first commented on this cutting edge issue on May 1, 2003. At that time I had no intention of mentioning it again, much less the next day. Or the day after that. Yet I did, because this proved to be about the most popular topic I've ever posted on, at least in terms of reader feedback and passionate debate. (Speculation about The Matrix 2 plot was the busiest ever, thus far.)

The following updates are posted in order, starting with May 1st. Scroll down to see the series of updates, with more recent ones added to the bottom of the page.

May 1, 2003

Now here is an article I simply had to comment on. It's got weird sex type stuff, penis discussion, and let's me segue into female sexual preferences.  It's basically what this website exists for, really.

Foreskin or not?

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Circumcised men appear to have the same degree of penis sensitivity as men who are uncircumcised, a new study suggests -- in a finding that will probably just add fuel to the fire of a controversial subject debated for years.

The findings are to be presented Tuesday by Dr. Arnold Melman at a meeting of the American Urological Society in Chicago.

"We demonstrated that there are no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men in both patients with and without erectile dysfunction," said Melman in a prepared statement.

So how did they actually test this? They don't say precisely in the article, but they do give some details.  For one thing, they don't say if they're doing it on erect of flaccid penises, which would seem to be an almost essential component of the test.  I mean who cares how sensitive their penis is when it's soft?  In fact, wouldn't you (assuming you are male and/or have a penis) prefer that it was less sensitive when soft, you could more easily ignore when it was itchy, rubbed on your pants, got stuck when you sat down and crossed your legs, etc?

That can probably go for when hard also, since the most common male sexual problem is being unable to hold back and make it last longer.  One could easily argue that less sensitivity is a good thing.  Anyway:

In the current investigation, Melman's team evaluated the penile sensitivity among 43 uncircumcised men and 36 circumcised men through a variety of methods, including vibration, pressure, spatial perception and warm and cold thermal thresholds. Both groups contained men with and without erectile dysfunction.

In uncircumcised men, the foreskin was pulled back during the sensitivity testing procedures.

The investigators found no statistically significant differences in sensitivity between the two groups of men, regardless of whether they had erectile dysfunction.

Okay, this ruins it all. So all they were testing was how sensitive just the actual head of the penis was, probably when soft.  That's pointless, being as the foreskin is said to have as many nerve endings as almost the entire rest of the penis.

It's like testing female labia sensitivity on women with and without a clitoris, and numbing the clitoris on women who have it so as not to throw off the data.  Or testing recipes on people with and without taste buds, while not letting them actually eat anything.

In theory the foreskin is there to protect the penis from damage, since humans can't retract it back into a sheath, as most animals do. And in theory a lifetime of the penis rubbing against clothing takes off some of the sensitivity.  However this study seems to refute that.  However, since the foreskin itself is the source of a vast amount of the pleasure and sensitivity, who really cares if the rest of the penis is more or less sensitive?  Obviously the foreskin being added in will always make an uncut penis far more sensitive.

I'm speaking hypothetically here, since I'm like most American men. 

The current policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that the potential medical benefits of male circumcision are not substantial enough to recommend that all boys become circumcised.

Around three-quarters of American-born men in the U.S. are circumcised, although that number appears to be declining rapidly in some regions of the country.

The other issue is appearance, and what your desired sexual partner prefers. I dunno about gay men on this topic, but in my adult life I've asked about a dozen women, and almost all of them like the look/feel of a circumsized man. I have never heard from a woman who prefers a foreskin. At best, three of four of the dozen I've talked to didn't come right out and say they hated it, while the other eight or nine immediately admitted to vastly preferring a circumcised cock. I can think of at least three women who told me in no uncertain terms that they would never give an uncircumcised guy fellatio, under any circumstances.

I suppose this is cultural and learned; I.E. those women grew up in the US seeing only circumcised cocks, and that's what they have come to like and to expect, so when they see one that's got a weird extra flap of skin on it, they are appalled.

I just asked a woman (who I knew already hated them) how she thought other women felt.

All my friends would cringe at the words "non-circumcised." You already know my opinion on the matter. Its our society.

So yeah, it's a form of mutilation and has no medical need in this modern era of good personal cleanliness, but since hardly any men complain about their sex life in terms of not being able to come quickly enough, will you really miss it?  And anyway, what good does more feeling in your cock do if you can never get laid?  I guess it would make for really easy wanking, at least.

