OK ladies, does it really make a difference?

Ran across a website that is promoting a book indicating "A Woman's Sexual Pleasure is Dramatically Decreased
during intercourse when the man's penis has been surgically altered by circumcision"

I'm pretty sure this is designed to sell books but then what do I know? How would I know? I've never really considered there could be a difference. Is there?


BTW if you're interested here's the website http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

 

I'm a not a lady and even I know the answer to this one
there is no difference here's why
there are two primary places women get physical stimulation
1. clit
skin or no skin once penatrated the clit won't be stimulated or not stimulated by something that's inside her. If it's fat enough the labia will fold in on itself and cause the clit to rub against the shaft about a mile away from the head. If it's not fat enough then it's up to geometry ie the angle of penetration that will cause the shaft to brush the clit.

2. the famed G spot, located inside but right about at the rim of where hair naturally grows for most women. Here you are looking for length instead of girth. And luck in hitting it with any kind or regularity

But I haven't read the article and it may be about asthetics, in which case I have no FN clue.

gonna go and read it now, so I can see how wrong I've been

 

We just discussed this very topic on another site that I'm a moderator on. The general consensus from the ladies was: uncircumcised men are more sensitive which results in them cumming quicker and making blowjobs go quicker, uncircumcised penises tend to need to be cleaned more often(one of our members even mentioned that circumcision became prevalent in the U.S. after WWI because so many "uncut" soldiers in the trenches were losing their "heads" due to infections). Also, a few women commented that sex with uncut men required much less lube because the extra skin acted as lube.

 

Last part, not necessarily true. Skin is not a lube, it is the opposite (think finger). Perhaps they meant the juices stayed in there instead of just drying out? There are a couple of differences, perhaps, but due to my own experience, if I could do it again, I would have declined the encounter with the uncut.

 

I'm no lady, but I've ventured it does. Helping with the harvest doesn't go against the grain, y'know.

 

It hasn't made a difference to me as long as there is cleanliness involved. I will say that handjobs were actually possible on someone uncut, whereas with someone circumcised they a) feel awkward and b) require messy lube most of the time.

 

Then you weren't doing it right. Never used the stuff...

 

Depends on the guy, ng. Most of the men I've dated have wanted enough pressure during a HJ that I needed to use lube to avoid pinching, and some just *really* preferred either all attention on the head or zero on the head, and every single one of them commented that a HJ was better with lube.

For the uncut guys, lube was just completely unnecessary for a HJ.

Circumcision has made no difference in any other sex acts.

 

Never seen a live one.

 

How many dead ones?

Uh...don't the others have any pre-cum? Don't you suck or lick at all? Pinch??

 

Yes, size is the single most import.....whoa. That's not the question?
--
I imagine this is one of those questions that will range over the whole of experiences from most women in the 'meh' category to a few who think it's the key to sexual satisfaction.

Of course, not having lady bits and only one set of my own equipment to operate, I'm hopelessly unqualified to answer except to say nobody in my experience has mentioned either way yet.

 

Having experienced both cut and uncut (my own, I hasten to add), I can say that, from the male perspective, there is no difference.

 

I'm talking purely HJ, no mouth involved. I've been with guys who have ZERO precum and some who produce copious amounts. Pinching happens when there is some loose-ish skin involved and no lubrication.

If I was talking about blowjobs (sucking or licking), I would have said that.

 

Personally, I can feel the ridge on circumcised men and I love it-- it pulls and tugs on my skin. Uncircumcised just feels kind smooth and textureless.

 

this debate will go on for as long as humans have penises and vaginas

 

I've never been with an uncut man so I can't say. But I will agree with Pony. Giving a HJ can be difficult without lube unless the man excretes enough of his own natural lube. Bumping into that ridge can make for a very unrhythmic event.

 

You know what? I am circumcised, and I have never had any complaints. Mostly because I never depended solely on sexual intercourse to bring my partners to orgasm. Hell, most women I've been with indicated that they simply were unable or had always been highly unlikely to climax during intercourse. I dedicated myself to mastering the art of the tongue, and that has never failed me, but has consistently brought me extremely happy partners.

 

The term used to be - Roundheads and Cavaliers.