What is your honest opinion on an uncircumcised penis? Is it really that gross and ugly to look at? Or do you prefer it as long as its clean?

[EricNeal90]

What is your honest opinion on an uncircumcised penis? Are you grossed out by the look of them? Does one feel better then the other?

I've been reading a lot online about this and it seems to be about 50/50 both ways. I myself am not ashamed of being uncircumcised and have NEVER had any complaints. For one, I hear a lot of girls say that they smell and look gross when you pull the skin back. Okay, I can understand that... I myself keep my shit extraordinarily clean and I'm very thankful for the sensations that I get. Id be so upset if I got circumcised and lost even the slightest amount of pleasure that I get from those fun experiences!

I have always had the thought that maybe one day I'd get the surgery done and have a circumcision myself. At the same time I know I'd only be getting it done because so many girls talk so much shit about the look and smell. Some girls I even hear won't be with an uncut guy! Yet like I said before, I've never had any complaints and know how meticulous I am about keeping myself clean and well groomed. Plus, I hear how much it takes away from the sensations felt when you get the snip done. *** OUCH!!! ***

What do you guys think? Is it that gross that you won't even be with a guy who isn't cut? Please, don't be afraid to hurt my feelings. I want honesty only! I know who I am and know what I have and I know how amazing of a lover I am. I'm confident and put the girl first and make sure that her orgasm/pleasure cums (lol) first. If the girl I'm with doesn't get off then I'm not enjoying myself. I'm passionate, aggressive, and love to shock and blow my partner away. I've never heard anything but positivety about girls experiences with me so naturally I'm confused why it seems so many girls are against uncut men.

P. S. If you are a girl (18+) who is 100% cut guys only, come to the Pacific Northwest and ill change your mind real quick! 😘

***Boys opinions welcome! I'm not a hater and like to hear from all!***

[helva]

I've been with cut and uncut guys. There is no problem with the smell or taste as they are clean.

And for playing with a dick I prefer an uncut one. More possibilties for teasing and I think they miss something when they are cut.

[ZambieMouse]

Aesthetically, I prefer circumcised penises. They look prettier to me, they just do. That being said, I have absolutely no problem with uncut guys. Playing with the foreskin can be fun.

[johnRD11]

Honestly, it is only disgusting if the penis is unclean. And there is no reason for this nowadays because there are penis health cremes available that eliminate and nastiness on contact. All the guy has to do is rub it into his penis skin once a day and it will remain hygienic and fresh. Google these cremes and check them out- Man1 Man oil is the best since you can get your money back as they have a money back guarantee. Hope this helps. Happy holidays!

[dantetheexplorer]

Women's reactions - and I suppose men's - really depends where you are.
I have female friends, non-Americans (also non-Koreans, non-Filipino, non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Middle Eastern), who, upon looking at a circumcised penis for the very first time thought:

"Who would DO that to a child?"
"It looks feckin' weird."
"Omg. That looks... unnatural."

So, really, people who are used to certain things don't find them weird at all. The reason why some US women think uncircumcised penises look weird and ugly is because they grew up never seeing on. It's completely alien to them. Women in other parts of the world may have the opposite experience.

Given that "The Rest of the World" is significantly bigger than the coalition of circumcision-practicing countries that include USA, Korea, Philippines, the Middle-East, majority Muslim countries, Jewish population, I'd hazard a guess and say that the number of uncircumcised men outnumber their circumcised brethren.

[carameltwin]

If anything, circumcised are the uglier ones out of the two. More fun with a foreskin, and it looks better.

[Inneedofusername]

Newsflash: in Europe people don't get circumcised. Cutting the foreskin off sounds for people here as weird and as unusual like cutting the labias off. Some people don't know what circumcision is, some know but think it doesn't happen on that scale in civilized countries.
So always remember to give "I'm from Europe" option in such polls

[markscott]

Innee: Just so you know, America is a civilized country. So civilized, that it saved civilized Europe in World War Two.

[Nachowedgie]

So civilised that it nuked Japan twice... oh wait

[markscott]

@Nachowedgie : Yes, civilized. Using the atom bomb saved hundreds of thousands of American and allied soldiers and sailors lives, and also saved a million, probably a couple of million, Japanese lives. Saving that many lives is a civilized act. So, what part of Europe are you from? Just how well did your country keep Hitler away, and keep Stalin away?

