Circumcision Does Not Dull Sensitivity: Study
Tue Apr 29,12:47 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Circumcised men appear to have the same degree of penis sensitivity as men who are uncircumcised, a new study suggests -- in a finding that will probably just add fuel to the fire of a controversial subject debated for years.
The findings are to be presented Tuesday by Dr. Arnold Melman at a meeting of the American Urological Society in Chicago.
"We demonstrated that there are no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men in both patients with and without erectile dysfunction," said Melman in a prepared statement.
"This study does not address whether or not patients should be circumcised, however, it merely served to test sensitivity," added Melman, who is with Montefiore Medical Center in New York City.
The current policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that the potential medical benefits of male circumcision are not substantial enough to recommend that all boys become circumcised.
Around three-quarters of American-born men in the U.S. are circumcised, although that number appears to be declining rapidly in some regions of the country.
Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and is known to help prevent urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and penile cancer, a rare condition. In the minor surgical operation, the foreskin is removed, which can help prevent bacteria from growing under the fold of skin.
On the other hand, many parents feel it inflicts unnecessary pain, and in many countries circumcision is rarely performed. In recent years, the issue has been highly controversial with vocal opponents to the procedure likening it to mutilation.
Still, few studies have aimed to investigate the differences in penile sensitivity, if any, between the two groups.
In the current investigation, Melman's team evaluated the penile sensitivity among 43 uncircumcised men and 36 circumcised men through a variety of methods, including vibration, pressure, spatial perception and warm and cold thermal thresholds. Both groups contained men with and without erectile dysfunction.
In uncircumcised men, the foreskin was pulled back during the sensitivity testing procedures.
The investigators found no statistically significant differences in sensitivity between the two groups of men, regardless of whether they had erectile dysfunction.
In other findings, the researchers found that white men were 25 times as likely and African-American men were eight times as likely as Hispanics to be circumcised.
I hadn't heard that circumcision helped prevent STDs. Which ones? How?
There does seem to be conflicting medical research and opinion out there (now there's a surprise!).
Some of the research I have looked at says quite the opposite:
[QUOTE=Quote ]
Lie Number Two: Ten percent of the intact (not circumcised) boys will need circumcision later on in their lives.
Truth: Fewer than one percent of intact European men ever get this treatment for any medical condition whatsoever, yet they have a lower penile cancer rate than American men. European men also have lower rates of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. [/QUOTE]
The whole circumcision argument (for and against) is unfortunately flawed by personal beliefs and self-serving "research". Personally, after my own reading on the matter, I am of the view that in most cases circumcision is not only unnecessary, but indeed cruel and barbaric.
Whatever you decide, don't rely on any one source of information; even some of the otherwise normally independent and knowledgable information sources can be tainted with self-interest propoganda on this subject (like doctors who recommend circumcision and get paid for performing it. Yes, there are a few unscrupulous doctors out there!)
Having said that, there are occasions when partial circumcision is necessary and most doctors are very ethical. Just be informed and don't take anything you read on this subject for granted.
Little Evidence of Circumcision's Benefit, Says Pediatric Group
The United States' largest group of pediatricians is calling for an end to the routine circumcision of newborn boys, saying the procedure offers minimal medical benefits.
The American Academy of Pediatricians' announcement reverses a nearly century-old practice. For decades, American physicians have claimed removing the foreskin from the head of the penis reduced the risk of infections.
More recent research, however, has questioned the benefit of the procedure. Uncircumcised boys, the research shows, have only a slightly higher rate of infection and disease than circumcised boys. Now the AAP has declared in its March issue of the journal Pediatrics, "What medical benefits [circumcision] does have do not warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision."
"It appears most people can lead a healthy life without having to have it done," Dr. Jack Swanson, a member of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision, tells WebMD. "All the studies did show a benefit to having circumcision, but the benefits were not great."
