Changes

Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'', 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 “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly circumcised Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. There 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

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

The subcutaneous tissue of the glans is provided with special sensory receptors that are concerned with appreciating the pleasurable sensations that occur during coitus. They are stimulated normally only when the glans is exposed. In the circumcised subject these receptors are constantly stimulated and lose their sensitivity. 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 the vaginal mucosa.<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal

An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised intact males found no difference in [[keratinization]] of the [[glans penis]].<ref name="Szabo">{{REFjournal

Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 [[uncircumcised]], adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the [[uncircumcised ]] men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."<ref name="sorrells2007"/>

Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the [[uncircumcised ]] penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells ''et al.'', the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.<ref name= "sorrells2007" />

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

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

In a telephone survey of 10,173 Australian men, 22% of uncircumcised intact men and 26% of circumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year. The difference was not statistically significant.<ref name="richters2006"/>

In a study of 255 circumcised men and 118 uncircumcised intact men, Kim & Pang (2006{ reported no statistically significant difference in ejaculation or ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised intact participants.<ref name="kimpang2006"/>

}}</ref> For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for [[uncircumcised ]] men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that [[uncircumcised ]] men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."<ref>Study Is Adding to Doubts About Circumcision

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 intact penis).<ref>{{REFjournal

Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised intact partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.<ref name="boyle2002" />