Pleasures of the Foreskin

The foreskin is not the candy wrapper, it's the candy.

- Martin Novoa


The pleasure given by the foreskin itself is taken for granted in communities where it is commonplace - and also in communities where it is not, but where pleasure is frowned on.

Only in the US, where pleasure is now cultivated but foreskins are still rare, is that self-evident fact disputed.

Here are some historical quotes about the pleasures of the foreskin - many from people who deplored both.


Philo Judaeus, 1st Century
Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 12th century
Isaac ben Yediah, 13th Century
St Thomas Aquinas, 1267-73
Jacopo Berengario da Carpi, late 15th Century
Gabriele Falloppio, 16th Century
William Harvey, 17th Century
A 17th Century sex manual
John Bulwer, 17th Century
Aristotle's Master-piece, late 17th Century
An English medical dictionary, 1740s
Famed anatomist John Hunter, late 18th century
Naham of Bratslav, 18th Century
William Acton, 1865
An English scholar, 1870s
Sir Richard Burton, 1880s
A US doctor, 1882
A US professor, 1887
A critic of circumcision, 1890
A US doctor, Crossland, 1891
An enthusiastic circumcisor, Clifford, 1893
A British doctor, Hutchinson, 1900
Another British doctor, Freeland, 1900
Another US doctor, Mark, 1901
The British Medical Journal, 1902
An Islamic Turkish physician, 1906
Another US doctor, Lydston, 1912
Another US doctor, Wuedsthoff, 1915
Another British doctor, Cockshut, 1935
A US obstetrician, Guttmacher, 1941
A pioneering British doctor, Gairdner, 1949
Two US doctors, Miller and Synder, 1953
A circumcision evangelist, Valentine, 1974,
   circumcised as an adult
Immigrants to Israel, 1990s
Another circumcised man, Kreuger, 1993
Three pioneering Canadian pathologists, 1996
An intact man, 1997
Three US paediatricians, Fleiss et al., 1998
More pathologists, Cold et al., 1999
An unlucky Italian, 2001
Four intact gay men, 1997-2001
Four woman, 2001
Intact, cut, restored, 2002
A circumcised gay man, 2003
A poster on abc news , 2007
A specialist , 2007
An intact UK man , 2010
A link to other intact men


Philo Judaeus, 1st Century

To these [reasons for circumcision] I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things necessary to our well being. One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure, but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.

The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit.

Philo of Alexandria, Of the special laws, Book I (ii), in Works of Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, 1937, Vol. VII, p. 105

Philo of Alexandria (or Judaeus) was a leading Jewish philosopher living in Alexandria early in the 1st Century.


Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 12th Century

With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49

Maimonides (The Rambam) (1135-1204) was an important Jewish physician, philosopher and theologian.

The complete text of Maimonides on circumcision.


Isaac ben Yediah, 13th Century

When a woman makes love to an uncircumcised man, she feels pleasure and reaches orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding onto his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me". This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles -- sinew of iron and from his ejaculation -- that of a horse -- which he shoots like an arrow into her womb.

With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions.

[This is good for her husband: freed from lascivious desires] he will not empty his brain because of his wife [and] his heart will be strong to seek out God.

Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 22 by Isaac ben Yedaiah

Isaac ben Yediah was a disciple of Maimonides.


St Thomas Aquinas, writing 1267-73

[God ordered circumcision for] the diminishing of fleshly concupiscence which thrives principally in those organs because of the intensity of venereal pleasure.

Summa Theologiae, quoted in Leonard Glick,Marked in Your Flesh, p 89


Jacopo Berengario da Carpi, late 15th Century

[The penis'] highest part is called the glans [acorn] and the head of the penis. There it is compact, hard and dull to sensation so that it may not be injured in coitus. A certain soft skin surrounds this glans, it is called the prepuce, obedient to reversion [turning back] at any rubbing. This prepuce in the lower part in the middle only along its length is attached the larger part of the glans by a certain pellicular member vulgarly called "the little thread" [il filello]. … The functions of the prepuce and of the little skin … are to furnish some delight in coitus and to guard the glans from external harm. The Hebrews do away with the prepuce in circumcisions, thus operating against the intent of nature.

Jacopo Berengario da Carpi, A short introduction to anatomy, translated by L.R. Lind, University of Chicago Press, 1959, pp. 72-3

Jacopo Berengario da Carpi (c. 1460-1530) was the first scholar to publish an illustrated anatomical text. His appreciation that the most sensitive part of the penis was the foreskin and that the glans was relatively insensitive (even hard and dull) was typical of the medical understanding of male sexual physiology prevailing during the Renaissance and much of the seventeenth century. As anxiety about masturbation increased in the eighteenth century, this knowledge was lost, replaced by the erroneous view that the most sensitive part of the penis was the glans and that the main function of the foreskin was thus merely to guard it. Once it became accepted that the foreskin had no significant functions in its own right, it became much harder to mount an effective defence when the circumcisers came along in the nineteenth century.


Gabriele Falloppio, 16th Century

The great Italian anatomist Gabriele Falloppio (1523-62) - discoverer of the fallopian tubes in women - observed that in the classical era it was considered shameful and unhealthy for the glans of the penis to be exposed, and that Greek and Roman physicians then prescribed treatments for lengthening inadequate foreskins. He added that there were medical as well as aesthetic reasons for having a generous foreskin:

What is done for appearance contributes also to generation and to greater pleasure therein; for the part is not itself lubricate if it has no foreskin, and yet in the venereal act it requires notable lubricity. For this very reason circumcision has been prescribed by God, lest the people indulge overmuch in the pleasure of life, and religion, divided by these pleasures, be neglected.

