quote:Originally posted by twinky: [QUOTE]It's a complete no-brainer to me that the top side of the head of a circumcised penis is necessarily less sensitive than the top side of the head of an uncircumcised penis, and also that the ring of scar tissue is less sensitive than what was there before. Since there are plenty of other sensitive bits of penises that are not affected by circumcision, it's arguable as to whether it has any significant impact on overall sexual pleasure. I can certainly say that I derive lots of pleasure from sex. Nonetheless, a circumcised penis like mine is unquestionably "damaged goods," so to speak.
It's also a decision a male should be able to make for himself, not something that should be decided for him by his parents as an infant.
"Damaged goods." Dude, whatever problems you have in your life, and I suspect you have some with this self-image, they are NOT due to having a square inch or less flap of skin cut off of you however many years ago. Let it go.
As for the sensitivity, are your hands desensitized from enjoying holding hands? Are your lips desensitized from enjoying kissing? Sensitivity is not a binary all or nothing function.
Masters and Johnson did not find any difference between snipped or unsnipped men's sensations when evaluated by involuntary responses to stimulii.
There is a strong correlation between circumcision and UTI's. There is a stong correlation between circumcision and HPV, cervical cancer, and penile cancer. There is a mild link, when other environmental and genetic issues are accounted for, between circumcision and prostate cancer.
Also, whenever I have had sex, I almost always worried more about getting too much sensation too quickly than about getting too little sensation and lasting too long. If being clipped gives me an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get my partner where she needs to go, or to get there more than once, then that's just a bonus in my books. Then again, I also don't think selfishness in bed is a high-quality trait, personally. Some guys seem to have other views in that regard. However, all of the medical research that has so far been done does not support that assertion at all, and the delay of male orgasm -- if it exists at all -- is only a matter of seconds.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I believe that the foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 x 5 card. That's 15 square inches. Also, the risk factor for all those diseases is pretty small. As I understand it, we're talking about a risk rate of 1 percent in uncircumcised men and .5 percent in circumcised men.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Actually, I believe that the foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 x 5 card. That's 15 square inches. Also, the risk factor for all those diseases is pretty small. As I understand it, we're talking about a risk rate of 1 percent in uncircumcised men and .5 percent in circumcised men.
Since he has previously indicated he got the snip as an infant, I assumed he had not yet at that time achieved a size equivilent to that of a grown man. If he actually had, then color me very impressed.
And actually, the risk for some conditions (that I hadn't listed) is 0 with circumcision, since some are conditions that affect only the foreskin in the first place.
Yes, there are risks with circumcision, but there are also risks without. Decreased sexual performance or response (outside of any other factor such as infection) is not significant among those risks on either side of the equation from the data I have looked at online.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I want to get back into this, but I just got an email update from Jim Gaffigan, one of my favorite comedians.
The first line read as such:
My wife and recently had a son so we were forced to deal with that difficult circumcision question. Do we put our newborn son under a severe amount of unnecessary pain or do we have a child with an ugly penis? We went with the pain, cause we are ChristiansPosts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Damaged goods." Dude, whatever problems you have in your life, and I suspect you have some with this self-image, they are NOT due to having a square inch or less flap of skin cut off of you however many years ago. Let it go.
Do I sound worked up? 'cause I'm not. Look, I've got a scar on my left arm. My left arm is therefore unquestionably damaged goods. I've got one on the back of one knee, too. Is the damage in those cases significant? Nope. Does it affect my quality of life? Nope. Is it damage? Yup. I'm just calling a spade a spade, that's all. Like getting a tattoo or an ear piercing or -- as some people do -- custom scar or burn patterns.
quote:As for the sensitivity, are your hands desensitized from enjoying holding hands? Are your lips desensitized from enjoying kissing? Sensitivity is not a binary all or nothing function.
