I May Make Some Guys Angry

I have read enough posts by uncircumcised guys that I decided I finally have to say something.

I obviously have neither a penis nor a foreskin. What I am going to do is make a statement based on thirty years of personal sexual observations and personal experiences watching people having sex and jerking guys off, and my jerking guys off and having sexual intercourse with many (just barely into triple digits) boys and men aged 15 to 60.

OK, when I was younger I would have been called a slut if people knew what I was up to, and I'm glad I was never filmed in a "college girls gone wild" but I have amassed a great deal of experience. I am NOT going to discuss guys with phimosis problems or difficulty retracting the foreskin.

Here's the observation: You uncircumcised guys who think you have such sensitive glans (for better or worse), much more so than circumcised guys are full of crap. You are all about the same.

In my experience with boys and men from 15 to 60 (the older guys are some people we party with, the younger ones are high school boys I had my way with--they thought they were "getting lucky") there was no difference in how I handled their penises or how long it took them to have an orgasm and ejaculate when I either jerked them off, rubbing directly on the glans or not, or had sex with them aside from age related differences. No one ever complained I was rough or wasn’t reasonable about how I handled their penis during sex, corporal punishment or rough med-fet exams if they were circumcised or not.

I'm sure men will respond to this and experienced women are also welcome to respond with their observations and experiences.

Don’t be shy, I am wearing my flame proof suit.

Thanks for sharing your experience Switch!!

I'm an uncircumcised guy, In Europe, most of guy are like that.

I have not interested myself a lot with this wonder, but I've hear about that.

No one ever complained I was rough or wasn’t reasonable about how I handled their penis during sex, corporal punishment or rough med-fet exams if they were circumcised or not.

Don't you know that men will virtually never complain when a lady handles their penis? That they are grateful as can be? We are all so eager and desperate that none of us will ever utter a word of complaint. Anything to be naked and have sex with a lady ... ha ha.

Anyway, just saying the starting premise might be flawed. And aside from that, sex and excitement and arousal and fulfillment are all situated more in the head than in the body as such. Sex is mainly about situations and dynamics. That is why marital sex becomes routine or dull after a while because the situation and dynamics are unchanging. What is the first advice a sexual counselor (or a magazine article for that matter) will give? Add some change, spice, excitement into your sex life. Do something different.

You're right that cut or not, sex is pleasurable. But (normal) physical sensitivity for either condition does not equate sexual pleasure. The sexual pleasure comes from other factors as well.

I was circumcised at birth so I can't compare to what it might have felt like if I did have foreskin. I would say that when aroused and getting lots of stimulation the man will ejaculate in great intense pleasure with or without foreskin.

My best answer to this question is that having foreskin does not make the glands more sensitive. The foreskin is retracted during sex and yes it might provide stimulation on the glands when stroked but guys without foreskin can receive just as much stimulation on their glands when being stroked. Another point is that maybe one might reason that foreskin protects the glands throughout life making them more sensitive than ones exposed after circumcision. I think this point would be hard to prove and if the glands loose sensitivity with age it would probably happen with or without foreskin.

But the best way to test your theory Susie, is to have guys chime in who had circumcision later in life where they had sex both with foreskin and then without. It would not be a scientific survey but would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Now if a guy had circumcision done after puberty and some sexual experience, you may want to know why he chose to have this operation- clearly they wanted to get rid of their foreskin for some reason so that would have to be taken into consideration.

But the best way to test your theory Susie, is to have guys chime in who had circumcision later in life where they had sex both with foreskin and then without. It would not be a scientific survey but would be interesting to hear what they have to say.

This can be done even without undergoing a circumcision. If you are not cut, all it takes is a bit of resolve and determination. Find a way to keep a retracted foreskin in place that you are comfortable with. Do so for a long period of time. See how long it takes until clothing chaffing and rubbing against the glans is no longer uncomfortable. That should take some 2 weeks more or less. That alone shows that the pure physical sensitivity of the glans does diminish.