Quoted in Alex Comfort, The anxiety makers: Some curious preoccupations of the medical profession, London, Nelson, 1967, p. 17; and in Felix Bryk, Circumcision in man and woman: Its history, psychology and ethnology, New York, Ethnolgical Press, 1934, p. 106. "Lubricity" meant both slipperiness and lasciviousness.

Comfort's book is not referred to much these days, but it should be: it is an acute and revealing catalogue of medical manias and dead-ends, and the harm done by doctors and other crusaders with moral bees in their bonnets. There is a particularly good chapter of the self-abuse phobia and its contribution to the rise of routine circumcision in the nineteenth century.

The modern historian Thomas Laqueur comments: "God ordained circumcision among the Jews, this text says, so that they might concentrate on his service rather than on the pleasures of the flesh. The notion that circumcision reduces pleasure, and thus the chance of conception, is fairly widespread."

Thomas Laqueur, Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, p. 271, n. 75


William Harvey, 17th Century

The circumcised are affected with less pleasure in coitus because the membrane is thickened and sensation blunted.

Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 113

William Harvey (1578-1657) was the English scientist and physician who discovered the circulation of the blood.


John Donne, 1624

That one principal reason of the commandment of circumcision was that the mark might be always a remembrance to them against intemperance and incontinency …. That part of the body is the most rebellious part; and that therefore only that part Adam covered, out of shame, for all the other parts he could rule … ; to reproach man's rebellion to God, God hath left one part of man's body to rebel against him … not only because all sin is derived upon us by generation, but because almost all other sins have relation to this …. In this rebellious part is the root of all sin, and therefore did that part need this stigmatical mark of circumcision to be imprinted upon it. … Besides (for the Jews in particular) they were a nation prone to idolatry, and most, upon this occasion, if they mingled themselves with women of other nations: and therefore … to defend them thereby against dangerous dalliances which might turn their hearts from God, God imprinted a mark in that part, to keep them still in mind of that law, which forbade them foreign marriages or any company of strange women …. lest they should degenerate from the nobility of their race, God would have them carry this memorial about them in their flesh.

John Donne, Sermon preached on St Dunstan's Day (Feast of the Circumcision of Christ), 1 January 1624, in The sermons of John Donne, edited by Evelyn M. Simpson and George R. Potter, Berkeley, University of California Press, 10 volumes, 1953-62, Vol. 6, pp. 191-2 (spelling and punctuation modernised)

John Donne (1572-1631), metaphysical poet and preacher. As an Anglican divine who regarded it as a degrading mutilation, he was not advocating circumcision in this sermon, but explaining why God had ordained it for the Jews: they needed the physical stigma as a reminder of their moral duty to turn from the flesh and concern themselves with their religious obligations. Christians did not need this mark because they had been saved from original sin by Christ's sacrifice and, following St Paul, practised a "circumcision of the heart". This meant that they observed devout behaviour by virtue of their inner moral strength and did not require physical aids to continence.

For further information, see James Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, New York, Columbia University Press, 1996


A 17th Century sex manual

Giovanni Sinibaldi (or Johannes Sinibaldus) compiled an eccentric collection of folklore and observations on sexual matters, called Geneanthropeiae, published in Rome in 1642. Despite its many absurdities (some of which were jokes), he had a more accurate knowledge of human sexual anatomy and physiology than many doctors over the next 300 years. He understood that the main source of sexual pleasure in women was the clitoris and that its functional equivalent in men was not the glans of the penis, but the foreskin, which he held to be the seat of male sexual pleasure. He also considered that the foreskin contributed to women's pleasure during sexual intercourse, claiming that "the Jewish women, Turkesses and Mauritaniae, their husbands being shorn, make much of it, and most gladly accept the embraces of Christians".

Quoted in Alex Comfort, The anxiety makers, p. 26


John Bulwer, 17th Century

Circumcision detracts somewhat from the delight of women by lessening their titillation.

from John Bulwer, Anthrometamorphosis: Man transform'd; or the artificial changeling (London 1650), p. 213, quoted in Angus McLaren, Reproductive rituals: The perception of fertility in England, London, 1984, p. 21


Aristotle's Master-piece, late 17th Century

The Yard hath a Skin, and about the head thereof it is double, and that men call Praeputium, and this skin is moveable, for through his consecration the Spermatick matter is the better and sooner gathered together, and sooner cast forth from the Testicles: for by him is had the most delectation in the doing. And the foremost part of the head of the Yard before, is made of brawny flesh, the which if it be once lost, it can never be restored again, but it may be well skinned.

from Aristotle's Master-Piece, London 1690, Ch. XXXV, p. 184

Yard is an old word for penis. Aristotle's Master-Piece was the most widely read text on sex and reproduction in eighteenth century England. For further information, see Roy Porter and Lesley Hall, The facts of life: Sexual knowledge in Britain 1650–1950, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1995.

In a later edition the description is more precise:
The glans, which is at the end of the penis, [is] covered with a very thin membrane, by reason of which it is of a most exquisite feeling. It is covered with a preputium or foreskin, which in some covers the top of the yard quite close, in others not so, and by its moving up and down in the act of copulation brings pleasure both to the man and woman.

Aristotle's complete masterpiece, in three parts, displaying the secrets of nature in the generation of man, London, 1749, facsimile reprint, New York, Garland, 1986, p. 13


An English medical dictionary, 1740s

Its [penis] skin has a reduplication which makes a hood to the glans, or end of the penis, called praeputium, or the foreskin. The small ligament by which it is tied to the underside of the glans is called fraenum. The use of the praeputium is to keep the glans soft and moist, that it may have an exquisite sense.

