FGM and MGM (not the mgm with the lion)

So, I'm getting topical again,

After reading a somewhat elaborate and rather upset blog entry about FGM (female genital mutilation) in Africa and the middle east, I went on to read more about the customs concerning male circumcision around the world. Now, I know the gruesomeness of the two can hardly be compared, but hear me out.

Being from Denmark, I remain uncircumcised, and so does around 95% of the population. Not so in many other countries I am aware, and as I read about Japan, I came across this list of blurbs, and one in particular, from what I assume to be a woman:

"I remember reading a sexual manual published in Taiwan, which was translated from the Japanese, in which a medical professor in Tokyo quoted a figure of about 1/3 of Japanese men need to get circumcised as adults because they've got phimosis. In the same book circumcision was also recommended for curing premature ejaculation, otherwise the glans would be too sensitive; failing that they said you should keep the skin permanently retracted to achieve the same effect.
I must say that I agree 100% as covered glans tends to be painfully sensitive and I don't see how one can have sex with that. A lot of the anti-circ rhetoric about sensitivity is based more on theory rather than reality as I believe most of them have never had a foreskin in their lives.

So although not very many Japanese man are circumcised you're unlikely to see a Japanese penis with the glans covered. What a pity the same isn't true of European men!"

What a pity indeed!

First up, sensitive bits are a good thing. I have no clue whether circumcised penises are intrisically more attractive to women, but there exists no solid evidence that it should be sexually more desirable for the man.

Unlike most japanese, my foreskin covers my glans entirely (the shorter average foreskins are the reason for frequent occurrance of phimosis,) and never have I heard before that the sensitivity of a covered glans should cause unpleasantries during sex, or be the reason for premature ejaculation, which, I am rather sure of, is also a prevalent issue in the US, where more than 90% of the male population is circumcised.

The advice of keeping your foreskin permanently retracted to reduce sensitivity seems very counterproductive to me. Sensitive bits touching is what makes sex pleasurable. Nobody advices women to take measures for reducing the feeling in their clitoris or vagina.

"covered glans tends to be painfully sensitive and I don't see how one can have sex with that.

After reading about FGM and the various baseless reasons for its practice, this stood out to me as some of the most uninformed and ignorant drivel I had read in a while. Slightly less so than what follows right after;

"A lot of the anti-circ rhetoric about sensitivity is based more on theory rather than reality as I believe most of them have never had a foreskin in their lives.

You believe, eh?

These kinds of misconceptions need to be weeded out from the realm of casual facts, so that we can finally stop snipping off the tip of our little gentlemen's little gentlemen for the simple custom of it.