Reply With QuoteYeah, can't say I've heard that either, Greg.
Registered User
Men suffer from sexual dysfunction for many reasons, I don't see why this wouldn't be a valid reason to him - maybe he thought that he was missing out on something by not having one?
Yeah, can't say I've heard that either, Greg.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
The theory is that an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive, because after circumcision, the skin of the glans (head) of the penis comes into contact with the outside world a lot more and "keratinises", or toughens. As a result, an uncircumcised penis is thought to be more sensitive.
However, as pointed out, it's a difficult thing to compare - circumcisions late in life are not common procedures, and there are so many other factors involved in the sexual experience (not to mention that the majority of reasons for late-in-life circumcisions are to do with penile function anyway) it would be hard to pin down one thing as being the cause of an increase, or decrease, in penile sensitivity.
The penis, like female genitalia, has both pleasure and pain response nerves. Pleasure response nerves are the ones which fire in unison which ultimately brings on an orgasm. 60% of the pleasure response nerve endings in the penis are on the foreskin. So if you circumcise, you remove 60% of the pleasure response nerves from the person's genitals. The glans has pleasure response nerves too (the other 40%) but many many more pain response nerves (to protect the delicate glans from damage). Overall the glans is about 9:1 pain: pleasure nerve endings.
Besides the 60% of the pleasure receptors being lost to amputation, the remaining sensitivity is reduced by the contant contact of fabrics against the glans. What was designed to be a mucus membrane becomes a dry, scarred one - an equivalent could be seen in removing the eyelids or the cheeks - the eyeballs and the inside of the mouth are supposed to be wet places and would not function normally if they were not - blindness/an inability to eat and digest food well (there are digestive enzymes in saliva) would result.
During sex the foreskin stays relatively still against the vulva, only slight movements excite the nerves at the entrance while varying pressure inside excites the vaginal nerves without the constant in-out glans-to-base friction of the circumcised or sheathed (with a condom) penis taking the natural lubrication away and drying the area out faster.
Studies have shown the partners of uncircumcised men use less sexual lubricant, less cystitis treatments and less feminine itching products (the study was done by a pharmaceutical company looking for target groups of consumers) than those whose partners do not have foreskins. Sexual dysfunction (both impotence and inability to reach orgasm) is 4 times more common in circumcised men over 50 than in uncircumcised men the same age. Penile sensitivity and function naturally declines with age but the circumcised penis begins that decline at a significant disadvantage, having already lost so much surgically and to constant friction from clothing.
Many many men have a perfectly adequate sex life without their foreskins. Many people live a perfectly adequate life without legs. How inconvenienced a person might feel by the involuntary loss of any body part is something only the individual themselves can know. It is MUCH easier to arrange an adult circumcision than it is to stretch back an amputated foreskin.
Bx
Registered User
I find it amusing the anti-info often contradicts itself.
First, the claim is often made circumcision *limits* the sexual experience for both the male and female, as it supposedly causes premature ejaculation. Then we have the quote above. Both these "facts" cannot be correct, because it is impossible having 60% *less* sensation could result in *more* sensation (as would be the case if premature ejaculation theory were true).
In other words, if a circumcised man ejaculates early (as is often cited as a reason not to circumcise)... and according to the above, an uncircumcised man has 60% more sensation... By their own logic, the uncircumcised man would have instantaneous ejaculation - and the circumcised man would last far longer.
Neither type "lasts" longer than the other. Any suggestion otherwise - IMHO - is quite ridiculous. So it becomes obvious the logic doesn't hold water.
Even were it true, it is well-known when one sensation is lost/reduced (such as sight) other senses become more acute. So if removal makes a man "less" somehow, he would also be "more". (Unless it was his entire penis being removed!) ;-p
Both have negatives.
Both have positives.
There is slightly more POSSIBLE benefit on the pro side. As none of us can prove or disprove those benefits, it is merely a matter of choice. Pseudo-facts won't change that.
Registered User
hi, Congrats on your bubby to be. This is such a sensitive issue with most ppl. We didn't find out what we are having, But we think its a boy. My dh is circumcised and he would like his boy to be done to look like him but mainly because of health issues. I've done lots of research and i don't like the idea of how its done. The only reason i agreed to get it done if its a boy is because one of our friends recently had to get circumised at 25. His foreskin tore. He said it was very painful and was angry with his parents for not doing it when he was a baby, so we decided that we would get it done. You dont hear about ppl getting this done when they are older from health issues is because its so private and a sensitive issue. My ob said some babies come back crying after and some don't and its very quick. we havent told anyone because you do get good and bad feedback and this is your baby and your decision. You don't want anyone to sway your decision purely on what they say. I think there should be more professional advise out there so ppl can understand why ppl get this done
I must say this has been really interesting reading. My DP and I are having a boy and much to my surprise, my DP announced shortly afterwards that he'd like his son to be circumcised. For some silly reason that never even crossed my mind (when it should have as my DP is!)...
