The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Moochie]

That goes both ways, doesn't it? How can people claim that there is some loss of the magical sexual pleasure that comes with a foreskin if they had it chopped off when they were two days old?

Um, are you answering for Loss Leader now? My questions were directed to him.

Plus, you'll have to explain why there are circumcised premature ejaculators, if there's so much loss of sensitivity.

That's someone else's statement, not mine.


M.

 

[TheDaver]

Not really... it is the mostly useless extra skin of the penis.

Right, and my toes are the mostly useless appendages at the ends of my feet.

No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.

Could you at least put a little effort into your straw men?

Plus, you'll have to explain why there are circumcised premature ejaculators, if there's so much loss of sensitivity.

So it’s impossible to be a premature ejaculator if you’re circumcized?

 

[JoeEllison]

Um, are you answering for Loss Leader now? My questions were directed to him.

That's someone else's statement, not mine.


M.

So, you have no answers. Not surprising.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm not so sure. Hope this has not already been posted:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

IvortheEngineer and I went over this article a long, long time ago.

It reduces to this: there were only a few studies cited in the entire paper that had anything whatsoever to say about reduced sexual function or pleasure in circumcised males. All but one had to do only with adult circumcision. The other one was a very poorly designed survey of, to be charitable, sluts. There is absolutely no properly designed study in that paper that shows that infant circumcision leads to sexual disfunction or loss of pleasure.

And, of course, this is not exactly a coherent review of the medical literature. It is an essay on an anti-circumcision website designed to highlight whatever negative press it can find about circumcision.

Whatever silly claims about biology and nerve endings anyone cares to make, this fact remain unchanged: despite millions of cases to work with all over the world, there is no properly-designed study that shows that circumcised men enjoy any less robust sex lives than uncircumcised men, that they have any higher incidence of sexual disfunction, that they take any longer to finish the sex act, or that they have any less enjoyment of sex.

 

[Fiona]

The other one was a very poorly designed survey of, to be charitable, sluts.

Difficult to see the "charity" there, Loss Leader. I am not disputing your statements about how the survey was designed - I do not know and I do not care because I think the whole argument is silly- but if you wanted to get good information about this subject who better to ask than "sluts" ?. I am sorry you have chosen to use this word in this way

 

[Loss Leader]

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x

This article, "The psychological impact of circumcision", states in its conclusion that there is strong evidence showing that circumcision in infanthood is psychologically damaging, and that it induces behavioural changes.

You have selectively quoted this article in an attempt to shore up your point when, in fact, the article goes to great lengths to reaffirm what I have already said.

While the author does indicate that circumcision causes behavioral changes in infants, he admits that he is unable to track this to any behavioral changes in adolescence or adulthood. In fact, he candidly admits that he has no competent data on the subject:

Without published studies, current knowledge of men's feelings about their circumcision is generally based on reports from self-selected men who have contacted the Circumcision Resource Center (CRC) and other circumcision information organizations [44]. The feelings reported generally include anger, sense of loss, shame, sense of having been victimized and violated, fear, distrust, grief, and jealousy of intact men.
The overwhelming majority of these men were circumcised as newborn infants. The memory of this event is not in their conscious awareness. Consequently, the connection between present feelings and circumcision may not be clear.

Even the self-selected complainants who wander into the field of view of the author cannot definitively connect circumcision with their psychological problems. And, of course, the author does not mention how small a percentage of circumcised men this is (although he does go to lengths to explain away why more men might not be complaining).

In all, it does not provide any evidence of any sexual disfunction or loss of pleasure from infant circumcision. Why? Because no such evidence exists.

 

[Moochie]

So, you have no answers. Not surprising.

 

[Babbylonian]

Ah, I remember the first time I found out that I might have been unnecessarily disfigured and sexually crippled by my parents' choice to be circumcised. It was when I was sitting with my mom as she was watching an episode of "Oprah" on the subject and she asked me, "Do you think I ruined your sex life by having you circumcised?"

I can assure you that I experienced far more trauma from that question than I could possibly have experienced from circumcision.

 

[Olowkow]

A very interesting article on The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
Again from the CIRP library, while they have a bias, it seems like the information is believable. Much of it is just common sense.

I thought this quote was particularly a propos:

When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it.

I'm sure there is "another point of view" to be considered, but I guess I am swayed mostly by the intuitive physics of the point. It is what I had in mind in an earlier post, but could not find "proper prose" to express it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

IIRC, the oldest know function of circumcision was to humiliate Jewish males. Other cultures use it as a rite-of-passage into adulthood. Muslims typically circumcise their boys between the ages of 4 to 15. Western cultures adopted male circumcision after medical doctors promoted it as a cure for various conditions, including masturbation. What is fascinating is that western doctors also tried to promote milder forms of what we now call FGM to prevent girls from masturbating, but for some reason this procedure did not catch the public's imagination.

As for the medical benefits, there aren't many. The most significant (in the West) is the reduction in incidence of UTI, which occurs in about 1% of uncircumcised males and 0.1% of circumcised males. UTI's are treatable with antibiotics. Both circumcision and treatment for UTI are painful for infants. In both cases the pain will not be remembered.

