NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of curiosity, do women like circumcised, or non- circumcised penises?

Don't care as long as it is CLEAN.

Honestly, never seen/felt a non-circumcized penis. Does it really make that big a difference during sex?

It doesnt make that much of a difference, i dont think... as long as its clean and they know how to use it, LOL

*shrugs

I never had a circumcized one, so I wouldn't know the difference.

Don't care as long as it is CLEAN.
I second that motion.

*shrugs

I never had a circumcized one, so I wouldn't know the difference.


Wait, aren't most penises circumcised? How have you never had one?

I think the main difference is really to a guy not a girl, noncircumsized is more sensitive for them, they get more "enjoyment" out of it. From a female perspective, I've not noticed that much difference either way.

Wait, aren't most penises circumcised? How have you never had one?

Could be because she isn't American. That is the only western country that still has a high rate of non medically necessary circumcision. 60 to 70% of males are snipped, I think that is around what the rate currently is. The rate of snippings in most of the rest of the western world is from about 5% to 25% of males. Male circumcision is almost unknown in Asia, and done almost totally for religious reasons only in Africa.

As for the question, I've experienced both snipped and unsnipped, and never noticed any difference. Totally agree with the clean comment.

As a guy, and a non american... Apart from in Jewish and Muslim communities and across the USA, 'The Rest Of The World' leaves males intact.

No medical-institutions reccomend circumsision, and theres no reason to do it. It just a cultural body-modification, like tattoos or piercings.
Cut or uncut, it makes no differance to cleanness etc. But men who've been circumsized are slightly less sexually sensitive.

It's also the male equlivant as 'Female-Genital-Cutting'...

Wait, aren't most penises circumcised? How have you never had one?

Must be an American thing.... I haven't even ever seen a circumcized one.

As a guy, and a non american... Apart from in Jewish and Muslim communities and across the USA, 'The Rest Of The World' leaves males intact.

No medical-institutions reccomend circumsision, and theres no reason to do it. It just a cultural body-modification, like tattoos or piercings.
Cut or uncut, it makes no differance to cleanness etc. But men who've been circumsized are slightly less sexually sensitive.

It's also the male equlivant as 'Female-Genital-Cutting'...


What planet are you living on. Medical institutions do recommend it. It's much more hygenic to be circumsized.

What planet are you living on. Medical institutions do recommend it. It's much more hygenic to be circumsized.
I was under the impression that it was only more hygenic if you're completely incapable of cleaning yourself.

What planet are you living on. Medical institutions do recommend it. It's much more hygenic to be circumsized.

The official word from the Australian Medical Association is not to recommend it, and that is one of the reasons the numbers of male children being mutilated in this nation has plummeted.

AMA warning on un-necessary circumcision (http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5JQA7G)

The hygine arguement is a myth. If a boy is taught to wash properly, hygine isn't an issue. The majority of Australian doctors won't preform un-necessary cirucmcisions anymore. It is a dying practice in this nation.

The official word from the Australian Medical Association is not to recommend it, and that is one of the reasons the numbers of male children being mutilated in this nation has plummeted.

AMA warning on un-necessary circumcision (http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5JQA7G)

The hygine arguement is a myth. If a boy is taught to wash properly, hygine isn't an issue. The majority of Australian doctors won't preform un-necessary cirucmcisions anymore. It is a dying practice in this nation.

That's specific to one illness though. Not general cleanliness and transmition of std's.

That's specific to one illness though. Not general cleanliness and transmition of std's.

I can't speak for all of Europe, but I know it's not common practice in neither Germany nor Ireland. I think it is not generally recommended in Germany, anyway, otherwise both my brothers would be circumcized (my mom always listens to what the doctor says ;) )

That's specific to one illness though. Not general cleanliness and transmition of std's.
How does circumcision hinder the transmission of STDs?

How does circumcision hinder the transmission of STDs?


I don't know, I'm not a doctor. But I have been told that there's evidence suggesting that it does.

That's specific to one illness though. Not general cleanliness and transmition of std's.

True, so I went looking for better info and found this site. It is American and surprised me a bit. Seems even the medical authorities in the US don't recommend un-necessary circumcisions anymore...

Resource Center of Colorado (http://www.coloradonocirc.org/should.php)

and a better site on Australian info...

Circumcision Information Australia (http://www.circinfo.org/)

If I had not been circumcised as an infant I doubt Id have it done to myself. It'd be nice to be more sensitive, unless it made for short sessions.

It's also the male equlivant as 'Female-Genital-Cutting'...

Bullshit. I'm a male, I'm circumcised, and I can say they are nothing alike. FGC/FGM is much more extreme, much more painful, has much worse side effects, and is completely barbarous and without justification.

