Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

 
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 Comment256 Comments

EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to buffydaddy)

With some issues, it is probably appropriate to "agree to disagree" but not in science. Debating a topic is the way science advances. Agreeing to disagree is typically a plea to stop the debate and in that environment, science does not advance so let's advance science and continue the debate.

Yes, I am a "victim" of circumcision. I don't use that term but if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear it. I'm very laid back as a personality type so that characterization doesn' fit. I am also not Irish except by well watered down ancestry. My family came to The US more than 200 years ago and the decendants intermarried with other nationalities liberally. As a percentage, my heritage is well over 50% English but there is also Dutch, Scottish, German and maybe some other influences. Maybe you misread my post that I recently dated an Irish woman (born in Ireland) although her father was English so she was only 50% Irish.

If my choice had been protected, I would not have been circumcised. This is not a recent choice. I first realized there was a difference when I was 6 or 7 years old and at that early age, did not want to be circumcised although I had no understanding of it at the time. That wish has only intensified over time. This is the case of many men and it is growing as men discover the issue on the internet and come to realize what happened to them in their earliest days when they could not defend themselves.

As for my interest, I discovered this issue accidentally about 10 years ago and given my stance on it, I immediately started researching it. I was astounded to find that there was simply no justification for it medically and the religious implications just did not fit me. I also discovered there was a hot debate about it on the internet and knew if I was to effectively debate it, I needed to educate myself. That I did! I've spent probably thousands of hours reading research and like The AAP, could find no legitimate justification outside religion.

I regularly see misinformation in both lay writings and professional writings as I also did in Shania's writing. There is no doubt there is much misinformation in this issue and that has been true since the late 1800's and probably even before that. I also know it is difficult to sort through what is legitimate and what is not. In the early days of my own education, I saw constant conflicts among studies and writings and had great difficulty in sorting them into "valid" and "invalid" stacks. I know the vast majority also have this difficulty and use my knowledge of the topic to help them sort. That seems to have become my function in this debate.

I have only had the opportunity to interview 5 men in person that have been circumcised as adults. Of the five, four were very unhappy about it. Two became either non-orgasmic or impotent or both within 5 years. These were men in their late 30's to mid 40's. Another one circumcised in his early 20's found out I had some knowledge about the topic and started questioning me. I just happened to mention foreskin restoration and there was an immediate interest. He has since gone on to restore his foreskin using a non-surgical method and is extremely happy with the results. The fifth one, circumcised in his mid 20's and in his early 50's now insists that circumcision is the way to go but his new wife appears to disagree and has been searching for a lover outside the marriage as he has little interest. I have corresponded with dozens of men circumcised in adulthood on the internet and have only found a few that would do it again.

As for Jews being insular, the study was done almost 30 years ago so what the practice is today is not what it was 30 years ago. It would be a difficult argument that they were not insular simply because of the predominance of Jews in Israel and the geographical islolation. I suspect this was a knee jerk response to paint me as an anti-Semite. The shoe just doesn't fit. I grew up in a county where there was only two Jewish families at the time. One of the families, I never met. The other I only met the son and daughter. The son was a year behind me in school and I had some interaction with him. The daughter was two years older and I don't think I ever had any interaction with her at all. I don't think we were ever introduced. In fact, I didn't even know they were Jewish until well after my high school days. In this absence of influence, I didn't develop any opinion about Jews. Even today, Jews are rare in this area and I could not identify anyone I know as being Jewish and therefore, I am just not an anti-Semite. It may be hard for you to comprehend but I have dated several Jewish women in the recent past.

As for the bacteria being the same, I am not "entirely wrong," I am absolutely correct. You can not name a single bacterium, viral or fungal that infects the male genitals that does not also infect the female genitals, not a single one. The phimotic state is clearly the exception and relatively rare (+/-1%). The foreskin is also not "redundant" and the trapped bacterium is typically beneficial bacterium that is essential for good health. Only when there is a corresponding health problem is the bacteria a problem. These corresponding health problems are diabetes or a recent regimine of antibiotics just for example. The antibiotics are easy to resolve with just plain unsweetened yogurt as previously posted. The diabetes is appropriately controlled and the phimotic state is usually avoided. in one case of phimosis that I have helped with, my first question was "Have you been checked for diabetes?" and a couple of weeks later, he came back with a diagnosis of diabetes. The phimosis was "the canary in the mine" that resulted in him having his diabetes diagnosed and starting treatment. I think you would unquestionably agree that in this case, his phimosis was actually a benefit as it brought the root problem to the fore so it could be treated extending his life span and quality of life.

Yes, there are underlying problems with diabetics, HIV infectees and others but it is not appropriate to subject babies to circumcision as a prophylaxis for these conditions.

I have counseled several men in both stretching the preputial sphincter and the frenulum and all were successful. I did not point you to a specific website but instead, pointed you to the CIRP.ORG website. It is a library of information on primarily male circumcision and is quite complete. I sent you there with the hopes that you would browse the information as a learning experience. For the information on stretching the frenulum and the preputial sphincter, just search for "Beaugue." If I remember correctly, there has been other research as well and using the term 'stretching" will probably return those.

