Question for the straight guys

[cobra]

I have a question for the strictly straight members of this forum.

If you were going to have sex with another man, would his cut/intact status make any difference to you?

This is purely theoretical so don't be uptight about it. This is more about what value we place on the intactness of others versus how we feel about it in relation to ourselves. If you were going to do something like that, would you be disappointed if your partner turned out to be cut? Would it be a "deal breaker"? With our kids' generation coming up almost 50/50 intact, there is soon going to be more debate about this issue.

[greg_b]

I think I would rather he be intact. I think a fully functioning and feeling penis would be much better.

Regards

[Kynodesme]

Being one of the very few straight men that wishes he was gay, this is something I have thought about numerous times before. I don't think it would really matter too much, but I would still highly prefer uncut.

[admin]

I'm straight but I suppose stranded forever on a desert island with one other dude I'd be open-minded. Intact would be my preference since it would take a lot less physical effort and friction to get him off.

[cobra]

Seems the consensus so far is a preference for intact but it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I would be (and have been) more interested in the person than the person's appearance and/or their body parts. I think it's good to remember that when we are so often bombarded with negativity concerning circumcision and circumcised penises. I hope more of our members will chime in with their own responses.

[jninja]

I consider myself bi-curious but I'll still answer. Whenever I watch any porn (gay, straight, or whatever) I will almost always skip over anything with a cut guy(s) in it. When it comes to the penis, an intact penis is an instant turn on. A cut one is not an instant turn off, but it depends what it's attached to.

[Tormod - IRL]

Even though I live in an "intact" country, I have zero direct (within living memory) experience of foreskins. No brothers, no sons. For my own education, I would vote for intact. But, on the other hand, a circumcised guy could be encouraged to restore.
Are we allowed a group session?

[Americut]

This is purely theoretical so don't be uptight about it.

Well... hah, ok. I agree with Ron's scenario and reason. Furthermore, if for some crazy reason I was gonna take it up the *WOAH*, I think it would be a deal breaker. I'd imagine the gliding action would be really important here. I already don't want anything up there, and I especially wouldn't want a rugged/toughened, static object rubbing about. Might start a fire. ...On second thought, that might be useful if you're stranded on Ron's island :D

[Billybobbed]

I'm straight but I suppose stranded forever on a desert island with one other dude I'd be open-minded. Intact would be my preference since it would take a lot less physical effort and friction to get him off.

Having been in a situation for six months with no females around let me say that the thought of relieving pent up pressure on each other never entered our minds. I could have cared less about what my buddies dick was like and he could have cared less about mine. All we wanted was PUSSY.:p

[1Taoist]

Cobra- I think you're havin one of your homosex fare-ups. ;-D

To answer your question, I'm just gonna have to ask a few of my buddies if they're down for some frottage first- and if you're right they most definitely will -and I'll let you know. Hopefully none of em have AIDS.

[1Taoist]

:-D americut. Funny ass shit (pun).

[mattboy115]

I am indeed straight but I consider myself bi-curious. I don't think I would ever do it with a guy but I'd be lying if I said I never thought about it. If I did, however, I would prefer an intact guy. That would give me a chance to experience an intact guy first hand. But still being a virgin I wouldn't lose my virginity to a guy.

[1Taoist]

You mean your anal cherry? Or your dick wet?

[mattboy115]

Either way. My point being I wouldn't do it with a guy first. If I ever did.

[1Taoist]

Do it already, will ya? What are you waitin for?

[mattboy115]

What, you wanna volunteer or something? Geez. Lay off will ya?

[1Taoist]

I didn't say anything about me. I think you may have a little issue on your hands. I was kidding. Obviously you're not. Completely comfortable with your sexuality, that is. How old are you, if you don't mind me askin? And why exactly are you maintaining your virginity? Just curious, respectfully.

[mattboy115]

This thread really isn't for this conversation. If you wish to continue this PM me or something.

BTW I knew you were kidding. So was I. :D

[cobra]

LOL! You guys can't even answer a hypothetical question without getting uncomfortable. Lame...

[mattboy115]

Hey, I answered the question. He's the one who questioned my answer. From some of the comments on 1Taoist's profile he seems to be the type who likes to make trouble anyway. I learn to ignore those guys.

[1Taoist]

And you tend to ignore havin sex, too. Or fear it.

And how is askin you why you ain't doin it at all "makin trouble"? Sounds to me like you've got some hangups about it. And cobra- you brought it out, fucker. ;-D

[mewpokemon]

Man! Why are you hassling him? If he doesn't want to have sex yet, he doesn't want to.

Is this how you behave to save face for being in a group that talks about penis problems? How achetypical and lame. You were tortured and mutilated in that locker room. Let it go, it _was_ a bad place.

