The
Loveline
Companion

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/

this is an article from the THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL from 2003 discussing a study on the "Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm", that suggests that sex is more pleasurable with an uncircumcised penis, and even makes it easier to orgasm.

i wonder what drew would say

—jizzgrenade

"be that as it may"

—stellagold

lol, you're so right...

—jizzgrenade

sex is so much more pleasurable when i think i may catch the penile cancer

—catloaf

^ pahahahahaha

—pookie

Hmm... This looks more like a "letter to the editor" of The New Zealand Medical Journal. The actual "results" he's citing are from an article in a in a book, Understanding circumcision: a multi-disciplinary approach to a multi-dimensional problem, that may or may not have been peer-reviewed. Either way, judging from the title, I would expect it to have a strong bias.

The "results" he's talking about are from a survey of 35 women. This is not a huge sample size, and in this letter he does not mention how the sample was selected. It could have been a snowball sample (no pun intended), or selected using some other less-than-random and demographically representative method. More than that, there are other factors not controlled for here other than the "dick type." What about interest in and feelings towards their partners? Even though these women were lucky enough to have experienced cut and uncut cock, have they had a fair sample of both in their personal lives to make a fair judgement?

This isn't really ground-breaking science, it looks like he just sent letters to 35 chicks and was like "Hey, tell me about how these different kinds of dicks feel." I could find a group of 35 chicks that would say just about anything I wanted them to say about dicks. That's my ability.

—ZTgeist

we can do a study right here with the TLC girls (and queers).
this test is all that really matters - which version will net the most lifetime BJs from different sources.

lady's, bisexuals, and homos:

there is a gun to your head, and you have to suck one of two cocks to survive. one cock is cut. the other not cut.
do you suck:

(#1) the cut cock
(#2) the uncut cock
(#3) doesn't matter, just feed me a cock.

—plurry

just feed me a cock.

—plurry

—Dusty TheHick

you can't vote for others, dusty.

—plurry

you have a point, ZT. here is the actual study. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

turns out there were 139 women
Wow, this is super interesting. i'm never doing wheelbarrow again...
"
Preferred position for attaining
vaginal orgasm;
woman on top 54
man on top 54
rear entry 4
no preference 9"

the discussiob, summing up some of the results
"These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed agaist the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18]."

—jizzgrenade

Yeah, but...smegma.

—Dusty TheHick

it's overrated. i haven't seen smegma since i was 10 and i showered once a week

—jizzgrenade

If you're talking about the study they wrote the letter about, that's not it. It's true that they did cite the O'Hara and O'Hara 1999 study as well as their own, but if you look closely at the footnotes and references you'll see the authors of the letter match the authors if the 5th reference.

—ZTgeist