Interesting Article for Intact and Restoring Males

Sex in Human Loving
Circumcision

Why chop a living piece of tissue off a baby boy? Religious beliefs are often the reason, but such traditions overlook the fact that circumcision is an abuse of the boy's right to choose his own destiny. Health reasons? These too have often been cited, but research has shown there are no penis health problems in uncircumcised boys if they are taught how to wash their penises properly. The truth, as so often, is that circumcision in Western culture was supposedly a cure for masturbation. Happily, this nonsense is dying out. Only about half of all boys born in America are now circumcised, and it doesn't happen much at all in the rest of the Western world.

There's a lot of information on the internet about circumcision, and a great deal of angry campaigning from men who were circumcised at birth and greatly resent it. The cases both for and against have raged backwards and forwards on the internet, but the anti-circumcision camp is clearly winning this debate - as indeed it should. I say that strongly because I think it clear that circumcision is unnecessary, unnatural and destructive of sexual pleasure, both for a man and for his partner. There is, in short, no justification for it, except perhaps when a boy has recurrent infections of the foreskin that won't clear up with treatment.

The skin of the glans and foreskin do not naturally separate until a boy is several years old. During the process of circumcision they are prematurely torn apart, often without anesthetic, and the foreskin cut off. Such an act of cruelty would land a parent in court, yet the medical profession is able to conduct it with impunity. The consequence of circumcision is that the glans may heal with tiny scars on its surface. This may mean a man has a penis with a really over-sensitive glans, which gives him considerable discomfort in later life.

And if a boy has hypospadias, it is very important that he isn't circumcised, as the foreskin tissue is often needed for surgical repair. Read more on hypospadias here: hypospadias.

The most sensitive bits of the whole male sexual nervous system are the ridged bands just near the end of the prepuce or foreskin on its inner surface. The ridged bands connect to the frenulum, and together they are a crucial part of the male sexual system. All of the skin on the glans and inner foreskin is specialized mucosal tissue which is only one or two cells thick, and thus the nerve endings it contain lie very close to the surface. And the highest concentration of nerve cells lies within the ridged bands at the tip of the foreskin. The inner surface of the foreskin provides lubrication, protection and warmth for the sensitive surface of the glans.

The penile skin, including the foreskin, is longer than the shaft of the penis, a fact which allows the penis to glide effortlessly in its own natural sheath during intercourse. The glans is alternately exposed and covered as the foreskin moves back and forth as the man thrusts. As he moves back during sex, the foreskin is drawn backwards and unfurled, exposing the sensitive muscosa of the glans and inner foreskin. As he moves forwards again, the inner foreskin glides smoothly over the sensitive mucosa of the glans.

One of the crucial functions of this structure is to keep the vaginal lubrication inside the vagina during intercourse. This happens because the skin of the shaft of the penis is effectively stationary at the entrance to the vagina. As the penile shaft moves back and forth within the natural sheath of the penile skin, the seal between the vagina and the penis is maintained.

A major difficulty in convincing men that circumcision is unnecessary is that a man with no foreskin doesn't know what he is missing - he can't compare his sexual experience with that of a man who has a foreskin! This doesn't mean that sex is a deficient experience for him, all it means is that it is different. In any case, orgasm is a whole body experience, and the intensity of a man's orgasm need not be diminished because he is circumcised; rather, it is the intensity of sexual stimulation and pleasure that he receives during intercourse that is different.

It's also possible that his partner may receive less pleasure during sex. In one study, scientists interviewed women with experience of both circumcised and uncircumcised men as sexual partners. The women reported that they were more likely to experience vaginal dryness and soreness, and less likely to enjoy sex, with circumcised men than they were with uncircumcised men. And the women were significantly less likely to have a vaginal orgasm, too. Worst of all, the women reported that circumcised men were more likely to have premature ejaculation.

Interestingly, the more experienced the women, the less the difference between their satisfaction with uncircumcised and circumcised sexual partners. This implies a woman's sexual experience is important in determining how much satisfaction she gets from sex, regardless of what the man does. But even so, there was still a clear difference in satisfaction, frequency of orgasm and amount of pleasure between sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men.

