34 replies to this topic

[Guest]

As some days ago a regional court in Germany ruled that circumcision on non-consenting minors has to be judged as bodily harm and therefore not allowed for purely religious reasons I started to wonder about the US.

Most of the males in this forum are US men and therefore choose to be circumcised as opposed to men in Europe or most men in Canada. I read that it's done to lower the risk for sexually transmitted diseases (though the US appearently still have higher AIDS infection rates and number of AIDS death per capita than e.g. France or Germany).


So why do US men choose to circumcise? If it's a standard procedure there should be some very convincing reasongs for it, such as immunization of minors against various infections - though I don't know wheter circumcised men are immun against STD's; lower rates in Europe might be due to usage of condomes, which is dicouraged by many american politicians. Does it really lower the risk of premature death from various illnesses and needs to be done in infancy? Should men in other parts of the world consider it, too? It's really startling to see this practise such widespread in the US and confined to muslim and jewish communities in other parts of the world.

[niner]

I think very few American males choose to be circumcised. Their parents do the choosing. Until I was in my teens I just thought everyone was born that way. There is starting to be an anti-circumcision movement in America; I have a friend who chose not to circumcise her two sons. Later, she told me that if she had it to do over again, she'd circumcise them. Turns out that it's kind of a pain to keep them clean. I had a roommate in college who was uncircumcised. He asked his dad why he was that way, and his dad said "I didn't want your wife to feel cheated". Supposedly circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission, at least from female to male. Because of this, it's getting more popular in Africa. I don't think that enters into anyone's thinking in America. I think that in America, it's largely an aesthetic choice, along with a desire to "fit in". (No, not that way! Get your mind out of the gutter!)

[platypus]

The price to pay for "aesthetics" is high, as one would expect when the most sensitive part of the penis is amputeted away. Circumcision clearly causes sexual problems, both to the male and his partner.

[arska]

It might be dangerous:


Authors

Dan Bollinger^1
1 Boy's Health Advisory
Abstract


Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
http://www.mensstudi...2317adb12e&pi=3

[Guest]

I think very few American males choose to be circumcised. Their parents do the choosing. Until I was in my teens I just thought everyone was born that way. There is starting to be an anti-circumcision movement in America; I have a friend who chose not to circumcise her two sons. Later, she told me that if she had it to do over again, she'd circumcise them. Turns out that it's kind of a pain to keep them clean. I had a roommate in college who was uncircumcised. He asked his dad why he was that way, and his dad said "I didn't want your wife to feel cheated". Supposedly circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission, at least from female to male. Because of this, it's getting more popular in Africa. I don't think that enters into anyone's thinking in America. I think that in America, it's largely an aesthetic choice, along with a desire to "fit in". (No, not that way! Get your mind out of the gutter!)

hmm.... still its strange to see such a difference between the USA and the other western countries in this regard. I doubt that the US originally had it that widespread when the colonies were foundet. So it must have been a concious decision for whatever reason (probably not aesthetic ones) to circumcise every US boy, while it was never done outside muslim/jewish communitites e.g. in Germany or France. Which also means that there were fundamental differences in judgement between the US and rest of the world about the necessity of doing it. It might be that today its for aesthetic reasons, and therefore it is still done, after it was established (e.g. women in the US are accustomed to circumcised men and might find the unaltered ones "strange", boys in school in the showers might laugh at you the same way they laugh at circumcised boys in european schools etc.).

[nowayout]

\; I have a friend who chose not to circumcise her two sons. Later, she told me that if she had it to do over again, she'd circumcise them. Turns out that it's kind of a pain to keep them clean.

It certainly isn't a pain to keep clean at all, unless she is just ignorant about it, which is also quite possible, given the presumed lack of information she would have available from family members.