According to the AAP, circumcision has been around since the Egyptian dynasties as a method to maintain penile hygiene. In the United States, about 1.2 million newborn boys are circumcised each year. In analyzing numerous studies from around the world, the AAP found that even though circumcision has been touted to lower the risk of urinary tract infections, the chances of an uncircumcised boy developing such an infection was low.
The AAP found only one in 100 uncircumcised boys was likely to develop a urinary tract infection compared with one in 1,000 circumcised boys. In a study appearing in the Dec. 5 issue of The Lancet, a team of Canadian researchers found after analyzing about 30,000 boys, uncircumcised boys were only 3.7 times more likely to develop a urinary tract infection. Earlier research suggested that boys were 39 times more likely to get such an infection.
Uncircumcised males also were three times more likely to develop cancer in the penis compared with a circumcised man, but fewer than 10 men in 1 million develop this extremely rare cancer, the AAP says. Circumcision did not appear to influence the risk of developing sexually transmitted diseases. The AAP says sexual behavior is more likely to determine if a man contracts a STD than circumcision status.
"The medical debate is over; there are no medical reasons to justify it," says Dr. George Denniston, president of the international organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Denniston says removing the foreskin to prevent infection is like "cutting off the ear to reduce ear infections. It's just absurd."
Should parents decide to have their son undergo circumcision, the AAP says that the child should receive topical painkillers. The pediatric group's analysis found newborns circumcised without anesthesia experience pain and stress during the procedure. This was determined by measuring their heart rate, blood pressure and increased oxygen intake.
Parents also are being advised to consider cultural, religious and ethnic traditions when deciding whether or not to circumcise. Dr. Swanson says parents should "know all the facts about possible medical reasons and risks, and try to make a decisions based on all the facts."
Source: WebMD
When I was pregnant with my son we decided we would not mutilate him by circumsizing him. There are no greater risks for stds or infections. You just have to teach them to pull back the skin and wash it. Like you would teach a girl to wash her vagina. America is the only country in the world that routinely circumsizes boys.
I wish i could have my foreskin back!
Clearly the issues of STDs/HIV infections and Circumcision is based more on their testing programs then actual data on protection from infection. If it were true, don't you think every hospital would be telling parents NOT to go thru with Circumcision? Of course!
Now, regarding the overall policy, IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!
Being "uncut" is the way we were brought into this world, and quite frankly, I find an uncircumcisized penis much more attractive! But, thats me!
oddly enough I have never seen an uncircumsized penis other than my sons. But never a mans. My husband is circumsized and he says the same thing Rawbob "I want my skin back"
I just dont think the human body should so drasticly altered, especialy since its some one elses body you are making decisions for. When my son is older and he wants it done...fine. But thats his decision.
true, however i like being cercumcised and am sure as hell glad my parents had it done when i was a few weeks old! If they didn't have it done when i was young and i wanted it done now in my twenties there is no way i could go through with it. Sort of bad both ways then if the son wished it hadn't been done. People making decisions about someone elses body dealing with circumcision is similar to to a women having an abortion, just on a more extreme level. I think if the father is happy with the way he his penis is then he should choose it for his son b/c there is no perfect way to decide. I think for my son (assuming i have one) i would lean towards circumcision but have no qualms with being uncut. I think it will probably be a "game time decision" after recieving advice from our doctor.
[QUOTE=Quote (iexcite @ June 20 2003,15:22)]I think if the father is happy with the way he his penis is then he should choose it for his son b/c there is no perfect way to decide. I think for my son (assuming i have one) i would lean towards circumcision but have no qualms with being uncut. I think it will probably be a "game time decision" after recieving advice from our doctor.[/QUOTE]
The perfect way to decide is to weigh up the facts and decide what is best for our sons - what we have as fathers is totally irrelevant!
If I had a toe amputated in an accident, would I get my son's done too just to make him look like me?? Hmmm...
I know you were probably using a figure of speech - but this is not a game - circumcision is for keeps.
Whatever parents decide, it should be based on waht is best for the child!
I believe it was the Hebrews who first began to practice it. It is a custom born of their religion.
As I understand it, the males penis generates a substance under the foreskin called smegma. It can infect the female reprodutive tract with unprotected sex and lead to disease and death.
