Either way they still fit nicely in the bun
It's been noted that circumcision has potential health benefits that include a slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in young boys, penile cancer, and certain sexually transmitted diseases. But one statistic that's not touted quite as often is that all of these problems are uncommon (for instance, only about 1% of all boys will have a UTI), so lowering the risk of an atypical problem isn't a huge benefit.
In addition, an uncircumcised penis is easier to care for and keep clean, so improved hygiene is not a basis for routine circumcisions either. While circumcision is a common procedure in this country, it isn’t without risk. It can be so painful that many pediatricians advise using nerve blocks as well as a local anesthetic. Other risks include excess bleeding, infection, adverse reactions to the anesthesia, disrupted breathing, and a poor aesthetic result.Opponents of circumcision claim that removing the foreskin decreases the amount of sexual pleasure a grown man experiences, although studies haven’t been definitive. "All mammals have foreskin," says George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, director of the nonprofit group Doctors Against Circumcision. "It's blasphemy to say we should take it off." The AAP, a collective of doctors who specialize in child health issues, concluded in 1999 that both the benefits and risks of circumcision are very small. Based on their research, the AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.
And if you’re curious about the style of penis females prefer, several informal studies (of the Cosmo magazine variety so take it with a massive grain of salt) have shown that women do exhibit a slight to significant preference for the circumcised look. Some of the women said they preferred circumcised penises simply because they’d had encounters with uncircumcised penises that weren’t kept clean or had accumulated lint from underwear. But these factors are within the individual’s control, and with proper hygiene, needn’t be an issue. Much in the same way some men favor a particular breast size, women also have their bodily preferences, but they don’t tend to list either genitalia style as a strong turnoff.
When I published Health Plans Cut Circumcision, an article explaining how Medicaid had eliminated coverage of circumcision, the message board was ignited with comments from readers strongly opposed to the procedure itself. As this article neared completion, I noticed a message board comment that deserved inclusion. While most circumcisions carry minimal risk, one reader reminded us that these risks aren't to be taken lightly. "Personally I was circumcised after birth," Wesley wrote, "for no good reason and had my frenulum and all the inner foreskin removed, with the scar right behind the glans and just for good measure, the doc decided to make the cut uneven and did not bother to stitch the wound up, so the seam in the middle of the shaft, that goes all the way up the penis and ends with the frenulum in a normal penis, healed incorrectly kind of skew, so that the seam is on the far left side, just under my glans. I do not have much sensitivity in my penis because of this circumcision and it badly affects my sex life when I struggle to achieve orgasm with my wife. I am now trying to restore my foreskin to cover my glans and gain some sensitivity back by allowing my glans to become a bit more moist and protected. There have been a lot of positive results from men who have fully restored their foreskins, so it is worth trying for me. However, I will never get back what was taken from me fully (to view the full comment, see Health Plans Cut Circumcision)."
The bottom line? Perhaps it’s time to reconsider circumcision, and if you are thinking about having your child circumcised, make sure you’ve reviewed all the facts. Don’t simply opt for circumcision because you’re afraid your son will resent you when the teen years hit. Once those angry teen hormones start pumping through his body, he’ll hate his penis until the precise moment it makes a girl sigh. And after that? Whether he’s a crewneck or turtleneck, he’ll love his penis. And my fellow females will love it, too. Promise.
What are your thoughts about circumcision? Share them below.
You might also enjoy these:
Comments
If someone cuts off a female prepuce, we call it genital mutilation, so why is it ok to cut off a male prepuce? Shouldn't be the one who gets to decide? It's his body after all.
You might also want to check out the following (this site won't let me post the links, but you can look them up):
Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
Pro circ people say that the sexual pleasure studies haven’t been definitive, but this is not correct. The real sensory studies show the most sensitive parts are taken by circumcision. No one contests the point that over 10,000 nerve endins are removed by the cut.
One issue is the most sensitive part of the cut man is the scar and many studies test the parts in common (one cant test a cut mans missing nerve endings). For example, one Canadian researcher compared the parts in common and showed that when errect the glans was similar in touch senitivity cut or natural. This is due to the fact that the glans is not very touch sensitive (it is more pressure and temperature sensitive). Also the glans goes numb a bit upon errection. The cut man simply is missing over 10,000 fine touch nerve endings. Also, ED is about not getting an errection and the extra nerves help get an errection.
Other studies ask men if their penis works OK. These get bogus results as most men say their penis is fine. The objective tests show the most sensitive parts are removed along with fine touch nerve endings. The parts removed have many more nerve endings than the clitoris.
As many people in the US (over 3/4 ?) don't have these nerve endings, it is difficult to understand. It is like having finger tips or lips removed. It is not just skin.
There are many myths.
An Asian study noted that circumcised men had a higher premature ejaculation probem, probably because the most sensitive part (the scar) gives false signals to the brain. Men get ED at a younger age after losing the sensory function. A must is to consider sexual health and why ever mess with the most sensitive a part of the genitals?
A real fact is that the chance of the baby getting MRSA (staph) from the circumcsion in a hospiital is HIGHER than the chance of getting HIV through ones whole life. Both ratees are low. The chance of a boy losing the most sensitive part from circ is 100%.
