HEY UNCUT DUDES, I’AM JUST CURIOUS IF MOST UNCIRCUMCISED MEN ARE PROUD TO TELL THEY ARE INTACT, OR IF THEY ARE SHY AND MODEST ABOUT NOT LETTING OTHER MEN KNOW, OR IF THEY ADVOCATE FOR NO CIRCUMCISING OUR BABY BOYS AND LET THE WORLD KNOW THEY STILL HAVE THEIR FORESKIN!
Being intact is normal; I fail to see why anone would be “shy and modest” to show or admit to others that you are quite normal. Also, being normal is something you do not have to be proud to tell others about. It should be the abnormal guys - those who are penile mutilated - who should be shy and modest about the state of their penises.
I certainly do not advocate routine circumcision of baby boys. It is cruel, done without their consent, unnecessary, and robs them of an important part of their anatormy.
Visit http://www…geocities.com/stopric/ for further details
[quote author=unkutstud link=topic=485.msg1025#msg1025 date=1196438714]
HEY UNCUT DUDES, I’AM JUST CURIOUS IF MOST UNCIRCUMCISED MEN ARE PROUD TO TELL THEY ARE INTACT, OR IF THEY ARE SHY AND MODEST ABOUT NOT LETTING OTHER MEN KNOW, OR IF THEY ADVOCATE FOR NO CIRCUMCISING OUR BABY BOYS AND LET THE WORLD KNOW THEY STILL HAVE THEIR FORESKIN!
[/quo
I am proud to be uncircumcised and love to have other people male or female see that I have foreskin. I think routine circumcising is a barbaric practice!!
Dale
I am NOT uncircumcised, I am intact. I wish people would not refer to “uncircumcised” as a natural state, just as they would not refer to a living person as being “undead”.
With the same logic I am not uncut.
There are guys out there who are indeed circumcised, cut, mutilated (call it whatever you want), but I am intact, and proud to be so! They are the odd ones out, nut 80% of the world’s males who are indeed intact.
Intact, that would be the description I also prefer. I have no problem telling anyone I’m intact. I say it with a strong feeling of confidence. I’m asserting that I have something they most likely will never understand. I was born during the early '80’s. A time when roughly 98% of America’s baby boys were “routinely” circumcised. I was one of the few that came from that time period with my foreskin “intact”. I am extremely proud of that fact. If I have a son, (I have 2 girls now) he will never be touched by a blade that way.
As a British doctor, and being British, uncircumcised/intact, like most British men, it is good to see that the practice of RIC in the States is now being questioned. It has already been greatly reduced in Australia and Canada. There is no medical reason for RIC, and the only time that circumcision is indicated is if a boy or man has a very tight foreskin, or balanitis recurrently. Even then there are more conservative treatments we would think of before going down the circumcision route.
Very few parents even mention circumcision in the UK (and it is not mentioned at all in most baby care books published in the UK). The usual reason for circumcision now is on religous grounds. The hygiene argument is really quite a silly one - everyone has access to soap and water these days, and care of the intact penis should be part of every lads education.
At one time another reason for circumcision of young boys was because their foreskin “couldn’t be pulled back” - and doctors used to go along with it, when they should have known that a boys foreskin for the first few years of his life is unretractable.
I have this fetish where women make fun of me for having a dirty foreskin. Telling me to get it circumcised. I enjoy being uncut due to this humiliation!
Yuo are all wrong, to be uncur is the most normal, cut men is a sing of Israel religion;
Other religions do not impose to cut any boy!
I thnk that cut a boy is cut his own opinions. I have 3 boys all uncut and married very happy and with a good uncut penis
The only thing that really pisses me off are guys who’ve had their foreskin removed then look at me like I’m some kind of freak. Minus those few cases of aposthia ALL males are born with one. I’ve actually been surprised twice, because both times the guys actually thought all men were born without.
I agree, us intact guys are normal. it is the cut guys that are unusual, nature gave us a foreskin so why remove it.
Mark
“I agree, … intact guys are normal. it is the cut guys (who) are unusual. Nature gave us a foreskin so why remove it.”
Mark
Considering your recent procedure, “Why, indeed”!
I agree too. Intact guys are the natural ones. I usually say the cut guys are mutilated. I do not believe in changing anything nature gave you. This includes nose jobs, face lifts etc. I am happy with what I have and proud to be uncircumcised.
I have a normal, intact, and complete penis. I feel sorry for those men who don’t have what I have. I don’t go around bragging that I am intact but I don’t deny it if the subject should be raised.
I support genital integrity and intactness for boys.
An intact friend (in the USA) who works out at an area gym reports that the last time he took a communal shower two of the foreskinless, cut men in the shower room stared in awe at his penis, as he entered the shower room. Almost instantaneously, both men became erect. Friend doesn’t force his foreskin onto the consciousness of other men, but he doesn’t hide behind false modesty, either.
Rood
I did not like having foreskin while in sports in high school. I stood out in the crowd. Having matured, I now know its normal and I like showing it off NOW.
Shaving is your preference and will not make your cock bigger. My personal experience on anything growing would be my head or glans and thickness. Before I tore my frenulum, my foreskin would always stay forward even when I pulled it back it never stayed behind the glans due to the tight frenulum. After I healed I was able to pull it back and wear it to keep the head uncovered. This was to simulate what it would be like if I got myself circumcised. Anyways, during my experimental phase and due to the torn frenulum I noticed that allowing the head to be uncovered and without the frenulum my glans started to desensitize and expand. It got to the point where I found it difficult to pull the foreskin back over the glans and to cover the head. I also noticed that my foreskin shrank and only covered 3/4 of the head where before it use to cover completely and with a nice overhang. With some stretching it allowed full coverage and no dificulties in retraction or getting stuck back behind the head.
Back then I started experimenting with penis pumps (what tore my frenulum but after it healed) I continued to pump and it may have contributed to the head growth and thickness. Before all of this I had a small pointed glans and a thin shaft. Since then my penis bulked up in size but the length did not change.
We need to change the language. Instead of saying something negative like “uncircumcised”, which means something has been left undone, say something positive like “foreskinned” which is a positive attribute.
I prefer “natural” to intact, although either is vastly preferable to “uncut” or “uncircumcised.”
Or, perhaps, “unmutilated.”
The frenulectomy is particularly well suited for intact foreskins. Because you can move the foreskin much more freely through this intervention. That is, during masturbation, the full stroke can be exploited. Auserdern remains the foreskin as well as in the retracted state, where I want it. I have removed myself many years ago my frenulum prepuce and am very happy with the result. I believe, therefore, that I can recommend this procedure every uncircumcised masturbators. 
:stretch:
If asked, I’m happy to share my natural intact status. Not exactly something that comes up in conversation often, though.