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

Rosa Cabrera RN

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 Comment253 Comments

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
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
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

1770 Health

Changed

673 Lives

Saved

534 Lives
5 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