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

Just another quick comment on foreskin restoration - although some do use tape and weights to pull the skin, it can be done by hand. All it takes is to stretch out the remaining skin on the penis several times a day, for a few minutes each time. The skin eventually does expand - much like if you were to wear heavy earrings and stretch out your earlobes.

February 5, 2010 - 1:03pm
Susan Cody HERWriter Guide

As a woman, I could never tell the difference!
This is all new to me, and an interesting read!

February 5, 2010 - 12:50pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

An intelligent post about male genital mutilation being harmful to the sexual experience?! Kudos to you, madam. These are few and far between. As for "doctor" barry buffman, quit trying to justify mutilation of male genitals, your entire profession is a disgrace.

February 5, 2010 - 11:56am
buffydaddy (reply to Anonymous)

If the profession is such a disgrace maybe the epidemiology of disease doesn't lie.

February 27, 2010 - 10:39pm
Hugh7 (reply to buffydaddy)

You can't just talk about circumcision "reducing the rate" of this or that disease, without saying from what, to what. It turns out that the NNT (Number Needed to Treat, for all us ignorant non-doctors) is in the hundreds or thousands for most the of diseases it is done for. By the circumcisionists' own figures, 991 of every 1000 circumcisions to prevent Urinary Tract Infections are wasted, one on a boy who will get UTI anyway, 990 on boys who will never get them. (While the ~40/1000 girls who get UTI are, of course, treated without surgery.)

The (rest of the) English-speaking world tried the circumcision experiment, declared it a failure and gave it up. There has been no outbreak of any of the things circumcision was supposed to be good for. Europe, Scandinavia, South America have never adopted it and, where other demographic factors are equal, enjoy just as good health as the US.

The epidemiology of circumcision, now, that is one of the curiosities of the modern world. It's largely passed on from father to son (carried on the Y chromosome maybe, along with unwillingness to use maps or give up the remote?), but it spread from the US to South Korea in the 1950s, and is still epidemic there.

March 24, 2010 - 9:01pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to buffydaddy)

Oh and btw. Whatever happened to "first do no harm?"

February 28, 2010 - 10:24am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Dr. Buffington, it appears that you have an interest in The Bible and what it has to say about circumcision and I'll address that.

Most people know about God's Covenant with Abraham but few Christians know about the writings in The New Testament or if they do, they have little understanding of it and it's implications for Christians.

Christ clearly spoke against circumcision at The Feast of Tabernacles at the threat of his life. When he was crucified, The Pharisees saw an opportunity to put the nacent movement of Christianity down once and for all. They approached the disciples with an offer. . . They would be accepted into Judaism but there was a requirement. They had to submit to circumcision. Circumcision was one of the 613 Mosaic Laws that Christ abolished. The offer sounded good to some of the disciples but not to others and so the Council of Jerusalem was called. The New Testament does not describe what went on there but immediately afterward. Paul journeyed to Galatia and addressed an audience there. In Galatians 5:2 he said "Mark my words! I Paul tell you that if you circumcise yourself Christ will have no value to you at all." Paul and the disciples clearly understood the motive in the Pharisee's offer. If they had submitted to circumcision and joined the Jews, they would quickly be assimilated into Judaism and the works and history of Christ would eventually be destroyed and all memory would be erased within a few generations. This means that there would be no Christianity today.

Since Jews circumcise infants, it would be a symbolic rejection of Christ by proxy when a Christian family circumcise their son(s). Few people understand the implications when they circumcise their babies.

.

February 5, 2010 - 11:24am
buffydaddy (reply to Anonymous)

Is that to mean, from what you have written, that Christians that elect to circumcise their infants are in effect, rejecting Christ?? Have you ever wondered why cancer of the penis is hardly ever found in circumcised males, and more relevant to women, why cancer of the cervix is rarely found in wives of circumcised men??

February 27, 2010 - 10:37pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to buffydaddy)

BuffyDaddy, The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is a rejection of the teachings of Christ. Read Galatians 5:2

Penile cancer is rarely found in any man. The incidence is 1 in 109,000. For each case of penile cancer averted (alledgedly), there will be 6 infant deaths from the "preventative" circumcision procedure. Preventative medicine is not killing with prevention.

Frank O'Hara

April 1, 2011 - 6:11pm
Hugh7 (reply to buffydaddy)

This is a classic bit of bait-and-switch arguing. What has cancer got to do with Christ? It's as though nobody ever really trusts any single reason for circumcising (and well they shouldn't!), so they always have a backup (and when that backup is debunked, another backup). It's like playing Twister on this diagram: http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/meme-c-6.jpg

Both buffydaddy's claims about cancer are quite wrong. (See http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html and http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical)

Seyam et al in Saudi Arabia found 18 cases of penile cancer in circumcised men, apparently associated with the circumcision scar.

The main study on which the cervical cancer claim is based, by Castellsagué et al. was a meta-analysis of seven studies in five countries, in only one of which (the Philippines) were most of the men circumcised, so it was really a comparison of countries, and any of a number of demographic differences (such as women smoking) could account for the difference. In fact even then it only found significance for HPV, and for cancer itself only in a small high-risk subsample.

March 24, 2010 - 8:46pm
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

1793 Health

Changed

695 Lives

Saved

552 Lives
16 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