An experienced (on her mid 30s) female friend of mine told me that circumcised guys made her feel better than “naturals”.
Is this true?
And on the health side, is it better for the penis to be circumcised?
Circumcission, Is It Better Than The Natural Thing?
February 8, 2010 by admin Leave a reply »
Advertisement
No, uncircumcised is better for both partners.
Circumcision removes over half the skin of the penis (about 15 square inches or 40 square centimetres, in an adult) and it’s not just simple skin. It’s packed with nerve endings, special anatomical features like the ridged band and has a unique elastic gliding action, allowing it to slide on itself and act like lube. This action is what most males use to masturbate with. Circumcised males use what skin they have left, except those who are cut so tightly that they have to use lube or just rub it dry. The intact male can stroke the entire length of his penis using his foreskin and also has the option to use lube too, if he wants to. During intercourse the foreskin acts like lube on entry and may act as a dam, preventing lubricating secretions escaping from the vagina. In one study women reported that sex with an intact partner was gentler and more satisfying since he doesn’t have to thrust as hard to feel enough stimulation. Removing the foreskin turns the surface of the glans from an inner mucosal membrane to outside skin. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive. A recent study has shown real differences in fine touch sensitivity between circumcised and intact penises and that the most sensitive parts of the intact penis are those that would be removed by circumcision.
Geoff
Anyone with intelligence can understand that a penis that’s 100% complete, with a natural foreskin, feels and functions better than one that’s been made partial, scarred and mutilated by circumcision.
There are no benefits, especially health wise, to circumcision, the only benefits go to the doctors and hospitals who make big bucks from it.
Male genital mutilation, called circumcision, does not prevent infections or disease. There are many complications that can and do result from damaging the penis with this archaic and barbaric atrocity.
A foreskin is natural and normal; circumcision is not.
Circumcision is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on the male sex.
A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
NO, first of 85% of the world are uncut, and when you get circumcised you lose all the millions of nerve endings in the foreskin which when removed make sex and masturbation less pleasurable also without the foreskin covering the glans they lose there sensitivity and once again become less pleasurable. Plus uncircumcised looks so much better. Also there are no proven health sides to a circumcised penis, people can say all the crap they want, its easier to clean, less chance of STI’s etc etc well guess what it has yet to be proven.So uncircumcised all the way.
No that’s not true. It’s actually better for both partners when the guy is uncircumcised (at least in my experience). The foreskin reduces friction in the vagina making sex less painful and more pleasurable for the woman. And a penis which still has the foreskin has thousands more nerve endings than a circumcised penis so it’s more pleasurable for the man as well. I live in England and most men are not circumcised here (unless they are Jewish). That part is there for a reason!
Circumcision is very rare in most parts of the world and only usually done for religious reasons. It has no health benefits (despite all the mostly bogus studies that have suggested otherwise). Only in the US do people think it’s better to be circumcised, but that’s because it’s been going on so long there (and the vast majority of men are circumcised in that country) that they think it’s normal and healthier to be circumcised. I hear a lot of girls there say they think it “looks” better without the foreskin and a lot of parents have their boys circumcised so they will look like the daddy (who is circumcised). But the reality is that circumcision plays no role in health otherwise everyone would do it and doctors worldwide would recommend it, they don’t! It’s purely cosmetic, and the pros do not outweight the cons. Personal hygiene and safe sex are the only things that factor into sexual health.
I was circumcised at 18, so been there and have the t-shirt! Being circumcised is much cleaner, uncut guys need to wash at least 2-3x a day and before sex as there is always a stink. It is healthier to be cut, uncut guys have a 60% higher chance to get STD’s and HIV! Looks better to be circumcised, that’s a no brainer. It also enhances the sexual experience. The foreskin just gets in the way! I had no hesitation to have my boys (2&4) circumcised as I know there is no downside, only a lifetime of benefits!
Don’t fall prey to the antis! Most are uncut or brainwashed by the lies! There is nothing good about being uncircumcised!
Also read about new studies!http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081217/sc_n…http://allcircumcision.blogspot.com/2008…
Not for the guy. Circumcision is cutting off the most sensitive part (it was popularized to prevent boys from masturbating).
And so long as the guy takes a shower everyday and washes his junk, it’s not any healthier. Most men in Europe, Asia, South America and Australia don’t ever get circumcised, it’s mostly an “American” thing. So there are no real health benefits.
The natural Dude gives way less wear and tear on a lady because he has a sliding sheath that cuts down on direct friction to her parts while she still gets all of the feel good. There are most women who will tell you that natural feels better including my Ladies who Loves nine! Haha! Maybe this experienced is biased or didn’t really have a natural Dude? Just talk like Dudes do?
Nature built the best working model the way that it is for a bunch of reasons. Tradition and a funny idea of a mushroom look, and that Dudes don’t wash, has parents in the U.S. cutting off their protecting sheaths off their sons, getting a dried knob with heavier skin over the sensitive sex nerve ends and sacrificing huge feel good for average that fades with the years of rubbing and exposure to clothing etc. More sensitive, even to feeling sore when touched direct equal more feel good when slippery contact happens in sex.
I don’t enjoy pointing stuff out, because for a dude who was circumcised at birth, how is he suppose to feel? He had no choice.
It should be left to be the choice of each Dude when he’s old enough to explore and experiment to learn first hand what he’s doing….and has had a chance to explore how his gear works and which parts do what? I thank my Parents that they gave Me! :- ) that chance instead of up and taking away a whole bunch of my feel good because of a bunch of notions that they had. It’s about my pride and joy and feel good… not about them and that’s what they told me when I was 15. Haha!
Me! :- )
Everybody has their preference but most of the stuff I’ve seen on this says it’s not better for the woman in sex. In fact there is evidence the foreskin makes it feel better. Even if it doesn’t then it’s definitely more fun for bjs and hjs and more sensitive for the guy
Harriet
no, not at all, in no way better
no, not at all
Way better