"Male circumcision perks up women's sex life" was the headline the other day in The Money Times (of all places). Of course, it's true as we all know. Most women prefer a circumcised male once they've experienced that pleasure. [This is where the foreskin lovers will chime in about most women have sex with uncircumcised males -- but that's only because these poor women don't have any other options].
No surprise, this is still another study that proves the benefits of getting rid of that ugly, disease-ridden foreskin.
"Researchers studied 455 female partners of circumcised men in Uganda. The research team studied the sexual satisfaction of circumcised men’s partners as part of the initial trials to test the efficacy of male circumcision."
"In the study women, between the ages of 15 and 49, reported their sexual satisfaction before and after their partners were circumcised. Around 57 percent of the women reported no change in sexual satisfaction while 39 percent said sex was more satisfying post-circumcision, and mere 3 percent reported less satisfaction after their male partner’s circumcision."
Let's emphasize that. The anti-circ fanatics say that circumcision hurts sex. You know the standard bullshit -- "it takes away thousands of nerve endings" blah blah blah. In this study, a slight majority of women reported no difference -- and 39% said circumcision improved sex. No surprise, only 3% were unhappy. So much for those "nerve endings."
"According to Dr. Godfrey Kigozi, MD, of the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Kalisizo, Uganda, the handful of women who reported reduced sexual satisfaction blamed either lower levels of desire or their partner’s struggle to achieve an erection." Yah, it wasn't the circumcision anyways.
"On the other hand, those women who reported improved sexual satisfaction said improved hygiene (cited by 51 of 177 women) and the fact that their partner took longer to achieve an orgasm (45 of the 177 women) resulting in longer sex, perked up their sex life."
"Kigozi and colleagues reported their findings at the fifth annual International AIDS Society conference on pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention of HIV."
Readers of my blog know that I believe the best reason to circumcise is good public health. But, hey, it can't hurt when that little snip improves your sex life!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow. So completely opposite my own experience as a woman.
ReplyDeleteMy husband started restoring his foreskin and almost overnight I went from dry, painful, abrading sex to WOW! HOT DAMN! And, as an added bonus, NO MORE YEAST AND URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS.
From just a little extra slack skin! (He still looks cut) Have to wonder what it would have been like with the full deal. Likely fantastic as every other study on the issue indicates.
I agree with you, this blog is of a MENTALLY ILL Man! A pedophile who likes to see baby boys amputated sextually
DeleteOh yeah. My step mom is mexican. She started getting really bad urinary tract infections for the first time in her life after she started dating my father.
ReplyDeleteGet this. Mexico doesn't routinely circumcise but when my father was young, Canada did. Coincidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqOEylGW7k
ReplyDeleteYes, cutting off part of the penis improves sex - the way cutting off the eyelids improves sight.
ReplyDeleteIt is simply not true that "most women will prefer a circumcised male when they have experienced that pleasure". This study is ridiculous in that regard because ALL the men were volunteers for circumcision, not a random sameple of the population, so the great majority of the wives would also have been in favour of it before they went ahead.
The much-cited Williamsons' study is useless because hardly any of those women had experienced an intact man. The O'Haras' study showed women enjoy intact men more - even after all the responses obtained from intactivist sources had been removed - and more important, they said why they did, in terms of the foreskin's contribution.
Any reference to the nerve-endings cut from the foreskin is irrelevant when we are considering the women's reaction. That ought to be obvious.
So this blog is not going to run an item about the other Rakai study, the one that found that 18% (17/92) of partners of circumcised HIV+ men got HIV, compared to only 12% (8/67) of partners of intact HIV+ men? And the people who ran that study are almost as enthusiastic about circumcision as Provoking. They cut the study short because of "futility", so we won't know if it was going to reach statistical significance, or demonstrate that circumcision actually increases the risk to women - who are at greater risk than men already.
Thanks for the comments, even from the FLs (foreskin lovers). Hey that youtube link to a baby circumcision is so bogus. Everybody knows that the "crying" sound track was dubbed in. My own view is that you will always find some women like Anon1 who prefer uncircumcised dudes, but ask any American girl and 90% will say they want a clean-cut man.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBTW, American girls also average about 169 lbs. And they prefer snickers bars to sex.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if the Americans didn't lop off their foreskins they'd be giving their women enough sexual satisfaction to forgo the moon pies. And America wouldn't be the fat girl capital of the world. Who knows?