The look issue is over stated. When errect,natural looks about the same. Many cut men can retract the foreskin in a flacid state. A natual man can look cut. A cut man can never get the protection and comfort and look of a natual penis.
========================
Circumcised HIV-negative men more likely to clear HPV infection
Derek Thaczuk, Friday, January 30, 2009 , AIDSMap News
Circumcised men appear more likely to clear human papillomavirus (HPV) infections,
including those with oncogenic (cancer-causing) strains, according to a prospective
US cohort study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Men with higher
numbers of sexual partners were more likely to be infected with HPV, but also
appeared more likely to clear oncogenic infections.
HPV is a sexually transmitted virus that can cause genital and anal warts; prolonged
infection with certain (oncogenic) strains can lead to anal, cervical and penile
cancer.
The HPV Infection in Men study recruited 18- to 44-year-old men in Tucson, Arizona,
with no history of genital warts, penile or anal cancer, and no current sexually
transmitted infections (including HIV and hepatitis C). Of 377 men screened between
2003 and 2005, data from at least two study visits was available for 285
(median follow-up, 15.5 months). Most (88%) were circumcised, 26% had previous
sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and 41% had not used condoms in the past
three months.
No data on the sex of the men's sexual partners was provided, and the study only
investigated penile, not anal, HPV infection. Over twelve months, 29.2% of the men
acquired a new HPV infection: 19% with oncogenic and 16% with non-oncogenic strains
(some men acquired both).
In multivariate analysis (adjusting for all other factors), only the total number
of lifetime sexual partners affected the risk of new (incident) HPV infections.
Men with more than 16 partners were more likely to become infected with HPV
(adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 – 7.1),
oncogenic HPV (AHR, 9.6; 95% CI, 2.4 – 37.8) and non-oncogenic HPV (AHR, 3.6;
95% CI, 1.3 – 9.9) than men with zero to four partners (p < 0.05).
(Note that these figures refer to new HPV infections, not the cumulative risk of
sustained HPV infection overall.)
The estimated median time to clearance of new infections was roughly six months.
(However, as study visits were six months apart, shorter times could not be
distinguished.) By multivariate analysis, circumcised men were three times more
likely to clear HPV infections (AHR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2 – 8.2) and six times more
likely to clear oncogenic infections (AHR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.1 – 19.7). Men with
over 16 lifetime sex partners were five times more likely (AHR, 4.9; 95% CI,
1.2 – 19.8) to clear oncogenic HPV infection than those with zero to four partners,
even though these men were also more susceptible to HPV infection.
Other studies have also found a link between the number of sexual partners and,
firstly, the risk of infection and, secondly, the likelihood of clearance. Previous
researchers have suggested that previous exposures may lead to a greater antibody
response to new HPV infections, increasing the chance of clearance. However, it is
unclear why previous exposure might also increase the susceptibility to new
infection. The reason that circumcision protects against persistence of infection,
rather than protecting against infection itself, is also unclear, although it is
also consistent with findings of other studies.
Study limitations included the relatively small sample and the uncertainty as to
the exact dates of infection and clearance, due to the six-month study visit interval.
Nevertheless, the authors concluded that "the key factor associated with acquisition
of HPV infection of all types … was lifetime number of sex partners, whereas the most
important determinant of clearance of any [penile] HPV infection and of clearance
of oncogenic HPV infection was circumcision."
Reference:
Lu B et al. Factors associated with acquisition and clearance of human papillomavirus
infection in a cohort of US men: a prospective study.J Infect Dis 199:362-71, 2009.
Circumcision May Not Impact Sexual Sensation
ScienceDaily (July 27, 2007) —
According to a new study published in The Journal of
Sexual Medicine, sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be
so different after all. The research, performed in the Department of Psychology
of McGill University in Montreal, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted
on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal.
Results showed that no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to
touch or pain.
“This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between
circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded,” says Kimberley Payne, Ph.D,
principal author of the study.
“People have been arguing about the sexual effects of circumcision for at least
1,000 years and I hope these data will encourage more research,” says Dr. Yitzchak
M. Binik, co-author of the research and Professor of Psychology at McGill and
Director of the Sex and Couple Therapy Service of the McGill University Health Center.
The authors note that the presence of scar tissue formation from circumcision, as
well as functional and mechanical changes related to sexual activity, are factors
that may have secondary effects on genital sensitivity and should be considered
in future research.
Irwin Goldstein, Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine observed, “In
this fascinating study performed by renowned sexual medicine researchers, not only
do they dispel the myth that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised
male due to the protective function of the foreskin, but they show that both
circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall
during sexual arousal. This appears to be an important factor in the normal sexual
response and pleasure.”
This is the second manuscript in The Journal of Sexual Medicine this year examining
the effects of sexual arousal on genital sensitivity. “While more research is needed,
diminishing genital sensitivity during sexual arousal may be an important factor
helping protect against pain during sexual activity.”
WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV
prevention..
28 MARCH 2007 | PARIS/GENEVA
-- In response to the urgent need to reduce the number of new HIV
infections globally, WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat convened an international expert
consultation to determine whether male circumcision should be recommended for the prevention
of HIV infection.
Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the
consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important
intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was
attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments,
civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding
agencies and implementing partners.
