Circumcision Alters Sexual Function
The foreskin has a gliding action that facilitates intercourse. The gliding of the foreskin stimulates the glans and the glans stimulates the foreskin. During intercourse, the foreskin turns inside out and the ridged band is exposed to and stimulated by the vaginal walls. The movements and skin contact an intact man needs to reach orgasm are compatible with the movements and skin contact a woman needs to reach orgasm.
The dryness, abrasion, and chafing complaints of some women, along with their inability to have an orgasm, are oftentimes complications of circumcision. A circumcised male has little lubrication of his own, and he removes much of a woman's vaginal lubrication with every outstroke. In addition, a circumcised male needs longer strokes to stimulate the small sensitive area (frenular remnant) on the underside of his penis to reach ejaculation. Each long outstroke distances him from the woman's clitoris, making it harder for her to ride the wave to orgasm.
An American joke asks, “Why do women fake orgasm?” The answer, “Because men fake foreplay,” is only partially correct. Women fake orgasm because many circumcised men miss much of the pleasure of foreplay, their movements aren’t compatible with women’s movements, and women don’t want to hurt men’s feelings. Many men, insecure about their sexuality, may know something’s wrong, but are relieved to hear, “Yes, honey, I had an orgasm.” Rarely is this potential cause for deep tension in relationships discussed. Mutilated sex organs are no joke!
Once couples realize these problems are related to circumcision rather than inadequacy, they can learn to adjust the mechanics of sex to partially compensate for the genital alteration of circumcision, but nothing can restore full sexual experience when significant amounts of sensory tissue are amputated from either a man or a woman.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I have never had pain with an intact penis on entry. Do tell, how can a circumcised penis be less painful than no pain at all? In fact, do you have any evidence to back up your wild claim? No, you don't. You are just trying to make yourself feel better that you are missing part of your penis! My boyfriend and I will keep having painless sex with intact genitals, and you can keep telling yourself that women find a circumcised penis less painful.
I think Morris and Schoen give a lot of false information. So I'm glad to see that on this site so far the vast majority of people disagree with them. To my interpretation any benefits of circumcision are minor, extremely rare, or untrue. In my opinion though it is evident and obviuos that circumcisions very much decrease sexual pleasure. So in my opinion for most males circumcisions do severe harm and little good. A lot of males who were circumcised as a baby resent it that they were circumcised, so I think that it is horribly wrong to circumcise babies unless if there is a rare medical need to do it.
My wife suffered from vaginal dryness and uncomfortable intercourse throughout our 40 year marriage. Despite having abundant secretions at the commencement of intercourse she would have to apply artificial lubrication during the proceedings to replace her secretions which were ‘pumped out’ on every outstroke of my circumcised penis - A circumcised penis is like a piston with a washer on the end which lifts secretions from the vagina in the same way as a garden pump lifts water from the well or reservoir into which it is inserted. A penis with a foreskin doesn’t act in the same way. The foreskin bunches up behind the flare of the glans or rolls over it on the outstroke thus smoothing the flared rim and removing the washer effect. My wife is now 62 and I have grown a replacement foreskin. She no longer needs additional lubrication and no longer suffers from uncomfortable intercourse and orgasms more easily and more frequently
These studies that show no real difference in sensitivity only did so on the glans. You can't make an honest comparison just doing a touch-test on the glans. The real test comes from touch-testing the foreskin itself.
The 5 most highly erogenous and sensitive parts on the penis are located on the foreskin. This is why these tests that show no sensitivity difference are flawed. There is nothing on the circ'ed penis to compare them to, so you have to look at the anatomy and physiology of the prepuce. 20,000 plus meissner's corpuscles (some think it might be as high as 100,000)...yeah...no sensitivity difference for sure.
The foreskin carries a bundle of critical to sexual pleasure nerves which would be lost through circumcision, but also the touch test to the glans would need to be done to an erect stimulated penis so that the sexual function is turned on and active. This was not the touch test performed, and consequently invalid.
The sensitivity of the glans which the foreskin maintains through holding moisture and preventing erosive contact can only be measured with the system turned on and sensing the intended experience. At this stage, huge differences are measurable.
The glans is designed to be an internal organ as is the case with most creatures.
Most argument toward circumcision is not meant for fact, but geared toward defending generations of tradition and notion right back to the Victorian era in America which is the real source of circumcision.
People should take note that the intent of many of the Victorian notions were kind of sick and less honorable in than most realize. Hindering masturbation was the first reason for circumcision, evolving to the locker room today, and "that's just what you're supposed to do"!
Best possible sexual experience should be the goal of genital condition, simply because.. "locker room show and tell".. is a short lived sliver of ones life time and purposing.