On the other hand, it is chilling to hear a mother pronounce such a throwaway remark about cutting off a sexually sensitive and functional part of the anatomy of their defenseless child as if it were nothing. Would she be so cavalier about it if there were a comparable surgical amputation available to supposedly keep her daughters' vaginas clean? As an uncircumcised male, by any civilized standard it would be an enormous violation, as bad as or even worse than rape, if someone were to forcibly circumcise me now, even if they could do it completely painlessly without my being conscious of it happening. Yet, in the U.S., perpetrating the exact same violence on a child is considered acceptable.

Edited by viveutvivas, 03 July 2012 - 01:49 AM.

[castrensis]

The American Academy of Pediatrics position statement is:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

Essentially, this is an aesthetic choice, not a medically necessary one. Newborns are not fully-realized people so the decision to circumcise or not falls to the parents, there can be no "violation of rights" for an organism that does not yet possess rights.

[maxwatt]

When my son was circumcised shortly after birth by the delivering doctor/moyle, the doctor said to my son: "Don't cry, you're going to have a lot of fun with this".

I agree there is but slight evidence in favor, and some against. There are also degrees of circumcision, from complete to partial removal of the foreskin. Partial seems to be gaining favor among those who choose the practice. Some of the factoids I have gleaned over the years:

A great many of the studies touting benefits for the practice have seemed to come from Muslim and other religious institutions with an axe to grind by promoting circumcision. Some things do seem to stand up to further examination:

Partners of circumcised men have a lower rate of cervical cancer. (citation needed)
Circumcised men tend to maintain sexual activity/ability to perform into old age better than do the uncircumcised. This may be due to the formation of paraphilias associated with sexual activity to make up for the reduced sensation. (Citation needed)

I can say that with the the reduced sensation being circumcised, as I grow older, it is difficult to come wearing any form of condom. Wet warmth is needed.
A lady friend told me that uncircumcised men taste better.
A professional of my acquaintance refused to go down on uncircumcised men. (I was never in need of her services, it was a casual acquaintance.)
Uncircumcised men have told me that it is indeed more difficult, and sometimes painful, to keep the little baby brother clean. It also seems to be easier for uncircumcised men to aim true, thus keeping the bathroom cleaner.

The near universal US practice of male circumcision appears to have arisen in the 1920's and thirties, when most babies began to be delivered by doctors rather than by midwives. The medical profession had decided the practice reduced venereal and other diseases, and recommended it for public health. As sexual pleasure was somewhat frowned on in the puritanical society of the time, and doctors were as revered as clergymen, few parents refused to go along.

[platypus]

Essentially, this is an aesthetic choice, not a medically necessary one. Newborns are not fully-realized people so the decision to circumcise or not falls to the parents, there can be no "violation of rights" for an organism that does not yet possess rights.

That's crazy. You're basically saying that parents can choose to subjecy their boys to (slight) genital mutilation if thay want to? The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse. It's not a "penis upgrade", but quite the contrary!

[nowayout]

The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse.

Correct. It is often forgotten that the foreskin is helpful for female sexual enjoyment also. For example, it tends to facilitate sex and reduce female discomfort in cases where there might not be sufficient natural lubrication.

[nowayout]

Essentially, this is an aesthetic choice, not a medically necessary one. Newborns are not fully-realized people so the decision to circumcise or not falls to the parents, there can be no "violation of rights" for an organism that does not yet possess rights.

Given that you think newborns have no rights, am I right in assuming you would have no problem either with female circumcision?

And no, it is not purely an aesthetic choice. The foreskin is functional. But even if you accept the dubious argument that parents should have the right to have plastic surgery performed on newborns who have no disfigurement to begin with, the aesthetic argument also fails once you realize that, when erect, in almost all cases an uncircumcised penis looks just like a circumcised penis except for the fact that the skin on a circumcised penis tends to be scarred and rougher. (And believe me, I have seen a good number of both. )

[castrensis]

Essentially, this is an aesthetic choice, not a medically necessary one. Newborns are not fully-realized people so the decision to circumcise or not falls to the parents, there can be no "violation of rights" for an organism that does not yet possess rights.

That's crazy. You're basically saying that parents can choose to subjecy their boys to (slight) genital mutilation if thay want to? The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse. It's not a "penis upgrade", but quite the contrary!

