The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

I would like to point out that the difference in sensation is not limited to the male end of the equation.

Women who are the least bit sensitive (I.E. they may experience discomfort from friction at times during intercourse) will likely find men with a foreskin (or something resembling one) more comfortable. Discomfort like this is a non-trivial issue for many couples.

Although I agree with Loss Leader (or whoever said it) that the magnitude of orgasm is unchanged, I would assert that the quality is much different because of 1) knowing your partner is more comfortable and 2) being able to spend a longer time intimate together before either partner begins to experience frictional discomfort.
 
Loss Leader said:
Please remember that one of the conditions of the experiment that I proposed was that the subjects be asked to reach orgasm as fast as possible.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was no such condition. What you said was:

Ask a bunch of college students to masturbate and have them record their times, then ask them if they're circumcised or not. Crunch the data.
Click to expand...

Nothing there about being as fast as possible.

However, no matter, since you've now added the condition.
 
It really sounds like everyone is making the assumption that orgasm is just a matter of some time vs. friction formula. I have read the entire thread and don't remember the psychological part coming into the discussion. I cannot imagine anyone with any experience honestly believes it does not play a major role. I would bet that at least 75% is psychological, and the rest is purely physical. Why else would porn be so popular? So this pretty much negates any "experiment" based on speed alone to determine any relevance to C. Bo Derek in "10" comes to mind...:) vs Phyllis Diller.

ETA: And, oh yes, it seems like very few have considered the information posted concerning the impact upon the female anatomy of the male being circumcised.
 
Last edited:
My friend was uncut at birth, to give him the choice as an adult. He was glad that his parents respected him enough not to decide for him.
 
kellyb said:
The evidence is conflicting wrt Langerhans cells being the mechanism behind circumcision's effect on HIV.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/abs/nm1541.html

The evidence suggesting that active herpes sores assist in the transmission of HIV is well established, and both male and female circumcision would "work" to reduce that aspect.
Click to expand...
But just recently there was a study reporting that treating Herpes had no impact on HIV transmission. Call me when the dust settles. :rolleyes: I mean, the studies are interesting but until the evidence accumulates, the portal of entry actually being the foreskin is on the top of the differential.


kellyb said:
Male circumcision has also been shown to transmit HIV when done under unhygenic conditions, so you're also in the same boat there with both genders.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1047279706002651
Click to expand...
That was in the link I posted and I addressed it. In the case of the males, the overall decreased transmission outweighed the increased rate of transmission from the procedure. In females that has yet to be seen.
 
GreyICE said:
Okay, let me modify my statement then:

There is no evidence suggesting circumcision is a good idea outside of Africa.
....
Click to expand...
You have repeated your false statement yet again. You just dismiss the policy statement with the very thorough review of the literature done by the AAP which found some evidence.

I have no issue that you personally conclude the medical benefits are not of enough value to you to outweigh what you perceive as the downside.

Claiming there is no evidence is a false claim.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
My friend was uncut at birth, to give him the choice as an adult. He was glad that his parents respected him enough not to decide for him.
Click to expand...
So a parent who makes the decision believing they are preventing the risk of potentially severe UTIs in infancy don't respect their children?
 
Framing and propaganda seems to be the natural course of events when one's fundamentalist position is not universally accepted. If you can't argue on the evidence, then scream mutilation, amputation, disrespect, and whatever additional emotional labels you wish to throw at people who simply don't believe you without the evidence.

So, on to Ivor's evidence.... oh wait, The Daily Show is coming on. It'll have to wait. Briefly, I found the conclusion over-reaching. But to do it justice, I need to fully support that conclusion and that will take a few minutes.
 
Last edited:
Here's the link from Ivor extolling the harm to sexual sensation from circumcision.

The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

Here is the findings as noted in the abstract:
CONCLUSION
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
Click to expand...

Interesting they chose those highlights from the findings because here is the summary of the findings:
RESULTS
There were no significant differences, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
Click to expand...

In their own review of the previous literature they describe past studies "mostly done on neonatally circumcised males" with little differences found, and two studies on males who were circumcised as adults with inconclusive results.

I would say their own results are also pretty inconclusive if they were looking for harm. And one could assume that is the bias they started with considering they chose to not highlight all the results which showed no change.

The questionnaire doesn't have an option of describing level of difference in the questions which found the experience changed before and after circumcision. There is no information about the relationships so we don't know much about confounding variables like getting older, changing relationships with partners and so on. We don't know how long ago they were circumcised.

This is a pretty poor study as far as methodology goes. If the results showed consistent decreased sexual function across the board, then one might be more impressed with the harm in one's sexual experience from loss of foreskin despite the study's poor design. But the vast majority of the objective measurements were unchanged with circumcision.

The results are consistent with some affect from the circumcision. The results are not consistent with an overwhelmingly negative effect which supports the level of objection coming from the anti-circ activists.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
<snip>

If the results showed consistent decreased sexual function across the board...

<snip>
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling us what your standard of evidence is. Do you apply it to all the studies you look at, or just ones you don't like the results of?
 
skeptigirl said:
But the vast majority of the objective measurements were unchanged with circumcision.
Click to expand...

I don't now about anyone else, but the subjective seem to me to be very important in sex....

Anyhow, that's not really my argument. My main reason for opposing circumcision is that I think that it is wrong to permanently alter a child's body (and put him throught the pain and discomfort) unless there is evidence that it will benefit the health of that child significantly. I guess we just disagree about that, and you are happy with a potential slight benefit. It just comes down to how much weight we put on each side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom