... than I did quite meticulously in this post
If your expectations of "performance" in "our society" are firmly based on emulation of circumcised men, because your presumption
is that they have no difficulty in penetrating women who are not aroused, and you imagine that oral sex (fellatio) requires or should require neither skill nor intelligence on the lady's part, then most surely - circumcision is
It conjures up for me a vision of you dutifully pounding away at a young lady for tens of minutes on end, having avoided the dreaded "premature ejaculation" until your partner has suffered enough of the lack of lubrication and "rewards" you with a fake orgasm to terminate the encounter (which actually is
the all-too-common scenario). But you must then both be happy - you because you have fulfilled the expectations of society, and she because your "performance" is up to the "standard" to which she is accustomed. Personally, I find the scenario quite deeply disturbing because it seems to be missing the things I
regard as important in a relationship - but then I daresay I am simply out of touch with contemporary society - I gave up reading women's' magazines (many) years ago.
And so fascinating that these standards apply completely differently between men and women; men being expected to scrub away the traces of smegma whilst women - who generally cannot see
where it is concealed within themselves, are exempted from this requirement (though expect, and in all fairness I am happy to sanction that they do, oral gratification for themselves).
Three things remain - I am quite sure
that you have no difficulty masturbating without discomfort. Clearly
your glans is not too sensitive with the foreskin over it, so the clue lies in what the foreskin does to prevent such sensitivity. Jim's advice on this account to wash under the cover of the foreskin
clearly has merit. Secondly, there really is no
doubt that circumcised men lose or have lost sensitivity and even those poor sad fellows who had the opportunity to experience "before" and "after", invariably must confess to this no matter how many desperately attempt to represent it in a favourable light by conjuring distinctions between "good" and "bad" sensitivity.
Thirdly, considering the intact men who are "comfortable" with the sensitivity of their glans, you have to sit and thoughtfully consider just how
they came to be this way? Was it random? Some are and some - such as you - are not? Clearly, they are comfortable because
at some stage, over some period of time, they have
done no more than used
their foreskin - retracted it, replaced it over the glans, over and over. They did not do this deliberately
, at least not with the intention of "desensitising" the glans, they obviously did this for some other reason but in the process
they became comfortable with it.
Clearly both men and
women vary in the degree to which their individual glans is sensitive. My point is nothing more than that for "vanilla" consensual sex - intercourse where in fact both
participants are prepared and ipso facto
naturally lubricated, the sensitivity or lack thereof is moot - it just works
. It is only
when you place on it some perverse expectation of a "performance" - such as oral sex from an inexperienced and/ or clumsy partner on a naked glans, that you will encounter problems.