Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Cicumcised vs Uncircumcised

**Warning. Discretion is advised.**



So the other day I was speaking with my friend and she brought up the topic of circumcision. Why did she bring this up you ask? She is currently dating a man that is uncircumcised. This brought up the conversation on if there is a difference in sexual intercourse with a man that is uncircumcised vs. one that is.


Below are some pros and cons on either being circumcised or not.



Lack of circumcision:


• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).



Getting circumcised will result in:


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

• Improved hygiene.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

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

• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.


The glans was designed by nature to be covered all the time except during sexual activity. Upon erection, both foreskin layers unfold onto the upper penile shaft, leaving the highly innervated frenulum, glans, and inner lining exposed and readied for sexual activity. This is one of reasons why the penile tip is the focus of sexual excitement.

New scientific evidence shows that highly erogenous tissue equivalent to the female clitoris is located in the core of the penis, beneath the corona (the hook-like head of the penis) and coronal tip. This sensitive tissue extends all the way down the length of the penile shaft to the pubic mound, where it branches and continues into the pelvis and onto the pelvic bone in a manner analogous to the anatomy of the female clitoris. Though the penis contains nerves that are sexually excited by pressure, its tip contains the greatest density of these nerves and is therefore the most sexually responsive part, just as the tip of the clitoris is the most sensitive part. And like the tip of the female clitoris, the tip of the penis is sexually stimulated by the pleasurable sensations created by the massaging actions of the movement of the foreskin upon it during intercourse.


During intercourse, these exquisitely sensitive nerves of the upper penis both excite a man sexually and control the rhythm of penile thrusting. "When the natural penis thrusts inward, the vaginal walls brush against the erotically sensitive nerves of the glans, the foreskin's inner lining, and the frenulum, causing these nerves to fire off sensations of pleasure; The inward thrust of the penis keeps these pleasure sensations ongoing, but after these nerves have fired, the penis senses a reduction in pleasurable feelings, so it stops its inward thrust and begins its outward stroke in search of stronger sensations.


The natural penis receives pleasure sensations from one set of sensory nerves on the inward thrust and a different set of nerves on the outward stroke. It can maintain a continuous stream of highly pleasurable sensations by maintaining the right rhythm"

And intriguingly, because the area of sexual sensation is so localized in the tip, the natural penis only has to travel a short distance to excite one set of nerves or another. In other words, it doesn't have to withdraw very far to receive pleasure on the outward stroke. This allows the natural penis to stay deep inside the vagina, keeping the man's pubic mound in close and frequent contact with a woman's clitoral area, which increases her pleasure and a sense of closeness.


Now, I have never experienced an uncircumcised penis. I haven’t even seen one in person. My question is, is there any readers out there that can shed some light on this? Have you experienced both types and found a difference?

16 comments:

Lisa said...

I have experienced both and have not found a difference. My husband is uncircumcised & I asked him about the hygiene issue and he told me that as long as you make sure to pull the foreskin back during a shower and clean yourself well, there is no problem (and there has not been one).

Lisa

SusieJ said...

Circumcision is not carried out as a matter of routine here in UK so I've never seen a circumcised penis. As for hygiene, would agree with Lisa's husband (we taught our son this from a very young age) and we've never had any problems.
Hugs xx

Jenika Snow said...

Thanks ladies! Very insightful :-)

Savanna Kougar said...

Interesting info. I was with one man who was 'natural'. I didn't experience any difference, really, and there was no health concern since he kept himself clean.

Unknown said...

Very interesting. That list makes a pretty compelling case for the procedure. I was circumcised as an adult, so I've experienced both types, although maybe not in the way you were asking. From that perspective, at least, I think being circumcised is much better.

The Skin Force said...

Your pros and cons section of circumcision is horrible. I don't know what sources you used. I honestly think you were trying to do a good job of being informative but feel victim to using biases sources.

You refer to circumcision being a "very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks." Some of the risks of circumcision include loss of part or all of the penis, or death. "Small risks"???

"A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive." Again, where on earth did you get this "most men and women" business? You're certainly not speaking for me or approximately 70% of the world. I'll take whole, natural genitals over scarred, keratinized ones any day.

You fail to address the ethical issues of forcing a circumcision procedure on a nonconsenting infant, with no pain medication and no medically valid reason. You fail to address how sexist it is that females in the US are aggressively protected from even a ceremonial pinprick to the clitoris, while males are subjected routinely to a forced removal of the most sensitive part of their penis.

All that STD info you posted is total bunk. Total bunk! You failed to acknowledge the studies out there that show the opposite- that circumcision actually increases your risk of STDs. Not to mention, anyone who has unprotected sex is eventually going to contract these diseases, whether you are circumcised or not. Condoms, not cutting, to protect.

Please go back to the drawing board, with more research, and actually link to the sources you used.

Busy lil' Bee said...

Almost ALL of your "lack of circumcision" points are completely WRONG. Just take off the "lack of" part in the heading, and it will be right. You also forgot to mention how circumcision carries the 7.3% risk of Staphylococcus Aureus wound infection in the newly-circumcised neonate.

By the way the risk of death later in life is 100%, circumcised or not. And as a Nurse, I have seen over 200 circumcised men with UTI and more than triple that with prostate problems. Less than 30 men total with these issues have I seen uncircumcised. In a country where the rate is 20% are cut, thats an extreme differential.

LMuse said...

