By Jocel Them
posted with permission
nature intended men to have, terrifying to a new human who is wrenched away from mommy to have his most sensitive area hacked off, and a clear violation of human rights (these things should be a choice, not an ego-driven "I want him to look disfigured like me" idealism), but it hurts women in later life as well.
I have already written about the negative consequences of circumcision on boys. The decision taken from them, the nerves destroyed, and the pseudo-science and ancient social paradigms that we insist on propagating. The practice only gained popularity when the craze of masturbation hysteria drove doctors in the early 20th century to prescribe the procedure as a sort of anti-sex salvation.
Today, there is a lot of media hooplah about 'benefits' of circumcision in regards to HIV in Africa. The pro-cutting group jumps at the chance to back up their senseless practice, without ever really getting into the details of this study. Many scientists question the legitimacy of this study, however, as the techniques used were not reliable, ethical, or substantial (the ratio of HIV infection in circumcised vs. normal men for example).
Although the efficacy of this study is something I won't go into at this time (I'm sparing you), it is interesting to note that America has the highest rate of sexually active cut men in the world, and also the highest prevalence of HIV amongst all developed nations. (Click here to see why doctors disagree with the HIV stance)
Coincidence? I think not.
But what has gone on unmentioned throughout this debate is the effect of the procedure on women. A lot of men may cry about it, saying "you're not a man, you couldn't understand," or other such drivel, but I guarantee if women inserted razors into their nether parts, these infantile men would feel like they have a say.
Cutting off 1/3-1/2 of the functional penis destroys what nature intended. The biological mechanisms are disrupted, and thus cause a disturbance for heterosexual relations.
After circumcision, the glans of the penis hardens into a callous, causing numbness to the otherwise erotic sensory nerve-endings. Because of this, a cut man has to exert more effort while love making than a natural man. Thus, the cut penis needs more friction to feel instigating the male to move in and out of the vagina. This causes vaginal dryness, and is not what the female anatomy needs to fully enjoy the experience. As the New Zealand Medical Journal found, "male circumcision exacerbates female vaginal dryness during intercourse."
Conversely, a man with his foreskin intact stays deeper within his female partner, stimulating the clitoral tissue deep within her body. The New Zealand study found that females experience an orgasm twice as often from an intact man than the cut one. When it is cut, the coronal ridge is abnormally exposed, which causes undue friction on the vaginal walls that would not occur if the lubricating and gliding mechanism of the foreskin remained intact. The cut penis usually prefers an unnatural elongated an arrhythmic stroke, breaking the delicate build up the female arousal system.
What nature intended to be a beneficial experience for both sexes has warped and degenerated the natural act of sex. Female sexual dysfunction (often in the form of dryness) may be "diagnosed" because the woman is sleeping with a cut man whose member has decreased sensitivity, a hardened head, and an exposed coronal ridge that sucks out moisture. Perhaps it is over diagnosed in preference to changing the practice too many Americans infallibly believe is good for their sons.
Point is: Male circumcision is not just a man's problem. It affects our children, our perceptions of the natural body, and the sexual interactions of both men and women.
For research on this subject see: Male Circumcision & Women's Health
The Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association printed this article in 2003 about vaginal dryness and other female problems likely being caused by sex with a circumcised male. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1181/595/ReplyDelete
Very interesting! I had no idea how circumcision affects intercourse itself!ReplyDelete
Not only is circumcision certainly partially responsible for the fact that only 1/3 of North American woman having vaginal orgasms, but it's probably also the cause of a fair amount of bleeding on first copulation. Friction, dryness, chaffing, are not a recipe for quality copulation. I have always been sexually promiscuous. The first 15 yrs of my sexual activity were with nearly 100% circumcised men, but then I started travelling and met men from other areas and ages (ahem :) and found that intact men made for much more comfortable sex, and my rate of vaginal orgasms went up drastically.Delete
I am from a Canadian generation where all boys were circumcised. So for the first 12 years of my sex life, I was like the 30% of all females who do not have vaginal orgasms. And I thought well, so be it. I never questioned the role circumcision might play in that situation. I have always been a promiscuous woman. But later on I discovered men of different nationalities, and different ages, intact men, and my vaginal orgasms became frequent, and sometimes nearly instantaneous upon penetration. The smoothness of entry with an intact man is incomparable and amazing.Delete
I also suspect that a great deal of female bleeding upon first copulation is due to circumcision. Chaffing, friction, dryness, are no recipe for happy sex.
