Whoa, calm down big fella.
Sounds like you'd had few cups of coffee before you wrote that. I've written about the evolutinary aspects of the foreskin and female pleasure before, it's on record that I have a contradictory opinon about the matter. If it makes you feel special to think I only post because of you then you're more than welcome to think so . . . thanks for the advice about questing for the truth though?
Genitals obviously create physical pleasure for both partners and there is an evolutionary advantage to sexual stimulation, curious to know where I said otherwise, but anyway - this isn't the point - like I said you skipped over that. You suggested that the foreskin evolved as a mechanism for female pleasure. I contend that there is very little rationale for this.
A foreskin or penis covering mechanism is found in nearly all mammals - from quite low on the evolutionary ladder all the way to us. It exists in species where there is no capacity for females to judge and select males based on pleasure during intercourse. It evolved as a protective and adaptive structure, keeping the males unit protected, lubricated for easer penetration (and less lube required of her), and possibly helped signal sexual arousal to a female with the emerging glans as a visual cue.
But, like I said, foreskins exist in animals where female pleasure couldn't possibly have even a remote influence on the morphology of sexual organs. The chances that it just happens to exist in a higher order primate for reasons alltogether different are very low. If it was a critical sexual mechanism or cue, women would likely not enjoysex with a circumcised male, or not having a foreskin would somehow seriously impare the act. It's still arguably a useful thing, but the fact that we can get along so easily without it indicates that it's a holdover from far more primitive days, when we weren't what is identifiably human, and a male's ability to deliver sexual pleasure to a female didn't offer any real competative advantage over other males. If anything factored in for this, it may have been genital size, as some researchers have pointed out that chimps are female-polygamous and prominent genitals could be used for dominance displays and such. But if that is disputed, then foreskins are basically not even part of the equation.
Its role in female pleasure and selection, if there is a specific one at all, is small. I forgot to mention that since it does in fact contain specialized nerve bundles and since we can all agree that it appears to make men more sensitive, it probably facilitates heightened speed to sexual peak for the male, hence faster sex, a real evolutionary advantage in the primitive world.
I think you're just not allowing for the full scope of evolutionary development and theory here. The evolutionary origins of some features are not always totally transparent. Just because the penis is used for our pleasure and can cause female pleasure does not mean every structure, feature, and adaptation of the genitals is related to pleasure, especially female pleasure. Some things on our bodies are related to nothing and just holdovers, like tailbones and apendixes. In short, just because it's on your dick, doesn'n mean it's there because it helps women get off. That's a big jump from A to B without much to stand on.
The blowjobs bit is reference to the fact that the original poster's girlfriend only mentioned that she liked the foreskin for oral sex.