I've read of prostitutes interviews where they insist that they bathe the client's penis with soap and water before allowing sex to take place...just to protect themselves. Most are rather militant about it as they say that if they allow the men to wash they will just splash water on their penis and say it is clean. Likely the men don't understant what the women have at risk.
The practice of circumcision in the USA seems to increased after the Civil War with babies. It was thought that if it was done at birth the children wouldn't remember it. I don't remember mine. I don't think I was even concious until I was about three years old. I think most of this stuff followes the popular trend at the time. I know my mom was wanting me to have what she thought was the best available in the line of early childhood medical care.
Along in the feminist times there was a reemergence of women in the nursing occupations who went on talk shows to
denounce the practice of circumcision in the USA. In the same interviews they were talking about female circumcision in
Africa....as is mentioned earlier in this theread. Thus if the practice of circumcision is ended it will end everywhere I guess. It is a nice notion at least. But the female circumcision in Africa was removing the clitorus if I understand it correctly. Also other parts of girls genetalia.
My great grandmother told me when I was little that she and her immediate sister had the same mother but her mother died shortly after she was born. She had an older sister and little brother each by different mothers. She added that child birth
was very dangerous then and many women died in their childbearing years. Today I wonder if the uncircumcised husbands accounted for much of it.
So, I don't place any value judgements on it, and try not to be swayed by whatever is "PC" at the time. As I undestand it
it was for the sexual health of the male and female. Good grandmothers are a vital asset to a family, but first women have to live long enough to become a grandmother, by living beyond their child bearing years.
I honestly don't know if the smegma leads to uterine or ovarian infections or not. I'm not a medical professional or gynocologist.
eDJ
I think that those who want to circumcise there children should go and watch a few procedures performed first. I expect it’s not nice, and slips of the scalpel mean that a handful of babies every year have to undergo gender reassignment after losing their penis. That is not scare mongering that is fact.
experimenter
A small hospital or a large hospital, your son is still going to be strapped naked and defenceless to a board and caused a great amount of pain.
There are lots of things that we used to do in the name of tradition or culture. Abraham of the Old Testament slaughtered a lamb in offering to the Lord; we don’t slaughter lambs now, times change.
I am afraid that I cannot empathise with people who do it for traditional reasons, Female genital mutilation (female circumcision) in Gambia is a traditional practice, but that doesn’t make it right.
i personnally dont plan to circumscize any male kids i might have, will have to talk with my partner, but that's not an issue right now... im in agreeance that it is an old custom that serves no purpose today, but i respect those who wish to do it. I have watched a couple of circumscisions being done while i was a nursing student, and it really is not pleasant to see :- /
One of my best guy friends is not circumscized and he says he's happy that way, hasn't run into problems by "looking different" : )
Granted there may not be any medical benefits to being circumcized, but for many people (including me) it has more to do with your religion. If my husband and I had had a boy, we would have had him circumcized, there is no question. We live in a relatively small town where the doctors are like your best friends. I can't imagine they would treat babies the way they would in larger hospitals. I have had some experience with larger hospitals, and you get treated with indifference (that was just my experience), but around here, it's like the doctor is a very close friend.
he he. Shake it.
sorry, that was the only description that came to mind. lol.
[QUOTE=Quote (anne @ July 13 2004,20:53)]I can't stand when i have been with a man whos not circumsized. It has smelled of urine even after he showered and it's gross to give head to.[/QUOTE]
i've never had that problem.
maybe he was never taught to properly cleanse himself? there's a difference between showering and cleansing.
i recently had anal with my guy and after we were done, the first thing he did was go over to the sink and get the soap and water and scrub himself down there, making sure to get all around it and pull any skin back that had done gone back over the end and cleanse there as well.
so that would be why my first thought as to why maybe yours didn't cleanse right or something. i dunno.
