[ ARC forum 2 ]

Glans sensitivity is one thing. Foreskin sensations are another.

Written by tmtanec at 06 Apr 2002 17:40:35:

As an answer to: Sensitivity... written by AJ at 04 Apr 2002 17:09:18:

These five letters are puzzling, the main puzzle being that no one mentions the “full-stretch sensations” produced when an easily retractable foreskin is retracted all the way back so that it begins to stretch smooth over the shaft of the erect penis. None of the five writers quoted can have known of these sensations, although unfortunately this is none too rare. I didn’t know of these sensations myself until I hit my thirties and had spent some time loosening my foreskin so that it would pull back all the way, whereupon I discovered that the sensations produced here are incredible, and during foreplay and pre-orgasmic sex, these, for me at any rate, are now definitely the most sensual and erotic in the penile spectrum.

It ought to be common knowledge that these sensations exist, but that many young men will need to train their foreskins before they will be able to access them. Obviously I’m not impartial: I think that anyone who has the chance of enjoying these sensations ought to be able to get whatever information and advice they might need in order to do so. Having said that, if a man chooses to be circumcised, that’s his decision. Hopefully, it will be an informed one.

Lawrence from Toronto wrote, “It IS true that the sensation of sex changes quite significantly as a result of circumcision, but I don’t think sensitivity is changed at all, one way or another. I greatly prefer my circumcised state.”

Lawrence didn’t try to explain how his sexual sensations had changed. Fair enough. He was happy with the result. All the same, men who are making their minds up about this may want to know in what ways sensations – or the potential for them – will change after circumcision.

Lawrence suggests that “no studies have ever conclusively proven that any sensitivity is lost as a result of circumcision.” No sensation is lost from the glans, perhaps, though some may want to argue about that too. Sensitive tissue is lost, however, so sensation will be lost too. Here is a relevant study: The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996.

Some people will be exasperated by this constant deference to ‘studies’, when it can all be worked out without much study at all. Circumcision removes nerve endings, so, unless some restriction is preventing these nerves from firing, circumcision removes sensation. It doesn’t remove all sensation, of course, but it does remove particular kinds of sensation, and it would seem a pity not to try to experience these before removing their possibility.

RJK sensibly points out that mutual pleasure is the goal of good sex, so that emphasis on penile sensation may seem selfish. The kinds of pleasure you find it natural to give your partner, however, will often be shaped by the details of the pleasure you experience yourself. Your partner will also take pleasure in the pleasure that is being produced in you.

Super-sensitivity of the glans is probably none too useful here, though the glans of many men with loose foreskins will often be no more sensitive than a well-lubricated circumcised glans. It is commonly thought that the purpose of the foreskin is to protect the glans and keep it moist, lubricated and sensitive - or even super-sensitive - and though there may sometimes be something to this, the emphasis placed on it suggests the terms of the debate have been framed mainly by circumcised men. For intact men with loose foreskins, the glans is not the most sensational part of the penis. The most sensational part – before orgasm at any rate – is the ridged band of the foreskin.

Since circumcised men clearly enjoy sex too, perhaps the main point of this sort of discussion is to help men who are considering circumcision decide whether it is likely to be a good choice.

If you have been circumcised or partially circumcised, try the following experiment with your erection. Without touching your glans, and using a loose grip, stretch the skin on the shaft of your penis back towards your pubis as far as you can. Do any notable sensations result? Can you localise them – where are they produced? What are the sensations like? This last question may seem silly, because sensations are often difficult to describe, although it is sometimes possible to give an informative answer. Are the sensations rewarding? Do they make you want to do it again? Do they intensify progressively, so that you want to slow down and hold the stretched position for a moment or so? If you have sensitive nipples, how do the sensations compare with the sensations that can be produced by stroking your nipples? Are the sensations ‘directed’, as in they drive you towards progressive intensification, or are they ‘self-contained’, so that for the moment it is enough to explore the sensations as they are?

The questions suggested above are clearly leading questions and are obviously inspired by foreskin fanaticism or by circumcision condemnation. But this isn’t always so unreasonably partisan as might sometimes appear. It is clear that the Anglo Saxon West remains uncomfortable with sexual pleasure. Level-headed talk about the sorts of training and practice people are likely to need before they can become connoisseurs here is often discouraged, and to those who deprecate this state of affairs, the circumcision debate often seems to contribute to the suppression of sensible talk. Certainly, you don’t need to talk about foreskins if you can get rid of them instead, though this isn’t why the debate is obstructive.

The study referred to by rjk was possibly Circumcision in the United States, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, April 2, 1997.

On masturbation, the authors note, “[i]n particular, the estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men”. This is very unexpected, and may suggest that the sample, although representative, was nevertheless subject to unexplained bias. The authors seem to agree: “While we do not wish to push speculation too far, differences in the association between circumcision status and sexual practice across ethnic groups suggest that cultural, rather than physiological forces may be responsible.”

These cultural factors may also explain the slight negative correlation observed between sexual dysfunction and circumcision. The authors even suggest a mechanism: “It is possible that the association between masturbation frequency and circumcision status… provides a clue. If older men require more direct stimulation to function sexually, men for whom masturbation is part of their sexual script may be better able to adapt sexually as they age. Clearly such reasoning must remain speculative until further research is performed.”

If this ingenious speculation can be confirmed, it will suggest yet a further role for masturbation in preventative sexual medicine.


Answers: