Brother of Yeshua

Segment 1

In his Stromata, Clement of Alexandria writes: now that the Savior has taught the Apostles, the unwritten rendering of the written, this has been handed down also to us.What Clement is stating is that it was Yeshua who taught his disciples the inner (soul/spiritual) meaning of the scriptures that the carnal Jews were blind to.Clement explains that the mysteries are delivered mystically, that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in the voice, but in his understanding.

In his search for Truth and Meaning, man is perpetually confronted by the path that leads to a higher understanding of the mysteries of life that Clement makes reference to -- but because man does not endeavor to properly prepare the mind to embrace spiritual reality, he continually rejects the higher path of knowledge and spiritual manifestation.To overcome this stagnation, the scriptures are themselves designed to impede the literal perception of the written word -- and the more one reads and studies the Bible, the more difficult it is to believe the written word.On this very issue, Origen is quoted pertaining to this biblical fact in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: Scripture contains an unhistorical element in-woven with the history, in order that the worthlessness of the latter may drive us to seek the spiritual meaning.

What does this mean?Scripture contains an unhistorical element in-woven with the history -- or, there exists events reported in what, on the surface appears to be history, that never actually happened.Why?Why would the scriptures contain events that never physically happened?In answer to this question Origen writes: in order that the worthlessness of the latter may drive us to seek the spiritual meaning.What Origen is stating is that to read scripture as history is a worthless endeavor!Why?Because what happened during historical events of the past cannot save you -- you can only be saved by entering within the Kingdom and becoming a disciple of the Living Christ.Yet Christians today not only read their scriptures solely as history, but unceasingly argue over their many interpretations of what Origen labels as being worthless.

Segment 2

In this respect, both Jews and Christians today are falling prey to the very trap that has been set by the literal word of the scriptures.In the Clementine Homilies the Apostle Peter is found explaining the nature of scripture to his disciple Clement: consider with me that if any one, as he pleases, form a dogma agreeable to himself, and then carefully search the Scriptures, he will be able to produce many testimonies from them in favor of the dogma that he has formed.In considering this, Clement then asks Peter: How, then, can confidence be placed in them against God, when what every man wishes is found in them?

What Peter is stating is this great truth: All the many conflicting opinions, that all the sects of Christianity have argued about throughout all of Christian history, are the product of the design of the scriptures themselves.As Peter warns, if anyone form a dogma, and then carefully search the Scriptures, he will be able to produce many testimonies from them in favor of the dogma.In other words, no matter what you choose to believe, you will find in the scriptures conformation of your beliefs.Why, we ask, would the Bible be written in such a convoluted manner?Why not compose the scriptures so they make sense?The answer can only be realized when we begin to comprehend the true problem.If the scriptures were composed in such a manner so they made perfect sense, then it would be to the carnal mind that the body of the text would make sense to.The purpose of the scriptures is to awaken the dormant part of the mind that corresponds to man's soul and spiritual nature -- thereby enabling the disciple to use a greater part of his potential of mind.

The scriptures themselves are written from a universal perspective.Therefore, the exoteric doctrine -- or milk of the scriptures -- is designed to prepare all mankind to walk in The Way.If each person did not see their own personal mindset present in the writings, then the scriptures would be useless in their purpose of being the means to lead all men into the Kingdom.Clement of Alexandria puts the whole problem into perspective when he quotes a passage of scripture that is no longer in our bibles today: For by doing the will of God we know the will of God (Stromata, Bk 1, Ch 8). In the United States, only 5% of the Jews are Torah Observant -- so in not living the symbols and forms of the Torah, the majority of Jews make themselves apostates to the Torah. In like manner, Christians who believe that the Law was nailed to the cross, and all that is needed is a profession of faith in the Jesus-god, never fulfill the requirement set forth by Clement in the words: For by doing the will of God we know the will of God

Segment 3

What we must begin to grasp is that the scriptures are created in a Divine Pattern that is beyond our very limited comprehension.If all men see their own mindset and predetermined beliefs in the scriptures, and claim the scriptures as their source of spiritual truth, and then begin to incorporate the Commandments of God into their lives, then the scriptures will begin to mold them, and prepare them to receive the higher knowledge.It is by design that the man who is a Jehovah's Witness sees his doctrine in the scriptures -- God wants it that way.It is by design that the Baptist sees his -- that the Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist sees theirs -- and it is by design that even the Atheist sees his doctrine.

