Changes

Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'',<ref name="masters-johnson1966" /> showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal [[penis]] anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly [[circumcised ]] Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. Their testing was quite limited. With regard to the [[foreskin]], they said only:

Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the [[circumcised ]] and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook

Therefore, it appears that Masters & Johnson (1966) performed little or no testing on the foreskins of their few [[intact ]] subjects and provided no useful information.<ref name="sorrells2007">{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>

The inaccurate reports of Kinsey (1948) and Masters & Johnson (1966) have long distorted the American view of and minimized the sexual effects of [[circumcision]] and the loss of the [[foreskin]]in the American view.