[1Taoist]

Douchebag says what?

Thanks for makin a lot of sense.

And if mattboy wants to dig at me and claim he's joking, sorry, no. He doesn't even know what's going on, which is probably why he doesn't have sex. Honestly. I mean, why is a guy here on a forum regarding penis function and sexuality, who has neither? Honestly.

[mewpokemon]

Schmuck replies with rot...

For heaven's sake, grow up.

[restore4sure]

If you were going to have sex with another man, would his cut/intact status make any difference to you?

For me, personally, it would make a difference. I would prefer an uncut guy, because I am even disgusted during my own sexual encounters that I am cut. It seems unnatural and abnormal. So, I'd prefer to stick with what is natural and meant to be...so, if I had to choose, I'd choose to have "un homme au natural"

[jeff71913]

A really good guy is hard to find, therefore, to base a relationship upon a guys circumcision status would not seem wise. Having said that, intact is more comfortable since there is less friction during anal intercourse. Other than that, it is the person and not the penis that makes the difference. For me the penis makes no difference. I would be very hurt if I cared about someone and they rejected me because I was circumcised. Only a very shallow individual would ever do such a thing.
Although I am gay, I couldn't resist posting on this one.

jeffrey

[cobra]

To be honest, I didn't even think the gay thing would be a big deal. It was a hypothetical question. One could easily put themselves in the mindset of being a female or imagine a similar thing, such as a female partner who was circumcised (because it does happen rarely).

We all bitch about circumcision, and I wanted to see what guys would think if the situation were reversed on them and they had to decide if it would matter if a sexual partner was cut. I asked for the straight guys to answer because it probably wasn't going to be hypothetical for the gay men. I'm sure the gay men here have come across this situation.

But, in restrospect, I would be interested in hearing what the gay men think about their cut partners. Does it bother you?

And, Taoist... I got you, man. One of these days... you're going to quit thinking about it and split some poor dude's ass royally. See? Cobra knows... ;) You've set off my BI-dar. Don't even try to argue. LOL!

[mewpokemon]

It makes quite a difference to me... While I want it not to mean so much and I have had long term cut partners, it just doesn't look healthy or function well. Seeing the "stunted" way they use it... It is just depressing after a while.

I really wanted my last cut partner to restore but he didn't want to. Combined with a few other factors, it made the relationship unworkable for me.

I try, I'm even looking at dating a cut guy now. I just don't think I'm going to be happy with anything other than intact or restored. I have discussed this with the guy but I don't know what he thinks about it yet; I don't think he knows.

As for a once off or desert island... You definately want intact; "dry" fucking would just be unworkable otherwise, IMHO (if that's the way you're looking at this hypothetical). _Especially_ if you're new to it.

Although, I must add, you'd probably (when/if you did get the need) be content with blow jobs and/or hand jobs.

[Joseph]

If you were going to have sex with another man, would his cut/intact status make any difference to you?

Not at all.

I'm with Jeff on this one.

I think circumbigotry can cut both ways;

What would you tell a girl/guy who wouldn't have sex with you because you had a foreskin?

But you would tell a guy "nope, gotta be intact/restored?"

Really now.

There are very few circumstances where I'd ever have sex with a guy. One of them being stranded on a deserted island and we were both horny. One thing would be that I couldn't ever slight someone for something over which they had no choice, but another, ARE YOU KIDDING? Getting picky? On a deserted island?

Jeezis man, you wanna fuck or not!!!

:rolleyes:

[1Taoist]

I agree, which is why I find the above posts just more of the penis-wacktivism. "I'm looking to date an uncut guy now"...? What the fuck does this even mean? You're looking to date a dick? What a shallow, douche perspective. Yeah man, I'm really lookin to date a pair of tits now, like the kind with thick nipples...

:-|

Appreciate the foreskin, but don't date one. You make gay guys look like penis-obsessed flakes. Jeff at least took that apart.

Cobra, you brought this out in them. You trapped them in Penis Land, where they are all forced to have relationships with 6ft tall walking penises, and the avatars are uncut. And even though we're straight, there is no fuckin pussy ANYWHERE, so we have to be friends with cOck.

Maybe that's what this thread should have proposed. If we're all on the Isle of Cock and we must form alliances- or "friendships" -with walking, talking phalluses, what would we choose.

Like the movie "I Love You, Man", but instead "I Love Your Cock, Man".

[Unregistered]

I have a question for the strictly straight members of this forum.

If you were going to have sex with another man, ........


Another straight man? Are you going by the Bill Clinton book of definitions of straight?

[cobra]

Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the George W Bush definition... you know the one? Outwardly claiming 100% straightness and moral superiority, while sneaking off to the Bohemiam Grove to frolick in the woods with other conservatives and buttfuck the male interns and worship Mollech. The Republican definition of straightness where you cruise public restrooms for some understall action, have sexual intercourse with your male assistants and then give a teary press conference where you confess everything after getting caught. You know, kind of like the GOP definition of family values, where you berate others for their liberalism while spending party money at S&M gentlemen's clubs. You know. That definition. ;)

[Joseph]

AND speak of the devil...

George Alan Rekers, a prominent anti-gay activist and cofounder of the conservative Family Research Council, recently returned from a 10-day trip to Europe with a male escort who advertises on a Web site called Rentboy.com.

Rekers is a leading proponent of therapy to "cure" homosexuality and has testified against gay adoption. He is a board member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which calls itself "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."

But apparently George Rekers requires an assistant to lift ;) his luggage.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/family-research-council-head-h.html

[Unregistered]

Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the George W Bush definition... you know the one? Outwardly claiming 100% straightness and moral superiority, while sneaking off to the Bohemiam Grove to frolick in the woods with other conservatives and buttfuck the male interns and worship Mollech. The Republican definition of straightness where you cruise public restrooms for some understall action, have sexual intercourse with your male assistants and then give a teary press conference where you confess everything after getting caught. You know, kind of like the GOP definition of family values, where you berate others for their liberalism while spending party money at S&M gentlemen's clubs. You know. That definition. ;)

Neither one works. By definition the "straight guys" you are seeking .... aint.

[cobra]

Neither one works. By definition the "straight guys" you are seeking .... aint.

By definition, it was a hypothetical question... And one, apparently, you are not comfortable enough with your own sexuality, straight or otherwise, to answer. Why does a hypothetical question on an anonymous forum make you uncomfortable?

[NewStretch]

? I don't get it... asking a straight guy "if he was gonna have sex w/another man?" kinda paradoxical, haha. And what kind of sex? If a straight guy was gonna try man-on-man sex of some type, for some reason (wouldn't that make him bi?), I don't think the other dude's cut/intact status would be the deciding factor. I would think it would be more about how comfortable he felt to experiment w/the other dude, and depending on what they had in mind to do, I imagine most guys' penis preference, if any, would be that the other guy's penis was rather small, ha ha!

A better way to phrase this question might be, "If you were a girl (but obviously knowing what you know abt the issue), what do you think you'd think abt having sex with a guy based on his circ status?" or something like that. In that case, I dunno, but I don't believe in premarital sex anyway, and so I don't think that whether I chose to marry cut guy A vs intact guy B would be based on their circ status. Knowing what I know now abt the functions of a foreskin, and how there are benefits to both the guy and girl during intercourse, I'm sure I would appreciate the intact one more as far as sex is concerned, and I would certainly want to keep any sons born to me intact. But if the guy was awesome and we were in love, I would still like him even if he was cut. Even if he had a little dinky penis. Why? Sex isn't everything; just like if I was in love with a girl, she wouldn't have to have the perfect breasts or figure or whatever. Physical attractiveness is impt, but I would never make one specific thing a deal breaker. I agree w/Taoist, that's pretty shallow, and it seems like a lot of gay men get so fetishistic and shallow abt certain things like that. (Some straight guys do, too, but it's usually all talk when it comes down to it) Like, it seems to me there is so much racism in the gay community that never gets talked abt bec of the queer "minority" status. But the kinds of things that many gay men say about their racial preferences and fetishes, most straight guys could never say, for fear of being branded racists. In particular, it seems like there is a lot of white supremacist feelings among white gays.

[JB320]

I have a question for the strictly straight members of this forum.

If you were going to have sex with another man, would his cut/intact status make any difference to you?

This is purely theoretical so don't be uptight about it. This is more about what value we place on the intactness of others versus how we feel about it in relation to ourselves. If you were going to do something like that, would you be disappointed if your partner turned out to be cut? Would it be a "deal breaker"? With our kids' generation coming up almost 50/50 intact, there is soon going to be more debate about this issue.

As a straight guy, I can say that having a penis and not a vagina would be the "deal breaker". You cannot ask this question to straight guys since we prefer women over men.

[admin]

I don't believe in premarital sex

I for one think it exists.

[BamaDude]

As a straight guy, I can say that having a penis and not a vagina would be the "deal breaker".
The question wasn't the direct "When having sex with another man, does his cut/intact status make any difference to you?", but the hypothetical "If you were going to have sex with another man, would his cut/intact status make any difference to you?". No-one is saying it has to happen, has happened, or ever will happen.

You cannot ask this question to straight guys since we prefer women over men.
But that's exactly why Cobra did direct the question to straight guys: In theory, guys who prefer women instead of other guys should be able to give an otherwise unbiased answer to the question.

[cobra]

Part of the reason circumcision persists is our god-awful cultural horror of the penis. Women talk about their parts day in and day out. They talk about it on daytime television, stuff the magazine racks with articles about their vaginas, their orgasms, yet some of us men can't even answer a hypothetical question.

Years back, I remember seeing programs about women's group sex sessions where all the gals would gather in a circle and examine their vaginas with mirrors, stimulate themselves to orgasm, and kind of explore their sexuality in a group. It was sort of a sexual self-help fad. Here were all these ladies, flicking their beans in front of each other, while therapists went around the circle and gave them encouragement and advice.

I can't imagine men doing anything of the sort.

Most of them would be too scared.

Scared?

Yep.

You guys are scared of your own dicks and your own sexuality. Most of you.

This is a simple, hypothetical question.

If we were open about our bodies and our sexuality, half of us probably wouldn't be here trying to restore, because circumcision thrives on sexual shame, ignorance and fear of ridicule. Imagine if we were as open-minded and brave as those women exploring their sexuality... if we could discuss mens sexual health issues without squeamishness... if we could compare dicks. Circumcision would be much less prevalent because we would have realized along time ago that intact was better.

But nope... we're too scared. Lets keep it all hush hush so we don't embarass ourselves.

I don't intend to sound harsh or annoyed. I'm just pointing it out. That's just the way it is right now, I guess. Just another symptom of the sociosexual oppression of men in our culture.

There is nothing dirty, silly or shameful about the penis. It is not wicked or wrong to educate yourselves about penises, or discuss sexuality in all its forms.

Shame and this sexual double standard of what is permissible for men to do in our culture are two things which allow circumcision to thrive. It creates an atmosphere of fear and ignorance.

[woody130]

well said and agree

[Americut]

if we could discuss mens sexual health issues without squeamishness... if we could compare dicks.


I think this could never happen due to the variations in penis size, and everyone's issues with that. The "little" guy next to the "big" guy would be too full of shame to even be there in the first place. When woman compare their parts, there is nothing of this sort. What are they going to do, stick a ruler in there and see whose vagina is deeper? "My pussy is longer, meah!". Nope. And then of course they don't have to worry about the "cut vs. uncut" bullshit. Woman's variations are all natural, and widely acceptable. So yeah, men can't be comfortable with themselves, and society isn't going to let them either.

[cobra]

One thing men need to realize is that size is not that important. I know some women say it is important, but most do not. They tell us that over and over, but it never seems to sink in with some guys (usually the bigger guys, who hang their ego on it). Technique, passion, confidence... these three things are way more important.

I think this whole size issue is a uniquely American one to some degree, due to the high prevalence of circumcision. It is a outgrowth of our lack of sensation. Men believe they are too small when they are merely missing skin. I have seen, time and again, guys on PE forums with MASSIVE schlongs trying to add more length to their penis. It's no coincidence they want to add the exact same length to their penis that their foreskin would extend to if they were intact.

This idea of size being soooo important is also a result of our gender being so sexually repressed regarding homosexual exploration. If any of you ever fooled around with another guy, you would realize that size is very unimportant compared to passion and technique. There is a point as well when size becomes a problem. You can do a whole lot more with an average size penis than a monster cock.

It's kind of a catch-22, in that we will not ever be able to realize these things without becoming relaxed enough sexually to explore these things, but these are the issues which keep us too scared to become relaxed with our sexuality.

We just need to remind ourselves that our dicks are not wicked, sinful or dirty. We need to allow ourselves to be curious, uninhibited and passionate. If we want to bring circumcision to an end, we have to be willing to speak out against it, and unashamed of our sexuality.

We have been taught as a gender to be ashamed of our bodies and afraid of expressing any sexual impulses that fall outside the strictures of what our society tells us is acceptable. Is there any other definition of sexual oppression more apt than that?

The sad thing is: we have the keys to the shackles which bind us. No one is doing it to us except ourselves.

[Unregistered]

? I don't get it... asking a straight guy "if he was gonna have sex w/another man?" kinda paradoxical, haha. And what kind of sex? If a straight guy was gonna try man-on-man sex of some type, for some reason (wouldn't that make him bi?), I don't think the other dude's cut/intact status would be the deciding factor. I would think it would be more about how comfortable he felt to experiment w/the other dude, and depending on what they had in mind to do, I imagine most guys' penis preference, if any, would be that the other guy's penis was rather small, ha ha!