Robert James, A medicinal dictionary: including physic, surgery, anatomy, chymistry, and botany, in all their branches relative to medicine, 3 vols, London, 1743-45, Vol. II, entry for "Generatio"


Famed anatomist John Hunter, late eighteenth century

The prepuce is no more than a doubling of the skin of the penis when not erected, for then it becomes too large for the penis, by which provision the glans is covered and preserved when not necessary to be used, whereby its feelings are probably more acute. When the penis becomes erect it in general fills the whole skin, by which the doubling forming the prepuce in the non-erect state is unfolded, and is employed in covering the body of the penis.

John Hunter, A treatise on the venereal disease, London 1786, p. 221


Naham of Bratslav, 18th Century

Copulation is difficult for the true zaddik [pious Jew]. Not only does he have no desire for it at all, but he experiences real suffering in he act, suffering which is like that which the infant undergoes when he is circumcised. The very same suffering, to an even greater degree, is felt by the zaddik during intercourse.

Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 22


William Acton, 1865

Many foreign writers maintain … that the chief source of sexual pleasure resides in the glans penis. That this organ has a considerable share in the sensations experienced is very true, but, from certain cases that have come under my notice, I cannot help thinking that it has less to do with them than is generally supposed. Some time ago I attended an officer on his return from India, who had lost the whole of his glans penis. The patient, completely recovered his health, the parts healed, and a considerable portion of the body of the penis was left. I found, to my surprise, that the sexual act was not only possible, but that the same amount of pleasure as formerly was still experienced. He assured me, indeed, that the sexual act differed in no respect (as far as he could detect) from what it had been before the mutilation.

William Acton, The functions and disorders of the reproductive organs in childhood, youth, adult age and advanced life, 3rd London edition, Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blakiston, 1865, pp. 114-15

Circumcision is never likely to be introduced amongst us, and there is no doubt that cleanliness will suffice in most cases to remove all the ill effects arising from the existence of the prepuce; but that the prepuce in man (at least in civilized life) is the cause of much mischief, medical men are pretty well agreed. It affords an additional surface for the excitement of the reflex action, and ... aggravates an instinct rather than supplies a want. In the unmarried, it additionally excites the sexual desires, which it is our object to repress; and although it is possible that it may increase the pleasure derived from the act of sexual congress, there is no evidence that Jews, and those who have undergone circumcision, do not enjoy as much pleasure in the copulative act as the uncircumcised; - at any rate, the former do not complain.

In a state of nature the foreskin is a complete protection the glans penis; nevertheless, to the sensitive, excitable, civilized individual, the prepuce often becomes a source of serious mischief. In the East, the ... secretions between it and the glans [are] likely to cause irritation and its consequences; and this danger was perhaps the origin of circumcision. That the existence of the foreskin predisposes to many forms of syphilis, no one can doubt; and ... I am fully convinced that the excessive sensibility induced by a narrow foreskin ... is often the cause of emissions, masturbation, or undue excitement of the sexual desires.

Functions and disorders, p. 22

In advanced age the prepuce may be necessary to copulation. Without it there might be difficulty in exciting the flagging powers.

Functions and disorders, p. 23

William Acton was the leading authority on male sexuality in mid-Victorian Britain.


An English scholar, 1870s

The pleasure of the sexual union is greatly increased by the prepuce, for which reason women prefer cohabiting with those who retain it than with the Turks or the Jews.

John Davenport, Curiositates eroticae physiologiae, or tabooed subjects freely treated, London, 1875, reprinted as Aphrodisiacs and other love stimulants, edited by Alan Hull Watson, London, 1965, p. 179, quoting an authority referred to as Bauer. The original source could be Sinibaldi (see above).


Sir Richard Burton, 1880s

[Female circumcision] is the proper complement of male circumcision, evening the sensitiveness of the genitories by reducing it equally in both sexes: an uncircumcised woman has the venereal orgasm much sooner and oftener than a circumcised man, and frequent coitus would be injurious to her health.

From Burton's notes to his edition to the Book of a thousand nights and a night, in Love, war and fancy: The customs and manners of the East from writings on the Arabian nights, edited by Kenneth Walker, London, 1964, p. 107

Burton had himself circumcised in order to safely enter Mecca. Perhaps that was just an excuse for a more masochistic interest.


A US doctor, 1882

Whether it [circumcision] be curative or not it is conservative, and removes one source of irritation from an exquisitely sensitive organ. I would favour circumcision, however, independent of existing disease, as a sanitary precaution. … (2) It is acknowledged to be useful as a preventive of masturbation. … (5) It probably promotes continence by diminishing the pruriency of the sexual appetite.

Dr J.M. McGee, "Genital irritation as a cause of nervous disorders", Mississippi Valley Medical Monthly, 1882, quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 85. Dr McGee claimed that circumcision alleviated the symptoms of tubercular meningitis and was a complete cure for brass poisoning.


A US professor, 1887

The operation of circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse, and that even when done in later years the same result sometimes follows. … The information afforded us by some who have been circumcised soon after puberty, and who have subsequently indulged in sexual intercourse, is to the effect that when there had been a possibility of uncovering the glans during intercourse, the operation had very decidedly diminished the voluptuous feelings afterwards experienced.

I believe that nature intended the glans to be habitually nearly covered by the prepuce when the penis is in a non-erect state, and that this is necessary for the preservation of the full degree of sensibility of the glans, and that circumcision, by allowing the glans to be constantly exposed to the atmosphere and to friction from the clothing, has the effect of toughening the membrane covering it and of diminishing its sensibility. It acts just as exposure to all kinds of weather and hard manual labour do on hands that have hitherto been kept gloved …. The skin is rendered thick and rough, and the tactile sensibility of the fingers is greatly lessened.

William A. Hammond, Sexual impotence in the male and female, Detroit, 1887, facsimile reprint, New York, Arno, 1974, pp. 272-3

Hammond was Professor of the Diseases of the Mind and the Nervous System at the New York Post-Graduate Medical School.