The women overwhelmingly agreed that sex with men in each category was very different. Circumcised men, they said, tend to thrust harder and deeper, using long strokes, while uncircumcised men tend to thrust more gently and to make shorter thrusts. Circumcised men thrust harder because they lack the sensitive nerve cells that promote orgasm. They need more stimulation to the nerves of the penis to reach orgasm. The way it works seems to be this: when the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the coronal ridge so that the tip of the foreskin (which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis) comes into contact with the coronal ridge (which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans). This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their uncircumcised partners.

And the lack of the penile sheath within which the shaft moves seems to cause a loss of lubrication so that sex is less comfortable for the woman, and minor abrasions can develop in her vagina. This is probably because the corona of the glans acts as a one way valve to prevent vaginal secretions being lost. But when the penis is withdrawn too far, as it tends to be in circumcised men, who have no sensory input to limit how far they pull back, the valve mechanism doesn't work and the vaginal secretions are able to leave the vagina.

In conclusion, the researchers said that it seemed as though the uncircumcised penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during intercourse. And they also observed that the negative effect of circumcision on the pleasure of future sexual partners needs to be part of any discussion between doctors and parents about the possibility of circumcision on baby boys.

Note: This is just a sex oriented website with tons of interesting and useful sex information, including multi-orgasmic men, women's views on sex, tantric sex and etc. This is not an anti-circ oritented website. I have included a link if anyone would like to explore this site further!

http://www.sexinhumanloving.com/circumcision.html

Just one more link for now. Same website. This is an article on penile anatomy. Please be aware that this goes into INTACT anatomy, and may offend some pro-circumcision members, as there are a couple restoration links. Restorers and FR-curious, I think, will find it very interesting. Mildly anti-circ here, but not to the point of raging rhetoric. Just the reality of it, I think, which some men deny still...which is their perogative, of course!

http://www.sexinhumanloving.com/penis.html

if you want my opinion, that article is full of a hell of a lot of bullshit.

the first half where it just talks about the reasons against circumcision was all good, but...

The penile skin, including the foreskin, is longer than the shaft of the penis, a fact which allows the penis to glide effortlessly in its own natural sheath during intercourse

Click to expand...

if this were true then the female would feel absolutly nothing. It is saying that the penis moves in its own sheath, while the sheath remains stationary, therefore the only part of the penis in direct contact with the women's vagina is not moving at all, therefore no friction and no pleasure.

the shaft of the penis is effectively stationary

Click to expand...

see what i mean

One of the crucial functions of this structure is to keep the vaginal lubrication inside the vagina during intercourse. This happens because the skin of the shaft of the penis is effectively stationary at the entrance to the vagina. As the penile shaft moves back and forth within the natural sheath of the penile skin, the seal between the vagina and the penis is maintained.

Click to expand...

this would only be relevant if the couple stayed in one position and the penis entered the vagina once. which is never really the case in sex, the penis enters and re-enters the vagina tonnes of times during a session of sex.

women were significantly less likely to have a vaginal orgasm, too. Worst of all, the women reported that circumcised men were more likely to have premature ejaculation.

Click to expand...

this is a huge generalization. i'd like to know the sample size and conditions of this study, because without that info then the previous statement (last quote) is complete null.

The women overwhelmingly agreed that sex with men in each category was very different. Circumcised men, they said, tend to thrust harder and deeper, using long strokes, while uncircumcised men tend to thrust more gently and to make shorter thrusts.

Click to expand...

this is utter and complete bullshit, i'm circumcised and i'll thrust however fast or slow i dam well want, sometimes i go fast sometimes slow, sometimes the girl will tell me how fast she wants me to go. its just bullshit, its like they're trying to say that all circumcised men are exactly the same in the sack, and all uncircumcised men are exactly the same in the sack.


the only good things the article says is the shooting down of the religious and health reasons for circumcision.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Of course, I don't think you understand-- or want to understand-- the mechanics of gliding. You are oversimplifying it. It doesn't just go in and "lock into place" and sit in there motionless while the shaft pumps inside it. It kind of flows back and forth with the movement.

You're right in disputing the description, but only in that they don't explain it correctly.

There isn't less stimulation, there's more, because the skin is moving, and the glans is moving in and out of that, and it all stays wet and slippery. It's more like a shock absorber.

I attached a picture. Hope you look at it with an open mind and don't just call it bullshit outright.

I do agree with the article that it is hard for a cut guy to understand being uncut and vice versa.

I hope I don't infuriate you more, but in my personal experience there are a few things the article calls right which you don't believe.