"Women find the circumcised penis less painful on entry"? not! neither on entry, nor in action.
most c'd males have retained a shred of their original foreskin -- a sensitive frenulum remnant, on the underside of the head where it meets the shaft. he moves to stimulate this area -- pressing down and moving in and out with long, hard, fast strokes. she perceives his long, hard, fast movements downward not as loving, but as contrary and tiresome. she is rubbed raw, sore, and feels used. he wants more, needs more, because he did not reach deep, full, sexual satisfaction. she pushes him away.
men with foreskins move slowly, gently, in all directions, including upward, stimulating her clitoris. inner foreskin tissue is similar to inner vaginal tissue. which is more sensuous and creates more electricity -- french kissing where mucosal tissue meets mucosal tissue? or rubbing the inside of your mouth with your fingers?
circumcision drastically alters sexual function.
It is now very clear from a number of published papers that circumcision amputates the ridged band, the seat of erogenous sensation in the penis. This of course degrades erection, ejaculation and orgasm. There is a discussion at:
http://knol.google.com/k/george-hill/the-ridged-band-of-the-human-prepuce/2y9nanfagw8nr/7 #
Nothing could be more obvious: The foreskin is sensitive to fine-touch. Sorrells proved it. Every man who didn't have his cut off knows it to be true. The data is clear: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007 /
But Brian Morris thinks he can smokescreen an obvious truth with statistical noise. His claims don't even address the actual issue... The foreskin itself.
The foreskin is nerve-rich and sensitive to fine-touch. Brian Morris won't come right out and say "The foreskin is not sensitive to fine-touch" because it is too easily proven false. Instead he dishonestly evades the question. He thinks we are all stupid.
These claims range from pure fantasy to flawed 'research'. The truth is the opposite in every case. Women find the circumcised penis less painful on entry. The NOCIRC-funded study by Sorrells and other anti-circ activists on sensitivity was debunked after a proper statistical analysis of the data by Waskett & Morris in the same journal. The O'Hara & O'Hara paper is fatally flawed, as is admitted by the authors in their article, based as it is on a survey amongst readers of an anti-circ newsletter (see www.circinfo.net - socio-sexual aspects for full critique). Anything by Van Howe has no credibility. If one goes to PubMed.com one can find the damning critiques demolishing all of his papers and statistics. A recent paper uses fictitious data. Extensive, properly conducted research shows no difference in sensitivity of the flaccid penis nor in sensation during arousal for circ'd vs uncirc'd. See the extensive, evidence-based appraisal for the facts at www.circinfo.net for the truth!
Those who were circumcised as infants can have no comprehension of either the sensations or the mechanical advantages of a foreskin and are in no position to comment. I would like to challenge Morris & Schoen to reveal their circumcision status and if they are cut to state at what age the cutting took place and to quote to them from the 1949 Rodgers and Hammerstein Musical South Pacific, ‘that by a pupil the teacher may be taught’.
I have never known an uncircumcised (natural) man advocate circumcision for non-medical reasons, especially the circumcision of neonates.
I would also like to apologies for typing dyspareunia incorrectly in the heading of an earlier response.
Laurie Milner Foreskin Researcher, you can now stop saying that you have never known an uncircumcised man advocate circumcision for non-medical reasons. The link below is a response on this very debate from a man who was circumcised at 18 after having sexed circumcised and was much happier with the results.
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/circumcised-is-a-10
PhilyG, most men circumcised as adults do so as a result of a foreskin problem (like phimosis). It is to be expected that removal of a DEFECTIVE foreskin might not reduce sexual pleasure, or even improve it. However, unnecessary removal of a normal-functioning foreskin may be a totally different matter! So before you attach importance to anecdotal evidence of circumcision satisfaction, you need to know the reason(s) underlying the personal circumcision decision. Alternatively, a man choosing circumcision may do so owing to a perceived religious requirement or duty. Such a man electing circumcision is more likely to express satisfaction at its outcome for the very reason that he wanted it.
By the way, this also applies to FEMALE circumcision. Believe it or not, literature abounds in women expressing sexual satisfaction following their genital cutting, whereas most people would unhesitatingly label it as no less than FGM!
PhilyG is way too naive!
i see you are a man. you do not have a vagina. trust me when i say that a circed penis hurts. its like being stabed with a broom stick. The hook on a circed penis draws fluids out of the vagina. dry dry dry owwwy
brian seems to think that as long as a penis can deliver sperm, then it is functioning adequately.
a surgically-altered penis can still mechanically deliver sperm, but there is much more to sexuality than reproduction. there is much more to family than parents and children.
the greatest gift we can give to our children is a happy home where parents are truly bonded with love and pleasure -- not just sentimentality, obligation and duty. there is more chance of pleasure bonding with bodies as nature carefully made them -- cell by cell -- than with bodies that have been surgically altered by intrusive human hands and cold steel.
circumcision absolutely alters sexual function. it reduces the pleasure for both the circumcised and his or her partner.