Circumcision-related questions

[scr4]

I happened to peek at a circumcision discussion on a Japanese message board and there's a lot of disconnect between what I thought I knew and what they seem to accept. Some of which are:


For uncircumcized men, is it typical/normal for the glans to be exposed when flaccid?
If the foreskin cannot be retracted even when erect, it's a medical problem that needs to be corrected - correct? (I think phimosis is the term?)
If surgical treatment for phimosis is necessary, is circumcision the most common procedure? Or is it more common to preserve some of the foreskin?

[jln420]

For uncircumcized men, is it typical/normal for the glans to be exposed when flaccid?
If the foreskin cannot be retracted even when erect, it's a medical problem that needs to be corrected - correct? (I think phimosis is the term?)
If surgical treatment for phimosis is necessary, is circumcision the most common procedure? Or is it more common to preserve some of the foreskin?


1-- No.
2-- Yes.
3-- Not sure, but here's an article (http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/dewan/) that discusses it. WARNING: the link has photos.

[Dr_Paprika]

The answer to your first question is "no", like scr4 says.

If the foreskin cannot be retracted, such as in phimosis or paraphimosis (http://www.aafp.org/afp/20001215/2623.html), circumcision remains a common treatment (http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1514.html), despite the objections of John Dean Tyler and NOCIRC. Sometimes this is done for pain relief, to reduce penile inflammation, or to prevent recurrence of the problem.

Paraphimosis is a urologic emergency. The blood and lymphatic supply to the penis can get cut off by the elastic foreskin. The penis becomes swollen and the foreskin gets harder to retrafct due to the increasing swelling. If the problem isn't settled in a matter of hours, damage to the penis is permanent. If ice, pressure wraps, sugar, etc. don't work quickly, circumcision remains a good option.

[scr4]

Thanks!

But it begs more questions - if it's rare for an uncircumcized flaccid penis to have an exposed glans, why do most Japanese seem to think it's natural to have the glans exposed at all times? And why such a prevalence of clinics in Japan offering adult circumcision?

[groman]

But it begs more questions - if it's rare for an uncircumcized flaccid penis to have an exposed glans, why do most Japanese seem to think it's natural to have the glans exposed at all times? And why such a prevalence of clinics in Japan offering adult circumcision?

I'm no expert on circumcision or Japanese culture, but based on my 2 weeks in Tokyo, I would assume that the only reason there is a prevalence of clinics offering adult circumcision in Japan is because the majority of American men are circumcized.

[awldune]

if it's rare for an uncircumcized flaccid penis to have an exposed glans, why do most Japanese seem to think it's natural to have the glans exposed at all times?

I wonder if you are misunderstanding the discussion at the other board.

Normally it is easy to manually expose the glans when flaccid. Given that phimosis was part of the discussion, could they have been talking about being unable to fully expose the glans even when flaccid (as opposed to it being exposed all the time)?

[ambushed]

I'm no expert on circumcision or Japanese culture, but based on my 2 weeks in Tokyo, I would assume that the only reason there is a prevalence of clinics offering adult circumcision in Japan is because the majority of American men are circumcized.


That's rather unreasonable. Far more probable is that a not insignificant number of Japanese men have investigated the risks and benefits of circumcision and have quite justifiably concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks. These benefits are not by any means all medical in nature: for example, many scientific surveys all around the world have found that women vastly prefer the appearance, aesthetics, and generally lower odor of the circumcised penis. Also, women overwhelmingly prefer circumsized versus uncircumcized men for oral sex; many women will refuse to have oral sex with uncircumsized men.

See Morris and Schoner, et. al., for instance, for convincing scientific evidence for these facts.

[Smeghead]

despite the objections of John Dean Tyler and NOCIRC.


Jack. :D

[surlyprince]

...prefer circumsized versus uncircumcized
See Morris and Schoner, et. al., for instance, for convincing scientific evidence for these facts.


Possible TMI!