I would encourage you to cite some sources. As stated in the AAP position statement there has been no evidence of decreased sensation between uncircumcised males & circumcised males. As found in an issue of Urology from 2006, they state:

Conclusions. We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised an circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.

A few years earlier there was some work published in the same journal:

Conclusions. Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.

As to the "mechanics" of coitus, I'm not quite clear on what you mean. Mechanically, there's insertion, followed by pistoning, concluded with extraction. Not sure where the penis mechanically fails without a foreskin.

The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse.

Correct. It is often forgotten that the foreskin is helpful for female sexual enjoyment also. For example, it tends to facilitate sex and reduce female discomfort in cases where there might not be sufficient natural lubrication.

Source? I can't find anything that suggests the presence of a foreskin induces the excretion of lubricating fluids.

Essentially, this is an aesthetic choice, not a medically necessary one. Newborns are not fully-realized people so the decision to circumcise or not falls to the parents, there can be no "violation of rights" for an organism that does not yet possess rights.

Given that you think newborns have no rights, am I right in assuming you would have no problem either with female circumcision? And no, it is not purely an aesthetic choice. The foreskin is functional. But even if you accept the dubious argument that parents should have the right to have plastic surgery performed on newborns who have no disfigurement to begin with, the aesthetic argument also fails once you realize that, when erect, in almost all cases an uncircumcised penis looks just like a circumcised penis except for the fact that the skin on a circumcised penis tends to be scarred and rougher. (And believe me, I have seen a good number of both. )

Eh. Difficult to make parallels between female genital mutilation & male circumcision other than the fact that they both involve the surgical removal of a portion of the genitals. However, whereas one significantly hinders the function of the genitals, the other does not. However, I'm not opposed the extensive & painful scarification that occurs in some african tribes as a rite of passage into manhood. Neither am I opposed to any other cultural modification -- tattooing, piercing, amputation, tooth filing, &c. -- that does not significantly hinder function.

As to your anecdote regarding "scarred & rough" circumcised penises I have to disagree. I have seen thousands of people naked & have never once seen a "scarred & rough" penis as a result of circumcision.

[Guest]

The near universal US practice of male circumcision appears to have arisen in the 1920's and thirties, when most babies began to be delivered by doctors rather than by midwives. The medical profession had decided the practice reduced venereal and other diseases, and recommended it for public health. As sexual pleasure was somewhat frowned on in the puritanical society of the time, and doctors were as revered as clergymen, few parents refused to go along.

Thank's for the history. But considering that medical science even in the 1920s was already internationaly connected and given that US-doctors perceived circumcision as sufficiently important to perform it on virtually every boy it is very strange that other countries did not adopt it. I mean: they did it on every boy! It was handled like a compulsory vaccination (the latter ones are of course given to every child in Europe, too, against various childhood diseases).

This fundamental and farreaching difference in judgment is slightly startling. It appears to have been kind of a misjudgment, given that no other country adopted it in the 90 years since then (though I read that South Korea did it after the US administration introduced it after WW2).

To the sexuality point: I can't speak out of experience, but I could imagine, that male masturbation might be harder to achieve, given how it's commonly done in Europe - which as suggested might have been a not-so-explicit reason for promoting universal circumcision in the puritan US society 90 years ago instead of real medical benefits.

[maxwatt]

US medicine was in many ways quite isolated from European in the early 20th century. For instance, the practice of having interns perform 36 hour shifts on the theory it trained them to perform in emergencies with little sleep is and was unique to the US. It does not seem strange to me that the AMA danced to its own piper in the years before world war two. As to whether it was a miscalculation or not, hard to say. the question is whether the benefits I cited are outweighed by the negatives, which involve mainly loss of pleasure and risk of infection. And it is nice to know that as I grow older I am more likely to retain the ability to perform than if I had not been "mutilated" in the ancient ritual of a primitive desert-dwelling tribe. Come to think of it, cleanliness in an environment lacking water is likely an advantage.