I'm not going to get into the whole weird fetish thing of guys who want theirs back, and have surgery or use clamps and weights to stretch the skin on their shaft down over the head, since that's just creepy. Not that that usually stops me, I'll admit. But that's a subject for another day.  Probably with photographic evidence, just to warn you now.

May 2, 2003

Circumcision, discussed in some length yesterday, reappears today.

To start with, here's an email from a reader who probably wants to remain anonymous, describing his experiences with a foreskin.

I am part of the 25% of American males that are not circumsized.

My wife, as well as many of my former girlfriends, is or were fascinated by my uncut member. Most but not all would go down on me, and those that do/did seemed to like it. Oral sex is part of our usual foreplay in my marriage.

Some of the women in my life marveled at my uncut dick the first time we had sex, usually also commenting favorably on width of my penis (which I am told is as long as most but much thicker than many) however many waited until the 3rd or 4th sexual encounter. On occasion I have been the first one to bring it up, usually when they were giving me a handjob, upon which they always agreed with me that it is much easier to masturbate a cock with foreskin than one without.

I believe my foreskin keeps me from premature ejaculation. While having sex, my foreskin acts as a second layer, covering and then retracting over my penis as I pump in and out. If my penis were stripped of foreskin I think it would almost be painful during the "out" part of the old "in & out" motion. I have no doubt that the head of an uncircumcised cock gets desensitized by rubbing against clothes all the time, and a good thing that is, or the "out" motion would be almost unbearable. Other than my first sexual encounters when I was 16 or 17, I have always lasted until my partner was ready.

I would never ever ever get circumcised. I thank my lucky stars that I still have my dick intact. I feel bad for you guys that have been amputated. I am glad that you still can have a little bit of fun anyway.

It does seem that a penis would get desensitized without the foreskin over it, but according to that study I posted about yesterday, they do not.  My thought was that the foreskin itself was super sensitive, so any cock with one was just automatically far more sensitive than a cock without one.  Seems self-evident.

However, the guy commenting says that his foreskin actually sort of lessens the sensitivity, which seems odd. I can't comment, since I'm in the 75% who were cut when a baby, so I have nothing to compare it to.

Another guy who is not circumcised says that he loves his, for it's enormously sensitive and feels great to touch or have touched.  It's probably a sign of denial over our loss that men who have been cut bother to make up excuses about why it doesn't really matter that they have been mutilated.

For the rebuttal, here's what a female friend of mine said when I quoted here the above email:

What else is he going to say? Of course he is going to say that, but notice had he said HE had to bring it up, that it took the 3rd or 4th time, that women gazed at it in "wonder." I bet if I took a woman's poll (me taking the poll that is,) I'd say that most would have said that they were fascinated by it because 1) you don't see them often, 2) they are weird and ugly looking, like an elephant trunk, and 3) they probably were contemplating if they could do a hand job. Now, I realize that is MY opinion, but I am going to stick with it.

Personally, men usually smell like urine because they don't wipe nor do they REALLY clean down there. Its bad enough going down on a guy and smelling the urine and that musky ball odor. That is the only thing that I hate about BJ's. Its always a surprise down there. I would think that a man with all that skin is going to get stuff trapped down in there and smell even worse. At least that is the myth that goes around a woman's mind when it comes to not being circumcised.

And that's the other side of the issue, that most women don't like them, or at least they *think* that they don't like them.  Once they got used to it would they mind?  True, a penis is a lot less-attractive looking with a foreskin covering up the interesting looking part (assuming I can say that w/o sounding gay), but visual stimulation only goes so far, and maybe it's sexy when the head is peeking out from under the skin?  I don't really want to think about it, honestly.

I guess I'm glad I was circumcised, since I've never missed it and get plenty of sensation as it is, and I think I look a lot better without it.  But maybe I'm just in denial, missing what I never had.

Anyone else wants to comment, feel free.

May 3, 2003

Honestly, I had no intention of writing about circumcision three days in a row. I thought I'd just post that one article Thursday, and that would be it.  But there was good feedback yesterday, and now there's more of it today.  So here we are.

To recap: a news article talked about a new scientific analysis that was run on a bunch of dicks.  The tests on the dicks proved that penile sensitivity, just of the head, was basically identical for men who are and are not circumcised.  This seems to defy logic, since after all, that's pretty much what a foreskin is for; to protect the head of the penis from damage. However human flesh is quite durable and meant to be used, and unless you mistreat something long enough to callous it (like my hands and feet) the sensitivity should remain nearly 100%.  It's not like guys without a foreskin are going around banging their dicks into walls and rubbing them with sandpaper.  Why do we assume just rubbing on (generally) soft underwear for a life is going to permanently deaden the sensation?  Do you think people who wear long sleeves a lot have less sensitive forearms than people who always wear short-sleeved shirts?

