~ archived since 2018 ~

What Men Lose From Circumcision

JackFisherBooks

February 27, 2018

57 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	What Men Lose From Circumcision
Author	JackFisherBooks
Upvotes	57
Comments	62
Date	February 27, 2018 10:43 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/80lj78/what_men_lose_from_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-men-lose-from-circumcision.905282 https://theredarchive.com/post/905282

Comments

[–]TheExplodingKitten 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackFisherBooks[S] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eldred2 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ruunmsana 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]knubbiggubbe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]knubbiggubbe 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaeusPater 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]knubbiggubbe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]93re2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgm-survivor 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]armed_renegade -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

As someone who was circumcised for medical reasons, there does feel like there is this crusade to tell those who have been circumcised that we are missing out on a LOT.

Obviously I don't agree with neonatal circumcision, unless necessary, or circumcision later in life. But I know for myself and for other men who have been circumcised around my generation where there weren't many either, it is very distressing some of the unfacts that some other men come out with obviously to help support not doing this to infants. But I have felt this has more of a negative effect against the men who have been circumcised, and this kind of telling us that we're missing out, that we don't feel as much, that the sex we have is inferior, or not as good. I'm sure this is a big thing for men who have been circumcised.

It leads me to feel depressed about it, wishing I could get it back, almost spending money on things that claim "top help grow (stretch) the foreskin back"

For the men who feel this way, please do not, the actual fact of the matter, is studies show there is no loss in sensitivity, and certainly any reported loss of sensitivity goes away when engaged in sexual activity, and the glans is lubricated/wetted, and that there is not as great a sensitivity in the foreskin as people think, with sensitivity being the same as a control section of the forearm.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414114249.htm

[–]93re2 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The article you linked to is a misleading summary of Bossio et al's 2016 disaster of a "study", Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing, which itself should have never been published. Bossio et al's interpretation of the data rested on multiple ludicrous premises, including the bizarre and frankly hateful idea that the cornerstone of male sensuality is pain. Even the article you linked to admits

The investigators also found that the foreskin had similar sensitivity as the control site on the forearm for any stimulus type tested. Given that other genital sites (e.g., glans penis, midline shaft) were more sensitive to pain stimuli than the forearm, removing the highly innervated foreskin does not appear to remove the most sensitive part of the penis.

Bossio et al found that the foreskin was the most sensitive part of the penis with respect to the perception of gentle stimuli like warmth and soft touch, and it was, by the way, also more sensitive to those gentle stimuli than the forearm control. Additionally, they did not even test the specialized sensory tissues of the foreskin such as the ridged band and frenular delta; they only tested the outer foreskin. And on top top of all that, by their own admission their sample size was far too small. These are only some of the countless methodological and conceptual errors of the so-called study. Bossio's drivel is a travesty of science that should be retracted. It is quackery.

For more info on why this so-called study was utter tripe please see Brian Earp's Infant circumcision and adult penile sensitivity: implications for sexual experience (PDF). Trends in Urology and Men's Health, Vol. 7, Issue 4, pp. 17-21. July-Aug 2016.

[+]armed_renegade -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Here is some more studies on the issue, somewhere about 35 studies came to the same conclusion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201510/does-circumcision-reduce-men-s-sexual-sensitivity

Researchers in Kenya surveyed the sexual function, pleasure, and satisfaction of 2,784 uncircumcised sexually active adult men. Then they circumcised 1,391 of them, and re-surveyed the entire group every six months for two years. In every survey, the two groups showed no statistically significant differences in sexual function, pleasure, or satisfaction.

The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased. In addition, 78 percent said circumcision made it easier to don condoms.

and

Researchers in Uganda conducted a similar trial involving 4,456 uncircumcised adult men, 2,210 of whom got circumcised. Before-and-after surveys showed no differences in sexual desire, erection issues, or other measures of sexual function, pleasure, and satisfaction. Two years after the procedure, 99.9 percent of the uncircumcised men said they felt “satisfied or very satisfied” with their sex lives, while among those who’d been circumcised, the figure was a statistically equivalent 98.4 percent.

And then this

The other 34 studies showed similar results. In several, compared with men with intact foreskins, those who’d been circumcised often said their penises felt more erotically sensitive. In addition, circumcision had no effect on rates of premature ejaculation or erection or ejaculation difficulties.

The researchers concluded: “Male circumcision has no adverse effects on sexual function, sensation, sensitivity, satisfaction, or pleasure, especially when performed during infancy.”

