All Comments on 'Snipped or Unsnipped'

Nice little educational piece!

I like you, when can you be here?

I didn't have a choice since I hadn't learned to fend for myself at two days old when I was circumcised. All three of my sons have their foreskins. Hopefully this barbaric practice will eventually die off.

I clicked on your piece because I live in South Florida where the norm is uncut. I prefer it, and like you enjoy exploring the body both by touch and smell. I have noticed that even very clean uncut men have a little smell of smegma, which is intimate and enjoyable in small amounts. (You have to press your nose right behind the head as I do.)

"I soon discovered that men who still possess that extra piece of skin are much more sensitive on and around the head. While, again, I wrongly assumed this would be a benefit, in fact, they explained that it was too sensitive for the techniques I was using."

One guy I was doing couldn't take it and told me he was too sensitive for the oral technique used on cut men. I had to be very light touch with my tongue.

Personally, I think they should outlaw male genital mutilation (that is what it actually is you know) If a grown man wants to cut off his foreskin he should have that option, not have it done to him as a baby. Most religions don't say it has to be an infant. They should make laws that say religious freedom is OK as long as you don't sacrifice or mutilate your children.

but I never really saw why people get so upset over it. I was circumsized at birth; I never missed it, and I honestly doubt I would prefer having something in the way there. The fact that it generally is cleaner is why it was started in the first place, even if it's usually unnoticeable. I think it's mutilation in the same way plastic surgery is "mutilation".

for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I've only experienced "snipped" men and have often wondered what I would do if confronted with an unsnipped cock.

Your essay broadens my understanding of the difference.

I much prefer intact to cut as well. It's clear the body was designed to function with its foreskin, as everything is much nicer (in my experience) with an intact guy.

Useless and ugly things!

I have always been convinced that I have more sensation in my cockhead than my circumcised fellows. Not that it's possible to have any scientific proof of that, of course. It just seems logical that a cockhead in constant contact with underwear must lose sensation over the years. Fortunately circumcision is rarer here than it is in North America. I agree, it is a barbaric genital mutilation to perform on those too young to consent.

If we did to female babies what we do to male babies, I'm sure there would be a great outcry against it. I happen to think circumcision is barbaric--if a man wants to be circumcised, let him make the decision after he's an adult. I think most men would prefer to keep that little piece of skin, small as it is.

.. that moonstormer has discovered one of the benefits of European health culture.

I have read a handful of similar narratives by American women in Europe. My wife made similar discoveries in the 1970s, as a sophomore in a mainstream USA state university. She was attracted to foreign born men for nonsexual reasons, and thus discovered trouser snakes with eyelids. Having grown up without brothers, her mind was not primed to expect the penis to be bald 24/7.

This narrative is valuable, because an understanding of the sexual properties of the natural penis is a major lacuna in American sex education, and in the American popular culture of sex. If the truth were known, American routine circumcision would be correctly perceived as a sexual disaster, and Judaism and Islam would find themselves in a crisis.

While it is true that uncut men have more sensitivity in the glans but that is far from the whole matter. The most sensitive parts of a man's body are parts that circumcision permanently destroys. The foreskin interacts very nicely with natural and artificial lube. With uncut men, handjobs are the foreplay of choice, and require neither lube nor great skill. All men are born with an exquisitely sensitive small structure, called the frenulum, on the underside of the penis. Circumcision usually damages or destroys the frenulum. Foreplay with an intact man need only consist of playing with his foreskin and frenulum until he produces a satisfactory amount of precum.

The foreskin cushions penetrative sex in ways that erotica is only beginning to understand. Because intact men experience more sensation, they can thrust more slowly, especially at the outset, yet still enjoy the ride. Quite a few American women have taken advantage of internet anonymity to reveal that they have experienced penetrative sex with an intact partner, and prefer it. Several women have revealed, on YouTube and elsewhere, that their sexual experiences with circumcised American young men have often been too fast, too hard, too deep. In other words, little better than date rape.

My better half says that in her days as a youthful free spirit, she encountered 3 men who were catastrophic premature ejaculators. They were all cut. In her experience, when a cut man comes, it's all over for the night. Intact men are much more likely to have a second wind after 15-30 minutes. Moreover, an intact man can remain sufficiently erect after coming to give his woman one last orgasm.

We do not know yet how circumcision status interacts with condom use. It is possible that circumcision + condom = no fun. It could be possible that the looser shaft skin of intact men makes condoms more comfortable for her. These hypotheses could help explain why STDs are more common in the USA than in Europe and Japan.

Ladies, if you can move the hood of your clitoris back and forth so as to cover and uncover the clitoris glans, and if doing so feels good, then the pleasure you are experiencing is similar to what intact men feel when the foreskin is moved back and forth over the male glans. N.B: if you are unable to do what I describe in this paragraph, that is perfectly normal and does not interfere with your ability to climax.

The day will come when a well-educated young Jewish woman, after having dated a handful of circumcised Jewish men, will discover her first short arm with a long sleeve and find that she likes it a lot. She will date intact men for a while, and then write about what she has learned with skill and wit. There will be a serious point to her humour. To gentiles she will say "stop cutting your babies and that's a no-brainer!" To her fellow Jews she will say "we really need to think very hard about this anti-sexual and anti-feminist custom. Most of all, it is inconsistent with the Jewish heritage of sexual sophistication. We Jews believe that men and women should marry and enjoy each other. Intact adds a lot to the fun of both, and for us Jews that is a great thing. Circumcision is anti-sexual, an attitude that has no place among us Jews. At any rate, I am for committed couples enjoying each other as much as possible."

