Masters and Johnson (enthusiastic but rank amateurs at sexological research), and Payne et al. didn't look at the foreskin itself, and Bleustein et al. looked at one point on the outside. They were none of them seriously trying to find any difference between circumcised and intact (M&J virtually said so). The only study that seriously compared circumcised with intact was Sorrells et al., which found "circumcision [removes] the most sensitive part of the penis". See more at http://www.circumstitions.com/sex
Comment Reply
Masters and Johnson (enthusiastic but rank amateurs at sexological research), and Payne et al. didn't look at the foreskin itself, and Bleustein et al. looked at one point on the outside. They were none of them seriously trying to find any difference between circumcised and intact (M&J virtually said so). The only study that seriously compared circumcised with intact was Sorrells et al., which found "circumcision [removes] the most sensitive part of the penis". See more at http://www.circumstitions.com/sex
March 22, 2010 - 8:46pmThis Comment
Reply