[–]rodrigogirao 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]93re2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmostNotSure 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of studies go against what we think as "logic". Again I'm not supporting it at all, but let's not make people who didn't get a choice feel bad about it, like they're missing out on stuff, when 2 studies I've cited of a sample size of over 3,000 people each, with over 1,000 in each study being circumcised, and being sexually active before and after, gives the most accurate reporting of loss of function, pleasure and sensitivity, which has shown there just isn't, and citing another 34 studies which proved the same thing.

I get upset when people try to tell me that my penis now doesn't function properly, and I miss out on so much pleasure, when the evidence, just does not show that at all. In some of the cases, it showed the opposite, and an increase in sensitivity.

You cannot dismiss evidence from studies, because you think the logic doesn't make sense. The hypothesis would be, the nerve endings being removed decrease sensitivity. Then you test your hypothesis, and find out, oh gee, it seems that's not the case. That's how science works, testing a hypothesis, and altering your opinion when shown contradictory evidence.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those aren't needed for sex though. They aren't needed for procreation, and from the evidence, it shows it provides no benefit to function or pleasure.

And I totally agree with only using circumcision as a medical procedure, to help cure some medical ailment, and that just plain old circumcision, "just because" should definitely not be done. So don't confuse me with someone trying to defend the practice. But it seems to me and others I've spoken to that it has turned almost into a bashing crusade against people who are intact, and it's legitimately hurting people, and/or causing some amount of distress, anxiety and depression.

Personally I, and many other man haven't reported any loss in sexual function or ability to partake in sex, and although we may not know the difference, when compared to intact men there really isn't much if any difference reported in actual sexual performance. Whilst the maybe slightly reduced sensitivity of the glans in the everyday environment, once sex starts (and "hydration" of the glans), that has been shown to disappear very quickly, and revert to that of an intact man. There's no evidence to suggest different rates of premature ejaculation either, erectile dysfunction or different sexual pleasure or performance, meaning that if there is indeed any loss of anything, it is of little consequence, to sex.

I can tell you right now, I am more than sensitive enough. And whilst I did have a different procedure, which didn't remove as much as a conventional neonatal circumcision, and meant I kept my frenulum, for all intents and purposes there's no foreskin.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgm-survivor 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgm-survivor 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That is completely stupid comparison. Deaf is the definition of NO hearing, and using that comparison is like saying I have NO sensitivity and NO pleasure, which is just wrong. If this is what you actually think, then you're sadly mistaken, and that would seem that you do just want to make men who have been circumcised whether they chose to or not feel bad about as opposed to trying to get it abolished in the neonatal setting.

I say I wouldn't want to be more sensitive because a lot of the time I am TOO sensitive, and can already be uncomfortable.... Anymore would make this occur more often with greater intensity.

They were not surveys, it's called self reported data, which is a legitimate study technique, they also had a control group and a large enough population and thus very statistically significant results. When almost everyman, 99% of all those who were circumcised, of over 1000 people come back and say the exact same thing, that's a pretty good indicator, and they all had their own experience to compare to when they were intact. These types of studies are conducted all the time and are proper science. And I think in this instance the only important indicator is the subjective self reported data. Because that's what's being measured here.

Again I am not saying that circumcision should be practiced, unless for a medical purpose, and there are plenty of medical purposes where it is a safe, and completely effective treatment. With most men who have had it in adulthood, or at a time when they could compare the two, rarely ever report loss of sensation, let alone, significant loss of sensation where sex is no longer pleasureable at all, which is the case for women who have had their clitoris removed, so these are completely different.

And just for some education. The clitoris has double the nerve endings of the Glans of the penis, and the clitoral hood (prepuce) is the same as the male foreskin, as the clitoral hood is the female foreskin. So no.... the removal of the foreskin is not equivalent at all to a 3 complete clitorectomies.

To comapre the removal of the clitoris and prepuce to male circumcision shows a complete lack of understanding of biology, and just shows you really don't understand the differences here. The removal of the clitoris is associated with almost complete loss of pleasure of sex, in almost all women who have had that done, to compare them both, or to compare circumcision with 3 times the severity of the clitoral removal.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That is completely stupid comparison.

yes, it was an analogy... not comparison. Why would you want LESS sensitivity lol

and that would seem that you do just want to make men who have been circumcised whether they chose to or not feel bad about as opposed to trying to get it abolished in the neonatal setting.

