His part didn't look like I expected (light & frank conversation)

Y'know it was a long time before I realized that men's penises just didn't look quite like what I had expected. It was a few years ago that it finally dawned on me what it was: When I was a little little kid, I used to take baths with my brother and sister (all 3 of us in the tub together). So naturally my sister and I inspected my little brother (who was happy to show us his parts). Years and years later it dawned on me why men's penises didn't look exactly how I thought they'd look. DUH. I suddenly realized it: My brother was not circumcised. The adult men I've been with WERE circumcised. That's why it's different. It took me WAY too many years to make that connection. What's wrong with me?

What percentage of men are circumcised? Have any of you women had sex with an uncircumcised male? Does it feel any different? (I mean, I guess it all feels different, but I wonder if you can feel the extra skin during sex).

Just curious.

Sidony

I've had sex with both. It felt the same. They look the same when erect.

Your story reminded me of a story my nana told me. Until she had a baby boy, she thought that penises had a bone in them -- because she had only seen her husband's when they were about to have sex.

I have never been with an uncircumcised man before. I don't think I've ever seen an uncircumcised penis before. Hmmm.. I wonder if you can feel the extra piece during sex, too.... I guess I will ask my T on Tuesday....

JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL! I dare ya!!!

Now THAT would be daring. I double-dare ya!

Juliana, liked the story of your nana. Too funny....

it feels no different for the women but for the men it is more sensitive. I have been with both

I remember seeing a documentary about men who were very upset about having been circumcised when they were babies. They felt that their parents didn't have the right to make that decision for them and that sex wasn't as good as it could have been if they hadn't been circumcised. It was interesting.

I remember my parents having the circumcision conversation when my much younger brother was adopted. My dad insisted on getting him circumcised because he had been uncircumcised and got a horribly painful infection when he was in his 20s and had to have his circumcision then -- ouch!

I have seen both, but only been with uncircumcised. In the US, it's unusual to see uncircumcised, whereas I hear, in the UK, it's the opposite.

The foreskin has a lot of nerves, so when it's cut off, those nerves are removed. Some say it would improve sex with women, because it would make men less quick with sex, since they'd need more stimulation. On the other hand, a lot of women would say, men don't need more nerves down there, LOL! (Yet, women actually have more nerves in our genitals.)

There are religious reasons for getting a male circumcised, but the health reasons have been found unnecessary. As long as a boy learns to keep his foreskin clean, he generally won't have problems.

Are you accusing my dad of not keeping his foreskin clean? LOL.

I thought that the notion was that the foreskin protects the non erect penis from rubbing against pants and the like whereas the circumscised penis is more exposed. Hence the circumscised penis is less sensitive to stimulation (because it habituates to rubbing against pants and the like).

I remember my sister asking about this when she gave birth to a son. The doctors asked her which she wanted him to be circumscised or not. She asked about the pros and cons (and stated that religious reasons were not a factor). They said that it was easier to keep a circumscised penis clean but that keeping an uncircumscised penis clean isn't really all that much trouble so long as you are taught. The main thing for her is that yeah the operation has gotta be painful and also occasionally accidents happen which can result in the penis being amputated. The doctors also said that more and more people wern't getting their kids circumscised so she didn't need to worry about other kids poking fun at him either way. She decided not to go with (what she felt to be) an unnecessary operation that was largely for religious reasons (that she didn't believe in).

But I guess that means times are changing...

I've never been with (or really seen) an uncircumscised guy. But I guess that there will be more in the younger generation...

Being circumcised goes way back to biblical time - it was the Jewish boys walk into manhood and a show of his hearts bond to God... that which he vowed for life.

Many men from years gone by were not circumcised due to the fact that this procedure was not seen as a necessity for men's health as it is today..... present day circumcision is performed more for health reasons than for mere looks or sexual pleasure.

And - NO - I would say that a circumcised penis is more sensitive than an uncircumcised penis..... for it is through the rubbing that one is brought to the point of an orgasm through the stimulation, with the head being a males most sensitive part of the penis..

And - NO - I do not think most females will be able to feel the extra skin during intercourse..... for the skin is pushed back as the penis enlarges, therefore, protrudes from the skin covering it.

actually in the US circumcision is a fairly young thing. I know most of the boys/men in my family are/were uncircumsized. I think it really became prevelant in the later 50's or 60's. I do think more and more though people are going back to not having it done.

Lack of circumcision:

1. Higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.

2. Deceases complications of urinary tract infections: kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow.

3. 1 in 400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis.

4. Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin).

5. Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8x higher.

6. In the female partners of uncircumcised men is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, extopic pregnancy, genital herpes, and other conditions.

Getting circumcised will result in:

1. Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

2. Improved hygiene.

3. Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

4. Much lower chance of acquiring AIDS heterosexually.

5. Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

6. More favorable hygiene for the man's sexual partner.
More favorable sexual function.

7. A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

* * * * * * *

LINK: http://www.circinfo.net/#why

I did read recently that it was much easier to contract or spread AIDS for men who are uncircumcised. So I think they're really trying to promote circumcision in African countries where the risk of AIDS is really high.