True, so I went looking for better info and found this site. It is American and surprised me a bit. Seems even the medical authorities in the US don't recommend un-necessary circumcisions anymore...

You're right to say that the US medical authorities don't recommend routine circumcision anymore. However, like most things in the world, this isn't a black and white issue. The American Medical Association still acknowledges numerous benefits of circumcision:

AMA On Circumcision, 1999 (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html)

The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

This statement modifies the Academy's 1989 conclusion that newborn male circumcision has "potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."11 The 1989 statement by the Academy reversed a long-standing opinion that medical indications for routine circumcision were lacking. It emerged primarily on the basis of data that suggested circumcision caused a large reduction in the risk of urinary tract infections, particularly within the first year of life.

Debate on the wisdom of routine circumcision centers on the possible benefits offered by circumcision, and whether they medically justify the risks associated with the procedure. Properly performed circumcision protects against the development of phimosis, paraphimosis in elderly men requiring intermittent or chronic bladder catheterization, and balanitis.5 The only longitudinal study to address the former found a 4% incidence of phimosis in uncircumcised boys.15 The medical benefits suggested to accrue from circumcision are reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.

Those are just some samples from the article I linked to. There are many, many more benefits of circumcision listed. As well as risks of circumcision. So, as I wrote, it isn't a black or white issue. However, it is wrong to say that there are no medical benefits, as it is evident that there is a host of medicial benefits associated with circumcision.

Bullshit. I'm a male, I'm circumcised, and I can say they are nothing alike. FGC/FGM is much more extreme, much more painful, has much worse side effects, and is completely barbarous and without justification.

Agreed. Compare medical scholarship regarding female genital mutilation vs that of male circumcision (such as the studies the AMA refers to in my previous post). In fact, female genital mutilation is viewed as a human rights violation.

Uncircumsised is better.

Agreed. Compare medical scholarship regarding female genital mutilation vs that of male circumcision (such as the studies the AMA refers to in my previous post). In fact, female genital mutilation is viewed as a human rights violation.

And rightfully so! Its a barbaric cruel act that serves no medical purpose whatsoever. :mad:

Uncircumsised is better.

Is it? Good. I havent missed out on much, then :D

Is it? Good. I havent missed out on much, then :D

Indeed :D Much more fun to play with :P

You're right to say that the US medical authorities don't recommend routine circumcision anymore. However, like most things in the world, this isn't a black and white issue. The American Medical Association still acknowledges numerous benefits of circumcision:

AMA On Circumcision, 1999 (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html)



Those are just some samples from the article I linked to. There are many, many more benefits of circumcision listed. As well as risks of circumcision. So, as I wrote, it isn't a black or white issue. However, it is wrong to say that there are no medical benefits, as it is evident that there is a host of medicial benefits associated with circumcision.


I never said there were no medical benefits. I've been saying this isn't a recommended procedure anymore, especially outside the US, and it isn't. No doctor would refuse to do the procedure if it is medically necessary, but vast numbers of them world wide are refusing to do un-necessary routine male circumcisions "just in case" because they believe the risks associated with the procedure outweigh any possible benefits.

I never said there were no medical benefits. I've been saying this isn't a recommended procedure anymore, especially outside the US, and it isn't. No doctor would refuse to do the procedure if it is medically necessary, but vast numbers of them world wide are refusing to do un-necessary routine male circumcisions "just in case" because they believe the risks associated with the procedure outweigh any possible benefits.

I think someone else actually said there were no medical benefits, I wasn't referring to your post. You're right that isn't recommended anymore.

Never been with an un circumsized man. I think I'd like it in it's natural state though.

I've never had sex, nor been sexually involved, with a circumsised man. I did have an ex that was circumsised, but we never slept together, so I know nothing about it. I certainly have no complaints whatsoever as regards my uncircumsised boyfriend, if that's any help.

My boyfriend says he is glad he's uncircumsised because he reckons he'd lose sensation or something. But at the end of the day, sex is what you make of it.

Never seen, let alone fiddled with, a circumcised penis. I find the thoughts of it a bit icky, although I'm not sure why! As has been said tho, cleanliness is the most important thing :)

As uncircumcised male, I'm pretty happy. Apparently circumcised men have a less sensitive 'glans' (head).

If I had not been circumcised as an infant I doubt Id have it done to myself. It'd be nice to be more sensitive, unless it made for short sessions.
thats what i've been thinking... snipped, you get less sensitivity (the foreskin and frenulum (sp?) is/are one of the most sensitive male genital areas iirc - and circumcision desensitises the head too), but that means you would probably "last longer" by default... what a dilemma!

i think i'm glad to be non-circumcised, overall :P



edit: oh and its pretty easy to keep clean if you have half decent personal hygene anyway...