However, it proves nothing about sexual sensitivity or the ability to enjoy sexual activities. Sexual pleasure is not only about physical friction. If that were the case, then a guy's hand would be as good as a blind horse to achieve orgasm. But many men will not agree because of the gay element. Therefore sex is more than just about physical stimulation. It is about the desirability of a partner, about tranquility perhaps, the right setting or paraphilia, the right play acting or whatever.

I have been doing this for some time now, several years in effect. And while clothing no longer feels uncomfortable or even irritating against an exposed glans, that has nothing to do with sexual pleasure, which lies more in the mind anyway.

The main negative aspect towards circumcision (in the US) is the quasi-mandatory social pressure to perform the procedure on infants. The pressure to conform to a norm can be overbearing. The more so since in the eyes of the rest of the world, circumcision is a religious rite, irrevocably linked to Judaism and Islam. Which makes it all the more so curious why a then nominally Christian nation like the US, so enthusiastically adopted the practice in the early 20th century against all traditional Christian doctrine.

There was a study that came out the other day basically confirming what you are saying. Here is a pop-culture take on it: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/how-circumcision-affects-the-sensitivity-of-your-penis

Actual study is here: http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347%2815%2905535-4/abstract

I was quite surprised and weirdly disappointed. The idea of being more sensitive was the one thing I liked about being uncircumcised...I had always wished I were circumcised but that was basically the one reason to like being uncut.

Thank you for finding that study!

Well, I am not so sure of this study: 30+32 patients is very little for to be accurate, statistically speaking.

However I am very sure of the big business that is related to circumcision ...

M.

Hmm, I would like to have been in that study 😃

Interesting, it looks at the like they used stimuli like touch sensitivity and pain from heat to measure comparative sensitivity. Doesn't look like they ventured into anything sexual rather purely just skin sensitivity.

This study pretty much answers the question for me.

I think you should expand your age group, I'm 66 and circumcised. Just saying.

Well, I am not so sure of this study: 30+32 patients is very little for to be accurate, statistically speaking.

However I am very sure of the big business that is related to circumcision ...

M.

The sample size in the published study was 62. My 30 year long anecdotal, uncontrolled observational study using one examiner (ME) had a sample size close to 100. We both came to the same conclusion.

Statistically speaking, the sample size will depend on the desired confidence interval. The confidence interval for a given sample size will vary depending on the prevalence of the feature of interest. The confidence interval will be at its widest when the prevalence is 50%, so in the absence of any information it's best to set the sample size to yield the desired confidence interval around a prevalence of 50%

In simple figures:

N=30 gives a confidence interval of ±20%

N=50 gives a confidence interval of ±15%

N=100 gives a confidence interval of ±10%

N=400 gives ±5%

N=1000 gives ±3%

I think I must argue the other way to what @switchablesusie said because I really do not think that study can be the last word and I think a lot of women are not fair to men about this question. I hope the men do not mind me talking here as a kind of champion for them.

I do not think you can take that study just on its own really and 60 or so is a really small sample. I am a bit suspicious of it and it could be that they just wanted to prove the "right" answer that they had already decided on. I have read there is a lot of money around circumcision in America.

I do not think that this study measuring how much heat and pain is felt can say it is the same thing as feeling sexual touching. Why does this lady who did the study think it is nearly the same thing? She just says that feeling light touch does not matter in sexual pleasure. Well maybe she should see how much pleasure I can give my husband with light touch!!! So I think it should be pressure feeling that is measured not heat or pain.

When I read about circumcision a few months ago and I found that 2007 study then that said

"The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

This study and other things I have seen say that a lot of women find that sex with uncircumcised men is better. This caused big arguments among my group of friends so we just do not talk about it any more. But this is what I found that 2007 study said when I read it.

"Whether the penis is circumcised or not might also affect coitus. For women, having a male partner with a foreskin increased the duration and comfort of coitus and increased the likelihood of achieving single and multiple orgasms".