[nowayout]

I would encourage you to cite some sources. As stated in the AAP position statement there has been no evidence of decreased sensation between uncircumcised males & circumcised males. As found in an issue of Urology from 2006, they state:

Conclusions. We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised an circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.

This is (1) bunk, as any uncircumcised guy can tell you - when the foreskin accidentally retracts, the friction against loose underwear can actually get quite uncomfortable, to the point of painful, when walking around. The fact that circumcised men never have this problem by definition means that the glans is desensitized. (2) They didn't compare sensation of the foreskin itself, for obvious reasons. When erect, the underside of the foreskin makes up a significant part of the length of the penis, and it is sensitive.

Conclusions. Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.

So there was a loss of sensation somewhere, if they found an increase in latency. This is not a good thing. In my experience, many circumcised men have difficulty getting to the point of ejaculation in a reasonable amount of time. But that is anyway not the point of sex - you should enjoy the journey, not just the end, and this research, which does imply some loss of sensation, tells me that there is probably less enjoyment in the case of circumcised men.

The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse.

Correct. It is often forgotten that the foreskin is helpful for female sexual enjoyment also. For example, it tends to facilitate sex and reduce female discomfort in cases where there might not be sufficient natural lubrication.

Source? I can't find anything that suggests the presence of a foreskin induces the excretion of lubricating fluids.

You misunderstand. The mechanics of the foreskin itself lets the entire skin covering of the penis slide back and forth over the penis. So the penis can move in and out largely without the skin moving, which helps in cases of insufficient lubrication (which is actually common). This is also why uncircumcised men do not need lubrication to masturbate, for example.

As to your anecdote regarding "scarred & rough" circumcised penises I have to disagree. I have seen thousands of people naked & have never once seen a "scarred & rough" penis as a result of circumcision.

The epithelium of the circumcised glans becomes cornified, and therefore has a texture entirely different to that of the natural penis.

Edited by viveutvivas, 04 July 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[castrensis]

I would encourage you to cite some sources. As stated in the AAP position statement there has been no evidence of decreased sensation between uncircumcised males & circumcised males. As found in an issue of Urology from 2006, they state:

Conclusions. We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised an circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.

This is (1) bunk, as any uncircumcised guy can tell you - when the foreskin accidentally retracts, the friction against loose underwear can actually get quite uncomfortable, to the point of painful, when walking around. The fact that circumcised men never have this problem by definition means that the glans is desensitized. (2) They didn't compare sensation of the foreskin itself, for obvious reasons. When erect, the underside of the foreskin makes up a significant part of the length of the penis, and it is sensitive.

(1) This is anecdote. I was circumcised at birth & only wear well-fitting briefs because too much movement is overly-stimulating to point of discomfort. This is the problem with anecdote, You share a story, I share a story & we still don't have any evidence. (2) I'm certain the study was aimed to address foreskin restoration zealots' claim that since they no longer have a turkey neck to cover their pecker head live is miserable, "Oh! What opportunities, what enjoyment out of life could I have had if my glans weren't desensitized!". Scientifically investigated, sex is qualitatively the same & quantitatively longer.

Conclusions. Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.

So there was a loss of sensation somewhere, if they found an increase in latency. This is not a good thing. In my experience, many circumcised men have difficulty getting to the point of ejaculation in a reasonable amount of time. But that is anyway not the point of sex - you should enjoy the journey, not just the end, and this research, which does imply some loss of sensation, tells me that there is probably less enjoyment in the case of circumcised men.

You see, I quoted this study previous to this one because "loss of sensation" could be a possible explanation for these results until you read the preceding study where they undertook rigorous testing & there was no discernible loss of sensation. So, probably not sensation, but maybe something else -- maybe they enjoyed it more so they made it last longer?

You misunderstand. The mechanics of the foreskin itself lets the entire skin covering of the penis slide back and forth over the penis. So the penis can move in and out largely without the skin moving, which helps in cases of insufficient lubrication (which is actually common). This is also why uncircumcised men do not need lubrication to masturbate, for example.

