I got to play with my first un-circumcised penis the other day! I was only giving a hand job, no penetration yet, but I was fascinated and a bit thrown off and found I had to alter my technique.
Anyways, you mentioned in your most recent video that "unless they are un-circumcised, its dry." I had never heard these correlated before, but after searching the rest of this blog I found Carlin explaining in a post that:
"The foreskin contains the highest density of fine-touch neuro-receptors in the penis. With this skin missing, there is less tissue to slide against. Instead, the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. To compensate for this imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must thrust deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina. So mutilated men have to go to far greater lengths to achieve orgasm and they can damage their partner in the process."
I was wondering, in your experience, can you really feel an obvious difference in the level of vaginal secretion depending on circumcised vs. non-circumcised? Once a condom goes on, is there still a difference? If so, how much of a difference? Less than without the condom?
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge! I adore this site.
Great question. To get the benefits of an intact male, you would need to be fluid bonded and not have to use a condom for birth control or protection against STD's. A condom means adding additional water based lube. When a condom gets loose, it can act like a foreskin and many men say the feeling makes them want to ejaculate because it adds a new sensation.
Since most of my experience with intercourse happened before AIDS that put penises in latex, I used a diaphragm for birth control. However, I still used additional lubrication for most casual sex encounters. The few men I had intercourse with on a regular basis that were intact, I never paid that much attention to lubrication or the fact that they didn't have to thrust so deep. The foreskin allows a gliding that is nicer than the fast friction fuck. Looking back I now realize that I did prefer less depth and enjoyed staying in closer contact with our genitals. My longest sex affair was with an uncircumcised man.
So while I've come to believe that the intact penis is preferred as nature intended, circumcised men can either restore their foreskin or learn to be smooth lovers during penetration. One of the reasons fast hard deep thrusting is so popular is due to porn; it's more dramatic and entertaining. For a pre-orgasmic woman (and there are far too many) they at least will feel the thrill of the animal act of being "taken" or "desired" with the urgency displayed in a hard fast fuck.
My most recent affair that lasted many years was with a circumcised man who had excellent come control and could fuck shallow or deep, fast or slow. His masturbation style was gentle and slow. No choking the chicken! Since I was way past menopause I always used lots of lube. I also had control of my clitoral stimulation using a vibrator. So my preference for fucking was slow and sweet especially when it was deep. And I always used lots of lube. Today, I support ending the circumcision of baby boys. Back off mothers from wanting your baby to look like his daddy. And doctors need to remember, "Do no harm."