You wrote: "I have never asserted that to prevent HIV or HPV in men that I personally recommend circumcision. Where did I say that? I only made reference to journal articles." Yes, that is what you did and in doing that, you were passing the myth that circumcision prevents these infections. This is deceptive and a not so subtle recommendation. Instead of calling attention to these incorrect, fraudulent or outdated studies, why not just say nothing?

The latest information on the HPV vaccine does state that it offers no protection from HPV but age is not a factor. If a woman has only had one encounter (virgin) with one man who has only had one encounter (virgin), there is a very good possibility that neither one is infected and the vaccine will be effective. When the vaccine was first announced in the fall of 2004? it stated it was effective in women who were already infected but by the next spring immediately before it was put into distibution, that had changed to only effective in those not infected. This gave immediate rise to suspicion for me because it was also being promoted to be adminstered to school children and a required immunization. In fact, a few states did make it a required vaccination after intense lobbying by Merck Pharma. At $360.00 for the three injections, it was a money maker almost unequalled and making it a requirement just insured those revenues. I don't argue with it being a required vaccination specifically. I do think it would go a long way toward ending cervical cancer but as a conservative, I have problems with anybody requiring anything. Maybe after the vaccine has been out a sigificant time and no unexpected outcomes are observed.

Incidentally, a study of 13 - 15 girls was conducted and it was found that 54% of them had already been infected with HPV. The conclusion of the study was that they were infected as they passed through their mother's birth canal. How is it that these girls would be protected from HPV via male circumcision?

No, I am not a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.

The assertation that 97% of HPV infectees will develop a natural immunity came from The National Campaign for Cervical Cancer and HPV website.

No, I do not recommend doing away with the pap smear. I believe women should start getting the pap smear in their late teens as many of them will contract the infection at birth and the time from initial infection to indications of cancer is 16 to 20 years. At this time, this is the best way to avoid or treat the cancer or pre-cancerous condition. I also strongly disagree with the administration's recent recommendation that women start mamography at age 50. My Mother was diagnosed at 37 years old and was successfully treated. If it had not been for the early diagnosis, almost 40 years of her life would have slipped away. Even though the vast majority will develop the natural immunity, there are those that won't. Even one preventable death is one too many. I believe that pap smears should start at least by 20 years and mamographies start at least by 40 years old and if it is at taxpayer expense, I'll gladly ante up.

Cervical cancer is probably less predominate in Jewish women married to Jewish men simply because the infection has not entered that segment of the population to become wide spread while in The US, we intermix so the infection spreads widely. Incidentally, there has never been such a study in The US that separates Jews from all the rest for the study purposes. I suspect the results would be quite different here. Using Sweden and Israel as the study populations was not legitimate as they are so different. In a study such as this, you choose the two populations that are most alike to avoid confounders.

Yes doctor, I do know what the mons pubis is and I also know both sexes have it. "Mons pubis" is translated into "Pubic mound." Both males and females have a pubic mound on the pubic bone. This is just above the penis in men and just above the vaginal cleft in women. Did you not know this?

I am neither narrow minded or need to get out more often. I have broad social horizons. You engaged in the debate and I did as well. I am not "shooting bullets" at you, just providing truth. That is something that has been conspiciously absent in the topic for many years. I am thankful for the internet as the truth is now widely available to anyone who seeks it. I am merely a facilitator in seeking the truth makiong it easier to wade through all the outdated information, misinformation and outright lies. This is not to criticize you or call your credentials into question but by profession, you are a scientist. However, I also suspect your religion affects your ability to evaluate and accept information that you may feel is contrary to that religion. I suspect it can be a challenge but I would recommend you put the two in separate compartments for the betterment of your patients. As I am not a Jew or really deeply involved in religion, I don't have that factor pulling at me. My concern is about infants and men and their rights and welfare.

I had also noticed that Shania has not responded. However, many don't realize the controversy they are starting when they write about this topic and some are intimidated. That is especially so when they are faced by medical professionals who disagree with them and start posting medical studies and articles. Thankfully, I am not easily intimidated and help them out.

I'm sorry to hear you will be leaving. Is that because I intimidated you? If that is the case, let me apologise as that was not what I intended to do. Actually, I do like having opposition because the opposition brings up points for discussion. Please do not abandon us so quickly.

Frank O'Hara

March 21, 2010 - 10:48am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to buffydaddy)

AMERICAN
CANCER
SOCIETY NATIONAL HOME OFFICE

February 16, 1996

Dr. Peter Rappo
Committee on Practice & Ambulatory Medicine
American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
P. O. Box 927
Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0927

Dear Dr. Rappo:

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to
discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine
circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.
The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision
to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners
of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and
has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.

Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and
penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile cancer is an extremely rare
condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile
cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower
than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by
circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile
cancer.

Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention
distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to
contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking
and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating
the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.

