It's no harder to keep clean than a vagina! That's like saying "Vaginas are smelly." A lot of intact men know how to take care of themselves.

For men, it makes no difference to me, but I will respect their parents more if they are intact. I know they are not Status Quo type people.

I would never do this to a tiny baby boy, never in a million years. It's barbaric, IMO and it not "cleaner."

Good for you, Airen! I have worked with recently cut baby boys whose penises look like raw hamburger, they scream every time they pee, they don't feed well, they are IN PAIN. I don't believe, either, that genital mutilation of a boy (or a girl) is necessary.

What you saw on your friend's baby is VERY common! The foreskin protects the sensitive glans, that's why boys are born with one. Some baby's foreskin will separate in 6 months or so, others not until 3 or 4 years, and a few not until early puberty. But, NEVER let anyone pull back the foreskin of an uncirced baby, or young boy who hasn't separated yet, it could inflict scar tissue that could be dangerous and cause great pain. Once the foreskin separates normally, then the boy should be taught to GENTLY pull the foreskin back to clean under it. But, before separation, the foreskin is attached to the glans with the same force that your finger is attached to your finger nail. Forced separation (like they do before they chop the thing off) is akin in pain to having one's fingernails ripped out. Not something any good parent wants to do to a tiny innocent baby.

If people do the research, they find that in a developed country there are NO differences in health and even those AIDS studies in Africa (that showed that uncut men were more likely to get HIV) were flawed.

I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and I love them both.

Exactly, and I hate to hear people say that it's not the same thing..it really IS we just don't think of it that way since it's been done so long and we were told generations ago that it was cleaner. But at this point in time when we know better, I personally feel that it's close if not the same as female genital muilation.

My ethical and erotic preferences match. I think circumcision is wrong, and a completely unnecessary procedure. My man wishes someone had asked him before chopping off part of his body, he would prefer it natural. (I like it the way it is. It doesn't matter to me.)

Actually male circumcision was deemed to be an unnecessary procedure (medically) in the early 1980s and has since been dropped from public insurance. Circumcision only really got big in the United states & Canada during WWII when a large number of Jewish doctors came over from Europe and tried to merge themselves into society.

Apart from in the Jewish community, Circumcision was not and is not practiced in most of Europe. There are many groups who actually consider to be a cruel act of genital mutilation for religious purposes.

Personally, I prefer the look of cut, however my husband is super opposed to the idea and I understand where he's coming from.

My husband is uncut. He was the first guy I was ever with who was not circum. The truth is his foreskin pulls all the way down below his head and then hes no diff. Then a cut penis. No funny feeling, not any more dirty then any other cock, and it doesn't flop or pull back up if he pulls it down when hard. It also doesnt hurt him to do this. When he jacks off or I give hime head the skin is always pulled down and again just the same as a cut penis. If anything he probably has more sensation and really squirms when I tease it because the head is protected from rubbing and becoming less sensative from clothing on a non hard daily basis. I will tell you condoms do seem to slip around a little more and might slip up or allow a little cum leakage for those girls not on the pill. Xox CreamySweet