I do have more control of my orgasm now. It is hard to explain. The glans is much more sensitive, but it is easier to just relax and enjoy it. The sensation is more intense so I don't have to fuck so hard. If I want, I can go really fast and cum in seconds (cause it feels so good) or I can just lean back and enjoy it. It's something that you would have to do FR to understand. I'm sorry, cause that sounds like a lame excuse, but it is true.

The thing about the shorter strokes is true, too. I used to pound the fuck out of it. Now, because the sensation is so fine, I tend to stay deep inside and just roll it around. I don't need all the friction on the shaft, because I can feel the folds and muscles of her pussy with my dickhead. It's tight and feels good and I like to get all the way up in there and just grind the top now instead of thrusting in and out as fast and hard as possible.

I don't have enough skin to know what the gliding feels like. At my stage of restoration, it just feels "softer" and sometimes I feel the skin bump the ridge when I am pulling back if she is real tight. I understand it tho.

My wife would still, in general, rather be pounded, so I do both-- deep grind and long and fast-- cause I'm a full service husband! I don't expect you or anyone else to take this article as gospel, but it is interesting.

Of course, I don't think you understand-- or want to understand-- the mechanics of gliding

Click to expand...

i understand "gliding" very well, but the articles take on it is bullshit.

It doesn't just go in and "lock into place" and sit in there motionless while the shaft pumps inside it. It kind of flows back and forth with the movement.

Click to expand...

see, your disagreeing with the article on the exact same point as me.

It's something that you would have to do FR to understand

Click to expand...

after looking at your pics, i have much more of a forskin that you (not an attack) even though i was also circumcised, so i DO understand.

Your talking about having better orgasms because of a forskin, which is a topic that was never raised in the article so i don't know why you brought it up. the article only went as far as to say that there is a different sensation.

and i still say the stroke speed thing is bullshit, it pretty much only would be relevant if the guy was always and only trying to achieve orgasm, my stroke speeds are whatever i want up until about 30 seconds before i orgasm, and im sure this is the same with most men.



and on a sub note, stop making assumtions of me and turning this into a personal thing.

I don't think you understand-- or want to understand

Click to expand...

Hope you look at it with an open mind and don't just call it bullshit outright.

Click to expand...

I hope I don't infuriate you more.

Click to expand...

(since when was i infuriated)

Ditto with Shithead's points. It should be noted, as Kong himself is doing a good job of doing these days, Kong has no erect coverage yet. Many circumcised men have a similar amount of slack in their skin. The benefits he feels he's experiencing thus far are the product of a normally circumcised penis, so that should be kept in mind when considering personal experiences.

Many of these articles about the sexual side of things love to dredge up this female pleasure and 'gliding' angle. The trick here is to get men to assume that they're not going to be able to hit it properly with a circumcised penis. But as Shithead has pointed out already, this is dumb on a number of levels. Dumbest of all though, it assumes there is some kind of universal 'gliding' stroke that all women prefer. Maybe it's just me, but I think any men here with some sexual experience know right away that there isn't some universal sexual rhytHydromax or trick that makes all women happy. When articles contain statements like that, they're just hoping your dumb enough to think that all women and vaginas are the same. But it is a great persuasive trick; make guys think they can please women better, they're liable to believe. Some women may like it better, for sure, but I'm willing to bet most women don't care. Ask some for yourself rather than rely on stuff fresh off the internet.

Same goes with the sensitivity and premature ejaculation thing. For every study that says uncut men have better control, there's another that says cut men do. Most of these studies don't prove squat one way or another, again it's a selling tactic for one side or the other. Sexual confidence is a good place to catch anybody's interest. It could improve control for some men, but there is no way to know how many or if it will at all. It could hurt control as well, there's no way to predict. It'll take you a year or two to find out if FR can help out with that (which is assumably how long it would take before you had any real erect coverage), so it's something to consider before you decide that you want to pursue FR to help with ejaculation control.

That being said, I think there is plenty of evidence to show that uncut men and guys who have restored have a more sensitive glans, and this is one thing you can be reasonably sure if you start up with FR. I say check out the new thread by Prince Albert and Kausion420 to get some real perspective on what sex is like with a foreskin.

Gliding is when your foreskin rolls over your head in unison with your strokes. It is not my skin rolling over my head while my penis is stationary.

You thrust in really deep, your skin retracts. You pull out your skin covers your head. Like the picture above states, different from what is said in the article. Feels really good IMO. You do short fast strokes your skin stays retracted like you were cut.

