We all know that in a normal (intact) penis the vast majority of nerves are concentrated in the foreskin, particularly the 'ridged band'. The only nerves a circumcised penis has are those in the remnants of the inner foreskin and frenulum (if he's really lucky) and the glans (normaly not the most sensitive part).
As a man ages, these structures, which are supposed to be internal but are now exposed, get rubbed and abraded and keratinized to the point where there just is not much sensitivity left. It stands to reason that anecdotal reports of men having difficulty reaching orgasm later in life have some validity.
I am sure few openly admit it. So, does anyone know of any documented evidence, studies, reports etc that prove the assertion that circumcision further impairs a man's (and , of course, his partner's) sex life as they get a bit older?
As a man ages, these structures, which are supposed to be internal but are now exposed, get rubbed and abraded and keratinized to the point where there just is not much sensitivity left. It stands to reason that anecdotal reports of men having difficulty reaching orgasm later in life have some validity.
I am sure few openly admit it. So, does anyone know of any documented evidence, studies, reports etc that prove the assertion that circumcision further impairs a man's (and , of course, his partner's) sex life as they get a bit older?
That's awesome. I hope it just gets better and better. Gives hope to more men out there!
