Lanyx · 46-50, M
A bare penis head looks nicer. Lately, I started retracting my foreskin back to get that circumcised look.
Snickerdooodle · 31-35, F
View 2 more replies »
Terrance · 41-45, M
@Snickerdooodle I'll send you an 8k resolution gif of it
Snickerdooodle · 31-35, F
NO THANKS BRO
Terrance · 41-45, M
@Snickerdooodle Ooops. Too late
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
bijouxbroussard · F
They are completely natural, but either way is fine
Lanyx · 46-50, M
Yes they are. That is why I prefer to keep mine retracted and out of view.
SW-User
Yes.
Terrance · 41-45, M
@SW-User I assure you, my foreskin is gorgeous
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Docdon23 · M
no
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
consa01 · 70-79, M
For most intact dudes, an erection makes the foreskin vanish, in which case what it looks like is pointless.
The job of the foreskin is not to excite a woman's eyes or brain (although it can do that). Its job is to make its owner and his partners FEEL GOOD. The foreskin makes masturbation and handjobs easier and more fun. Many women who've been in relationships with both kinds of men have revealed in social media that PIV is more fun when the dude is intact.
The job of the foreskin is not to excite a woman's eyes or brain (although it can do that). Its job is to make its owner and his partners FEEL GOOD. The foreskin makes masturbation and handjobs easier and more fun. Many women who've been in relationships with both kinds of men have revealed in social media that PIV is more fun when the dude is intact.
consa01 · 70-79, M
Having grown up in the USA, I used to think that the foreskin looked weird (I have since gotten over such feelings). But ugly, never, especially given that it took very little sexual stimulation to make mine disappear ;)
consa01 · 70-79, M
Given a bit of sexual interest, the foreskin usually does a vanishing act. How can something that vanishes like that be ugly??
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
I mean, no uglier than a penis is normally. The idea that we require taking knives to babies in order to look 'normal' is weird as hell.
I don't think male circumcision is a barbaric horrific practice because clearly circumcised men are fine. It's just completely, stupidly unnecessary.
I don't think male circumcision is a barbaric horrific practice because clearly circumcised men are fine. It's just completely, stupidly unnecessary.
Deadcutie · 18-21, F
I'm not fond of them, even on dead guys
swirlie · F
No, not at all! But what I will say about foreskins as viewed within a North American cultural context, also applies to domesticated house cats:
If a boy or girl's mother absolutely hates cats, there is a very high likelihood that the boy and girl will also learn early in life to hate cats for no apparent reason. They can both thank mother for that biased tidbit of childhood mentoring as mother so freely prejudiced her child's attitude toward cats.
If an adolescent young woman has a mother who has learned from her own mother that a foreskin on a male is a sign of 'class distinction', or that he will undoubtedly have hygienic issues, or that daughter will be disappointed if she becomes intimately involved with a guy who is not fully circumcised, then that young woman will very likely be predisposed to reject all notion of foreskin acceptance on any male whom she intimately interacts with in her adult life. And again, she can thank mom for setting her up to fail with prejudiced attitudes that were passed onto her from mother to daughter about foreskins, of which mother actually had no prior experiences with thanks to her own mother and therefore, knew absolutely SFA about in truth.
I was raised within a very liberalized, Scandinavian cultural upbringing which included a strong bias toward acceptance of every part of the human body, be it found on the male or female body. The often unique physical aspects of a foreskin which is discovered by a woman as she is first introduced to a new boyfriend's foreskin therefore, is taught to young women as being a physical quality genetically inherent of the guy. His foreskin therefore, shares equal respect with and receives equal attention to that which she would typically focus on with regard to all other genetically inherent aspects of his genitals.
This is not to say that Scandinavian women do not have a preference when it comes to a guy's foreskin; it is to say however, that one of those preferences is not to intentionally look for and then expect to find a guy who is circumcised. For a Scandinavian woman involved at any age in the dating scene, the objective for her is more about, "..of all those foreskins walking past me on a Saturday night in some big bad Scandinavian town, which style of foreskin do I as a woman have a desire to intimately interact with?".
Which style of foreskin is out there for me? ..is the issue; not which guy out there is probably circumcised. A particular style of foreskin that is opposite to a woman's first choice however, is not "opposite" because it is considered ugly; it is her opposite choice because it's particular physical characteristics do not necessarily serve her physical desires.
If a boy or girl's mother absolutely hates cats, there is a very high likelihood that the boy and girl will also learn early in life to hate cats for no apparent reason. They can both thank mother for that biased tidbit of childhood mentoring as mother so freely prejudiced her child's attitude toward cats.