Im still young so that could be the problem as I am getting better but wouldn't a cut male have better control? your head is rubbing against your clothes all day everyday. I try that and it tingles.

Not sure where the uncut guys have better control theory came about but common sense would tell you if your penis head (most sensitive part of the penis) is covered until needed it would be more sensitive than one that isn't. A more sensitive head will cum a lot quicker than one that is slightly or very desensitized.

Most of the sensitivity is in the glans. Knowing this, I do not see how you can completely discount my experience, as my glans is nearly completely DKed, so I have almost all the sensitivity of an uncut male in the glans. Of course, I know I will never be completely restored, but close is good enough. You try to make other men think that they will get no benefits until 2 years down the road when they are complete, but that's a misconception. As soon as you start taping, your glans is protected and begins to shed. Again, this is something you can't understand until you do FR yourself. You can understand the mechanics...the theory...but not the actual physical experience of it.

I do believe that maybe the perception of what the article is trying to say is being overblown concerning the gliding. Like I said before, I am not nearly far enough along to give a comparison from both cut and restored perspectives...soon, I hope...but all I can tell so far is "softer" and feel a little movement of the skin behind the glans...but not over it, like in the picture.

It won't take a year or two to see if FR will help with pre-jac problems. Again, your lack of actual experience with FR is showing there. You will see a difference there in a month or three. It doesn't have anything to do with a full functioning foreskin but with a heightened awareness of sensation due to increased sensitivity.

That, like the tendency to stroke it shorter and deeper, are just a couple things you have to try it to have any real say. And it IS only a tendency, SH. Don't make it bigger than it is. I, like you, can do it any way I want, but it does feel good to go deep and grind it now, cause the head is so sensitive.

I think this is the best way to learn about this. Get a story up, have a few cut guys, uncut guys and restoring guys in the thread to hash it out.

I am circed and the information provided here on the mechanics of intercourse is a fact. It has been studied clinically as well as as being noted in various medical journals available for your perusal, shithead.

The ability of a woman to feel the penis gliding back and forth within the protective gliding of the skin provided by the prepuce is unhendered and is further sensitized by virtue of the lubrication between the two surfaces that is kept from drying out.

The only thing of relevance noted in your post is the overcharacterization of all men doing things the same way. But of course we do, sili boy.....lol, d

Very true. Problem is, they don't want it to be real. Not a personal attack but a psychological observation.

That all women are engineered to prefer this 'gliding' motion is not scientific fact, it is a facile opinion frequently stated by FR and anti-circ literature and can be found literally nowhere else. If it was such an important boost for female pleasure, would the uncut male not be coveted in the US and other places despite social taboos? If you read a women's forum, or better yet, ask women yourself, you will find that the preference for one over the other for sexual intercourse is virtually non-existent. Individual men are different, women are different, the statements in teh article are weak generalizations. Again, it's a selling tactic, some men are very vulnerable to it.

The mechanics of 'gliding' are quite simple, even intuitive, to understand. To hear the real deal on it ask some circumcised men about it. Sikdogg has also made some very interesting points about the subject that are worth reading.

I do believe that my input on the subject is valid as I have talked to women about this in a very candid fashion since becoming interested in this topic. Also, though I haven't decaritanized my glans by an means, I do have a very sensitive glans that is neither rough nor calloused so far as I can tell, and I have a fully intact frenulum. I have also have a loose circumcision and have always had easy skin mobility, even when fully erect. I do not think my type of circumcision is rare or unique.

In this case Kong, I believe that you are still speaking from the perspective of a circumcised man, just as I am. As you appearently had a bad circumcision before, one could easily see that you are now experiencing sex with a healthier circumcised penis and couldn't necessarily attribute your improved experience to have any sort of functional foreskin during sex. You have gone from a bad circumcision to a normal one. I think that erect coverage is a very important thing to have to be able to quantify statements about gliding, which to your credit you admit.

I do believe you have a more sensitive glans, but this is realative. A man's sensitivty is different in every case to begin with, there could be calloused circumcised penises that are vastly more sensitive than your dekeratinized glans.

Again, these sexual claims are genreally only to be found in anti-circ and some FR related literature. In this case I think it is very much something that men either buy into or they don't. It seems clear to me that they make sweeping, simplified generalizations about all men, women, and sex in general, then present it as if it were cut and dry fact. I find it far from convincing and certainly not conclusive. They do not make a strong case for the sexual aspects once the article is examined with any type of critical eye.