"The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention," said Dr Kevin De
Cock, Director, HIV/AIDS Department in WHO. "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV
infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can
reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. Scaling up male circumcision in such
countries will result in immediate benefit to individuals. However, it will be a number of
years before we can expect to see an impact on the epidemic from such investment."
There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu,
Kenya; Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of Health); and Orange
Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS) that male
circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately
60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also
suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and
high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is,
at least in part, a causal association. Currently, 665 million men, or 30 % of men worldwide,
are estimated to be circumcised.
Male circumcision should be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package
Male circumcision should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes
the provision of HIV testing and counselling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices; and
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
Counselling of men and their sexual partners is necessary to prevent them from developing a false sense of security
and engaging in high-risk behaviours that could undermine the partial protection provided by male circumcision. Furthermore,
male circumcision service provision was seen as a major opportunity to address the
frequently neglected sexual health needs of men.
"Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step
towards getting ahead of this epidemic," said Catherine Hankins, Associate Director,
Department of Policy, Evidence and Partnerships at UNAIDS. "However, we must be
clear: Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV. Men and
women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to
use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut
and reducing the number of sexual partners."
Review Shows Male Circumcision Protects Female Partners From HIV And Other STDs
ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2006) —
A statistical review of the past medical files of more than
300 couples in Uganda, in which the female partner was HIV negative and the male was HIV
positive, provides solid documentation of the protective effects of male circumcision in
reducing the risk of infection among women.
Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner
would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS, with 299 women contracting HIV from
uncircumcised partners and only 44 women becoming infected by circumcised men. Similar
reductions in risk were observed for the other two kinds of infection, but not for other
common STDs, including human papillomavirus, syphilis, gonorrhea and Chlamydia.
American Journal of Epidemiology,
November 2005
03 November, 2005
Circumcision reduces chlamydia transmission
Circumcised men are less likely to transmit Chlamydia trachomatis infections to their
female sexual partners as compared to uncircumcised men.
The relationship between male circumcision and C. trachomatis infection in the female
partner has not been explored earlier. Spanish researchers from the Institut Catala
d'Oncologia in Barcelona therefore evaluated this relationship among 300 female subjects
and their male partners enrolled in studies in Colombia, Spain, Brazil, Thailand and the
Philippines. Blood samples from the women were tested for C. trachomatis.
The overall prevalence of circumcision was 37 percent among the men, ranging from 1.8
percent in Spain to 92 percent in the Philippines. Women whose partners were circumcised
were significantly less likely to be infected with C. trachomatis. This was true across
all five countries.
Male Circumcision Seen to Lower HIV Risk in U.S.
By Michael Smith, North American Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: December 18, 2008
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
ATLANTA, Dec. 18 - - Male circumcision -- shown to help prevent HIV infection among
heterosexual men in Africa -- appears to have the same benefit in African Americans,
researchers here said.
In a retrospective observational analysis, men with known HIV exposure who were
circumcised had a 51% reduction in the risk of getting HIV, according to Lee Warner,
Ph.D., of the CDC and colleagues.
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: August 11, 2008
MEXICO CITY — A follow-up look at men who were circumcised in an African study shows that
the procedure’s protective effects against H.I.V. last for at least three and a half years,
researchers said at the 17th International AIDS Conference here last week.
Get Health News From The New York Times
The study was one of three that were stopped before
their scheduled completion when statistical analyses showed important benefits for circumcision.
There was no question about the ethical need for an early stop of the trials. But some health
workers were skeptical that the protection would continue if the trials had been allowed to
continue more than two years.
The skeptics contended that many of the circumcised men might still become infected over time.
“The new results dispel the concerns” because they show sustained, and possibly stronger,
benefit, said Dr. Robert C. Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago. His study in
Kisumu, Kenya, was stopped 24 months after many of its participants were circumcised.
At that point, the participants were told the study’s results and offered circumcision. The
researchers continued to observe the number of infections among the circumcised and
uncircumcised groups.
In the circumcision group, 24, or 2.6 percent of men became infected compared with 65, or
7.4 percent, among the uncircumcised group over three and a half years of follow-up.
Statistical techniques showed the procedure reduced the chances of H.I.V. infection by
64 percent.
Dr. Bailey said his team planned to follow the men until September 2009.
Snip protects some gays from HIV
Sep 17, 2008 4:45 PM
ONE NEWS, New Zealand.
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting HIV depending on their sex habits,
landmark Australian research has found.
Men who predominantly opted for the insertive role had an 85% reduced
risk of getting HIV if they were circumcised.
-
"We have shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive
role in sex
are less likely to contract HIV if they've been circumcised," said Dr David
Templeton, from the
National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research in Sydney.
University of NSW researchers recruited 1,400 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of whom
were circumcised, and tracked them over four years to analyse patterns in HIV
infection.
-
Over that time, 53 developed HIV.
However, men who predominantly opted for the insertive role had an 85% reduced
risk of getting HIV if they were circumcised.
Circumcision is believed to be protective because the operation removes part of the foreskin
that is more prone to lesions, allowing the virus to enter the body thorough the penis.
Review Shows Male Circumcision Protects Female Partners From HIV And Other STDs
ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2006) —
A statistical review of the past medical files of more than
300 couples in Uganda, in which the female partner was HIV negative and the male was HIV
positive, provides solid documentation of the protective effects of male circumcision in
reducing the risk of infection among women.
Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner
would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS, with 299 women contracting HIV from
uncircumcised partners and only 44 women becoming infected by circumcised men. Similar
reductions in risk were observed for the other two kinds of infection, but not for other
common STDs, including human papillomavirus, syphilis, gonorrhea and Chlamydia.
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Male Circumcision May Decrease Risk of HPV Infection and Cervical Cancer
Investigators found that circumcised men were about half as likely to have HPV as
uncircumcised men, after adjustment for other differences in the two groups. These
results demonstrated that lack of circumcision is associated with cervical cancer
because of the increased risk of HPV infection. Nielson suggested that it may be
useful to consider circumcising newborn boys in order to decrease the risk of HPV
infection for them and their future partners. “Parents are not currently advised
of this risk,” she said. “These studies contribute to the evidence that might help
to inform that decision.”
Two new studies suggest that male circumcision may assist in the prevention of human
papillomavirus (HPV) infection, particularly infection with the high-risk subtypes
associated with cervical, penile, and other cancers. Both studies are published in
the January 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, now available online.
Bertran Auvert MD, PhD, and his team of researchers in France and colleagues from
South Africa studied data from a trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa.
Uncircumcised men aged 18-24 years were randomized into either an intervention group,
to be circumcised, or a control group, to remain uncircumcised. During this study,
urethral swab samples were collected and analyzed for presence of HPV among men
followed up for 21 months. Information about sexual behavior was also collected.
High-risk subtypes of HPV have been estimated to be present in 99.7 percent of
cervical cancers worldwide. Evidence has shown that women with circumcised partners
have a reduced risk for genital cancer. Two new studies sought to discover if HPV
infection is more likely to occur in uncircumcised compared with circumcised men.
A second study by Carrie Nielson PhD, at the Oregon Health & Science University and
colleagues at the University of Arizona, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research
Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested more than four
hundred men aged 18-40 years in two U.S. cities during 2002-2005. Sixteen percent of
participants were uncircumcised. Researchers tested for HPV in skin swabs of the
anogenital area and semen samples in participants with no HPV symptoms
(such as warts or lesions).
Investigators found that circumcised men were about half as likely to have HPV as
uncircumcised men, after adjustment for other differences in the two groups. These
results demonstrated that lack of circumcision is associated with cervical cancer
because of the increased risk of HPV infection. Nielson suggested that it may be
useful to consider circumcising newborn boys in order to decrease the risk of HPV
infection for them and their future partners. “Parents are not currently advised
of this risk,” she said. “These studies contribute to the evidence that might help
to inform that decision.”
Dr. Auvert and colleagues found that the percentage of high-risk HPV genotypes was
lower in the circumcised group than in the control group. The most important
implication, according to researchers, was that “reducing the frequency of HPV
infection among men will reduce the risk of exposure in their female sexual
partners.”
In an accompanying editorial, Ronald H. Gray, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, said
that the evidence was persuasive but not entirely consistent and that it may be
premature to promote circumcision as a way to prevent HPV infection in men and to
protect female sex partners from infection. He advised that policy decisions should
await results from two ongoing trials of male circumcision. Alternatively, Gray
noted that consistent evidence has suggested that male circumcision reduces the
frequency of HIV infection in men. He also pointed out that because of the lack
of conclusive data relating circumcision and prevention of HPV, Medicaid does not
cover circumcision costs, which may account for a decline in neonatal circumcisions
in the United States.
According to Dr. Nielson, the findings they reported present compelling arguments
to promote male circumcision in developing countries where circumcision is not
widely used and the HIV epidemic is severe. Additionally, she said, it is “the
first clear demonstration of the indirect but substantial beneficial effect of male
circumcision for women.” The authors of both studies and the editorialist agreed
that more studies will be needed to confirm the efficacy of male circumcision in
HPV prevention.
Fast Facts:
1) The high-risk subtypes of HPV have been estimated to be present in 99.7 percent
of cervical cancers worldwide.
2) One of the current studies showed that circumcised participants were half as
likely to be infected with HPV as those who were uncircumcised.
3) Reducing the incidence of HPV infection among men will reduce the risk of HPV
exposure in their female sexual partners.
Adult Male Circumcision Not Linked To Sexual Dysfunction
Date: 19 Nov 2008
Medical News Today
A new study has found that adult circumcisions do not lead to sexual difficulties among men
who were already sexually active. The study appears in the November 2008 issue of The Journal
of Sexual Medicine the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.
The results also showed no significant difference in the frequency of erectile dysfunction,
inability to ejaculate, pain during intercourse or lack of pleasure during intercourse.
Circumcised men also had progressively higher rates of sexual satisfaction over time.
The study group consisted of 2,684 men in Kisumu, Kenya between 2002 and 2005. Both groups
underwent six detailed evaluations between one month and 24 months after circumcision. "More
than 99 percent of the men studied reported that they were satisfied with their circumcision,
and the majority of men reported both greater penile sensitivity, and easier use of condoms,"
said lead author John N. Krieger, M.D., of the University of Washington.