I never implied that it was. The fingertips on my left hand are certainly less sensitive because I play the guitar, but I chose to learn and I choose to keep playing. I didn't choose to be circumcised. Am I hung up on it? Well, no. But I'll certainly feel free to share my opinion when someone else brings the subject up. Why shouldn't I?
quote:Masters and Johnson did not find any difference between snipped or unsnipped men's sensations when evaluated by involuntary responses to stimulii.
Where did they test? How long had the snipped men been snipped? All of these factors are important.
quote:There is a strong correlation between circumcision and UTI's. There is a stong correlation between circumcision and HPV, cervical cancer, and penile cancer. There is a mild link, when other environmental and genetic issues are accounted for, between circumcision and prostate cancer.
Are there causal links in any of those cases? Certainly in the first few cases, the risk is incredibly low, as Jon Boy noted. By no means would I oppose a medically necessary circumcision.
quote:Also, whenever I have had sex, I almost always worried more about getting too much sensation too quickly than about getting too little sensation and lasting too long. If being clipped gives me an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get my partner where she needs to go, or to get there more than once, then that's just a bonus in my books.
Let me put this as delicately as I can, since this is a PG-13 forum: I don't have that problem.
quote: Then again, I also don't think selfishness in bed is a high-quality trait, personally.
Then we agree. It's give and take.
quote:Some guys seem to have other views in that regard.
Also, there's no particular need to be passive-aggressive about your insults.
quote:However, all of the medical research that has so far been done does not support that assertion at all, and the delay of male orgasm -- if it exists at all -- is only a matter of seconds.
I haven't said anything about orgasm. All I've said is that the top side of the head of a circumcised penis must be at least marginally less sensitive than that of an uncircumcised one, and that the scar tissue must also be less sensitive. That's it. If that weren't the case, I would be in constant pain as a circumcised male, every time my penis touched my underwear.
Does it mean there's a change in sexual pleasure experienced? I sure hope not, but it's by no means absolutely certain, as Verily stated it was.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Masters and Johnson tests were done in the 60's, and the cut guys had apparently always been cut, and the uncut guys, obviously, had always been uncut.
And though I've had a sometimes rough and tumble life, there's no part of me that's damaged goods....it's all distinctively and finely aged.
Like wine, or whiskey.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
By the way, here is something I'm glad I'll never have to worry about (taken from an anti 'genital mutilation' site): Frenulum breve. Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I haven't heard of any problem that goes to zero due to circumcision. Do you have anything to back that up? Preferably with some links to references?
posted
It really annoys me when people compare circumcision to FGM. It's not the same at all. FGM is much more involved and painful, and generally the purpose of it is to ensure that the woman doesn't enjoy sex so that she won't cheat on her husband. And since I understand that a lot of women can't experience orgasm without clitoral stimulation, it seems to me that it succeeds.
posted
As a circumcized male, I'm glad my parents did it when I was an infant. If I had to make the choice today for myself, I'd choose to not do it. But that is because I would not want to go through it as an adult. I would probably always wish it had been done for me as an infant.
My vote is to have it done.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon, if you look in the post right above yours, there's a link to an article regarding what amounts to a torn forskin. You can't tear what you ain't got, so I'd say the occurrance of that in circumsized fellas would be pretty solidly pegged at the zero mark.
There are other complications that can be caused by the presence of the foreskin, as well. Again, if there is no foreskin, these problems cannot be manifested.
And as for guys choosing to do it later in life, one issue regarding adult circumcision is that it is more traumatic and can require a month of recuperation. Infant boys don't have all of the functional uses for their man-junk, and thus it isn't nearly the same imposition. Not to mention the increased cost for an inpatient procedure. And, last but certainly not least, there is a much higher rate of erectile dysfunction for adults who are circumcized compared to men who were snipped as infants. The tallywacker (advanced medical term, that) undergoes significant changes during puberty, you see, so mucking around with the old fella after that is always a much riskier proposition than doing so before puberty.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I sure hope not, but it's by no means absolutely certain, as Verily stated it was.