Do you think it possible that a shadowy cabal of personal lubricant manufacturers have conspired to make circumcision commonplace in order to ensure a growing customer base?

As to your anecdote regarding "scarred & rough" circumcised penises I have to disagree. I have seen thousands of people naked & have never once seen a "scarred & rough" penis as a result of circumcision.

The epithelium of the circumcised glans becomes cornified, and therefore has a texture entirely different to that of the natural penis.

The epithelium of the glans become keratinized anyhow, otherwise it would never separate from the foreskin & they'd be stuck together forever in an arranged marriage.

[nowayout]

Scientifically investigated, sex is qualitatively the same & quantitatively longer.

The quality is really impossible to compare scientifically, as it is subjective.

I repeat, what they compared was the sensitivity of the glans. They could not compare the sensitivity of the large part of the erect penis that is covered by retracted foreskin, for obvious reasons. That foreskin has many nerve endings, and so that part of the sensation is entirely missing in the case of a circumcised guy. The study you mentioned does not address that.

I don't believe foreskin restoration does as much as its proponents claim, by the way, since there is no way they can restore the nerves amputated with the foreskin.

You see, I quoted this study previous to this one because "loss of sensation" could be a possible explanation for these results until you read the preceding study where they undertook rigorous testing & there was no discernible loss of sensation. So, probably not sensation, but maybe something else -- maybe they enjoyed it more so they made it last longer?

As I mentioned above, the study comparing sensation does not prove what you seem to be claiming it does, unless I am misunderstanding your point.

Lasting longer can become a big problem for many guys who have difficulty getting to the point of orgasm. It is a common complaint in sex advice columns, for example, probably more so than premature ejaculation is. It can also be quite a painful problem for the person at the receiving end of penetration, trust me on this, when a guy needs lots and lots of friction, for a long time, to get to orgasm.

Funny enough, one of the reasons circumcision became popular in the puritanical America of the late 19th and first part of the 20th century was that it was supposed to reduce the "evil" of masturbation by making it less pleasurable. I doubt it worked.

The epithelium of the glans become keratinized anyhow, otherwise it would never separate from the foreskin & they'd be stuck together forever in an arranged marriage.

Separation is different from the cornification we are talking about here. Trust me on this, there is a very big difference in the quality of the skin - an uncircumcised glans is mucous membrane, with a texture similar to the inside of your cheek. Very different from what you would have, if you are like the circumcised guys I have known.

Edited by viveutvivas, 05 July 2012 - 02:32 AM.

[castrensis]

The quality is really impossible to compare scientifically, as it is subjective.

Seeing as it's subjective you ask people to quantify their experience of things. They used a questionnaire.

I repeat, what they compared was the sensitivity of the glans. They could not compare the sensitivity of the large part of the erect penis that is covered by retracted foreskin, for obvious reasons. That foreskin has many nerve endings, and so that part of the sensation is entirely missing in the case of a circumcised guy. The study you mentioned does not address that.

Yes, but it attempts to address overall sexual satisfaction of men both before & after circumcision & shows there is no statistically significant difference in their reports both pre & post. Yes, the foreskin may be packed full of nerve endings, but clearly it is not necessary, its amputation has no significant impact on the enjoyment derived from sex or the sensitivity of any other part of the penis other than that part which has been removed. If the foreskin were an essential sexual organ or contributed significantly to the sexual experience then I would expect to see the guys bemoaning their choice to amputate. Since they did not, we can infer that the foreskin doesn't contribute significantly to the sexual experience, save for perhaps inducing ejaculation.

The epithelium of the glans become keratinized anyhow, otherwise it would never separate from the foreskin & they'd be stuck together forever in an arranged marriage.

Separation is different from the cornification we are talking about here. Trust me on this, there is a very big difference in the quality of the skin - an uncircumcised glans is mucous membrane, with a texture similar to the inside of your cheek. Very different from what you would have, if you are like the circumcised guys I have known.

Nah, circumcized or uncircumcised it's the same skin. Yours is just kept in a little kangaroo pocket of mucous membrane. Pull it back, let it air out, you'll see.

[Brain_Ischemia]

I think Castrensis has it exactly right in the post just above this one.
 

I think very few American males choose to be circumcised. Their parents do the choosing.

Indeed. I LOL'ed at the OP's original statement.

For the record, I'll "come out" and say that I am not circumcised. My mother did not want me to be circumcised, so I wasn't. Nobody cares (well, she did apparently).
AFAIK, for sexual purposes I'd guess that one erect penis is as good as another (you can quote me on that). I'm confident that the vast majority of women around the world couldn't care less (indeed, most probably expect their partner's penis to be uncircumcised).

AFAIK, circumcision is as "barbaric" as getting your nipples pierced. Who cares? Yes, a baby is the one under the knife, but I personally think that parents who feel it's a religious obligation have a right to have it done to their children (and I'm an atheist!). Despite the loud protests of some, I'm not at all impressed by any evidence that the practice does any harm, psychological or otherwise, to infant males.

No, it's not the same as female gential mutilation. Frankly, I think hyperbolic comparisons from some of the more zealous foes of foreskin removal only serve to belittle what is a real, horrific, and indeed barbaric act committed against girls. Foreskin removal is not the same thing.

Edited by caliban, 17 April 2018 - 07:35 AM.
c

[nowayout]

Nah, circumcized or uncircumcised it's the same skin. Yours is just kept in a little kangaroo pocket of mucous membrane. Pull it back, let it air out, you'll see.

No, it is not. The uncircumcised glans itself is a mucosa. The circumcised glans isn't any longer in any meaningful sense. It is like the difference between the skin on the inside of your cheek and the skin on your forehead. The texture is very different to the touch. Trust a gay guy on this.

Also, here are studies disputing your claim of equal sensitivity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17378847

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

and

The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.

This one compared before and after circumcision sensitivity in the same persons:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/18481425

The [vibrotactile] glans penis perception sensitivity decreases after circumcision.

Reason for edit: fixed broken links.

Edited by rwac, 05 July 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[nowayout]

No, it's not the same as female gential mutilation. Frankly, I think hyperbolic comparisons from some of the more zealous foes of foreskin removal only serve to belittle what is a real, horrific, and indeed barbaric act committed against girls. Foreskin removal is not the same thing.

Yet even symbolic female "circumcisions", involving a simple pinprick, are banned in many Western countries. Male circumcision is much worse than that. People should at least be consistent in their hypocrisy.

And your female circumcision comparison is a straw man argument. Male circumcision does not have to be as bad as female circumcision to also be barbaric. You have the right to your belief that it is not, but when there are significant numbers of people who believe, like I do, that it is barbaric, authorities should err on the side of caution to protect the interests of the innocent and vulnerable by not allowing irreversible mutilations to be performed on children.

The religious freedom argument is also a straw man. Nobody is trying to prevent the voluntary circumcision of adults if they feel the need top do so for religious reasons. As for visiting your religious beliefs on the body of your infant, that is child abuse, pure and simple.

[castrensis]

Nah, circumcized or uncircumcised it's the same skin. Yours is just kept in a little kangaroo pocket of mucous membrane. Pull it back, let it air out, you'll see.

No, it is not. The uncircumcised glans itself is a mucosa. The circumcised glans isn't any longer in any meaningful sense. It is like the difference between the skin on the inside of your cheek and the skin on your forehead. The texture is very different to the touch. Trust a gay guy on this.

