I am also cut and masturbated constantly before I met my partner . . . and my preferred way to cum is from oral. I don’t think I’ve ever NOT climaxed from oral. Even bad oral does it for me.
My partner is uncut and has quite a lot of foreskin extending beyond the glans, and every single area on it is sensitive; it’s not just “useless skin.” And yet mine is even more sensitive, even without that skin.
Wow, you really ARE an “expert”! I’m impressed! 
Seriously, “no force behind evolution”? I was not suggesting any conscious, intelligent Force, but merely something like natural selection/trial and error/whatever it is that has “decided” we require a heart, lungs, and all the other intricate wirings we possess.
Why do I have a clit or labia? Neither is absolutely REQUIRED for procreation (though they DO make the process more pleasurable, I must admit:D)
The tonsils, as I mentioned, were long considered a “useless” bit, and removed in droves in several decades ago. They are now widely acknowledged to be a component of the immune system (and they get inflamed when fighting off infection/doing their job).
The appendix likewise is postulated to serve an immune function, as a harbor for beneficial gut flora. Like the foreskin, might not be as vital given the very recent change in human living conditions, but to ASSUME it serve NO function and is merely a vestigial organ is incredibly bold.
In the face of millions of years of evolution, I propose that our limited perspective as self-aware humans MAY, at times, be a bit lacking. We are but a blip compared to the history of life, human or otherwise. Hmmm…let’s see…what do I trust more. 
And hey, men DO need nipples…they are attractive and many men find them very pleasurable. 
And of course, men HAVE been known to produce milk in rare circumstances.
At any rate, I will continue to take my cues from nature/evolution and not ASSume to be more of an expert than whatever process produced me/my children. Not when it comes to anatomy, anyway. I prefer to ASSume whatever parts my kids came out with are normal and best left intact. (until, of course, they reach the teen years and start mutilating themselves to suit their own preference :p)
The OP has some interesting ideas about circumcised penii. Speaking for myself, I’m circumcised and am sensitive in the same areas the OP describes. And no, the skin there is not a worn out husk.
Would I be more happy if I was left intact? Maybe. Who knows? But I don’t think I’d want to be more sensitive than I am already down there.
Anatomically, cutting the labia would be analogous to cutting the scrotum, I think. Trimming the clitoral hood would be analogous to male circumcision.
Anne Boleyn had an excess of fingers. Excess implies more than the normal amount.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
As a counterpoint…
I was cut as a child due to some medical issue that I was too young to understand. For some reason, since I remembered the surgery and its aftermath so vividly, when I hit puberty I became obsessed with my penis. I researched foreskin reconstruction on the then-fledgling world wide web to the point that my dad actually asked me if I was gay because I had so many pictures of dicks in my browsing history.
I wouldn’t say I was really messed up about it or required therapy or anything, but I definitely had issues with… feeling “incomplete” during my formative years, and I was miffed at my parents for a while. Seems silly now, but hey, I was young and full of strange hormones.
I am circumcised, I assume it does reduce physical pleasure, though I don’t know for sure as it was done when I was a infant. But even though I have found something much more pleasurable then sex, that of making Love, where circumcision or uncircumcision doesn’t matter at all.
There is a form of man and woman coming together that they become one person, each one feels each others sensations and orgasms as well as their own, men can experience multiple orgasms and women can experience the release of ejaculation, you can feel her inside your body, and she can feel you inside hers. Your heats merge as 2 stars orbiting each other and touching each other, orgasms can last 20 minutes, sometimes so intense that you both can’t move much as the pleasure intensifies with movement way too much. This can also happen over distance, physical contact is not always needed, just 2 people who totally give their heart to each other, the real meaning of the two becoming one as stated in scripture.
This also makes finding gifts for your mate very easy as you can sense her excitement over a gift and know she will really like it as you view it in the store, as she is in you and you are also in her.
Is that anything like Sky Goatse?
I don’t think this is very accurate. Seems like there are lots of men in threads like this who are circumcized who aren’t in support of doing it with their children.
At least, that’s the case for me. I’m not a fanatic, but I am a very empirical person. If you can’t show me a good reason to do something, I’m not going to do it, especially when there is a tinge of religious ritual about the whole endeavor.
As to the main thrust of the OP, I have no idea if it’s related to circumcision or not, but on relatively rare occasions that may be due to duration or perhaps positioning, I get a somewhat painful overstimulated feeling just on the back of the coronal ridge.
Somehow I feel that this should end with a star going across the screen and the tagline, “The more you know.”
IMHO, it’s easier to ‘take a little off’ if you want, rather than ‘add a little back’. So I’m cut, but I left my kid’s alone. There’s no more emotion or consideration than that.
Ouch. Been there myself (and snipped at age 24). I was certainly worried about sensitivity, but underwear takes care of the ‘hypersensitivity’ you get immediately following the op, and now everything’s just fine. The friction required to orgasm is still perfectly possible and, in my case, is much better than the feeling that the skin was stretched to bursting point!
You know, she probably didn’t…it’s pretty much agreed that was propaganda circulated at least 50 years after her death.
Now that really is a hijack!
You can close the circle by speculating about how Anne used those extra finger(s) on Henry’s foreskin …
With full disclosure I think it’s barbaric and has long since been rendered unnecessary. It is defended solely for cultural and religious reasons. I would not and will not have it performed on any sons that I may have.
That said, since moving to the US I’m amazed at the reaction I get from women. So all the sensitivity I’m seeing is from the women I have been with. They are all fascinated by it and all seem to like it.
I just like the fact that I don’t have to use lotion!
I’m glad to hear this. My only concern for my sons is that they might experience some poor reactions from partners because they are uncut and therefore different. It’s nice to hear some evidence to the contrary.
This cite was written by a “young single mother of two boys, a liberal Democrat, and a born again Pagan witch for 12 years” with a high school education. She’s also anti-vaccine, so I’m thinking maybe her research processes aren’t tip top. I’m not saying it isn’t true, maybe it is, but I don’t think it’s exactly a slam dunk in favor of your argument.
Poison the well fallacy–find a cite that counters it, then we’ll talk.
I don’t really have an opinion either way, you just might be right and that’s fine. The guy you were arguing with might be right. That’s fine too. I’ve never thought all that much about the cleanliness of penises that aren’t attached to me and I don’t intend to start now.
I do think it’s a bit of a shame though that a legitimate cite in GD is now apparently ‘anything anybody on the internet has ever said no matter who they are, what their qualifications are, and what research they’ve shown.’ It’s also a shame that pointing out a cite’s literally absolute lack of both any qualifications and any cited research is ‘poisoning the well.’ I didn’t think I was poisoning the well so much as pointing out that the well is dry.
But fine, you want a cite that counters it, here you go, here’s my cite. It’s on the internet, so I’m certain you’ll find it just as valid as your own.
See, my problem is the 180 degree polar opposite of yours. I can spend my whole life whittling willow, but if I’m not published, don’t have a Phd, and don’t have a mob of people behind me saying I know what I’m talking about, any statement I make on whittling willow on the internet is wrong? What if it’s a statement on a subject that has no absolute answer?
The Cleanliness of the Penis depends COMPLETELY on the hygiene of the owner. Making a statement that your turtleneck (or lack thereof), is the source of nastiness is disingenuous at best.\
ETA: The Pagan Witch that teaches her boys proper hygiene will have better results than the single dad that tells the boy to shower once a week, whether he needs it or not.
If you can in some way prove what you’re saying through logic, legitimate cites, or by showing how what you’re saying is reasonable, that’s fine. Show me pictures of your whittled willow, describe your willow whittling techniques and how they work. The link that was presented as a cite consists of somebody throwing out statements left and right without ever backing them up in any way.
Statements, no evidence. Although to be honest a mix of dead skin and oil doesn’t sound all that clean to me no matter how many antibodies are in it. YMMV.
Statements, no evidence. The whole thing is like this.
I’m not saying she’s dumb or that she’s wrong or incapable of making an argument because she isn’t a doctor or whatever. I’m saying I don’t know if she’s dumb or if she’s correct. I can’t know because she never proves that what she is saying is true or reasonable. She needs to back up what she is saying, otherwise you’re just asking me to take everything a perfect stranger says at face value and that’s not a very good cite to base an argument on. You might as well start saying ‘my post is my cite’ at that point.