Circumcision May Not Impact Sexual Sensation
ScienceDaily (July 27, 2007) —
According to a new study published in The Journal of
Sexual Medicine, sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be
so different after all. The research, performed in the Department of Psychology
of McGill University in Montreal, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted
on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal.
Results showed that no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to
touch or pain.
“This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between
circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded,” says Kimberley Payne, Ph.D,
principal author of the study.
“People have been arguing about the sexual effects of circumcision for at least
1,000 years and I hope these data will encourage more research,” says Dr. Yitzchak
M. Binik, co-author of the research and Professor of Psychology at McGill and
Director of the Sex and Couple Therapy Service of the McGill University Health Center.
The authors note that the presence of scar tissue formation from circumcision, as
well as functional and mechanical changes related to sexual activity, are factors
that may have secondary effects on genital sensitivity and should be considered
in future research.
Irwin Goldstein, Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine observed, “In
this fascinating study performed by renowned sexual medicine researchers, not only
do they dispel the myth that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised
male due to the protective function of the foreskin, but they show that both
circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall
during sexual arousal. This appears to be an important factor in the normal sexual
response and pleasure.”
This is the second manuscript in The Journal of Sexual Medicine this year examining
the effects of sexual arousal on genital sensitivity. “While more research is needed,
diminishing genital sensitivity during sexual arousal may be an important factor
helping protect against pain during sexual activity.”
I already posted the position statements of the medical organisations in Canada, Australia, and the UK. Most of the doctors responsible for those statements are circumcised themselves, or married to circumcised men, yet they're against circumcision. That should tell people all they need to know.
There are lots of studies showing drawbacks to circumcision.
That last study quoted is particularly flawed: "Touch and pain thresholds were assessed on the penile shaft, the glans penis, and the volar surface of the forearm."
That's right, they didn't measure the sensitivity of the inner foreskin, the most sensitive part of the penis. It's like showing that vaginal sensitivity is unimpaired if the clitoris is removed. Were the researchers ignorant, or trying or reach a pre-determined conclusion?
I'm tired of bad science being used to justify cutting off parts of boy's penises.
There is no reason to circumcise infant boys. Most of the "benefits" come in to play once they hit a sexually active age, in which they are old enough to decide to get circumcised.
UTI's are little excuse, at the minimum it would require 100 boys to be circumcised (More painful than a UTI) for one boy not to get a UTI. If you read the AAP's full circumcision policy, you will also note some of these studies are criticized for not eliminating co-founding factors such as breast feeding and inclusion of premature babies. Premature babies are never circumcised and higher risk for a UTI.
For those of you caught up on HPV, The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that circumcised men were about twice as likely to have genital warts (The only visible sign of HPV).
webmd.com/ sexual-conditions/ hpv-genital-warts /news/20080403 /thwart-genital-warts-dont-sleep-around
HPV is also the most common STD in mostly circumcised US.
As for HIV, the US is the epicenter of HIV infections among industrialized nations (And the most circumcised outside of Israel). Although Europe is mostly uncircumcised, their HIV infection rate is 1/3 or less of ours.
A study done by the US Military found uncircumcised soldiers slightly less likely to be infected with HIV.
stinet.dtic.mil /cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458066 &Location=U2 &doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
There is a lot of data pointing in both directions, but real world statistics offer little evidence that circumcision is of any value. The bottom line is you are taking something that is a birth right from a child. They deserve the right to have all of their body.
Researcher Dr. Morris Sorrells and others enlisted 159 men from the San Francisco Bay area, 91 of them circumcised, and conducted touch-sensitivity tests—using a standarized instrument that presses onto the skin with calibrated monofilaments -- on 17 different places on their penises. The men could not see where they were being touched.
Five sites on the penis -- all regularly removed by circumcision -- are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis.
Previous studies, such as one by Masters and Johnson in 1966, found no difference between circumcised and intact penises, but that was not well documented and ignored the foreskin.
"More work needs to be done," Milos said. "We need to know how this translates into sexual functioning and sexual pleasure. Many circumcised men say they couldn't stand any more sensitivity, but intact men obviously can stand it, so it's a matter of quality as well as quantity. The bottom line is, circumcision takes away sensitivity, which translates into a loss of pleasure, too."
This is the sanest article I have read on circumcision in a long time. It is as painful as it is needless. If you want to lower the HIV infection rate, circumcision does almost nothing, as America has proven. The foreskin is an essential part of any man's sexuality. The inner foreskin and frenulum, both removed or damaged, are the most sensitive parts of a man. Circumcision turns what nature designed as mucous membrane, like the inside of a vagina or mouth, to something more like regular skin. There is no other healthy body part routinely removed from infants, and sold for profit with no one agreeing to it. There would be a great outcry if it was a kidney. I would rather give up a kidney, because I have two of them. Why is it a felony in the US to remove a girl's foreskin, but not a boy's? If foreskins were a problem, we'd be hearing a lot more from the 85% of the world's men who have them, or their unhappy women. We don't. Save your boy the agony and blood, and let him make the decision.
I wonder if women who are grossed out, ever stop to consider that they may have a hair, or lint, as well. For everything an intact man secretes, women secrete more of the same substances in their vulvas. I also wonder if they are thinking that they would reject Leo DiCaprio, Mario Lopez, Colin Ferrell, Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, etc, for having a foreskin.
