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

EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

MEDICAL REASONS FOR CIRCUMCISION IN THE USA (a historical look):
------------------------------------------
1832: prevents nocturnal emissions
1845: prevents masturbation
1855: prevents syphilis
1865: cures epilepsy
1870: cures epilepsy
1870: prevents spinal paralysis
1871: Jews are immune to masturbation
1873: cures bed wetting
1875: cures curvature of the spine
1875: cures paralysis of the bladder
1875: cures clubfoot
1879: cures nocturnal seminal emissions
1879: curse abdominal neuralgia
1881: cures eye problems
1886: prevents crossed eyes
1888: prevents masturbating
1890: cures blindness
1890: cures deafness
1890: cures dumbness
1891: "foreskin constitutes a harbor for filth"
1891: "foreskin is a constant source of irritation"
1891: conduces to masturbation
1891: adds to the difficulties of sexual continence
1894: circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping White women
1894: cures urinary incontinence
1894: cures rectal incontinence
1900: needed to desensitize the penis
1901: needed to desensitize the penis
1902: foreskin causes epilepsy
1914: Dr. Abraham L Wolbarst demands compulsory circumcision
1914: prevents tuberculosis
1926: prevents penile cancer.
1930: Dr. Norton Bare claims he has cured a boys epilepsy by circumcising him
1932: prevents penile cancer
1935: promotes chastity
1941: blunts sexual sensitivity
1941: foreskin must be forcibly retracted and scrubbed daily
1942: prevents prostate cancer
1949: prevents venereal disease
1949: prevents cancer of the tongue
1949: elimination of circumcisions in the United Kingdom
1951: Abraham Ravich claims circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women
1953: creates immunity to all mental illness
1954: prevents cervical cancer in women
1969: cures masturbation
1969: cures nervousness
1971: prevents cancer of the bladder
1971: prevents cancer of the rectum
1973: Jewish doctors claim "all who disagree with circumcision are mentally ill"
1985: prevents urinary tract infections
1986: prevents AIDS
1988: prevents strept throat
1989: Edgar J. Schoen declares circumcision is necessary
1991: Edgar Schoen tries & fails to convince Europe to institute mass circumcision
1991: Fink declares circumcision to prevent sand from getting under foreskins
1993: Gerald N. Weiss claims cells in the foreskin lead to HIV
1997: Schoen tries & fails again to convince Europe to perform mass circumcisions
2003: Edgar J. Schoen steps up pressure on American Academy of Pediatrics to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS.
------------------------------------------
More claimed cures (via circumcision):
Alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, bedwetting, blindness, boils, cervical cancer, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, headaches, hernia, HIV, HPV, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kidney disease, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, paraphimosis, penile cancer, plague, phimosis, posthitis, prostate cancer, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis, urinary tract infections, and yeast infections.
------------------------------------------
Apparently circumcision cures everything! LOL. Circumcision is a "cure" looking for an ailment... eventually they think they will find what it's good for... lol.

February 23, 2010 - 1:33am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Wow..circumcision must be the miracle cure for everything!!! Nope, just puts alot of money in the pockets of the monsters that promote this atrocity.

January 2, 2011 - 6:17am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

I'd like to know where the author got the facts regarding the statement "Circumcision originated among ancient religious populations as a way to purify man by removing the source of his sexual pleasure.", in particular the "by removing the source of his sexual pleasure."

I don't disagree at all that it would remove a lot of sexual pleasure but where are the facts to back up this statement that this was its origin.

Rick in Toronto

February 16, 2010 - 8:13pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Rick in Toronto, the true origins of male circumcision are unknown but it is known that it was practiced about 1,500 years before it's supposed inclusion in Genesis as The Covenant between God and Abraham. It was practiced by Egyptian Priests. I say "before it's supposed inclusion in Genesis because in fact, it was not included in the original manuscripts that survive to this day and appears to have been added after The Temple burned about 550 B.C.

The first record we have as an effort to attenuate the sexuality of men was in the 12th century when Moses Maimonides 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."

March 20, 2010 - 4:20am
Hugh7 (reply to Anonymous)

Before Maimonides, Philo (Judaeus) of Alexandria, 1st Century Jewish philosopher:

"To these [reasons for circumcision] I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things necessary to our well being. One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm [prize] is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure, but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.

