Anonymous1: Why would you make his dick that dark? It should been whiter to match with his skin. Also why make him uncut? It would have been hotter with him circumcised.
Plus no public hair would've been hotter, not mention he's not even old enough to warrant having that much pubic hair.
Anonymous3(1): Anon 3: Why should I not bother to comment and give feedback? Didn't know that comment section was just praise or silly comments.
Anon 3: Can you not read? I said that it just hotter with no pubic hair. I also said that Jim shouldn't have THAT MUCH pubic hair for his age, not to the point where it looks like a big bush.
What is your picture trying to prove? Or better what is point your trying to make by showing it?
Anonymous5: Anony1 is clearly a child. Most men have darker penis than their skin.. also some younger men have a lot of hair, and Jim even has dark skin and those types of people usually have more hair(not naming any races). I happen to find this realistic and hot, and I love uncut penises. Everything you mentioned are your one sided opinions, which are ALL wrong :) You sound bitter and sad, esp on a site like this.
Anonymous6: Anon1 is a psycho. Most people don’t have a fetish for genital mutilation. I’m glad he has a normal penis. Circumcised dicks are fucking atrocious and unrealistic in most settings.
Decanter: @Anonymous: Buddy, being cut is the cultish thing. Either you're cut because you're Jewish, because you're Muslim from a sect that apes the Jews, or because your parents were Americans influenced by that Kellogg guy who also advocated burning off clits with acid to prevent sexual pleasure. Most people worldwide are not cut.
MarleySoo: @Anonymous: Oy vey, you tell that filthy goyim! Shame on anybody who dare question the perfectly sane act of mutilating an unwilling baby's doodle!
Anonymous9(7): All healthy males are born intact and most are kept that way, as nature intended. Don't you know the medical complications of circumcision, some resulting in a sex change, are more common than phimosis? Even when the procedure is "successful" will still result in a permanently scarred, dried out and keratinized penis with a loss of natural lubrication and sensation. Not to mention the lasting emotional and psychological trauma of the victim.
Anonymous10(7): Do you think those "facts" are cut-and-dried, pun intended? Sexual satisfaction is a matter of opinion, ask a male cut at infancy if they know what being uncut feels like. As far as they know, they feel as sexually satisfied as an uncut male. The real facts will come from males circumcised as adults, and no man in their right mind will get cut for a survey. This makes them the minority in any study conducted, meaning the majority can conclude that "it doesn't affect sexual satisfaction". With a little common sense, wouldn't removing a body part consequently remove all sensation of it? It's insanity to say circumcision results in no change of sensation at all.
Plus no public hair would've been hotter, not mention he's not even old enough to warrant having that much pubic hair.
Anon 3: Can you not read? I said that it just hotter with no pubic hair. I also said that Jim shouldn't have THAT MUCH pubic hair for his age, not to the point where it looks like a big bush.
What is your picture trying to prove? Or better what is point your trying to make by showing it?
- Reply