Regardless of how many pamphlets the born again Christian publishes in an attempt to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, the Jehovah's Witness will continue to see their favorite passages of scripture that affirm their position that Jesus was not God. In like manner, the sects that are considered more mainstream, will continue to use the Bible to prove that the other two groups are fundamentalist extremists.Why? Because these mainstream groups are so attached to the philosophy and thinking of this world, that they would be incapable of a fundamentalist perception of life and the Bible.

The result is that each group uses the same book to prove the other group in error.Why was the scriptures written in such a way?Because the Bible is universal -- and though each of them embraces the Bible from a different doctrinal perspective, when they begin to do the will of God, they will then begin to know the Will of God -- and in the process of knowing and doing, the disciple begins the process of spiritual transformation.How successful each one will be in their religious quest, will be in direct relation to how quickly each can shed their carnal mindset and limitations, and begin to truly come to the Lord in word, thought and deed.

Segment 4

Copied Articles

Segment 5

Reasons parents choose to circumcise their sons and why they're incorrect: 🚫 "Its cleaner." - Actually no, its not. The foreskin is fused to the glans until puberty leaving nothing to clean whatsoever until 10-12 years old. When it does detach around that time, you wash it like the rest of your body. 🚫 "It reduces the risk of UTI'S." - The risk reduction is LESS than 1%. Not significant enough to amputate healthy functioning tissue. Not to mention, that reduction only applies to infancy. Not adulthood. As adults, intact and circumcised males have the same risk of developing urinary tract infections. *Allowing a circumcised bleeding penis to heal in a diaper full of urine and feces increases risk of infection. 🚫 "It reduces the risk of penile cancer." -Aside from the fact that the American Cancer Society has already spoken out about that not being true, let's pretend for a minute that it is. Penile cancer is already so rare, that your son has a better chance of developing breast cancer than he does of ever developing penile cancer. Penile cancer includes the shaft and glans. The foreskin makes absolutely no difference. 🚫 "It reduces the risk of STDs and HIV" - The only thing that prevents STDs are CONDOMS. Not circumcision. In actuality, the foreskin has been shown to have cells that act as part of the immune system in protecting against STDs. 🚫 "His penis should match his dad's." - Ew. No it shouldn't. Your son will never notice a difference in his and his dad's penis unless your family is keen on whipping it out at thanksgiving and comparing. 🚫 "Circumcised penises just look better." - All penises look the same when erect, intact or not. Aside from the fact that the glans on a circumcised male is keratinized and "dried out" therefore looking smaller than it really should. Not to mention pushing your sexual preferences on your son's body is pedophilia.

Segment 6

Now let's look at the facts: ✅ A baby boy dies every 2 days as a direct result of a non medically necessary circumcision. ✅ Thousands of men will suffer long term complications including meatitis, erectile dysfunction, painful erections, diminished sexual pleasure, rough jack-hammering sex on their partners to achieve orgasm and more. ✅ Over 250,000 men in the US are currently restoring their foreskin and wish they had been left intact from birth. ✅ Countless men as adults have sued their parents and practitioners for performing their circumcision without their consent as babies. ✅ The lack of foreskin will affect every circumcised male and their partner's intimate life. The glans are supposed to be moist and covered, not dried out and keratinized. ....Still think it's a good idea? If anyone has any questions and would like more information, feel free to message me. This post is not meant to shame circumcised males or parents that made the decision to do so. It is meant to raise awareness & inform others of the risks. You can regret making the decision and share what you have learned so the cycle stops. Most women and men are screaming womens rights but yet cutting off their little boys body parts, where are their rights? Who will stand up for them? As mothers of boys, it's your responsibility to be their voice! Copied from the group Informed Mothers @ https://www.facebook.com/informedmotherspage

Segment 7

Huge thanks to Tiffany Maillet and David Candela for putting this together!

