A woman's point of view of intact and circumcised men
As a woman who has embraced her right to pleasure as a sexual being, I have had experience with both cut and intact men. I always thought that neonatal circumcision was wrong as a form of male genital mutilation. A person should be able to choose permanent changes made to their body. In practice with partners, however, I had not given any thought about circumcision status for the first several years I was sexually active.
From an aesthetic point of view, there is not much difference to me between a cut or intact penis when erect. The glans is typically fully exposed by that point. A flaccid penis is a different story--I prefer the appearance of an intact penis when it's flaccid. A flaccid circumcised penis, to me, appears too much like a child's penis. You certainly don't want to think of changing a toddler's underpants when you're looking at your partner. It's only been recently that I have grown to appreciate the appearance of the glans itself; the smooth sheen of an intact man's glans is far more inviting than the standard skin texture of a circumcised man's, much the same way as men are attracted to the pinker color of a woman's vulva.
During oral sex, I have always noticed a difference between circumcised and intact. An intact man always responds more to oral stimulation than a circumcised man in my experience. Using my hands for added stimulation is easier with an intact man. The smoothness of the glans also made it easier for me to perform deeper oral penetration ("deep throating") without gagging. I have brought intact men to orgasm far more often than circumcised men. Read more . . .