For me it goes against my philosophy of having a Calmbirth and trying to bring my child into the world in a peaceful way - then making him go through a medical procedure.
Not sure how to handle this whole thing as I also need to respect DP's choices and naturally he is leaning toward what he knows. He puts a big argument forward for infection prevention but is this really the case?
I want to know all the pros & cons before deciding - want to make an informed decision and not one based on history.
Anyone else at opposing ends of this debate as a couple???
The richly innervated nature of the foreskin is a medically demonstrated fact, not something invented for anti circ purposes, and the target info i mentioned was not done by the anti circ lobby but by Pfizer.
Of the penis there are a number of primary erogenous zones, the stimulation of which trigger orgasm, these are the outer foreskin, the preputial orifice the ridged mucosa and the frenulum. Orgasm will still be possible for men who have any of these structures intact. In circumcision only the first 3 are removed, the frenulum, where the foreskin was anchored to the glans, is not removed, but rather the foreskin is detatched from it. The glans by comparison to the foreskin is not richly innervated at all.
For women reading this the difference compares to the touch sensation between the inner labia and the inner vagina - the vagina has almost no fine-touch nerve receptors too which is why pressure and movement feel good and gentle stroking without pressure of the inner vaginal passage can barely be felt.
The mechanism to orgasm is not a linear one. Having more nerves does not make uncircumcised men ejaculate faster because the pathways formed in the brain when sexual touching is first experienced take into account what is there, not what should be there. Nerve endings lost shortly after birth will not be required for a sexual response.
Sexual response and orgasmic capabilities vary from person to person. Some women report never, in a lifetime, being able to achieve orgasm and some (myself included) can orgasm without direct touching of the genitals.
It is very likely that if i had my clitoral hood removed i would still be able to orgasm. It is possible that if i had my entire clitoris excised i might still be able to orgasm, since i can orgasm from nipple stimulation.
Of COURSE one can get by without a foreskin, just as one can get by without an arm, hand, finger, eye, or any other minor body part.
Bella around 1% of uncircumcised male children will have a penile or urine infection during childhood. These are treated, as in girls, with antibiotics. Around 1 in 4000 boys will have repeated infections and in some cases (not all) circumcision may help. Note that UTI's are FAR more common in girls, and that there is nothing to amputate in girls to "cure" the situation.
The intact penis needs no extra care. You swish a bit of soap and water around it once a day, ONLY the bit you can see - NEVER retract the foreskin to clean underneath. The foreskin is bonded to the glans at birth like the nail is bonded to the nail bed - pulling it back results in pain, bleeding and can vastly raise the chance of infection. Baby boys usually loosen the foreskin (by fiddling with themselves) naturally by the middle of childhood. Once it can be retracted without effort it should be rolled back and gently washed under once a day when the rest of the boy is getting washed. That's it.
Bx
hi dane 79
my wife and i have all ready made our mine up if we have a boy , he will be cut like me .
Registered User
We had DS done because DH was in the army and had seen a lot of really bad infections on guys who weren't done when they were "out bush". Its all very well to say hygeine standards mean no infections but when there is no water to wash it can get pretty nasty. A friends DH was in submarines and he had the same experience.
Moderator
I've heard the same story from geriatric nurses, some old men find it hard to maintain their hygiene.
hi mrsmac
im with you and your DH it is much cleaner
Registered User
I find these kinds of "anti" website/pamphlet/etc. remarks rather sad. They do the "anti" cause no favours because they are emotive, false (or at the very least misleading) and add precious little to people's understanding. (Comparing circumcision to amputating limbs or eyelids is biased emotion, not reasonable logic or fact.)
Removing a foreskin is really more akin to having a fingernail or even a mole surgically removed. In fact it is more like the mole, because a fingernail would hurt far more than either the mole or circumcision. While a foreskin is loose and attached at one end and designed to be folded back (at a later age of course) - the entire surface area of a fingernail is permanently attached to the finger and designed to cover it forever. Comments like that are relying on a kind of mild brainwashing technique, designed to make you involuntarily compare two things in your mind - one thing that makes you cringe that you know is nasty, the other you're not so sure about. So your brain mentally attaches the unsure thing to the first unpleasant thing. (Hey presto!)
The real truth is this... The only person that could comment with any authority on this either way, would be a man who was not circumcised, and then became so. (Not a doctor who begins with a bias, then sets out to prove that bias by focusing his research on things that support his bias - like the 60% nerve ending thing.) A long term survey/study of many such men's opinions, sensations, and sexual experiences and function would have be done over at least a couple of decades to have any meaning or credibility. Of course, this will probably never happen.
So, in the absence of scientific proof *either* way, it again comes down to preference and opinion. Take note of this fact though... In most cases the "pro" folks are happy for others to not follow them into circumcision, whereas the opposite is not usually true. (As emotive opinions like "it's like cutting off your son's eyelids" clearly shows.)