I then revised my statement to say that it was not an absoulte certainly, but that there is a very low probability that this decreased sensitivty exists. So I'm not sure why you're still arguing with me, unless you are somehow convinced that there is a high probability that it exists, in which case, I demand evidence.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't the fact that some people, when they grow up, wish they hadn't had it done as an infant pose enough reason, all by itself, to wait and let each guy decide for himself?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem Tatiana is that the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy whose grown up and has to decide for himself.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Doesn't the fact that some people, when they grow up, wish they hadn't had it done as an infant pose enough reason, all by itself, to wait and let each guy decide for himself?
I think not, because it is a much riskier and painful procedure that has a longer recovery time than is the case for infants.
The thingamabob has only one function in young children, to excrete urine. That's it. After puberty the main function of that organ is to do most of a guy's thinking and cause almost all of the problems that he'll have to deal with the rest of his life. You're talking about two almost completely different organs. I'd probably suggest against getting it done as an adult for purely cosmetic reasons. If it's going to be done, best do it before puberty. Though obviously, a situation where it would have to go, it would have to go. That's a call for a real doctor to make, not some internet-junkie such as myself.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy
I can't agree with this statement. Just because an adult would remember it more DOES NOT mean that the infant feels it less. the-Somalian remembers his circumcision and that it
quote: hurts terribly
and he remembers that from when he was five. How would an 8 day old infant feel pain differently?
My husband is not circumcised and our children will not be. I do not believe the possible benefits outweigh the costs. For a more comprehensive discussion of this subject (an admittedly biased discussion) I suggest you visit http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44 . It is a whole forum on cirumcision.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy
I can't agree with this statement. Just because an adult would remember it more DOES NOT mean that the infant feels it less. the-Somalian remembers his circumcision and that it
quote: hurts terribly
and he remembers that from when he was five. How would an 8 day old infant feel pain differently?
Because the Somolian procedure did not include a local anesthetic. The procedure nowadays usually includes a local anesthetic. Also, to this day I can recall things from when I was 5. I have never met anyone who can recall anything from their first year.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it is ok to inflict pain as long as you don't remember it? I think that the memory of pain is not the issue, but that the pain is felt. IF you could make someone forget would it be ok to torture them? Is is ok to abuse children under a year of age because they won't remember the pain?
I am not saying that circumcision is child abuse or torture, but it is painful, less when anesthetic is used, but it will wear off before the baby is healed and the baby WILL feel pain, most likely the exact same severe pain that an adult would feel.
The pain issue is not the only reason not to circumcise a child. I merely feel that people sometimes forget that infants are people with the same nerve endings and feelings as you and me. What hurts as an adult will hurt an infant and it's something to remember.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: Medically there isn't any benefit to cut from my understanding.
Sorry if this got dealt with.... But there definetly ARE increased rates of infection, and the possible need for a PAINFUL circumsicion in later childhood or early adulthood. A friend had one, and I can tell you his parents regreted their decision not to have it done at birth
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems to me as though there's the possibility of it causing complications and maybe a more painful procedure later in life, it would be more worth it just to have it done.
But my father also had my sealants removed (i.e. scary ground off with a drill or something, while I was conscious) because a small percentage of them can leak and MAY POSSIBLY cause breast cancer.
posted
I don't know what pain my son felt, but I do know that he was gone from me less than 20 minutes, and brought back and placed in my arms sleeping peacefully and never seemed to have any trouble after that. I mean, yes I had to keep the area clean and put on antibiotic ointment, but it couldn't have been very traumatic or painful for him because he was comfortably sleeping minutes after it happened.
That was five years ago, if it matters, and the procedure was done in a hospital with anesthetic by my doctor.
The amount of pain he must have felt had to be insignificant, he cried and fussed more 20 minutes after receiving a shot as an infant than he did after his cirumcision. I would have to say that even on urinary tract infection would be more painful than what he endured that day so even if it only accomplishes that one thing - lowering the risk of a UTI it would be worth it in my book.
[ December 16, 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
