Guys with a Natural Penis  

header1979 38M
404 posts
4/9/2006 3:59 pm

Last Read:
6/10/2006 12:20 pm

Guys with a Natural Penis


Since joining the website in 2004, I have been astounded at the ignorance and prejudice in the US about guys with natural cocks (uncircumcised cocks). It was never an issue when I was growing up. I grew up in an international environment both in the US and in foreign countries so maybe that was a difference. Some guys had foreskins and others didn't. Nobody seemed to care. Guys with natural cocks seemed to have no problems getting dates and sometimes were even sought out because of the difference. Nobody ever made a disparaging remark. Actually, it is very uncool for a guy to comment about another guy's cock.

Questions about circumcision are regularly asked on the The Advice Line. This had seemed unusual to me until I realized that that one of the questions a guy has to answer when filling out his profile is whether or not he is circumcised. So it would only seem natural for a guy to wonder what difference it would make and ask the question on the Advice Line. I covered this in a previous blog about the dick size questions.

However, when the question is asked, someone in the US will make some offensive disparaging remark about guys with natural cocks. They say they are ugly, dirty, smelly and carry disease. None of this is true, yet the ignorance continues in the US. And what is more annoying, the people think nothing about how insulting and offensive their comments are as though guys with natural cocks are some kind of sub-species that don't matter and have no feelings.

One woman said that if she found out that a guy she was dating had a natural cock, she would drop him. A woman like that doesn't deserve to have a decent man. Yeah. I am sure she would kick Prince William, Hugh Jackman, Leonardo diCaprio, or Antonio Banderas out of bed!

A foreskin is a hell of a lot easier to keep clean than a vagina. Most women manage to keep their vaginas clean so why do people in the US think that most men can't keep their foreskins clean. Men in the rest of the world have no problem doing it. It is no different than brushing your teeth, washing your armpit, cleaning wax out of your ear or wiping your ass. Guys who are clean will have a clean foreskin just like women who are clean will have a clean vagina.

To keep this blog from getting too long, I have attached as a comment an article that I wrote on this subject for additional information on the history of circumcision and the many myths that have developed over the years. And maybe most important the joys of a natural cock in sex.

Circumcision is on the decline in the US. The most recent statistics that I have seen, indicate that the circumcision rate has dropped from almost eighty percent in the 1950's to between fifty and sixty percent today. Soon the hysteria will be over. We stopped burning witches in the US so maybe this barbaric practice will fade out in the US soon.

It is the skin attached to other end of the dick that counts - that is the guy himself.

header1979 38M
507 posts
4/9/2006 4:17 pm

I posted the following in the articles section of the magazine but I thought it would be useful to post it here also. I have updated it in a few places.

The Joys of an Uncircumcised Cock

Since joining this website last year, I have been surprised by how little many people in the U.S. know about a natural penis ‒ that is the foreskin is uncircumcised. The U.S. is the only country in the world today where a majority of men are routinely circumcised at birth for non-religious reasons. This apparently has caused some anxiety, ignorance and prejudice among the U.S. opulation ‒ among both men and women. The lack of knowledge and understanding about a natural penis and circumcision in the U.S. is dumbfounding.

A lot of myth and misinformation about the natural penis has been posted on this website and insulting and demeaning comments, also. Here is some information that I hope will make people better informed about a natural penis. First, many don’t even understand where circumcision came from and the false basis for circumcision in the U.S.

The earliest record of circumcision are in 6000 year old wall carvings in Egypt. It apparently started as an ancient Egyptian custom that is believed to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread
to many peoples in the mid-east, The Jews and later Islamic Arabs adopted it and converted it into an act of religious faith.

And as a side note, ancient circumcision was not done the same as modern circumcision. Most of the foreskin was left in ancient times. Some people have commented that Michelangelo’s statute of David is not historically correct because the statue has a foreskin. If you look closely at the statue you will notice that a bit of the head is peaking out from the foreskin. This is the way circumcision was done at that time of King David. In fact, King David wanted to get circumcised again because he felt that he did not look circumcised enough. It was not until much later that complete removal of the foreskin was done. If you are interested enough compare the penis on the statue of David with other statues, you will notice that there is much more foreskin on other statues.

