 21

i am circumcised and very happy with.

i feel cleaner .(easier to keep clean) i think it 's healthier .

Even if it's not common in France ( i am french) , i like the way my penis looks! (my partners too)

Answer 22

I am cut and don't care either way

Answer 23

i am circumcised and prefer to be circumcised.



jami:no- not really.

Answer 24

For research purposes - you would probably get more qualifed information online.

Answer 25

Im circumcised and I personally think it is better, I have found that women like the look of it better, its easier to keep clean and your less likely to get infections of deases from having sex

Answer 26

Circumcised, Benefits, it doesn't look like an Anteater.





i'm a girl though.

Answer 27

i am circumcised and prefer to be circumcised.

Answer 28

circumsiszed....