Well I do not think women can just write off the foreskin as "just useless skin". @switchablesusie I know you have a lot of experience and I have only been with my husband so I am not very experienced but I think you are forgetting that the foreskin has lots of nerve endings that give a lot of pleasure. It is not just about the glans you know. I know I can just lightly touch my husband's foreskin with my fingertip or my tongue and it feels very good for him. I think there is a lot more going on than just how sensitive the glans is because I know it feels good to him when I slowly retract his foreskin. I do not know how much he is feeling pleasure in his foreskin and how much of it is felt by his glans. I bet he could not tell you if you asked him!

The sample size in the published study was 62.

50% were cut and 50% were not cut. So that does give only 30 subjects being studied of each kind ... I didn't read what absolute population size they were supposed to be representative of.

I do know that back when taking statistical analysis during my sociology days, groups of less than 300 to 500 subjects were considered too small to give any meaningful results. At that size, the margins of error were still around 5 to 6% if I'm not mistaken. Studies with those margins of error are often of little value when the results tend to cluster around 50%. It isn't until you get results with differences higher than 40-60% that any conclusions can really be drawn.

If you don't like the results of a study, you find a way to condemn it.

How about finding a PEER REVIEWED study with opposing results.

Well the 2007 study that I quoted from is this one. http://www.foreskinrestoration.info/images-Foreskin%20Restoration/Touch%20Test-BJU.pdf

It is NOT opposite to what you are saying when it talks about the glans because it says the glans has not very many fine touch receptors. I think it is just looking at sexual pleasure a different way to Bossi's study. It does say that the parts removed in circumcision do have the fine touch receptors that Bossi just seems to get dismissive about. I do not think she can say that does not matter. I think it is wrong to just ignore fine touch and go on saying it has not got anything to do with sexual pleasure.

Now Susie, how could you EVER make any guys angry? LOL!

Being born in the 40's, almost all of us got circ'ed. The only boys I ever saw with everything still in tact were a few who were born at home (often in a cabin in KY, or TN, before moving to Cincy). All Doc's in those years told their new moms, "You do want him circ'ed, don't you? It's much easier to keep him cleaned." Back then, folks thought Dr.'s were Gods and were always right. So, we all got "skinned".

Never having had a foreskin, I don't know if I have less sensitivity than others. I seriously doubt it. I've been perfectly happy with my sensitivity all these years. The worst sex I've ever had was wonderful!

The worst sex I've ever had was wonderful!

This doesn't specifically have to do with foreskins as such, but the worst sex I've ever had was very bad and cringe worthy, something to be forgotten as quickly as possible, but which isn't, because it was bad and something you do not wish to repeat again.

Sex cannot always be good. It's a human activity and therefore there will be good experiences and bad ones as well.

Sorry for being a wet rag, but surely there must have been times you wished never happened?

@jimmyt44 said

The worst sex I've ever had was wonderful!

agracier said:

. . . . Sex cannot always be good. It's a human activity and therefore there will be good experiences and bad ones as well.

Sorry for being a wet rag, but surely there must have been times you wished never happened?

There were a number of guys I wished I never had sex with, but their problem was between their ears, not between their legs.

Yes, there were guys I wished I never had sex with, but their problem was between their ears, not between their legs.

Exactly. Sex is a physical activity, but it is determined to a great degree by the mind. That is why for instance a special person's touch alone can be more gratifying than hours of activity with a person of no attraction.

My personal take on this.

I am fascinated by circumcision ever since my mother pondered having me done when I was a child, and a cousin of mine was circumcised.

That cousin, at adult age, complained to me that he suffered occasionally from little injuries on his penis on the zone between the glans and the normal penis skin - a zone that is covered by the foreskin in intact men. He has experienced uncomfortable intercourse. Basically a little zone of his circumcision scar is fragile and gets easily injured during masturbation (especially by a partner), and sometimes intercourse.

Several circumcised members here have mentioned that they masturbate using lubricant because dry masturbation leads to irritation. Some others circumcised members say they masturbate without lubrication, but only holding the skin of the shaft and not putting fingers on the glans.

So my conclusion would be that circumcision makes masturbation more difficult (requiring lubrication or special technique, or ignoring some parts of the penis) but does not significantly change intercourse.