Non-religious circumcision began in Western culture in England in the late 1800s when British soldiers, who were serving in the part of the Raj that is now Pakistan, were captured by Islamic tribesmen and brutally circumcised. The Islamic tribesmen believed that their land was defiled by having uncircumcised men on it. That is why, even today, foreigners are not allowed in Mecca and is also one of the factors in the resentment of foreign troops stationed in Islamic countries. Sir Richard Burton, a famed British explorer in the late 1800’s, went so far as to have himself circumcised so that he could visit Mecca. To prevent this brutal atrocity from happening to British soldiers, the government began circumcising soldiers and officers in a hygienic medical environment before they were sent for service in the Raj. Circumcision became a sign of sacrifice and service to the empire.

The practice was introduced into the U.S. from England and it later became extremely popular in English-speaking countries between 1920 and 1950. In the U.S., it became widely practiced after World War II. At the time that circumcision first started in the US, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of different illnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many boys have been circumcised through out the years because parents discovered them "in the act." It was believed that masturbation caused blindness, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and a host of other ills. It therefore made sense to some physicians that genital surgery would stop masturbation and prevent the onset of these illnesses. Today that is a joke but was genuinely believed and that is the false basis for circumcision in the US.

The leading proponent for circumcision in the U.S. was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, inventor of corn flakes, who published his famous and influential book in 1888 entitled “Treatment for Self-abuse and Its Effects.” In his book Dr. Kellogg states:

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic,as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."

It was believed at that time that when boys are taught to retract their foreskins when washing they also learn to masturbate. They believed that to obtain the best results as much as the skin and mucous membrane must be cut away so that when the penis is erect there will be no lose skin to tempt masturbation. Dr. Kellogg’s book reads like a torture guide. It is horrifying to read the things that he suggests to inflict pain on the penis. And he also recommended female genital mutilation as a way to decrease the sexual desires of women. He should have stuck to corn flakes.

But as we all know that didn’t stop circumcised guys from beating off. They just do it differently than guys with natural cocks. And nobody went blind or insane. When it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses, the foreskin became the blame for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases. All of the medical reasons for circumcision have been eliminated by experts. Circumcised men are not immune to suffering from these diseases. The surgery offers no warranty. There is no statistical significance to project the findings that some unclean African men get AIDS to the populations of advanced industrial nations. All the studies that show an increase in penile cancer, cervical cancer and AIDS have been found to be faulty. The U.S. has an AIDS infection rate almost FOUR TIMES higher than that of European countries which DO NOT circumcise. Penile cancer is extremely rare. Men get BREAST cancer 3-8 times as often. Over 80 percent of the men in the World have natural cocks and disease is not rampant among them.

Additionally 200 to 230 male babies DIE each year as a result of circumcision. That equates to about 1 death per 7, 000 circumcisions annually. If you want to know what happens to a baby being circumcised, Google INTACT CIRCUMCISION VIDEO. (You need a strong stomach to watch this.) Penile cancer happens in circumcised men also. And remarkably it usually starts in the circumcision scar when it happens.

By the time it became realized that there were no medical benefits to circumcision, it had become an established practice among upper-class Americans. Circumcision was viewed as a symbol of status and the uncircumcised penis was thought of as dirty and low-class. Circumcision became viewed as the American thing to do, and it's then that circumcision made the jump from pseudo-medical procedure to tradition.

Circumcision continues today in the U.S. because there are so many circumcised men who don’t know anything different. They have their sons circumcised without giving it much thought. In just a few generations it has become a mindless tradition. The U.S. is the last and only advanced nation in the World where routine circumcision is still practiced for non-religious reasons.

The UK and Canada no longer provide routine circumcision as a medical benefit. The circumcision rate in the UK has dropped to 1%; in Australia, New Zealand and Canada to less than 10% (t is almost non-existent in Quebec). Some insurance companies in the U.S. are discontinuing providing coverage for routine circumcision. California, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington have already discontinued state funding of circumcision, saving state taxpayers millions of dollars. Some other states have legislation pending to do the same. In 1999, 43% of parents in the U.S. chose not to have their male infant circumcised. This shows that circumcision in the U.S. may be on the decline from the 1970’s at which time between 70% and 80% of male newborns were circumcised. Medical practices are evolving and becoming better and better. The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine infant circumcision (but doesn’t oppose it either). Routine circumcision is no longer believed to have the medical benefits that it once was thought to have. It certainly didn’t stop masturbation, which was the original reason for doing it in the U.S.

