Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

Dr. Buffington wrote: "Write me back with your sources, I'm curious where they came from, specifically about how less friction is better in the vagina and re: diminishing the man's pleasure biblically."

I don't have a link, I read it and didn't save it but the area of the vaginal sphincter is a very tender area. It is not an area designed for friction, it is designed to receive stretch stimulus. The vagina is not primarily designed for tactile stimulation but instead, pressure stimulation specifically from stimulus to the G-spot. The clitoris is designed for tactile stimulation or light friction.

When a man's foreskin is removed, the skin sleeve is shortened eliminating the ability of the skin sleeve to slip up and down the shaft. This eliminates the friction at the vaginal sphincter but not in the vagina. This friction in the vagina but not at the vaginal sphincter is better for both partners. It eliminates the uncomfortable abrasion (for many women) at the vaginal sphincter while it provides better stimulation via the stretch receptors in the male frenulum and preputial sphincter of the man. Also, the male frenulum is a primary erogoneous area and is one of the only areas that has it's own dedicated artery and nerve path directly to the brain. In infant circumsision, the nerve and artery are severed eliminating the pathway for the nerve and ample blood supply. This loss of blood supply is believed to be the primary cause of meatal stenosis in young boys as meatal stenosis is virtually absent in intact boys. It is estimated that 9% to 31% of circumcised boys suffer some degree of meatal stenosis. That loss of nerve pathways and the loss of blood supply to the area is suspected to significantly decrease sexual sensation. It is not known or estimated what the effect of adult circumcision is but circumcised men often report reduced sexual sensation.

As far as I know, there is nothing in The Bible about intentionally reducing a man's sexual pleasure but Moses Maimonides. the 12th century physician and philospher was probably espousing the belief of the time when he wrote:

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

It is clear that he thought that reducing the pleasure of men was an admirable thing. Later when male circumcision was introduced into the English speaking countries, reduction of male sexual pleasure was the point of the procedure. It was introduced with the intent to reduce masturbation among boys. The thinking at the time was that the foreskin was needed to masturbate as genitally intact men use the foreskin as an integral part of self pleasure and if there were no foreskin, masturbation would be so difficult that the boys would not do it. However, they were manifestly wrong in their hypothesis as we all know now. In fact, two studies, one in 1916 and another in 1998 found that circumcised men are much more likely to engage in "alternate" sexual activities such as masturbation, oral sex and anal sex. For masturbation, the difference was an amazing 40%!

The conclusion was that removing the foreskin also removed sexual stimulation the foreskin provides and these men are subconsciously trying to replace that stimulation with these alternative sexual practices.

If you would like to find more information, there is an on-line library dedicated to the circumcision issue. You can find it at www.cirp.org. It covers all information currently available to the public, both supporting circumcision and not. You will find that the bulk of the information does not support circumcision.

This is a brilliant article, and so true. I was circumcised at birth but have now restored my foreskin and it is immeasurably better. I would thoroughly recommend every circumcised man to do it. Sex is SO much better, both for my wife and I, the loss of sensation with age has been reversed and I am confident when undressed as my body now looks normal. Do not get caught up with biased research, ask the people who know from personal experience, and if you think circumcision is not barbaric, cruel and mutilating, watch the procedure on the Internet, listen to the baby's screams, see the blood and the appalling damage done to the baby.

"This leads to less friction in the vagina and thus a more pleasurable experience for the female."

..."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".

Write me back with your sources, I'm curious where they came from, specifically about how less friction is better in the vagina and re: diminishing the man's pleasure biblically.

Warmest personal regards,

Barry R. Buffman, M.D>

It is nice to see male circumcision treated as a women's issue. It isn't "just a snip" of a useless "piece of skin", it is the amputation of an important part of a man's genitalia and has life long effects for him and his sexual partners.

Anonymous @ 4:08 AM: The study you refer to regarding keritinization by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents. You have to know your sources. Cold & Taylor disected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadivers and found that the keritinized layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men. The significance of this is that the keritinization covers over sexually sensitive nerve endings reducing the sexual sensitivity of the men.

In "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4)" the authors claim protection from keritinization that you claim does not exist. Which way is it?

Regarding "Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91;" Masters and Johnson were surely pioneers in sexuality but in this case, there was so little known at the time their research was poorly constructed and totally eliminated the foreskin as a source of sexual pleasure.

Regarding "Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity." Bleustein, et.al. failed for the same reason Masters and Johnson failed. However, they did find that circumcised males suffer impotence at an average age 8 years younger than intact males.

Both research and logical and rational thought processes confirm that removing part of a sexual organ and the encompassed nerves will have a deletory effect on the sensitivity of that organ.

.