I think if I ever have a son, I probably would NOT choose to have him circumcised. I think education is a better method of disease protection, and I don't think it'd be that big a chore for him to learn to keep clean! I also understand that a person CAN choose to have that operation later in life if for some reason he wanted it. I think I'd prefer for him to have that option. (I also don't have religious reasons for wanting him circumcised.)

It does seem a bit odd to me after seeing my uncircumcised brother when we were tiny little kids. I mean, why not have a little protection over it, eh? I hear it's pretty sensitive. :-) I guess since I saw his first when we were little, that seems more natural to me. But I haven't seen an uncircumcised adult male ever.

One doctor friend of mine said he thought about 50% of American males were circumcised. I'm betting it's a lot higher than that though.

I guess some of the other sexual acts besides intercourse (and I'll leave that to everyone's imagination) might seem a little different with someone uncircumcised? Or maybe the skin's just readily out of the way when it needs to be? After all, I've known men who could get naked in less than .5 nanoseconds. I bet a little extra skin never got in the way.



[Edit: Just saw the bit in another post that the skin retracts as the penis enlarges, so I guess maybe it's never an issue?]

Sidony

I was with an uncircumsized man years ago and we had condom issues......it was like there was so much skin, that it pushed the condom down. Maybe it was just him.

The article that was sighted said this:

> The author is a full professor in the medical faculty of a major very prestigious highly reputable university, has over 35 years of scientific research experience and more than 240 research publications.

And yet I can't seem to find the name of the author of the article or his university affiliation anywhere...

Some of those claims sound fairly dodgey to me.

> 1. Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

Where is the data on the increase in risk?

6. More favorable sexual function.

This is the one I really contest. The notion is that if you have a lot of pressure somewhere then that area habitutates to the rubbing. Because the penis is rubbing against the pants all day (as it is exposed) the end result is it being less sensitive to stimulation. Guys don't tend to get erections as a result of their penis rubbing up against their pants, you see. They have habituated it that. As such they probably need more stimulation with respect to sexual activity. That might go down better for the girls, but I really do think that guys probably aren't happy with the the notion that it could be more sensitive than it is...

On a slightly related note I don't shave very often down there, just typically tidy up my bikini line a little. Well, I tried shaving it all off a while back on a whim fairly much. I found that instead of some of my tender bits being protected by hair they weren't so protective from rubbing on pants. It HURT. I needed to wear a panty liner for a couple days because it hurt too much when I didn't (and no, I didn't cut myself it was just that the bits were sensitive). Of course I habituated to that over a few days or so (though maybe the hair grew a little too). But it did take a few days.

> 7. A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

That really is a matter of personal preference, I would have thought.

This is a Commentary on
the Royal Australasian College of Physicians'
policy on circumcision:

> Urinary tract infections in boys are uncommon, affecting at most 1-2%, and may be about five times less frequent in circumcised boys, while circumcision has a complication rate of 1% to 5%. Routine neonatal circumcision can not be supported as a public health measure on this basis.

> While there is some evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV, evidence is conflicting and clearly this can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.

> Penile cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 1 per 100,000 in developed countries. Even though the evidence suggests neonatal circumcision may reduce the risk ten-fold, the rarity of the condition is such that universal circumcision is clearly not justified on these grounds.

> The complication rate of neonatal circumcision is reported to be around 1% to 5% and includes local infection, bleeding and damage to the penis. Serious complications such as bleeding, septicaemia and meningitis may occasionally cause death.

> The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law.

http://www.circumstitions.com/RACP.html

(Just for a perspective from the other side)

Elective surgery methinks...

(You aren't diseased if you are male and are born with a foreskin so why on earth should health insurance cover that)

> I was with an uncircumsized man years ago and we had condom issues......it was like there was so much skin, that it pushed the condom down.

If the guy isn't fully erect then there can be problems with it staying on, yeah.

http://www.infectioncenter.com/ics/html/condoms.html

One option is to hold it in place with one hand...

You know what I think? Honestly?

Uncircumcised, circumcised, small, large, whatever color...

Penises are funny looking. Many of my gal friends agree wholeheartedly with me on this.

I mean really. Ladies, our bodies have been revered as art for centuries, but think about it--when was the last time you saw a portrait/statue of a naked man and DIDN'T giggle? They're just WEIRD. Granted, I'm not asexual or anything, but women's lower regions are just far more economical and logical, not to mention they're not... dangly.

This thread is priceless, even if it has exposed my somewhat juvenile sense of humor.

LOL. I agree! I have a juvenile sense of humour too. At least you have a good excuse... you're young, but I'm 37!

Psh, a childlike sense of humor makes dealing with everyday life SO much easier at times.