[ManicMage]

Americans are so full of themselves acting like they saved the world. Firstly, you wouldn't even have the atomic bomb without Britain which you fucked over after the war with the mcmahon act. Secondly, you didn't save Europe you were part of an international alliance that liberated Western Europe and abandoned the rest to the Soviets due to the impossibility of fighting another World War.

[markscott]

@ManicMage : First, if it were not for America, Britain would likely never have been able to go through a sustained war with Germany. America sold Britain crucial war supplies even before the US entered the war. We sent so much to Britain and Russia, that General Marshall objected to it weakening America's defense. Even prior to December 7, Britain and America had plans to win in Europe first, which was actually against America's best interest, in fighting Japan. Hitler wouldn't even have declared war on America, had we not been delivering so many supplies to Britain, and if we hadn't already been guarding convoys to Britain with American naval ships. And there is no way at all, that Britain and the empire could have successfully invaded Europe. Hitler would have won in Europe, and slowly beat Britain down. Or not so slowly, as the U-Boat menace would have been so much greater if America hadn't entered the war. It is true that Britain did give crucial help in building the atomic bomb. But there is every reason to believe America would have has this information on their own, just not as soon. And while we are talking about American and British relations, let's talk about how Britain suckered America into joining world war one. Yes, winning the war was an allied plan, which included many people other than Americans who did crucial acts during the war. But without the much more numerous American army, navy and air corps, without the American "arsenal of democracy", Germany would have won.

[Inneedofusername]

Yup, we were sold to russia after war. That's why western Europeans and americans teens have now their own rooms and can afford such luxury as holidays abroad, while I don't even have money to remove my body hair

[markscott]

Innee: You were sold to the Russians? You were not sold to Russian. Russian invaded you. Apparently, you believe you deserved the right for many hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or two, of Americans to die fighting Russia, so you could have what is good for you. Apparently, you don't realize no country owes that to you. I'm sorry your country is not more wealthy, but the lack of wealth didn't start with either the beginning or the end of world war two.

[ManicMage]

@markscott once again your clear American bias is shining through. Britain could never have lost WW2. There's no way Britain would have lost. Britain already had plans to liberate Europe before the US and accomplished numerous raid, both successful and unsuccessful, on the French coast. There was never any doubt that Europe was to be invaded by Empire forces when the time was right. America sold British supplies. As in traded them. We gave up both money, information and bases for American war support. America was important in liberating Europe but to act like it was the reason it happened is ridiculous. The Germans would were always going to lose really even if the US didn't join the war when it did. The Soviets were never going to collapse the way Hitler envisioned, and Britain was committed to fighting to the bitter end ensuring that Germany would've remained blockaded and engaged in a war of attrition it couldn't win. Germany simply could not have won. Keep in mind the RAF had already dealt the Luftwaffe a decisive defeat in the Battle of Britain and by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union it was impossible that they'd have been able to both support operations in the east and gain air superiority in the west. Then after the war the US screwed us over with the mcmahon act as previously mentioned and fucked us over again with the Suez Crisis. The US is not only an unreliable ally, it's so big that it's too self-centered to understand that it wasn't the one deciding factor in either world wars. The US did next to nothing in WW1. They essentially helped pad the lines of the French that were close to mutiny. It was British and Empire troops that bore the brunt of the Kaiserslacht which was Germany's last hope to win, and once that was slowed and eventually halted the Germans were doomed. Even without American troops or ships the Entente would've won.

[ManicMage]

Eastern Europe wasn't really sold to the Soviets. I'm Polish living in the UK and plenty of Polish people do believe the western allies abandoned them but all you need to do is look at the situation. It was impossible to liberate Poland and the Soviets would've never given it up willingly.

[ManicMage]

Also markscott your American bias is once again showing. The Americans were not the only allies and would've never won in Europe against the Soviets on their own anyway.