Anyway, yesterday's update presented the other point of view, with a male reader writing in to extol the virtues of being uncircumcised, and then a female friend of mine who hates uncircumcised cocks replied to him from her point of view.  In the US most men are circumcised, so women here grow up to expect that, and think that's how a penis "should" look, and think a cock like that looks good, and the elephant-trunk look of an uncut one looks weird.

Is that all cultural though, and learned?

Well of course; people who grow up in other cultures have entirely different opinions of beauty.  It's hard to turn off our cultural feelings when we see people covered in facial tattoos, or with huge rings in their ears or noses, or the archetypal "plates in their lips" look.  But obviously people who grow up in cultures with those as the looks of "beauty" think it's fine.  Lots of men on earth think women with hairy armpits, legs, and pubic hair is very sexy and how women should look, while the current fashion in the US at least is for women to be nearly or completely hairless.  A fashion I'm guilty of falling victim to myself.

That being said, here's an excerpt from an email from PAZ.

I'm a 20 year old male living in Sweden, the land of elks (but not the kind of elks you have in america, bur rather.. nevermind). Anyway, we have no tradition of circumcising our boys here, and I'd say that 95% are "intact". What you probably don't know is that we're even having debates about whether making this illegal or not. Many think its a cruel act to amputate (you said it first =)) little boys that can't decide for themselves. Especially since there is no medical reason for this in our ages, but rather a risk of infections and such.. and I don't have to point out for you that an infection there would be uncomfortable to say the least..

I think you are 100% correct when you wrote that the girls only like what they're used to, and I must add that horror stories about icky goo under the foreskin doesn't really help. I can assure you that the reaction of girls here would be the other way around: "how ugly! how disgusting!" and so on.. disgusting in the way that uncircumcised penises tend to have a harder, more leather-like texture.

The bottom line is, of course, that it's just different cultures. Psychologists say that you grow fond of looks that you see all the time, and this is definitely one of these issues.

The main reason for circumcision is to prevent boys from exploring their sexuality, ie wank. That's why America is advocating it.. 

There was also an email from a Dane named Thor (really) who said much the same thing.

PAZ's comments on the cultural issue are interesting, and how about that possible illegality of circumcision?  People in the US and other Western nations are always going on about the barbaric horror of female circumcision, and clearly it's a far worse thing, happening later in life and involving much more mutilation and risk of death.  But how different is it really?  I mean in concept, it's similar, it's just that a circumcised penis is still capable of feeling pleasure.

OT, but could a culture develop a male circumcision style that would actually lead to a removal of sexual sensation from the penis, I wonder?  It's probably pointless to think about, since men have held the power in 99.9% of earth cultures, and obviously would never allow such a custom to exist. But would it be possible?

Sure, it would complicate reproduction, but there are other ways to trigger a male ejaculation (prostate massage being about the least unpleasant; just ask male livestock about electro-ejaculation techniques), and how about future cultures?  There's no need for males to be able to ejaculate at this point, in terms of reproduction.  Sperm can be removed directly from the testes, and used to in-vitro fertilize, or even with the lower tech turkey baster technique, so in theory a culture could exist and perpetuate itself without men enjoying penile pleasures. There would probably be a lot more accomplished also, without men ruining everything thinking with their dicks or about sex.

Despite that, I don't think I'll advocate it just yet.

What I really wanted to comment on from PAZ's mail, was the last paragraph.  And it's something I hadn't thought to mention yet, though it is a subtext in the whole circumcision thing. The custom is religious in nature, but with religion (well, Christianity) almost always comes prudery and unease about sexuality.

Why?  Dunno.  You can get psychological and into a discussion of how religions need to control the thoughts and actions of their adherents, and forcing people to deny the most basic pleasures in life is a power symbol, and way for the heads of the religion to feel more intricately involved in the lives of their members. But I'm not going into that discussion at this point.

Suffice to say, lots of Christian leaders (Mormons especially) have spent much of the past two millennium trying to get people to stop having sex, or at least stop enjoying it when they do.  And sex for any purpose other than procreation, (sometimes expanded to something like, "strengthening the holy blessed union between man and woman") is said to be evil.  This especially includes such things as homosexuality, but also oral sex, masturbation, pre-marital sex, and everything else you can think of.