Thank you so much for this article, Courtney! And it was nice to see a comment from a female (Jill) who pointed out that females have secretions and errant lint/hairs like men do down there. I feel better about my uncircumcised (or should I say natural) self.
Readers need to be aware that OVER THE LIFETIME a very high proportion of uncircumcised men get a UTI. In the first year of life 1-4% of uncircumcised boys get a UTI (that can cause permanent kidney damage in a large number. Over the lifetime Griebling has shown (NAHNES data) that 14% of ALL men will get a UTI over their life. Since this US data applies to circ'd and uncirc'd, where 80-90% of US males are circ'd, the risk to an uncircumcised male is about 1 in 3 to 1 in 2. This is massive!
There is no decrease in sensitivity (in fact an increase, according to a large randomized controlled trial, the 'gold standard' in epidemiology) and two such trials have now shown no adverse effect on sexual function or satisfaction (ie, pleasure). The fiction of 'research' conducted by Sorrells et al. and funded by NOCIRC has been exposed by authors who re-analyzed their data correctly.
Much of the opposing 'information' on the internet and elsewhere is also fictitious, scare-mongering and should be ignored as part of the propaganda of these groups whose motives vary from 'politically correct' do-gooders to men who have sex with men using the foreskin for 'docking', right through to paedophiles who delight in the 'uncut' (untouched) penis of the young boy as it conveys innocense, something they then set out to rob the boy of.
Be very wary of anti-circ propaganda!
Professor Brian Morris said: “…the risk to an uncircumcised male is about 1 in 3 to 1 in 2….”
So 1 in 3 European men will have a urinary tract infection during their life time? I wonder where Morris gets his data from. Certainly not from any reputable scientific journal! Talking about propaganda! Wow, Morris!
Professor Brian Morris said: “…right through to paedophiles…”
Interesting statement considering that research shows that circumcised men have an increased tendency to engage in sexually deviant behavior (which makes sense since circumcised men may want to make up for lost sensitivity)
Who is PROFESSOR Brian Morris???? Brian Morris is Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences in the School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute of the Faculty of Medicine at The University of Sydney. Most of his professor colleagues in the medical field are on the other side do not share his views on circumcision. In fact many want to make routine infant circumcision illegal in Australia.
Most the studies about the "benefits" of circumcision don't relfect reality. In Europe, for example where practicaly all men are not circumcised, the HIV and STD rates are much lower. So much for circumcision "preventing" anything.
This was an excellent article and conclusion, btw.
Professor Brian Morris is a Douche.
A good article as far as it goes but, even if a circumcision's not botched, what if it's just not what he wanted? If he later wants part of his penis cut off, it can always be done, but as Wesley points out, getting it back (a "repuce") is never as good.
Life's too short to wade through all Mark T's data, but to take just his first example, the Payne study (like the famous undocumented Masters and Johnson "study" published in their popular book) didn't look at the sensitivity of the foreskin iself! This is typical of pro-circumcision studies.
Prof Morris can shroud-wave about UTIs if he likes, yet girls and women are more likely to get them, and then they are always treated without surgery. His "correct reanalysis" of the Sorrells study amounted to removing the foreskin measurements because the circumcised men had no counterpart.
As for perversion, there is something very odd about the determination of some people to cut other people's genitals. Circumcision opponents just want them to be left alone - in fact the sooner circumcision is a historical oddity, like footbinding or castration, the better.
Be very wary of anti-circ propaganda, says the nutty professor with an anti-anti circ obsession. Apparently the medical profession in your country does not share the views that you have been hassling them with for over a decade(see my next post.
And speaking of propaganda...
Brian Morris: "...right through to paedophiles who delight in the 'uncut' (untouched) penis of the young boy as it conveys innocense, something they then set out to rob the boy of."
What a bizarre statement with... a little too much insight into that maybe?
And that's rich coming from a man who, on his circumcision advocacy website, links to circlist webpages and online groups that host pedophilic stories written by circumcision fetishists such as:
http_groups.yahoo.com/group/teen_circ_/
http_//groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcisedkids/
http_//groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcisionfetish/
http_//groups.yahoo.com/group/SCARandACORN/
http_//groups.yahoo.com/group/eroticmalecircumcision/
Incredibly, Morris even provides his readers with links to Circlist, where "Parents are encouraged to use this web site as a guide to help them decide what is best for their son". Oh yeah, "Circlist has always permitted, and will continue to permit, circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise. "
circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise such as:
"After reading so much about re-circumcision on the "Circlist" web site I decided to have my 2 sons re-circumcised. I was never happy with the loose skin that was still left over by the doctor. (Same Doctor did both sons at birth). So I arranged it with a urologist, and my sons that were 10 and 14 now have beautifully tight circumcisions. There is absolutely no movement of shaft skin towards the head of there penises, which I just adore and know that there future lover's and wives will love as well and probably thank me for having it done. Now that the heads of there penises are fully exposed and permanently bared, I can personally say that the appearance is much sexier to look at and cleaner as well. I also encourage my boys to love the look of there newly remodeled penises and to not be shy around girls because when they get a look at there super tight circumcisions they will just go crazy for them.
