Would being circumcised lead to needing more intense porn/rougher sex to compensate for lost sensation?

[repoman]

That is my question.

 

[colossalnobody]

That is my question.

Firstly I think we need to differentiate the two ideas, one being a need for more intense pornography and two being a requirement for rougher sex, as they are both vastly separate from each other on multiple fronts.

Pornography used during the act of masturbation is almost exclusively a psychological component when it comes to achieving adequate stimulation. One man might for example have a foot fetish with this potentially being the main target for the viewing of erotic material for stimulation, whereas another man may only prefer to watch material that includes both male and female characters engaged in heterosexual intercourse. The key here is that the simulation is purely psychological in nature, and the physical stimulation is entirely being controlled and meditated by the man himself.

On the subject of possibly needing rougher sex I'm assuming you mean to suggest that because of reduced sensitivity of the circumcised penis that more direct physical stimulation might be needed to achieve orgasm. While this is a possibility it is only but one aspect involved when it comes to the potential needs for a man to be stimulated enough to cum.

Just as with masturbation there is a very big psychological component required for simulation during intercourse with a partner(s). It's also going to be different for everyone. For example I know of several men who some were circumcised and others not who could not achieve orgasm, no matter how much physical stimulation was applied, because of past events that affected them psychologically. They had no problems with conventional sexual penetration.

There is also the difficulty of knowing just how much of an impact being circumcised has had on a man who was circumcised at birth as there is no historical references to compare to. This is less of a hindrance with men who were circumcised in later life, particularly adulthood, as they would be able to self-determine any differences in physical sensitivity.

I hope this has been of some help.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[Gun Nut]

Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
two reasons:

1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.

 

[Jokodo]

Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
two reasons:

1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.

They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.

 

[bilby]

Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
two reasons:

1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.

They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.

So were cornflakes.

Which rather suggests that the anti-masturbation crowd had even less grasp of reality, than they wanted people to have of their penises.

 

[Jokodo]

Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
two reasons:

1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.

They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.

So were cornflakes.

Which rather suggests that the anti-masturbation crowd had even less grasp of reality, than they wanted people to have of their penises.

Sure, it is a very real possibility that those expectations were mistaken, and I thought I'd said so.

I am however talking to someone who says, in essence, "it exists, therefore it must make it more pleasant".

 

[ronburgundy]

This 2013 meta-analysis found no effects of circumcision on any sexual functions, including sexual desire, premature ejaculation, time to ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction.

 

[abaddon]

This article found 2 of the studies to be particularly compelling (they "met the gold standard of research, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials").

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-circumcision-reduce-men-s-sexual-sensitivity

The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased.

 

[Jokodo]

This article found 2 of the studies to be particularly compelling (they "met the gold standard of research, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials").

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-circumcision-reduce-men-s-sexual-sensitivity

The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased.

Without having read the link (on the phone) what would be a Placebo controlled study here?

I would have thought most Men perfectly capable of noticing whether the foreskin has been removed irrespective of what their clinician tells them.

 

[Gun Nut]

I am however talking to someone who says, in essence, "it exists, therefore it must make it more pleasant".

More accurately, you are taking to someone who says, "If men created it, it must be designed to increase their pleasure".

I was out to dinner last night with some new friends that do not know my wife and I very well yet and one of them made a dick joke... and immediately checked with my wife to ask if she was offended by asking if his dick joke was "kosher"... she replied, "It's fine.. as long as it was circumcised". Which was more funny than the joke was.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's one woman's perspective. I've been married twice. First husband wasn't intact. Current husband has all of his original equipment. Neither of them ever had any problems with sexual performance in any way, but current husband is a much better lover and it could be my imagination, but that foreskin seems to give me a little extra something. Of course, we women don't need a dick to enjoy sex. In fact, I've known plenty of women who preferred oral sex or manual stimulation to intercourse. Penetration can be uncomfortable for many women, so unless they are getting lots of foreplay, they might not want to fuck you.


But, my unsolicited advice to men is to stop worrying about whether or not you have a foreskin and concentrate more on your partner's pleasure.

 

[repoman]

What tests would actually get to the heart of what circumcision really impacts? Brain scans during sex or masturbation?

I think, but do not know, that the orgasm itself would be about the same, but maybe the ride there would be a lot more blunted for the circumcised. So, would that mean the they would be much more orgasm focused?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From everything I've read on the subject, circumcision doesn't really affect anything one way or the other beyond it being slightly healthier to be circumcised. It's kind of a non-issue.

 

[Gun Nut]

Do women with larger areola have more enjoyable sex than women with smaller areola?
There are nerve endings in there, and larger ones have more than smaller ones...

What about the clitoris... women with more protruding clits have better sex than those with less?

