What is the Glans?

@aishia - You make a good point -- male circumcision doesn't really help defend against diseases much at all. Even though STD prevention has long been listed as one of the major reasons to get your son circumcised, science has yet to come up with any good examples of studies that prove it.

Circumcised men can still catch HIV and other STDs just as readily as uncircumcised men, too. The only health difference I can find that makes a circumcised penis superior to an uncircumcised one is that the foreskin can become a hygiene problem if the man doesn't clean himself well. If he's had a foreskin his whole life, he ought to know how to clean it well enough to stay healthy, though.

This is especially true if his parents teach him, as parents are supposed to do with all hygiene type things for their kids. If the father is circumcised, and perhaps doesn't know how to care for and clean an intact penis, it's a parental duty to look it up. Too many parents are squeamish about explaining personal and sexual things to their kids, and either leave it up to them to figure things out on their own or give them books and don't actually discuss anything.

Although in this day and age, it's more likely that the kid will just look up the answers to any of his questions on an online dictionary than actually confront his parents with such an embarrassing question.

@nanny3 - If it might seem strange to you that other people are so concerned with a stranger's penis, remember that for many people circumcision is done for religious reasons.

There are a few exceptions, but the majority of religions out there make it not just their hobby but their driven mission in life to try and convince others which personal decisions to make, including what to believe about how to live their lives, how to deal with eventually dying, and yes, whether you should or should not have your son(s) circumcised.

Another reason for male circumcision, even for those who aren't religious, is tradition. Some men want their sons circumcised because they are circumcised, so it's what is familiar and seems "normal" to them for a man to be.

Unfortunately, just because people have done something regularly for a long time doesn't make it right. People beheaded and gutted each other as punishments for petty theft for centuries, and that didn't make it right, either.

If you couldn't tell from that last example, I personally am against male circumcision all the way -- or any circumcision, really. I think it's mutilation. Most people agree with me on the female version, and I think they only disagree about male circumcision because it has been a widely-accepted procedure for so long.

Think about it, though. The glans and corona are made to be covered up, as VivAnne says. If the male sexual organs were made to function best with no foreskin, men wouldn't be born with them.

@oscar23 - Ouch! That does sound like a pretty awful condition for your husband -- good thing yeast infections are treatable so he could see an end in sight for that kind of discomfort.

I wanted to note here that male yeast infections are possible for circumcised men as well as men with a natural penis like your husband.

The likelihood of catching a penile yeast infection is a bit higher with an uncircumcised penis, because there is that hood of skin to catch more bacteria under, but since male yeast infections are almost always contracted through sex with a female partner who has a yeast infection, really hygiene isn't the deciding factor, here.

Men with circumcised penises (actually, the technical plural word is "penii", but nobody seems to recognize it) can still catch yeast infections almost as easily as uncircumcised men. The difference between the chances is so small that circumcision cannot rightly be recommended with the prevention of contracting yeast infections as one of the advantages.

I honestly don't feel too strongly about circumcision either way. It's a lifestyle choice that your parents make for you -- kind of like other big important things like your name and whether to pierce your ears when you're an infant.

@JessiC - You're right, the guy had absolutely no business telling you whether you should have your son circumcised or not. However inappropriate, though, his comment about circumcision affecting the sensitivity of the male glans does have some truth to it.

In its natural state, the penis has a hood of skin over the glans -- that's the foreskin, of course. The foreskin, in addition to increasing sexual sensation from nerve endings inside of the skin itself, also serves the function of moistening and lubricating the glans.

See, the male glans are not supposed to be constantly exposed or to be dry. Much like the outer labia on a woman's vagina, the male foreskin protects the glans so that they can stay somewhat wet. When the glans are dry and desensitized to rubbing against things like clothing on a daily basis, it does in fact reduce the sensitivity of the glans in circumcised men.

In uncircumcised men, the glans do not touch clothing constantly since they are covered by the foreskin, so they remain more sensitive to stimulation. Uncircumcised men report that having their glans exposed while wearing close-fitting clothing is terribly uncomfortable, because they are so sensitive to touch there.

Just food for thought...unlike the guy who was talking to you out of the blue, since this is a post in a discussion about the male glans I'll assume it's okay to talk to you about it frankly.

My husband is uncircumcised and it has never bothered me or him. We both see it as natural and just fine in every way.

However, we did face a problem that we were not sure how to tackle and that was more than a little embarrassing to go to the doctor with. I had had a yeast infection, but didn’t know it. Needless to say, he contracted the same infection and developed swollen glans.

It was horrible! If we ladies think that a yeast infection is bad, let me tell you, it was utterly terrible for him. He actually tore and bled from it. I felt so bad about the whole thing.

We all know that men are pretty sensitive about their genitals, and seriously, who can blame them? That’s a pretty personal area, to say the least. I suppose this is where the great debate over whether to have an exposed glans or not has erupted from.

The fact is that both keeping the foreskin intact and removing it may or may not have many merits. There even appears to be people out there who think it’s their business to enforce laws which make it mandatory for others to do one or the other with their children at birth.

I can’t help but be curious about why these folks think that someone else’s penis is their problem in the first place.

I was amazed when I was speaking with a couple who were old friends and suddenly the topic of conversation somehow worked around to the circumcision of our children.

The male of the couple suddenly asked me in a heated tone whether or not I had had my son circumcised. I told him that we had indeed chosen circumcision for our son at birth.

He then went on to question whether or not I knew that we had greatly affected our son’s sex life before he ever even had the chance to have sex; that we had ruined the sensitivity of his male glans.

Not particularly feeling the need to explain myself, or appreciating his intrusion into something that was absolutely none of his business in such a snippy manner, I informed him that being circumcised didn’t seem to bother my husband a bit. We had the two kids to prove it.