Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

 
Rate This

For circumcised men who are experiencing gradual loss of sensation throughout the course of their lifetime, there actually is a process of foreskin restoration that involves the use of tape and weights (?).

So when all is said and done, you (and your partner) are actually likely to have much better sex with a penis that is uncircumcised. If you’re performing oral sex and looking for tips, just focus your efforts on the ridge just below the glans and use your hand to help the foreskin go with the flow. That's all there is to it!

Add a Comment259 Comments

Frank OHara

""Considerations for Circumcision: (3)
Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Females - Circumcision was once
believed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in females, but
recent studies in Great Britain and the U.S show no significant
relationship between male circumcision status and incidence of
cervical cancer in their partners."

Yes, it is estimated that 70% of Americans have been infected with HPV. With an 80% circumcision rate, it is clear male circumcision has had no prophylactic effect.

Two highly effective vaccines for HPV have been introduced in the past 5 years. These vaccines have an honest promise of ending the epidemic but circumcision promoters have carefully avoided mentioning them.

Indeed, The National HPV and Cervical Cancer Campaign has said that 97% of individuals will develop a natural immunity to HPV and stand at no risk meaning that only 3% of people are at risk.

Male circumcision does not provide absolute protection and probably provides no protection at all. The infection is easily passed between individuals simply by one touching a contaminated surface and then shaking hands with someone else. The virus can be live on any part of the body for a period of time, not just the genitals.

"So why was it an argument FOR circumcision?"

The arguments for circumcision have never been reasonable or logical. They have always centered on myths and lies and deception.

"we stand by our position."

Which means he had no reasonable and logical explanation. He just wanted the money.

"he said "there are certain lifetime benefits to the procedure".

And he is either ignorant or was deceiving you. He was dodging the issue simply because he really didn't know the answer.

"she'll want him to look like his father." I was flabbergasted, because father is intact"

This is the fall-back. Obviously the doctor assumed the father is circumcised and used that in his deception.

"And he changed bases again when he said, "well, you know it comes
down to personal choice." I said, "you were telling me there were
medical reasons now you're saying they don't matter?"

Good for you. That was quick thinking and you cornered him. It is indeed a "personal choice." It's only personal to the individual the organ is attached to. It is not personal to the parents or the family. No one has the investment that the (potential) victim has in the issue and the potential victim is the only one who should have a say in the decision. According to The AAP, it is not necessary to the child's immediate health so the decision can be foregone until he is of an age where he can make a carefully considered decision.

"I wanted advice, and I didn't get any. So I finally said, "How should parents be in a position of advising a doctor about a surgical procedure?" He answered "It's customary".

He's dancing here. He changes every time you counter him. It appears he is very practiced at this. He'd probably make a very good used car salesman with those talents.

"I agree, and the answers should make sense, and they shouldn't change. But it looks like nobody really knows why baby boys should be circumcised at birth."

No they don't know because there are no reasons, just made up justifications. Not a single medical association in the world recommends infant circumcision

"UTIs in boys (both doctors mentioned them) haven't happened in our family (but a couple of parents in the neighborhood say their girls get UTIs). "

Right! about 1% of baby boys will get a UTI in the first 6 months of life but about 4.5% of baby girls will get a UTI. The girls get medications that appear to solve the problem but boys are likely to get amputative surgery and medications.

Now, I'm going to give everyone a short science lesson. Bacterials, fungals (yeasts) and virals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means the infections boys get are the exact same infections girls get and are appropriately treated with the exact same medications with equal results. Girls never recieve amputative surgery for these infections while it is often the treatment of first choice for boys. That's just sexist and wrong.

"Looks like people are deciding it's not worth paying for."

That appears to be the case around the country as well. In the states where Medicaid funding has been withdrawn, the circumcision rate has fallen by about 20% instantly. AND, there are not boys running around with their penises falling off.

"I'm disgusted."

Welcome to the real world, a world will decieve you and take your money while also harming you and your family for the almighty dollar.

Frank

May 7, 2011 - 8:24pm
wendyma01 (reply to Frank OHara)

Ummm...for me it had NOTHING to do with money....I did NOT want to put my child through an unnecessary surgery! This surgery is VERY painful for a baby! Doctors will say it don't hurt...but in fact it does!If the foreskin was not meant to be there, it would NOT be! The foreskin is there to protect the membrane (head of the penis) from debris and foreign objects. Only "holier than though" idiots instilled this as a way to keep young boys (not newborns) from masturebating....it did NOT work! Circumcision is very unnatural and should NOT be performed!