[markscott]

@ManicMage : Well, you apparently read books of fantasy, instead of history. It doesn't matter that Britain has plans to invade Europe. Without America, they didn't have nearly a large enough army, and didn't have anywhere near the amount of military equipment, guns, tanks, etc., to pull of an invasion of Europe. Even America, with a much larger army and a much greater supply ability, would have had an extremely difficult time pulling off an invasion of Europe on its own. (America did invade Anzio on its own) And you conveniently forget the U Boat threat. Without American aid and naval support, Britain would have been starved into submission by the Germans. Even Churchill said, the only thing that kept him awake at night during the war, was the U Boats. America was critical in stopping them. Britain didn't have the man power or ships on their own to stop the German U Boats. And the bases we got for some of what we sent Britain, were only useful if we went to war with Germany, and Germany wouldn't have declared war on us, if we hadn't been protecting and helping Britain. Before we entered the war, American navy ships were guarding convoys to Britain, and firing at U Boats. That's why Germany declared war on us. Yes, Germany was at war with Britain and Russia. But without American aid, it's likely that Russia would have lost. America send Russia massive amounts of aid, trucks, guns, planes, etc., second only to what we sent Britain. Yes, Britain won the air war over England, but the air war would never have been decisive in itself, from either side. It was the U Boat that would have been decisive without American aid. And you say America did almost nothing in world war one? Apparently you thing sending 4,300,000 troops to Europe is nothing. And 116,000 American dead is nothing, as well as 200,000 wounded. My great grandmother might have thought otherwise, as her brother died in world war one. Too bad he didn't stay home and live. more

[Nachowedgie]

@markscott The fact that you think murdering hundred of thousands to millions of innocent civilians lives (A lot of which were babies and children) was "civilised" shows you should be in a mental asylum right not send not in society because you certainly don't belong out here, there's something extremely wrong with you

[markscott]

The Meuse -Argonne and St. Mihiel and the Aisne-Marne were real battles. Though not like Passchendaele or the Marne, but none the less, they were critical to breaking the back of the German army, at a time when the French and British were exhausted. And it is true, that the US was not interested in helping Britain maintain its colonial system following World War Two. Or even before WW2. The British, prior to America entering world war two, wanted America to committed to protecting Singapore if war started. The US refused, as they did not want to have American soldier dying to protect the empire. Just to protect people and countries. Prey tell. If America had such little to do in world war one and WW2, why in both wars, was Britain so adamant, working so hard, to bring America into the war? Why did Churchill work so tirelessly to bring America into the war? Because the British leaders in both world war one and world war two, knew what you don't. They could not win without American troops and American materiel support.

[markscott]

@Nachowedgie : That is foolishness. Do you realize that the British bombing of Germany killed more German civilians than did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In Hamburg Germany, 43,000 civilians died in one night of British and American bombing. Had the war lasted longer in Japan, the civilian death toll would have been many times higher than the death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You mention a mental asylum. Perhaps the one needing the mental asylum is the one who prefers to have many times the number in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be killed. That would be you. Tell me, what kind of mind wants many times the number that were killed, to be killed?

[ManicMage]

Markscott: it's kind of useless to debate you when you are still so biased towards to the US it's unbelievable. You used literally one example of a landing the US did on its own and even that's wrong. The British landed a whole division at anzio. Stop trying to push the idea that the US did all this stuff on its own. I never said the US was unimportant, just not the most important thing. It was a joint effort. I mean as you pointed out the RAF was already causing massive civilian casualties to the Germans, and severely damaging their industry so yeah the war in the air was definitely a decisive factor. The US in WW1 were to play an important role in 1919. The war didn't last that long. So yeah the US entry to the war did nothing more than just ensure complete naval supremacy (which was already established due to the RN) and to boost the morale of the French. Britain would never have been starved into submission. The Royal Navy never lost naval supremacy and it was never really much of a risk that Britain would actually starve. The U-boat threat could've caused Britain to make peace but Churchill wasn't that kind of leader. America was important. The allies would've won the war anyway though because it was impossible that Germany could win. The Soviets could've potentially ended up with more of Europe under their control, and the war probably would've lasted longer, but Germany could never have won so the US was simply not the deciding factor that would've changed the course of the war. Also you forgot the usefulness of partisans across Europe that consistently caused massive problems for the Germans. Britain already heavily supported them and would've used them extensively to take back Europe.

