The Benefits of Foreskin

Fri, 11/15/2013 - 15:27
Submitted by Carlin Ross

We love foreskin.

Not just Betty and Carlin!

Mon, 05/01/2017 - 22:06

 A YouTube playlist of videos by women who say they've been with both cut and uncut partners, and prefer uncut. This playlist includes both videos by Betty and Carlin that talk about the foreskin.

I have a question

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 15:21

I have a question about male circumcision. Does the procedure involve removing the foreskin only at the tip, or is it removed along the entire length of the penis?

Little orgasms in series

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 09:20

In my point of view, the ability to experience little orgasms in series is one of the main advantages of the foreskin:

The foreskin is a lip

Mon, 10/12/2015 - 02:20

"[=#333333; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 2em; line-height: 1.1; text-align: center; background-color: #f1f1f1]An erogenous and protective-of-[/]erogeneity[=#333333; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 2em; line-height: 1.1; text-align: center; background-color: #f1f1f1] lip, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is mutilation"[/]
h[= 12.8px]ttps://[/]

Women can help end male genital cutting

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 09:46

Excellent video!  Many people don't realize that male genital cutting (MGC, euphemistically called circumcision) also has adverse effects on women.  Thank you for helping to educate prospective parents about the value of the prepuce (foreskin). 
I have two suggestions: 1) Your statement on the Jewish practice of MGC implied tacit acceptance of this procedure.  Since infants are incapable of choosing a religion, subjecting a newborn to irreversible body alteration violates his freedom of religion.  2) Please do not use the pejorative term "uncircumcised," which connotes an abnormal or incomplete condition.  The more accepted term is "intact."
Please see our website:   

"making love to oneself" and not ""

Fri, 12/06/2013 - 06:49

Please do not use a depreciative term, refering to "turpitude" or "trouble", to designate autosexuality.

Foreskin Video

Thu, 11/21/2013 - 13:27

This video about foreskin hit home for me. I was not circumcised as a baby. I was circumcised at age 17 after I was in the bathtub and couldn't get the foreskin to go back over the glans. My doctor "clipped" me and said I needed to be circumcised, which he did later that week. After a few weeks, the sensitivity was much less and throughout my adult life I have not had the sensitivity I had before I was circumcised. I still wonder if there was not another answer to my problem that day, other than circumcision.

It became more of a problem when I got to my late 60's. I began to have trouble  ejaculating inside my wife's vagina, which I really like to do. The sensitivity was not there. In recent years, our sex life is still great, but I have not ejaculated inside her vagina for a long time. We have intercourse and it feels great, but I can't get "over the top" to ejaculate. My wife uses her toys to have her orgasm and I use a Fleshlight or other device for my ejaculation.

I do not support circumcision for all the obvious reasons in Betty and Carlin's video, but also in my case, because when you get to middle/older age, the penis is not as sensitive as it needs to be to bring an ejaculation.


Foreskin advantages

Sun, 11/17/2013 - 20:10
Jeffrey65802 (not verified)

Only advantage I'm aware of is more or less automatic qualification into the Nazi party. :)

This is such a hot button issue online at least it has to be poked fun at. Just because something's naturally occuring in the human body doesn't mean removing it isn't a good idea. We don't attach this level of love to our appendix, and I've yet to hear what that's for. :) The foreskin on males is only a thing because anti-semites have made it one. From comics of Foreskin Man with evil Jews coming to steal baby boys' foreskins to more insidious and covert attem,pts at using pseudoscientific jargon to make a case for not removing it, it's merely one more attempt to get the world on the backs of Jews.

I've been with guys both with and without their foreskin and from a purely tactile position prefer circumcized. Forskin in the mouth is like a pubic hair on the tongue during head, very noticeable and very annoying as it flops around on your tongue and in your mouth prior to full erection.

Insteadof trying to ban male circumcision altogether for everyone, what I would support is simply being able to opt out o fit when babies are born at hospitals. I'm surprised it isn't that way already and always has been. If it has then you really have to ask why the supposed controversy at all? Just say not to circumcision. But when you try to forbid it to everyone, the only reason to do so is you have some agenda.