You can look up information about the early 1900's and the ridiculous amount of devices and techniques to prevent sexual feelings and desires in children, or even young adults.  Chastity belts, bizarre devices to warn about nocturnal arousal, machines to give electric shocks to condition against arousal, and more.

Of course the most lasting aspect of circumcision as a means of preventing masturbation is how totally ineffectual it is.

And there was another mail from the guy I quoted yesterday.  Here's an excerpt:

In clarification, I do not think my foreskin deadens sensation as one might think by what I wrote. No, I believe it is nature doing it's work. Men are born by nature with foreskin because it assists the sex act in that there is yet an extra foil, another variable of friction. 

Friction must be much more direct without foreskin -- there is less skin on the dick! A penis shorn of it's foreskin is more bare. When my foreskin is retracted all the way down to the root of my cock, my piece looks just like a circumsized one (perhaps somewhat thicker at the base). Sure, my cock looks it's best this way, with the foreskin fully retracted. This may be the only reason that circumsizion is so prevalent in American to begin with.

When my son was born it was my wife who reminded the nurse that our instructions were for no circumsizion. If my son ever in his life decides to get circumsized, it will be his choice and his decision.

I repeat that I would never part with my foreskin. I would never ask my wife to surgically trim her labia (careful not to nick the clitoris with the scalpel, please). 

In closing, I ask you this: what if it 75% of the women in this country were circumcized at birth, that the excess skin was removed but not the clitoris? Do you imagine that people might think vaginas to be more beautiful without those unsightly flaps of labia? Would they wonder if sensation was any different for uncut vaginas, wonder if the clitoris was somehow deadened without it's hood? Why are some people so angry about female mutilation, but condone male mutilation purely for aesthetics?

I don't have any big conclusions on this topic, even after all this discussion.  I am happy with my penis as it is, there is plenty of sensation, etc.  However, I do wonder how much better it might feel if I still had a foreskin, and wouldn't greater sensation from it be well worth any potential difficulties?  It's not like I've had women lining up to fellate me as it is, and I'd think any long term relationship partner would get over it quickly, even if she were initially repulsed by the foreskin.  And probably grow to like it, I mean more penis to play with.

And with modern hygiene there's no reason to worry about infection or smegma build up anymore than you would about getting an infection in your arm pit or something, from not washing it.  And if you do have issues with that, you've got a lot bigger problems than an elephant trunk looking cock.

This being said, I wouldn't go to war to preserve the foreskin on my son, if I ever had a son, and if my wife/his mother were all for having him circumcised.  Yes, I'm weak and spineless on that topic, but I base my opinion on being satisfied with my mutilated penis, so it's not a big deal to me.  Although really, what right does the mother have to even comment on it, given her anatomical differences?  Is she worried about her newborn son not getting enough head 18 years later?

Lastly, I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, but let's all make a note: "circumcised"  not "circumsized"  The second spelling is incorrect, even though it seems much more natural and logical, since "sized" is a word.  I keep wanting to spell it that way myself, and having to remind myself about the time I get to "circumsi..."

In the dozen or so emails on this subject, probably 90% of the time it was spelled "sized" so don't feel alone if you are making that error.  Spelling is overrated anyway.

A man who woke up in a Molde hospital and found himself the recipient of an unexpected circumcision has been awarded NOK 20,000 (USD 3,000) in compensation from the surgeon, newspaper Sunnmørsposten reports.

The patient told the court that he would never have embarked on surgery to relieve an uncomfortably tight foreskin if he had known a circumcision would result. The man claimed that the circumcision had destroyed his sex life by reducing the sensitivity of his penis and because he was now embarrassed to appear naked in front of his wife. He said he was also embarrassed to be naked in public bathing facilities now.

The surgeon said in his defense that at least 60 percent of American men are circumcised and that the procedure is routine for Jewish and Muslim babies. He also argued that the man was objectively better after the operation and he had been warned that the foreskin could be partially or completely removed.

The appeals court chose to believe that the resulting circumcision came as a shock to the patient, and ruled he had suffered damage, though not 'considerable' damage. The court also ruled that circumcision remains unusual in Norway and that the physical changes to the man's organ were self-evident.

And not only that, but the Norwegian courts pretty much said that unexpectedly waking up with an American penis is cause for a cash reward.  I don't know about the rest of your Americans, but I'm feeling a bit insulted by all of this.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.