The Sexual Experience Thread

[mr dave]

Originally Posted by tore

I assume uncut guys have less or no need for lubrication when jerking off (goes for me at least) while the same might not be true for those who are circumcised, but I'd like to see what someone circumcised have to say about it.

i never had issues but i remember a friend of mine in college commenting about how he always had to use cooking oil. i think it depends on how much the doctors snipped off when the procedure was done (this was standard practice for all Canadian boys until sometime in the mid 80s unless the parents specifically objected to the procedure).

[333]

Originally Posted by tore

Yes, definetly.

Not long ago, I was skipping channels and one of the american pies movies was on, not sure which one. There was a scene where this guy was masturbating and he uses like a handful of some lubrication. I remember wondering "does anyone ever do that?". Aside from perhaps some early experimentation, I never did and I don't think I've heard of anyone else I know in real life who do (not that we often talk about it in detail mind you).

I thought then it might be in there for comical effect, he's sort of preparing to have a good wank almost the way you could prepare a romantic dinner with your girlfriend. Now when I think about it, maybe circumcision being so much more common in America might also help explain it? Perhaps the character was cut.

I assume uncut guys have less or no need for lubrication when jerking off (goes for me at least) while the same might not be true for those who are circumcised, but I'd like to see what someone circumcised have to say about it.

Hm, interesting. I think I already knew the answer to that question. I just wanted some reassurance. I came to the realization, though, when I noticed that when having sex with uncut guys, I stay wet, or in other words, I am wetter than if I were to be eloping with a guy who is cut. I'm sure this could be narrowed down to who I was more attracted to, but I just find that I (1) have to use lube (which I hate unless it's anal), or (2) it just doesn't feel as comfortable with circumcised males.

[MAStudent]

Originally Posted by JossB

I am still waiting for that special someone, any takers! lol JK I think the weirdest thing was when I was with some virgin and he started crying about his mom, I guess that is normal

Did you punch him in the balls after sex/before crying for his mom?

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by 333

Hm, interesting. I think I already knew the answer to that question. I just wanted some reassurance. I came to the realization, though, when I noticed that when having sex with uncut guys, I stay wet, or in other words, I am wetter than if I were to be eloping with a guy who is cut. I'm sure this could be narrowed down to who I was more attracted to, but I just find that I (1) have to use lube (which I hate unless it's anal), or (2) it just doesn't feel as comfortable with circumcised males.

I've never noticed the different between cut and uncut guys but I personally think it depends on the guys ability to penetrate me. Also chemistry is a huge thing. I find most guys I have little chemistry with so when I do get it the sex is fantastico!

[VEGANGELICA]

Originally Posted by storymilo

I don't understand why some people make some huge differentiation or judgement between penises based on whether they're missing some skin on the end. It's still the same part....

This isn't to say I think there's no difference (obviously there is, one has the freaking tip of it cut off) but like.... does it really matter?

FUNCTIONS OF THE FORESKIN:

Story, the foreskin is more than just "skin," which is knowledge that many people in the U.S., including parents and doctors, may not have since circumcision is so common here that they don't question it or think to ask about the function of the foreskin. Protecting a child's foreskin from those who wish to cut him is important for physiological and ethical reasons.

The male foreskin is a double layer sleeve, with skin on the outside and a mucous membrane on the inside, that covers the glans (head) of a man's penis and has protective, sensory, and sexual functions.

A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper phase, contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors, similar to those in the lips, and matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive, self-lubricating sexual activity (Taylor, JR, et al. (1996) Br. J. Urology, 77:291-295).

Three of the most responsive areas of the natural, intact penis are the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," the tip of the foreskin, and the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans. Recent research has found that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis: "Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, ML, et al. (2007) "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis," BJU International, 99:864-869). http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

Routine circumcision of newborn boys destroys the foreskin and causes the certain loss of its protective, erogenous, and sexual functions. The practice of tearing and cutting off the male foreskin parallels Type I Female Genital Mutilation, defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) as the removal of the female foreskin that covers the clitoris.

My advice is that newborn children be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo surgery of their most private of body parts.

CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES:

Although three recent randomized controlled trials in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision, over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, RC, et al. (2007) Lancet, 369:643-656). Follow-up studies found that women partners of circumcised men had an increased risk of HIV infection. Results from another African study suggest that simple genital hygiene would be as effective as circumcision at reducing the risk of HIV infectin (Journal of AIDS, Sept. 2006 Issue).

Studies in the United States have found that intact males do not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laumann, EO, et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG, et al. (2004) International AIDS Society). Furthermore, the U.S. has both the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection among developed nations. In the U.S., where 80% of adult males are circumicsed, the HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate is 0.6%, three times higher than in the United Kingdom, where almost all men are intact (HIV data from www.cia.gov).

Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD) can teach him about the most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing with water and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).

Originally Posted by 333

Hm, interesting. I think I already knew the answer to that question. I just wanted some reassurance. I came to the realization, though, when I noticed that when having sex with uncut guys, I stay wet, or in other words, I am wetter than if I were to be eloping with a guy who is cut. I'm sure this could be narrowed down to who I was more attracted to, but I just find that I (1) have to use lube (which I hate unless it's anal), or (2) it just doesn't feel as comfortable with circumcised males.

333, what you write sounds exactly like what I've read: because a circumised man lacks his foreskin, in which the glans can move back and forth, his penis rubs more abrasively against a woman's vagina, reducing the ability of her lubrication to protect her vagina from the friction. In contrast, an intact man's foreskin provides a partial sleeve in which he can thrust, so that his penis isn't chafing, chafing, chafing against her continually.

[jacklovezhimself]

And to think it's more common that people with uncircumsized penises are made fun of. This information will change high school locker rooms forever.

[tore]

Well written post, Erica

Originally Posted by Vegangelica

In the U.S., where 80% of adult males are circumicsed

Wow, I was quite surprised about this detail. I knew it was popular overseas, but I still thought the cut were a minority!

[storymilo]

VEGANGELICA-

I don't really support circumcision.... my post wasn't intended to come off that way. In fact, I think it's pretty stupid. (Unless there is some sort of valid medical reason for it)

I just think that as long as penises keep functioning, there are more important things to concentrate on.

[VEGANGELICA]

Originally Posted by storymilo

VEGANGELICA-

I don't really support circumcision.... my post wasn't intended to come off that way. In fact, I think it's pretty stupid. (Unless there is some sort of valid medical reason for it)

I just think that as long as penises keep functioning, there are more important things to concentrate on.

Oh, I didn't think you necessarily supported circumcision...but it sounded like you maybe didn't know of the benefits of having a foreskin, so I wanted to make sure you have a chance to learn information that I didn't know when I was your age or for many years afterwards.

I also feel it is important to note that when people cut off the foreskin, the foreskin *doesn't* function anymore. And there are many people who aren't happy with what is left...skin tags, painful erections, the scar, curvatures, discomfort during intercourse...plus, the knowledge that they were cut against their will.

Circumcising babies, also, isn't merely cutting: first, you strap down the baby's arms and legs on a circumstraint board (in a hospital circumcision); then you have to separate the foreskin from the glans, like sliding a knife under a fingernail. Finally, you crush or cut off the baby's foreskin, leaving the entire glans as a bleeding, open wound.

Pain anesthetics are *not* required by law during circumcisions of babies. In the U.S., many babies are subjected to cutting of their genitalia...and I do not hesitate to call it torture...without pain medication. In fact, even a doctor I interviewed about circumcisions he does in the Midwest told me he felt he was torturing babies when he didn't use any pain medication.

Certainly there may be more important causes than circumcision, though people can easily help work on different causes at the same time. I know circumcision is an important one to the boys and men who do feel harmed by what was done to them when they were powerless to make choices about their own bodies. I see the issue of circumcision very squarely as a human rights issue. And so, this issue is an important one to me, too. I know I would feel horribly violated if someone had cut off my clitoral hood (female foreskin) when I was a child.

[storymilo]

I think I pretty much agree with you.... just less radically.

And I know there are benefits of having a foreskin.... I have one!