Took me some digging about in old articles but I finally found what I had read in a study comparing the transmissibility of HIV infection between circumcised & uncircumcised males that included a post-mortem examination of glans tissue, emphasis mine:

The uncircumcised penis consists of the penile shaft, glans, urethral meatus, inner and outer surface of the foreskin, and the frenulum, the thin band connecting the inner foreskin to the ventral aspect of the glans. A keratinised, stratified squamous epithelium covers the penile shaft and outer surface of the foreskin. This provides a protective barrier against HIV infection. In contrast, the inner mucosal surface of the foreskin is not keratinisedand is rich in Langerhans' cells, making it particularly susceptible to the virus. This is particularly important because during heterosexual intercourse the foreskin is pulled back down the shaft of the penis, and the whole inner surface of the foreskin is exposed to vaginal secretions, providing a large area where HIV transmission could take place.

There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not, but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised. In circumcised males only the distal penile urethra is lined with a mucosal epithelium. However, this is unlikely to be a common site of infection because it contains comparatively few Langerhans' cells.

Also, here are studies disputing your claim of equal sensitivity.

Yay, evidence! Boo, broken links.

[Brain_Ischemia]

Your partner's gender is irrelevant; I'm a guy like you and so are most of the rest of the people posting here. If we're going the route of anecdotes, then I can say as an uncircumcised man that the interior of the foreskin is no more erogenous than anywhere else besides the head of the penis.
 

Yet even symbolic female "circumcisions", involving a simple pinprick, are banned in many Western countries. Male circumcision is much worse than that. People should at least be consistent in their hypocrisy.

You call people hypocrites yet you fall back on subjective qualification.
"Much worse"...how exactly? By sheer volume of flesh excised?

Do you sincerely believe that an incision of the single most sensitive part of the female genitalia is the same as removal of foreskin?
 

Male circumcision does not have to be as bad as female circumcision to also be barbaric.

Of course. That strawman is a creation of the ethnocentric European legislators who rail as furiously against female circumcision as they do against male circumcision, foolishly equating the two time and time again.

In the first case, I would guess that much of the passionate advocacy started to gain traction around the time Europeans started to feel their countries were being saturated by Muslim immigrants. In the latter, a few decades' worth of a lack of geopolitical deference to Israel embolden legislators to pursue what they see as consistent application of the law.
 

You have the right to your belief that it is not, but when there are significant numbers of people who believe, like I do, that it is barbaric, authorities should err on the side of caution to protect the interests of the innocent and vulnerable by not allowing irreversible mutilations to be performed on children.

That's how democracy works, I suppose.

Edited by caliban, 17 April 2018 - 07:35 AM.
c

[nowayout]

Also, here are studies disputing your claim of equal sensitivity.

Yay, evidence! Boo, broken links.

These are links to pubmed that are perfectly functional.

[nowayout]

Do you sincerely believe that an incision of the single most sensitive part of the female genitalia is the same as removal of foreskin?

No, full male circumcision is of course much worse and much more painful than the pinprick symbolic stand-in that is sometimes performed instead of actual female circumcision. Yet the pinprick is banned and male circumcision is not.

[nowayout]

Took me some digging about in old articles but I finally found what I had read in a study comparing the transmissibility of HIV infection between circumcised & uncircumcised males that included a post-mortem examination of glans tissue, emphasis mine:

There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not, but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised.

Seven men, seriously?

You can bring up studies until you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they are different. Believe me, I have "examined" many more penises than seven. How many have you touched or licked? There is a very big difference in the texture of the skin.

[Brain_Ischemia]

No, full male circumcision is of course much worse and much more painful than the pinprick symbolic stand-in that is sometimes performed instead of actual female circumcision.

Of course, that's not actually apparent.

...I guess when the clitoris is pricked, the blood that must be visible for the procedure to be considered complete is just "symbolic" blood, right?

Maybe it's because you're gay, but I think it's necessary to point out that the clitoris is at least as sensitive as the head of the penis. In other words, it is more sensitive than the foreskin.

As far as the pain, why don't you round up some men who've gone through adult circumcision and some women who've had their clits pierced, and figure out which group experienced more pain? Better yet, see if you can get some quotes from babies...

EDIT:
Just so I'm clear...
Viveutvivas, I honestly respect your point of view on this. The only reason I checked out this thread was because (like I said) I am, in fact, uncircumcised. My mother was sympathetic to your point of view; she didn't want to hurt her baby.

