A frequent reason guys cite for deciding to have their sons circumsized is that if he doesn't, the kid won't get any play, because American chicks love themselves a cleancut penis. [A lot of assumptions here, of course, but let's go with it.] And one of the reasons guys give for not cutting is that sexual sensastion is so much better when you're rocking a foreskin. What's a dad-to-be to do?
Fortunately, Slate's senior editor Emily Bazelon and "superintern Sonia Smith"--who went to college for four and two years [and counting! Go 'Heels!] respectively, and who are ably demonstrating that there are, in fact, bright career prospects for liberal arts majors--decided to lend a hand. Since last summer, they've been collecting accounts "from men who'd undergone the procedure as adults and experienced sex both ways. Women and men with secondhand comparative knowledge were also invited to weigh in. Soon there were hundreds of e-mails in my in-box, a surprising majority of them earnest and frank."
Their findings: for great sex, a foreskin doesn't matter. Except when it does, a little. And some guys miss it, except when they don't. So while I'm not sure you can think too much about the best thing for your son's foreskin, Slate's research shows that the real problem might be obsessing too much over your own.
Or Not To Snip? Slate's findings on circumcision and sex. [slate]
Previously: Slate's August '05 coverage of the circumcision and sex question
Other DT posts on circumcision; if size and staying power matter to you, "RE: Your Son's Penis" is the longest, and has gotten a lot of stimulating responses.