I'm cut, I just have faced the facts that what I lost was actually valuable. Sorry you haven't yet.

I say I wouldn't want to be more sensitive because a lot of the time I am TOO sensitive, and can already be uncomfortable

have you tried any restoration? That helps because you aren't constantly exposed to the elements...

Anymore would make this occur more often with greater intensity.

not if you are covered... almost like there should be an organ there protecting you... hmm

They were not surveys, it's called self reported data, which is a legitimate study technique

sounds like a survey with more steps lol

These types of studies are conducted all the time and are proper science.

For psychology yes, for seeing if a organ has any sensitivity, no.

which is the case for women who have had their clitoris removed, so these are completely different.

WRONG. Many FGM victims don't really care either. That is why they keep doing it, they justify it the same reasons that they justify MGM.

The clitoris has double the nerve endings of the Glans of the penis

Yes and the foreskin has 3x that of the clit...

and the clitoral hood (prepuce) is the same as the male foreskin

wrong.

. the removal of the foreskin is not equivalent at all to a 3 complete clitorectomies.

where did you get your numbers? 20k nerve endings is FREQUENTLY cited as the number a foreskin has and 8k is for the clit.

To comapre the removal of the clitoris and prepuce to male circumcision shows a complete lack of understanding of biology, and just shows you really don't understand the differences here.

so where do they separate at also I'm a bioengineer lol I am very well educated on the topic. They are analogous organs, so where do the "extra" nerve endings come from for the clit on women? You can't change form without function.

to compare them both, or to compare circumcision with 3 times the severity of the clitoral removal.

So lets visualize this. The foreskin has a surface area of 15 square inches. Around 32 square cm. The clit has a surface area of about 2 square cm to 10 or so. So you are saying that the clit has on average 15 times more nerve endings per square cm than a foreskin? Citation fucking needed for that lol

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yes, it was an analogy... not comparison. Why would you want LESS sensitivity lol

I'm cut, I just have faced the facts that what I lost was actually valuable. Sorry you haven't yet.

have you tried any restoration? That helps because you aren't constantly exposed to the elements... Clearly I was talking about sex here

not if you are covered... almost like there should be an organ there protecting you... hmm

I'm clearly talking about with sex.... not just walking around..... So this doesn't apply here.

sounds like a survey with more steps lol For psychology yes, for seeing if a organ has any sensitivity, no. You can call it what you want, but it doesn't change that it's legitimate science, and dismissing it on the basis of lol it's a survey, is just stupid..... Any other way of testing sensitivity would also come from self reported data, of what they feel, there is no objective value to measure. It's used constantly in medicine to determine the extent of something that cannot be measured, pain, heat, sensitivity, and then yes psychological illnesses too.

WRONG. Many FGM victims don't really care either. That is why they keep doing it, they justify it the same reasons that they justify MGM.

The clitoris has double the nerve endings of the Glans of the penis

Yes and the foreskin has 3x that of the clit...

and the clitoral hood (prepuce) is the same as the male foreskin

wrong.

. the removal of the foreskin is not equivalent at all to a 3 complete clitorectomies.

where did you get your numbers? 20k nerve endings is FREQUENTLY cited as the number a foreskin has and 8k is for the clit. so where do they separate at also I'm a bioengineer lol I am very well educated on the topic. They are analogous organs, so where do the "extra" nerve endings come from for the clit on women? You can't change form without function. Clearly again, doesn't know much about FGM either, if the clitoris is being removed, so is the hood. Therefore, no external nerve endings. It's less about the number of nerve endings and rather about the % of nerve endings, given the hood and clitoris are removed, basically 100% of external pleasure centres are removed. And again I'm going to point to the evidence I cited, because you've provided none, that there is limited if any difference in sensitivity during sex, and sexual function.

So lets visualize this. The foreskin has a surface area of 15 square inches. Around 32 square cm. The clit has a surface area of about 2 square cm to 10 or so. So you are saying that the clit has on average 15 times more nerve endings per square cm than a foreskin? Citation fucking needed for that lol

(32cm² = 15in^2, 1in² = 6.5cm^2. So 32cm² = 4.9in^2; this is some really basic spacial reasoning and mathematics, all you have to do is visualise the two to see that you don't just divide by the conversion, but rather the conversion^2, and your unwillingness to accept actual scientific research on the matter, just because, and thinking that self reported data only exists within psychology, really makes me question you being a bioengineer) The clit certainly has a much higher density of nerve endings, compared to the same equivalent organ on the male, the glans, the glans being much much larger than the external clitoris, yet the clitoris having twice the amount of nerve endings. And again the equivalent organs here, the foreskin and hood, anatomically speaking.