Alexis (Canada)"
"Our friends at the nudist beach noticed directly that my son had been cut and they all thought it looked nice. ... Now he is sixteen and it’s quite obvious that my friend did a very good job. We are both completely shaved and his shaft has no wrinkles at all, as it should be. He always looks nude and beautiful. Women tell me what a nice and handsome son I have and I love their comments. I agree with them. Several of my friend’s sons have now become circumcised and they all love it.
Kristina (Sweden)"
Thanks for linking us to circumcision fetishists directly from your webpage Prof. If you want to come from that angle, I think you have it all backwards.
Paediatrics & Child Health Division
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
"In Australia and New Zealand, the circumcision rate has fallen considerably in recent years and it is estimated that currently only 10%-20% of male infants are routinely circumcised."
"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law."
Doctors back call for circumcision ban
December 9, 2007 12:37:00
The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.
The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.
The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.
He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.
"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.
"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.
Doctors back call for circumcision ban
December 9, 2007 12:37:00
The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.
The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.
The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.
He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.
"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.
"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.
Brian Morris: Not a paediatrician, not a urologist, not a surgeon, not a medical doctor. He's a biologist. A biologist. Therefore no clinical experience with foreskins and his proud declaration (60 Minutes) of being circumcised himself, means he has no personal experience with foreskins. No first-hand knowledge of foreskins whatsoever!
So..., what we have is a biologist, along with Wodak (drug & alcohol expert, oh, and Jew) and Terry Russell (who's built a business and earned literally millions of $ from cutting heathy babies, oh, and convicted Medicare fraudster) being out in public promoting routine circumcision in Australia.
Compare this to the contrary statements from every medical association on the planet (even U.S., even Israeli!) and the picture (and motivations) becomes clear.
Compare this with the powerful and courageous statements on circumcision by Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason:
“Unnecessary genital surgery on babies is said to be cheaper and easier than on adults. All abuse of babies is easier. They are powerless and history will judge us by how we protect the powerless.
“Do we say to children that they have no say in this because statistically when they grow up and practice unsafe sex they might be better off? I say let the children decide for themselves - all in good time.”
I strongly believe in freedom of expression, but I'm disappointed that the prestigious Univesity of Sydney allows him to promote unnessesary genital surgery on unconsenting minors, effectively 'under their name. I'm also disappointed the press typically give a balanced representation to both sides of the 'debate'.
There is no 'debate'. Common sense says you simply don't take a knife to a healthy baby.
I look foward to the day when the monsters who promote and/or practice the genital mutilation of children are rightly recognised as the evil sexual abusers they are.
I say to parents considering circumcision for their son: Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. For goodness sake, do the research!
To men unhappy at being circumcised and considering restoring: It takes years and it's a pain in the arse, but it's definitely possible and it's definitely worth it! :)
Doctors back call for circumcision ban
December 9, 2007 12:37:00
The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.
The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.
The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.
He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.
"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.
"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.
The world outside the U.S.A. sees our male circumcision rate as barbaric. What's even more barbaric is that there is a Federal law banning female circumcision. So much for equal rights...
Let's commit to stopping "routine" male circumcision NOW! Hey... a new use for "NOW!"
yeah, if you wanna get your genitals snipped wait 'til it
s actually you're choice... like labia reduction or whatever
Thanks for this article, Courtney (especially the last line). My current girlfriend had never seen an uncircumcised penis before until she met me. But we had no problems! If more people said no to having their kids circumcised then being natural won't be a crime.
Brian- as a resident of the Metro-Detroit area, I have only got to intimately experience one natural man in my lifetime (and he was from the Middle-East, fortunately he wasn't Muslim or Jewish). I had always hoped I would find another natural man, but I never will. I fell in love with an American-born mutilated man and now we're married. He hates not having all of his parts, and I can't help but feel that something very important is missing.... he feels the same way too. It's a shame that over 80% of males in my age group in the U.S. don't have their foreskins. I most likely would've had to go to another country to find a natural man but I didn't realize that until much too late. I love my husband, regardless. He's a great person.
the aesthetics are a concern. my mother, girlfriends and both of my wives have showered me with unsolicited compliments bout my male property aesthetics. Uncircumcised men and boys do have an odor issue more so than their clipped counterparts. Talk about cutting the fat. It dont make it smaller. Its only fat. Uncircumcised men tend to be more sloppy than those with the tidy package. People understood the value of circumcision long before the Creator commanded Moses to institute it for the newly formed nation of Israel when they left the Egyptian bondage. God commanded that circumcision be performed on the 8th day of the child's life. Did you know that there has never been a death resulting from hemorrhage secondary to circumcision that was performed on the 8th day of life? Back in 1500 B.C. they did not know why the command about the 8th day, they just did it. The wisdom in that command did not become apparent until the 19th century A.D. when it was found that the clotting factor, a.k.a. vitamin K is at its highest concentration on the 8th day of a newborn's human male life.
In the UK in 2007 a baby boy died after a bris (8th day ritual circ), from loss of blood. Look it up. It has happened many times.
Historians believe the Egyptians did the circ thing and that is where the Jews got it. Also, there is evidence that the Jews did a very minor cut (just the very tip) until a Rabbis requiored an extreme form of cut so Jews would look cut (a power play). Many Jews are dropping this altogether now. Christianity of course has no circumcison ritual and the RC Church has noted that it is mutilation of a baby.