[markscott]

@ManicMage : Yes, it is kind of useless to debate, when you are so biased toward Europe, and so marginalize the massive amount that America did in world war two, and the decisive acts America did at the end of World War One. Too bad there is such ingratitude for so many American dead in Europe and Asia, and for the treasure we sent to other countries. I didn't think Trump was right about pulling out of NATO. but now I'm wondering if her had a point.

[ManicMage]

I just point out how you were blantantly wrong about your own example of anzio. I'm quite literally arguing that it was a group effort and the US was not as important as modern Americans like to act. Also Europe is not one nation, I'm primarily pushing the actions of Britain and the empire which is not Europe. The French are ungrateful to the British for their contribution but America gets way too much credit compared to other nations. America was important, it wasn't the nation that changed the tide of war or anything. It joined the winning side and helped them win. NATO has a lot of problems, particularly with the massive amount of funding the US provides. Trump is right about NATO. The only thing is it's America's fault because of things like the Suez Crisis where the US pushed their own "allies" around in order to try increase their own power even though it failed. If the US has helped Britain and France retain their global power then it would've been different but instead we were forced to retreat West of Suez and are only now beginning to return. With brexit it's hopeful than the commonwealth, particularly Canada, Australia, New Zealand and of course the UK can rebuild ties that were lost as the UK isolated itself inside Europe.

[markscott]

@ManicMage : It's hard to imagine someone still thinking that Britain could have maintained it's empire following world war two. And I don't buy it, not even a little bit, that America was anything but the decisive factor in world war two. You have little grasp of what it took to win world war two. Without American troops and ships, and without American industrial might, world war two would have ended very differently. And without America, either Germany or Russian would have had control of almost all of Europe. And the industrial and military might of either country, united with the rest of Europe, would have dwarfed Britain's power to resist.

[Nachowedgie]

@markscott Lol here you are trying to switch the blame, it won't work. I don't condone a single civilian death, whether they're from Britain, Germany, Japan etc it's unacceptable. While you on the other hand seen to love the fact that people literally vanished from existence when those bombs dropped. You're a very sick individual and you need to spend the rest of your days in a straightjacket

[markscott]

@Nachowedgie : No, I don't revel in death at all. I think war is an awful thing, an evil thing even. But I am also a realist, and know that sometimes you have to have a controlled burn to protect a forest. And I know that sometimes, allowing some people to die, saves many other lives. Britain has this situation when they know Coventry was to be bombed ahead of time. And it makes sense, that if three millions people are going to die, if we don't drop an atom bomb, then it's better to drop the atom bomb and kill 150,000 people. Apparently the logic of saving lives by difficult means is beyond you.

[Tyffen]

America helped secure the destruction of the Western world...

[matchrestore]

Uncircumcised penises are far more aesthetically pleasing to view than circumcised penises, especially while flaccid.

[ManicMage]

I don't care really I guess. I wouldn't judge a guy based on his size, shape or how much skin he has on it.

[anddyyz]

What do you see then.

[ManicMage]

Who it's attached to

[anddyyz]

And how many dicks have you seen yet. In really or on a video call both can be counted. But not porn

[ManicMage]

Like two

[anddyyz]

Is it in reality or on video call?

[ManicMage]

In reality

[SirRexington]

Uncircumcised looks weird as hell. I can't even watch porn if the dude isn't cut. It's just so weird looking.

[Nachowedgie]

Then you're very simply a moron

[SirRexington]

@Nachowedgie coming from you, that makes me a genius.

[Nachowedgie]

No it doesn't. You think the natural unmutilated body looks "weird as hell" that's the definition of moronic, at least I can recognise that.

[SirRexington]

@Nachowedgie at least I recognize that opinions exist and that I happen to have one, one which offends you.

[Nachowedgie]

Because you support mutilating babies genitals, yes that would disgust any normal person

[Huhni]

doesn't matter

[ultimega]

Well it's no different accept they look like sausages rolls lol

[buttcrackjoe]

Don’t listen to these girls, if they are from the US of A it’s a cultural thing majority of men are circumcised. They only think it’s gross because it looks different than what they’re used to. You will lose sensation.

[Quidthonian]

TL. DR I'm uncut but prefer the circumcised look.

[Tyffen]

It's genital mutilation!

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

Wusses mutilate wieners and give excuses why they should do so.

[Nachowedgie]

I don't support genital mutilation of baby boys