I note that circumcision was promoted in the US in the XIXth century and even the first half of the XXth as a way to reduce masturbation...

So my conclusion would be that circumcision makes masturbation more difficult (requiring lubrication or special technique, or ignoring some parts of the penis) but does not significantly change intercourse.

I note that circumcision was promoted in the US in the XIXth century and even the first half of the XXth as a way to reduce masturbation...

And my personal conclusion is that you could waterboard defenders of birth circumcision and they would still never admit to any of the above ... ha ha ha.

It's become part of the great and usually rather pointless culture wars that are so prevalent these last decades.

My personal take on this: It has never interfered with masturbation and/or any other act utilizing my penis.

My personal take on this: It has never interfered with masturbation and/or any other act utilizing my penis.

It is not a question of interfering with or precluding masturbation or anything. But circumcision does change the way ... for some it is for the better perhaps, for some for the worse. Just think that if 'doctors' used to promote circumcision as a way to combat masturbation, there had to be at least some element of truth in the assertion, there had to be something that changed things or else the sales pitch wouldn't have worked as well as it historically did in the US.

Also consider: men who were cut at birth have absolutely no way, no way at all of experiencing the difference. For all they know, this is how it was in the beginning and always shall be, amen. Which is fine for them of course.

But they cannot with any degree of accuracy say that sensations, cut or uncut, are the same. They have no way of knowing.

Also consider: men who were cut at birth have absolutely no way, no way at all of experiencing the difference. For all they know, this is how it was in the beginning and always shall be, amen. Which is fine for them of course.

But they cannot with any degree of accuracy say that sensations, cut or uncut, are the same. They have no way of knowing.

I think you are right about that @agracier and I think women can not say it would make no difference either. I just do not think any of us should be saying that. I think we should try to put ourselves in men's places and we can not know any better than the men can. We should not think we know it all about what pleasure must be like for every man.

Agracier: I see a simple issue.

As an uncircumcised male, I do not use lubricant for masturbating. I've never heard of uncircumcised people needing lubricant unless they wish to directly rub the glans.

Several people on this forum, and my cousin, have mentioned the need for lubrication if they wish to rub the top part of their circumcised penis. Some mentioned stealing Vaseline from their parents, etc.

Thus there is a change.

@Pecannutjob most times I use either water based lube or drool my saliva onto my husband's penis if I give him a hand job and he is not circumcised. He appreciates the lube and I think it really helps and increases his pleasure when I do twisting motions with my hand while his foreskin is back or I am teasing his glans with my fingertips. I do not think it is just circumcised men who will need the lube.

Oh my god, are we back to the circumcision rant again? Who cares? I've been away for a bit and missed this. Since no one really knows except those that have been circumcised as an adult what is the point of trying to figure it out? It simply doesn't matter. As for women who think that sex is better with one or another, do you seriously think it's important compared to what's between their ears? Please forgive me but I've been here before and my observation is that stirring this up again is producing a lot of heat and very little light. Oh well.

Great to have you back, @liquidsky, but don't get all hot under the collar! If you eliminated all the posts that produce mainly heat and little light Zity would probably close down due to lack of interest. It's precisely the fact that we can't know exactly how the other side feels (those who are circumcised, in my case) that makes the discussion so fascinating. Forgive us, but we have to have something to chat about when we're not actually screwing or masturbating!

Agracier: It simply does not change anything with me. Understand?

Agracier: It simply does not change anything with me. Understand?

You'd really have to give more information and explain your situation just a tad more precisely. Otherwise, no, I can't understand, because there is insufficient data to know what you mean.

I could perhaps deduce that you were circumcised at some point after you had seriously started to masturbate and experiment with different ways to do so.

I could also wonder if perhaps not being cut, you've ever experimented with keeping the foreskin retracted for long lengths of time - say up to several months 24/7 - so that the glans gradually desensitizes to the chaffing and rubbing of clothing and dries out so that it is no longer moist as it normally is when sheathed in a prepuce.

But without knowing anything more, I (or other members) have no way of knowing what you base your assertion on. You really have to explain further, otherwise it just sounds like a faith-based statement.