Ladies: do you prefer a guy that is circumcised ? Or not ?

You wanted to know? Here's something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

You wanted to know? Here's something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

This is an interesting report but my observation would be that the Southeastern U.S. has a circumcision rate of about 80%.

This is an interesting report but my observation would be .

An interesting point is that if you leave out religiously mandated circumcision, then there is only around a 9% circumcision rate. Also for the Nordic countries with virtually 0 or 1% rates, there seems to be no epidemic of phismosis.

Agracier: Circumcision "needed due to phimosis" seems to vary much between countries and decades, which should not be the case if it was due to sound medical reasons only - I mean, phimosis prevalence should not change that much.

agracier: Circumcision "needed due to phimosis" seems to vary much between countries and decades, which should not be the case if it was due to sound medical reasons only - I mean, phimosis prevalence should not change that much.

Right indeed. It should be a constant given constant hygienic conditions. I noticed that the linked article also noted that 5% phismosis was diagnosed in the UK, while the high end goal should not exceed 2%. Obviously that means that some doctors are either letting their personal prejudices get the better of them or else they are covering up other reasons - probably religious circumcisions so they can be done under national health care funding.

The same happens in Belgium and France which both have large immigrant Muslim populations.

I know American doctors that have no clue as to the normal anatomy of the intact penis. I've heard from mothers of intact infants that the doctor wanted to forceably retract the foreskin or was clueless as to why it was attached to the glans. The diagnosis was phimosis. Forceable premature retraction causes phimosis. However you count it, those therapeutic circumcisions were unnecessary.

No Jds it causes paraphimosis.

Immediately, possibly, but the irritation, swelling and scar tissue can lead to phimosis.

Jds4med: A cousin of mine, on doctor's orders, underwent repeated forcible retractions by her mother. I was told later that "the situation was getting worse" (he ended up being circumcised). Perhaps that's this scarring issue that you're mentioning - perhaps they were making the matter worse, hardening the foreskin until the only solution was to cut it. Perhaps indeed everything would have been fine if his doctor had not been so ready to act (as far as I understand the explanations given to me, he had no infections).

At what age was this?

Jds4med: around 6 or 7.

Yup, between the doctor and the mom, they might have caused damage.

I was talking more about small children who's foreskin is still naturally attached via a membrane to the glans. It's inappropriate to retract that foreskin during that time. Many parents and clueless doctors will try to clean under the foreskin. Just wait until it's naturally retractable. Usually the child will facilitate this by early masturbation.

Jds4med: I think that in his case it was more that the foreskin was long and the opening small and would not retract, than about "adhesions". At least that's what I heard. But apparently it was scary - the doctor convinced my aunt (who convinced my mom) that such a condition would necessarily lead to very bad infections.

My take is that if the child, by age 7, has not had infections for that reason, then why should he have any in the following years, and why should it be urgent to yank the skin back or cut it? Especially with puberty hormones and self-discovery, the matter might have settled by itself, don't you think?

My husband is not circumcised. I like his foreskin and I think it's erotic to pull it back slowly and play with it to make him erect. To me it's sexy. As my husband was my first boyfriend I've never even been with other men, circumcised or not so I don't know if I would like a circumcised penis as much.

I know my friends have different views about which is best and why. It seems to cause a lot of arguments. I do not want to start another but I don't think it is right to cut off a part of a person's body when they are too young to agree to it.

I have always had better sex with circumcised men as I feel oral is better as you can really stimulate the head and vaginal sex feels better with the smoother feel to the penis.

Enemafan6 But that is not so is it really because you can bring the foreskin all the way back and hold it that way with your fingers and really get in there with your tongue. The intact penis is more sensitive anyway so it can be really stimulated when exposed but a circumcised man's penis sensitivity is dulled by lost nerve endings and thickened skin.

A circumcised man will scoop out your lubrication when an intact man will not. I do not think that could make sex feel better. My husband's penis will glide over my lubrication and not drag it out.

At the risk of flogging a very dead horse, how can anyone know if sensation is greater in a non circumcised penis? There aren't any double blind studies are there? Sorry I'll retreat quickly now.

At the risk of flogging a very dead horse, how can anyone know if sensation is greater in a non circumcised penis? There aren't any double blind studies are there? Sorry I'll retreat quickly now.

First off there is deductive reasoning. Remove x% of nerve endings and there is bound to be y% loss of sensation.

Secondly, by interviewing adult or teenage males who have been circumcised. Preferably those who did not choose voluntarily, but were forced to by (medical or accidental or religious-marital) circumstances. Those who decided on their own to be circumcised, will invariably expect and experience the procedure to be beneficial, thereby almost creating positive results by willpower or self-belief.

Thirdly - and this works only for circumcised males - by keeping the foreskin retracted for a long period of time using any number of retraction methods. And then noting how long term exposure of the glans, reduces sensation.

The last is easily done, but will invariably at first be extremely uncomfortable if not painful, due to rubbing against clothing. The irritation will diminish over time though - usually around a week or two - and that in itself is an indication of lessened sensitivity.