So that is why you see a preference for cut cocks in the U.S.and the many disparaging and incorrect comments made about a natural penis. I notice that you rarely see guys with a natural penis making insulting comments about cut dicks. The reverse is not true. I suggest that people do some research on this topic and maybe there will be less misinformation spread about natural cocks.

As to the insulting comments that natural cocks are dirty, smelly and ugly: it is easier for a man to keep his foreskin clean than for a woman to keep her vagina clean. Most women seem to manage to keep their vaginas clean as do most men with foreskins manage to keep their dicks clean. The natural male nude in art from antiquity through the Renaissance and into modern times has always been considered attractive and an art form. But art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But it certainly is insulting to say that a natural penis is ugly.

As to sensitivity, I don’t know where some people get the information that the natural penis is less sensitive that a circumcised penis. The original purpose of circumcision was to REDUCE sensitivity.

A noted Jewish sage, Rabbi Moses Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed, stated the following: "....Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment...The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision…It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him; in my opinion, this is the strongest reason for circumcision."

Dr. Kellogg even recommended putting acid on the clitoris or removing it to reduce female sexual sensitivity. All the mutilations that Dr. Kellogg recommend, circumcision being only one of them, were to reduce sensitivity. Indeed, many cut guys say that the reduced sensitivity enables them to last longer before cumming. And guys who have been circumcised later in life notice less sensitivity after the skin of the head becomes toughened after constant rubbing against underwear. The foreskin is designed to protect the sensitivity of the head and the foreskin contains most of the sensory cells in the penis. There is an erogenous zone where the outer skin of the foreskin meets the inner skin of the foreskin at the tip. This is similar to the lips of the vagina, the anal opening and the lips of the mouth. This erogenous zone is lost in circumcision.

Women in most of the rest of the world outside the U.S. (and some in the U.S.) know how to appreciate a natural penis. If you regard the foreskin as a flap of skin that just gets in the way and you push it away, you really don't know anything about having sex with a guy with a natural cock and missing out on a great experience. The foreskin is part of the joy of foreplay and giving head to a guy. You just have to know what to do.

There is more to do in foreplay with a natural penis. Many women love moving the skin up and down the shaft and over the head and the feel of the thin skin moving over the rock hard cock. Nibbling on the tip of the foreskin and putting the tongue down between the foreskin and head and moving it around drives a guy wild. Women seem to get as much joy out of this as a guy does driving a woman crazy giving her oral.

A natural penis produces natural lubricants during sex that makes sex feel better. And women say that the piston action of the penis moving inside the skin feels great while screwing.

Guys with a natural penis beat off differently than a cut guy and do not need a lubricant. A guy with a natural penis holds the lose skin tightly and moves it up and down the shaft and over the head when beating off. Cut guys move their hand up and down the shaft with little if any movement in the skin and frequently need to use lubricants to make it feel better.

Those who are into anal sex say that a natural penis feels better for anal sex ‒ probably because of the piston movement within the skin there is less abrasion on the anus.

For sex with other men you can do docking. Docking is when a guy puts the head of his dick under the foreskin of another guy and beat off. It sounds gross to straight people but those that do it like it. So who are we to judge?

None of this means that guys with a natural penis are better than cut guys. It is just a difference and everyone can have their preference. Cut guys seeme to enjoy sex very much and satisfy their partners so there is no point in trying to debate which is better. And no matter what, a cut guy cannot change back to having a natural cock.

But the most important part of a penis is the skin attached to the other end of it ‒ that is, the guy himself. That is what really counts.


header1979 38M
507 posts
4/9/2006 4:22 pm

I recently came across information of evidence that the foreskin and lysozyme may protect against HIV infection. Since so many people make ignorant comments about guys with foreskins being the transmitters of disease, I thought it would be useful provide some research that indicate that the foreskin may protect from disease. It is interesting that the US, where the majority of men are circumcised at birth, has an AIDS rate for times higher than Europe, where circumcision is almost non-existent.