I can't imagine how making a penis smaller would be better for a woman. In my experience, the foreskin seems to be in a very strategic place, to coincide with a woman's "strategic place". (G spot)

[Mangetout]

For uncircumcized men, is it typical/normal for the glans to be exposed when flaccid?Whilst it is probably abundantly true that it is typical for the glans of an uncircumcised penis to be covered while flaccid, it's by no means exclusively the case - like pretty much any other feature, natural size/length of the uncircumcised foreskin is variable from individual to individual.
In some cases (well, at least one case - that I personally know of, if you get my drift), it doesn't fully cover the glans in adulthood.

[ambushed]

Possible TMI!

I can't imagine how making a penis smaller would be better for a woman. In my experience, the foreskin seems to be in a very strategic place, to coincide with a woman's "strategic place". (G spot)

You're joking, and that's fine. But just for the record, please note that circumcision does NOT reduce the length of the penis. In an uncircumsized man, there is simply more loose flesh that is retracted during an erection. It has been scientificically demonstrated that there is no difference in the sensation in either in the man or the woman as a result of circumcision. The belief that there is is simply another policitcally motivated anti-circumcision myth.

[Mangetout]

It has been scientificically demonstrated that there is no difference in the sensation in either in the man or the woman as a result of circumcision.I'd be interested to read this research, since it seems to be comparable to the issue of whether I see colours the same as you see colours.

[scr4]

Whilst it is probably abundantly true that it is typical for the glans of an uncircumcised penis to be covered while flaccid, it's by no means exclusively the case...
I understand. It's just that clinics ads in Japan (most prominently in porn magazines) say "if your glans isn't exposed all the time, it's an undesirable condition and we can fix it with a simple surgery."

Far more probable is that a not insignificant number of Japanese men have investigated the risks and benefits of circumcision and have quite justifiably concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks.
I find this hard to believe, considering how hard it is to come by unbiased information on which to base such a decision. Anyway, that's not how Americans decide to get their children circimcized, is it? It's done because it's normal, or because the father had it done.

[surlyprince]

You're joking, and that's fine. But just for the record, please note that circumcision does NOT reduce the length of the penis. In an uncircumsized man, there is simply more loose flesh that is retracted during an erection. It has been scientificically demonstrated that there is no difference in the sensation in either in the man or the woman as a result of circumcision. The belief that there is is simply another policitcally motivated anti-circumcision myth.

No joke. The women I've been with have commented that the "extra skin" , when it bunches up behind the head, actually feels different. And I can imagine it does, as it increases girth by a small margin. But I am not a double blind scientific study. I am only one dude with 30 years of foreskin experience. :)

SP

[CookingWithGas]

If ice, pressure wraps, sugar, etc. don't work quickly, circumcision remains a good option.

Sugar? :dubious:

Do you eat it or apply it?

[Mangetout]

Sugar? :dubious:

Do you eat it or apply it?Yeah; I wondered about that; it just seemed like it was a list about to run amok, as in: ice, pressure wraps, sugar, gravel, wasps, a lathe...

[ambushed]

I'd be interested to read this research, since it seems to be comparable to the issue of whether I see colours the same as you see colours.

First, neurologists have demonstrated that the nerves that are most involved in sexual stimulation are not effected at all. These are in the head of the penis, which is not affected. Some nerves are terminated, obviously, during circumcision but their role is ENTIRELY fulfilled by the nerves that remain.

Second, scientific surveys of people who have undergone circumcision as adults show that the overwhelming majority experience no difference in sensation whatsoever, and the very few who do complain are within the error noise of the survey.

[ambushed]

I find this hard to believe, considering how hard it is to come by unbiased information on which to base such a decision.I performed my own research into PubMed and other public medical-paper databases a few years ago and found that there were substantially more pro-circumcision medical papers than anti-circumcision. Now, sheer numbers are insufficient proof of anything, of course, but it does seem that the majority of individual researchers are pro-circ (even though most large medical organizations are neutral to pro-circ, but this seems to me to be little more than political correctness).