A critic of circumcision, 1890

Although plainly not absolutely essential to the due increase in bulk of the penis, or to the subsequent performance of its functions, it is prima facie obvious that the prepuce must be intended to subserve some useful purpose. That, according to Dr Willard (Keating's Cyclopaedia of the diseases of children) "is to protect the head of the organ, during the years when the penis is but a portion of the urinary apparatus; and later, by its friction over the sensitive corona, to enhance the ejaculatory orgasm".

Herbert Snow, The barbarity of circumcision as a remedy for congenital abnormality, London, Churchill, 1890, p. 16


A US doctor, 1891

In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensibility of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function or to constitute an objection. … It is well authenticated that the foreskin … is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children.

Jefferson C. Crossland MD, "The hygiene of circumcision", New York Medical Journal, Vol. 53, 1891, pp. 484-5


An enthusiastic circumcisor, 1893

It is a question whether it is desirable to instruct boys how to withdraw the foreskin in order to keep the inner surfaces clean. As a matter of fact it is rarely if ever done, and hence the secretion, perspiration, dirt and so forth remain …. But if this want of cleanliness does not produce [balanitis] … the irritation it occasions … is very liable to give rise to ideas … in young boys which … it is to their advantage to be kept in ignorance of. The glans penis is very vascular, and is well supplied with nerves … and the slightest irritation is sufficient to cause a great deal of discomfort. It is not uncommon to see a child dragging at the foreskin as a consequence. As age advances the habit of masturbation is very frequently to be attributed to it. But after circumcision the glans penis is always dry …. It loses much of its acute sensitiveness, and all unnatural irritation being guarded against, the mind is not directed towards the sexual organs, and a decided check is put to one of the vices only too commonly practised in early manhood. … The cleanliness and chastity which circumcision undoubtedly promotes is probably the reason why the operation has been performed for so many centuries, and may also account for its acquiring a religious significance.

M. Clifford, Circumcision: Its advantages and how to perform it, London, Churchill, 1893, pp. 6-8

It was one of many Victorian myths about sexuality that boys got into the habit of masturbation as a result of discomfort ("irritation") caused by "secretions" under the foreskin, rather than for the more obvious reason that playing with their penises, particularly if they were still covered with the sensitive tissue that was removed by circumcision, was highly pleasurable. It is interesting to note that Australia's leading intellectual champion of routine circumcision today subscribes to this myth, simultaneously admitting his concurrence with nineteenth century arguments for circumcision, yet denying that the desire to discourage masturbation was one of them. Brian Morris writes:

"The concept … that circumcision was used in this era to prevent masturbation is in fact a falsehood that has been promoted by anti-circumcision groups. The real reason was that it prevented smegma, itching and so on, and thus stopped males scratching their genitalia. The fact that such excessive attention to a penis to relieve the irritation might have led to arousal and thus masturbation was purely coincidental. The Victorians cited many of the same medical conditions associated with uncircumcised penises as do people today."

Brian Morris, In favour of circumcision, Sydney, UNSW Press, 1999, p. 57

It's almost a paraphrase of Clifford (and dozens of other anti-masturbation fanatics). Professor Morris's reference to "excessive attention to a penis" suggests that he disapproves of masturbation as much as the Victorians themselves. It is strange that he then denies Clifford's conclusion that circumcision promotes chastity.


A British doctor, 1900

The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of coition and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful.

Jonathan Hutchinson, "Our London letter", Medical News, Vol. 77, 1900, p. 707

Hutchinson (1828-1913) was one of the most distinguished doctors in England, President of the Royal College of Surgeons and knighted in 1908.


Another British doctor, 1900

It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensibility of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this may be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein.

E. Harding Freeland, "Circumcision as a preventive of syphilis and other disorders", Lancet, 1900 (2), 29 December, pp. 1869-70


Another US doctor, 1901

Another advantage of circumcision … is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing. … This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ.

Ernest G. Mark, "Circumcision", American Practitioner and News, Vol. 31, 1901, p. 231


The British Medical Journal, 1902

The third advantage claimed for circumcision is that the sexual appetite is thereby diminished. This, which seems prima facie likely, is supported to some extent by the facts observable among Jews; on the other hand, Mohammedans, who are also circumcised, are credited with very strong sexual passions, although for a fair judgement it would be necessary to compare them with uncircumcised nations of kindred race, and living under the same climatic conditions. It is likely that, of the various advantage supposed to follow circumcision, this diminution of sexual passion was the one which appealed the most strongly to the mind of the Jewish legislators. It is at least noteworthy that this is insisted on by Maimonides, while the Jewish religion attached the highest importance to the prohibition of sexual, and especially of unnatural sexual, vice; and the chapter of Leviticus dealing with this subject has for many centuries been read in the Synagogue on the most solemn holy day of the Jewish year.

"The hygienic value of circumcision", British Medical Journal, 1902 (2), 26 July, p. 271


An Islamic Turkish physician, 1906

The irritation which is caused by the inflammation of the distal part of the [intact] penis leads to erection and release through ejaculation, to enuresis, to onanism and pederasty with their psycho-pathological reactions, and finally to moral crimes. A wise Moslem writer says: "It is exactly these fundamental effects and their influence upon men that the Moslem lawgivers take into consideration in establishing the strict performance of circumcision."

[A pious Moslem told him:] "The reduction of sexual pleasure is just what circumcision aims at. Too great sexual excitement puts man on an equal plane with the lower animals, impels him to wicked moral aberrations and tragic crime. On the other hand, the complete abolition of sexual feelings would make men non-organic beings. We men enjoy coitus just enough."

