Circumicised Men May Be Better In Bed
A recent study in Uganda proves that ladies like their men minus the foreskin.
On our womanly quest for mind-blowing intercourse, us gals tend to have a laser-like focus on penis girth, length, and all around prettiness (if you will). But you'd be shocked to learn how little of our Cosmopolitan-laden discussions involve circumcision. Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Sensation
Perhaps this is because (according to some statistics) close to 80% of American men are cut. So in an American woman's dating experience she may run into an errant flappy-skinned (excuse the mental picture) man, but more often than not he'll fall into a novelty pile. In other words, there really won't be enough subjects to compare and contrast and thus form conclusions.
However, this isn't the case in Uganda where many of the men go uncircumcised and the country is embarking on a series of clinical tests to figure out if circumcision cuts down on the spread and transmission of HIV.
While the results presented at the Fifth International AIDS Society Conference on Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention of HIV claim the procedure halves a straight man's risk, researchers were perhaps more surprised at another discovery—women prefer their men cut.
Of the 455 partners of the men studied, 40% said the sex was more satisfying after their husbands/boyfriends were circumcised. Fifty-seven percent reported no change and only 3% missed the extra skin. Sex After 40 Is Smoking
Godfrey Kigozi, MD, of the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Kalisizo, Uganda, assures us that all women polled enjoyed sex before the operation, too.
So why did the ladies seem to ooh and aw over their new men?
Improved hygiene, longer time for their partner to achieve orgasm, and their man wanting more frequent sex, the study said. That coupled with the fact that a whopping 97% of men post-operation enjoyed the sex more or the same, too.
Stories like this truly warm our heart. We can now sleep better tonight learning that a pocket of ladies in Uganda are, hopefully, reaching their O-faces with greater frequency.
God bless 'em.
Discussion
I was born in that era when circumcision was gaining popularity so at times in gym I looked different from most. After getting my first erection and the head being exposed, I realized I didn't have to cover the head back up with the foreskin. After keeping it pulled back with the head exposed it would stay pulled back by itself. As the years have gone by there is now not enough skin to cover the head. Why? My only guess is it shrank. I believe that most women didn't even know that I was an uncut man.
A thought on men's pleasure and studies thereof:
There are many, many nerve endings on a man's forekskin and
Men who have foreskins say that they add pleasure during sex -
Therefore a study that removes the foreskins to see if the men still feel as good sounds kind of barbaric.
In the African case, rightly or wrongly, they believed they might be able to reduce the risk of disease and that that justified such an odd experiment. But, given the above, the finding that men enjoyed sex just as much without their foreskins sounds odd and should be questioned strongly before it is duplicated.
Yeah, and in the countries where they cut girls, they reckon the girls are cleaner, healthier, and more attractive. Doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't make it right.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
If it had caught on, we'd be reading about studies claiming to show how beneficial it is. Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
It's not like it's going to help against HIV. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
Bookmama, if you look up the Wawer studies in Tanzania, they showed that men who already had HIV were 50% more likely to infect their wives if they (the man) had been circumcised as part of their randomised controlled trial. This is not the first time that HIV in women has been linked to having a circumcised partner.
Again, I am not pro-circumcision, but couldn't it be that the circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ because they engage in risky behaviors - again, because they believe that circumcision protects them. Thus, the circumcision is not making the penis itself more vulnerable to infection, but it is a bad public health measure because it causes risky behavior.
I wanted to put in my 7 cents....... I happen to prefer a Kosher penis. (No cloaked Jedi's for me!) Just due to the hygiene issue alone. I have not seen anywhere that a circumcised male has issues climaxing? From the info I have gotten on the female mutalation, they can no longer enjoy a climax?! As if not being or feeling able to have one is bad enough!? What woman would knowingly sign up for that?! Guys still enjoy it whether they are clipped or not. Like everything else in life, I think this is a matter of preference. There's two sides of this story & each thinks they are right. I have even heard straight men commenting on how ugly female genitals are, no amount of female circumcision is going to help that.
