If you have grown up with a circumcised penis, you may think the battle
between the pro and anti campaigners is completely over the top. What, you may
think, does it matter if someone has been circumcised or not?
The first point is that in most cases circumcision is done because it is
traditional, not because it is a medical requirement. The argument that
circumcision prevents penile cancer has long since been disproved - and penile
cancer is so rare anyway that this argument never had much substance. So is
circumcision justifiable on the grounds of tradition?
I guess that depends entirely on whether or not you can go beyond the
unquestioning acceptance of tradition as a good or necessary thing and act in a
more enlightened and thoughtful way. I find it truly appalling that religious
superstition dictates what we do to our babies in the twenty first century. It's
typical of the mentality of most humans that they think it's acceptable to
circumcise a baby (without any aesthetic) just because its a sign of their
status as a privileged group in "God's eyes".
Make no mistake, circumcision is mutilation. It's not justifiable on health
grounds, it's indefensible on religious grounds, and it's an act of barbaric
cruelty on a baby whose body is being changed irrevocably without his
Furthermore, in the West, in the USA in particular, circumcision was actually
introduced as a means of discouraging masturbation. Naturally enough, when the
medical profession got their hands on the practice, it became institutionalized.
But when you consider how circumcision is normally performed you soon see what a
bizarre thing it is.
Well, we have no right to take away the sexual pleasure of babies, as
happens with routine post-natal circumcision. If you have been circumcised
and you're saying, "But I get plenty of sexual pleasure!" the rather obvious
answer is - do you have any idea how it would feel to be uncircumcised?
post circumcision sensitivity test.
As far as the question of vaginal lubrication, to which we referred above, is
concerned, consider the following research findings by two scientists.
Among 138 sexually experienced women 86% said they
preferred a non-circumcised sexual partner.
These women said that circumcised men were more likely to experience
premature ejaculation and less likely to make them come during intercourse
through vaginal thrusting. These are major differences, and if they really
represent the pleasure and success of sex for women, then circumcised men and
their partners are at a serious disadvantage.
The women also claimed that their vaginal secretions dissipated more quickly
during sex with the circumcised men and that they found intercourse less
pleasurable, with more friction. Although you might say that the addition of
lube would solve this problem, that's not quite the point. The point is that men
who are circumcised have a number of problems in making intercourse pleasurable
for their partners.
Another major difference reported by these women was the style of thrusting
employed by circumcised and uncircumcised men. Over three quarters of the women
said that circumcised men used longer, harder and faster thrusts, while men with
a complete penis used more gentle strokes, thrust more shallowly, and were in
contact with the clitoris and pubic mound more. The implication here is that the
removal of the touch sensors in the foreskin of the circumcised men left them
unable to gauge the depth and power of their thrusts, or that they needed to
engage in more vigorous intercourse to achieve the same level of pleasure, and
perhaps also that they lacked feedback on when they were approaching orgasm -
thereby meaning they came sooner, and experienced more premature ejaculation.
The authors concluded that the near universal preference for uncircumcised
men as sexual partners was because the mechanism of movement of the complete
penis is very different to the way the uncircumcised penis moves in the vagina.
In an intact penis, the corpus cavernosa and corpus
spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin next to the vaginal wall
moves very little. This means the penis is thrusting within its own sheath of
skin, with very little friction and very little loss of vaginal lube.
Taking this further, when the penis is withdrawn slightly from the vagina,
the foreskin bunches up behind the coronal ridge, so that the tip of the foreskin (with
its high density of sensitive nerve endings) is in
contact with the coronal ridge of the glans (which also has a high density of
nerve endings). This produces high levels of nerve activity, so much so that the
man stops his outward stroke, and therefore his thrusting style is shorter and
more sensitive than that of the circumcised man.
When there is no moveable sheath of skin, as in the circumcised penis, there
is friction of skin against skin in the vagina, with abrasion and even the need
for artificial lube. The coronal ridge of the penis does exactly what it is
supposed not to do - it acts as a one-way valve, expelling the woman's natural
lubrication as the man thrusts.
As the circumcised man withdraws his penis form his partner's vagina, he does
not have the neural feedback from the missing nerve receptors of his foreskin.
He also lacks an ejaculatory trigger, since these nerve cells are part of the
mechanism of ejaculation.
To reach orgasm, the man who has a circumcised penis must add extra
stimulation to his glans and the internal structures of his penis by thrusting
harder. He has both less control and reaches orgasm quicker than the
uncircumcised men. In doing so he removes a lot of the natural lube from his
The women also observed that uncircumcised men appeared to enjoy intercourse
more than circumcised men, so that the men whose penis had been mutilated sought
more oral sex than the uncircumcised men.
The overall conclusion was that sex with a man whose penis is still intact is
a better experience for both the man and the woman. Obviously, this needs to
form part of the thought process parents go through when they give so-called
"informed consent" the the mutilation of their baby boy's genitals.
Statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (who say "Don't circumcise
baby boys"!) No
small piece of skin