Why do doctors perform non-medically indicated circumcisions (often without proper pain relief) on children and parents have their boys and/or girls circumcised?

Check out Zimbardo's Prison Experiment, Milgram's Obedience to Authority studies and Asch's Conformity experiment.

 

[Henners]

The research described in this article appears to be insane.

Thank you for the liberal use of red ink. Normally, I find green to be much more fun.

In response to your perceptive comments I will naturally be cancelling my Economist subscription post haste.

I mean, the very idea...

 

[Henners]

No, he's saying stupid and hateful things, and avoiding reality. The reality is that there's a difference between circumcision and mutilation, and conflating the two is insulting to just about everyone involved, including the victims of mutilation.

I agree completely.

No-one in history has ever died from botched circumcision, and so conflating the two is insulting.

Quite.

And rubbish.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Or had their penis malformed and turned useless etc.

Fiona I'm impressed with your ability to evaluate and I think you've come down on the correct side. To those presenting evidence, thanks. I wasn't able to get much traction in the other thread.

Joe, I think doth protest too much.

 

[Cainkane1]

I don't think infants should be circumsized because they are unable to decide if thats what they want. I was circumsized as a new born baby and I'm not happy because the decison was made without me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Given the position of the genitals in the somatosensory map in the brain, I wonder if more circumcised than uncircumcised men have orgasmic feet/toes? I.e. "phantom" foreskins?

 

[Olowkow]

I was genuinely amazed to find how many infant deaths have occurred once I began looking. The list is seemingly endless. Here is just one.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/7/789-a

Dr. George Denniston, a preventive medicine specialist from the University of Washington in Seattle and spokesperson for Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC, faculty.washington.edu/gcd /DOC/), described the Aug. 22 death of the Penticton boy, apparently from bleeding-related complications, as "tragic and unnecessary. The only good that could possibly emerge is that more parents and physicians will now think twice before proceeding," he said.

Especially the deaths in "ritual" operations due to bleeding, shock, infection, all kinds of risks. It is just crazy as far as I'm concerned. This whole discussion just reminds me of the religion debates, which I am not real interested in.

 

[TheDaver]

The reality is that there's a difference between circumcision and mutilation, and conflating the two is insulting to just about everyone involved, including the victims of mutilation.

Wrong. Look up “mutilation” in a dictionary sometime. Circumcision absolutely meets the definition.

You know what I think? I think you’re prejudiced, and you’re projecting that prejudice. And you have a lot of nerve to call anybody else’s arguments insulting when you’re relying entirely on appeals and personal attacks.

See, you're a perfect example of the over-emotion, anti-logical thinking that populates most of these threads. […] There's a deep sense of ridiculousness in comparing circumcision to mutilation... ridiculousness, and dishonesty, and something worse. It is as though you think everyone else is stupid enough to stop arguing with you if you make that ugliest of false comparisons.

Here's an idea: stop misusing a horrible tragedy to make a rhetorical point about a harmless medical procedure.

Agreed. Have you seen those restoration devices they came out with?

Yeah, I have... funny stuff there! Of course, the guys using them sound sad and pathetic, from what I've heard in a couple of different interviews. Usually, it seems like people who feel generally insecure about their manhood have an overwhelming focus on their junk. Those are the same guys who blame their general insecurity on penis size as well. They seem to think that changing their genitals will make their whole life better.

rather stupid comparisons that people have made in this thread.

it is foolish beyond rational belief to call it that.

...according to a fringe nutball group?

I have a foreskin. […] It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.

That's nice, and I'm sure it makes you feel very special. Some real common sense would lead you to possibly not tell someone who has a foreskin that he's wrong about his own experience with it. I mean, as long as we're applying common sense and all.

tl;dr? If you don’t have anything nice to say, shut your hole.

 

[Marcus]

An obvious and very important consideration, especially on the wedding night.

So here is a case where the foreskin reduces sensitivity, thus preventing premature ejaculation.

Off topic aside: How do you include in your reply someone's quote? This would be clearer if I could include his quote.

 

[Marcus]

tl;dr? If you don’t have anything nice to say, shut your hole.

Why? You certainily don't seem any nicer, I don't see how that is relevant anyway.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, when one side of the issue degenerates into two people who are busy calling names and insulting people, that side needs to step back and take a good long look at their motivations.

Do I think the 'foreskin is essential to sexual pleasure' people are woo? Yes. It doesn't appear to be essential to mine, although obviously I have no basis for comparison.

Do I think people need to stop defending a weird, potentially painful procedure, that has a small but noticeable risk of complications. The AMA specifically does not recommend this procedure. It has a complication rate of 0.06% and a death rate of 1/500,000, and is carried out for no particular reason.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html

That strikes me as pretty much indefensibly retarded. How many infants does a dumb procedure with no medical purpose have to kill before it is too many?

LossLeader and JoeEllison, you are acting like we have to defend the practice to you. That is not the case. You are making a positive claim that cutting off part of the human body is defensible and logical. You have to prove that claim to us.