A better way to phrase this question might be, "If you were a girl (but obviously knowing what you know abt the issue), what do you think you'd think abt having sex with a guy based on his circ status?" or something like that. In that case, I dunno, but I don't believe in premarital sex anyway, and so I don't think that whether I chose to marry cut guy A vs intact guy B would be based on their circ status. Knowing what I know now abt the functions of a foreskin, and how there are benefits to both the guy and girl during intercourse, I'm sure I would appreciate the intact one more as far as sex is concerned, and I would certainly want to keep any sons born to me intact. But if the guy was awesome and we were in love, I would still like him even if he was cut. Even if he had a little dinky penis. Why? Sex isn't everything; just like if I was in love with a girl, she wouldn't have to have the perfect breasts or figure or whatever. Physical attractiveness is impt, but I would never make one specific thing a deal breaker. I agree w/Taoist, that's pretty shallow, and it seems like a lot of gay men get so fetishistic and shallow abt certain things like that. (Some straight guys do, too, but it's usually all talk when it comes down to it) Like, it seems to me there is so much racism in the gay community that never gets talked abt bec of the queer "minority" status. But the kinds of things that many gay men say about their racial preferences and fetishes, most straight guys could never say, for fear of being branded racists. In particular, it seems like there is a lot of white supremacist feelings among white gays.

Apparently you are not comfortable enough with your own sexuality either. Don't start throwing logic around, you will be attacked.

[Someone mundane]

I smell a big warty troll... Gonna need some acid and fire in here to help root it out. :D

...I'm just messing around. On a serious note, my answer to this question would be the same as the seeming majority. It'd probably be preferable, but not deciding.

[Regener8]

if i were into it ... uncut only. more skin the better for sure.

[Americut]

One thing men need to realize is that...
I agree with what you're saying. I am absolutely average sized, and have never had the slightest problem with that. I told that to someone once and they said something like "yeah, keep telling yourself you don't want a huge dick". What can I say to that... I don'twant a huge dick. I never have and I never will. What I have works perfectly good for my lady and I (save for the lack of further and much anticipated slack, but I'm working on it!!!). And you're probably right - So many guys wanting to make their dicks bigger, without realizing their issue isn't necessarily size. They're missing something far more important, but they can't understand it. I've always been suspicious about the huge "male enhancement" market in America, specifically. They're all so oblivious, but hey it's not entirely their fault. It's not our fault we were sexually handicapped at birth.

[cobra]

? I don't get it... asking a straight guy "if he was gonna have sex w/another man?" kinda paradoxical, haha. And what kind of sex? If a straight guy was gonna try man-on-man sex of some type, for some reason (wouldn't that make him bi?), I don't think the other dude's cut/intact status would be the deciding factor. I would think it would be more about how comfortable he felt to experiment w/the other dude, and depending on what they had in mind to do, I imagine most guys' penis preference, if any, would be that the other guy's penis was rather small, ha ha!

A better way to phrase this question might be, "If you were a girl (but obviously knowing what you know abt the issue), what do you think you'd think abt having sex with a guy based on his circ status?" or something like that. In that case, I dunno, but I don't believe in premarital sex anyway, and so I don't think that whether I chose to marry cut guy A vs intact guy B would be based on their circ status. Knowing what I know now abt the functions of a foreskin, and how there are benefits to both the guy and girl during intercourse, I'm sure I would appreciate the intact one more as far as sex is concerned, and I would certainly want to keep any sons born to me intact. But if the guy was awesome and we were in love, I would still like him even if he was cut. Even if he had a little dinky penis. Why? Sex isn't everything; just like if I was in love with a girl, she wouldn't have to have the perfect breasts or figure or whatever. Physical attractiveness is impt, but I would never make one specific thing a deal breaker. I agree w/Taoist, that's pretty shallow, and it seems like a lot of gay men get so fetishistic and shallow abt certain things like that. (Some straight guys do, too, but it's usually all talk when it comes down to it) Like, it seems to me there is so much racism in the gay community that never gets talked abt bec of the queer "minority" status. But the kinds of things that many gay men say about their racial preferences and fetishes, most straight guys could never say, for fear of being branded racists. In particular, it seems like there is a lot of white supremacist feelings among white gays.

Whaaattt? I liked your post up until you started talking about white gays being racist. Where did you get that? Having a preference is not racism. I like redheaded white women. That doesn't make me a white supremacist.

I also don't think gay men are any more fetishistic than straight men. I mean, come on. The only thing that makes a gay guy's turn ons seems fetishistic to you is that they are gay acts, and they seem more "out there" to you. That's just a reaction due to familiarity and comfort-level.

Don't you realize that giving women big creamy facials, two girls going down on you at the same time, and jacking off on high heels are fetishes just as much as sucking dick at a glory hole? Is there, technically, any difference between docking and choking a chick while you fuck her?