It is certainly true that there is a great deal of controversy on the subject, but it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the controversy is political in nature and not scientific. I've done extensive personal research into this issue and have found that the medical and personal survey data in favor of circumcision are profoundly more scientifically rational and well-justified than the anti-circumcision arguments, which are very often near-hysterical in their emotionalism.

Here's just one fact: something like 95% of all medical studies -- and ALL of those with large n -- of the relationship between circumcision status and the likelihood of contracting HIV have shown that -- all other things being equal -- one is 8 (and possibly up to 12) times more likely to contract HIV if you are uncircumcised than otherwise, adjusting for all other variables. This pattern also holds for most STDs, the theory being that the foreskin is insufficiently easy to make sufficiently sterile when cleaning and thus traps infective agents, only to spread them during subsequent sexual encounters.


Anyway, that's not how Americans decide to get their children circimcized, is it? It's done because it's normal, or because the father had it done.

So you're saying it's normal in Japan to be circumcised, or Americans are now the norm in Japan? That's not true, of course. Clearly, the Japanese decide to have circumcisions for very different reasons. In my admittedly limited experience with native Japanese men, they seem to be much more likely to turn to scientific information for such a decision than deciding to be circumcised just because Americans generally are.

[ambushed]

This pattern also holds for most STDs, the theory being that the foreskin is insufficiently easy to make sufficiently sterile when cleaning and thus traps infective agents, only to spread them during subsequent sexual encounters.Wait a minute, that's not logical, and it's not what I meant to say. It's true that for these reasons uncircumsised men are far more likely to infect others, but the point I should have made is that uncircumsized men are more likely to be infected themselves by harboring these infective agents in their foreskin, where they come into contact with microscopic lesions or just thin skin which they can cross over into the bloodstream through. (I seem to recall reading something about particular relationship between white blood cells and the foreskin, though I can't recall the details).

[groman]

It makes no sense that circumcision would result in no loss of sensation.

For a circumcized male it's painfully uncomfortable to have the exposed glans touch the underwear for example. That must not be the case for people who are circumcized, so they certainly don't feel THAT.

So are you saying that it's magical and only reduces unpleasant sensation and leaves the pleasant ones intact?

Plus, those studies are self-reported. For example, I've read somewhere that most people lose 60% of their taste sensitivity by the age of 20. Most people, if you ask them, would not report that since they always feel "natural" within their own body when the transition is very slow(as it is with circumcision, since the glans slowly gets rougher and rougher over the years)

[ambushed]

It makes no sense that circumcision would result in no loss of sensation. You are mistaken. The head of the penis, from which the overwhelming majority of the sensations come from, is not affected in the least. Furthermore, there are no special nerves in the foreskin, it's just ordinary flesh. The sensation that was previously supplied by the nerves of the ordinary flesh of the foreskin are henceforth supplied by the remaining flesh of the penis. There is no loss of sensation.[/QUOTE]

For a circumcized male it's painfully uncomfortable to have the exposed glans touch the underwear for example.As a circumcised man, I can assure you that your claim is specious and false.

So are you saying that it's magical and only reduces unpleasant sensation and leaves the pleasant ones intact? Don't be absurd! Re-read my previous statements. There is absolutely nothing special about the foreskin; the skin that remains provides EXACTLY the same amount and quality of sensation than did the foreskin. Neurologists have established that beyond rational doubt.

Plus, those studies are self-reported.Of course they are! Who better??? Furthermore, there is the fact that neurologists have shown that there can be no change in sensation. There is no difference in the nerves, so there can BE no change in sensation.

For example, I've read somewhere that most people lose 60% of their taste sensitivity by the age of 20. Most people, if you ask them, would not report that since they always feel "natural" within their own body when the transition is very slow(as it is with circumcision, since the glans slowly gets rougher and rougher over the years)But the transition for these men who are circumcised as adults is very brief! If there were any loss of sensation, these men would know it immediately. Your claim that the transition is slow is patent nonsense.

