Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives1 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
Well I can tell you that as a circumcised male I have never ever experienced sexual pleasure until recently. I used to think I was just unlucky until I stumbled upon some articles talking about how circumcision can decrease sexual pleasure. I tape my skin to the glans and I left it there for a couple of days. I wasn't really expecting much, but I actually felt some tiny twinges of pleasure for the first time in my life. This persuaded me to restore, and I keep getting progressively more sensitive. Use your MD to explain that one.
February 9, 2010 - 11:06pmThis Comment
I think it might have been sensible to do a little more research, as there are some glaring errors in your article.
The most obvious error is that you've repeated the myth that the glans penis keratinises following circumcision. Although often repeated as fact, there is no evidence for this, and the only study to investigate found that the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised penises were equally keratinised (Szabo R. Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4). Similarly, studies of penile sensitivity have also found no statistically significant differences (Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91; Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity. Paper read at the American Urological Association 98th Annual Meeting at Chicago Illinois, April 26-May 1, 2003. Publishing ID 1260, Abstract ID: 100769; Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation. Urology. 2005 Apr;65(4):773-7; Payne K, Thaler L, Kukkonen T, Carrier S, Binik Y. Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men. J Sex Med. 2007 May;4(3):667-74).
February 4, 2010 - 4:08amThis Comment
Masters and Johnson (enthusiastic but rank amateurs at sexological research), and Payne et al. didn't look at the foreskin itself, and Bleustein et al. looked at one point on the outside. They were none of them seriously trying to find any difference between circumcised and intact (M&J virtually said so). The only study that seriously compared circumcised with intact was Sorrells et al., which found "circumcision [removes] the most sensitive part of the penis". See more at http://www.circumstitions.com/sex
March 22, 2010 - 8:46pmThis Comment
"The most obvious error is that you've repeated the myth that the glans penis keratinises following circumcision. Although often repeated as fact, there is no evidence for this, and the only study to investigate found that the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised penises were equally keratinised (Szabo R. Short RV."
More than any other topic than I've ever discovered, this one is rife with false research, fraud and outright lies. You really have to know who you are relying on to get to the truth. Among the names to watch out for are: Schoen, Wiswell, Morris, W.Bailey, Halperin, Short, Szabo, Bleustein, Moses, Melman, Cohen, Quaintance and Waskett. I notice you have several here.
Cold & Taylor disected the glans penis of cadavers to determine the presence or absence of keritization of circumcised and intact men. They found the surface skin covering the nerve endings was up to 10 times as thick on circumcised men as men that were not circumcised. This keritinized skin covers the nerve endings that are responsible for sexual sensitivity. This disection is the most accurate way to determine this effect.
Frank O'Hara
March 20, 2010 - 10:47amThis Comment
Yes, FINE article. Great to see this being discussed. Thankfully because of the internet, I'm a mother of two intact sons. I say intact rather than uncut or uncircumcised. The "un-" tends to impart the idea that they have missed out on something. Seemingly slight changes in language can have a huge impact.
I am in relationship with an intact man and I marvel at the sensuality of an intact penis. Oral sex requires more tender care as the glans is more sensitive than on a circumcised penis that has built up a thicker keratin layer.
A male friend of mine has restored his foreskin at the age of 55. He reported that he'd lost most ability to feel sensation with his penis and this was having a negative impact on his romantic life. I told him about restoration. About a year later he reported back to me that the results are astoundingly positive and continue to accumulate. He is amazed that no doctor told him about the procedure. .... Articles such as yours are very helpful.
February 4, 2010 - 12:12amThis Comment
i personally despise women who treat the foreskin as a defect instead of a natural healthy body part. Thank you for doing your part in stopping the ignorance that so many $$ oriented organizations have created.
Women don't seem to understand that they create more smegma then a man with a foreskin, and that cutting off similar body parts would result in similar "benefits". Yet nobody would ever suggest forcing this on a baby girl and if a man would complain about a woman not being circumcised then he'd be considered the pig.
Again, much appreciated for your contribution in getting Americans to realize that Nature DESIGNED sex, and that we'd be foolish to think we can be making it "better" by cutting pieces of our genitals off.
February 3, 2010 - 11:53pmThis Comment
Some African countries do practice the mutilation of female genitalia (with even more horrifying results).
Not that I think either gender should have their sexuality altered in these horrific ways.
February 23, 2011 - 5:11amThis Comment
Great article. I was circumcised at birth. And, I am one of those men restoring my foreskin. It is not a difficult process to restore. It just takes time. Having a foreskin, even a restored foreskin, is so much better than being circumcised. Before restoring, we had to use lube and my wife was often sore after sex. Now, with a foreskin we never use lube and she is never sore. She really enjoys my foreskin and it feels really good to me.
February 3, 2010 - 8:43pmThis Comment
Thank you for this article.
February 3, 2010 - 8:19pmI was circumcised at birth and I agree circumcison removes a ton of nerve endings and it affected my sexual life prety badly. I've been restoring for quite a long time now (almost 3 years). Even if nerves never grow back, I can now enjoy the gliding action of the foreskin. It's sad most people are still buying all this propaganda regarding circumcision (it's cleaner, more hygienic etc...).
This Comment
There's not one hygiene benefit attributed to circumcision that can't be obtained by adult guys taking 15 seconds in the shower to rinse under the foreskin, using protection, and not sleeping around.
February 23, 2011 - 8:08amThis Comment