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
Great article. According to Canadian Dr. John Taylor who did extensive studying of the nerve endings in the foreskin, circumcision cuts off around 20,000 erogenous nerve endings. According to the Sorrells' study which was done by a group of doctors in California, circumcision cuts off the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis. Circumcised males can have a lot of sexual pleasure, but they can't have nearly as much pleasure as if they had never been circumcised. Most circumcised males who find out what they're missing are outraged that they were circumcised. The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is common to circumcise baby boys for non-religious reasons. I think circumcising baby boys in the U.S. is a very evil and inhumane ritual which does many times more harm than good and should be against the law.
February 5, 2010 - 11:13pmThis Comment
Dr. Buffman, there are several studies that address the effect of male circumcision on women. I am an engineer and I readily understand how the natural male anatomy aids in sex. The mobile foreskin serves as a sleeve that allows the glans to move within, stimulating both the man and the woman. I have restored enough of my foreskin to verify that it works that way. It feels great and she likes it, too.
The New Zealand Journal of Medicine published "Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm." This study determined that sex with circumcised men was a cause for many female problems, including vaginal dryness and women being sore from sex.
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1181/595/
Another study is "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner" published in the British Joural of Urology International.
February 5, 2010 - 1:49pmhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119091407/abstract
This Comment
Just another quick comment on foreskin restoration - although some do use tape and weights to pull the skin, it can be done by hand. All it takes is to stretch out the remaining skin on the penis several times a day, for a few minutes each time. The skin eventually does expand - much like if you were to wear heavy earrings and stretch out your earlobes.
February 5, 2010 - 1:03pmThis Comment
An intelligent post about male genital mutilation being harmful to the sexual experience?! Kudos to you, madam. These are few and far between. As for "doctor" barry buffman, quit trying to justify mutilation of male genitals, your entire profession is a disgrace.
February 5, 2010 - 11:56amThis Comment
If the profession is such a disgrace maybe the epidemiology of disease doesn't lie.
February 27, 2010 - 10:39pmThis Comment
You can't just talk about circumcision "reducing the rate" of this or that disease, without saying from what, to what. It turns out that the NNT (Number Needed to Treat, for all us ignorant non-doctors) is in the hundreds or thousands for most the of diseases it is done for. By the circumcisionists' own figures, 991 of every 1000 circumcisions to prevent Urinary Tract Infections are wasted, one on a boy who will get UTI anyway, 990 on boys who will never get them. (While the ~40/1000 girls who get UTI are, of course, treated without surgery.)
The (rest of the) English-speaking world tried the circumcision experiment, declared it a failure and gave it up. There has been no outbreak of any of the things circumcision was supposed to be good for. Europe, Scandinavia, South America have never adopted it and, where other demographic factors are equal, enjoy just as good health as the US.
The epidemiology of circumcision, now, that is one of the curiosities of the modern world. It's largely passed on from father to son (carried on the Y chromosome maybe, along with unwillingness to use maps or give up the remote?), but it spread from the US to South Korea in the 1950s, and is still epidemic there.
March 24, 2010 - 9:01pmThis Comment
Oh and btw. Whatever happened to "first do no harm?"
February 28, 2010 - 10:24amThis Comment
Dr. Buffington, it appears that you have an interest in The Bible and what it has to say about circumcision and I'll address that.
Most people know about God's Covenant with Abraham but few Christians know about the writings in The New Testament or if they do, they have little understanding of it and it's implications for Christians.
Christ clearly spoke against circumcision at The Feast of Tabernacles at the threat of his life. When he was crucified, The Pharisees saw an opportunity to put the nacent movement of Christianity down once and for all. They approached the disciples with an offer. . . They would be accepted into Judaism but there was a requirement. They had to submit to circumcision. Circumcision was one of the 613 Mosaic Laws that Christ abolished. The offer sounded good to some of the disciples but not to others and so the Council of Jerusalem was called. The New Testament does not describe what went on there but immediately afterward. Paul journeyed to Galatia and addressed an audience there. In Galatians 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." Paul and the disciples clearly understood the motive in the Pharisee's offer. If they had submitted to circumcision and joined the Jews, they would quickly be assimilated into Judaism and the works and history of Christ would eventually be destroyed and all memory would be erased within a few generations. This means that there would be no Christianity today.
Since Jews circumcise infants, it would be a symbolic rejection of Christ by proxy when a Christian family circumcise their son(s). Few people understand the implications when they circumcise their babies.
.
February 5, 2010 - 11:24amThis Comment
Is that to mean, from what you have written, that Christians that elect to circumcise their infants are in effect, rejecting Christ?? Have you ever wondered why cancer of the penis is hardly ever found in circumcised males, and more relevant to women, why cancer of the cervix is rarely found in wives of circumcised men??
February 27, 2010 - 10:37pmThis Comment
BuffyDaddy, The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is a rejection of the teachings of Christ. Read Galatians 5:2
Penile cancer is rarely found in any man. The incidence is 1 in 109,000. For each case of penile cancer averted (alledgedly), there will be 6 infant deaths from the "preventative" circumcision procedure. Preventative medicine is not killing with prevention.
Frank O'Hara
April 1, 2011 - 6:11pmThis Comment