Of the 16 gay men who wrote in about sex with circumcised and intact partners, 11 prefer intact, three prefer circumcised, and two are ambivalent. Of the 87 women who wrote in, 43 preferred intact, 36 preferred circumcised, and eight were ambivalent. Here are a few readers' comments:

From a gay man:
I have to say, as a gay man I have not met a single man who has been circumcised who does not in some way feel "cheated."

From another gay man:
People's sensitivity, it seems, varies widely, whether they're cut or not, so it's very hard to say what effect circumcision would ultimately have on one's sensitivity. Of course, any problems of aesthetics or function of the foreskin would be impossible to foresee at birth, so I'm pretty undecided on the issue, but tend to lean toward thinking that it's probably better not to make unnecessary, irreversible actions. I certainly feel a little resentful at what I've never known.

From a woman:
Having had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men I prefer the former. They are cleaner and smell better. … Have you EVER seen a hygiene ad for men?

From Lori:
I have had over thirty lovers, of whom only four were "natural." They, however, stand out in my memories like supernova against a backdrop of ordinary stars.

From Amanda:
Why does it matter if men have optimal sexual pleasure? They're obviously getting enough that it's a driving force in most of their lives. If they were any more into it, would that really be a good thing? To me, worrying that a lack of foreskin has diminished sexual pleasure is like worrying that having burned my tongue as a child has diminished my sense of taste. Even if it's true, which it may well be, I still love food almost to excess, so what's the real damage?