There is however a caveat to this... the intactness of the male is only relevant when not wearing a condom. In my case condoms increase my rate of vaginal infections, I suppose due to the extra friction, so I have mostly been promiscuous without condoms. Many readers will say I'm irresponsible, but at the end of our lives, I'm the one who will have taken less risk. Because HIV transmission only has a transmission rate of approximately 1/200 heterosexual copulations, supposedly steady couples who get much more sex than single people, if with an infected partner, are much more likely to become infected, through the process of increased viral load. My one-night stand policy ensures that even if I am with an infected partner, the load does not get increased day after day, so my immune system has been able to succeed up until now. Mind you, I have a pretty healthy immune system. I use condoms on occasion, when my assessment of my partner warrants it. I'm 45 and have never caught anything.
My husband is circumcised, and he has been the only one I have ever had sex with in my life, so I cannot compare like others can. It is hard for me to admit to other people something so personal for me, but it took me many many times, of having sex to be able to feel actually something other than rash and pain. And even now that it has gotten better with the years of 'practice', most of the time it takes a lot of effort from my husband's part to get me to feel what I am supposed to feel and reach an orgasm. I never thought in all these years that it could be because of his circumcision, I always thought that I must be broken, or there was something wrong with me... and I terribly regret doing the same barbarity to our first born that it was done to him, me and my husband have and are still grieving for our son ever since we became informed, now that I am pregnant with boy #2, who will be left intact... I hope that our son, can one day when he is older forgive us for our stupidity, I wish that there was something that I could do to undo what was done to him.ReplyDelete
I predict that the fate of the American foreskin will hinge on this very point. It is a sad fact that many women find sexual pleasure elusive, especially after age 45 or 50. There is a grim possibility that circumcision bears part of the blame.ReplyDelete
My husband is beautifully intact. The only man I have ever slept with that is actually. All my previous sex partners were cut, and I DO remember very clearly the roughness and post sex burning around my vagina and urethra. That has NEVER happened with my husband, and I never really thought about why until now, 10 years later! Intercourse with my husband has never been something to fear or regret afterward, and the act itself is without fail quite amazing, with relatively little work on his part. Very interesting that I am just now connecting all this with him being intact. It makes me adore my lovely mother in law even more :).ReplyDelete
Throughout my sexual history, my body has known this to be true but I had not known it really made sense.ReplyDelete
As a female, it has been difficult to express the level of sadness I feel when I see a cut penis. Men who still defend the practice create a mythical obligation to have it done to protect their view of their parents.
And as a compassionate female, I resent these defenses. They speak in volumes though. By defending their parents' decision to make their child go through such a procedure with little to no knowledge of the actual contraindications, they are proving just how unimportant their own decision making abilities are to their parents and those core desires have been hindered by this.
Thanks for speaking on behalf of these victims and sharing this information.
The generally accepted statistic is that fewer than 25% of women can reach orgasm with vaginal intercourse (without manual stimulation of the clitoris). I wonder how that number would change if all men were intact?ReplyDelete
I am intact. Nevertheless, my spouse has almost never climaxed by intercourse alone, to climax she must combine penetration and masturbation, and she uses lube. In my view, what my intactness buys us is a slower and gentler pace, foreplay that is easier and more fun, our climaxing together most times, and no irritation of the bladder and urethra. Most of all, it is easy to play with an intact penis until it produces precum, which she terms "the best possible lubricant." She has explained in detail why male precum is much better than female wetness or anything store bought.Delete
I am very curious to know if condoms affect sexual pleasure more adversely when he's circumcised. If this is the case, this could explain why STDs are rampant in the circumcised USA.
