By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
Comment by Punim, July 13
Team Foreskin: I don't think the pleasure of sex with circumcised versus uncircumcised men can be accurately measured scientifically, as sex is an evolving art/skill. An experienced man will almost always be better than a virgin, foreskin or no. That said, the last 16 years of my own individual research with a relatively equal ratio of cut to uncut men (all in the name of science, of course) have led me to the personal conclusion that uncircumcised men are better in the sack.
Aside from being a rather barbaric way to welcome a child into the world, the removal of the foreskin reduces the size of the penis. Fact: Size matters! (Any woman who says differently is merely being polite; sorry, guys.) However small that piece of skin might be, it still diminishes the size of the penis. Team Foreskin!
Comment by Ms. Pants, July 13
Benefits of foreskin: I was circ'd at 12 years old, and since then I've had painful erections, to the point of skin tears and bleeding. Circumcision shortens the penis, since some length is held back during erection. A cut penis has to pull up hair-bearing scrotal skin to make up for the loss of skin. The result is a very tight, immobile shaft skin no gliding action at all.
There are so many benefits to the natural foreskin. Did you know that most intact men's partners do not need to use artificial lube during sex? K-Y and Astroglide, etc. is a large business in the U.S., but not in the UK and other countries that do not circumcise. If I have a son, he will be left alone.
Comment by David, July 14
Offended: I have a TLC Tugger and a TugaHoy. They are similar devices, but I have found the TugaHoy much easier to get on (ten seconds) and off (two to three seconds). I am persuaded that I would not have had the commitment if I'd been limited to taping. I am a naturalist, so I simply loop the elastic around my neck and stretch upward; it can also be done stretching the elastic around the waist. I sometimes wear it under clothing, and if it becomes uncomfortable it can be easily and inconspicuously removed. I know that true foreskin cannot be recovered, but I do think sensitivity is increasing as the glans remains increasingly covered. I agree that circumcision is genital mutilation as routinely practiced. I'm seriously offended that it was done to me, and that I allowed it, in my ignorance, to be done to four sons. The practice may have limited application, but should not be done routinely.
Comment by James, July 15
From an intactivist: The foreskin and frenulum hold all of the nerves of fine sensation. Intactivists do not merely "believe" as your otherwise well-written article states that the foreskin is more sensitive. The Jack Tayler study done in the mid-'80s was the first histological study done in North America to show this. Please read the studies and correct the error(s). Otherwise, thank you for broaching a matter about which most of Anglo North America is in denial. Skincerely yours...
Comment by cosmoloca, July 16
Intact Tejanitos: I'm glad Malisow introduced the subject of foreskin restoration to the readers of the Houston Press. Already we know the circumcision rate for Tejanitos is less than 50 percent. May many read, be educated and change the circumcising culture in America.
Comment by calice, July 21