New Study -- Circumcision and Sensitivity

[Yorkie]

Tuesday 20th March 2007
A study published in the April 2007 edition of of BJU International claims that it "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men."

The study, which was carried out in the San Francisco Bay area of California, tested 159 subject males with Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-tent sensory evaluators. The study found that the most sensitive part of the penis on non-circumcised males is at the tip of the foreskin, an area which is always removed if a male is circumcised.

The study also found that the glans penis in circumcised males is significantly less sensitive to fine touch than in intact males. The five most sensitive areas are found only on the non-circumcised penis.

George C. Denniston, M,D., MPH, President of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, commented, "This new study provided further evidence of the permanent and irreversible lifelong injury of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and raises grave ethical questions regarding the continued performance of child circumcision. We call upon the American Academy of Pediatrics to defend children from this practice."

"The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, looked at a group of 40 men, half of them circumcised. Using sensory testing, the men were monitored at two points on the penis and the forearm while viewing erotic films. Thermal imaging was used to measure sexual arousal."


So this study ignored the five most sensitive parts of the penis because half the guys didn't have them anymore.
It's just more propaganda from the pro-circumcision mob.

 

[B_Guy Love]

I did some of that "uncircumsizing" stuff for a while, where you tape your penis skin to make it cover your head. After about a month of that, the sensitivity in my penis increased by about 200%.

 

[SexyFront]

Sensation is part of my concern. Visually, when I look at what's mine, I see a penis that was once whole, but now isn't. Why did they take away something that shows who I am?

 

[B_Italian1]

Circumcision doesn't reduce sensation: study - Yahoo! News


Can we get comments from men who got cut as teens or adults who have experienced both pre and post sex?

I was cut shortly after birth, so I can't compare, but I know a few guys that had circumcisions in their 20's and 30's and they say they have more sensation now with the extra skin gone. Of course they were a little sore at first, and it took a while to heal, but once healed they claim they are fine. There are also different styles of circumcision now. You can have various amounts of skin removed, from a little to a lot. There was no choice like that when I was a baby, so I have no extra skin at all and haven't encountered any problems.

 

[B_Italian1]

Sensation is part of my concern. Visually, when I look at what's mine, I see a penis that was once whole, but now isn't. Why did they take away something that shows who I am?

I hate when guys get down on themselves just because they were circumcised. A little bit of skin was removed--it's as simple as that. You still have the same size; still have the same amount of inches. And you can still enjoy sex; some say it's even better. The only guys who know the difference are those who had sex before being cut and after being cut. The anti cicumcision movement is doing a hell of a job in making guys feel inferior. What's worse than male circumcision is female circumcision. They have no sensation at all after that procedure.

 

[danerain]

"The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, looked at a group of 40 men, half of them circumcised. Using sensory testing, the men were monitored at two points on the penis and the forearm while viewing erotic films. Thermal imaging was used to measure sexual arousal."


So this study ignored the five most sensitive parts of the penis because half the guys didn't have them anymore.
It's just more propaganda from the pro-circumcision mob.

*swoon*

 

[Charles Finn]

the point is the ones that had their dick cut as adults made the choice.
when you take away part of the penis without ones consent is just plain wrong

 

[chico8]

I hate when guys get down on themselves just because they were circumcised. A little bit of skin was removed--it's as simple as that. You still have the same size; still have the same amount of inches. And you can still enjoy sex; some say it's even better. The only guys who know the difference are those who had sex before being cut and after being cut. The anti cicumcision movement is doing a hell of a job in making guys feel inferior. What's worse than male circumcision is female circumcision. They have no sensation at all after that procedure.

Sorry, but any time you remove tissue, you're going to lose mass. When you lose mass you end up with a smaller dick. That's all there is to it and claiming other wise is just stupid.

You just went on and on about different types of male circ and yet claim that all types of female circ are the same when it's simply not true. Do some research before you start making silly, misinformed claims.

As far as those who were cut as adults, I have to question those who claim the sex is better. If they got cut for social reasons they pretty much have to say it's better, don't they.

 

[danerain]

As far as those who were cut as adults, I have to question those who claim the sex is better. If they got cut for social reasons they pretty much have to say it's better, don't they.

That's something that I have noticed too. Guys who had medical problems (their foreskins were messed up to begin with) and guys who had social reasons (nothing with their dicks but the people around them tells them another story) for getting cut alway seem to say it's so much better. The Medical reasons guys are going to say it's better because whatever was wrong with their dicks to begin with has been "taken care of." And the guys that have social reason will say it's better because the people around them expect them to do so.

But guys that have it done on the whim of a doctor, not really thinking about it, or not having a choice, always seem to say that they liked being intact better.

Hmmm

P.s. I like being intact better.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

*Have we gotten off-topic?*That's not my point. Even if being cut is better, it would still be a decision that the owner/operator of the dick should make. I know there are more "worthy" causes such as world hunger but many of those have Hollywood big-asses et al campaigning for them. Not many speak for today's infant boys. I want future men make their own cut/intact decisions ... as you did.

Note to all: Look at which side was the first to use the word "mutilation" in this thread.

I think that decision should ultimately rest with the parents, not you or me. Just like vaccinations, breast feeding or other health related issues. Of course you have the right to persuade people one way or another, just like I do, but in the end, the child isn't ours and it's not our decision to make.

And surely this can't be the first time you have seen the term mutilation linked to circumcision. The anti-circs use it quite frequently.

 

[spaox]

I'm uncut and pretty damn sensitive. Even too sensitive to have oral sex performed on me 95% of the time. My brother got cut and said it felt less sensitive. I guess there is no simple answer.

But I disagree with the arguments to do it without consent. I would be super pissed if my mom had done it to me. I have thought about doing it but have never had a problem so what's the point?

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

You don't own a child therefore you have no right to make a decision he can't undo about elective surgery. We have to choose a school for him, we have to discipline him in some way, we have to teach him values of some sort, those are all things we have to do, we don't have to cut part of his dick off, that's a choice that only he has the right to make.

 

[SteveHd]

I think that decision should ultimately rest with the parents, not you or me. ...

You and I have reached a deadlock on that point ... predictable.

Just like vaccinations, breast feeding or other health related issues.

No it isn't like those. "Routine" means it's done for non-indicated reasons. Vaccinations moreover don't leave lasting damage.

And surely this can't be the first time you have seen the term mutilation linked to circumcision. The anti-circs use it quite frequently.

When my side uses that word we often get slammed. In this thread your side used it first so it was appropriate to point that out. Speaking of impact words, your side was the first to use hate in this thread: http://www.lpsg.org/940820-post25.html ... I can hardly wait to see your side's next "first" might be.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

You and I have reached a deadlock on that point ... predictable.No it isn't like those. "Routine" means it's done for non-indicated reasons. Vaccinations moreover don't leave lasting damage.When my side uses that word we often get slammed. In this thread your side used it first so it was appropriate to point that out. Speaking of impact words, your side was the first to use hate in this thread: http://www.lpsg.org/940820-post25.html ... I can hardly wait to see your side's next "first" might be.

I beg to differ. Some people believe that the mercury (thimerosol, or something like that) used in vaccinations can indeed cause lasting damage. Again, I'd leave the final decision up to the parents, not me (or you, for that matter).

As for the use of the term "hate". I think you are pulling words out of context again to make something sound more incendiary than intended. And you are good at it. I think he meant to say he hates certain attitudes, not people. In anycase, I wasn't the author so I'll leave it at that. I'm not responsible for everything posted on this thread, nor are you. I would not expect you to defend a statement from someone else just because he's "on your side". (Just like the next post)

 

[B_Heft2]

Circumcision is absolutely a crime, that's how it has felt to me ever since I figured it all (at about 12 or 13, no one tells you about it as a boy in the U.S., it's kept as some untalked about secret) and learned that the line on my cock is from a scalpel. One very big "f#ck you" to the bastard that cut me without my consent. Being circumcised feels like being a victim of sexual mutilation, abuse, rape, except that there is no recourse for you as there are for others who suffer these kind of crimes, in fact, your very status as a victim is in question for many people. Men's psyche are screwed up by it. Heck, the two things you trust most DID it to you, your parents and a doctor. I say anyone who wants to argue in favor of circumcision is part of the sickness in humanity.

 

[Lampwick]

I beg to differ. Some people believe that the mercury (thimerosol, or something like that) used in vaccinations can indeed cause lasting damage. Again, I'd leave the final decision up to the parents, not me (or you, for that matter).

Good point, so let's extend your analogy.

First, I would hope that we could agree that decisions should be made on the basis of best medical knowledge, not best medical "belief". If it was demonstrated to medical certainty that thimerosal caused more medical damage than was prevented by the vaccinations, I would expect medical science to do something other than continuing to use thimerosal. And, in fact, apparently thimerosal is being phased out.

So, with infant circumcision, if one is making the decision on a medical basis, presumably it would be done because there are more problems being prevented than the circumcision is causing. And circumcision does inflict undeniable problems. First, you are causing a surgical wound. Second, there are complications from circumcision. And that's ignoring the possible negative effects later in life.

Reduction in urinary tract infections is commonly cited as a reason for infant circumcision, but according to AMA statistics cited on the Wikipedia page on circumcision, “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI…One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition."

There are legitimate medical reasons to circumcise infants, but in other countries where infant circumcision is done primarily for medical reasons, the rate of infant circumcision is dramatically lower than that of the United States, in some cases less than 2 %.

As the Hippocratic oath says, 'first do no harm', remember?

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

Good point, so let's extend your analogy.

First, I would hope that we could agree that decisions should be made on the basis of best medical knowledge, not best medical "belief". If it was demonstrated to medical certainty that thimerosal caused more medical damage than was prevented by the vaccinations, I would expect medical science to do something other than continuing to use thimerosal. And, in fact, apparently thimerosal is being phased out.

So, with infant circumcision, if one is making the decision on a medical basis, presumably it would be done because there are more problems being prevented than the circumcision is causing. And circumcision does inflict undeniable problems. First, you are causing a surgical wound. Second, there are complications from circumcision. And that's ignoring the possible negative effects later in life.

Reduction in urinary tract infections is commonly cited as a reason for infant circumcision, but according to AMA statistics cited on the Wikipedia page on circumcision, “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI…One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition."

There are legitimate medical reasons to circumcise infants, but in other countries where infant circumcision is done primarily for medical reasons, the rate of infant circumcision is dramatically lower than that of the United States, in some cases less than 2 %.

As the Hippocratic oath says, 'first do no harm', remember?

First, thank you for maintaining a civil tone in your reply.

My analogy to vaccinations was not to debate the safety of thimerosal. I really don't know how safe it is. Regardless of medical knowledge (or beliefs) some parents may still feel that they are not safe. I still maintain that those types of decisions should be up to the individual parents in the end.

You mention that circumcision does inflict undeniable problems. True enough if it's done incorrectly. But I could make the same case for not circumcising. And I'm not just talking about urinary tract infections. From the age of 13 to 35, I had to deal with chronic fungal infections every summer. Please don't tell me it was from lack of hygene. Showering twice a day didn't help. Using Tinactin cream (for athelets foot fungus) helped, but would you want to smear that stuff on your penis every day for two weeks at a time? (Just try getting someone to go down on you with that stuff on.) Finally I had a circ done at the age of 35 and it was liberating. Maybe I was lucky, but I have not experienced a single negative effect from loosing that foreskin. Even so, I'm not advocating mandatory infant circumcision. It's not an easy decision. I'm just saying let the parents decide.

 

[Dave NoCal]

And it was YOUR ADULT DECISION. I'm glad you have found it to be liberating. That says nothing about non-medical decisions to amputate parts of babies bodies to suit parental and/or physician preference.

 

[ganja4me]

I'm just saying let the parents decide.

The problem is, it isn't the parents body. Unless there is a medical reason behind it the decision should be left up to the kid when he gets older. The parents don't know if the kid is going to be pissed that he lost the part of his body and had no say in it. If there are no physical problems then there is no reason a parent shouldn't be able to wait and see what their kid thinks about the idea.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

Circumcision seems like child abuse to me. If the parents themselves cut off any other part of the children's body, would that be okay too? It is their son after all. But because a doctor does it its somehow okay?

There was a boy in Canada who had his entire penis burnt off by a botched circumcision. He was raised as a girl but he still at his core felt male and had male hormones. He ended up commiting suicide.

If this happens to even one more person its WRONG. All that trauma for cosmetic, aesthetic reasons? Fuck that. If that happened to my son I would kill myself because I couldn't live with the guilt. But luckily I will never have my children circumcised because a foreskin works fine and has done for thousands of years. If it ain't broke don't fix it! Or break it...