It seems the reprised weekly sex column of The Badger Herald has been misunderstood. The initial point of the column was to entertain questions and problems submitted by readers and answer them in a helpful and hopefully entertaining fashion, a la “Savage Love” or “Talk Sex With Sue Johanson.” Obviously, the principle topic should be sex, but we’d fancy any kind of contact. We essentially want you readers to dictate what fills this column. But that hasn’t really been realized, and until it is, the column will continue to run expos?s on various sex-related topics of our choosing, this particular one focusing on a personal favorite: cocks!
Before we get into the meatier issues, a few words on terminology are called for. As adults, our word choice for genitalia ought to reflect our adulthood. Thus, while calling it a “wiener,” “pee-pee,” “ding-dong” or whatnot may have been appropriate, oh, in third grade, now you just sound like an idiot. Now, a wiener means a dog breed or hot dog, a ding-dong is an awful Hostess cupcake treat, and a pee-pee is just nothing.
While one can’t go wrong with simply “penis,” this often feels slightly awkward and overly anatomical. Saying “nice wiener!” will surely kill the mood, yet saying “nice penis,” though a definite improvement, makes you sound a bit like a creepy doctor. Alternatives such as “dick” and “pecker” pass the test of not sounding childish but are a bit dated and sound awkward unless you’re in the sack with someone who grew up watching “Happy Days.” In the context of sexual activity, “cock” works best to convey meaning without detracting from the mood. It’s short, to the point and a vocalic aperture that makes you open your mouth nice and wide. Yes, it might sound dirty or vulgar, but if anything, that contributes to the sexual atmosphere.
OK, so now equipped with the proper vocabulary, let’s talk about cocks. While penis terminology is an interesting enough topic to warrant an entire column, it would seem too unsubstantial (so e-mail me instead!). What is actually a sensitive spot, desperately in need of enlightenment, is the topic of circumcision.
While being circumcised (cut) or uncircumcised (uncut) is definitely a personal matter since it pertains to your genitals, it should not be the source of shame or embarrassment that so frequently occurs in U.S. culture, in which the general bias, especially in the Midwest, is against uncut cocks. But is this bias well-founded or shared by other cultures? Not particularly. Compared to other English-speaking countries, the U.S. has a drastically high circumcision rate. Cut men are in the minority globally as well, given an estimated 30-34 percent of males worldwide are circumcised, while the rate in the U.S. is double that.
What is peculiar about the U.S. tradition of circumcision is that, unlike in predominantly Jewish and Muslim cultures, the surgery is widely performed outside the realm of religious motivation. Its popularity has been explained by several theories, among them germ phobia and the claim that cut cocks are more hygienic and prevent diseases. These theories account for high circumcision rates from the ’40s to ’80s, peaking at upward of 90 percent by some reports. Curiously, though, those rates have been falling rather sharply, as newborn circumcision in the U.S. is hovering around 55 percent, just above half.
Perhaps this is because claims of improved hygiene and disease prevention are unfounded. While there remains debate on the issue, the general consensus among medical organizations is that in a cost-benefit analysis, there is no substantial medical benefit to the procedure. Thus, it seems outside of religious or medical motivations, the main reason for circumcision is the simple desire “to be normal” like everyone else.
While the definition of “normal” is becoming increasingly unclear (and uncut!), our generation is markedly more circumcised, especially those born in the Midwest, which is geographically more fond of the procedure than the West Coast and the South. Thus, many children are the victims of ridicule for their cock being different, a shame that often continues into adulthood — prompting some men to obtain the procedure as adults. This is unsettling.
Sexually speaking, a cut penis functions just the same as an uncut one. Both elongate, harden and eventually ejaculate. In fact, when erect the foreskin on an uncut cock retracts, and the visual difference is significantly less noticeable. Aesthetic comparisons are moot, given their subjective nature, which in this case is conditioned so strongly from what is considered “the norm.” Just because you may never have encountered one does not justify considering uncut penises weird, scary or gross — given the lack of encounter, how would you know anyway?
So, although cut and uncut cocks are functionally, medically and in the U.S. now nearly epidemiologically equivalent, that is not to say they are to be handled (literally) the same. While cocks and their preferred handling vary person to person, there are some differences in technique.
Given the lack of foreskin, cut cocks are more exposed, and thus sensitive to friction, leading many men to opt for lube for ideal handling. While many cut men don’t find lube necessary, even fewer uncut men do, given the natural sliding motion the foreskin provides. When working with an uncut guy, it’s generally best to jack him off by holding his cock and moving the foreskin up and down over the cock. An advantage to the uncut cock is the opportunity for variety, such as pulling back the foreskin and then stroking — though given the sensitivity, lube, moderation and finesse are highly recommended. As for sucking, the foreskin of the uncut cock is generally pulled back to allow for maximized stimulation with the tongue and mouth.
However, again, the foreskin allows for yet another thing to have fun with and enjoy during the sexual act — so be creative and communicate. In regard to sex, whether vaginal or anal, aside from the likely greater circumference of the uncut cock, perhaps warranting a larger condom, the difference is unnoticeable.
The bottom line is a cock is a cock, no matter how much of it is intact, and the discrimination against uncut cocks is totally unfounded (paradoxically, you’d think having less cock would be seen as inferior…). Anyway, this bias seems to be a dying relic of our generation, as today newborns in the U.S. are split evenly, so there is no “norm,” or at least less of one. With the path-dependence of circumcision weakening, and bioethical issues being cited, it is the future of cut cocks that is (amusingly) unclear.
Have comments? Questions? Problems? You know you do. Or if you simply hated this column, write to us and reclaim what was meant for you in the first place: [email protected].
