Monday, September 26, 2016

What Do You Prefer: Cut or Uncut?

This is not one of my old posts, but one by Pervertically Virtuous
In the process of recovering my own old posts via email I discovered some of hers. Like me, her old accounts have been terminated, and she seems to have disappeared from the internet. This is a damn shame since I consider her one of the best sex bloggers I've ever had the chance to read and follow. I'm reposting her old posts as a historical archive, and if she ever returns to blogging I'm happy to hand them back to her.
To be clear: the copyright on this work is hers, and remains with her - I didn't write it and I make no claim to it. 

(FYI: some links in this post are dead) 

recovered post on Pervertically Virtuous

What Do You Prefer: Cut or Uncut?

by Pervertically Virtuous
uncut-cock-hanging










UNCUT.
Hands down; without a doubt.
Why?
There are a few reasons why I prefer uncircumcised, and a few differences between cut and uncut cocks that I don't care much about either way.
1. Cultural Background/ Eearly Experience
I'm European. I grew up in a country where most men were uncut. Circumcision was something only Muslims and Jews did for religious reasons; there was no discourse of health, cleanliness, or aesthetics surrounding the practice. Since your early experiences shape your view of things, and most of the cocks I played with in those early days were uncut, I'm a little biased simply based on familiarity and a dose of childhood nostalgia.
2. Intactness
One obvious thing that many Americans forget in this debate is that uncircumcised cocks are the way cocks were created by Mother Nature. There were good evolutionary reasons for the existence of a foreskin, including:
- Protection of the glans from infection and mechanical damage;
- Making sex more pleasurable for men by increasing the amount of nerve-endings as well as their sensitivity (via having the glans covered most of the time);
- Making intercourse more pleasurable/easier for both men and women due to decreased friction (see #7).
So uncut penises are perfectly normal and natural. It is circumcision that is the man-made intrusion here. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it an elective (i.e., medically unnecessary), yet permanent genital modification at best, genital mutilation at worst. As such, it is a procedure that should be freely chosen by the person being done to. Sincefor the vast majority of men circumcision is something that was imposed on them by their parents long before they could give consent, I take ethical issue with the practice. It's a human rights issue. In other words, I prefer uncut penises out of principle.
3. Looks
The first time I heard someone say that uncircumcised penises looked ugly - soon after I moved to the U.S. - I was in a state of shock for a while. My state of shock was extended for quite some time when I realized a whole generation of Americans felt that way.
Perhaps because I grew up in a country where no aesthetic judgment was attached to the foreskin one way or another, the idea that one type of penis would look more attractive than the other seemed preposterous. These days I understand it cognitively (Americans were socialized to think that, so of course they'll think that), but I still have a hard time processing it emotionally.
To me, foreskin or no foreskin, flaccid penises look a little funny and cute, while erect penises look beautiful, powerful, and delicious. Size, shape, curvature, and color may affect my judgment of a given member's 'beauty,' but foreskin plays absolutely no role.
4. Smell & Cleanliness
"Uncut cocks are dirty and stink" is the most frequent reason I hear for disparaging them.
Yes, smegma (the white, waxy substance produced by our genitals) collects under the foreskin of genitally intact men. Smegma also collects under the clitoral hood and the labia of genitally intact women. And yes, it has a distinctive smell (that varies from person to person). But I'm not at least bothered by this in uncut cocks or intact pussies. Why?
- The smegma is perfectly natural and has a good evolutionary function - lubrication.
- Sex is not surgically clean – there can be sweat, smegma, vaginal juices, female ejaculation fluid, male cum and pre-cum, urine, feces, or blood, and many of these bodily excretions have some smell. And that's OK. The sooner people acknowledge that, the more they can relax and enjoy sex and the genitals involved in it.
- Smegma can be easily removed by washing it with water and soap. Bathrooms with running water and soap are readily available these days.
5. Handjobs
Uncut cocks are much easier and more convenient to jerk off.
