Changes

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.<ref name="cold-taylor1999">{{REFjournal

|last=Cold

|author-link=

|last2=Taylor

|author2-link=John R. Taylor

|title=The prepuce

|last=Sorrells

|first=Morris L.

|author-link=Morris L. Sorrells

|first2=James L.

|first3=Mark D.

|first4=Christopher

|first5=Marilyn F.

|author5-link=Marilyn Fayre Milos

|first6=Norma

|first7=Robert S.

|title=Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

|journal=BJU Int

There were, however, some other little noticed papers overlooked by Masters & Johnson, that told a different story. Winklemann (1956) investigated the innervation of the prepuce and found it to be highly innervated.<ref name="winkleman1956">{{REFjournal

|last=Winkelmann

|title=The cutaneous innervation of human newborn prepuce

|journal=Journal of Investigative Dermatology

}}</ref> Winkleman (1959) later identified the prepuce as "specific erogenous tissue".<ref name="winkleman1959">{{REFjournal

|last=Winkelmann

|title=The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance

|journal=Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic

Now let us consider whether the operation is in any way harmful or contraindicated. The function of the prepuce is to protect the glans, the latter being almost insensitive to most ordinary tactile and thermal stimuli. It has, however, specific receptors for other pleasurable sensations. Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors. During the act of coitus the uncircumcised phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the circumcised organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the glans and vaginal mucosa. Penetration in the circumcised man has been compared to thrusting the foot into a sock held open at the top, while, on the other hand, in the intact counterpart it has been likened to slipping the foot into a sock that has been previously rolled up.<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal

|last=Morgan

|author-link=

|title=The rape of the phallus

|last=Morgan

|first=William Keith C.

|author-link=

|etal=No

|trans-title=

|language=

The sensory pleasure induced by tactile stimulation of the foreskin is almost totally lost after its surgical removal. The surface of the exposed glans, as we know, has no capacity to receive and transmit any fine sensations of touch, heat, etc. Consequently, the fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, simply a satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience that it was meant to be.<ref name= "falliers1970">{{REFjournal

|last=Falliers

|author-link=

|etal=no

|journal=JAMA

|location=

Results of studies of the effect on penile sensitivity have been mixed. In a British study of 150 men circumcised as adults for penile problems, Masood ''et al.'' (2005) found that 38% reported improved penile sensation (p=0.01), 18% reported worse penile sensation, while the remainder (44%) reported no change.<ref name= "masood2005">{{REFjournal

|last=Masood

|last2=Patel

|last3=Himpson

|last4=Palmer

|last5=Mufti

|last6=Sheriff

|title=Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?

|journal=Urol Internationalalis

}}</ref> In a survey of men circumcised as adults for medical (93%) or elective (7%) reasons, Fink ''et al.'' (2002) found an association between adult circumcision and decreased penile sensitivity that "bordered on statistical significance" (p=0.08).<ref name="fink2002">{{REFjournal

|last=Fink

|last2=Carson

|last3=DeVillis

|title=Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction

|journal=J Urol

Yang ''et al.'' (1998) concluded in their study into the innervation of the penile shaft and glans penis that: "The distinct pattern of innervation of the glans emphasizes the role of the glans as a sensory structure."<ref name="yang1998">{{REFjournal

|last=Yang

|last2=Bradley

|title=Neuroanatomy of the penile portion of the human dorsal nerve of the penis

|journal=British Journal Urology

|last=Szabo

|first=Robert

|first2=Roger V.

|title=How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?

|journal=BMJ

Some recent researchers assert that the [[foreskin]] is sexually sensitive highly-innervated erogenous tissue.<ref name="winkleman1956" /><ref name="winkleman1959" /> <ref name="taylor1996">{{REFjournal

|last=Taylor

|author-link=John R. Taylor

|last2=Lockwood

|last3=Taylor

|title=The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision

|journal=British journal of urology

Circumcision removes the [[Ridged band|ridged band]] at the end of the foreskin.<ref name="taylor1996" /> Taylor (1996) observed that the ridged band had more [[Meissner's corpuscles]] — a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity — than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes and a rich blood supply to serve the neurological tissue. Taylor (2000) postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the [[gliding action]], possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the [[glans penis]] during vaginal intercourse.<ref name="taylor2000">{{REFjournal

|last=Taylor

|author-link=John R. Taylor

|title=Back and forth (letter)

}}</ref> This gliding action was also described by Lakshmanan (1980).<ref name="lakshaman1980">{{REFjournal

|last=Lakshmanan

|last2=Parkash

|title=Human prepuce: some aspects of structure and function

|journal=Indian journal of surgery

|last=Boyle

|first=Gregory J.