If an adolescent young woman has a mother who has learned from her own mother that a foreskin on a male is a sign of 'class distinction', or that he will undoubtedly have hygienic issues, or that daughter will be disappointed if she becomes intimately involved with a guy who is not fully circumcised, then that young woman will very likely be predisposed to reject all notion of foreskin acceptance on any male whom she intimately interacts with in her adult life. And again, she can thank mom for setting her up to fail with prejudiced attitudes that were passed onto her from mother to daughter about foreskins, of which mother actually had no prior experiences with thanks to her own mother and therefore, knew absolutely SFA about in truth.
I was raised within a very liberalized, Scandinavian cultural upbringing which included a strong bias toward acceptance of every part of the human body, be it found on the male or female body. The often unique physical aspects of a foreskin which is discovered by a woman as she is first introduced to a new boyfriend's foreskin therefore, is taught to young women as being a physical quality genetically inherent of the guy. His foreskin therefore, shares equal respect with and receives equal attention to that which she would typically focus on with regard to all other genetically inherent aspects of his genitals.
This is not to say that Scandinavian women do not have a preference when it comes to a guy's foreskin; it is to say however, that one of those preferences is not to intentionally look for and then expect to find a guy who is circumcised. For a Scandinavian woman involved at any age in the dating scene, the objective for her is more about, "..of all those foreskins walking past me on a Saturday night in some big bad Scandinavian town, which style of foreskin do I as a woman have a desire to intimately interact with?".
Which style of foreskin is out there for me? ..is the issue; not which guy out there is probably circumcised. A particular style of foreskin that is opposite to a woman's first choice however, is not "opposite" because it is considered ugly; it is her opposite choice because it's particular physical characteristics do not necessarily serve her physical desires.
consa01 · 70-79, M
@swirlie The USA has a weirdly high rate of out of wedlock pregnancy for mothers under 21, and very high rates of STDs. This is blatant evidence of an American reluctance to use condoms. I submit that a likely reason for this American resistance to condom use, is that most American penises are circumcised. These facts are also consistent with noncoital sex with an American male not being very satisfying. Circumcision turns handjobs and blowjobs into a chore. Young women should have the option of entertaining a gentleman in ways which do not require her to disrobe, and which cannot impregnate or infect her.
swirlie · F
@consa01
I agree, that women should have the option of entertaining a gentleman in ways which do not require her to disrobe and which cannot impregnate or infect her.
In my very liberalized Scandinavian culture, intimacy is encouraged for teenaged males and females beginning at the age of 14, which does not include intercourse. Oral intercourse therefore, is as good as it gets from age 14 to 16. When I was permitted to start dating at the age of 14, oral sex became that avenue as an alternative to sexual intercourse. As such, I would migrate to guys whom were un-circumcised because interacting with foreskin during oral sex was my personal preference. As the word got out, fully intact guys my own age and older, would then migrate to me and seek me out when they found out that my sisters and I wouldn't reject them. What surprised me was how astounded those same guys were to learn that we preferred them over their circumcised counterparts.
Keep in mind that my parents had immigrated to Canada prior to my sisters and I being born, yet we were raised within a very strong Scandinavian cultural influence within our household. The Canadian guys who lived within my rural setting or who lived in town, were predominantly circumcised at birth as a result of being born and raised in Canada. Therefore, my sisters and I were anomalies among our Canadian girlfriends, because THEY all preferred circumcised males from what they were taught at home, even though none of them had ever experienced a guy's foreskin before.
And in Scandinavian culture, the whole idea of engaging in intimacy beginning at the age of 14, was very specifically, to prevent unwanted pregnancies... and it works!
I agree, that women should have the option of entertaining a gentleman in ways which do not require her to disrobe and which cannot impregnate or infect her.
In my very liberalized Scandinavian culture, intimacy is encouraged for teenaged males and females beginning at the age of 14, which does not include intercourse. Oral intercourse therefore, is as good as it gets from age 14 to 16. When I was permitted to start dating at the age of 14, oral sex became that avenue as an alternative to sexual intercourse. As such, I would migrate to guys whom were un-circumcised because interacting with foreskin during oral sex was my personal preference. As the word got out, fully intact guys my own age and older, would then migrate to me and seek me out when they found out that my sisters and I wouldn't reject them. What surprised me was how astounded those same guys were to learn that we preferred them over their circumcised counterparts.
Keep in mind that my parents had immigrated to Canada prior to my sisters and I being born, yet we were raised within a very strong Scandinavian cultural influence within our household. The Canadian guys who lived within my rural setting or who lived in town, were predominantly circumcised at birth as a result of being born and raised in Canada. Therefore, my sisters and I were anomalies among our Canadian girlfriends, because THEY all preferred circumcised males from what they were taught at home, even though none of them had ever experienced a guy's foreskin before.
And in Scandinavian culture, the whole idea of engaging in intimacy beginning at the age of 14, was very specifically, to prevent unwanted pregnancies... and it works!