Nuri Bey Risa, Studien uber die rituale Beschneidung im osmanische Reiche, Sammlung klinischer Vortrage, No. 438, Leipzig, 1906, quoted in Felix Bryk, Circumcision in man and woman: Its history, psychology and ethnology, New York, Ethnolgical Press, 1934, pp. 102-3


Another US doctor, 1912

Circumcision promote cleanliness, prevents disease, and by reducing over-sensitiveness of the parts tends to relieve sexual irritability, thus correcting any tendency which may exist to improper manipulations of the genital organs and the consequent acquirement [sic] of evil sexual habits, such as masturbation.

G. Frank Lydston, Sex hygiene for the male, Chicago 1912; quoted in Abraham Wolbarst, "Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 62, 1914, p. 95


Another US doctor, 1915

Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extremely proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved, if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision.

L.W. Wuesthoff, MD, "Benefits of circumcision", Medical World, Vol. 33, 1915, p. 434


Another British doctor, 1935

I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in mind it does not seem apt to argue that "God knows best how to make little boys".

R.W. Cockshutt [!], "Circumcision", British Medical Journal, 1935 (2), 1935, p. 764


A US obstetrician, 1941

Those in favour of routine circumcision claim that: (1) It make care of the infant's genitals easier for the mother. (2) It does not necessitate the handling of the penis by the infant's mother, or the child himself in later years, and therefore does not focus the male's attention on his own genitals. Masturbation is considered less likely. … Those who oppose routine circumcision claim that: … (3) Circumcision causes some blunting of male sexual sensitivity because in the circumcised the skin on the glans become thicker. However, this supposed disadvantage is often listed as an advantage. … One nice thing about circumcision is that when it is done it is finished. The foreskin never grows back.

Alan F. Guttmacher MD, "Should the baby be circumcised?", Parents Magazine, Vol. 9, September 1941, pp. 76, 78

This article answers a common question, "If foreskins are so good to have, how did intact fathers ever consent to the circumcision of their sons?" They didn't - doctors often circumcised without any parental consent. Circumcision also flourishes during wartime, when fathers are not there to object. The full text.


A pioneering British doctor, 1949

There remain a number of more or less trivial factors which are sometimes mentioned as reasons why infant circumcision is desirable: difficulties in keeping the uncircumcised parts clean, or the supposed aesthetic or erotic superiority of the shorn member. In order to fulfil the intention of this paper an inquiry on these points should have been made amongst a group of uncircumcised men. This was not attempted, although with regard to the last two of the factors mentioned it should be stated that, whenever the subject as been broached in male company, those still in possession of their foreskin have been forward in their insistence that any differences which may exist in such matters operate emphatically to their own advantage.

Moreover, if there were sensible disadvantages in being uncircumcised, one would expect that the fathers of candidates for circumcision would sometimes register their feelings in the matter. Yet in interviewing the parents of several hundred infants referred for circumcision I have met but one father who wished his son circumcised because of his disagreeable experience of the uncircumcised state. … So little did the father's personal experience seem important that one quarter of the mothers did not even know whether their husbands were or were not circumcised. These facts provide some evidence that few uncircumcised men have cause to regret their state.

Douglas Gairdner, "The fate of the foreskin: A study of circumcision", British Medical Journal, 1949 (2), 24 December, p. 1437

Before the 1940s there was no scientific study of the anatomy or functions of the penis, and it was wrongly believed that infants with adhesive or constricted prepuces were suffering from phimosis and required immediate circumcision. When Gairdner studied the question he proved that this was the normal condition of the infant penis and found that the foreskin of newborn babies was retractable in only 4 per cent of cases, and in only 20 per cent at six months. He showed that the penis was not fully developed at birth, and that separation of the foreskin from the glans was a gradual process, taking anything from a few months to six years to complete, and sometimes longer. Gairdner also showed that the biological function of the foreskin in babies was to protect the glans and urethral opening from urine, faeces and other forms of dirt and that its own secretions were mild and beneficial. He concluded that true phimosis was very rare (requiring surgery in few cases), and that none of the medical reasons advanced for neonatal circumcision was valid.

Gairdner's article had a significant impact in Britain and New Zealand, where the incidence of infant circumcision declined rapidly. It was little read in Australia or the USA, where doctors continued their ignorant and harmful practices. The full text of Dr Gairdner's article is available at www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner


Two US doctors, 1953

Those reasons which are rightfully subject to debate include: (a) Circumcision will reduce the incidence of onanism …. (b) Circumcision will increase the male libido. The vast progeny of the Jewish males attest to the fact that functionally, at least, performance is not diminished by this operation. … One of the edicts issued from Rome forbade circumcision on the grounds that in this way the Hebrew population would thus be controlled. On the other hand, critics of circumcision flatly state that libido is decreased by the procedure. (c) Longevity, immunity to nearly all physical and mental illnesses, increased physical vigour etc.

R.L. Miller and D.C. Snyder, "Immediate circumcision of the newborn male", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 65, 1953, p. 3. There is no basis for the claim that Romans restricted involuntary circumcision in order to limit the Jewish population.


A circumcision evangelist, 1974, circumcised as an adult

The change in sensation during intercourse a few weeks later was surprising. The sharp pleasurable sensation was noticeably lessened, as it is when topical anaesthetics are used to delay ejaculation. … The surface of the glans changed slowly but definitely in response to contact with air and clothing. The area around the meatus became less shiny as keratinization of the epithelium occurred. … The colour of the glans also changed. When the foreskin covered it, the glans had a bright red-pink typical mucosal surface. Cornification has changed this to a gray-pink colour, very skin-like in appearance and texture. … Over twelve years the superficial tactile nerve endings have become covered with this cornified surface. It is remarkable how much more manual and vaginal stimulation my penis can now receive before reaching "the point of no return" …. The overpowering erotic sensation has been dulled, and with it some of the immediate pleasurable sensation. Initial excitement has decreased. … [When fully erect the penis presents] a smooth shaft with a piston-in-cylinder-like action during coition. Friction and therefore sensation are diminished.