Segment 8

ADDITIONAL information: AMERICAN DOCTORS have convinced naive parents that it's normal to cut off part of a baby's penis. THE UNITED STATES is the only English-speaking nation whose doctors routinely tie down babies and cut off part of their penis. These doctors use crude propaganda to persuade American parents that it's in their child's best interest. In the rest of the world, where parents know better, the men grow to adulthood with intact genitals and scoff at any suggestion they cut part of it off. Let your son be a free man with a choice that is NOT yours to make. Most circumcision damage doesn't show up until the boy becomes a sexually active man, and he may not know that amputation of part of his sex organ caused the damage. In either case, he most likely will not tell his parents. "Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children." ~European Medical Community https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796 Bloodstained Men & Their Friends are fighting back in the streets with 60 protests a year coast to coast. BloodstainedMen.com

Just as female circumcision was advocated in some Muslim and African countries to control women's sexuality, so too was male circumcision introduced into English-speaking countries in the late 1800s as a method of treating and preventing masturbation [2]. While there has been debate over whether circumcision affects the sexual sensations of the penis, there have been few relevant studies. Four men circumcised in adulthood reported decreased sensitivity [3]. Writing under a pseudonym, a physician circumcised as an adult argued that the loss of sensitivity he experienced was favourable, as it gave him more control over his orgasms [4]. Another man circumcised as an adult lamented that the decrease in sensation could be equated with seeing in monochrome rather than in colour.

Laumann et al. [5] found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex. In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males [6]. Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females [12].

Segment 9

There may be a histological explanation for these findings. The tip of the foreskin, and some or all of the frenulum, are routinely removed as part of circumcision. This tissue contains a high concentration of the nerve endings that sense fine touch [1]. After circumcision, the surface of the glans thickens like a callus. The glans is innervated by free nerve endings that can only sense deep pressure and pain. [13]. Over 30 years ago, Masters and Johnson, using undocumented methodology, tested the sensitivity of the glans in men with and without foreskins and found no difference [14]. The absence of fine-touch receptors in the glans could explain their findings, as Masters and Johnson may have been measuring the wrong variable. Without knowing what was measured or how, these results constitute little more than anecdotal evidence. A study from Iowa in the late 1980s [15] found that young mothers (who had recently given birth to sons) preferred intercourse with a circumcised man; however, the importance of this study is compromised, as only 16.5% of the women surveyed had sexual experience with both circumcised and intact men. The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 - 8.71) [16].

The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man's sexual appetite [17]. Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman's sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up. The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary 'sexual' organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman's ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.

Methods

Segment 10

Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newletter. Respondents to the advertisements were mailed a survey to complete and return, the comments then compiled and the responses analysed statistically. The survey is continuing and this article reports the preliminary results.

Of the 284 surveys, 139 were completed and returned; no attempts were made to characterize the demographic details of those who did not respond. The women completing the surveys were aware that their responses and comments could later be published anonymously in a forthcoming book. The survey included 40 questions; the results were analysed for age, number of lifetime partners, preputial status of the most recent partner, preference for vaginal orgasms (as defined below) and their preference for a circumcised or intact penis. Multiple choice answers were assigned numeric values, i.e. 'increased', 'stayed about the same' and 'lessened' of 1,0, and -1 respectively. Likewise, questions with answers of 'mostly yes', 'mostly no', 'rarely' and 'never' were assigned values of 3, 2, 1 and 0.