I'm not religious, so I'd have no reason to want this procedure done to any son I had (scientific justifications are extremely flimsy) ...but I'd have absolutely no qualms about forcing him to undergo an immunization.

I think there is a fundamental difference between the target of female circumcision and male circumcision due to the sensitivity of the areas of the involved....but that doesn't mean I'm a supporter of male circumcision. I'm merely indifferent to the fact that a democratic society (ie the US) chooses to tolerate the practice. I'm equally indifferent the decisions of European legislators, but I strongly suspect that their motives are not purely born out of ethical concerns.

Since I actually have a foreskin, I just don't think that *not* having it would be as bad as you seem to think. My guess is that it's as essential as an earlobe. Not that I'd want to have either part cut off at this point...

Edited by Taurus Londoño, 06 July 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[castrensis]

Took me some digging about in old articles but I finally found what I had read in a study comparing the transmissibility of HIV infection between circumcised & uncircumcised males that included a post-mortem examination of glans tissue, emphasis mine:

There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not, but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised.

Seven men, seriously?

You can bring up studies until you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they are different. Believe me, I have "examined" many more penises than seven. How many have you touched or licked? There is a very big difference in the texture of the skin.

Probably more than you, given what I do for work. Just because they appear different doesn't mean they're substantially different. I suspect the observed difference in texture is due more to the warm moist environment - one's flush with goo, the other's dried out.

Also, here are studies disputing your claim of equal sensitivity.

Yay, evidence! Boo, broken links.

These are links to pubmed that are perfectly functional.

Looks like rwac fixed them. I especially liked Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, despite the source of funding. I concede that it may be an important sexual organ given the documented sensitivity of the tissue, but it doesn't address how it contributes to the sexual experience, although the pre & post circ you posted does. We need more studies! Thanks.

Edited by castrensis, 06 July 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[platypus]

That's crazy. You're basically saying that parents can choose to subjecy their boys to (slight) genital mutilation if thay want to? The foreskin is there for a reason and removing it changes the biomechanics of how the penis and vagina work together during intercourse. It's not a "penis upgrade", but quite the contrary!

I would encourage you to cite some sources.

Here we go: http://www.coloradon....org/sexual.php

As stated in the AAP position statement there has been no evidence of decreased sensation between uncircumcised males & circumcised males.

See above, circumcised males don't even possess the most sensitive parts anymore.

As to the "mechanics" of coitus, I'm not quite clear on what you mean. Mechanically, there's insertion, followed by pistoning, concluded with extraction. Not sure where the penis mechanically fails without a foreskin.

As explained by others in this thread, the foreskin slides around the penis during intercourse. Circumcised males are even forced to masturbate differently, which alone will have sexual repercussions (due to habituation to certain kinds of stimulation).

Edited by platypus, 06 July 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[platypus]

This is (1) bunk, as any uncircumcised guy can tell you - when the foreskin accidentally retracts, the friction against loose underwear can actually get quite uncomfortable, to the point of painful, when walking around. The fact that circumcised men never have this problem by definition means that the glans is desensitized.

The problem is not the desensitization of the glans, in my opinion, but the other sensitive parts that circumcised males do not possess. Also, an uncircumcised male can choose to keep the foreskin "retracted" and the glans exposed, unless the foreskin is very long.

So there was a loss of sensation somewhere, if they found an increase in latency. This is not a good thing. In my experience, many circumcised men have difficulty getting to the point of ejaculation in a reasonable amount of time. But that is anyway not the point of sex - you should enjoy the journey, not just the end, and this research, which does imply some loss of sensation, tells me that there is probably less enjoyment in the case of circumcised men.

My personal hypothesis is that circumcised men more often need fast and hard sex to get off, due to the absence of the foreskin and the masturbatory consequences that follow from circumcision. I also have a hunch that circumcised males more often dislike wearing condoms since they prevent them from feeling much. I wonder if this has been studied.