The idea that the foreskin has more nerve endings than the dick itself is a contentious one probably promoted by the anti-circumcision lobby. There will always be people routinely circumcised as infants who in later life resent it and blame the procedure for one problem or another. I want to say now that I fully sympathise with those people. I am absolutely against the practice of circumcising infants or children. People should be allowed to grow up and then decide if they want to alter their bodies. But if it caused a lot more problems that it prevented, circumcision wouldn't have caught on like it did. The clit hood is analogous to the male foreskin. Women can, and do, have the clit hood removed in it's entirety and it doesn't cause sensitivity problems. Sure, you don't feel the foreskin/clithood after circumcision, but you don't need those feelings in order to get sexual stimulation. ie. you can still orgasm just as easily. I don't want to attract an argument with the anti FGM (female genital mutilation) lobby and want to state again that I am against doing surgeries on minors, etc. but it needs to be known here that anti FGM activists have worked hard over the last 50ish years to persuade women in Northern Africa to adopt the 'simpler' female circumcision which only involves removal of the clit hood rather than the clit itself. Researchers have data to support the fact that women can reach orgasm without the clit hood, so I'm sure it must follow that simply putting a little ring or bar through the hood is extremely unlikely to cause any loss of feeling. On the subject of clithood removal: There was a 'fashion' if that's the right word, for this back in the 1960s/1970s, when people were taking an interest (at last) in the female orgasm. Gynecologists identified the problem of clitoral adhesions. In the same way that some boys and men have adhesions between the glans and foreskin, some women were found to have the same thing. And these tended to be women who presented with problems achieving orgasm. Some gynecologists began referring patients to surgeons for circumcision (clit hood removal) and the results were positive. However, pressure from anti-FGM groups caused surgeons to drop the practice like a hot potato. But in more recent years, perhaps on the back of the popularity of genital piercing, surgeons have started offering labia reduction and clithood reduction and removal. An internet search will show you that there is a lot of this going on. Again, if removal of the clit hood caused problems, we would be reading about the cases. The popular press would love to publish 'Doctor Stole My Orgasms' stories, but to date I haven't seen one. On the contrary, there are plenty of women who are stating that their orgasmic response is better since having their clithood pierced, divided (an alternative to complete removal), or completely removed.
Please don't flame me if you are against circumcision, female genital piercing or surgeries. I'm not advocating such things. I'm just trying to provide perspective. And please don't ask me for details of all the research and findings etc. Most of this stuff is published on the internet now. You can search for it.
The receiving tube method makes the (vertical) clit hood piercing a little easier, just like it does with the PA (piercing of the male urethra beneath the glans). I don't see how piercing with a tube can make any difference to the insignificant number of nerves the needle might disturb.