The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit."

- Of the special laws, Book I (ii), in Works of Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, 1937, Vol. VII, p. 105

March 23, 2010 - 1:51am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

I'm curious as well. Modern circumcision started in the Victorian era as a way to "cure masturbation" by reducing sexual pleasure. Obviously it didn't work, but that was the idea. Everyone knows that the Jews were commanded to circumcise, but unless I am much mistaken circumcision predates Judaism, and the origin of it really isn't known.

February 16, 2010 - 8:28pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

I prefer the term natural instead of uncircumcised - uncircumcised sounds like there is something missing or unfinished. The ultimate is to be whole or natural. Until I met my current boyfriend, I always had to use some form of lube when having sex. Because he's natural(intact foreskin), his penis has a natural lubricant that allows him to glide in me without chafing or irritating sensitive tissue.
Mother nature knew what she was doing, when she design the male genitalia. Unfortunately, the pro-circumcisers don't know what they are doing and don't know what they are destroying, when they remove the male foreskin.

February 15, 2010 - 11:36am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

"The science is clear: there is NO DIFFERENCE in sexual pleasure for men or women regarding circumcision. "

I beg to differ. I have never experienced sexual pleasure in my life until I used a cone to hold the skin to my glans. The longer I stick with that the better it feels when I do anything. You show me any study showing no difference, I can counter with another study showing a large difference.

"Home techniques to re-create the foreskin do NOT work"
I have personally seen this work on several guys, and have heard testimonials from thousands more that is has worked and they have regained an amazing amount of pleasure.

"The World Health Organization also endorses circumcision as a PROVEN way to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS."
WHO is the only one. No other medical association in the world endorses the procedure. AAP is the most widely quoted in the US and it has never recommended it. 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.

The other problem I have is the evidence is circumstantial at best if you look at the raw data. The circumcised group was told to wait for 6 months while they recover while the intact group went off and resumed their lives. Guess what? The intact group got a head start. By the end of the study intact and circumcised males were getting HIV in similar numbers, and the last couple of months more circumcised males got HIV than intact males. The researchers concluded the project a major success and ended the project early. Kinda like they wanted those results huh?

What we are really after is the relationship between circumcision and the lifetime risk of HIV/AIDS. Another study was conducted in New Zealand which simply gathered circumcision status and tested for HIV. When corrected for age, economic differences etc, there was no statistically significant difference between circumcised and intact.

Also just for a parting shot. If you want me to I can show you several studies showing how female circumcision lowers HIV rates. I'm assuming that's completely different though.

February 12, 2010 - 12:02pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

This article is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
The science is clear: there is NO DIFFERENCE in sexual pleasure for men or women regarding circumcision. Almost every circumcised man (and his partner) is satisfied with their circumcision, and almost every uncircumcised man (and his partner) is satisfied with their lack of circumcision.
Circumcised penises do NOT lose sensitivity over time.
Home techniques to re-create the foreskin do NOT work, and can be dangerous.
The World Health Organization also endorses circumcision as a PROVEN way to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS.

February 12, 2010 - 11:46am
buffydaddy (reply to Anonymous)

Bravo, someone understands epidemiology. If you study the epidemiology of penile cancers, they also generally describe the disease associated with uncircumcised men. See this link, from no other than the "American Cancer Society." http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_2x_what_are_the_risk_f... (Hopefully this is a credible source for the writer and readers). It is also more than coincidental that cervical cancers are found much less commonly in the wives of Jewish men. To be more accurate, I have never condoned circumcision for all "comers." Chronic phimosis, chronic infection and ulcerations of the foreskin, HPV of the foreskin, and any mucosal skin area for that matter breeds further contagious disease.These patients that fail to respond to mainstream therapy are indeed good and sensible candidates for elective circumcision to protect their health and inevitably the health of their partner. Lastly, no academician would ever assert that dryness of the vagina comes from too much friction from circumcized men. There are too many more reasons gynecologically to explain that. Ask your own gyn for this info. Dr. Buffman (not Buffington).

March 17, 2010 - 11:22pm
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

1628 Health

Changed

604 Lives

Saved

453 Lives
2 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