With uncut cocks, you just hold the cock by the foreskin, and when you move your hand up and down, you're not rubbing your hand against the penile skin, it's the foreskin doing all the movement - gliding, and you're just holding onto the foreskin. Because of this, there's no friction, hence, no need for lube whatsoever. And it's nice not to have to depend on lube all the time.
With cut cocks, manual stimulation without lube can range from impossible to challenging, depending on how tight the penile skin is. Some circumcised men have very little loose penile skin, and the only option is to rub your hand against their skin, creating lots of friction and needing lube. Other men have enough loose penile skin to do a non-rubbing motion similar to that of the foreskin, but the range of motion is restricted, and you often feel like you're tugging on the cock in a way that must be uncomfortable for the owner.
Because of this difference in motion, with cut cocks you also often end up coming in direct hand-to-glans contact, and for a lot of men, the glans is way too sensitive for that, just like for a lot of women (myself included) direct stimulation of the clitoris is too intense.
6. Blowjobs
Since blowjobs often include manual stimulation, #5 makes giving oral sex to uncut penises also somewhat more convenient, although this is less of an issue as usually enough saliva can be produced to mitigate the problem.
7. Intercourse
When using condoms, there is not much difference. But when barebacking, there is a world of difference.
First, again thanks to the gliding of the foreskin, friction with the vaginal wall is reduced, and there is rarely any need for lube beyond natural vaginal lubrication.
Second, there is this additional sensation that you get from feeling the gliding of the foreskin against the anterior (front) vaginal wall – where the G spot is known to reside. It's not a super strong sensation, but it's noticeable, and it adds to the pleasure in what is otherwise a fairly insensitive organ – the vaginal canal itself.
8. STI/HIV prevention
There is a heated on-going debate in the world of sexual health research and policy about whether circumcision prevents HIV and other STI transmission. Based on some studies in Sub-Saharan Africa finding up to 60% lower HIV infection rates among circumcised men, the WHO touts circumcision as a major STI/HIV prevention measure. Others have criticized this evidence and policy position. For the geeks here who like reading about randomized controlled trials and epidemiological data, here is a fairly short, accessible, and multifaceted criticism of the scientific evidence that circumcision prevents HIV, and of the efforts to promote it as a prevention strategy.
Without going into too much depth about this, here's my take on this debate.
- The evidence that circumcision lowers STI/HIV is not unequivocal - there are methodological problems and contradicting findings. To me, it seems like the jury is still out.
- Most studies in industrialized, non-African societies find no such links, suggesting that circumcision may offer some protection against HIV only in countries where the prevalence of the virus is very high and more efficient protection methods (condoms and anti-retroviral therapy for those already infected) are not as readily available or as culturally accepted.
- There is no evidence that circumcision reduces transmission from an infected man to a woman.
The bottom line: Even if circumcision did indeed lower chances of contracting HIV, do you really want to rely on that to keep you and your partners safe?! I know I don't. Foreskin or not, I'll stick to condoms with casual partners.
In conclusion
None of these things are a deal breaker for me. I've happily enjoyed more circumcised and uncircumcised cocks than most people will ever see in their lives, and I have never refused a cock because of its circumcision status. Other aspects of the anatomy of the specific member and the skill with which its owner manipulates it are significantly more important. But all else equal, I'll take an uncut over a cut cock every single time.
And interestingly enough, most women I've talked to who have had substantial experience with both types prefer uncircumcised. But I can't find any non-anecdotal data on this.
In either case, I feel sorry for so many US women that never get to experience the difference.
How about you? What do you prefer? (Please only take the poll if you are interested in sexual partners with penises.)
View Poll                                                        [see also]
Pervertically Virtuous | September 27, 2013 at 6:38 pm | 

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome comments but hate SPAM. If you are a spammer we will not only delete you but actively report you as well.
We encourage frank robust discussion on all subjects within our blog but NO hate speech will be allowed. Again, we will actively report this.

The Waffle Story