The survey defined 'vaginal orgasm' as 'an orgasm that occurs during intercourse, brought about by your partner's penis and pelvic movements and body contact, along with your own body's pelvic movements, with no simultaneous stimulation of the clitoris by the hands'. Premature ejaculation was defined as the man 'usually (50 -100% of the time) has had his orgasm within 2 -3 minutes after insertion'. The survey included three sets of responses for the respondents to rate their sexual experiences with their circumcised and unaltered male partners; the questions and possible responses are listed in Appendix 1. Comparisons between responses are expressed as the OR and 95% CI.

Segment 11

Results

CIRP Note: The results of this survey are somewhat obscurely stated. This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners.

Of the 139 surveys returned, one considered a man who was undergoing foreskin restoration as having a foreskin; this survey was excluded from analysis. Not all questions were answered by all respondents. Contradictory answers showed that not all respondents understood the questions; the responses and unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

Segment 12

Table 1 The demographics of the respondents

VariableMean/median number

Mean (SD) age (years) 37.3 (9.2) Number of partners; Mean (SD) 14.7 (11.2) Median (SD) Preferred vaginal orgasm 71 Preferred position for attaining vaginal orgasm; woman on top 54 man on top 54 rear entry 4 no preference 9

Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with' (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really get into it.'

When the women were divided into those older or younger than 40 years, the older women were more likely to rate their frequency of orgasm as higher with an unaltered partner (Z=2.04, P=0.02). Women 29 years or younger were more likely to prefer orally induced orgasms (2.61, 1.14-5.97), while women over 40 years preferred vaginally induced orgasms more than those aged <29 years (3.00, 1.16-7.32). The older women also had more lifetime unaltered partners (Z=2.95, P=0.002). This may have reflected the decreased availability of unaltered men of similar age for the younger women.

Segment 13

When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).

Table 2 Ratings of experiences with circumcised men compared with normal men (uncircumcised). All difference were significant at P<0.001

Mean SD Rating Item Circumcised Intact Z Value

Segment 14

Number of partners 10.36(11.21) 3.61(5.81) 6.16 Vaginal fluid secretions* -0.23(0.79) 0.60(0.58) -9.47 Vaginal discomfort+ 2.01(0.87) 0.85(0.83) 10.93 Likelihood of vaginal orgasm(%) 34.7(35.2) 60.6(36.2) 6.16 Orgasm frequency rating 1.68(1.13) 2.39(1.02 -5.39 Multiple orgasm frequency rating 10.72(9.55) 14.85(10.46) -3.36 Duration of coitus (min) Number of responses to: not irritable++ 5.99(4.73) 1.31(2.54) 10.04 not distanced 5.10(3.75) 0.84(1.11) 10.81 Positive postcoital feelings 1.95(2.88) 5.01(2.88) -9.05 Overall rating (range -10 to +10) 1.81(6.17) 8.03(3.17) 10.33

*The responses were scored as 'increased' = 1, 'stayed about the same'= 0, 'lessened = -1. +The responses were scored as 'mostly yes' = 3, 'mostly no' = 2, 'rarely' = 1, 'never' = 0. ++Positive responses from 14 possibilities Positive responses from 13 possibilities Positive responses from 8 possibilities

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016). These women were more likely to prefer being on top during coitus to achieve vaginal orgasm (2.46, 1.21-4.98). They were also more likely to have an unaltered man as their most recent partner (1.74, 0.87-3.47).

Segment 15

The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07) These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of 'premature ejaculation'. The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and 'yet to formulate a preference', suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.

When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.

Discussion

Segment 16

These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed agaist the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].