---
to go to lilly's response..
i've personally never seen a circumsized one...so i'm sure once i do, it will look odd to me, but that doesn't mean i'll like it any less. it's kinda like boobs for most guys...as long as it's there... lol.
as for the embarassing thing...i'm sure it won't be the most comfortable thing to have people pick on you for it because yea, kids are cruel. but if earlier in life someone taught him that it was ok to be different down there, he wouldn't have the problem.
maybe that should be one of the lessons they learn when they're taught they have to "shake it".
Well I've given head to an uncircumsized penis and it did not smell at all. But I know he was very clean. He was raised European and must have been taught how to keep it clean.
And I'm SURE that is has nothing to do with size since he was about 9 inches long. Woah nelly!
ha ha ha
But generally I only see circumsized ones and they do not bother me either way. If I had a son, I guess I would discuss it with my husband and doctor and decide what we think would be best.
Do you think an American boy would become emberassed later in life if his penis looked different from the other boys in the locker room showers? You know kids can be cruel. And if something looks different, look out!
I believe in circumcision. I can't stand when i have been with a man whos not circumsized. It has smelled of urine even after he showered and it's gross to give head to.
I don't care - I will always think circumcision is the only way I'd go. i would have my son done if I had one.
i guess that has to do w/ sensitivity.
w/ an uncircumsized guy, the head is used to being in hiding. otherwise, its just on the outside rubbing up against his underwear, etc. and probably over years and years loses a little sensitivity.
I personally believe,t thorugh experience this is, that a circumcised man is much harder to pleasure than one who is not!
[QUOTE=Quote (therhcpguy @ July 10 2004,16:32)]is it true that when u have ya skin chopped off ur dick can grow much bigger than if u were not circumsized[/QUOTE]
NO.
what a colorful question lol.
no i don't think it matters either way.
as in the foreskin isn't holding your penis back from growing.
i've never heard that before, but to go with demon, no. your foreskin isn't holding you back from growing.
my guy is not cirumcised, he's pretty much around 7.5 to 8"...so it certainly didn't stop him from growing.
is it true that when u have ya skin chopped off ur dick can grow much bigger than if u were not circumsized
personally im glad i was circumsized...dont ask me why i just think it is a little more clean and easier to clean than it would be if i wasnt circumsized...no offense to anyone who isnt thats just my opinion.
-Word
If u dont need it done dont do it, only for medical reasons but i dont think religious or social ones are correct. i mean its only a bit of skin!
Circumcision comes to our society from the Old Testament in the Bible. It was originally a Jewish custom to show devotion to God.
As I said before, I feel this-as with a lot of the old restrictions- has out-lived its usefulness. Like not eating certain foods such as pork and seafood. When the restriction was put in place, there were no refrigerators. Seafood, unless very fresh, can kill you. So can improperly cooked pork. Well at that time, bathing and personal hygiene wasn't what it is now. An unclean foreskin can cause many problem. Now, however, we know this and know the precautions to take.
I'm not familiar with the exact reason why circumcision was 'installed' into our society (America), or anywhere else in the world. I know it's a religious matter, but other than that I'm clueless.
However, I am circumsised. For the longest time I had no knowledge of it. I thought that this, how my penis looked, was how all penises were supposed to be; naturally. I'm 19, and sadly only learned about circumsission a few years ago, and that I'm missing something I was born with.
But, as I don't know enough about circumsission to disagree or agree with it (aside from the conditions in which it's performed; I don't agree with them, and think they should be immediately changed for the better), I can't say weither or not I'm glad or upset that I'm circumsised.
So, since I can't rightly do anything about it, aside from stretch-techniques, I'm stuck the way I am. What I want to know is, does a circumsised penis have fewer, or less-responsive nerves than an uncircumsised penis? I'd like to know if I'm missing out or not. I would 'guess' that my nerves are dulled because the head (or phallous, right?) has no protective skin, so it's constantly being brisked inside my boxers and pants. But that's only a guess. (I'd also guess, if that is true, that if I were to have my skin stretched to form a protective layer around my head, that the nerves would regenerate, or become more responsive. Again, just a guess).