Bookmama,
The data that women are more likely to get HIV from circumcised partners was part of the circumcsion studies done in Africa. The studies were all undertaken by the pro-circumcision camp, funded by the Gates foundation. They cut off the study that had women getting HIV at much higher rates than men.
That being said, there is good reason to believe that the study, if it had continued, would have clearly shown that circumcision increases the likelihood of female transmission significantly, if not by twofold.
Study data indicates that nearly 75% (6) of the women in the uncircumcised group, who became infected, were infected within six months. Only 2 (25%) of the remaining 62 women became infected over the subsequent 18 months.
11 of the 94 women in the circumcised group became infected in the first six months, 5 of whom may have contracted HIV through pre-healed intercourse. Nevertheless, 6 additional women from this group became infected over the next 18 months.
Symian,
You go have your preferences. However, being natural, I was surprised that women I dated did not know, usually for quite some time. It looks the same errect and feels the same to the woman when in a condom (except the male enjoys sex more with the condom -- 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings) and circ does indeed reduce the member in size. I find it quite a sexist thing for people to deride men that prefer FGM (which is outrageous and I would never defend) but people tolatate the view that male mutilations can be a female preference. YIKES
The "According to a Masters and Johnson study there is no neurological difference in the perception of sensation among cut and uncut men (Journal of Urology, 2002). " is a hoot, as they compared the parts the cut and natural; men have in common. It turns out then when errect, the glans (head) has very little sensation (some temp and pressure sensing). However, the parts removed are the main male pleasure zones.
As I was born in the 1960s and dated women used to cut men, I was told that it is different and better and I was also told it was about the same. Another study to consider:
'Female arousal disorder' blamed on circumcised penises
A New Zealand study found that reduced female arousal and fewer female orgasms
may be linked to women having sex with circumcised male partners. Women reported
they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if their male partner had a
foreskin. Nine out of ten women prefer having sex with intact men, the study finds....
To clarify, what I am suggesting is that when men are circumcised, the couples are less worried about getting AIDS because they have heard that it prevents the spread of AIDS. (This study can't truly be done in a double-blind way because people already know the hypothesis it is testing.) Thus, if couples report increased satisfaction after circumcision, it may not mean that the physical feelings are better, just that they are less worried.
Or it might mean that the physical sensations are better for the guy because his wife is now less worried and agrees to unprotected sex.
This article includes some misinformation. Lets get the facts straight.
The Journal of Sexual Medicine, did NOT prove that circumcision has little if no impact on a man’s pleasure during sex. That study showed that cut and natural the mans glans when aroused has little sensitivity and cut and natural are the same. The study did not look at the parts missing from the cut men. The parts missing ARE THE MAIN MALE PLEASURE ZONES with over 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings (SHAWN AIFF must not have these).
The study of the patrners of the cut was by circumcision pushers. They convinced a number of men to get the cut to avoid HIV and then asked their mates questions that really does not say much. The mates basically voice their support for their man and his choice to remove the main male pleasure zones (more than 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings). These Uganda women were told hygiene is better and then they said that hygiene is better. This is like a parrot speaking back. In places where water is not a problem, hygiene is not a sex benefit and better hygiene from the mutilation is a myth. Also studies show that natural men do not have premature ejaculation problems and indeed this is a problem for some cut men, where the circumcision scar cause orgasm to early. Old cut men are more prone to ED and have problems with achieving orgasm. Also, several studies show the natural male genitals help women orgasm. The dynamics of sex is changed by the cut so there is no longer inner foreskin vaginal interaction and no flaring of the glans from vaginal pulling on the inner foreskin parts. The circumcision pushers and propagandists timed the release of the study to counteract the data that shows circumcision raises the rate of HIV transmission from men to WOMEN.
The studies in Africa that found circumcision decreases female-to-male HIV transmission (from 3.2% to 1.79%) have some serious issues including the cut men having less time in the study for sex (they needed to heal) they got condom advice and they were eager to avoid HIV. It is really almost meaningless given several other studies could find no HIV circ correlation (US Navy study showed HIV the same for cut and natural, US urban studies etc.). The real world study shows mostly cut USA with much higher HIV than natural EU, and JP.
