I was just reading Gitti's post on another thread "Found these. . ." where she mentions her grandson talking about how his penis is 'long' because he's intact.
It reminded me that I recently saw a real circumcised penis on a 4-year-old at my mother's house.
After the initial shock, my first thought was that it was extremely small!
Granted my only 'references' are my own 2-year old son, and my daugher's playmates (all intact), and they all look about the same to me. Do all circumcised children look that way?
I'm sure it must improve at puberty, right?
(Frank, I know there's a lot of variety--I read that thread, too, LOL!)
But this little boy who is otherwise twice the size of my toddler looked, in this instance to be half the size.
I wonder, given the psyche of the 'average' American male if this would be a valuable argument. ("Size does matter, so leave your little boy whole!" and other catchy bumperstickers)
I certainly did a double-take, but perhaps I would not have even noticed had he been whole and natural. . .
(I know this child's mother somewhat too, and while she and I are very different mothers, I still can't quite believe she'd do that!)
Anyone else have this experience, or am I just imagining things? (Who said that!?)