On another note... To the lady that posted a message or two back, mentioning her husband and herself have differing views... I'm glad my wife & I were in agreement. But even she went, "Aw... Poor little bubba." When it came time to have it done. I said, "Aw, now don't start... You wanted it done even before I did!" She then gave me a cheeky grin (teasing me) and said, "Yeah - I know, but..."
You may like to search for the thread circangel (I think it was) started - to help people find doctors that circumcise in their area. (Or you could click on my username and look at the thread titles.) In one of my messages there, I described our third son's recent circumcision and gave a link to a doctor's website. He provides there an online slideshow, demonstrating various facts and info. You could both view that together and gain a 100% clear, step-by-step understanding of the exact procedure. Who knows, maybe he'll change his mind after seeing it... Or it might help calm your own anxiety a little, seeing exactly what's involved.
Whatever you both choose, I hope you find peace with your decision.
Registered User
Hey, it was impossible enough for my parents to get me to keep my ROOM clean. How would I have ever kept...
Registered User
I have to put in my input, since I had my little boy in March & didn't get him done. There are alot of reasons.
1. Dh is not done - probably the weakest reason.
2. I found out it started for the same reasons as female circumsision - which I'm sure you wouldn't dream of doing. To reduce sexual pleasure, therefore reduce promiscuity & pre marital sex.
3. I believe it is my son's body & there fore his decision to do it later in life if he chooses to. The strongest reason.
4. There are less people doing it done & we didn't want DS feeling the odd one out at school as DH did growing up.
5. My baby was born that way. Why change it? He's perfect the way he was born. The way he is meant to be.
I am strongly against it, so much so that I don't know how I'd take it if it had to be done later for medical reasons. I really hope I never have to find out.
For medical reasons I can understand.
For Religious reasons I'm iffy about.
If there is no real reason though, I think it's not fair.
I don't think the fact that it can be painful for bub's is as much of a problem for me. I hate that babies are subjected to pain for no reason, but who really knows if it's painful for them or not? Obviously it can be, but apparently there are ways it's not??
But in saying that. If my best friend or someone else close to me wanted to do it I would try really hard to support their decision.
It is every parents decision & theirs alone. Don't let others opinions stop you doing what is right for you. This is your son, not theirs. Do what you think is right for him.
Registered User
Hi... Hadn't heard that before (#2).
Well, I've seen it done three times now. Have had a few (more serious) operations myself. I don't think it was painful at all for any of our three - just as my own operations were not. Perhaps at the worst it was a little uncomfortable for a couple of days. As anyone would be after an operation. As I said elsewhere, we couldn't even wake up our most recent son... He fell asleep!
Mrsmac that's crazy! Which army is that? My brother was in the UK army for 18 years and when he was in places without water (was in Iraq for 2 years on and off and water was v. scarce in the heat and in Bosnia 3 winters in a row where they had water but it was always frozen and they didn't have enough fuel to melt it for washing) they were told to use their own urine (which is sterile) to wash their penis and get all the sand etc. out/off. He said no one he knew of had a problem, even after months on tour.
Bjrose i know how you feel. DP have talked about it ourselves and we would both be completely devastated if he lost his foreskin. It plays such an intrinsic part in our intimacy, we would both have to rethink a lot of things if he was without it.
Greg deep sleep is the most common response to medical shock in newborns. It's why they sometimes pull newborn babies out of earthquakes days later still alive, their body shuts everything down in response to injury or pain. It is relatively simple to administer an injection of local anaesthetic into the nerve at the base of the penis to alleviate all pain from the procedure.
Also, from PubMedReally the studies on this are out there if anyone cares to google them. They were plenty conducted by universities, not anti-circ lobbies.[Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision]
[Article in Chinese]
Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, Wan Q, Chen Z.
Department of Urology,
First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003,
China.
shenzhj@mail.hz.zj.cn
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function of adults after circumcision.
METHODS: Ninty-five patients were investigated on erectile function by questionnaire before and after circumcision, respectively.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, and 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction after circumcision (P = 0.001). Adult circumcision appeared to have resulted in weakened erectile confidence in 33 cases (P = 0.04), difficult insertion in 41 cases (P = 0.03), prolonged intercourse in 31 cases (P = 0.04) and improved satisfaction in 34 cases (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached.
PMID: 14979200 [PubMed]
[Comment: This study, unfortunately, was published in Chinese. We have only the English language abstract to guide us. Circumcision is uncommon in China, so these 95 men apparently were circumcised to treat a medical condition with a problem prepuce. Circumcision resulted in erectile dysfunction in 28 (28.4%), weakened erectile confidence in 33 (34.7%) difficult insertion in 41 (43.1%), prolonged intercourse in 31 (32.6%), and improved satisfaction in 34 (35.7%). It is likely that the inproved satisfaction resulted from being freed of the medical condition and the problem prepuce, not from the circumcision. This study tends to confirm the earlier findings of Fink et al.]
I'll bow out now. Really if you choose to amputate part of your child's body the only person you will need to answer to is them.
Bx
Last edited by paradise lost; July 15th, 2008 at 04:07 AM.
Bookmarks