May 10, 2011 - 2:17pm
perplexed

I never intended to get into this debate. My [step]daughter asked me
about circumcision, because she's expecting, her husband is intact, and
most of our family is circumcised, so she wanted to know which is best.
She's only a couple of weeks away from going into hospital, and doesn't
have extensive time to gather information on the issue. So I told her
I'd go do some research. It started with the hospital circ info sheet
I got from my own hospital. It said (though her hospital sheet had
a little different wording). "Considerations for Circumcision: (3)
Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Females - Circumcision was once
believed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in females, but
recent studies in Great Britain and the U.S show no significant
relationship between male circumcision status and incidence of
cervical cancer in their partners."

My daughter is going to have to pay for this out of her own pocket,
and couldn't understand if there no relationship to cervical cancer,
why this is one of the things she's paying for?? Later, I took the
sheet back to the hospital and asked to speak to someone about it.
I got the head of the ObGyn department. I told him that the
cervical cancer item appeared to me to be irrelevant to circumcision,
and might belong to a handout on cervical cancer (if there is such a
thing) and would indicate that one of the risks for cervical cancer is
NOT an uncircumcised partner. So why was it an argument FOR
circumcision? He said I should take it up with my daughters service
provider. I told him she will, but we were just gathering information
and surely the hospital was in the best situation to clarify information
on its own handout? He said, "we stand by our position." I didn't want
to get into an argument, so I left. As I thought about it myself, I
have to ask why cervical cancer is transmissible (no other cancers are)?
And how can a cancer associated with adult sexual activity be relevant
to neonatal circumcision? Responsible adults might decide they wish
to reduce that risk (if there is one) by getting the man circumcised.
But babies can't transmit cancer to anyone; babies don't have sex.

It got even weirder when I saw my own doctor to renew my prescription
(I've known him for 30 years). I took the hospital info sheet, and
asked him about item (3), and he said "there are certain lifetime
benefits to the procedure". He avoided directly answering. We
went back and forth a few times about this, cancer of the penis,
UTIs and etc. I told him it seemed lke a lot of mights and maybes
in the distant future, but she had to pay for it now. Then he switched
bases, and said, "she'll want him to look like his father." I was
flabbergasted, because father is intact. But again, I didn't want to
start an argument. But I did ask, did you circumcise your own sons?
And he changed bases again when he said, "well, you know it comes
down to personal choice." I said, "you were telling me there were
medical reasons now you're saying they don't matter?" He said,
I'm saying that it could go either way, and the parents should make
the decision." I wanted advice, and I didn't get any. So I finally
said, "How should parents be in a position of advising a doctor about a
surgical procedure?" He answered "It's customary".

I don't like this. I don't like it at all. I'm feel like I'm getting the
run around, and comparing notes with my daughter, she got the same
thing. She wants to know "why are we paying for this: like (1), (2),
(3) and here's the risks (1) (2) (3). I agree, and the answers should
make sense, and they shouldn't change. But it looks like nobody
really knows why baby boys should be circumcised at birth. If
parents are having to pay for something they need, at least, they
should wait until it IS needed? UTIs in boys (both doctors mentioned
them) haven't happened in our family (but a couple of parents in the
neighborhood say their girls get UTIs). So it looks like probably,
most boy children won't need it at all. Maybe they should focus
their efforts on girls instead... (I just had a horrible thought: no, I
didn't mean THAT).

I did find out that in our state of Oregon, that the neonatal circumcision
rate is only 25%, and has been falling about 1% a year. Less than 50%
of all males in the state are circed, and the vast majority of them are
older than 20. Looks like people are deciding it's not worth paying for.
It's got to make you think. Me (and my daughter) would certainly
pay for a vaccine, even out of pocket, because it *prevents* mumps,
etc. But if money is the only reason something gets done, that says
something. We shouldn't even be in this mess. I'm disgusted.

April 16, 2011 - 6:39pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Most of the men I've met are too resistant to bathing to have a foreskin.

February 28, 2011 - 12:24pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Hi Shaina,
Excellent article. I am a Jewish woman who has been writing and speaking against the ills of circumcision for nearly 20 years. There is so much doctors do not tell parents. And, you supplied some of the very important missing information. Additionally, it's important to know that the foreskin contains over 20,000 highly sensitive touch receptors, far more than any other area of the penis. The keratinization of the exposed glans, as you mentioned, further de-sensitizes the surface increasing as a man approaches middle age--just when women may be experiencing less lubrication due to the onset of menopause. Typically, it is the woman's menopausal condition that is blamed for the abrasive sexual contact, rather than factoring in the consequences of altering the male genitalia.

There are other critical considerations. Traumatizing infants is very serious. For those who are capable of watching the excruciating suffering of an infant being circumcised (even with the application of topical pain killers), and pretending that the baby's agony is no different from a protest for a diaper change, should read the abundant scientific literature which has measured heart rates, respiratory rates, cortisol levels, etc. on babies having their foreskins ripped from the glans, crushed and cut. We now have a neurological basis to understand the likelihood that such massive trauma to a neonate may very well alter neurological structures.

Those who are Jewish and feeling compelled to repeat this ancient wrong, should know that maternal lineage trumps circumcision: if the mother is Jewish, the baby is Jewish.

I am happy to talk to anyone who is struggling with this issue, and share the path that I have walked. Circumcision goes against every Jewish precept of how we define what is holy and how we are to treat each other. I would urge people to become informed. Check out www.nocirc.org, www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org, or www.cirp.org.

February 26, 2011 - 5:33pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

I've never understood why there's apparently so many cases of dry vagina's - now it's all starting to make sense! typical of men to blame women. I've never experienced dryness and actually, always been naturally very wet, nor for that matter, to my knowledge, have I slept with a circumcised man.

December 15, 2012 - 2:42pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

To be honest, I don't read articles written in a light grey colour on a white background. It's far too difficult to see. Why don't people use BLACK text on white, or LIGHT GREEN on BLACK (preferable)?

February 24, 2011 - 2:01am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Excellent article, but please don't use the perjorative term "uncircumcised." Men whose genitals have escaped the scalpel should be called "intact." We wouldn't call an African woman who escaped the knife "unclitoridectomized."

February 23, 2011 - 8:39pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

I am an American woman who can attest to the horrible nature of circumcision. My own brother had complications with the circumcision he had at birth, and had to have it fixed (painfully, I might add) as he was nearing puberty. Too many babies go through that for absolutely no reason. Why remove a natural, functioning organ? There is no other surgery that is justified by the same means and still legal (look up female genital mutilation, which is illegal, and look at the similar reasoning used for it and for male circumcision). News flash doctors: IT'S THE SAME THING. But I digress.

As far as my own sex life, when I became sexually active and touched a penis for the first time, I was actually shocked that there was no gliding movement. I knew nothing about circumcision at the time, and had never seen any type of penis intact or circumcised (my family is fairly conservative when it comes to sex, and I was always extremely shy about it). However, I naturally assumed there would be some type of movement of the skin on the shaft. What does that tell you? A woman who had utterly no prior knowledge of male anatomy whatsoever instinctively expected there to be movement. Since then, I have been with an intact man also, and I tell you in all honesty, intact penises are much easier. They are more sensitive, much easier to please, and more fun to play with. Sorry if that's too much info, but I'm sick of the misinformation surrounding a natural penis. Also, the story that an intact penis is dirtier than a circumcised one is complete bullshit (pardon my French). As a matter of fact, the intact penis I experienced was actually cleaner than any of the circumcised ones.

Men are supposed to have a foreskin, and any doctor who says otherwise is misinformed. In the U.S. doctors promote all kinds of propaganda to perpetuate the removal of foreskins on any man or child that has one. Moral of my story for all the ladies out there: Don't be afraid to try an intact guy. I promise you'll like it just as much if not more than a circumcised penis. Also, if you're going to have children at any point, reconsider having an integral part of their body chopped off at birth. He'll thank you later.

To all you doctors out there spreading your bullcrap on the web, answer me this: Of every animal on the face of the planet, human or otherwise, why are male human beings the ONLY creatures who have to have a part of their body amputated at birth? Hmmm?

February 23, 2011 - 8:19am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Male humans aren't the only creatures to have healthy body parts amputated at birth though. Many people also choose to chop off the tails of certain breeds of puppies, for example. But yeah, humans are the only creatures which routinely mutilate healthy infants for no real reason.

November 11, 2012 - 8:21am
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy
Add a Comment

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

3367 Health

Changed

2075 Lives

Saved

1927 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