Wish I knew what Promo said before he removed his post. LMAO. This most recent Anon's attack on American girls seems misdirected on this blog. They may be over-weight, but I doubt that they have no interest in sex. And, dude, WTF this has do with a clean circumcised penis is beyond me! Americans don't "lop off their foreskins" to avoid sex. They do it to "improve" sex and the health of everyone involved.
ReplyDelete"They may be over-weight, but I doubt that they have no interest in sex."
ReplyDeleteLook it up. American women prefer chocolate to sex. Wonder why?
"Everybody knows that the 'crying' sound track was dubbed in." Lots of things that 'everybody knows' aint so, and "it ain't what he don't know that makes a man a fool, it's what he knows that ain't so."
ReplyDeleteBut have it your way, play it with the sound off - it's still horrific and not just "a snip".
"it ain't what he don't know that makes a man a fool, it's what he knows that ain't so."
ReplyDeleteLike the way anti-circumcision people "know" that male circumcision is "bad" for women's sexual pleasure when in fact it clearly improves sexual pleasure?
How scientific is speculation about chocolate consumption?
And FTR, a woman is more likely to get a yeast infection with an UNcircumcised male partner.
I wish people would stop comparing two completely nonrelated things. What does eyelids and eyesight have anything to do with circumcision and sex?
ReplyDeleteNobody cuts off eyelids anyway, for obvious reasons. Still it has nothing to do with circumcision.
I have heard that women in general do prefer a circumcised male both for hygienic and that the circumcised penis just looks better. Some won't even have anything to do with sex with a guy who wasn't circumcised, some keep quiet about it. There are women have seen men who have never known or have been taught how to clean under their foreskin. I don't blame them for being repulsed at the thought of it. Other women say there's always the bad smell no matter how regular a guy cleans that keeps coming back. Not to mention all the urine residue, bacteria, and stuff that gets trapped in the foreskin.
For men who have long foreskins that cover past the head, I've heard some say the expeirence of having sex is more like penetrating inside their own foreskin instead of the woman.
And I've also heard of a study a while back that there is really no difference in sexual pleasure between uncircumcised and circumcised.
Last Anonymous - That is certainly not my experience of sex. I find the foreskin an erogenous zone as it happens, & pity those without one.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, once again, some disturbing signs of obsessions from the post author, here:
No surprise, this is still another study that proves the benefits of getting rid of that ugly, disease-ridden foreskin.
The first word there is a out & out value judgement. If the author wants to make a post devoted to his sexual tastes then he should do so, not mingle science & aesthetical analysis. "Disease-ridden" is of course a universalisation.
10% of circumcised penises suffer from meatal stenosis, for instance, so would it be accurate to say that all circumcised penises were "Urine clogged"? Of course not. I would sound like a moron, much like the author sounds when he claims that all foreskins are afflicted with disease.
As for the study: it studies those men who were willing to be circumcised. It's not too surprising that those willing to go through with it didn't find their foreskins particularly worth keeping (presumably due to a dysfunction of some kind, either phimosis or an abnormally insensitive foreskin). The selection bias here is pretty substantial, as well as entirely disregarded both by the study and this post.
Circumcision really does improves a woman's sex life. That nasty stinking labia and filthy clitoral hood need to be snipped off! Millions of women are happily cut, and they'll do their daughters the same way, because *they* know the advantages: better hygiene, better sex, looks better, men like it, no loss of sensation, and it's healthier. The important thing is to do it to your children, because they might not make the right decision when they're older.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the you tube video. Is that the one with the ventriloquist baby. the one thats crying with its mouth shut?
ReplyDeletehere are some real circumcision videos:
http://newborns.stanford.edu/MogenIntro.html
http://newborns.stanford.edu/GomcoIntro.html
http://newborns.stanford.edu/PlastibellIntro.html
http://www.circumcisionvancouver.com/
Done with care and dignity for the boy.
The only thing that is horrific is close minded people who want to abolish circumcision. They are worse than the anti abortion crowd.
You got it exactly right nybili. Man, that first video from Stanford is so loving, starting with the long needle of lidocaine injected tenderly into the consenting boy's penis. The care and dignity of cutting off part of his penis makes me shiver with joy. Those who aren't aborted need to be circumcised, girls included.
ReplyDelete"They are worse than the anti abortion crowd."
ReplyDeleteHeck, half the time circumcisionists complain that we Intactivists think it's OK to murder (unborn) babies but not to cut (born) babies. We get it coming and going. Both assumptions are false: different Intactivists take different positions on the abortion issue (issues rather, since abortion is a very different thing from one end of pregnancy to the other).
