I Have A Foreskin

REALLY ?!?!? Like: out of how many ?

@canadarm: [c=#BF0080]It's very uncommon here.. I don't even know anyone that is uncircumcised. My son is as well.[/c]

@pinkrainbowkisses: oh!
Where is "here"?

[c=#BF0080]America.[/c]

@pinkrainbowkisses: here's an interesting article regarding it.

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

I bet that what's true of you is also true of tens of millions of American women. 1940-85, the circumcision rate among USA whites not born in poverty was probably 98%+. After Medicaid began paying for childbirth 50 years ago, the circumcision rate among AA boys also became sky high. The American demographic with the highest circ rate is now the AAs, a group that has been little influenced by intactivist thinking.

The only way for many American woman to become acquainted with the uncut johnson is to date a Latino, or to go to college and date foreign born students. That's how my wife discovered foreskin in the 1970s.

Growing up, I spent a lot of time in locker rooms: PE, pools, YMCAs etc. Coming of age in the 1960s, midwest and Pennsylvania, I saw all of 5-6 intact penises. Even the grey haired men had bald penises. The only major exception to what I say here was my time working in a steel mill, when at the end of our shift, we showered and changed into street clothes. There I discovered that only one man born before WWII had a bald penis (I wonder if he was born without a foreskin). I was one of two men born after WWII having foreskin. There was a lot of lewd talk in that locker room, but foreskin was never mentioned.

That's good then pink, lmao!

circumcision minimizes the risk of getting HIV, HPV in women, improves hygiene so it's good for both the men and the women.

@Arrow: Hygiene? Shower 4+x/week. Rinse the tip of your johnson before entering a lady's bedroom, esp. if oral is on the menu.
Health? Use condoms during casual sex, regardless of circ status. I suspect that condom + no foreskin = dull sex for him, painful sex for her.

@consa01:

You are correct in saying "condom+no foreskin = dull sex for him, painful sex for her".

What we have to remember, is that the inherent, natural design of a foreskin is for the female's benefit; not the male's benefit. In Europe and more particularly in Scandinavian countries where almost 99% of men own a foreskin, the sale of vaginal lubricants is extremely low. In North America however, the sale of vaginal lubricant gel is equal in sales volume to that of toothpaste and deodorant, statistically speaking.

As far as hygiene is concerned, it is a complete myth that circumcision improves hygiene. I have found over the years from experience, that circumcised guys are not quite as hygienically inclined as one could be led to believe they are. There is a belief among men, that because they are circumcised, they will never have an issue with genital hygiene and worst of all, some actually think that a circumcised penis requires little-to-no routine running maintenance.

The way I look at it, I paint all circumcised guys with the same brush, because they have all be led to believe something mythical along the way. I presume they require as much maintenance as a early model British sports car in all cases, due primarily to this attitude that seems to be circulating in North America that a circumcised penis is a better hygienic choice. What a girl can also assume, is that if a circumcised guy does not practice good hygienic protocol on himself, she can pretty much be assured that the rest of his body is in that same state of hygienic need.

One thing I will say for sure about guys who have a foreskin, is that they are usually SO self-conscious about NOT being hygienically maintained, that they generally go overboard most of the time to ensure that there is no hygienic issue, especially as you say consa01, "if oral is on the menu".

I am one who believes that cleanliness is next to Godliness and I can honestly say that I have never encountered an un-circumcised guy in my travels of life who required immediate hygienic attention. Not saying he doesn't exist somewhere out there and not saying that circumcision provides a guarantee that hygienic protocol has been maintained at regular servicing intervals.

It all comes down to the owner of the penis and how he was trained from an early age to look after his own personal hygiene, circumcised or not. If a guy is lacking in personal hygiene as an adult, you can pretty much be assured that he was lacking in personal hygiene from his youth. It all begins at home and any guy who doesn't know any better, usually has parents that don't know any better either. I have found that a male is not totally to blame for his lack of awareness nor his lack of knowledge. A guy only knows what he's taught, as men don't necessarily come by hygienic protocol through intuitive knowing.

@swirlie: British sports cars, quick to pass everything on the road except... the repair shop ;)

@swirlie: In another forum, years ago, I met an Oklahoma Indian woman who told me that American Indian men born in white maternity wards were circumcised, while Indian men born in reservation clinics were intact. She also grew up with one intact brother and one cut one. Before meeting her (Latino) husband of 30 years, she had played the field with quite a few Indian men. That's how she discovered that intact men were mostly perfectly clean, and that circumcised men could fall down in the hygiene department. She told me that the only man she ever dated who had a sulcus full of crusty dirt, was circumcised. I heard a lot of bawdy talk growing up. But one subject that was never touched on in any way was the hygiene of the tip of the penis. I am convinced that a significant reason for circumcision in North America was the belief that circumcised boys did not need any hygiene instruction.

@consa01:

I believe it as well about the belief of boys not needing any hygiene instruction. Keep in mind another thing: North American cultural attitude was and still is, all about hiding one's truth, hiding one's emotion and avoiding any discussion on the human body between parent and child.

European or Scandinavian cultural tradition in particular, promotes the exact opposite family dynamic, thereby almost completely eliminating those dysfunctional aspects commonly found in North American cultures. Circumcision therefore, fit perfectly into any dysfunctional family because that issue was one less thing for everyone to ultimately face over dinner at the kitchen table.

