There was an interesting article in the SF Chronicle this past Sunday detailing some claims by Kristen O'Hara that uncircumcised penises help create more pleasure for women during Penis-In-Vagina sex, in part because the foreskin helps to cushion the ridge on the glans of the penis, which can be 'like a harpoon'. Apparently, O'Hara is likely full of crap (according to people like Susie Bright), and her methods aren't (yet?) scientific at all, but anecdotal. I've got no problem with anecdotal evidence, actually, as long as it's not the only evidence one is offering up. It can buttress science or sometimes act as counterexamples to method. But standalone, it often ain't enough.
The most interesting thing about this article, however, is that it was in the Sunday Chronicle, in the Style section, with the headline: "A CUT BELOW: Uncovering the truth about women's pleasure". So, um, if we're really uncovering the truth about women's pleasure here, why is this in Style? Well, clothes are pleasurable, aren't they?