"Nobody cuts off eyelids anyway, for obvious reasons."
It's a matter of degree. I'm sure that if blepharectomy only dulled sight somewhat, instead of destroying it outright, there would be a religion somewhere that said their deity/ies commanded it, tribes that made it an obligatory rite of passage, and "civilised" countries where it was enshrined in custom and claimed to give a myriad of medical advantages ... except maybe not, because eyelids have nothing to do with sex....
Just a little balance here is in order. First, women who have experienced sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men generally prefer the normal penis (see See O’Hara: “The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female”. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1:79–84). I have discussed this study elsewhere on this blog.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the Ugandan study referred to is probably not particularly relevant, because many of the women may have believed that male circumcision was beneficial or was culturally more acceptable, and many of them may have urged their men to get circumcised in the first place. The study failed to investigate cultural issues, or indeed the reasons why the men volunteered for circumcision. I doubt you can reliably extrapolate these particular findings to different cultures (3rd World to 1st World), where sexual practices and mindset may be different.
If the male foreskin is "ugly and disease-ridden", there is no reason to believe the same description does not fit the equivalent FEMALE genital structures (clitoral hood and inner labia). Come to think of it, women are about five times more prone to urogenital infections than men, due to anatomical/physiological differences.
To my knowledge, the vast majority of women suffering a genital infection (e.g. "thrush") opt for a pharmacy medicine as a corrective, rather than sugical intervention. I dont see why men should be treated differently (NB. I'm a European - not a North American, Jew or Moslem - so I don't have a circumcision fetish).
Basic body hygiene should suffice for both genders.
this is pretty laughable! lol
ReplyDeleteGodfrey Kigozi makes a lot of money off circumcision. His study should not be trusted -- he has too much to gain and lose.
ReplyDeletehttp://kvetcher.net/2009/07/3670/godfrey-kigozi-recipient-of-bill-and-melinda-gate-foundation/
Don't you think the baby should get to choose whether or not he is circumcised? And seeing as he is not old enough to do so, shouldn't he be left intact? It's a cruel practice. I was circumcised as an infant and my foreskin is something that I will probably never fully get back. And whoever said it "looks better", have you ever seen a circumcised penis? It's scarred and ugly. Circumcised penises aren't cleaner either. With normal hygiene, an uncircumcised penis is just as clean. It also looks more attractive, has more sensation and has protection. I have had fluff from a towel enter my urethra, which wouldn't happen if I had got my way and being uncircumcised.
ReplyDeleteThis is some of the most sexist and ignorant bs I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteI am a woman and far prefer sex with an intact man. I have NEVER been able to climax with a circumcised man, and am able to climax usually around 10 times with my intact partner. Men who are circumcised have to pound and bang away, which is painful and causes dryness. Also, there is no slow grinding with a circumcised man which brings a woman to climax, b/c a circumcised man has decreased sensations. The author of this blog is obviously deeply biased and has some sort of an agenda. There is no way I would subject an infant or minor to the brutal practice of circumcision, it is HIS body! Why should any person have that kind of permanent decision making power over another's body? That is unethical and egotistical. FTR, I'm an AMERICAN woman. I saw the comment on chocolate, and I agree. I would rather eat devil's food cake than have sex with a circumcised man. And I'm not overweight either!! Cheers!
ReplyDeleteI am circumcised and I am a woman. At age 27, I have never experinced climax with any of my parnters. Now, my boyfriend and I have been trying this path for 2 yrs and nothing is happening. The only time I climax is when I touch myself for as long as an hour or so. It's frustrating and a lot of times it takes away from the romantic vibe making my boyfriend and I tired and rather then enjoying our time together we're thinking of why there is no success. I was circumcised at age six and this is not a religous reason, its more of a pride and respect for my family's own benefit. I was wondering if anyone knows what me and my boyfriend can try to do to solve this private and such important part of our sexual life? I told him the day I climax with him will be a dream come true..lol.
ReplyDeleteF*CK CIRCUMCISION.
