A question for the lovely ladies of this forum, what do you prefer and why?

 

I am cut myself

 

I do not prefer one or the other -- I seen my share of uncut and cut cocks. I mean as long as it is doing it job of pleasing me I should be fine

 

I don't particularly care, but it's more fun giving bjs to uncut guys because I can play with the foreskin with my tongue.

 

Proud Cromwellian here!!

Goodnight boys and girls........play nice!

thinskin

 

I purchased a cover I put over my cut dick to make it look uncut. It goes well with the extra size cover I have for woman who want a thick cock and the extension I have for those who desire more length. Of course, we have to have a good discussion before I am ready for sex. Add my hairpiece and 2 inch lifts and you have a man's man!

 

cut - because of the perception of cleaniness

 

This question has been answered hundreds of times on XNXX. With 82% of the world's males intact, at least 82% of the world's females prefer the natural, unmodified, unmutilated, intact penis.
.

 

do you not understand what perceived means????
or are you just trolling?

when virtually all of the penis' that you have seen were circumcised with everything out in the open, then the perception can be that one that has the head covered by loose flappy skin may not be

perception is everything in this world, and since many mean do not like washing, no matter how much they claim to, it is a perception that will not leave me

 

If male circumcision is justified because of the "perception of cleanliness" , then female circumcision is justified ten times more.
.
http://www.oocities.org/stopric/comparison.htm?201725

 

where do i start with this drivel

cleanliness?
male circumcision, while not totally necessary is done because little boys do not always clean themselves properly. while this may not be an issue, it sometimes can be one, so they remove a piece of skin that generally is not needed and the boy can do without
female circumcision, while totally unnecessary for any health reasons, only removes a very small part that could be a factor for cleanliness, but since girls actually wash themselves, that small part is normally not an issue

barbaric
male circumcision, they only remove a small piece of loose (almost unnecessary) skin that seems to heal very well once it is removed
female circumcision, is done solely to make sure the female cannot enjoy herself sexually - they remove the clitoris and the labia mirora which are both needed. both have massive blood flow through them, and without the labia minora there is nothing to keep dirt out of the vagina. removing the clit and the labia minora is probably the equivalent of removing the glans of the penis in boys - therefore, circumcision between boys and girls is totally different

no wonder you need a club to get women back to your cave - and i said the perception was mine due to having seen almost only circumcised penis, not that it was justified for anything - up until now anyway

 

So forced male circumcision is "not totally necessary", whereas female circumcion is "totally unnecessary for any health reasons"? Your unqualified logic is mind blowing.
"since girls actually wash themselves"? As if boys do not wash themselves? In which outback of civilization do you live?

"Almost unnecesary"? So why remove it at all? It boils down to bodily mutilation without the informed consent of the victim, which is a transgression of the United Nations' code of human rights.

Circumcision is NEVER justified. There is not a single piece of evidence that it is justified, and the medical profession rejects it. It is a barbaric principle perpetuated by those who are brainwashed by the doctrine of dr Harvey Lee Kellogg, who promoted it in the US as a "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys to cure masturbation is circumcision ... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed." He advocated the circumcision of females for the same reason: "In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3471852/Six-reasons-NEVER-allow-son-circumcised.html

 

Visit http://www.oocities.org/stopric/main.htm?201725

 

I've been with some that were and were not. I still think technique is way more important that cut or size.

 

I don't have a preference. If I decide to have sex with a man it isn't based on an assumption that they are or are not circumsized.

 

A clean cock will get you places.