That’s a difficult question. Most people are circumcised at a young age, so most don’t get to experience sexual pleasure both ways. The number of men who do is low. You would probably need to ask them.
Now, it’s commonly thought that it has less sensitivity because it is “unprotected” by it s natural sheath. This may or may not be true.
Also, there are other ways to reduce sensitivity, if that’s what you’re looking for, without going to such an extreme body modification.
However, you do you, only you know what makes sense for you.
This theory is just straight up weird to me. If I remove some outer layers of skin, are the exposed layers going to be less sensitive? Of course not, it would have completely the opposite effect. Maybe there’s some actual scientific research to back up the idea, but on the surface it sounds about as well thought out as someone trying to explain why vaccinations are “bad”.
Agreed. It seems to mostly be a popular theory with men who are mildly obsessed with banning circumcision and “regaining what has been taken from them” like those guys trying to “regrow” their foreskin with weights and pulleys.
What? Of course the newly exposed skin will be more sensitive as compared to before…for some time. We are talking about years and probably at least a decade after the circumcision took place, until it gets relevant for the affected person for sexual reasons. Until then the (probably even higher than before) sensitivity will have dropped. Sensors in the skin will be cut down by the body in order to prevent irritations when they have to fire all the time, which is true for the glans that is not protected anymore, is irritated all the time (underwear) and does not have the same capability to produce callus as the hands or feet.
The principle should not be foreign to you as principally the same happens by producing callus. The body produces it to stop irritation and to prevent long-lasting negative effects.
Add comment