I'm still a virgin on every sexual account. I did read the study about penis stimulation, but I rarely trust any single study off the bat.
Hey guys,
I agree with the anti-circumsizers....I did a lot of studying and research on circumcision in classes through nursing school because I have worked in labour and delivery areas and done medical ethics (of which circumcision is a hot topic) but I also have a son myself.
My whole thing with circumcision is not necessarily the act itself, I can understand both sides of the argument for wanting or not wanting it. My problem is with how the circumcision is done.
In most cases, the family waits in the other room, or in their room if still in the hospital. This little child is taken to a room where a doctor and a nurse strap him to a board with no clothing on so the atmosphere is cold and not overly comforting.
Some doctors use a local block for some pain control, and others don't use anything from the old belief that it is okay to cause pain to a baby because either there nerves are not totally developed or they will have no memory of the event. Well, the first thought has been proven wrong, and I still wouldn't want to be put into a painful situation even if I wasn't going to remember it later because you have to live through it at the time.
And personally as a professional, I could never assist with a circumcision because I just don't feel they are done in humane ways where the baby feels like they are in a safe atmosphere.
And even now, my son is four, he may need to have a circumcision because his foreskin isn't retracting. However, I still don't regret not getting it done. At least now if he has to have a corrective circumcision, he will have a general anesthetic and pain killers to keep him comfortable during his recovery.
So there's my rant!
Well... If I ever have a son there is no way in hell that I will let any sharp thing near his tool!!!
I was never circumcised and to tell the truth I never saw anyone with a circumcised penis trough all my long years in school so I have no idea how it looks like... then again, I lived most my life in mexico where the only people who has it done are jews or follows some other religion like that, and almost 99% of Mexico's population follow cristian religions (hell, I dont know the statistics, but a very high percentage are catholics).
I have to say I think I would have enjoyed being uncircumcised. I feel this is a practice which has definitely out-lived its usefulness.
From what I've read:
While its possible to restore the foreskin through stretching, its a slow process that takes a while to see any real results, and threre are a missing parts (a band of tissue that helps pull the foreskin closed when the penis is flacid, and a piece of tissue under the glans that helps pull the foreskin up - don't remember the medical names of these) that can't be replaced. So it can never match the "real thing." But again from what I've read, guys who have done the restoration say that the difference is amazing.
I am not going to have any son of mine circumsized. If, when he is an adult, he wishes to have the procedure done I will support him in his decision. I could not put my son through that unnecessary pain. They strap those poor babies down to a board and slice their penis! There is just something wrong with that. There aren't any medical reasons to have it done. When my daughter was born should I have had the doctor perfom surgery on her labia so that it could look the same as mine? We all look different. Oh yeah, one of my girls has red hair, I wonder if I should dye it blond like mine.... j/k
A couple questions:
[QUOTE=Quote ]If they didn't have it done when i was young and i wanted it done now in my twenties there is no way i could go through with it.[/QUOTE]
Why would you put your infant son through something that you, as a man, wouldn't do to yourself?
[QUOTE=Quote ]Sort of bad both ways then if the son wished it hadn't been done.[/QUOTE]
How can the son get his foreskin back when he is an adult? One way you give your son a choice, the other you make it for him and he just has to deal with it.
[QUOTE=Quote (sexykitty @ Sep. 04 2003,11:32)]Why would you put your infant son through something that you, as a man, wouldn't do to yourself?[/QUOTE]
Actually, an infant does not go through the same experience as an adult man during circumcision--an infant goes through sometheing worse. In infancy, most boys have a membrane connecting the foreskin to the head of the penis similar to the membrane connecting your fingernails to your fingers. Before a baby's foreskin can be removed, it is torn away from the head, breaking the membrane. Most adults lack this membrane, so circumcision is a quicker and simpler procedure for men than for boys.
On the other hand, circumcision may not be as irreversable as many people say. I have heard of a procedure for restoring foreskins. I believe it involves stretching the remaining skin until it covers the head again, but I don't know much else about it. Does anyone else have any information on this procedure?