Should Boys be Circumcised?

Scientific studies and/or other observations

>In stating that all scientific studies imply that there is virtually no difference in sexual pleasure that is tied to circumcision status, Hal84 has overstated the position. Several studies have made this claim. The most recent one is that by Sorells et al, an abstract of which can be found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract

Thanks for the link. I have no quarrel with the study or its conclusion.

When I was about 6 one time I was taking a bath and my parents entered and proceeded to push back my foreskin and wash under it. The glans was extremely sensitive. There was a bit of white stuff that was washed away. It hurt when the glans was exposed and washed. I was not told that I should do this and really don't recall seeing much of the glans until I started getting sexual urges. I then developed the definition that uncovered was sexy, covered was un-sexy. Undeniably true. In fact when the olympics were being done in the nude those with an exposed glans (circumcised) were prohibited.

My first shower in HS gym class revealed that I was in a minority being non circumcised. When I read of the possibility of keeping the foreskin permanently retracted I did so and it served me well.
I opted for a circumcision at age 42 to get away from the occassional roll forward of the foreskin and to discourage some occassional itching in the bunched foreskin, and to always have the sexier look.

In regard to the sensitivity study it is highly likely that the proclaimed result is to be expected. In fact there are forums that deal with questions from young men just coming into sexuality that have a lot of queries from young intact guys asking "what can be done to reduce my sensitivity". This is mainly the hypersensitivity that is experienced with the first exposure of the glans. The solution recommended is always the same: "increase the exposure to air!"

In regard to the findings of slightly lower pressure required to get the fine touch sensors to respond this is about a non-factor in real practical life. If sex takes place with a condom that will equalize the fine touch response. If without a condom, the intact will either experience the "gliding action" which makes coitus like masturbation in that it is the rolling of the foreskin back and forth over the coronal edge the main trigger for orgasm- or if the foreskin stays bunched behind the glans it insulates the corona from direct contact. In the circumcised male the corona gets much better stimulation and the area just behind it has direct exposure of the remaining "inner skin" properly evoluted for excellent stimulation and the scar tissue area has added sensitivity. Some of the recent work of Dr Taylor suggests this area to be very much involved in creating the "inevitability" of orgasm!

Actually these discussions are leaving out the fact that the skin of the scrotum is sensitive and may provide better input to the sex process if the amount of foreskin is reduced, thus increasing stimulus potential.

My position is that both ways work- there is always plenty of "incentive" for an ejaculation to be easy to come by- so that the species will be perpetuated.

Hal 84