Everybody has little fetishes which turn them on. We often "imprint" on certain things when we are younger-- say, for instance, a guy developing a sexual response to womens high heels, because his beautiful aunt with the million dollar gams used to wear high heel shoes around him when he was maturing sexually.

Anyhoo, I am not too annoyed with some of the negative responses to this topic, as I know many of you are younger guys who are still trying to define yourselves as men and feel a need to assert your "straightness". It's pretty common and kind of amusing to an older guy like me, who has hit middle age and just doesn't worry what anyone thinks anymore. I've had my flings, my kids, and am very content with my life. Hypothetical questions are just make believe, though in retrospect, I wish I just asked a less inflammatory, "If you were a girl..." Being raised as I was by hippy parents with no religious or sexual oppressiveness, it didn't occur to me that my make believe question would hit any nerves.

I think it's great that so many answered that it wouldn't matter, but it's okay to say you would prefer one over the other, too.

[NewStretch]

Re: my quote, "I don't believe in premarital sex"...

I for one think it exists.

Haha, touché!

[NewStretch]

Part of the reason circumcision persists is our god-awful cultural horror of the penis. Women talk about their parts day in and day out. They talk about it on daytime television, stuff the magazine racks with articles about their vaginas, their orgasms, yet some of us men can't even answer a hypothetical question.

Years back, I remember seeing programs about women's group sex sessions where all the gals would gather in a circle and examine their vaginas with mirrors, stimulate themselves to orgasm, and kind of explore their sexuality in a group. It was sort of a sexual self-help fad. Here were all these ladies, flicking their beans in front of each other, while therapists went around the circle and gave them encouragement and advice.

I can't imagine men doing anything of the sort.

Most of them would be too scared.

Scared?

Yep.

You guys are scared of your own dicks and your own sexuality. Most of you.

This is a simple, hypothetical question.

If we were open about our bodies and our sexuality, half of us probably wouldn't be here trying to restore, because circumcision thrives on sexual shame, ignorance and fear of ridicule. Imagine if we were as open-minded and brave as those women exploring their sexuality... if we could discuss mens sexual health issues without squeamishness... if we could compare dicks. Circumcision would be much less prevalent because we would have realized along time ago that intact was better.

But nope... we're too scared. Lets keep it all hush hush so we don't embarass ourselves.

I don't intend to sound harsh or annoyed. I'm just pointing it out. That's just the way it is right now, I guess. Just another symptom of the sociosexual oppression of men in our culture.

There is nothing dirty, silly or shameful about the penis. It is not wicked or wrong to educate yourselves about penises, or discuss sexuality in all its forms.

Shame and this sexual double standard of what is permissible for men to do in our culture are two things which allow circumcision to thrive. It creates an atmosphere of fear and ignorance.

Sorry, Cobra, but you are using some really faulty logic here. For starters, you are accusing the guys here, at THIS SITE, with "You guys are scared of your own dicks and your own sexuality. Most of you." Really? Please re-read that sentence. You are saying this at a site about restoring guy's dicks?! Yeah, we are obviously EXTREMELY afraid of our penises and sexuality, so much so that we belong to a website forum that discusses said objects, where many guys even have pictures of them up, some even erect, in the midst of a society where there are really no other publicly sanctioned places for that. Please consider your audience next time before you make such sweeping, condemning, and illogical statements.

I agree with your comments about our penises not being dirty or shameful (though I disagree slightly in that I believe that some modesty is still appropriate during the normal course of life, in fact, I feel it is more pro-sex than to be, say, a nudist--I know, call me a prude...), but how do you jump from feeling comfortable about our bodies and even talking abt possible negative psychological effects of circumcision to basically calling us sexually repressed because some guys here would not rather have sex with another man (and there could be a variety of reasons for that). How does not wanting to have anal sex with a dude = feeling one's penis is dirty?! One could feel totally secure about one's penis and body and penis size, and be comfortable w/talking about this kind of stuff with other guys, and even post pics of their man rod here on this site, and still not have any interest in screwing another dude. These two concepts (feeling good about one's genitals and homosexual behavior) are not inherently linked in any way, and one's heterosexual preference or morals in this area do not reflect an oppressed or repressed sexuality or anything neurotic or immature.

And yes, sorry, I went off on a major tangent on the gay racist thing, haha, but I do think my point is valid for some gay men. For the sake of clarifying my tangent, I'm not talking about fetishes in general (and one could debate over whether fetishes are a good thing or not in the first place), and yes, there are plenty of straight men who have fetishes of all types, and I am in no way somehow treating those as "better" or "more normal" or "right" than any type of gay fetish.