I have been married twice. My first husband was circumcised, my current is uncircumcised. Sex is enjoyable both ways, not much difference. I got a little bit more stimulation from my ex, but he was slightly bigger. Hubby now is good, but has an issue with cumming too quickly. Circumcision usually takes care of that I'm told.

Blowjobs are great with a circumcised partner. Ex hubby got them all the time, probably two or three times a week. Uncut is a different story. The head is very sensitive, and the foreskin gets in the way. Husband number two has only gotten three or four since we have been married (6 years). Unless he is right out of the shower, the head tastes and smells funny.

Handjobs are pretty fun with an uncircumcised cock because there is a little bit more you can do. I like to play with the foreskin a lot. Pull it over my finger, stretch it, etc. With a cut guy, you need lube, but at least you have a better looking cock to look at

Anal is slightly easier with uncut as well. The foreskin acts as a sleeve.

As far as aesthetics are concerned my husband's cock isn't bad to look at erect and flaccid. The foreskin covers the head when it's hard but is easy to pull back. When soft, the tip comes to a funnel slightly past his head. His head is small and very purple when he is soft. The head puffs way up when he gets hard. Kind of cute in a wierd sort of way.

My ex had/has a beautiful dick. His has a tight circumcision with an even scar about two inches from the large pink head and a distinct color difference from the scar to his body. I have always thought that a circumcised penis was more masculine looking. All of my other lovers were cut too and most had good looking junk.

I am now currently working on getting my husband to get circumcised. I keep telling him that the only thing in the way of getting blowjobs regularly is his foreskin. It does turn me on that he is considering getting it done for my pleasure. I like seeing at the head without having to move a bunch of skin out of the way.

Hopefully sometime soon I will (again) be able to give head to a nice, clean, beautiful, circumcised man.

My wife and I courted for around 4 years before marriage, over that time we had a sexual relationship, but because both of us were fairly conservative in our views, I guess we naturally limited the number of times we actually made 'love'. I think we both viewed the closeness and intimacy as more important than penetrative sex.

One the occasions when we did have intercourse, I would always reach a climax before my wife-to-be no matter how much I tried to stimulate her beforehand. Although she never complained, I was never able to maintain an erection after reaching a climax. Looking back, I think this imbalance was a factor that led both of us to prefer being sexually intimate without having actual intercourse. Somehow the act of penetration spoiled it for both of us.

When I finally proposed we marry, we had a very frank discussion about our thoughts, feelings, and sexual desires. She and I both felt the closeness of intercourse was far more important than the actual climax. In discussing ways to take the edge off my sexual drive, she suggested circumcision. Apart from being cleaner, she thought it would encourage me to embrace intimacy rather than orgasm as the principle motivation behind making love. This was a huge decision for me, but after a visit to my Doctor, I agreed. We also agreed that there would be no more penetrative sex until after we were married, which was more than 10 months away.

The Circumcision was performed at a London Clinic. Once I explained my motives to the surgeon, he suggested the circumcision should be tight, with the frenulum removed as this would reduce physical stimulation. The result looked wonderful. It was very tight, pretty well too tight to masturbate, and felt incredibly sensitive, but I was assured this would change over time, which it did.

We made love on out wedding night, and it was absolute bliss. There was no sudden urge to climax, and my wife had a look on her face that made me know for sure that I/we had done the right thing. That was more than 30 years ago. Circumcision undoubtedly helped reduce physical stimulation, and intercourse (more often than not), does not result in an orgasm, but it is not a worry at all. It is the closeness that we feel that matters most, and I would not change that for the world.

There are various reasons why males are still circumcised - religion, custom (like father like son), hygiene, aesthetics etc. It is a surgical procedure that goes back thousands of years.

I was circumcised by choice at age 24. I had issues with yeast infections and a very tight and short frenulum that would hurt upon erection. My family doctor referred me to a urologist after I went through several yeast infections that did not respond well to either topical or oral antibiotics. The urologist examined me and suggested a circumcision as he said he would have to remove the frenulum anyway, and with a full circumcision I would not get anymore infections as the foreskin would be completely removed. I had considered circumcision already, having done plenty of research on the internet. I decided to go ahead with the full circumcision and he removed the frenulum and widened the urethral opening that was partly constricted due to the placement of the frenulum band right over my urethral opening.

Many in activists have gone to great lengths to talk about scientific research that they claim supports their thoughts that circumcision removes most of the sensitive tissue from the penis, resulting in what many anti-circumcision advocates call "a sexually mutilated penis". What is ridiculous is that there is proven scientific evidence that also says there's absolutely NO difference in penile sensation in either men with foreskin or without. We are NEVER going to agree on sensitivity as it's such a very subjective experience. Some anti-circumcision activists say that the majority of men who were circumcised as adults experience a tremendous loss in penile sensitivity - I would challenge that claim as many other scientific documents are contrary to that claim and challenge the notion that the removal of the foreskin removes the most nerves on the penis. New scientific evidence says there's no proof that the foreskin or the ringed band at the opening of the foreskin contains any more nerve endings than the glans of shaft of the penis. In fact, new studies show that it is the glans that contains the most nerve endings and the foreskin has no more than the shaft. Other reports show that men are saying that there's either no loss after undergoing an adult circumcision or there's actually MORE sensitivity after being circumcised.

As for my own personal experience I find my orgasms far more intense after being circumcised and I can now control my ejaculation timing far better to match my partners.

I am extremely happy and proud to be circumcised and I think anti-circumcision activists do nobody any favors by referring to male infant circumcision as rape, mutilation and sexual disfigurement.