I summarized this information from an article by George Hill that contained evidence that the foreskin and the sub-preputial wetness under the foreskin (prepuce) may protect against human immunodeficiency virus.

Lysozyme is an enzyme with anti-bacterial action that is found in body fluids. Lysozyme breaks down cell walls and kills bacteria. Research has shown that sub-preputial wetness contains lysozyme and that lysozyme is also an effective agent for killing HIV in vitro.

Since the majority of adult American males are circumcised, they have no sub-preputial wetness and no lysozyme protection. Researchers have found that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime. World Health Organization data show that the incidence of HIV infection in the United States is four or more times greater than in any other advanced industrial nation. Other advanced nations either do not circumcise males or have a very low incidence of circumcision compared to the United States.

Researchers report that a circumcised husband is a risk factor for HIV infection among pregnant women in Rwanda and that they found a higher incidence of HIV infection in circumcised men in Tanzania. The high incidence of HIV in the United States and its correlation with the high rate of circumcision has been noted by the researchers.

Some researchers report that the increased friction and more vigorous and prolonged thrusting required to achieve orgasm with a circumcised penis may be more likely to cause "breaks, tears, microfissures, abrasions, and lacerations through which HIV in semen can enter the receiving partner's bloodstream."

The article, which listed all the supporting research, concluded that more research is needed to verify the protective effect of lysozyme and the foreskin.

It is interesting that after all the years of promoting circumcision for disease protection, we are now finding that the foreskin may actually help prevent disease. The foreskin has a purpose and cutting it off not only diminishes sexual pleasure but may cause an increase in disease.


bardicman 51M

4/9/2006 7:38 pm

I should post on my blog or even here.... I have found a study that proves women are more satisfied and more likely to experience orgasm when having sex with a man who is "Uncircumsised"...



I am not dead yet


SolarPowered0 111M
8024 posts
4/10/2006 10:23 am

I got a natural cock. It just naturally grew there. Now, if it would have grown out from between my legs, like every other guy (instead of out from my chin), I'd be in Fat City. Although, the women seem like it - I can fuck 'em AND lick their asshole at the same time!

Solar... (out of the clear blue of the Western Sky)


header1979 38M
507 posts
4/10/2006 8:54 pm

Thanks to Serendipity, I located the following information in a website about circumcision.

Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor studied foreskin tissue at the Department of Pathology, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Canada. They reported their results in the British Journal of Urology in an article titled “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision.” They found the following:

(1) The outer foreskin’s concentration of nerves is “impressive” and its “sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole.”

(2) The foreskin inner surface is different. It is mucous membrane similar to the inner surface of the mouth, also rich in nerves and blood vessels. Between the inner and outer layers of the foreskin is a unique structure they call a “ridged band” that contains “specialized nerve endings.”

(3) The researchers conclude that the foreskin has several kinds of nerves and “should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more or less specialized parts. . . . The glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce.”

(4)The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes.

(5) The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed.

(6) Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity.

(7) In addition, the loss of a secretion called smegma of the inner foreskin layer removes natural lubrication.


Hippink 36F  
4498 posts
4/10/2006 9:02 pm

Hey, Header!

When my son was born, I asked my doctor about circumcision. I thought it was supposed to be done, I never thought much about it. Every cock I'd ever seen (except for my brothers') were cut, I thought it was as standard & necessary as cutting the umbilical cord. I never questioned WHY. In fact, I didn't really understand what foreskin was (since I hadn't exactly examined my brothers up close!).
Her answer was very matter-of-fact, and punctuated with a FROWN:
"There is NO MEDICAL REASON TO CIRCUMCISE."
So, I did the research. I found out pretty much all the same things you have posted here. "No anesthetics" was enough to make me hug my baby tightly to me, NO WAY NO HOW IS ANYONE EVER HURTING MY BABY!!! There is the thought that babies don't feel pain. BULL FUCKING SHIT!!! When the nurse took a pin-prick of blood from his heel (standard blood-testing), he flinched and screamed. And THAT was just a tiny pin-prick. I wanted to smack the nurse for hurting my sweet little guy.
.......................................................
Before Square, I'd never seen an un-circumcised penis (other than my brothers'). On our first night together, during a "break" , he asked me which I liked better, c'ed or un-c'ed. I said circumcised. He said "REALLY!" I glanced at his now flaccid penis and noticed it was covered in foreskin. (When hard, his foreskin is completely stretched out, so I didn't notice it). I stammered... "OH! I didn't notice!" Then explained how I guess I didn't really have an opinion because I'd never had one before... and I definitely liked his JUST FINE.