As to your comment: "I also don't think gay men are any more fetishistic than straight men. I mean, come on. The only thing that makes a gay guy's turn ons seems fetishistic to you is that they are gay acts, and they seem more "out there" to you. That's just a reaction due to familiarity and comfort-level."

No, because I'm not labeling all homosexual acts as fetishistic. I must not have explained that clearly.

"Don't you realize that giving women big creamy facials, two girls going down on you at the same time, and jacking off on high heels are fetishes just as much as sucking dick at a glory hole? Is there, technically, any difference between docking and choking a chick while you fuck her?" A.) Yes, there is a major difference between docking and choking a chick while you fuck her: docking w/another dude (consensually) wouldn't be painful, while choking a girl is a violent act that is even more offensive to me for that very reason; B.) Like I said, not every sexual act is a fetish; if a guy jacked off on a pair of high heels once or twice, it wouldn't be a fetish. If he built a fascination around it, and made it a regular part of his sexual repertoire, let alone got to the point where he couldn't get off unless he had to do that, then it is a fetish, by definition; and C.) It feels like you are assuming that I like your aforementioned heterosexual fantasies! I have problems with the idea of giving girls "facials," just as I have problems with guys having anonymous sex in "glory holes." Different reasons, but I don't feel that either act are expressions of a healthy sexuality, self concept, or relationships.

But back to my earlier racial tangent--I was simply noticing an odd fascination/explicit preference many white gay men seem to have for their own race, often voiced in ways that are generally culturally unacceptable if similarly used to describe women. I even had a gay college professor who alluded to that, and mentioned it as an interesting, though currently rather hush-hush topic in the gay community, even among scholars. It makes me wonder if homosexual behaviour is indeed about more than just sexual attraction, if at least some guys are trying to fulfill unmet needs for affirmation and even cultural/racial identity within themselves though sexual behavior with those with a similar physical and cultural makeup, and considering that whites are basically denied self-aware cultural identity today, I think some use the sexual fetishization of their race and racial characteristics as perhaps an unhealthy way to attempt to meet unmet group-identity needs, because sometimes this may betray a certain type of latent, reactionary racism. It's not too much of a stretch, since studies have been done on the frequent homoerotic content found in Nazi propaganda, etc. And all I'm saying is that sometimes I'm struck at the brashness with which some gay men seem to talk about their own race in such sexualized terms. So, my question is, is it about feeling insecure in their racial identity or is it about their own personal insecurities, or a little bit of both. But sorry, this is WAAAY off topic, haha.

But as far as the idea that having sex w/another man would be a cure for being concerned or obsessed with having a porn strar-sized penis, then please explain to me the size queen phenomenon w/in the gay community! Sure, some very "experienced" women have a thing for unusually large penises, but there are WAAAY more gay men who fetishize large penises. Many misinformed straight (and gay and bi) men express some concern about penis size, but studies also show that most men, at the end of the day, are quite satisfied and content with their penis size, much more than most females are about, say, their breast size. However, the fetishization of penis size, where it does exist, takes on new heights for many in the gay community, men who, according to your theory, ought to know better. But with the phallus being symbolic of masculinity, if a man feels less than fully masculine in other ways, then having a large phallus is a tangible, physical symbol of this mythic masculinity, and so, the bigger, the better, so to speak, whether its one's own or another's. Just a thought.

[Arthur]

I don't have anything relevant to add to most of this but since we're so far off topic in this thread already, I just wanted to throw this out there.. I'm a caucasian gay male. I've never had a serious relationship with another caucasian man. I generally prefer hispanic men, although my partner of 6 years (fully monogamous, who knew it existed?!) is American born Chinese. I have had black partners (you really can go back, don't believe the hype) also. I'm not sure what queens you've met, but I don't think what you're describing is any sort of actual phenomena. Just my 2 cents.

[cobra]

I don't think I was being overly critical. I think the members of this forum are very forward thinking and brave, compared to the society we live in, but if we were so comfortable with this process, why do so many men contribute to this forum anonymously? Why are there so few public restoring groups? Why so few marches and public demonstrations? Putting a picture of your penis online, with no way to identify it with its owner, is not brave. A full body shot with penis would be brave! I myself would be shocked at the restorer's boldness. I don't intend to be critical, only point out the truth (as I see it). I myself would be hesitant to identify myself, not because of my own personal shame, but mainly because of the repression of the community I live in. Finally, I think it would be awesome if we could all "come out of the closet" with our restoring and posted face shots so that people in our community could approach us and ask us about our beliefs and experiences. That day may come, but for now we all have to be cautious. Restoring is often considered "loonie" and "weird", not a yoke you want to take on lightly in a public venue.