Natural men look about the same as cut when errect. Many natural men can look cut when flacid by pulling it back. A cut man will always look cut and never get the sensory function and protective comfort of having a natural member.
Also...
Circumcsion will shorten a mans member. It does that or pulls skin fromthe region near the base. Cut will shorten and/or pull hair onto the shaft and curve the member.
The part cut off has more nerve endings than the clitoris.
Why would the creator create something and then command that it be cut off? Thart makes about as much sense as the creator telling the Isrealites to kill all of the nonJews (genocide). What creator wants its creation killed?
It baffles me that women, with labia and clitoral hoods and all sorts of nooks and crannies themselves, should be uncomfortable with the look of a natural foreskin. I guess it just goes to show you the power of tradition!
In my experience, it takes about 30 seconds for a woman who's never experienced a foreskin before to figure out the workings and the perks. The first time her hand slides off the end, she realizes this is a friction-relieving structure and then she can't wait to try it where that counts...
True, it is very erotic. I am female, and I have always found the natural member to be much more fascinating. It's cute when flaccid and sexy when erect. Much more interesting to play with and explore (there's much more to it). The cut ones almost always look scarred, shortened and deformed (even painful!) I was lucky enough to come from a family that didn't believe in genital cutting of any kind, and my father (born in the 1950's) and 2 brothers (born in the 1980's) are all intact. I had the fortunate experience of having one intact partner in my lifetime. Unfortunately, he'll be my only one, because I'm married to a cut man.
I was circumcized at birth becuase my parents wanted me to be. My parents??????? What happened to MY choice? I have had many problems throughout my life directly related to it, mainly insensitivity and trouble climaxing, especially during intercourse. When my son was born, I made it clear that there was no way I was having it done to him. If he desires he can have it done when hes old enough to make the decision on his own. Of course the dr pressed me to have it done, but he couldnt give me any good reasons to. The only reason I could see for him pressing was the $400 he wasnt going to get if it was not done. As others have said, its female genital mutilation, but common practice for men. Talk about sex dicrimination...
Your story is nearly identical to my husband's. He suffers the same problems that you do. However, when h e had his son from his previous marriage, his objections to having his son cut were over ruled by his wife. He deeply regrets not fighting for his son's rights more fiercely. He wanted his son to have it better than he has. And yes, it's total sex discrimination that this practice is allowed to happen to minors who don't consent. Whenever I hear a feminist, I feel the need to bring this up as a reality check! Even the tiniest pin-prick to girls' genitals is a federal offense. You can mutilate a child's penis all you want and almost no one will see the injustice. This country needs to WAKE UP!
Sorry, but I still think uncircumcised guys are gross.
I had enough problems during my High School years in the 1970's, so I'm glad being 'cut' wasn't one of them. Uncut guys faced four yrs of cruel cts and banter in the locker room and showers, as, without exception, they came from poor families. Cut was always a sign of being from middle or upper class.
I am from the UK. In Europe circumcision is never done. And we all do fine. I'd hate to be circumcised. It is harder to masturbate and you lose a lot of sensitivity.
Circumcision for religious reasons was only introduced to prevent masturbation and other stupid reasons like curing insanity.
Below should say circumcision for non-religious reasons.
You also lose the gliding action of the skin which aids in masturbation and makes sex more comfortable for the woman - the foreskin also helps to retain moisture during sex. See nature (or evolution) has thought of everything.
Go to sexasnatureintendit(dot)com to find out more
The current rate of newborn circumcision is 60% in the USA. It is about 25% in the west coast, in places like California.
In the Uk, the rate of circumcision is about 0.5% (basically the Jewish,Muslim, African-immigrant populations). We have a lower rate of sexually transmitted diseases than the USA.
Not only is the foreskin the most sensitive part of the penis and a provider of movement, sensation is reduced further after circ. The foreskin protects the glans penis. Without it, the glans (head of penis) dries out. It also rubs on clothes causing the skin to harden and keratinize.
So this could be an explanation for the high STI rates. Because sensation is reduced, you are less likely to use a condom. Studies have shown condom rates in the USA are very low - lower than in other countries.
The USA is now the only 1st world country to still circumcise. In Britain, it never really took off to any great extent and by 1950 it had been abandoned. In Australia and Canada it has been declining since the doctors advised against it in the 1970's. Now the rate is less than 10% in those 2 countries. Hopefully it is just a matter of time before the United states sees sense.
Very true, Jim. I'm from the Metro-Detroit area (MI), USA, and I've had relations with 20 American guys. My generation was one of the most cut of all in the US. ALL of these men were cut and almost all of them refused to wear condoms because they said wearing them made them feel like they were "having sex with air". They had almost NO sensation. So OBVIOUSLY, the ONLY way condoms would realistically work is if men still had all of their penile skin and nerve endings. Hence why the US has a high STI rate and also a high circ rate.
Melanie -don't knock it till you tried it. The women in my country have never seen a circumcised penis. If they saw one, they would see it as mutilated. Really circumcision shouldn't be an option. Every boy/man has the right to his whole body. Most guys in the USA do not even know what they have lost.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!