Back in the '70s when I was in college, I had to read a book/bio from a retired hooker. Most of the book of course was about her life and experiences, but she did say she saw a consistent pattern where a penis that was circumcised from birth (not later on) had a larger glans and ridge than an uncut penis. Her theory was that the foreskin was binding. In her opinion, the large "helmet" (her words) was perfect for nailing the G spot, whereas the uncut cigar shaped penis was not nearly as effective.
Of course, many women find uncut penis unattractive and prefer circumcised, but has Swift ever mentioned this specifically or are we just concluding this from no particular evidence?
reply
share