To Cut Or Not To Cut
To quote Woody Allen "My brain is my second favorite organ". The obvious implication of this statement is that his, and my, favorite organ is what is dangling between my legs.
When I published a photo of my, admittedly, magnificent cock I was surprised that the I received two comments from Merkin ladies who expressed a preference for the uncut member. I was under the impression that the majority of women in the US had never seen, let alone experienced, the uncut member, the prevalence over the pond for male mutilation at birth.
This is something that I personally have a big thing about. I really don't get that idea behind circumcision. I don't understand why, in this day and age, what parents would prefer to have their child "modified" in this way at birth. The health and hygiene reasons that may have been prevalent in the past are no longer valid. Most people bath or shower daily and washing under your foreskin is part of this daily ritual so why disable a man in this manner. I have three sons and none of them were mutilated. Indeed, the hospital never even mentioned it and I have never heard of such a request being made in the UK, except for the obvious.
While it's not something that I have personal experience of, I imagine that a the head of a circumcised penis must be less sensitive than an un-circumcised one. The member lacking a foreskin must be exposed to constant abrasion by underwear and the like and must build up a resistance to this feeling while the glans protected by the foreskin only come into contact with the outside world when, traditionally, it is in the outside world.
The uncut glans can experience the pleasure of a hand or a pussy as a unique experience, it is aware that when it is exposed to the air it will get stimulated, probably for pleasure, while for the cut member it's just what it's used to.
I also can't see that there will any difference to the partner involved. The foreskin gets pulled pack prior to penetration forming a bigger ring with which to stimulate them. This alone would suggest, at least to me, an increase in pleasure to the receiving orifice.
So why do some women, and apparently the majority in the US, prefer the cut. They must just not know what they are missing.
L&X
Posts
6 comments:
Yep - I'm with you. horrible idea.
I'm from the US and have an uncut husband and two sons. I am also stunned that so many people elect to circumcise their children...including my own sister! It is horrific and unnecessary.
as a US lady who has had a fair amount of exposure to various men's privates, i have only come across 2 uncut members, one of whom is my current boyfriend. i immensely prefer the uncircumcized.
cheers
Have you ever heard the scerams of a baby being circumcised? It is something you will never forget! Why would anyone amputate healthy body parts? What ever happened to the medical professions' commiment, "Do no harm?"
Nowadays, about 45% of USA baby boys come home from the hospital with all their bits. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Caucasian men born in American maternity wards between 1940 and 1980, and who whose mothers were not charity cases, were circumcised within 48 hours of birth. The American medical profession before 1970 firmly believed that Mother Nature had gone wrong when she invented the foreskin, if only because it was supposedly very unsanitary. However, over the last 15-20 years, American babies are cut only because the parents request it. And they do so simply because the foreskin offends American fastidiousness Parents also fear that a son with nonconforming genitals will be ridiculed, first by other boys, then by his future lovers.
My husband (only man I've ever been with, we where high school sweetharts) is not cut, nor is our son. I think it's barbaric and horrible. Here in California it is getting less common to cut! Yay!
Post a Comment