In a blog on 5/10/13, entitled Recovering Afrikan Sexuality I wrote:
In fact, my view on male circumcision, a practice which originated with Afrikans, is entirely at odds with Western explanations. I argue that one of its purposes was to be conducive to female orgasms. Data in the West seems to suggest women are more orgasmic with circumcised rather than with uncircumcised men. This could be entirely psychological, having little to do with circumcision, however, it is possible the sulcus (ridge of circumcised penis) make better contact stimulating the G-spot, potentially causing more vaginal stimulation. Studies state that circumcised men are just a sensitive as uncircumcised men. However, more recent studies indicate that uncircumcised men are more sensitive. Moreover, circumcision removes the foreskin of the penis leaving the glans exposed, which will develop a thick, dry layer of keratin (toughened skin), making it less sensitive to uninvited stimulation, but also less sensitive to the more subtle qualities of intercourse. Circumcision leaves a man less sensitive. Further, in removing the prepuce (foreskin) which served as a gliding mechanism, a man’s only source of stimulation is the glans rubbing against the wall of the vagina. The sensations derived from the specialized receptors of the frenar band, frenulum and inner foreskin layer are missing. So, from a male point of view we might perceive circumcision negatively, but here is the rub (pardon my pun) if in desensitizing the male, it allows his staying power, then you have actually done the female, and in reality the male, a favor if he is interested in pleasing his woman. All this is to say, that in Afrika, circumcision in lessening sensitivity slightly offers men greater penile control in order to satisfy women.