Hide This

FREEHER HealthToolkit

HER Health Toolkit

Sign up for EmpowHER updates and you'll receive our
FREE HER Health Toolkit

Sexual Health

Get Email Updates

Related Checklists

Sexual Health Guide

Susan Cody HERWriter Guide

Have a question? We're here to help. Ask the Community.

ASK

Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!

Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

By Shaina Gaul
 
Rate This

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 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.

Add a Comment250 Comments

Hugh7 (reply to lslassiter)

"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 - 2:59pm
lslassiter (reply to Hugh7)

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 - 12:39pm
Hugh7 (reply to lslassiter)

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 - 5:42pm
Robert (reply to lslassiter)

"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 - 10:58am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Robert)

newsflash - this is for women - go talk all your rediculous penis crap to other misogynists elsewhere

December 15, 2012 - 3:29pm
lslassiter (reply to Robert)

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 - 12:24pm
Robert (reply to lslassiter)

Did you even read the links? Did you not see that genesis was an invention of the priests circa 550BCE.

Didn't you bother to read about the position of the Catholic church?

Why do you persist in ignoring the evidence and make claims that have been debunked. The worst form on ignorance is CHOSEN ignorance.
So, even though research into the religious requirement has shown this assumption to be bogus, people still cling to these erroneous superstitious as a justification for harming infants? WHY this clinging to false ideas?

As for following the herd, HOW can this be considered rational?

I dismiss your "reasons" as they are not rational nor REASONED.

The first step in advancing is to research a subject and adjust your conclusions to the existing evidence--not ignoring the evidence to maintain your previous decision..this willingness to research is the opposite of denial.

WHY is it important for your son's penis look like Daddy's? ANY rational explanation?

WHY is it important for your son's penis look like others? Especially since the "others" are only in a small majority, and will be the minority soon at the present rate of decline?

March 24, 2010 - 10:03am
Robert

I read a lot of these posts, and it seems there is a dearth of actual scientific discussion.
So I would like to steer it in that direction, here is a short tutorial on the process and what is required to be scientifically credible.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/science.html

With this, I challenge anyone to provide a single alleged benefit that fulfills these basic requirements, and hence have scientific credibility. Anyone?

March 22, 2010 - 6:02am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Robert)

Robert, something that especially spoke to me in your link is: "The rates of these are HIGHER in many circumcising countries than in many intact countries, hence the alleged predictions are contradicted by empirical evidence. Unlike "medical science," SCIENCE demands that prediction be fulfilled EVERYTIME to be credible."

It appears that many medical professionals need this lesson repeated as there are many examples of the evidence being contradicted yet they seem to have accepted these studies as if they were set in concrete and blessed by some heavenly diety. In fact, there are numerous examples of the contradictions all over the world but it seems they are the elephant in the living room that no one will acknowledge.

The proposal by these fraudulent scientists is that circumcising these men will block the vectors of transmission to the disease ending the epidemic. For those who may not understand the principle of vectors of transmission, let me illustrate by giving a real world example:

Imagine a city with 100 streets emanating from a central downtown point. Then imagine there are 100 cars leaving this downtown point each on it's own separate street. The cars represent circumcised men. At the one mile mark, 60% of the streets would have a huge hole that the cars would drop off into ending their journey. So, at this point, we have 40 cars still headed out of the city but they find that 60% of those streets have a hole that they drop into. Then, we have 24 remaining cars headed toward their destination. But, they also run into 60% of their routes with holes so we have 9 cars remaining on their routes but in another mile, 60% of those run into streets with holes in another mile and we only have 4 cars headed out of the city. The next mile removes two more and the next mile removes one of the last two leaving one. That one only has a 60% chance of surviving it's next mile and every mile after that. As you can see, it is very unlikely that any car will escape the city.

This is exactly how a vaccine works. It is the same as my example of a city except the streets are people, the cars are the virus and the holes are the proposed protective effect. Since HIV is widely spread in The US where 80% of the sexually active men are circumcised, there is no possible way HIV could have become established in this country much less thrived as it has.

If circumcision had any protective factor at all, the differences in infection rates among circumcising and non circumcising countries would be stark. Even a small protective factor would make an observable difference and that difference is not evident anywhere in the world.

This tells us that the circumcision issue is simply fraudulent and deceptive and more than likely, an agenda of those who have a sexual fetish of spreading circumcision around the world and probably more so, reversing the rapidly falling circumcision rate in The United States and Canada.

Frank O'Hara

March 22, 2010 - 7:26pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Anonymous on February 12, 2010 - 12:02pm wrote: "I also have two problems with the proven thing. One science doesn't prove anything. Science proposes a hypothesis and scientists try and disprove the hypothesis. The longer the hypothesis stands the stronger it is, but it is never proven."

You like many don't understand the difference in a hypothesis and a theory. What you are describing is a hypothesis. That is, an idea that has not been proven. A hypothesis is what many call a theory but there is a great difference. A scientist develops a hypothesis from information available to him/her and makes efforts to prove the hypothesis through experimentation. If his experimentation and observations support his/her hypothesis, it advances to a theory and that's when the shooting gallery begins. Other scientists repeat the experiments and observations. If they all find the same results, it remains a theory but if even one finds a fault with the theory, it reverts to . . . Nothing! It is not even a hypothesis any longer. Only when a theory withstands repeated challenges does it become an established theory and only after repeated attempts to disprove it and usually a matter of years does it become established fact.

The problem with the hypothesis that male circumcision prevents infections and HIV is that simple observations of different cultures and populations do not show the promised results. This singular fact destroys the hypothesis.

March 1, 2010 - 8:58am
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy

We value and respect our HERWriters' experiences, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice, although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.

Improved

1640 Health

Changed

610 Lives

Saved

458 Lives
4 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More

Take Our Featured Health Poll

Do you think sex gets better as you age? :
View Results