Robert J. Valentine, "Adult circumcision: A personal report", Medical aspects of human sexuality, January 1974, pp. 32-3

Valentine was the pseudonym of a US doctor. Despite his admission that it greatly reduced sexual sensation, the article is a hymn of praise to the desirability of circumcision, providing an example of a common scenario: one man decides he likes being circumcised and then does all he can to encourage, pressure and finally force others to take the same path, like the poor fox which lost its tail in Aesop's fable. But despite his enthusiastic endorsement of circumcision, Valentine also reports that his surgeon cut too much tissue off: he "did not allow quite enough slack. As a result, there was a disconcerting downward bend of the penis on erection". It is also interesting that such an evangelist still dismisses as unproven and fallacious the common argument of circumcision advocates in the 1970s that the procedure lessened the incidence of cancers of the penis, prostate and cervix: no, he asserts, the only reason to do it is to improve your sex life. He provides no information at all as to what his female partner(s) felt about all this chopping and changing.

Valentine's concluding comment left a hostage to fortune which must now be coming back to haunt him: "If it [the foreskin] does have a function, its routine removal in newborns cannot be justified. Perhaps the foreskin does have a rationale that has been ignored or not recognised."


Immigrants to Israel, 1990s

An Israeli research project in the early 1990s sought to measure changes in sexual satisfaction after circumcision among Russian immigrants who got themselves circumcised after immigration to Israel. The research was carried out by Dr Avi Teper and Dr Eliezer Shalev, from the Women's Department, Ha-emek Hospital, Afula. They mailed a questionnaire to 108 males, 76 of whom replied.

The circumcised immigrants reported a significant decrease in sexual satisfaction. Before circumcision 54 per cent reported "great sexual satisfaction", but afterwards the number was only 24 per cent. The proportion of those reporting "medium satisfaction" rose from 30 percent to 61 percent. There was no change in the number reporting "small satisfaction".

Since 68 per cent of the respondents sought circumcision as the fulfilment of their dream to become full Jews and 10 percent because of Jewish tradition, it is possible that some of them denied they felt any adverse consequences from the operation. The remainder sought circumcision because of social pressure, and one for a medical reason.

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin and R. Blustein, "Challenges to circumcision in Israel: The Israeli association against genital mutilation", in George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges and Marilyn Fayre Milos (eds) Male and female circumcision: Medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 343-50


Another circumcised man, 1993

At age 30, during a physical exam, my doctor, noticing my long foreskin, stated this was an unhealthy situation. That I would likely have problems with it, and advised that I be clipped. Have never studied circumcision on the pros and cons, I consented. He gave me no information on which to base an informed judgment. Neither did he give any information about what style he would employ, or how tight he would cut me, and I did not know enough to ask. …

In a couple of months the sensitivity began to decline and has continued to decline to this day. Sexual pleasure has been reduced by at least 70 per cent, both in intensity and the fact that the whole rage of sensation is completely gone. This is most logical, as two of the structures [foreskin and frenulum] were removed, and the only remaining structure, the head, has been toughened and desensitised by being deprived of the moist natural covering which God intended it to have, and is constantly exposed to the friction of clothing. … Circumcision has deprived me of much pleasure for the remainder of my life, has caused me physical pain and has been psychologically devastating. I no longer feel like a real man.

William E. Krueger, Winston-Salem NC, USA, open letter to newspapers and Intactivist organisations, 12 July 1993


Three pioneering Canadian pathologists, 1996

The prepuce provides a large and important platform for several nerves and nerve endings. The innervation of the outer skin of the prepuce is impressive; its sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole. The glans, by contrast, is insensitive to light touch, heat, cold and … pin-prick. … We postulate that the "ridged band" [underside of the foreskin], with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the "smooth" mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the "ridged band" to move from a forward to a "deployed" position on the shaft of the penis. … It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. … The infant prepuce contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion.

J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor, "The prepuce: Specialised mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision", British Journal of Urology, Vol. 77, 1996, pp. 294-5


An intact man, 1997

When I get hard, the feeling of the head expanding and moving inside the foreskin, stimulating the inner foreskin nerves, is fantastic. The feeling of the head trying to open the foreskin opening is a very exaggerated and erotic tickle. After erection, pulling the skin back half-way results in a searing tickle, and pulling it back all the way and laying it back along the shaft for the first time is almost blinding. The feeling of my skin being pushed back and forth during intercourse, stretching back over the corona, then being pulled forward, is exquisite. The tip of my skin moving over the head feels like a rubber band rolling over the head. I can ejaculate just by stretching the foreskin back tightly for about ten minutes and letting the frenulum build up its sensation and feeling that wonderful burning tingle that leads to firing off.

After my workout at the gym I see cut guys walking up to a hot shower with the water on the sharp setting. If I were to pull my skin back and do that, I would double over from the sensation. If I skin it back under a hot shower it feels like I'm being scalded. We uncut guys know what we have. The unamputated nerve endings of the foreskin and frenulum, and the undiminished nerves of the glans, make the penis during sex the centre of the universe. Cut guys know that when they see a video of an uncut guy: the head expands and turns red and purple and the foreskin locks behind the head and turns crimson from blood flow, putting the ultimate stretch on the frenulum. That guy is experiencing feelings that the cut guy can never imagine.

My friend was clipped last summer because his girlfriend refused to do him orally. Now he says he has lost 75 percent of the feeling. He says his best part is still the part of the inside-out foreskin, about an inch below the head. He's really sorry he didn't discuss keeping the frenulum and highly erotogenic ridged band.

