Giving oral sex to uncircumcised penis

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-21-2005
Giving oral sex to uncircumcised penis
38
Tue, 03-22-2005 - 10:56pm
My bf is uncircumcised, and I don't really like giving oral b/c of the excessive skin and the secretion hidden underneath the skin. I tried to clean it with facial tissues before oral but it seems that he doesn't like it when I wipe it down because he said it hurts a little (even though I tried to do it gently, I guess the head is more sensitive due to always being underneath the skin). He likes it when I give him oral before putting it in. Is there a difference in terms of giving oral to an uncircumcised penis and circumcised penis? What should I do?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-26-2005
Sun, 05-01-2005 - 8:03pm

Here's some excerpts from WEB MD. This was your source right? Read the third paragraph in particular!

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, which covers the head of the penis. Medically speaking, circumcision is thought to prevent urinary tract infections as well as cancer of the penis and sexually transmitted diseases later in life. However, the extent to which circumcision actually reduces any of these risks has been greatly debated, and some experts believe that as long as proper hygiene is maintained, the presence of the foreskin does not increase a man's risk of infections or cancer. Potential risks of circumcision have been less frequently examined, however. FROM: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/21/1728_54036.htm

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on circumcision that concluded that the benefits are not significant enough to recommend newborn circumcision as a routine procedure. The AAP believes parents should be provided with accurate and unbiased information regarding both the risks and benefits of circumcision when making a decision regarding their baby. FROM http://my.webmd.com/content/article/21/1728_54036.htm

The use of circumcision for medical or health reasons is an issue that continues to be debated. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn males. The procedure may be recommended in older boys and men to treat phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) or to treat an infection of the penis. FROM http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2953_494.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2001
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 12:46am

>>Look up sebaceous in a medical dictionary. It is awful. Every had a 'whitehead' break out on your face, and then you squeezed it and 'pus' came out? That was a sebeaceous cyst and the pus is the same stuff.<<

You're talking about two different things. An acne whitehead with pus in it is completely different from a sebaceous cyst and the stuff in that. And smegma is similar but quite different from the stuff in a sebaceous cyst. Having said that, Yes, it is a good idea to keep a penis clean. After-all, you wouldn't ever NOT wash a vagina, would you? I imagine that the natural secretions from a healthy vagina could get pretty crusty and not very tasty if you never showered or washed it.

The point is that smegma is a perfectly natural secretion that is useful even if it isn't particularly tasty. But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with washing the excess away and keeping the penis tasty during sexual activity. There is no need to carve pieces of skin off in an attempt to eliminate the perceived "problem". It would be better to educate any young boy and get him to wash under his foreskin. Something that is no more difficult than washing his hands.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2004
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 5:03pm
funny, with all this scientific "evidence" two of my friends both had circumcisions for "apperance issues...Both were happy with the new "look" and both said the sexual sensations actually got better after the operations..I know its only two guys, but they are convinced AND they have done it BOTH ways...
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-26-2005
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 5:30pm
The reason they may be "performing" better is that they are slowly losing the sensitivity. A male born and is circed has about the sensitivity of the skin of your arms after years of rubbing on clothes. Is longer a better alternate to better? Wait a few years and ask them again.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-25-2005
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 5:53pm

Like I said, mostly for the benefit of the man. And, the discussion was about oral sex, not vaginal or masturbation. No doubt it would be more pleasureable but it would also be like having sex with yourself all the time.

My guy stil has the red/purple glans you claim is lost in item #14.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-25-2005
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 5:58pm

So, what is your point?

It outlines the risks or potential risks, states there is "great debate" and does not definitively indicate that non-circumcision is better for any medical reason.

I will stand with the long tradition in civilized society.

Oh, by the way, I found the remark about "female circumcision" crude, offensive and an unnecessary slam in an objective debate. If you think there is any similarity whatsoever, you are clueless.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-25-2005
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 6:03pm

Thank you !

And, it sounds like a good way to slow down "premature ejaculation" , another plus for the female side (in intercourse or oral sex) .

REMEMBER, THIS STARTED OUT WITH A QUESTION ABOUT SMEGMA AND ORAL SEX !!!!

And, premature ejaculation is pandemic in men, especially younger men and those who do not have sex as frequently (life after children arrive.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2001
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 7:02pm

>>two of my friends both had circumcisions for "apperance issues...Both were happy with the new "look" and both said the sexual sensations actually got better<<

Well, I wasn't actually commenting about the sexual sensations side of things, but I can make the observation that time will probably tell. I can see that over time the exposed head will loose sensitivity. I suppose it's entirely possible that at the moment it may be even more sensitive than before because of the surgery scars and ongoing healing. And then there is the psychological effect and heightened awareness of the "new" penis during sex. As I said, I'm only guessing. It would be interesting to ask your friends in two years time when everything has settled down and being circumsized is "old news" to see what they say about sensitivity. Of course they may have forgotten how sensitive they were before the operation. It's a shame that no-one can can be circumsized and then rate sensitivity before and after the op within a matter of days or hours. That would probably solve the debate.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2001
Mon, 05-02-2005 - 7:06pm

>>And, premature ejaculation is pandemic in men, especially younger men and those who do not have sex as frequently (life after children arrive.)<<

Well, that's misinformation if I've ever heard it. Pandemic? Yeah, right. Even if true, I hardly think that you can say that being circumcised or uncircumsized is the reason. What poppycock.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2004
Tue, 05-03-2005 - 9:52am
My friends who are both happily married had their circumsisions years ago..The first one was 10 years ago..the second was 5 years ago, and consulted with the 1st guy...Both say that sex is even better...and they have not lost sensation in the head of their penis.they both said it feels better to make love because their penis isnt sliding around in its own skin...as for the head losing sensation, they say it still feels great..and I can say I , myself, can`t imagine the head of my penis being any more sensitive (thank god)
As far as the comment about cutting the hood off of a womans clit...the clit is WAY more sensitive than the head of a penis....many more nerve endings there, so it is not a good comparison.
Im sure for every good report about circumsision, there are bad reports also...but my friends couldnt be happier.