Thu, 11/21/2013 - 18:43

I do no think anyone is advocating to ban all circumcision. 
Instead, people are advocating to protect the rights of those who are not able to protect themselves, infants.
You may disagree that the foreskin has value.  And you may argue that the many studies and reports of sexual benefits the foreskin provdes are not credible.  And yiou may choose to get circumcised.  And I know of no one trying to prevent you from doing that.  You are an adult and can make that choice.
But a baby cannot.  True, you offer that it should be that way, that people can opt out if they do not want to have their foreskin amputated.  But a baby cannot.  All the baby can do is cry.
As a society, we protect the rights of children and others unable to protect themselves.  We do not allow female circumcsion fo infants, for example.  We (as a society) step in and make parents allow their chidren to receive blood transfusion, even if the parents do not agree.
People, especially infants and children, have the right to bodily inegrity.  They have the right to be secure in their person and protected from those who would harm them.
Parents have limited authority to decide, as a surrogate, if medical treatment is needed.  This means that 1) there is a condition that requires a deciioon be made before they child is old enough to make the decsion for themselves, and 2) there is no alternative treatment that would be good enough for the time being.
Infant circumcision does not meet these criteria.  And there is no way to know what the child's preference would be whne they are an adult.  In addition, the doctor cannot predcit the outcome if iut is doen as an ainfant, because the penis is undeveloped. 
In fact, there is a much better argument to be made for waiting.  Unfortunately, the medical community and society promotes RIC via fear mongering, minimizing the value of foreskin, and biased information.  Equating the foreskin to hair only sounds sensible to you because of this.
It is a controversy, simply because infant circumcsion is an outlier and violate human rights.  there is no other example of amputating healthy and important body parts for no valid medical reason.  There used to be, however.  Infant female circumcision was not always against the law.  In older times, some young men were castrated to keep their lovely voice.
But today, infan t circumcsion is an anomoly, against well established human rights, against doctors oaths, and against numerous laws.  The fact that it still is done is testament to our irrational nature.


Mon, 11/18/2013 - 15:15
Jake E

Well what do you know! :) Infant circumcision deplays a real disrespect for other people. Something all the sects who are constantly waring, like waring Jews and waring Muslims and waring Catholics. An agression that is largely seated in scripture and ingrained into very distastfull doctrines that have caused millions of needless tragedies. 


Mon, 11/18/2013 - 13:16

We don't attach this level of love to our appendix, and I've yet to hear what that's for.
Our lack of love is because not much is known about what it does in humans except that it can become infected.  But we only ever remove it when it becomes a problem!  (Removing it "just in case" from someone healthy would obviously be considered unethical.)
In fact, research from the last year or so suggests that the appendix can act as a reservoir for "good bacteria" when the immune system has to fight an infection elsewhere in the gut.

Why RIC is sadly wrong

Mon, 11/18/2013 - 00:56

As an intact male who has been married 25 years, I can attest that this video is excellent.
Watch this video 2-3x with an open mind, and you will learn a number of advantages.
Is it plausible that the male foreskin is a mistake of nature?
The people who the attention of the First World and the Muslim world on the foreskin, are the Jews, esp. Genesis 17, which claims that the obligation to circumcise came from God himself.
Many of us who detest routine circumcision also detest Foreskin Man.
Talk to women, such as Betty and Carlin, who've been penetrated by both kinds of men. Tumblr now has blogs devoted to women foreskin fetishists.
Parents today can simply opt out of infant circumcision. But that was not the case before 1980 or so, when circumcision was the maternity ward default. Here's why circumcision at birth remains controversial:
1. It hurts like hell, because most USA doctors still refuse to employ effective anesthesia.
2. Europe and Japan have never cut babies. The UK and New Zealand used to, but completely gave up the practice. In Australia and Canada, it's now a minority practice. There is no evidence that First World countries that do not circumcise have worse health outcomes than those that do (Korea, Israel, USA).
3. There is no research on the possible adverse outcomes of infant circumcision for adult sexual pleasure and function. Hence when we circumcise a baby, we literally are diving into the unknown.
If (1) - (3) were taken on board, it would be wrong for doctors to perform RIC, and wrong for parents to request it

Great Video

Sun, 11/17/2013 - 06:39

Thanks for doing this video.  Too many people discount the value of foreskins.  As someone who was circumcised at birth, but has mostly restored my foreskin, I know what the value is for sexual pleasure.  And my wife now knows what a foreskin adds to her experience, now that she has experienced a foreskin.  The difference is amazing, for both of us.


Fri, 11/15/2013 - 16:25
Jake E

not everyone loves the foreskin 

I wonder if the WHO is OK with this because as a 1st option precautionary treatment it seems really disrespectful. It treats people as if they're cattle who can't understand a well targeted public health message and so one isn't presented. I'm aware that the policy is african, but I wonder if people who would never coerce Europeans  into circumcision are quite happy to assist African countries to do that. 

20 million circumcisions. That's a lot of dollars.