ALso, there is no research to support the theory that the cells of the foreskin are especially susceptible to infection. Also there is research that shows Female circumcision FGM also lowers HIV by about 60% IN AFRICA. Who would FGM a girl for this benefit. Oh but FGM results in some men saying the sex is batter (Mostly the hygiene myth again).
And BTW, it should be kept in mind that Women are MORE likely to contract HIV from circumcised men — that is what the data shows. Lets be fair about this and stop acting like the AFRICA studies are so meaningful. Natural SEX IS THE BEST. Do not mutilate the genitals of baby boys.
I think it's important not to assume that the Ugandans being studied are just parroting back what they are told. It makes it sound like they're children.
I would like to see more details of the exact questions that were asked, however. And more information on the cultural context - what do the people in the study think about circ and AIDS?
Is the data that women are more likely to get AIDS from circ men confirmed in this study? Where did you get that from? That seems very important to me - increasing sexual pleasure is not as important as staying alive.
If you look up the Stallings study in Tanzania, they showed that men who already had HIV were 50% more likely to infect their wives if the man had been circumcised as part of their randomised controlled trial.
This is not the first time that HIV in women has been linked to having a circumcised partner. There was a 1993 study that found that "partner circumcision" was "strongly associated with HIV-1 infection [in women] even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates."
I'm not pro-circumcision, but
Is it possible that the partners of circumcised men were more likely to be infected because they had heard that circumcision reduced the transmission of AIDS and therefore were more likely to allow their HIV+ husbands to have sex with them?
If this were true, circumcision itself would not be increasing the risk of spreading AIDS. However, it would still be bad public health policy because it would lead people to behave in a way that increased the spread of AIDS.
Did the study address this question? It seems like they could easily have asked the women?
Symian,
There's a lot of controversy regarding these studies. The results they found can't be applied in undustrialized countries. US has the highest circumcision rate and the highest STDs/AIDS rate also.
Almost all studies clearly say circumcision decreases sexual pleasure for two reasons :
1. Theoric :foreskin is the most sensitive and erogenous part of penis.
2. Experience : some men who chose circumcision as adults notice less sensation and pleasure after the procedure. Some cut men who restored their foreskins notice better sexual experiences.
I agree most cut men (at birth) don't know what they are missing. They may enjoy sex very much they can't know how it would feel if they were intact.
Tonga, they are in Africa to do studies on HIV/AIDS, as special as Europe is, it's just not the best place to do this type of work. And this study (according to the participants who actually recieved the procedure) clearly says men enjoyed the sex as much or better. According to a Masters and Johnson study there is no neurological difference in the perception of sensation among cut and uncut men (Journal of Urology, 2002). Unless you've been un-cut and cut it's impossible for you to say what makes sex better for any group of people. I cringe at the sight of an uncut man and sex won't even happen (he's always directed to get dressed and go home), so is that better? It's all about personal preferance, if a man likes his uncut willy, great, if his girl likes it, even better. And here in the US we have a lot of cut men walking around pleasing a lot of the women walking around, so it works out.
I guess I'd want more data on the men's pleasure. I have read so many times that the foreskin adds to a man's pleasure. There are men who think circumcision should be illegal to do to babies, to leave it up to a man's choice (I would think with a religious exception).
I don't have a penis (spoiler!), so I'm not at liberty to speak one way or the other. However, the main point of this article was to express how almost half the women polled said the sex was better FOR THEM after the procedure and only 3% of men polled said the sex was worse. The other 97% of men said they either enjoyed the sex more or thought it was just as good either way.
They are also experimenting to see if circumcision cuts down on HIV rates, which has had pretty mixed results upon further research.
This study is completly biased and was done by some pro circumcision lobbys. Why did they make this study in Africa (as always) and not in US and Europe?
Foreskin is packed with 20,000 nerve ending (like clitoris) and sensitive tissues. It is the most erogenous part of penis. Almost all studies clearly confirm circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. Sex is better with natural organs as nature intended.
