It has been known since antiquity that the foreskin contributes to feminine pleasure:
"The woman who has made love with an uncircumcised can hardly separate from him."[1]
Four surveys have confirmed that empirical observation. The first two ones relate, one[2] to 139 women, the other[3] one to 35 women having had relationships with both entire and circumcised men. Bearing upon a great number of subjects, 5,550, and their spouses, the third one[4] is particularly reliable. The fourth one[5] is interesting because it was long term (men married with the same wife for at least 50 years). The results are identical: intact men satisfy better their partners who report fewer early conclusions of the sexual act, they allow more frequent orgasms and less irritation. Goldman confirms by suggesting that the circumcised divorce more often[6].
The first two enquiries explain that the foreskin limits friction irritating the vagina, for five reasons: (1) the intacts only need three minutes to reach orgasm and can extend that length if need be, (2) they look for the soft sensations provided by the exquisite erogenous and fine-touch sensitivity of the foreskin (that of the glans is merely erogenous) through movements of moderate amplitude, in a less gymnastic, slower and gentler act (Jack Nicholson's bang-bang cannot be compared with the aerial gentleness of Michelangelo Antonioni's love scenes), (3) not being a mucosa any longer, the circumcised's glans, become a callous, ten times thicker skin[7], has lost its delicacy and smoothness, (4) the foreskin glides on the shaft so that friction against the vagina is reduced, (5) through its mobility and folds, it plays a part similar to that of the rings of a piston and limits the draining out of vaginal secretions by the rim of the glans. The greater sensitivity of whole men is thus offset by better lubrication, which is particularly appreciated by our elderly companions.
Conversely, Hammond11 signals: "extraordinary stimulation required for orgasm". In order to compensate for their loss of sensitivity, the circumcisedneedmovements on a greater scale that, through deep passage of the glans, enables them sufficient stimulation of an organ become relatively insensitive. But that roughly rubs for the vaginal mucosa. According to Frisch's survey, their partners have, on the one hand, more frequent difficulties to achieve orgasm, and, on the other hand, four times more frequent (12% versus 3%) painful sexual intercourse (dyspareunia). The height is achieved with the monstrous practices of dry sex and excision. Through suppressing natural lubrication, they shorten the length of the circumcised' laborious efforts. That is at the price of irritating the vagina, and even, very often, of pain for women[8]. But it happens that these little gentle men resist when their excised partner wishes to use a lubricant in order to lessen it. Consequently, as confirmed by the 2004 and 2006 reports of AIDSUNO which revealed that 13 women for 10 men are contaminated in Africa, circumcision worsens the transmissibility of HIV(**) to women.In Sub-Saharan Africa, women represent 59% of contaminated persons and 75% of 15 to 24 years old seropositive persons. A inquiry[9] showed that wives of seropositive circumcised are 55% more at risk to contract the epidemic in the two years following their companion's circumcision (the latter, useless, is performed so that these HIV carriers "would not be discriminated"!). If the risk is lessened from 50% to 60% for men but increased in the same proportion for women, then fetuses, which were not included in the statistic, must make the case against circumcision.
Preputial integrity offers another advantage during coitus: a nonretracted foreskin, gradually unrolling, eases intromission[10],[11],[12].
Nature intended love mucosa against mucosa (some see there a promise of subtle exchanges) and not skin against mucosa; it is not a gymnastic exercise or a massage but a demonstration of tenderness.
Sigismond (Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau) – h.navoiseau@gmail.com
[1] Midrash rabbah. Genesis. LXXX. 11.
[2] O’Hara J., O’Hara K. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU int 1999; 83 (suppl. 1): 79-84.
[3]Bensley G., Boyle G. Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z med J 2003; 116 (1181): 595-6.
[4]Frisch M., Lindholm M., Grønbæk M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark,Int J Epidemiol, 2011: 1-15.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2011-06_Frisch.pdf
[5] Hughes G. Circumcision: another look. Ohio medicine 1990; 86 (2): 92.
[6] Goldman R. Circumcision: the hidden trauma. Boston: Vanguard publications; 1997.
[7] Foley J. The unkindest cut of all. Fact magazine 1966 ; 3 (4) : 2-9.
[8] Piet E. Séminaire I.N.E.D. Paris, December 10 2009.
(**) This fact highlights the impossibility of randomisation (in spite of some claims) of the numerous androcentered (and the most often ethnocentered) enquiries having demonstrated the important lessening of the middle term transmissibility of AIDS to men induced by circumcision: we do not know that a “population” - including a statistical population - could exclude the white or women! The main result of these unconsciously sexist and racist enquiries is that millions of African foreskins are cast to the dogs in order to slow down the pandemic for men whilst speeding it up for women in the same proportion!
[9] Wawer M., Makumbi F., Kigozi G., Serwadda D., Watya S., Nalugoda F. and others. Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009 (374-9685): 229-237.
[10] Whiddon D. The Widdicombe file. Lancet 1953; (15 Aug): 337-338.
http://cirp.org/library/general/widdicombe
[11] Morgan W. The rape of the phallus. JAMA 1965; 193: 123-4. http://cirp.org/library/general/morgan/
[12] Taves D. The intromission function of the foreskin. Med hypotheses 2002; 59 (2): 180.
http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/taves1