Sincerely,

Hugh Shingleton, M.D. Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
National Vice President Vice President
Detection & Treatment Epidemiology & Surveillance Research

1599 CLIFTON ROAD, N.E., ATLANTA GEORGIA 30329 404-320-3333

March 18, 2010 - 10:17pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Male circumcision is proven to prevent AIDS? What about Female Circumcision then?...
-
"Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status."
-
- Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
- For Better or For Worse?
- (3rd IAS conf. on HIV pathogenesis & treatment)
- International AIDS Society
-
-
"Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not."
-
- Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes
- Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

February 23, 2010 - 1:18am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

"Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. Sorrells & others conducted touch-sensitivity tests, on 11-17 different places on their penises. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin."
-
- British Journal of Urology 99 (4), 864-869,
- Vol 99 Issue 4 Page 864, Apr 2007

February 23, 2010 - 1:14am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

I'm curious to know if you're a man or a woman making this statement. Either way, have you had much experience with men of both states?

If you do, I don't know how you could believe what you've said. It sounds more like you're trying to talk yourself and believing this.

Most circumcised men are ignorant of what they might be feeling. If the foreskin fairy could wave her magic wand and give it back and then ask the guy after a month which state he'd like to have, I think he'd never go back to the "without".

February 16, 2010 - 8:21pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

"Truth be told, you can't feel the difference"

Tell that to my girlfriend. She insists she can feel the difference. The foreskin glides and bunches right in the most sensitive area of the vagina during intercourse, and she reports that it feels great. I'm sure your penis works just fine, but if you are circumcised, you and your partners are missing out on something.

February 9, 2010 - 5:53pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Seriously, I don't know why you women get your knickers in a knot over a mans peen and whether it's cut or uncut. Truth be told, you can't feel the difference, and you won't taste the difference if he knows how to take a shower.

February 9, 2010 - 12:30pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

What I want you to know is that not all circumcision involves taking out part of foreskin and/or cutting frenulum...there is the method "dorsal slit or V-cut" method which is a proper circumcision and not just as a procedure to address phimosis. In my practice in my country it is the method of choice in almost 95% of prepubertal boys. I can't do anything on what has been done already...if they have been circumcised using method of taking out part of their foreskin then so be it BUT circumcision with all it's hygienic benefits without those brouhaha about lessened sexual satisfaction on both partners can be had by using V-cut method. And no...I don't do it on infants and the medical term "circumcision" isn't in any way limited to procedure done on infants AND don't site the etymology of the term then reply to me that V-cut method is not a proper circumcision simply because it doesn't follow the etymological derivation involving circumferential taking out of a part of foreskin. V-cut is the answer!

February 9, 2010 - 11:27am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Anonymous @ 3:45 PM wrote: "This statement in the article is erroneous and only goes to show how little knowledge the author has regarding the subject of circumcision. There is such a thing as "dorsal slit or V-cut" method of circumcision wherein no foreskin is removed and the frenulum is left intact."

Dorsal slit circumcisions are never done to infants. This type of circumcision is reserved exclusively for older children or adults to treat problems and where they want to preserve the foreskin. In actuality, it is not even a circumcision as it doesn't meet the defininition of "circumscribe" or to cut around.

Typically, this procedure is used to address phimosis, a tightness of the foreskin opening. Typically, it only cuts the very tip of the foreskin at the preputial sphincter leaving the foreskin intact to cover the glans. The end results are quite unappealing when used as a substitute for a typical circumcision. The foreskin falls to the underside of the penis and just hangs there. You appear to be trying to imply you are a physician. A typical parent would be quite dissatisfied with this procedure as a substitute for a typical circumcision and most of these procedures performed on infants would be circumcised a second time resulting in a quite unhappy patient list and a detrimental effect on your business. This leads me to believe you are not a physician and are trying to dupe the readers here with a little bit of knowledge you picked up on the internet.

.

February 9, 2010 - 7:14am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Regarding phimosis. One of my sons had phimosis of the foreskin. His foreskin would balloon when he urinated and this was not a problem, just different than anticipated. I discovered that some members of online discussion groups knew more about this condition than progressive pediatricians. One pediatrician even told me to help my young son stretch his foreskin as the tightness was a concern to this doctor, but it wasn't necessary. Knowledgeable Intactivists told me to leave it alone and that it was entirely normal in many intact men in the world to have a tight foreskin as a child and that the adhesions would disconnect as he grew. It was suggested that perhaps the glans was something a mother might never see. Frank discussion about sexuality is important for conditions such as this. My son knows that it is his goal, as his body grows, to eventually stretch the foreskin so that it will retract back normally. According to him, mission accomplished. Over the years, there have been some online stories about some men 'needing' to get circumcised because they masturbated by pulling the foreskin foreword (only) rather than down the shaft so it never stretched. How is it so difficult to stretch it to retract normally when cut men are able to stretch the remaining skin to cover their glans? It seems that problems are being addressed with a knife when information is the answer. Considering the value of the foreskin to the sexual pleasure for both partners, it's tragic. Information will help keep babies intact so they may choose as adults what they want to do.

February 9, 2010 - 4:14pm
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.

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!

Improved

3279 Health

Changed

2021 Lives

Saved

1884 Lives
8 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