I had a friend of mine tell me when I brought up the topic of circumcision, and she right away defended it. Because, "There won't be any woman that is going to want to go down on a guy that isn't circumcised." So...it's all about where a penis isn't really supposed to be going anyways? That's just such a lame excuse to me. I wish like hell I'd have never circumcised my son...more than anything I wish I knew then what I know now. And now, at least, I do know...and next time around, I will do what is right in my heart.ReplyDelete
JennyJoE798 - it is fairly obvious that your friend has never been with an intact man (sexually) because the vast majority, when erect, do not have the foreskin anywhere close to covering the glans (it retracts) -- not that this really matters anyway, but it isn't difficult to have oral sex without the foreskin 'in the picture' any more than it is difficult to have oral sex with a woman without removing her labia... People show their ignorance when they say things like this - men and women the world over have no issues with being intact and having sex in a variety of fashions (oral and otherwise).ReplyDelete
@Paulina. I bow my head in shame and disgust at American medicine. How many millions of American and Canadian women are in a tragic situation similar to yours? When I was in college in the 1970s, there was a lot of frank talk of "Monday blues," bladder infections, of loving the closeness and the daring (girls too have dirty minds and like to Walk on the Wild Side), but being unable to climax. Only decades later did I begin connecting the sarcasm and anguish of young women with circumcision, and blame the American Foreskin Holocaust for all this unhappiness.ReplyDelete
@JennyJoE798: I too have been told "have it your way, but you can then forget about oral sex"!?! I am sure the perceived problem is not that foreskin gets in the way or makes fellatio impossible, but that the foreskin traps stuff that make the glans taste and smell vile. People forget that men should always rinse off the penis before beginning oral sex. Also, oral is less important for intact men because digital foreplay is much more exciting for them. It is easy for a woman to excite an intact man: just pump his foreskin.
@Carla: That only 25% of married women climax always or most of the time from vaginal intercourse is the figure I read in the 1960s and 70s. I bet that these data were collected from American women with cut husbands. I am intact. My better half always climaxes, but also always combines masturbation and intercourse. The other day she came once without masturbation, and that was very rare.
Much of what I am I owe to the amazing woman that is my mother. She is 89 and sliding into dementia. But every time I pay my marital respects to my better half, I am reminded that thanks to my mother, my spouse gets to experience all the tender moving parts Mother Nature intended me to have. Porn and the lewd talk among young men have it all wrong: good sex for her is not fast and hard driving, but slow and gentle. I strongly suspect that the rhythm and pacing that is ideal for her is slow and boring for him if he is cut. If I am right here, the American obsession with the bald penis has given rise to an iatrogenic horror: a century of troubled American intercourse. It is high time we come to understand that the moving foreskin stands at the very centre of the human sexual experience.
My husband and I have some degree of sexual dysfunction that I believe is related to his circumcision. I still enjoy sex, but at the end is always uncomfortable for me and rushed for him, because it simply takes so long and such intense thrusting to satisfy him. He has several brothers and their wives have all mentioned that that part of sex is just "too long" for us, and although we laugh it really isn't funny. It was not like this with my intact boyfriend. We didn't have to use artificial lubricant every time either, like I do with my husband. If we don't use lube sex can *hurt me* and that's really sad. When I was pregnant I knew that if I had a son (I had a daughter instead) that I could never do such a thing to a tiny newborn baby, but it's so much more than that. It will affect one of the most sacred aspects of not only his life, but the lives of his futures partners. Forever. I'm really sad my husband is circ'ed, but I know his mother did the best with the information she had at the time. I just can't believe that became the norm in our culture.ReplyDelete
My circ'ed ex-husband and I had a dysfunctional sex life also, I had burning and pain after sex and wondered if it could be a reaction to his semen, never occurred to me that it could be a lack of foreskin - until this article! He developed premature ejaculation and this actually suited me better, as the hard friction didn't last long and I didn't suffer as much discomfort afterwards.ReplyDelete
My second husband is intact and without knowing exactly why, I left my sons intact - all I knew is that I didn't want any part of them chopped off! Now that I am informed, I inform others. It is actually a sore point with a very good friend of mine who circ'ed her sons "to look like dad". Her middle son had complications at birth and was not circ'ed, she seems almost apologetic about it and that's what bothers me. The last time we stayed with them our boys wanted to bath together and she immediately laughed uncomfortably and told me that one of her boys hadn't had "his pencil sharpened".
The "it looks better' argument also doesn't sit too well with me - a circ'ed little boy has a purple glans and it freaks me out. An intact boy has an innocence about him, there is nothing sexual about the pointy penis. I am expecting my third son and only recently came across the anti-circ arguments on birth forums I read, I am so incredibly grateful that it was never a question with my boys, and I thank God for that every evening when I see my sons dress after their bath. My husband finds it funny that I am foreskin-obsessed all of a sudden, he agrees that circ'ing is a vile practice and we intend to educate whoever we can.