Again, I don't support circumcision outside of medical necessity and(or in some cases) the free will of the male who is being circumcised. And I certainly find the circumcision of neonatal males who are definitely unable to give permission for such a procedure, completely barbaric and should certainly be stopped.

Here's an example of a study, that reached way too many drastic conclusions based on hardly any difference. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BXoX43JeEU8J:https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The difference in sexual stimulation was as low 1 tenth in some places....

So where is the evidence that shows a decrease in sexual sensitivity, sexual pleasure, and sexual function because all of the research I've found seems to support that there's no difference, and the ones in Africa are certainly proper science, and if you going to continue to deny it by calling it a survey, I really can't believe you a bioengineer, and I'm not going to engage with someone who willingly and recklessly dismisses proper evidence, claims some statement to be true (which goes against a study that had great population selection, and great data collection, and was all around a good study) and yet not provide any evidence to support that statement.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm clearly talking about with sex.... not just walking around..... So this doesn't apply here.

Why not?

your unwillingness to accept actual scientific research on the matter, just because, and thinking that self reported data only exists within psychology, really makes me question you being a bioengineer

Again, why not just study the fine touch of the actual foreskin? Why use self reported studies?

The difference in sexual stimulation was as low 1 tenth in some places....

did they measure the places that were cut off? no.. they didn't. I fail to see what this proves. Measuring if an arm is just as sensitive on people missing fingers and then not measuring how sensitive fingers are is just bad science.

and the ones in Africa are certainly proper science

lmfao. Dude what they did in africa was so devoid of ethics and so malformed it isn't even a proper survey let alone science.

I'm not going to engage with someone who willingly and recklessly dismisses proper evidence, claims some statement to be true (which goes against a study that had great population selection, and great data collection, and was all around a good study) and yet not provide any evidence to support that statement.

what evidence do you want me to provide? I will provide anything you want lol.

[–]mgm-survivor 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ifihadasister 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmostNotSure 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgm-survivor 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmostNotSure 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armed_renegade -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Again, please note, I do not support neonatal circumcision, I oppose it vehemently. In the neonatal setting, sure, this shouldn't be done, and personally it's a consent thing for me. It's certainly not medically necessary, although there are certainly some very well known medical institutions, and studies which support this too, that in some circumstances, the benefits outweigh the cost. And scientifically speaking there are benefits, this can't be disputed.

I certainly think comparing neonatal male circumcision to female circumcision where the clitoris is removed to be completely false, and this is backed up by science as well, and this diminishes the plight of women who have been the victims of FGM. Again, before someone, because it's happened already, I'm not saying MGM should be ignored because FGM is inherently worse in terms of the harm and long term effects, but rather, that comparing the two as equal is justifiably wrong, and does diminish FGM victims.

There was a point in my life, where people, like a certain someone in this thread is doing again, has vastly overstated the effect of male circumcision, and often unintentionally or intentionally, attempts to ridicule or convince those who have been circumcised, that they have lost basically sexual pleasure, they can't feel anything with their dicks, and give the impression that they are freaks. And I'm sure those who aren't circumcised, remember the time where they were made to feel inferior, or to be freaks for not being circumcised, and I am concerned that some people choose to make other men feel and about a situation they had no control of to the point of being ashamed and depressed that this has happened to them. I know people who have been bullied or told how fucked up their dicks are now, to the point where they have contemplated suicide, and this only came from other men, and never from the fact they had been circumcised. Pushing a lot of this problem of depression and whatnot as being caused by other men and their relentless crusade against circumcision, no matter who you are.

I looked up some foreskin stretching things, because you will never restore your foreskin, thought about it because I was made to feel so bad and ashamed (and I had mine done when I was about 8 or 9 for a legitimate medical reason) about having been circumcised.

The fact of the matter is, almost all men, like 98-99% of men who are circumcised, live a fulfilling, pleasurable and normal sexual life. Huge studies have shown little to no difference in subjective, functional sensitivity, or sexual function. And for the most part, if you are man who is circumcised, you will live just as normal a sex life as an uncircumcised/intact man, and you have nothing to worry about

This is what should be told to men, and not shit like, oh look, your genitals have been mutilated, you'll never have pleasure or feel anything with sex, your sex life will be shit and you should feel upset by that. Just seems like a big problem is simply other men. Personally, my sex life is great, I don't need more sensitivity, because as it stands a lot of the time I'm too sensitive anyway, sex is pleasurable for both me and my partner, and I have had no issues of PE or ED related to my circumcision.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgm-survivor 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has all the stats (table 1) on all the common talking points, is highly informative, and not too long. The stats imo are terrible to medically justify circumcision. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

Here's a few excerpts:

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.”