@swirlie: I don't live in the USA or Canada. My daughters were taught in school sex ed that circumcision is usually unnecessary. I have revealed to my teen daughters that unlike the vast majority of American men my age, I am intact and that being intact generally makes for more comfortable sex. I have told them that I was ashamed of being intact for a long time, and that is the reason why I surrendered my virginity in my 30s. But I now consider myself lucky.
Here only therapeutic circumcision is performed, so that only 1-2% of boys are cut. School sex ed says very little about Jewish and Islamic ritual circumcision. In my city, there are only about 15 native born Jewish families, and only about 100 Israeli immigrant families, all very secular. In my entire country, there is no Jewish circumciser. So ritual circumcision is Islamic. I do not know how local Muslim families get their sons circumcised.

@consa01:

About the same very low percentage of circumcisions occur in Scandinavian countries as well and of those 1-2% of boys/men who are cut, it too is for therapeutic reasons.

Very good dad that you would talk to your daughters about circumcision! In my Scandinavian-cultured home where I was born and raised in Canada after my parents immigrated to Canada, it was usually my mother that did the teaching to my sisters and I at our kitchen table at midnight.

You might also mention to your daughters that a foreskin's purpose was more for the benefit of any woman who came into a guy's life, than for the guy himself. I am not at all aware of course, what kind of an open-channel of communication you have with your daughters, but our mother explained to my sisters and I how a foreskin should be managed during oral intercourse, which were mentored sessions that occurred when we were 13, 14 and 15 years of age respectively, myself being the one in the middle.

In our culture, private yet supervised 'exploration' between girl and guy is permitted, but only in the home of the girl while a parent or guardian is also present in the house. This can begin no earlier than the age of 14, with intercourse strictly prohibited prior to 16. As well, the boy's parents are made aware by the girl's parents that supervised 'dating' would be occurring in the home, which then put everyone on the same page the day it was happening. There was no hiding as to one's whereabouts and there was no question 'whom' the girl was with if a pregnancy happened to occur, although extremely rare.

The deal was, all parents concerned, mutually took absentee responsibility for their respective kid's actions, meaning it is understood by the boy's parents that they are 'on the hook' if their son broached the golden rule and got the girl pregnant. If she were attempting to enforce the golden rule and he would not comply, it would then be understood by all parties that the situation would be treated as rape of a minor. Needless to say, the boy's got a different 'briefing' from their father, than the girls got from their mother before the boy ever left his parent's house!

Between the ages of 14 and 16, a girl can experiment or explore with her boyfriend and vice-versa within the comfort of a supervised environment. In my sisters and my case, our shared bedroom was our comfort zone, while our mother would be reading a Danielle Steele novel during those critical times while down in the living room of our house! My mother was always very cool about sex and exploratory sex.

She developed a special 'code' that was only understood between herself and myself and my two sisters. If on a Sunday afternoon, she got her Danielle Steele novel down from the bookshelf in the living room and placed it faced-up on the coffee table, my sisters and I were not permitted to go upstairs to our shared bedroom, which was just down the hall from my parent's bedroom... which was the one with the door usually closed on most Sunday afternoons! (lol!)

If we had to pee, we had to use the bathroom in my father's workshop beside the barn. But as teenagers, we were usually gone all day anyway. If we came home to find her novel lying faced-up on the coffee table, it was understood by all concerned that it would be in our best interest if we went back to our boyfriend's house for a few more hours... 🙈🙉🙊

During those times of exploration between 14 and 16 years of age, oral sex is most definitely condoned and is actually encouraged as a means to DIS-courage the attraction of intercourse. Our cultural practice recognizes the need for 'sexual release' between two teenagers and if an alternative is not provided to the teenagers while condoned by the supervising parent, Nature will undoubtedly prevail and the family will have an unwanted pregnancy on their hands. Needless to say, oral sex was discussed very frequently in our home as we each came into that 14th year and anytime oral sex was our topic of mutual interest between mother and daughters, it was always presumed by my mother that oral sex would be occurring with boyfriends of ours who were un-circumcised. Therefore, any discussion at the kitchen table about oral sex was always very inclusive of the presence of a foreskin.

@swirlie: When I learned about oral sex in the 1960s, I instantly realised that if taking a man's tool in her mouth is an option, then high school or college girls get pregnant at a very awkward time only because they are ignorant of oral, or too prudish to assert "I will suck you off, but you have to stop trying to get into my panties". 1-2 people have told me that the more sophisticated girls of my generation were fairly dutiful about using handjobs to defuse the horniness of their dates.

A problem before the 1970s was that young unmarried women felt much less guilt if they could rationalise their sex as resulting from "being carried away." This rationalisation was nonsensical if they had condoms in their purses, or if they were knowledgeable about fellatio. So they didn't pack condoms, and closed their minds to the fellatio option. This mindset struck me as madly stupid, and my very religious mother came to the same conclusion: to not use condoms, or to be too embarrassed to say that the vagina was off limits, was not less wrong, but doubly wrong.

@consa01:

What an amazing story! I thought that young women of the 60's teen-generation, would be totally adept at all various options of sex available to mankind. I guess the truth is, those girls back then were no more adept at sexual options than most young women are today, hence the high percentage of teen pregnancies in North America (Canada/USA).

I hear what you say about religion and condoms. Like you say, "madly stupid"!

Interesting what you say about girls of your generation being fairly dutiful about using hand jobs to defuse the horniness of their dates! (lol!). To me, that was always a waste, therefore, I specifically never practiced hand jobs on guys I would date. The way I did it, there was never anything to clean up! At least with my finely honed Scandinavian-taught method, he and I both got something highly desirous out of it at his moment of truth! (or preferably, moment(s) of truth...!).

I swear that stuff is like Oxycontin... try it just once and a girl is hooked for life! 😌