Jim Two88, "I know you don't feel what I feel", posted on Usenet newsgroups by Two88Alpha@aol.com, December 1997


Two US paediatricians, 1998

The prepuce is a specific erogenous zone. It contains a rich, complex network of nerves and an abundance of mucocutaneous end organs sensitive to motion, touch, temperature and erogenous stimulation. Both the inner and outer folds of the prepuce have a denser distribution of nerve networks than the rest of the penile skin. The rich innervation of the inner prepuce contrasts sharply with the limited sensory investment of the glans penis, which is characterised primarily by free nerve endings, which feel only pressure and pain. The double layered prepuce provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded erect organ and to allow the penile skin to slide freely, smoothly and pleasurably over the shaft and glans. One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively, inside its own sheath of self-lubricating moveable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's prepuce is missing.

P.M. Fleiss, F.M. Hodges and R.S. Van Howe, "Immunological functions of the human prepuce", Sexually transmitted infections, Vol. 74, 1998, p. 365


More pathologists, 1999

The prepuce is primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behaviour. … Amputation of the prepuce causes changes in sexual behaviour in human males and females.

Surgical amputation of the prepuce removes many of the fine-touch corpuscular receptors from the penis and clitoris. In males, circumcision is essentially a partial penile mucosectomy. The residual exposed gland mucosa becomes abnormally keratinized, with an increase in the number of cell layers in glanular mucosal epithelium. The urethral meatus is exposed and prone to irritation. Meatal stenosis can be a complication after circumcision. During circumcision the frenular artery may also be cut, depriving the anterior urethra of its major blood supply.

C.J. Cold and J.R Taylor, "The prepuce", British Journal of Urology, Vol. 83, Supplement 1 (Circumcision), 1999, p. 41


An unlucky Italian, 2001

Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:52:03 +0200
Subject: My circumcision Story

(sorry for my English)
I've 29 years and I'm an Italian boys. I'm a bisexual boys (active). I'd like man (with large ball and cock) and women. With man I'd like only oral sex and BDSM. Eight month ago I've removed my foreskin in a private clinic for a penis problem. The operation program was that I had a partial circumcision. The doctor have cut my foreskin too much!! Now I'm completely circumcised. I've loose good part of my pleasure!!! The two month after operation I have stop my sexual activity. I've tried to masturbating but with a bad result.

After two month I've restart my activity. Now I've a glande (couple?) too much sensitivity!! I've very much problem with sex. I'm too fast with vaginal or anal sex!! (about 20-30 second). Only if I torture my self (ball stretching) I have vaginal sex for about 1 minute. I've tried with more lubricant to reduce my sensibility with bad result. I'm go well only with oral sex. Now I like only to play BDSM and have oral sex with man or woman. I'm thinking to operate me to reduce my sensibility of my penis.

Have anyone ideas for me?? How to de-senstivity my penis?? I want to return with my foreskin! I'm trying to restore foreskin with myself procedure but the result is too small!! (I'm trying from two month). I can send my cock picture (only after operation). I'd like to change experience with other man circumcised.

Franco from Roma (Italy)


Five intact gay men

i (1997):
The difference in technique between cut and natural men is striking. The men with foreskins of their own know just how I like it, often using one of my favourite techniques, moving my foreskin alone between their thumb and forefinger. This is exquisite.

Circumcised men, on the other hand, thrust and grind with their whole fist. Sometimes it seems they want to pull or twist my penis right off. My guess is that they are so desensitized, this is what they have to do to themselves. It's all I can do - sometimes more than I can do - to persuade them to be more gentle. Occasionally I meet a cut man who knows how to handle me. It invariably turns out either he's had an intact long-term partner or some other intact man has patiently taught him.

I have to conclude from this that it's true that circumcision takes away sensation, and cut men have to fight their own penises to feel anything at all.


ii (1999):
It seems to me, and other gay men I've discussed it with, that the course of sex from early arousal to ejaculation is different. Uncut men seem to get pleasure all the way along, and the orgasm is drawn out and huge. In fact it can be quite hard to say just when an uncut man's orgasm begins.

With a cut man, it seems all the pleasure comes right at the end, as though his early struggles are too demanding to be at all enjoyable. I don't know if a cut man's orgasm has a higher peak (maybe they both discharge the same amount of "sexual energy"), but it always seems much shorter. Cut men seem to be archetypal males, very goal-oriented. Intact men are more like Sensitive New Age Guys or women in this regard, the journey is just as important, just as much fun, as the arrival.


iii (2001):
When I used to have sex with women, one of my chief delights was the "click" as my prepuce rolled back and let my glans penis enter her.

Anal sex didn't use to do much for me because my prepuce was trapped in place by the condom. Now that I've learnt how to put a condom on with plenty of overhang and a drop of lubricant in it, my prepuce is mobile again and I can once again enjoy that "click".


iv (2001): I'm a believer in non-violence, but if someone cut off my foreskin now, I'd kill him.


v (2002): If orgasms were music, a circumcised man's would be like the end of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring - rough and jagged, a pause, and then in a great crash, it's all over. An uncircumcised man's would be like the buildup from the third to the fourth movements of Sibelius' second symphony, swaying, surging and rolling, with a long drawn-out calming down.

Respondents to www.circumstitions.com


Four women, 2001

I experienced a huge difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Until I met my natural [intact] husband, I thought that the rough, dry circumcised penis was the way it was supposed to be. WOW! I have been missing genuine, naturally satisfying sex and now have the utmost appreciation for the "real thing". There is such a remarkable difference, in all aspects of sex -- from foreplay and fellatio to intercourse. In retrospect I now consider the circumcised penis as a sort of unreal device that made intercourse a not very pleasing experience that often left me sore. I now have orgasms that were very rare with circumcised men.

My present husband is circumcised. He is very concerned about pleasing me in any way, but during intercourse the penis feels hard. I experience discomfort, and often I feel like I'm being pounded on. With my natural partner, whom I went with before I was married, intercourse felt gentler and more sensuous. I could sense that he got much more pleasure during intercourse than did any of my circumcised partners. He was more passionate, and sex with him was very stimulating and fulfilling. With him I always experienced much more pleasure, and intercourse seemed more loving. I strongly feel that this was the way it was meant to be.