ReplyDeleteTHIS was where you thought you would start to improve the world? No community service, no missionary or humanitarian work, just start butchering babies? That's shit. Ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to post their ideas or even to procreate. Guys like you who resist all the evidence that they are in fact victims of genital mutilation are analogous to those who still think the South won the war. Justify yourself all you want, but don't you dare try and impose this barbaric practice on innocent children.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the foreskin being disease ridden, you have no idea how dumb you sound spouting that 19th century bullshit. Whether you believe in God or natural selection, the foreskin is an ingenious organ designed not only to protect the glans penis from abrasion and bacteria but also to provide intense sexual sensation. Cut men have dry, scaly keratinized members that scratch and scrape their partners until only the man manages to climax. Learn your facts before you start spreading this stupidity on the internet.
ReplyDeleteSay what you will but the fact is there are plenty of mothers who belive that circumcising is best for their boys! I overheard a retired nurse urge her granddaughter to "get him a good circumcision" just a few days ago. She has helped circumcise boys herself,so she knows what will be done.
ReplyDeleteStop bullshitting last anonymous. How does a mother know what is good for her son (when she doesn't know how a circumcised or uncircumcised penis feels for obvious reasons). Stop this rubbish you moronic dumbass.
ReplyDeleteI chose to be circumcised as an adult, in response to my (then new) wife's very strong preference. My foreskin was fully retractable and I had no medical indication for circumcision, but quite honestly, getting circumcised was one of the best things which ever happened to me. Being circumcised provides me with better hygiene, freedom from any trace of odour or smegma, even hours after washing, complete comfort at all times, better looking penis, which my wife loves, better self-esteem and most importantly of all, a fantastic enhancement of sexual pleasure during intercourse, both for me and for my wife. I have now been circumcised for 25 years and the benefits are still as evident as ever. There are simply NO disadvantages to being circumcised and in my opinion it should be a routine for all males. I really wish that I had been lucky enough to have been circumcised from the beginning of my life - it is just so much better to be circumcised!
ReplyDeleteThe naysayers can say all they want. Men have been undergoing circumcision for thousands of years and humans have done fine. Should males be circumcised? Absolutely.
ReplyDeleteA circumcised penis is a beautiful thing.
women need to know that most men like being circumcised and lots of uncirced guys wish they were! I had a circ at age 26 and I can say that its much better and my wife likes it way better. Lots of guys have probablems with that peice of skin.
ReplyDeleteI am a single mother of two sons and neither of them were circumcised. My mother was very much in favor of doing it but I decided to let them decide on it. My sons are now 14 and 12 and we are very open about everything, so I told them that if they would want to be circumcised that I would, without question, set it up and pay for it. To be absolutely truthful, I prefer the look of circumcision and I think that overall, sex is better and its cleaner. But I just feel like a boy should choose for himself.
ReplyDeleteGlenna: You are a very caring Mom and your sons are very lucky to have you. It would be easier for them - if they prefer to have circumcision - to have it planned and performed before they leave home. The pain can be controlled - by finding the right urologist and insisting on pain free procedure. As an older male, I agree with you through personal experience: hygiene is much easier, sex is better and the look of circumcision is much better. My parents were afraid of needless pain, so choose no for me. After two failed marriages and chronic irritation from tight foreskin, I finally had the procedure at age 66. My quality of life is much better. I wish my parents had choosen circumcision at my birth, or had offered that option, before I left home. Your sons are so lucky to have you as Mom!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, this blog is of a MENTALLY ILL Man! A pedophile who likes to see baby boys amputated sextually
DeleteI agree with you, this blog is of a MENTALLY ILL Man! A pedophile who likes to see baby boys amputated sextually
ReplyDeleteWell Put Girl, I love FORSKIN, its like keebler elves they help me in symphony pleasures, the shaft gulides in me, I will never date a chope amputated guy again, they cause sex burn
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, this blog is of a MENTALLY ILL Man! A pedophile who likes to see baby boys amputated sextually
Here is a school of thought, if God commanded Israel to follow the Mosaic Law and have the male child circumcised, to connect with God, ritual obedience. There is no way in heaven, God would command this on the nation of Israel in depriving the male and female in pleasurable sexual pleasure between the two. God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. We all know ladies and gentlemen, notice I said gentle-men, some men don’t take the time to understand their woman’s body. Women are emotional, sensitive emotional beings. Most men are selfish when they're in a wet warm, pleasurable cove, covering their hard hot extension of pleasure. They will let go of all their stimulated juices before they had made sure their woman had been stimulated enough to enjoy exhaling. Tell the truth people. Circumcised or uncircumcised, some men just don’t put in the emotional need to stimulate their lady to experience the explosive pleasure of sex. Take time men to learn your woman’s body man and stop being selfish.
ReplyDelete