I agree with your comments about our penises not being dirty or shameful (though I disagree slightly in that I believe that some modesty is still appropriate during the normal course of life, in fact, I feel it is more pro-sex than to be, say, a nudist--I know, call me a prude...), but how do you jump from feeling comfortable about our bodies and even talking abt possible negative psychological effects of circumcision to basically calling us sexually repressed because some guys here would not rather have sex with another man (and there could be a variety of reasons for that). How does not wanting to have anal sex with a dude = feeling one's penis is dirty?! One could feel totally secure about one's penis and body and penis size, and be comfortable w/talking about this kind of stuff with other guys, and even post pics of their man rod here on this site, and still not have any interest in screwing another dude. These two concepts (feeling good about one's genitals and homosexual behavior) are not inherently linked in any way, and one's heterosexual preference or morals in this area do not reflect an oppressed or repressed sexuality or anything neurotic or immature.

I didn't say it was repressed to not have sex with another man. I said it was repressed to not be able to answer a hypothetical question. I have great respect for everyone's sexual preferences. We are who we are and should always strive to be true to ourselves. I just question the open-mindedness of men who can't, for the sake of a trivial question, say, "Well, if I pretended for a moment that I was going to have sex with another man, I would... etc." I think it is telling that you misinterpreted me in such a manner.

I think you are stereotyping gay men quite a bit. They don't go around all day in assless leather chaps with giant dildos in their butts. Calling them racist or fetishistic as a group is kind of offensive. Most gay men are just like every other guy you know. In fact, 10% of the men you know ARE gay men, including a few of your family members, and your circle of friends. They are fathers, sons, sports stars, clergymen, military, movie stars, and the guy who works at the coffee shop. They are as ordinary as all the rest of the people you know. It think it's very weird that you have all these extreme ideas about what gay men think and do, considering how straight you are. Sounds an awful lot like "Asian people are bad drivers" and "black people like fried chicken" type pronunciations to me. You should probably try to check that before you offend someone without intending to. I know you don't mean any harm, but your ideas about gays are kind of prejudiced.

To wrap this post up, once again, no one's telling you you have to have sex with anyone. The question was simply a "what if?" Only now, I think, for you particularly, the hesitance to answer a simple "what if" question is more out of prejudice than sexual oppression. Your posts stink of disdain for homosexuals. You have every right to your opinion. I'm just stating mine.

[cobra]

Oh, one other thing I wanted to add: straight porn is wayyyy more concerned with size than gay porn. Seems all the straight porn that gets pumped out right now are extremely fetishistic, with both the male and female performers overly tan, overly shaved, and overly endowed. The women with big fake boobs and the men with shaved dicks and balls that start in size at a base measurement somewhere around 7 or 8 inches minimum. We sell porn at my video shop, and all of us who work there laugh at how much "big dick" porn we sell to straight guys. Big dick porn and double penetration porn always sells twice as much as any other straight porn.

I'm just generalizing, but taken as a whole, modern straight American porn seems very sterile and unnaturally proportioned to me. What's with all the shaved beaver and hairless bodybuilder men with giant dongs? It seems, to me, to be an attempt to dehumanize and sterilize sex for the American masses, to make them into plastic and inhuman sex objects.

I much prefer Euro porn. They let it all hang out, warts and all. I like porn with ordinary-looking people in it, bushy beavers, little tittles, and normal sized schlongs. Generally speaking.

[Unregistered]

I am uncircumcised myself & would much prefer playing with an intact penis if I were of that persuasion. An uncircumcised penis just has more moving parts &, I think, is more fun to play with although I have only played with my own

[mf40restore]

I think "admins," response is beautiful.... If I had to service a man I'd want him intact too.

[WoundedBird]

I don't think it's totally shallow to be somewhat turned off by a leathery, tightly cut dick. I have been with guys who really can't feel much of anything, and are so keratinized they feel like leather or even sandpaper in my mouth...that is not sexy. What's important to me is the guy can still get a good amount of pleasure out of sex. I do vastly prefer intact or loosely cut. Giving head to and getting fucked by a wet, sensitive, gliding dick is much more pleasurable than a numb, dry, tight dick.

I am very much in love and don't plan on having to go looking for another guy. I do believe I would passionately love him no matter what his dick was like. He and I connect on many deep levels. However, the fact that he is so loosely cut that he functions like an intact man...has erect coverage, intact and functioning frenulum, lots of prostratic fluid (precum), plenty of gliding action...Well, yeah, it makes a big difference for me. I consider it icing on the cake, because I would be with him irregardless...but it's some REALLY GOOD icing...

Giving oral sex to someone with that kind of coverage, sensitivity and moistness is on another level from going down on a guy with a tight circumcision.

I've thought briefly about sex with women, but it REALLY doesn't appeal to me. Kudos to you straight guys for engaging in this discussion, lol.