Talk to women and seek the commentary of uncircumcised men. I think part of the prolific nature of some of this internet-based propagandizing is to isolate men from real world and first hand experience in order to persuade them more easily.

Also, I have discussed in some detail on other threads that the notion that foreskin developed in any way (evolutionarily speaking) as a specific contributor to female pleasure is highly unlikely. Protection of the penis from the environment and quick, easy penetration are the main advantages of a foreskin as far as reproductive fitness is concerned, not female pleasure and ejaculation control. Those things were not exactly high on the priorty list for our primitive ancestors.

The most sensitive thing on a penis during intercourse or masturbating is the frenelum, then comes the glands. If you don't have a frenelum, you don't know squat about being uncut. Because that is almost the most important part. That and it's connection to the glands.
��������� usally always cut their frenelum off during operation, thats why their stamina is higher, because of lackness in sensetivity.

But yes, foreskin do make the glands more sensetive, but only if its covering it.
My penis for example doesnt glide on my foreskin, the glands keeps it locked beneith it.

Thanks for posting Ghost Dogg, I really am pleased to hear comments from the genuine articles on this subject.

Ghost Dogg's observations bring up another interesting point about the gliding thing - not all circumcised men even glid, and there's no gurantee a restored foreskin will function in that matter. Also, as I'm sure circumcised men can tell you, if they do glide it doesn't occurr in all positions with all types of thrusting (or her thrusting for that matter). The more the idea is explored, the more we see it's something that has been blown way out of proportion.

Also, I think the more we hear the more we see that ejaculation control is not something related to be circumcised or not - though some do seem to feel it's intuitive that a less sensitive penis is apt to be able to take more sensation - but really I think a foreskin has no bearing on control when compared to so many other factors.

One misconception you have, swank, is that you believe there is some great storehouse of data out there somewhere that will say once and for all what the answers here are. Guess what? As circumcision is so ingrained in our society, has been for generations, and very widespread, there is just not that much info. It has only been in the last two generation that the subject of sex has been permissible in polite society to discuss. Now we have a growing movement in which we are being asked to re-examine our sexuality as males who have been, for a very long time, altered surgically at birth. Of course this is going to cause alot of contention and debate! We see it right here! We are the pioneers of this new thinking, and we are all going to have to come to a consensus about what this is going to be.

Should we be totally pro-circ and continue the practice because it is custom, even though we now know that it has no health benefits and that it can be damaging and have lasting effects?

Alot of men can go as far as "I believe it is not beneficial so I am not going to have my children circumcised", which is fantastic! But there is more to it than that. Keeping your head in the sand and denying everything else is the easiest solution, but what happens when your uncut children grow up? What can you tell them? Not only that, but if you do not know the true details of intact anatomy, how are you going to give your child care and monitor their health? Cleaning and caring for the genitals of your babies is part of child rearing, and I would hate for some child to be injured because their mother or father did not know how it all really works. (I will be posting an article on caring for young intact children later. Still working on it. We're men and future daddies and we need to know, if we aren't planning on having our boys circed.)

Some of us are going to go as far as restoring ourselves as close as possible to our natural state. There are benefits to doing this...comfort, sexual pleasure, psychological wellness and as a political statement for those so inclined. We are the believers who do not have issues with thinking one is better than the other or whatever. Contrary to what you may think, I was not always a restorer and anti-circ activist. I was just like alot of you. Didn't give it a second thought until I began to have some problems and decided to find the solution. When I stumbled across FR info on the net, I didn't automatically deny it because it threatened my sense of manhood, but read it, digested it and accepted it.

Finally, there are those who escaped the knife. The uncut. You guys are going to have to adjust as well. The social stigma of being uncut is going to fade as more and more young men grow up intact, and with so many of us cut men out there with no idea what it means to be whole and unaltered, someone is going to have to help us understand what it is like...because we don't know any other way of being.

There is info out there. Tons of it. Swank would have you dismiss it all as radical poppycock, which maybe some of it is, but you can't simply discredit all information that you find unpalatable. It's there. It's real. Get used to it. Just because a couple guys think it's "fishy" or "questionable" certainly doesn't make it so. I question the very act of dismissing information because it contains the words "anti-circ". It's ludicrous. To me, it suggests fear of change and denial.

