>And when I travel to Europe, females are always pleasantly surprised at how different it is than they are used to and they respond well.
"Do you have a preference between the two?
Woman A: For sheer aesthetic purposes, circumcised. It is not a deal-breaker at all if they're not, because it doesn't feel different, but it is definitely more aesthetically pleasing to have them be circumcised. It's also something my girlfriends and I talk about, and there is always a negative stigma associated with non-circumcised guys. The weird thing is, it's very comparable to the female vagina, but yet I have never heard of that comparison.
Woman C: I much, much prefer an intact [uncircumcised] man! Sex feels better. The natural penis isn't dried out looking like circumcised penises and the foreskin is useful! Did I mention it feels really, really good?
Man A: I wouldn't say I have a preference. It really is a nonissue for me as long as it works.
Do you find there is a difference in sensation during intercourse?
Woman A: Honestly, I think that if a guy is uncircumcised, it feels better because there is more friction, as weird as that sounds.
Woman B: I feel like there is a little something extra when a man is not circumcised. It's almost like being "ribbed for her pleasure." I don't think it necessarily makes it better than a circumcised man, but it is a little different. I also think the after-sex rituals are different. Usually, when a guy is not circumcised, he has to get up and clean off sooner.
Woman C: Yes! I have a decent sample size of both intact and circumcised men, and while I have had circumcised men be able to get me off from vaginal intercourse alone, it's only been after plenty of getting to know each other sexually. The uncircumcised men have been the only ones who I orgasm from vaginal intercourse alone easily, even during casual encounters. The gliding sensation from the foreskin just does it for me."