Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

Hi Shaina,
Excellent article. I am a Jewish woman who has been writing and speaking against the ills of circumcision for nearly 20 years. There is so much doctors do not tell parents. And, you supplied some of the very important missing information. Additionally, it's important to know that the foreskin contains over 20,000 highly sensitive touch receptors, far more than any other area of the penis. The keratinization of the exposed glans, as you mentioned, further de-sensitizes the surface increasing as a man approaches middle age--just when women may be experiencing less lubrication due to the onset of menopause. Typically, it is the woman's menopausal condition that is blamed for the abrasive sexual contact, rather than factoring in the consequences of altering the male genitalia.

There are other critical considerations. Traumatizing infants is very serious. For those who are capable of watching the excruciating suffering of an infant being circumcised (even with the application of topical pain killers), and pretending that the baby's agony is no different from a protest for a diaper change, should read the abundant scientific literature which has measured heart rates, respiratory rates, cortisol levels, etc. on babies having their foreskins ripped from the glans, crushed and cut. We now have a neurological basis to understand the likelihood that such massive trauma to a neonate may very well alter neurological structures.

Those who are Jewish and feeling compelled to repeat this ancient wrong, should know that maternal lineage trumps circumcision: if the mother is Jewish, the baby is Jewish.

I am happy to talk to anyone who is struggling with this issue, and share the path that I have walked. Circumcision goes against every Jewish precept of how we define what is holy and how we are to treat each other. I would urge people to become informed. Check out www.nocirc.org, www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org, or www.cirp.org.

To be honest, I don't read articles written in a light grey colour on a white background. It's far too difficult to see. Why don't people use BLACK text on white, or LIGHT GREEN on BLACK (preferable)?

Excellent article, but please don't use the perjorative term "uncircumcised." Men whose genitals have escaped the scalpel should be called "intact." We wouldn't call an African woman who escaped the knife "unclitoridectomized."

I am an American woman who can attest to the horrible nature of circumcision. My own brother had complications with the circumcision he had at birth, and had to have it fixed (painfully, I might add) as he was nearing puberty. Too many babies go through that for absolutely no reason. Why remove a natural, functioning organ? There is no other surgery that is justified by the same means and still legal (look up female genital mutilation, which is illegal, and look at the similar reasoning used for it and for male circumcision). News flash doctors: IT'S THE SAME THING. But I digress.

As far as my own sex life, when I became sexually active and touched a penis for the first time, I was actually shocked that there was no gliding movement. I knew nothing about circumcision at the time, and had never seen any type of penis intact or circumcised (my family is fairly conservative when it comes to sex, and I was always extremely shy about it). However, I naturally assumed there would be some type of movement of the skin on the shaft. What does that tell you? A woman who had utterly no prior knowledge of male anatomy whatsoever instinctively expected there to be movement. Since then, I have been with an intact man also, and I tell you in all honesty, intact penises are much easier. They are more sensitive, much easier to please, and more fun to play with. Sorry if that's too much info, but I'm sick of the misinformation surrounding a natural penis. Also, the story that an intact penis is dirtier than a circumcised one is complete bullshit (pardon my French). As a matter of fact, the intact penis I experienced was actually cleaner than any of the circumcised ones.

Men are supposed to have a foreskin, and any doctor who says otherwise is misinformed. In the U.S. doctors promote all kinds of propaganda to perpetuate the removal of foreskins on any man or child that has one. Moral of my story for all the ladies out there: Don't be afraid to try an intact guy. I promise you'll like it just as much if not more than a circumcised penis. Also, if you're going to have children at any point, reconsider having an integral part of their body chopped off at birth. He'll thank you later.

To all you doctors out there spreading your bullcrap on the web, answer me this: Of every animal on the face of the planet, human or otherwise, why are male human beings the ONLY creatures who have to have a part of their body amputated at birth? Hmmm?

Wow the world is going to be such a better place now that you have explained to everyone how to give a proper blow job to a guy with foreskin. Get some morals and write about something meaningful you pig.

@Anonymous: "I'm a 55 year old cut man and the head of my penis is so sensitive that if it were any more sensitive I would loose my load upon entry."
We often hear cut men say that (http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#more ) - yet intact men aren't all "losing their load upon entry" - funny, that. This strongly suggests that circumcision affects sensitivity, but not in a good way. in fact circumcision forces men to rely on the sensitivity of a greatly reduced area of their penis (the frenulum, if they're lucky enough to have been left it), making it more hair-trigger. Whether this is an advantage or not can only be decided by the adult man - but when it's a detriment, it's too late.