Over two years later, I have formed a completely new & educated opinion. While I don't have a problem with circumcised cocks, I am an avid advocator of stopping the unnecessary mutilation of baby boys. It is disgusting and vile that this was EVER used as common practice. I am horrified that the US medical field is STILL taught that un-circumcised penises are dirty and spread disease.

Anyone with the ability to think for themselves will know that the
[size4]NATURAL WAY A MALE IS BORN IS RIGHT.
Don't mess with nature.

I love Square's cock. I adore it, I worship it, I wish I could keep it in my purse. Of course, the skin on the other end of it is OK, too, but it pisses me off too often.

As for cleanliness... if all the silly nurses in the US were right, how cum I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with dropping to my knees the second Square walks in my door?
I call him Lolly Pop Lolly Pop, Oooooh Lolly Lolly Pop. POP!
Hippie XXX
Header... I wanna put this in my blog, too. Spread the word. Come and copy & paste your blog in mine.

How to Get Laid on AFF The Basics
Have fun, play safe!


JaniSux 45F

4/10/2006 9:05 pm

Ok... I have spent most - no all of my life in the US, and in growing up, whenever I'd see a cock, it was circumcised. And until this year, all the men I'd been with were circumcised soo that was where my knowledge was. Repetition is the key to mastering anything and I'd mastered circumsised cocks.. lol But the only reason that I'd never been with a man with a 'natural cock' was because I'd never met one til now.

Truth be told, I do not see or feel a difference in the sex, one way or another. The oral sex is different, but only slightly.. the only reason oral is different for me, because I was in the dark abt what to do with a 'natural cock, and how to handle the skin but once he told me what he liked and I read some advice given here, I was good to go. Ya see, if he was soft and I was making him hard by sucking, well.. I would be holding the skin down and that was wrong because it was preventing him from getting hard... that's what I meant abt figuring out 'how to handle the skin'.

In my book.. a cock is a cock is a cock..

People here, especially ignorant ones, people fear what they don't know and sometimes people are not open to change either, just because circumsised cocks have been the norm here, it doesn't mean that anything else is wrong. You can't tell some people anything, especially those silly enough to insult.


prettysmart1964 53F

5/10/2006 8:19 pm

exactly!!!!! but i am not sure i want to get the word out...these wonderful uncut, intact beautiful males are rare around here and i want them all for myself...


header1979 38M
507 posts
6/8/2006 10:51 am

I recently came across the following article on the website of the The Board of Guardians of British Jews concerning the circumcision of Prince William and Prince Harry. It is well known that they were not circumcised at birth but there has been much speculation if they were circumcised later in life. Since I previously said the Prince William is not circumcised, I thought I would post this additional information. I don't know if this article can be considered the authoritative last word on the subject but it is certainly something to take seriously. Also I have heard of a picture of Prince William playing soccer when he was much younger that indicates that he is circumcised. But the way pictures are altered these days, it could very well be a bogus picture. The following is the quoted article:

QUOTE

1st April 2005
Chief Mohel to attend Royal wedding
Filed under: Board News– webteam @ 8:21 pm
The Board is delighted to annouce that Minister Jacob Levinson, the Chief Mohel will be attending the forthcoming wedding of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Minister Levinson has been known to the Royal family for over 40 years and has taken the honour of performing the circumcisions of members of the Royal family including William and Harry.

“I’m deeply honoured that Prince Charles has invited me along as the sole Jewish representative. I have known the family for a number of years and was deeply honoured when invited to perform the bris for William and Harry,” Minister Levinsion said.

Minister Levinson heads the Board’s circumcision division. Since 1994, the number of circumcisions taken place have exceeded one million. As well as attending to the Jewish community, Minister Levinson oversees a team of 36 freelance circumcision experts who advise other diverse communities of their needs.

END OF QUOTE


Become a member to create a blog