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 Comment250 Comments

buffydaddy (reply to Anonymous)

By the way, my name is Buffman, not Buffington. I think it might be helpful for you to browse the academic literature, especially sexual and urologic to assist you in gaining other opinions re: your assertion.

February 27, 2010 - 10:32pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

This is a brilliant article, and so true. I was circumcised at birth but have now restored my foreskin and it is immeasurably better. I would thoroughly recommend every circumcised man to do it. Sex is SO much better, both for my wife and I, the loss of sensation with age has been reversed and I am confident when undressed as my body now looks normal. Do not get caught up with biased research, ask the people who know from personal experience, and if you think circumcision is not barbaric, cruel and mutilating, watch the procedure on the Internet, listen to the baby's screams, see the blood and the appalling damage done to the baby.

February 5, 2010 - 9:35am
buffydaddy

"This leads to less friction in the vagina and thus a more pleasurable experience for the female."

..."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".

Write me back with your sources, I'm curious where they came from, specifically about how less friction is better in the vagina and re: diminishing the man's pleasure biblically.

Warmest personal regards,

Barry R. Buffman, M.D>

February 5, 2010 - 5:24am
Hugh7 (reply to buffydaddy)

less friction? Well, if less friction is not better, why are men advised to wait until a woman has lubricated herself before penetrating her, and why are vast quantities of lubricants such as KY sold over the counter? They don't pretend it's just for medical examinations any more.

I don't think the bible actually says circumcision diminishes the man's pleasure, but Philo of Alexandra and Maimonides both do, and many others did till circumcision became commonplace and they "forgot". See http://www.circumstitions.com/Pleasure.html (and http://www.circumstitions.com/sex)

March 24, 2010 - 8:29pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

It is nice to see male circumcision treated as a women's issue. It isn't "just a snip" of a useless "piece of skin", it is the amputation of an important part of a man's genitalia and has life long effects for him and his sexual partners.

February 4, 2010 - 3:15pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Anonymous @ 4:08 AM: The study you refer to regarding keritinization by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents. You have to know your sources. Cold & Taylor disected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadivers and found that the keritinized layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men. The significance of this is that the keritinization covers over sexually sensitive nerve endings reducing the sexual sensitivity of the men.

In "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4)" the authors claim protection from keritinization that you claim does not exist. Which way is it?

Regarding "Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91;" Masters and Johnson were surely pioneers in sexuality but in this case, there was so little known at the time their research was poorly constructed and totally eliminated the foreskin as a source of sexual pleasure.

Regarding "Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity." Bleustein, et.al. failed for the same reason Masters and Johnson failed. However, they did find that circumcised males suffer impotence at an average age 8 years younger than intact males.

Both research and logical and rational thought processes confirm that removing part of a sexual organ and the encompassed nerves will have a deletory effect on the sensitivity of that organ.

.

February 4, 2010 - 9:44am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

I am a 50 year old woman who was married for 25 years to a circumcised man and had a few other relationships before him all with circumcised men. I am now married for three years to a man who is not circumcised. Just to note-he is English. I have a much better sexual experience now (nothing against my ex-we had a great sex life) in every way. I have two sons and I totally regret having them circumcised!! I feel terribly guilty and I now spread the word to Americans to not have their sons circumcised.

February 4, 2010 - 8:10am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

why did you get your sons circumcised?

December 15, 2012 - 4:03pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Thank you so much ffor this article.

So many people push this practice in an attempt to justify the harm that has been done. The circ pushers somehow miss your point, that what is removed is erogenous tissue. This tissue has about 20000 nerve endings and it is the only way that men feel fine touch and stretch senstation in their penis.

Anonymous on February 4, 2010 - 4:08am, the persomn that thinks you should do more dresearch, is in denial.

It is certain that over time a cut mans glans gets desensitized (wearing clothes would otherwise be an issue).

The study that compare men and says the sensation is near the same looked at an erect penis and DID NOT CONSIDER the parts cut off by circumcision. What a sham.

If you look at the whole penis, the cut man has the scar as the most sensitive part and the natural man has those 20000 fine touch and strtech sensing nerves. The foreskin parts provide more pleasure than the glans during erection. When the penis is flacid, a natural penis has a more sensitive glans than a man cut as a baby. This is importnat as sensation when flacid facilitates erection.

How can anyone think changing the dynamics and removing the capacity for pleasure is a sexual positive?

February 4, 2010 - 7:45am
ml66uk

The inner foreskin is actually the most sensitive part of the penis. Even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't usually the most sensitive part - it's normally the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed.

Skeptical? Try stimulating only the glans and the shaft an inch below the glans, and see how much sensation is missing.

February 4, 2010 - 6:52am
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

1674 Health

Changed

629 Lives

Saved

479 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