There is a lot of evidenced based information from reliable sources and it is clear the author if this article did not research adequately. Routine Infant Circumcision is the leading cause of death in male infants; that would be a significant risk for me to consider as a parent. Circumcised males lose the majority of their sensitivity & it is not actually suprising that there is a higher incidence of erectile dysfunction where there is a higher rate of male circumcision. Check the Whole Network, NOCIRC, Intact Anerica, and others. Watch a video of an infant male being circumcised. Research why cut men have been resorting to foreskin restoration (they can't replace the lost nerves but they can increase sensitivity of the glans once the glans has protection from friction again.)

LMuse said...

There is a lot of evidenced based information from reliable sources and it is clear the author if this article did not research adequately. Routine Infant Circumcision is the leading cause of death in male infants; that would be a significant risk for me to consider as a parent. Circumcised males lose the majority of their sensitivity & it is not actually suprising that there is a higher incidence of erectile dysfunction where there is a higher rate of male circumcision. Check the Whole Network, NOCIRC, Intact Anerica, and others. Watch a video of an infant male being circumcised. Research why cut men have been resorting to foreskin restoration (they can't replace the lost nerves but they can increase sensitivity of the glans once the glans has protection from friction again.)

Judith said...

I can't really blame the author of this blog for that pitiful list of pros & cons, but it will never cease to amaze me when people use Brian Morris' BS and totally biased site, circinfo.net as their "proof". That man is a circumfetishist. Google him to find out for yourself.

Infant circumcision is NOT a minor procedure. You take away something from him that WILL impact his sex life. If not in his 20's and 30's then definitely in his 40's and 50's. Why do you think so many older (and some younger) men are on viagra? Think about it!

TerminalOrbit said...

There are obviously three very differently motivated camps of people on this subject: Children's Rights Activists, Circumcising Zealots, and the ignorant masses who make the decision on behalf of their children based solely on whether the father was circumcised or not, and justify it superficially with whatever nonsense they might have heard to support their actin, either for or against, which most commonly falls simply on "to look like Dad". I think the most fundamental reason for deciding one way or the other is an equal protection issue: It is plainly sexist to fobid even the smallest pin-prick of a girl's genitalia while continuing to permit the wholesale amputation of the natural, healthy, erogenous, genital tissue of boys. All I can suggest is that everyone research the subject thoroughly, from multiple sources, and ask yourself seriously: which camp does this material come from; do they have a vested interest in their position on the procedure; why is the scientific information presented so diametrically opposed to that presented by the other camp, and examine the logic behind treating everyone for disease that almost nobody will ever suffer in spite of the ready availabiliy of less-invasive and more effective methods of countering those diseases, if and when they ever occur.

Jessica Esqueda said...

Your list of pros and cons is completely outdated and incorrect. While I think your intentions were good, you clearly fell victim to the many sources of misinformation available on the internet today. An intact man is not unclean. An intact man is not going to die of disease. Quite the opposite, really. Please consider continuing your research and rewriting this article.

You can find factual, unbiased information at www.thewholenetwork.org

Unknown said...

"A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive"???? WRONG. Only those who have been brainwashed to believe a mutilated penis is normal will believe it's more attractive. Those of us not brainwashed appreciate and find a natural, whole penis better in every way. Nothing sexier than uncovering that smooth, shiny, and healthy looking glans that has been protected by the foreskin. Cut penises are boring, dry, desensitized, cause too much friction.

RD said...

• "Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks."
The damage to adult sexual pleasure and functionality are unknown, hence the risks of circumcision are unknown. Adult circumcision requires general anesthesia. That's not minor surgery.

• "Improved hygiene."
It is trivial to wash under the foreskin as part of the daily shower.

• "Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.
Girls have a much higher rate of UTIs than intact boys, and we given them sulfa and antibiotics. Boys deserve the same.

• "Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually."
"Much" is over the top. The African clinical trials for which this is the claimed conclusion were badly designed and executed.
A scientific scandal in the making.

• "Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer."
Penile cancer is rarer in intact Scandinavia than in the circumcised USA. Penile cancer is not a problem for nonsmokers who do not have phimosis and who wash under the foreskin daily.

• "Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer."
Unproven.

• "More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner."
It is always a good idea to freshen up the genitalia before sex. Better yet, a joint shower is good foreplay.

• "Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner."
The rates of these conditions are lower in intact Europe and Japan than in the circumcised USA. STDs are not rare in Israel either. The problem is not foreskin, but condom disdain. It is possible that circumcised men resist condom use.

• "More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis."
The scientific instrumentation to make this claim simply does not exist. It is the case that circumcision removes the most sexually sensitive parts of the male body. Many American and Australasian women have attested to the sexual superiority of the natural penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive."
Only Moslem women, many American women, and some Jewish women. Many gay men prefer intact. What other str8 men think of my penis is none of their business.

Unknown said...

Given your detailed discussion of the sexual interaction between an intact (not "uncircumcised") man and a woman, how can any of the potential & alleged "benefits" of male genital cutting be justifiable? Whose body, whose rights?

Garden Girl said...

The difference with an intact man is gloriously indescribable. My fiance's long foreskin makes even dry sex luxuriously, silky smooth; we never need additional lubrication. My ex-husband was tightly cut and not only did I never orgasm, sex was painful.

The difference isn't just for me, but them. My cut ex had a difficult time orgasming and often had to finish by hand. My intact fiance not only can continue sex after orgasm, but can reach multiple orgasms himself. They also seem more intense.

http://youtu.be/NAHGFx95D80
http://youtu.be/6BPEWw2Fi5Q
http://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4