Pedrosxxx saidI think it's much better to be natural, especially for sexual sensitivity. I heard from someone that circumcision was originally done as a religious practice to make it harder for boys to masturbate. And I've jerked off enough cut guys to know that it's quite a bit more difficult for them than for me. If it's true then that's horrible and just goes to show that we should put an end to this male genital mutilation.
You are 100% correct. Uncut cocks are superior in 'performance' to cut cocks. A couple of facts:
1) Cut guys have had all the parts of the cock that are there for sexual pleasure removed (the ridged band at the end of the foreskin, the frenulum) and the removal of the foreskin itself means cut guys can't experience the gliding action on the head of their cock. Using a hand just doesn't compare.
2) Because the head of the cock is supposed to be covered, it naturally is supposed to be smooth, moist and sensitive. Cut guys, especially those cut at birth, lose almost all sensitivity on the head of their cock by their mid 30s/40s. That's because of keratinization, which is the way the head of the cock protects itself because it is exposed to the air and rubbing on clothing 24 / 7 / 365.
Now, before all you cut guys start jumping on me saying that the head of your cock is fine in the sensitivity department, consider this. You walk around all day with the head of your cock rubbing against your clothing and you don't even notice it. My uncut friends on here... if YOU did that, wouldn't it be extremely uncomfortable? Yes!
So... cut guys are truly at a disadvantage right out of the box sexually, because they have had so many important parts of their cock removed, and by the time they reach middle age, they are pretty much cock-dead.
It's truly a shame that in the USA, almost all baby boys are still cut at birth, thus producing a nation of sexually crippled men generation after generation.