But won't increased sensitivity lead to premature ejaculation? I certainly don't want any more sensitivity than I have. You know I respect you Agracier, but I still think the logic you've brought up is conjecture not scientific fact. Also, since the lady in question had been with only one man, how could she have possibly known? A trial of one does not a study make--as one swallow does not a summer make. Oh no I'd better stop. By the way Amethyst, no offense is intended.

Oh no liquidsky I am not taking offence at all. I know I am at the other side of the argument to you and there is free speech so you can say what you say. It is not a problem and it is good to talk about it.

But I think you are assuming that men will have premature ejaculation unless they are circumcised. It is not that uncircumcised men increase their sensitivity it is that they have not had any taken away because they still have the other 50 percent of nerve endings in their penises. I know that some times doctors take away the frenulum as well because they think it is not needed but it contains a lot of fine touch receptors and I have read bitter accounts written by men who feel resentful that they have been robbed of those. By the way if you are sensitive enough and circumcised I am happy for you but I have read lots of things saying that many circumcised men DO have to work a lot harder to get stimulation. I do not think one man or a a small number of men being happy circumcised can mean that it MUST be right for MOST or ALL men.

I know I only have experience of one man but he does not have premature ejaculation. Yeah I know he has a disciplined mind as well so he can control himself and last as long as he wants but I have friends who have told me their own uncircumcised men also do not have premature ejaculation. Where they disagree on some times is what looks better but they usually say an uncircumcised man feels better and I think that is because they do not drag out the lubrication like the circumcised men do.

But won't increased sensitivity lead to premature ejaculation? I certainly don't want any more sensitivity than I have. You know I respect you Agracier, but I still think the logic you've brought up is conjecture not scientific fact. .

No one has ever claimed to be able to increase penile sensitivity. The natural state of male organs would be uncircumcised and at sensitivity 100%. Remove the foreskin and with it x% of nerve endings and it cannot physically be 100% anymore, only less. This seems to me to be basic mathematics. Remove the frenulum as well - as happens in some cases - and the percentage of nerve endings can only decrease further.

I often think many members here confuse the concepts of sensitivity with sexual pleasure. Thinking that more sensitive should invariably equal more pleasure. But here we have the problem of pleasure being subjective. There are all manner of methods for redirecting sexual pleasure and various methods of stimulating sexual response and they will most likely differ between a circumcised and uncircumcised organ, especially in masturbatory techniques and preferences.

Yeah Agracier I think that is right. Sensitivity and pleasure will not be the same for every and it will change them in different ways. I think you put it better than I did.

I think it is about how much sensitivity is enough sensitivity. I think it is going to be a problem for a man if the sensitivity that is left is not enough to get stimulation he needs.

I know when I have an orgasm my clitoris feels really sensitive after so my husband can easily get me to have another orgasm soon after. I know some women are TOO sensitive and they can't be touched on the clitoris straight after they have just had an orgasm. So we are different to each other and we should not all think we feel things exactly the same but we should give ourselves the best chance. It just makes sense that if we take away 50 percent of nerve endings we are taking away a lot of that sense of touch when we do not have to.

My preference is to have a circumcised partners. They seem to be able to last longer and they can mount with a soft erection and proceed to a full erection inside me. Many of my uncut partners had to pull out and pull the foreskin back manually to expose the head and then get back on me. That takes some of the passion out.

Dita

Dita: Interesting, I thought everybody would have to peel back the foreskin before installing the condom. But maybe you did not use a condom.

No one has ever claimed to be able to increase penile sensitivity. The natural state of male organs would be uncircumcised and at sensitivity 100%. Remove the foreskin and with it x% of nerve endings and it cannot physically be 100% anymore, only less. This seems to me to be basic mathematics. Remove the frenulum as well - as happens in some cases - and the percentage of nerve endings can only decrease further.

@agracier For some uncircumcised men, this 100 percent level of sensitivity is equivalent to ejaculation within a good 15 minutes, while for others - 15 seconds. Don't all men want to last a bit longer? No?

@agracier For some uncircumcised men, this 100 percent level of sensitivity is equivalent to ejaculation within a good 15 minutes, while for others - 15 seconds. Don't all men want to last a bit longer? No?

Ejaculation speed - just as ejaculation/erectile failure or dysfunction - is more often a result of a state of mind, of psychology of impulse control.

Sexual arousal and fulfillment is not dependent on physical stimulation alone. If that were the case, then the most genitally sensitive person would supposedly orgasm during unwanted/rape sex, because the sensitive genital areas are being touched and handled.

This is obviously not the case - except for the politicians who advise rape victims to just lay back and 'enjoy it'.

Touching genitals alone is not enough to guarantee anything. It is a person's state of mind that determines sexual excitation or over-excitation or not.

I like both!

Cut seems less musty and aromatic. Easy to play with and less to figure out.

Uncut is much less fun and more ways to explore.