With my circumcised partners, just about all the time I had intercourse I experienced discomfort, even pain. I was glad when it was over. Back then I didn't know it could be any better. But when I finally experienced intercourse with an uncircumcised man, I found out that it was more gentle, more enjoyable and less demanding. I could relax and get into it, once I realised it wasn't supposed to hurt.

A circumcised man's thrusting is harder. I think that this is due to the fact that the circumcised penis is less sensitive, so circumcised men push harder to compensate for this lack of sensation.

Kristen O'Hara, Sex as nature intended it, Hudson, Mass., Turning Point Publications, 2001, pp. 20, 29-30, 66, 67

Comments from a few of the hundreds of women O'Hara surveyed when she was writing this book, the first ever to deal with circumcision from the woman's perspective. Ethically, however, women's pleasure should be no more a consideration in deciding whether to cut baby boys' genitals, than men's pleasure when considering cutting baby girls.


Intact, Cut, Restored

I was born in 1949 in a small town in Mississippi. My father and his four brothers were all intact (not circumcised), and thanks to a sympathetic doctor I was kept intact, too, as was my brother who was born a year later. The glans of my penis was exquisitely sensitive. My foreskin was used in all kinds of ways during sexual activity, and its inner surface was the most sensitive part of my penis (more sensitive than even the glans). Orgasms were so intense that my knees buckled if I climaxed standing up, and lying down my body would convulse as wave after wave of ecstatic pleasure rolled over my body from head to toe. I saw stars, flashing lights, my ears filled, and my legs stiffened. Following this period of orgasm (not a single moment but an extended period), I definitely understood the slang term of being “spent.”

When I was 19 I was experiencing normal adolescent feelings of not fitting in and decided that one way to be like my peers was to make my penis look like theirs (virtually all of my friends were circumcised). So I talked my father, doctor, and insurance company into elective circumcision. Conventional wisdom at the time (which is still around today, unfortunately) said that there was no difference between being intact and being circumcised. Common sense should have told me otherwise, but I was young. Following circumcision, the constantly exposed glans dried out. The surface became calloused rather than delicate, and although the nerves were still there below the surface, the calloused, dry, and thicker skin of the glans definitely decreased sensation. In addition, the lack of moveable skin on the penis made sexual activity more difficult and usually required the use of lubricant (saliva or artificial) to avoid too much friction. I married, and sexual intercourse was difficult for my wife and me. We had to make sure that there was enough lubrication (natural or artificial) to avoid the discomfort of friction for her, but not too much lubrication or I could not have enough glans sensation to reach orgasm easily. Orgasms were still possible, of course, but they were not nearly as intense as when I was intact. I understand the metaphor that someone has offered of going from color to black and white. Needless to say I was not happy!

In 1987 I discovered a chapter in a book at the public library stating that non-surgical foreskin restoration was possible. I wrote off for the directions and fashioned homemade devices to restore my foreskin and protect my glans again. My glans has resensitized and become a moist mucous membrane once again. The loose skin (which looks very natural and functions surprisingly naturally, too) makes masturbation and intercourse easy and more enjoyable for both myself and my wife. I tell people that my sex life on a scale of 1 to 10, intact, was a 10. Circumcised it was a 3, and restored it is a 7. I’ll never have a 10 again (only God can design the perfect penis!), but a 7 is a heck of a lot better than a 3!

(P.S. I have two intact young adult sons who are both grateful they were kept that way.)

- David, Maryland
January 16, 2002


A circumcised gay man, 2003

(to an intact man) If I had one of my own, I'd never leave the house.


A comment on abc news

I only want to make one comment. Due to an ignorant doctor who claimed that "there could be future problems" I chose to be circumcised in my 20s. I partially did it because I always felt a little out of place growing up in the midwest. It was the worst mistake I ever made in my life. Masturbation is a joke, much less pleasurable. It used to be effortless, now it's a lot of work with less sensation along the way. Intercourse is also much less pleasurable and takes much more effort. I used to be able to take it nice and easy, super slow with my partners and it would send me off into ecstacy. Now, I have to work extra hard, and my wife complains that I am too rough with her. I can still orgasm, but the whole sex act is so much less pleasurable. Some sensations that I had with an uncircumcised #### just don't exist now that I've been circumcised. When I read stuff like this I think..."who are they kidding! This is ego stroking for the typical circumcised man here in the US who doesn't know what they lost." I KNOW what I lost. And, I know that if a man cut at birth knew what it was like to have a #### he would sure see fit that in the US circumcision was illegal. I agree with that other poster...the #### and in particular the frenulum gives so much sensation. I know from experience. It's a joke that this study didn't test the ####.
Posted by: 12jackr
Aug-2 [2007]


A specialist

[Circumcised men] have lost a Symphony of Sensation.

Pathology lecturer and discoverer of the frenular delta,
Ken McGrath,
speaking on "60 Minutes", September 25, 2007


An intact UK man

As someone who has foreskin I can honestly say that I would rather lose my hand than get circumcised, my sex life is too important to me.

Adam Nolan, United Kingdom signing the peititon to End the Practice of Risky, Unnecessary Surgery on Non-Consenting Babies", January 7, 2010


An amateur porn performer

Dalton’s a handsome guy, with a nice furry ass and a beautiful cock.
“When I’m bored I like to play with the foreskin!” he offered when I complimented him on his uncut status.
“Play with it how?”
“I like to stretch it out, pull it back, tug on it... it’s my favorite toy!”

Dalton on Sean Cody (NSFW) September 8, 2012


Related pages:

Back to the Intactivism index page.