Table 3 Comparison of responses for circumcised partners compared with normal partners

Item Odds ratio (95%CI)

Segment 17

Set 1: Irritablity 9.39 (4.65-18.95) Unappreciated 9.06 (4.67-17.57) Sexually violated 5.57 (2.80-11.10) Aggravated 7.51 (3.55-16.30) Out of sync 13.12 (6.17-27.90) Partner cared little about me 10.05 (5.33-18.94) Other than my vagina partner wouldn't know I was there 10.10 (4.57-22.30) 'Bitchy' 4.16 (1.96-8.82) 'Guilty' 4.52 (2.20-9.29) Having separate experiences 8.67 (4.76-15.80) Thrusting out of sync 7.31 (3.98-13.44) 'I was a masturbating object' 4.16 (2.31-7.33) Incomplete as a woman 7.07 (3.03-16.51) Set 2: distanced 10.22 (4.62-22.58) my mind wanders 7.22 (3.92-13.26) he's working awfully hard 34.19 (13.15-88.89) he's working hard for an orgasm 7.68 (3.88-15.21) disinterested 23.10 (8.07-66.13) my vagina doesn't like this 7.68 (3.88-15.21) pumping until it hurts me 17.62 (7.27-42.72) we're having separate experiences 4.08 (2.07-8.05) wide awake 'on alert' 2.87 (1.28-6.46) frustrated 10.15 (3.86-26.76) discomfort 11.41 (4.95-26.31) discontent 8.45 (3.81-18.75) Set 3 relaxed 0.19 (0.11-0.32) peace 0.22 (0.13-0.38) warmth 0.19 (0.11-0.38) mutual satisfaction 0.18 (0.11-0.31) complete as a woman 0.25 (0.15-0.42) afterglow 0.24 (0.12-0.34) 'gee that was great' 0.25 (0.15-0.42) 'what a lover' 0.10 (0.05-0.19)

As stated, circumcision removes 33-50% of the penile skin. With this skin missing, there is less tissue for the swollen corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum to slide against. Instead the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve pulls the vaginal secretions from the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine touch [20]. To compensate for the imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa, and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris.

Segment 18

Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.

Segment 19

The responses in Sets 1, 2 and 3 (Table 3) are more a measure of intimacy than physical differences in thrusting patterns. While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin [21]. Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.

When this information is compared with that collected by Laumann et al. [22] in the same period the women in the present survey had more lifetime partners (a median of 2 and 10 respectively). When the women with one partner in the former study were excluded (because having sexual experience with both a circumcised partner and an unaltered partner necessitates at least two partners), the women in the present survey were more likely to have had >4 partners (7.26, 4.46-11.83), >10 partners (5.83, 4.02-8.48), and >20 partners (4.16, 2.48-6.98). The high incidence of lifetime partners is a consequence of the inclusion criteria for the present study. If a woman were to randomly find partners among American sexually active males, 70-90% of whom are circumcised, 3-7 partners would be needed for a woman to have an even chance of having had both a circumcised and unaltered male partner. However, women do not procure their sexual partners randomly. Most sexual partners are found within a fairly close social network [22]. Likewise, circumcision does not occur randomly; within some of these networks, circumcision rates can approach 100%. For a woman to have a sexual partner with an anatomically complete penis involves having partners outside her immediate social network, which is uncommon. For these reasons, a median number of partners of 10 is not unexpected.

While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences. This selection bias may be compensated to the degree that each respondent acted as her own control, using her subjective criteria on both types of penises. The findings cannot be completely attributed to selection bias.

Segment 20

In asking women to evaluate their experience based on all of their lifetime sexual partners, there may be an element of recall bias, but the circumcision status of the most current sexual partner did not alter the findings. Because the surveys were not completed 'face-to-face', not all questions were completed by all respondents. There were also several other questions that were misunderstood by the respondents, but these were only a very small proportion of the respondents. Women who preferred vaginal orgasms had a strong preference for unaltered partners. Women who preferred circumcised partners were half as likely to prefer vaginal orgasms, but there were too few women preferring circumcised partners to make any valid statistical claims. This would suggest that the foreskin makes the most positive impact during vaginal intercourse.

Another weakness of the survey is its preoccupation with vaginal intercourse. Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men [5] suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying [20].

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision.