Attention Moms With Baby Boy On The Way : Science Is Clear : Circumcision Makes For A Less Pleasure-sensitive Glans

NOCIRC Press Release

Circumcision Cuts Penis Sensitivity

Intact men enjoy four times more penile sensitivity than circumcised men, according to the "Fine-touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis" article published today in the British Journal of Urology International. The study was conducted to map fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and noncircumcised males to compare the two populations.

Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis. The results surprised the research team, according to Morris Sorrells, MD, lead researcher, who said, "The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar itself."

Previous studies documented that circumcised penises are shorter; now researchers have compared and found them lacking in sensitivity, too. From their findings, researchers of this study conclude that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. These findings come several decades after Masters & Johnson said there is no sensitivity difference in a circumcised and a non-circumcised penis. Now their questionable findings have been disproved and the results of this study provide additional evidence about the importance of preserving the protective, sensitive foreskin.



BJU International Volume 99 Issue 4, Pages 864 - 869

Published Online: 19 Mar 2007

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis 

Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss, Christopher Eden*, Marilyn F. Milos†, Norma Wilcox and Robert S. Van Howe‡ Retired,  *HIV/AIDS researcher, San Francisco, CA,  †National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers,  ‡Department of Paediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, MI, USA Correspondence to  Robert S. Van Howe, 1414 W. Fair Avenue, Suite 226, Marquette, MI 49855, USA.e-mail: Copyright © 2007 THE AUTHORS; JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2007 BJU INTERNATIONAL KEYWORDS circumcision • pressure sensitivity • penis objectIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.


Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ***********, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.


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. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P< 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.


The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. 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 the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Accepted for publication 22 October 2006


Full text of the article is at :


Circumcision apparently is as damaging to women's sexual pleasure. At some point I expect to get around to posting information about that.

conceptualclarity conceptualclarity
51-55, M
5 Responses Feb 11, 2010

@conceptualclarity: You asked me about "Rough Hard Sex". The sex act itself should feel good, of course. It is the frisson & need & passion of "rough" sex that I like, not so much the "hard" part. Sometimes I like being held/thrown/tied down, overpowered with the man's strength and forced to submit. "Taken" as it's called in romance novels.<br />
<br />
I'm more likely to experience fast pounding from cut men and that is good too (if there isn't too much impact force on my labia & pelvis). This is, of course, available from a rapidly thrusting ******* machine, which I like setting to go even faster and for a longer session than is humanly possible -- but when it is up to me, I do not set it to make anything even close to maximum length strokes.<br />
<br />
I'm not aware of a ******* machine that simulates the internal sensations of uncut sex (although they can be adjusted to move slowly). And ALL of the ******/toys/vibrators I've seen available for purchase (online or in stores) or in art books / museums are in cut form. I have read erotica/literature from other cultures describing women using ob<x>jects for self-stimulation and as far as I can tell ****** made in uncut cultures are also simple in shape (and usually smooth or subtly textured rather than prominently ridged/veined).

Uncut men tend to be better lovers in my experience.<br />
<br />
Circumcised men frequently enter the vagina before the woman is ready for intercourse, then they **** faster & harder in shorter thrusts than she wants in order to get the stimulation their less sensitive penis needs. They select an angle or depth of penetration which gives the head of their penis the most sensation. (If you are circumcised you should give more time to foreplay and slow down your *******!)<br />
<br />
Uncircumcised men get the woman wet before entry because too dry is uncomfortable for them as well. Then they **** more slowly and move a longer distance in/out before reversing direction (because of how that feels on the foreskin), both of which increases the woman's pleasure. They also select an angle or depth of penetration which prevents their penis from getting over-stimulated. Besides being better for the woman, that helps them continue intercourse for longer before ***********.

Any difference in your ****** rate for cut and uncut?

I thought I saw your avatar in the group Need Rough Hard Sex. Care to explain the nuances here?

Scholars have found that the Pentateuch has details that jibe much better with the traditional 2nd century BC date than a mid-1st century BC date. As far as "detailed discussion of Jewish law " by which I assume you mean the massive rabbinical writings, that actually doesn't come till well into the Christian era. I know of no detailed discussion of circumcision in the BC era unless there was one in the monastic documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is clear from the book of Maccabees that Hewish men were able to pull the remnant of the foreskin over their glans to give the impression of not being circumcised,This is because early Jewish circumcision consisted in simply cutting off the tip of the foreskin- not the radical cut done for the last 100 years.

Here's a source that sets forth briefly how Biblical-era circumcision was much less drastic. <br /><br />
"1. partly circumcision (approximately 1 / 3)<br />
2. A: Judaism into 2nd Century<br />
...<br />
7. The foreskin gets pulled and is partially cut off with a sharp stone (nowadays with a razor blade) <br />
8. partially exposed glans, loss of sensitive tissue"

One of the Jewish academics who is an ardent foe of circ said this. I will come back with the reference later. It's a very interesting issue you raised , jgood4u.

On pg 341, she mentions that the Jewish circumcision has changed. I thought if this is truly so, then the muslems form would not have changed and today the two groups would practice it differently, but I can't find any evidence of that. The circumcision of the Jews today seems to be the same cut as the muslems of today. I can't find where the Jewish circumcision of Abraham's day was different then today. This is key if we need to believe that the Jewish circumcision of today is NOT the circumcision God gave Abraham.<br />
<br />
Maybe we need a separate topic to discuss this book? I just wish her facts were solid and would hold up to examination. I'd like a book like this that I could recommend without apologizing for some of it content.

Go ahead and be specific. You won't get sued for what you say on EP.<br />
<br />
I did notice that her selection of comments by women on their feelings about intercourse with cut men was over the top. Yes. there are women who feel that way about it, but there are also lots of women like fungirlmmm who would give a pretty positive report of their experiences of sex with cut men. I think cut men are often better matched with women like her who really like it fast and hard from start to finish. A lot of women don't prefer that.<br />
<br />
But I find the book an impressive book from what I've seen of it. I would like to hear specifics about what its problems are.

After that book [Sex as Nature Intended] came out, I wondered about it and called Marilyn Milos to ask why her webside didn't have it on it list of recommenced readings. She explained that the author had taken too many liberties with the truth for them to be able to recommend it. I did purchase the online version and downloaded it, and have read it, and I have to agree with Ms Milos, that the book pushed it points to far to maintain creditability. It's too bad, because there are some good points in the book, but also many inaccuracies. Recently, I wrote the author to inquire about one statement and what was her support and reference(s) for her conclusion. Its been several months and I have received no response to my query. I had been unable to find any independent support on my own for her conclusions to that point.

I am aware of the passion brought by Kristen O' Hara. I was quite impressed by her website and ended up buying her book Sex as Nature Intended It; so far I have just skimmed through portions of it. Where her passion comes from is she likes uncircumcised intercourse a lot and strongly dislikes cut intercourse. She gives foreskin restoration credit for saving her marriage if I recall rightly. I find her study showing vaginal ****** much easier with uncut partners impressive. You made a reference elsewhere which suggested to me you had reservations about the book. Is that so, and do you care to elaborate?

Thank you for your informed commentary.<br />
<br />
History has shown that when the advocates of a failing viewpoint are going down, they persist in their stubbornness rather than opening their minds.<br />
<br />
For along time the mainstream sex experts, such as the Kinsey Institute folks, have not been known for being friendly to the penis, or indeed to the male sex. Can you imagine, consa, what a different reaction there would have been if it had been a study about something that was being done to females?