Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
Via Fotolia
I’ll be honest; I had to do a lot of research before sitting down to write this article. I have only come into contact with one uncircumcised penis during my short stint as a single adult woman, and it didn’t really seem to be that big of a deal at the time.
However, when it comes to uncircumcised (commonly spelled "uncercumsized") penises, there’s more than meets the eye . Approximately 50% of men are “uncut,” which is really how the penis is meant to be in the first place (not many men outside the United States are circumcised). Circumcision originated among ancient religious populations as a way to purify man by removing the source of his sexual pleasure. This tradition has held its ground into the 21st century, which can lead to quite a bit of confusion when a woman unexpectedly comes into contact with a penis au naturale.
It may surprise you to learn that the foreskin itself, before it is separated from its owner, is extremely sensitive to pleasure. During circumcision two very important things are removed that will never grow back: the frenulum, the band near the tip of the penis that connects the foreskin with the glans, and then of course, the foreskin and all the nerve endings that go along with it.
Not only are these sources of pleasure eliminated during circumcision, but the shaft of the penis is left unprotected and slowly loses its responsiveness through a process called keratinization. In an article published in Fathering Magazine, Rio Cruz explains that “the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the clitoris and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue.”
The main difference in having sex with an uncircumcised penis is that the foreskin acts as a glider of sorts, and it stays in place while the glans and shaft continue to thrust. This leads to less friction in the vagina and thus a more pleasurable experience for the female. For circumcised men who are experiencing gradual loss of sensation throughout the course of their lifetime, there actually is a process of foreskin restoration that involves the use of tape and weights (?).
So when all is said and done, you (and your partner) are actually likely to have much better sex with a penis that is uncircumcised. If you’re performing oral sex and looking for tips, just focus your efforts on the ridge just below the glans and use your hand to help the foreskin go with the flow. That's all there is to it!
Add a Comment294 Comments
"To better understand a religious requirement, you have to read and reference the religious texts. Genesis 17:11 very clearly states circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. It goes on to require all males in a household bound by this same covenant to be circumcised. This becomes the basis of the Judeo, Chrisitian and Muslim (www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mosaic_law.htm www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mosaic_law.htm) influence to circumcise sons. The reason the Catholic church and others do not specifically require circumcision is explained in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 17:19 and more) in several verses that Christ replaced the law so circumcision of the heart is more important. Circumcision of sons is still allowed for other reasons."
It always amazes me when Christians try to justify circumcision of their children by trying to quote The Bible. They are trying to make a "good showing."
Your quotations are Mosaic Law or "The Law." Christ came to do away with The Law. At The Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus quite forcefully spoke against circumcision and this angered many there as it was a Jewish celebration. This was the final straw that got him crucified. The Pharisees thought they had cut the head off of the emerging Christianity movement but the disciples continued to spread the word and gain converts. The Pharisees saw this as a threat to Judaism and set out to deceive and convert the disciples and bring them into Judaism. However, they required the disciples to submit to Mosaic Law and submit to circumcision. Some of the disciples were confused by the offer while some stood fast. To resolve this conflict, The Council of Jerusalem was called to discuss the issue and to come to an agreement and a common message. Apparently, the disciples realized that this was a trick and if the offer was accepted, the movement would come to an end and in due time, all record and memory of Christ would be destroyed and forgotten. This message is first communicated when Paul was addressing the Galatians in Gal. 5:2. He said "Mark my words! I Paul tell you that if you circumcise yourself Christ will have no value to you at all." What Paul was saying is that for a man circumcised himself, it was a symbolic rejection of Christ. By implication, for a parent to circumcise their son is a symbolic act of rejection by proxy.
Frank O'Hara
March 24, 2010 - 9:18pmThis Comment
Gee, Frank, I think I did say that it was a Jewish and Muslim custom no longer required but still OPTIONAL for Christians. Get down off that high horse, fella.
March 30, 2010 - 12:01pmThis Comment
No, it is not optional for Christians. Jesus himself spoke strongly against circumcision twice and there are adequate scriptures in The New Testament to confirm his teachings. There is also a papal bull (policy statement) against circumcision. The teachings of The New Testament clearly tell us that circumcision is an offense to Christ and a symbolic rejection of Christ. That doesn't sound to me like it is optional.
I have already addressed this in an earlier post.
Frank
March 30, 2010 - 4:58pmThis Comment
So, how did you believe it is optional, when we have this information?
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/islam.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/mormons.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/christians.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/catholics.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/fundamentalism.html
If not, required by Christianity, then how can you reconcile the positions with what is done--mostly in the USA.
March 30, 2010 - 4:03pmThis Comment
"It goes on to require all males in a household bound by this same covenant to be circumcised." And it's very specific that it includes slaves. I wonder if it includes any illegals you happen to employ?
With the rate now down below 60%, he won't be the only intact one - he might even be in the majority. And when your son comes home and asks, "Why are theirs different?" which answer is going to be easier to give - and hear - "Because their parents had part of theirs cut off, but we didn't"? Or "Because we had part of yours cut off, but their parents didn't"?
As for looking like dad, http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/looklike.gif
March 24, 2010 - 2:59pmThis Comment
Yes, slavery was not uncommon in times past. But why would my reference to a scripture lead you to infer that I employ illegals? As far as my son's experience, he is a highly-decorated junior officer in the US military where circumcision is the norm. I'm curious, are you a man? If so, why are you so bitter and mean about this discussion for women about women's opinions on circumcision? What is the matter with you (few) guys?
March 30, 2010 - 12:39pmThis Comment
I did not infer that you employ any illegals. I obviously don't know. I was implying that just as scripture can be used to justify circumcision, it can also (and has been) used to justify slavery, and therefore we should not rely on scripture for our decision-making today.
The military has no policy on circumcision today and your son is as likely to encounter intact men there as anywhere, but I imagine he has figured out the difference by now.
Why are you so surprised than men take exception to women thinking they have a right to irrevocably cut erogenous parts off people who will become men? It is not us there is anything the matter with.
April 1, 2010 - 5:42pmThis Comment
"You may be dismissive of my reasons but, frankly, my husband and I made the decision as we thought best at the time. I bet your parents did the same."
There are some fundamental problems with this concept..
INTENT has no bearing on the outcome--namely there is still a male with a damaged penis.
If a parent is going to choose to damage their son's penis, it should require more than BELIEFS in the myths, superstitions and urban myths to support it, it SHOULD require parents RESEARCH it and determine what REALLY is in HIS best interests.
This leads me to a critical question--what RESEARCH did you and your Husband do before choosing to do this to your son.. this is crucial, because from you posts it seems you deliberately CHOOSE not to even read the evidence posted to you.
March 24, 2010 - 10:58amThis Comment
newsflash - this is for women - go talk all your rediculous penis crap to other misogynists elsewhere
December 15, 2012 - 3:29pmThis Comment
Well, Robert, we didn't have the nifty internet in the 80's. We consulted with our minister and friends. Don't put down my belief system, it's not your right.
March 30, 2010 - 12:24pmThis Comment