Now that I know circ'ing not only affects the man but also his partner, I am more determined than ever to help spare baby boys from this mutilation!
European women feel as you do, namely that the natural penis looks innocent, and the circed penis looks aggressively sexual.Delete
My mother helped me with my bath until I was 11 or so, my father was cut, and I am intact. More than once I caught her staring at my groin after my bath. Was she envious that I had what Dad lacked? My parents did not have a great sex life, and their marriage turned sexless around the time he turned 50. My mother told me after my father died that she did not believe that foreskin mattered for sex. But my father is the only man she has ever experienced.
"Looks better" really means "what I am used to." Millions of American mothers say yes to circ because their brothers were cut. The infant boys whose diapers they changed were cut. The toddler boys they babysat were cut. Their boyfriends were cut. Hubby is cut. Women who come of age in this fashion can find the natural penis very unsettling. Kudos to the typical intactivist American women for having broken free of all this cultural conditioning.
I can firsthand attest to the fact that the foreskin is NOT just a "flap of skin," but very definitely a functioning part of the male sexual anatomy. I'm American and because of my age and where I'm from, I never encountered a normal intact penis until I met my Argentine husband. It was an awakening. Oooooohhhhh...so *this* is what it is supposed to be like! I no longer have any of the problems I always had with circumcised men--discomfort, pain, dryness, boredom because the pounding went on and on and on, inability to climax, etc.ReplyDelete
My wife discovered what you discovered as a college sophomore, about 40 years ago. She has been foreskin friendly ever since. It also helped that she grew up without brothers, and that the first diagram she saw of the male urogenital system, the one in the Britannica, included foreskin.Delete
For YEARS I thought there was something wrong with me! I had one boyfriend who was intact and never had these issues (dryness so bad it led to fear of intercourse) while I was with him. Unfortunately, I chalked it up to "being truly attracted to him." Which I now realize was complete bull.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, I am experiencing these things again with my husband. Now I just need to figure out how to bring it up with him.
This article made me cry. A woman should never be made to feel like she's broken when she's not. Thank you so much.
So true! Im so very lucky to have an intact husband!! I've experienced both and its soooo much better!ReplyDelete
I wish I could talk my husband into restoring! Sex is a chore because I hate the chafing and burning. It's very uncomfortable for me as well (so much for the 'it only effects men myth). I don't want to use lube because it's so messy and gross. I know my husband would get sex a lot more often if it wasn't so uncomfortable for me, because I just see it as painful. Not something you can really get used to either, and I do have a very good sex drive. But, it's almost like the pain is conditioning me to not want to do it! I never got a chance to have sex with an intact man, but it would have been nice to have the opportunity to at least compare the differences. Maybe if more guys would restore, they wouldn't be so 'addicted' to oral sex. I suspect that being intact may feel more like oral sex, so maybe that's why so many cut guys like it. Who knows, I just wish more guys would restore and save their partners some pain as well. Restoring is a win-win situation.ReplyDelete
I too have concluded that the American fixation on fellatio stems in part from American circumcision, but the reason is simple: circumcision desensitises the penis in a way that makes vaginal intercourse less thrilling for men.Delete
I am sad to read you deprecating lube. My wife uses lube even though I am intact, and that does not bother either of us at all.
