But the glans it sounds needs to be somewhat desensitized' ,If not covered for protection by hooded foreskin, sounds like it would be mighty painful, and can just imagine how inflamed it would get with any STD infection. But when cut, the glans is certainly the most sensitive part of cockhead, and available to be seen in its glory, and aroused, swells up visibly , not hidden. No loss of sensitivity to shaft and cockhead by being circumcized as far as I can see. Other disasters in life, like a botched hernia operation that has cut nerves or damaged them and/or circulation that should be going to the cock, is what is a total fuck up to sensitivity long before old age and poor body care, obesity, etc take the fun away.
Actually, you lose a lot. The foreskin is full of nerve endings. Masturbation is a lot easier and more pleasurable. It feels a lot more like penetration instead of a massage. And a cut cock loses a lot of sensitivity, or else you couldn't even wear an underwear. In fact, the reason circumcision is so widespread in America is because they wanted to make masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable. Of course that didn't work. Men will always find a way to orgasm. You might ask me for a source, rightfully so, therefore I added one in advance.
Circumcision and “moral hygiene”
Despite what the circumcision promoters claim, prevention of masturbation was a principal reason for the introduction of male circumcision in Victorian Britain and America. Circumcision of male infants and boys cannot be understood except in relation to the 19th century anti-masturbation crusade.
In 1895 a leading American medical journal published an article by a prominent MD who asserted that in all cases of masturbation:
..."circumcision is undoubtedly the physician’s closest friend and ally, offering as it does a certain means of alleviation and pronounced benefit …. Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance … long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous dorsal veins, go to make up a picture that is exceedingly tempting to the surgeon’s scissors. … To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on a stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found readily to resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy needed to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, and consequently the greater the benefit gained.”
Edgar Spratling, “Masturbation in the adult”, Medical Record 48, 28 September 1895, 442-3
The importance of articles such as this one by Dr Spratling – one of hundreds along these lines – is that they demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that prevention of juvenile sexual activity (masturbation and other forms of pleasurable touching and manipulation) was a primary reason for the introduction of circumcision in the second half of the nineteenth century and one of the main advantages that doctors cited when selling the surgery to parents. They also show just how avidly surgeons such as this one relished the thought of taking a pair of scissors to other men’s penises; all that luxuriant overhang was just begging to be trimmed into insignificance.
Despite the overwhelming evidence – hundreds of articles in medical journals and baby and child care manuals from the 1860s until the 1930s – prominent figures in today’s pro-circumcision lobby refused to accept the truth and insist that the claim is a mere invention or falsehood of the so-called anti-circumcision movement. Typical of their approach is (1) to cite the one or two articles or textbooks that appear to agree with their position and ignore the dozens that do not; and (2) to gloss over the careful distinctions made by genuine scholars. They also claim that modern studies of sexual behaviour (such a surveys by Richters et al in Australia and Laumann in the United States) do not find much difference in the incidence of masturbation between cut and uncut adults. Both of these responses are unscholarly, irresponsible and evasive of the three crucial issues.