Skip to comments.Circumcision May Not Reduce Sensation
Posted on 08/03/2007 2:09:44 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
Controversial new research casts doubt on the long-held belief that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity for men who have undergone the procedure.
Circumcision, a procedure performed throughout history for reasons ranging from the fulfillment of a biblical covenant to a means of curbing masturbation has received both praise by those who tout its supposed medical benefits and scorn from those who claim it has traumatic aftereffects.
Now, in a Canadian study appearing in the most recent issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, researchers found that the glans, or head of the penis, is just as sensitive on a circumcised man as on an uncircumcised one.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
[A] recent study published in the British Journal of Urology, which showed uncircumcised men had four times more sensitivity, as a better measure.
Dr. Robert Van Howe, a pediatrician at Marquette General Hospital in Michigan and one of the author’s of the urology journal’s study, said that the findings in his study had more relevance because of the larger number of patients involved and the greater number of areas on the penis measured.
He urges parents not to circumcise their children, but to allow the children to make that decision when they reach age 18. At that point, he said, only three out of every 1,000 males elect to be circumcised.
But both Payne and Reinisch criticized the Van Howe’s study, which was funded by the anti-circumcision group the National Organization of Circumcision Information Research Centers, as biased.
“Scientific study must be conducted dispassionately and without bias. The motivation of this group is highly suspect,” said Payne.
Van Howe rejected the notion of bias in his study.
“The study was based on an objective finding,” he said. “There’s no way you can change what a person felt or didn’t feel.”
But Reinisch said researchers could very easily have affected data because it was apparent to researchers which men were circumcised and which were not. She also pointed to the fact that men in the Van Howe’s study were not aroused at the time of measurement as a possible source for the difference.
As for the failure to measure the foreskin’s sensitivity, Reinisch said that was irrelevant, as it rolls back from the glans during arousal.
“The foreskin’s job is to cover the penis and protect it,” she said. “Its job is not to be a part of the sensitivity.”
“Of course nerve endings are lost,” she said of circumcision. “The question is: Does it make any difference in satisfaction? In pleasure?”
Must have been a VERY slow news day.
Never “met” an uncircumcised man. Seen pics, that is all.
Uhh, what adult male is going to voluntarily undergo this procedure? It's much faster and easier medically and psychologically to perform this on an infant. I'm female and I cringe for any adult man who has to have this done.
Yeah, cuz it probably hurts like hell!
Can’t tell everyone how scared for life I have felt both physically and mentally, by having a circumcision that happened years before my earliest memory.
There’s an agenda here. I have no idea what it is other than that some people seem to be very upset that we seem to have adopted a Jewish norm.
In the days of the Israelites and their wandering through the desert, I believe this was a health issue. Today it could be argued that it no longer is. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps it is and we don’t realize it.
I don’t see any harm in the practice whatsoever. I’m sure I’ll hear from some who are convinced that there is and think I need to be.
At such time as you have occasion to "meet" one, the differences may not be so obvious. 'Nuff said!
It provides increased protection against HIV, HPV and penile cancer. I think it still is a health issue, although I respect the right of parents to make whatever decision they'd like.
at least you haven’t been called a castrating b***h on previous threads, lol.
Yes, but why is it necessary?
Just asking, is all
How would you know? It's not something that just pops up in normal, everday conversation. And unless you hang out where men get nekid (like the Y or gym class in secondary school), or you're a RR, your chances of discovering a fully intact male are slim or none.
The only other uncircumsized people I know, are the males in my family. I would strongly discourage checking out non-member members.
I guess most of us guys will never know, eh?
Great News!!! By the way, how does one sign up for a study like that?
That’s pretty much my take on it also. I am somewhat bothered by a push in either direction at this point. Those against it have been working overtime.
Is it license to be a little slut if you immunize your girl, but ‘natural’ if you circumcise your boy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.