I think the sentiment "there are more nerves which automatically means better" is a bit simplistic... bigger noses smell more, right? people with extra skin under their eyes see better, right?
People with more axons in their brains have more ethical solutions to problems?

come on. Not just the arrangement or quantity of nerves, but how they are connected to the brain is far more impactful to actual sensation. Some men find certain kinds of stimulation in different areas of the penis more or less enjoyable than other men.

It's entirely possible that the foreskin gets in the way of the "good" nerves and puts "bad" nerves in the way. Some men like the tip of their penis to be stimulated, others find it uncomfortable. I've even met a man that claimed to not enjoy blowjobs (!!@!!!!!!!!). I have no words for that, other than "there is no accounting for taste, and one cannot predict taste by the amount of skin on their dick". (that was an unfortunate turn of expression - but I'm keeping it there anyway).

 

[abaddon]

I think the sentiment "there are more nerves which automatically means better" is a bit simplistic...

Yes it is.

If you pet a cat with a 5-fingered hand, it feels soft and furry.

If you pet a cat with a 4-fingered hand (missing the pinkie), it feels the same.

Losing the pinkie was a loss of millions of nerves. Does that numb the overall hand? No it doesn't.

Whatever the difference of feeling if you feel things with a partly mutilated hand, it's not a lesser, duller, number feeling. You don't have to rub a cat harder to get the same feeling.

I guess a study of how foreskin contributes to an orgasm would help determine it. All I've heard from foreskin owners is it can help prevent over-stimulation of the glans.

 

[braces_for_impact]

No. Fuck have you ever had sex? It feels GREAT. Even if not being circumcised means it feels a bit better, I see no connection to rougher sex or porn. At least not for me. I can orgasm with it rough, with it slow, with porn, without porn. With a partner, without a partner...

 

[Gun Nut]

All I've heard from foreskin owners is it can help prevent over-stimulation of the glans.

"Prevent overstimulation" = "less sensitive"

There you have it... removal of foreskin enhances sensation. As I suspected.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm telling you guys it doesn't matter if you're with or without a foreskin. I found an actual scientific report on this subject. There may be some loss of sensation shortly after circumcision, but if I remember correctly, the nerves grow back quickly so the sensation returns to what it was previously. There is absolutely no evidence, that removing the foreskin increases sensation. But, of course, you are free to believe whatever it is that makes you happy. It's sort of how I feel about religion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/

Male circumcision has been performed for over 15 000 years and is practiced in almost all countries around the world. There is widespread belief that circumcision provides improved penile hygiene and protects against urinary tract infections, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanoposthitis, venereal diseases and cancer.5,14,18,22,31,32 It is claimed that the foreskin has important functions,32 but this has been disputed by lots of studies.14,18,19,20,21,22 The existing evidence from case–control, cross-sectional, cohort and RCT studies were analysed in our systematic review to ascertain pooled estimates of the sexual-function consequences of male circumcision. Overall, the results revealed no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men regarding PE, IELT, ED, low or absent sexual desire, orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia.

In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men. Although the literature contains a wide range of evidence for and against circumcision, the better quality studies affirm the recommendations of reputable experts who have evaluated the benefits and risks of circumcision as a desirable intervention early in life.14,18,22

Regardless of the present study outcome that shows an absence of adverse circumcision effects on a range of parameters related to sexual function and penile sensitivity, there is scope for further research, especially additional large, well-designed RCTs in diverse settings and over much longer time periods.

If you're really interested, read the entire link, the conclusion was that there was no difference when it comes to sexual pleasure etc. whether one is trimmed or left intact. I thought it was interesting. It was based on ten different studies, but differences had more to with culture than with anything physical.

What about the clitoris... women with more protruding clits have better sex than those with less?

Well, since you asked......As a petite woman who has always had a fantastic sex life, I doubt that size matters. As long as you can find the woman's G-spot, which as far as I'm concerned is much more important than the clitoris, your partner will be satisfied, again and again and again and again......etc. That is assuming she is otherwise healthy, and doesn't suffer from vulvodynia. If you aren't familiar with vulvodynia, look it up. You might learn something. You're welcome.

 

[repoman]

Would the analogue to male circumcision be removal of the clitoral hood?

That would not be a big deal at all.

 

[Trausti]

Sex and Male Circumcision: Women’s Preferences Across Different Cultures and Countries: A Systematic Review

Database searches identified 29 publications with original data for inclusion, including 22 for aim (i) and 4 of these and 7 others pertaining to aim (ii). In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis. The main reasons given for this preference were better appearance, better hygiene, reduced risk of infection, and enhanced sexual activity, including vaginal intercourse, manual stimulation, and fellatio.