The best thing to do is learn as much as possible and decide for yourself what you believe.

Just bear in mind, "free thinker" doesn't mean "nutcase" and change is not always bad.

GhosT_DoGG said:

The most sensitive thing on a penis during intercourse or masturbating is the frenelum, then comes the glands. If you don't have a frenelum, you don't know squat about being uncut. Because that is almost the most important part. That and it's connection to the glands.
��������� usally always cut their frenelum off during operation, thats why their stamina is higher, because of lackness in sensetivity.

But yes, foreskin do make the glands more sensetive, but only if its covering it.
My penis for example doesnt glide on my foreskin, the glands keeps it locked beneith it.

Click to expand...

I thought the frenelum was only a bit of skin? :D Everyone got all up in arms when I said it was the most sensitive part. So, is it okay now to say that it is an analog of the female clitoris, or is that still too much? Is it the most sensitive or not?

Also, are you saying that your glans is insensitive unless the foreskin is actually covering it, because most intact men expose their glans when erect... I'm a little bit confused here...

PS-- I do still have some fren remnants. They run up and down the inner mucosal area on the bottom side of my shaft, from the glans to the c-scar. It is not intact. In fact, it was butchered pretty bad, but there are still some very sensitive spots, and, of course, FR is expanding that tissue, too. When I jack off, those spots rub the glans and really feel good.

I do agree that this "gliding" thing is being overblown...by both sides of the issue. It's not everything...but it's not nothing, either. Got to find the middle ground so here it is:

Gliding is good. It keeps the female more lubricated. It doesn't occur in all instances of sexual intercourse. It can be pleasurable for the male and the female, but sex is still enjoyable without it.

I'm still anxious to experience it myself when I grow some more skin!

Not much time to post, kick-off in a few minutes!

Saying the frenulum is sensitive and saying it is the same thing as a lit are quite different.

There is plenty of information and study on sex, quite a bit actually, and one can draw some very certain conclusions from it. In the article listed above, the sexual theorizing is junk commentary with no scientific fact to back it up, just a certain manner of presentation. People capable of critically interpreting information (i.e. don't believe everything they read) can easily see through the subterfuge.

The rest of your post addresses the 'whether or not to circumcise' and the anti-circ movement, which are two very large and seperate issues that deserve their own threads.

Parting word - free thinker doesn't mean anti-circ either.

My problem with a lot of this Kong has been the way you so freely give us your experiences before you started FR and what you and your wife have experienced so far. That is fine. I actually have no problems with that. It is when you and your wife have dismissed the experiences ofr us cut guys. Swank in particular. You doubted and denied his ability to give his girl(s) multiples and then you had your wife post that she was faking. You have also posted that after you and your wife had sex before you began FR that you would have to jerk off wildly or roughly in order to satisy yourself. I don't think that that is the case for all of us cut guys. I have never had the urge or the thought to do that. In fact, I orgasm much more intense when my wife uses her mouth, pussy, tits or hands very slowly up and down and esp really slow around the head. I also have never had any problems with giving my wife multiples.

I really think Kong that if you want some people to accept and try to understand your opinions and more specifically your experiences since you have begun FR, maybe you should also accept that some of us cut guys have no problems whatsoever and that our women actually love what we do to them.

just my 2 cents

kook

It has always been my stated opinion that circumcision causes little harm in most cases. I have always tried to make it clear that damaging circs are not a common thing, and that my situation was rare. It is also my opinion -- and please understand, I'm saying just opinion-- that those few RARE men who get worked up or offended by what I say are sexually insecure and feel personally threatened by statements that probably have nothing whatsoever to do with them! I'm glad you do not have problems with your penis and your sex life is good. Why do you feel you need to bring that up as some kind of condemnation of me? Have fun and fuck her good and hard!

women were significantly less likely to have a vaginal orgasm, too. Worst of all, the women reported that circumcised men were more likely to have premature ejaculation.

Click to expand...

What a contradiction. Less sensitive penises due to circumcision have a more likely chance to get overly excited and pre-ejac, while hyper-sensitive uncut penises with extra/specific/offthewall pleasurable feelings are less likely to get overexcited and pre-ejac?

Considering the logic and the simple anecdotal evidence of every uncut person I talked to...

It is...

FULL OF SHIT!

Like the rest of the article...