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.”

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

“Decreased penile cancer risk: NNT = 900 – 322,000”. That means between 900 and 322,000 circumcisions need to be performed to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

I say at these stats it's disingenuous to suggest these are legitimate medical benefits. UTIs can be treated by standard antibiotics if and when there is a problem. Condoms are an actually effective transmission barriers to STIs and must be used regardless. Penile cancer is incredibly rare. Prophylactic removing body parts without the patient's consent is not a proportional response to these issues when alternative (normal really) treatments and prevention methods exist.

These stats and issues don’t warrant prophylactic removal of body parts.

I've not seen anyone trying to equate the harm of circumcision to FGM. Most are trying to get it correctly classified as genital mutilation. I say correctly because by definition anything done for non-medical reasons is genital mutilation. Since circumcisions is not medically warranted it meets that definition.

I don't condone any bullying either direction, I brought up that harm apparently needs to be discussed because that's what it takes to convince some people that circumcision shouldn't be done.

I am tempted to counter your claims of 'huge studies' and 98-99% of men because in my reading that's false. But obviously you don't want to discuss this. You can be happy either way, but I think you are now the one spreading misinformation. If you want to avoid these discussions you shouldn't invite them. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

[–]armed_renegade -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Check PowerToAnnihilate's comments where he compares circumcision to be the same as full clitoral removal x 3. This is just crazy and untrue.

As for the studies,

The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased. In addition, 78 percent said circumcision made it easier to don condoms.

...

Two years after the procedure, 99.9 percent of the uncircumcised men said they felt “satisfied or very satisfied” with their sex lives, while among those who’d been circumcised, the figure was a statistically equivalent 98.4 percent.

and

The other 34 studies showed similar results. In several, compared with men with intact foreskins, those who’d been circumcised often said their penises felt more erotically sensitive. In addition, circumcision had no effect on rates of premature ejaculation or erection or ejaculation difficulties.

To me that shows that 98-99% rate. I'd like to hear what you thought of it.

Circumcision in males in Africa has shown a drastic increase in the infection rates of HIV.

The Orange Farm trial report concluded that circumcision offered protection against HIV infection "equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved". A 2009 systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration included these 3 randomized controlled trials. It provided strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by about 60%, while adverse events are rare, and recommended inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#African_trials

This shows efficacy in areas with HIGH incidences of HIV infections rather than low ones, such as in the western world.

Again I don't support it on the grounds, because of the consent issue, and the fact that medical benefits in the western world only have small effects (but effects none the less). I would agree that if there's no inherent medical reason, like phismosis or other, then yes it should be classified as GM. I don't disagree with that. But lets not go telling guys that they're missing out on such a significant amount of sexual pleasure when the scientific evidence just doesn't seem to agree with this. It will literally just cause depression and anxiety over it, as they had no choice in the matter.

Maybe I was lucky, as I wasn't circumcised the traditional way, I was circumcised with the Plastibell, and as such I still have my frenulum, and so my circumcision wasn't "as drastic", but I am trying to be objective and look at the science, and the evidence, rather than from an emotional point. I agree morally its wrong due to the consent issue, and that alone is enough in my mind to mean that it should NEVER be performed whilst they are child. Obviously if there is a medical reason, like me, that needed to be fixed quickly, and circumcision is a viable option for treatment, then it has it's place, and the science, and plenty of circumcised men will attest to as well, that these men will still live normal sexual lives. (This is obviously different in FGM especially with clitoris and/or hood removal, where their is significant effect on sexual satisfaction and pleasure)

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok. I gave you an out but you want to discuss it. Don't take this an attack, it is education.

Firstly source your quotes, I need the study to reply. But going off general ideas that commonly present themselves.

Adults who volunteer to get circumcised commonly have an issue that will be fixed by the circumcision. You'd expect their satisfaction to go up, if the problem was resolved or even if it wasn't. If they had phimosis or similar they will have the inner foreskin and glans exposed to sex for the first time, you'd expect their sensitivity to increase. Most think you lose sensitivity after decades, not a measly 2 years. And only being 2 years, you'd expect them to be happy in the short term. Logically it doesn't apply to men circumcised at birth who have had their glans and inner foreskin exposed for 20-60 years with the idea of desensitization. Putting on condoms is irrelevant to pleasure.

