Better For Sex: Cut or Uncut

So a girl friend of mine told me she had heard that uncircumcised men feel better that those who are circumcised. Is there any truth to this? If so, why is that? She said it has something to do with how it inserts itself into the woman. Perhaps it has to do with the foreskin or something?

I have no idea, but I am glad I am circumcised.

I cant see it really making much difference. I think its in her mind. Im also very glad I’m circumcised.

I don’t know how accurate a survey would be coming from a site that is mostly guys. I do know that sex is usually better for the male when they are uncircumsised, or at least that seems to what is said most often.

What’s better? A million dollars in 100 dollar bills or a million dollars in fifty dollar bills?

The differences are very fucking minor. Find something better to worry about.

I see no reason to believe that cut would be better that’s for sure — we evolved to have that skin there — if we were better off not having it then nature would have designed us that way.

That’s not how evolution works. For starters, it’s not the things that give us the most pleasure that get selected for.

QFT.

Vkn1, your logic is a bit flawed. Evolution doesn’t always work so specifically. Why do we still have a tailbone, why do men have nipples, why do we still have an appendix? There are plenty of these sort of evolutionary question marks (I am not saying all I listed fit).

Ha, I was going to correct vkn1 but it seems like he’s already gotten a talking to. If I were to guess an evolutionary cause for foreskin it wouldn’t be pleasure either, it’d be protection from certain ‘stuff’ getting near an unprotected opening (your urethra) of your body.

I have two uncircumcised friends. One had a long term girlfriend that apparently had a huge thing for uncircumcised men. I also know plenty of girls that think it’s gross, probably because they’re culturally used to circumcised men. Personally I doubt it matters.

The reason we have tailbones is that they have zero potential effect on our health. Thus, there is no reason why individuals that expressed the mutation of having larger or smaller tailbone would pass on that mutation at a higher rate than individuals that had typical tailbone. We do not have arbitrary, gratuitous features like foreskins. The penis has the form that it does for a reason. If no foreskin would have been better, then the genes that caused foreskin would not have dominated the gene pool and vice verse. This is much like how species of fish that live in caves do not have eyes — although fish generally have eyes, eyes would be a liability (potential source of poorer health) for fish that live in absolute zero light conditions, thus fish that were mutation-ally born without eyes had a health advantage that, no matter how tiny of one it was, the mere fact that it was any advantage at all, by the exact nature of evolution, meant that that gene was fated to dominate the gene pool.

The reason men have nipples is plain and simply that they are of the same species as women, women need to have nipples, and the two sexes are differentiated not by fundamental major physical differences like the existence of nipples, but rather only in the form taken on by these features - by effects that occur as the result of hormones that orient the fundamental physical features in different directions. Breasts are the same between men and women except that female hormones have caused them to develop the capability of lactating (which men can do too if given female hormones).

Anyway, the origin of circumcision is religion and the traditions and cultures so derived/passed on, not anything else, so that’s the explanation for why it is done at all. Though there are apparently various theories on who started it first and why, the theories are primarily closely related to religion. For example, as sacrificial act or act of submission to deity. Of course, now that we know more and more about all the negative effects of the act, circumcision is rapidly becoming less and less common.

My guess is that this girl is suffering from a garbled message from the game “telephone.” I’m guessing the original message was, “an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for the male.” And I’m guessing that by word of mouth between girlfriends it became, “an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for the female.”

Of course, I would not really know because I’m a guy. I do keep my ears open when it comes to pleasuring a woman (seeing as I engage in PE) and I have never heard of a difference for the female in terms of pleasure between uncut and cut. There are quite a few girls who do prefer circumcised for aesthetic reasons though.

Let me explain something, when uncircumcised dick is fully erect, the head is completely open, all that extra skin is rolled back and spread equally over the rest of the shaft. So it’s not very much different from an uncut dick,
maybe having slightly more girth because of extra skin, feeling a little bit softer on vagina walls. I heard also that extra skin on the shaft can help retain vaginal fluids during sex because it does not move inside vagina during sex as much as the shaft itself, creating some sort of a natural seal - therefore sex is “wetter”.

Uncircumcised dicks are definitely better for men since the head is very sensitive, being protected by foreskin, except during sex and such.

In terms of the guy, circumcised could be better as you have less chance of injury, e.g that stringy thing under the head.

It depends on where the girl/woman is bought up in, what is common in their country/area they usually like the most. For sex I’ll see little difference but it could be that the foreskin gives extra sensation.