Thank you for this article. I am a woman in my upper 20's (OHIO- USA) and have only been with circumcised men. I never considered the impact on my sexual pleasure. I could write a novel about my experiences. This explains A LOT. How can I tell my husband I want him to 'fix' his snipped off penis? UGH. Thank God for this article, I left my infant son intact. I hope he appreciates having his whole penis, as well as any future love mates. I am so sad, stuck, and ANGRY at the medical INDUSTRY for perpetuating MYTHS, or at least not telling the WHOLE truth. This effects EVERYONE. SO SADReplyDelete
I had sex with both. My husband is intact...but yeah..I felt a definite disconnect with circumcised partners than I did with intact partners. It wasn't just a physical disconnect, it was an emotional distancing as well like I just lay there...was rather meh. With my intact partners, including my husband, it is a deeply bonding experience.ReplyDelete
I am from the UK and I had a similar experience even though circumcision is pretty rare over here. My first TWO proper boyfriends, whom I had regular sex with, had been circ'd when they were children, for whatever reason; I think both had some sort of phimosis. Anyway, I basically avoided sex with the first one because I really didn't like it, as it just rubbed - I mean, he was very large too, which probably made matters worse. The second was more average and he was more gentle because of the type of person he was, but no matter what, after a while sex would become uncomfortable and I would want it to just end - so would without fail, I would fake an orgasm, so he would cum. I thought it was me, or blamed condoms, as I can't take the pill because it makes me act like a loony.ReplyDelete
Anyway, then I met my ex, who was like most men over here - not circ'd. I remember how we would have sex for what seemed like forever; it would always just feel fantastic and occasionally I would get head rushes that made me feel like I was on drugs (I still get this now with my current partner). With him, and my current partner, I cum every time and if for whatever reason don't, I feel 'hard done by somehow', and want to have more sex later to make up for it. During sex I do have to stimulate my clitoris (or they do), in order to reach climax, but the point is I actually want to have an orgasm, rather than just hope he will cum and it will be over. Oh and I used/use condoms with both uncirc'd men, and I find the condom just moves with the foreskin, so although it is never going to be as good as without, it is still comfortable and feels 1000 times better than being with a circ'd man.
As it is now, I don't think if I become single again, that I would have a relationship with a circ'd man, there's just no point. With both circ'd exes I grew resentful of them for enjoying sex when I really didn't, plus I'm sure they resented my equally when I just stopped wanting to do it with them completely. It's no way to feel about your partner, and it just festers until you both can't stand each other, or in both my cases, I couldn't stand them. And both treated me better than the last (non-circ'd) guy, but I never till this day grew to despise him they way I do them, and for no good reason in their cases when I think about it. It's really weird.
But I can categorically say from experience, sex with an uncircumcised man is not just much much better, but it actually doesn't leave you in pain after, instead it leaves you wanting more! I feel sorry for all men who were circ'd at birth, and advise them to look into restoration of some sort.
I found that with my intact husband I do not feel raw, swollen, or chafed if we have sex often. That wasn't the case with previous cut partners. The foreskin is also very helpful during hand jobs! I'm glad I'm settled with an intact partner.ReplyDelete
Thank God....I did an internet surf before actually going to get myself circ'd...I was kind of getting ideas that circ'd men enjoy more than uncirc'd men....I'm going to get married soon and thanks to this forum I didn't do anything stupid...ReplyDelete
As an older, but still very sexually active male, it's most interesting (& refreshing) to read the comments of women who are not reticent to discuss the more physical aspects of their sexual experiences.ReplyDelete
Having said that, I would caution against drawing conclusions based on hypothesis, such as the assertion of an American fixation on fellatio. On the other side of that coin, my observation is that the prevalence of fellatio in countries where men are typically uncircumcised, such as Russia, is much higher than win those countries where then men are circumcised. Of course here I'm referring to sexual activity between men (such as frequently takes place in public washrooms), and since it's one is unlikely to have much opportunity to observe strictly heterosexual behavior, it needs to be left to those who conduct more scientifically based research into such matters.
Hi! I'm a muslim. I have fully restored my foreskin with flaccid overhang & it cover my glans fully when erect. The difference & feel it gives is really AWESOME, I can't explain in words. My foreskin tip is now sensitive as is my dekeratinised glans, the glans is pink in colour & arousing. The gliding action of foreskin is remarkable. My resentment is gone, I feel physically & mentally INTACT as Allah had created. What a feeling of Completeness :)ReplyDelete
Circumcision isn't mentioned in the Quran. And Allah has forbidden to alter His creation. You can't find any flaw in his creation. Circumcision can't be justified by anything & nothing can challenge or contradict the Quran. Circumcision is mentioned in the Hadiths(which was written over 200 years after Prophet Muhammad death, p.b.u.h. & during his lifetime he had prohibited to write any Hadiths). What a Satanic infiltration by the Satans. Any kind of blood-letting is a satanic ritual act.
Links to the New Zealand Journal are no longer valid.
Despite a search on the site I can't find it.
Does anyone have the text?