Your second quote shows that fewer circumcised men are satisfied, I think you read this one the other way around. If you're going for people are satisfied, sure, but know that psychologically people are happy with their decisions regardless of what they decide. It's an interesting psychological tendency.

And none of this shows actual information on sexual pleasure. I'm generally not impressed by surveys. Where are the brain scans, where are the analysis on foreskin mechanical action, where are the studies on foreskin sensitivity?

We at least have this study on foreskin sensitivity. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif The full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847. So it is undoubtedly sensitive and erogenous tissue on its own and is a very large piece of your penis by adulthood.

It also plays a gliding role in sex and protects the glans. How anyone can think removing it has no impact is beyond me.

I already gave you the numbers on HIV. You know better. And a vaccine it is not, you also know better although you may have not given it much thought. A vaccine protects you once you are infected. And vaccines prevent outbreaks. Circumcision is barely effective at slowing transmission. It certainly doesn't help you once infected. We need to focus on things that are actually effective like condoms, safe sex education, and clean needle programs. This vaccine quote was undoubtedly from Brian Morris, he's the only person to liken it to a vaccine which is ludicrous on all fronts. He's so far outside the medical community on this topic that not a single medical organization references his work (except to refute it).

Not to mention all this talk of HIV is irrelevant to your main discussion of penile sensitivity.

At best the scientific evidence is mixed. And from my view that's only because it relies on satisfaction surveys instead of what I would call real scientific studies. Keep in mind with these surveys there are people reporting harm, but the conclusions like to round things to make sweeping conclusions.

I've read about 20 of the studies that purport no relationship between circumcision and pleasure (some just the abstract because of paywalls). Most of them are quite bad; poor methodologies, ignoring the foreskin because how do you study it when it's not there, simplistic yes no surveys on 'do you enjoy sex', and very short timelines (2 years usually, but ranges from 12 weeks (!) to 4 years). And circumcising men that suffer from an issue and then asking if it’s now better, of course they’re going to say they like it (and not all of them do, it’s hilarious that some still report harm). And conclusions go far beyond the data. Frankly I'm amazed they’re considered proper studies.

I suggest you read the studies themselves and not just the conclusion or even worse someone else's interpretation of it. Because when I read them I think they show a clear bias towards circumcision and jump to that in the conclusion, misportray and misrepresent the studies findings in their paper. I'm really not exaggerating either. And I'm not the only one that thinks that.

But this has only been replying to studies that purport no diminishment. I already posted the Sorrells study showing the foreskin is the most sensitive area of the penis.

Here's a couple videos I recommend you watch.

Dr. Christopher Guest discusses what the foreskin tissue is, innervation, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(nsfw slides)

and

Dr. Christopher Guest discusses through examples of the ape family how the trend of heavily innervated foreskin is a sign of evolutionary advancement from the lower primate species. It contributes to pair bonding, evolutionarily important for the male to stay and care for offspring.

Ethicist Brian Earp discusses the AAP statement “that if you assign any value whatsoever to the [foreskin] itself, then its sheer loss should be counted as a harm or a cost to the surgery. ... If you implicitly assign it a value of zero then it’s seen as having no cost by removing it.”

and

“The task force members said ‘the benefits were felt to outweigh the risks’. And the reason why they were left making this more subjective sounding statement is because they used no procedure by which you could measure or weigh or balance benefits and risks”

Ethicist Brian Earp discusses what the foreskin is and it’s role

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses the nerve endings on the foreskin, contact during sex, and the foreskins role. If you think certain information will bring you down I recommend you don't watch this one.

Here's a couple studies.

"Circumcised men...were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia."

“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”

I haven't seen any study on the mechanical role of the foreskin, although the presentations talk about it.

Oh just to show you how study conclusions are often bizarre.

The result of this study is "The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites". Then the conclusion is "this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis” which doesn’t make any sense. It contradicts itself. And 2 of the 4 measures used were pain, which is a terrible metric to measure sexual pleasure. I don’t know about you but I’m aiming for sexual pleasure. Read the studies themselves and you'll see a lot of this bizzareness and contradictory conclusions.

[–]codaclouds 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodfoobar 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link