Dopers who have male partners

If you’ve had sex with men who are cut and men who are intact, which is harder (heehee) to get used to- foreskin or no foreskin?

No difference whatsoever.

Why are you wondering, sir? :smiley:

Seriously - no difference.

random curiosity. (circumcised BTW)

No difference.

I prefer the looks of “no-foreskin”, but really can’t tell the difference once it’s up my–um–anal cavity…

Beyond my first “hey, what’s that?” reaction, no difference whatsoever.

No difference.

No difference, though aesthetically I prefer uncut.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘getting used to’.
I’m an American female, and over an experience of about 30 years have had probably an 80/20 ratio cut/uncut, with first and majority of exposures being cut.

From the female point of penetrative sex, I can’t feel any difference.
From the oral point of sex, it’s a little different, but so is each male; the differences are no greater than that between your very first and your most recent, imo. Can’t think of any tips or tricks there except to not worry about it, it’s nothing.

Visually, it depends on what you are ‘used’ to; as Americans still tend to be cut, the look might be offputting at first just because it’s ‘different’, but good luck to you if you ever date more than a couple guys, cause you will see differences larger than a movable top. :stuck_out_tongue:

The only thing to get ‘used to’ that I can really think of is to understand that uncut men should probably wash afterwards, to avoid yeast infections. No more worriesome than women taking precautions against UTIs.
So…did I hit any of the marks of the question, or is there something else about penis’ about which I am unaware? :stuck_out_tongue:

^ What she said. Really, I was about to type almost exactly that.

Was probably more put off when I first encountered a lover who was missing a testicle. For about a minute and a half. Even with that, from my viewpoint there wasn’t a damn bit of difference there, either, when we got down to doing the beast with two backs.

Might be an issue for a young adult, the 16-25 crowd who are virgin or newly active, but when you get to my age - pfft! - it’s about a big a deal as a pierced ear or a scar on the chin from when someone fell out of bed at age 10 or something. I might at some point confess to an aesthetic preference, but it’s in no way a deal killer. I mean, heck, I might like men 5 foot 6 with dark hair and blue eyes but I’ve dated blonds over six feet (didn’t keep that one). I like men with beards but my spouse of 20 years couldn’t grow one to save his life (too much Cherokee in him). All of us will wind up wrinkled, bald, and toothless if we live long enough, and beside that thought of old people sex the state of the end of a man’s penis just doesn’t seem like a big deal.

This in no way detracts from the fact that for some men it IS a big deal to them. I realize there’s quite a bit of controversy regarding circumcision, but from my viewpoint, if I was considering having sex with a man cut or uncut is a complete non-issue.

That’d be “up the butt”, Bob.


Thanks. :stuck_out_tongue:

For hand& mouth jobs, uncut has more possibilities. Otherwise, no dif.

And if you use a condom, uncut guys (or their partner) will have to remember to (gently!) pull the foreskin back before putting the condom on. I guess (disclaimer: WASG, I’m straight male and circumcision is rather uncommon in my part of the world) cut guys don’t have to think about that.

Not that it’s much of a hassle, though :stuck_out_tongue:

I aesthetically prefer cut, but I don’t care about it beyond that.

No difference. It retracts when erect, so it doesn’t even look different.

Not necessarily by itself. That’s the basis for non-circumcised masturbation.

If you want examples, look at some ancient Greek erotic images. Those guys sport decently-sized erections with the foreskin covering the glans