|first2=Gillian A.

|title=Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision

|journal=Psychological reports

In 2009, Schober ''et al'' reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.<ref name= "schober2008">{{REFjournal

|last=Schober

|last2=Meyer-Bahlburg

|last3=Dolezal

|title=Self-ratings of genital anatomy, sexual sensitivity and function in men using the 'Self-Assessment of Genital Anatomy and Sexual Function, Male' questionnaire

|journal=BJU Int

Reports detailing the effect of circumcision on [[erectile dysfunction]] have been mixed. Studies have variously found a statistically significant increase,<ref name=fink2002/><ref name= "shen2004">{{REFjournal

|last=Shen

|last2=Chen

|last3=Zhu

|last4=Wan

|last5=Chen

|title=Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision

|journal=Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue

}}</ref> or decrease,<ref name= "richters2006">{{REFjournal

|last=Richters

|last2=Patel

|last3=Himpson

|last4=Palmer

|last5=Mufti

|last6=Sheriff

|title=Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health

|journal=International Journal of Sexually Transmissible Diseases and AIDS

}}</ref> <ref name="Laumann1997"/> in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.<ref name="masood2005"/<ref name="senkul2004"/><ref name="Collins2002">{{REFjournal

|last=Collins

|last2=Upshaw

|last3=Rutchik

|last4=Ohannessian

|last5=Ortenberg

|last6=Albertsen

|title=Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth?

|journal=Journal of Urology

|last=DaiSik

|first=Kim

|first2=Myung-Geol

|title=The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

|journal=BJU Int

Waldinger ''et al.'' recruited 500 men (98 circumcised and 261 not-circumcised) from five countries: the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, and the United States and studied their ejaculation times during [[sexual intercourse]]. They found that the circumcised men in the study took on average 6.7 minutes to ejaculate, compared with 6.0 minutes for the uncircumcised men. This difference was not statistically significant. The comparison excluded Turkey, which was significantly different from the other countries studied.<ref name="Waldinger2005">{{REFjournal

|last=Waldinger

|last2=Quinn

|last3=Dilleen

|last4=Mundayat

|last5=Schweitzer

|last6=Boolell

|title=Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice

|journal=Journal of Sexual Medicine

In a study of 42 Turkish men circumcised for religious reasons, Senkul ''et al.'' (2004) did not find a statistically significant difference in BMSFI ejaculation scores, but found a significant increase in the mean time to ejaculate. The authors suggested that delayed ejaculation may be seen as a benefit.<ref name="senkul2004">{{REFjournal

|last=Senkul

|last2=Iseri

|last3=Sen

|last4=Karademir

|last5=Saracoglu

|last6=Erden

|title=Circumcision in Adults: Effect on Sexual Function

|journal=Urology

Laumann ''et al.'' reported that circumcised men in their survey displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices, including oral sex, anal sex, and [[masturbation]].<ref name="Laumann1997">{{REFjournal

|last=Laumann

|last2=Masi

|last3=Zuckerman

|title=Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice

|journal=[[Journal of the American Medical Association|JAMA]]

Wildman & Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the uncircumcised penis).<ref>{{REFjournal

|last=Wildman

|last2=Wildman

|last3=Brown

|last4=Trice

|title=Note on males' and females' preferences for opposite-sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing

|journal=Psychological Reports

|issue=2

|pages=485-486

|quote=

|pubmedID=1265180

O'Hara and O'Hara (1999) argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.<ref name= "OHara1999">{{REFjournal

|last=O'Hara

|last2=O'Hara

|title=The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner

|journal=BJU International

|last=Bensley

|first=Gillian A.

|first2=Gregory J.

|title=Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

|journal=New Zealand medical journal

As previously reported, the foreskin reduces the force required for penetration of the female partner's vagina by as much as ninety percent,<ref name="taves2002">{{REFjournal

|last=Taves

|author-link=

|title=The intromission function of the foreskin

|last=Warren

|first=John

|author-link=John Warren

|last2=Bigelow

|first2=Jim

|author2-link=Jim Bigelow

|title=The case against circumcision

<blockquote>Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision.<ref name="ohara1998">{{REFjournal

|last=O'Hara

|author-link=

|last2=O'Hara

|author2-link=

|etal=no

|last=Frisch

|first=Morten

|author-link=

|last2=Lindholm

|first2=Morten

|author2-link=

|last3=Grønbæk

|first3=Morten

|author3-link=

|etal=no

|title=Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark.

|journal=Int J Epidemiol.

|location=