The difference between the sensitivity of the foreskin and of the rest part of the penis is not only quantitative but qualitative. The cortical reorganization and the psychological transformation following circumcision attempt to compensate for this. The smaller sexual sensitivity must result in rougher and less satisfactory sexual act. Perhaps this relates to the harsh attitude toward women that has become part of the religious laws in countries practicing mid-childhood circumcision.[v][vi][vii][viii] It appears that the insufficient gratification of circumcised men combined with their circumcision-facilitated religiousness has coined these laws.
The deficient sexual sensitivity requires stronger stimulation. Logically, this may have a wide spectrum of effects on sexuality that should be most distinguishable in sexual preferences and orientation. To circumcised men some disappointment in the normal sexual experience seems inevitable. It may lead to the seeking of alternative methods of sexual gratification including anal intercourse. Thus the decreased penile sensitivity caused by pedocircumcision could eventually lead to increasing the prevalence of bisexuality and homosexuality for men. We cannot, however, substantiate this with convincing proof because of the lack of appropriate statistical data. Notwithstanding, many individual testimonies for such effects can be found on the internet.[ix] Members are welcome to share their opinions on this topic that is concealed by the dictatorship of democracy or male chauvinism in the western or oriental worlds respectively.
Some natural men have noticed that they think better when left alone. Not just because of the calmness of isolation but because touching or massaging the foreskin and testes stimulates thinking. And this is natural considering the huge size of the cortical somatosensory areas representing these genital zones. You need proof? Better try it for yourself. Even if you are circumcised you still have testes as well as preputial remnants. Do not rely on researches; they are far from being sensitive, precise or objective enough. And one can never be sure who funded their research and why.
Ancients were closer to nature and to the self. They were quite well familiar with the extraordinary sensitivity of genital skin and its instinctual effect on reasoning. For this reason when they gave promises or testified something they certified their intentions by putting their hands on each others’ genitalia. Hence the word test, testicle, testify, testament and so on. The hiding of sexual organs or marks is a sign of subordination or insidiousness.
Some researches claim that there is no difference between natural and circumcised penis. According to them it seems that the only thing that does not matter is foreskin. This is an example of how science is used to reduce discrimination. We do not know how these researches have obtained their strange results. It is clear, however, that either they or the patrons of their research are circumcised. The ethnoreligious bias they introduce into science is not something a scientist can be proud of. The differential attitude to circumcision vividly demonstrates the impact of the pedocircumcision on reasoning.
Objectivity is seeing a thing from any possible angle. Decency and diplomacy are subjective. Reliability requires the participation, stimulation and involvement of all body parts.. Genitalia are not merely organs for procreation from time to time. They are not only among the most sensitive organs but their sensitivity is central to emotionality and therefore thinking. Genital sensitivity has power over reasoning not only during sexual excitation. Most of the time genital sensitivity affects thinking because it engages huge portion of the brain. It is logical, therefore, intactness of genitalia to support adequacy of reasoning or objectivity.