[Mangetout]

I think groman intended to say that for an uncircumcised man, contact with the exposed glans can be painful (and that the fact circumcized men do not experience this discomfort means that there has been loss of sensation).

[ambushed]

I think groman intended to say that for an uncircumcised man, contact with the exposed glans can be painful (and that the fact circumcized men do not experience this discomfort means that there has been loss of sensation).You may be right; that claim would at least make more sense, even though your such a claim (and your parenthetical claim) isn't corroborated by science.

[Malacandra]

Don't, Mangetout. I don't know why circumcision threads turn into trainwrecks the way fat threads do, but for some reason there are certain people who think that everyone should have his dick modified to look like theirs.

[Mangetout]

You may be right; that claim would at least make more sense, even though your such a claim (and your parenthetical claim) isn't corroborated by science.I'm going to regret this, but does an uncircumcised man actually need science to tell him that his own dick gets uncomfortable if he stashes it back in his pants with the foreskin retracted?

[Mangetout]

It's actually rather difficult to google this topic without tripping over lots of sites that are very much entrenched in a pro or (mostly)con viewpoint, but there seems to be consensus among both camps that circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity (not necessarily erogenous sensitivity) to the glans; many of the 'pro' circumcision sites even mention 'staying power due to slightly reduced sensitivity'.

[ambushed]

I'm going to regret this, but does an uncircumcised man actually need science to tell him that his own dick gets uncomfortable if he stashes it back in his pants with the foreskin retracted?
I have no position on personal claims of pain if one chooses to push one's dick around or anything else with regard to personal anecdotes. What is not scientific is the claim that circumcised men feel less sensation during sex than uncircumcised men. It's a anti-scientific myth. The scientific evidence is utterly compelling and and is well-confirmed by legitimate scientific evidence.


See Morris and Schoner (sp?), et. al.

[Mangetout]

I have no position on personal claims of pain if one chooses to push one's dick around or anything else with regard to personal anecdotes. What is not scientific is the claim that circumcised men feel less sensation during sex than uncircumcised men. It's a anti-scientific myth. The scientific evidence is utterly compelling and and is well-confirmed by legitimate scientific evidence.


See Morris and Schoner (sp?), et. al.OK, although the passion with which you're asserting this doesn't help to reinforce your claim of neutrality.

But that's a bit different to what you previously said, which was that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate the claim that the uncircumcised men experience greater sensitivity of the exposed glans (to touch and abrasion).

[Futile Gesture]

What is not scientific is the claim that circumcised men feel less sensation during sex than uncircumcised men. It's a anti-scientific myth. The scientific evidence is utterly compelling and and is well-confirmed by legitimate scientific evidence.I'd be interested in see how such a thing could possibly be measured scientifically. Do we have a calibrated scale of sensation?
See Morris and Schoner (sp?), et. al.No. You tell us what it says.

I'm also tempted to ask about that "overwhelmingly" evidence of female preference, since you brought it up, but doubt it falls withing the scope of General Questions. More likely IMHO.

[scr4]

So you're saying it's normal in Japan to be circumcised, or Americans are now the norm in Japan? That's not true, of course. Clearly, the Japanese decide to have circumcisions for very different reasons. In my admittedly limited experience with native Japanese men, they seem to be much more likely to turn to scientific information for such a decision than deciding to be circumcised just because Americans generally are.
No, I'm saying the Japanese tend to look at Westerners when trying to decide what's "normal" for the Average Human Being.

And in my not-so-limited experience with Japanese men (I am one, and spent 2/3 of my life there), they are just as likely to be misled by superstition and prejudice as Americans, if not more so. Japanese culture places a high value on conformity, so once some idea or practice gets established as the norm, it's very unlikely for Japanese individuals to do their own research and make a decision for themselves.

[zoid]

Considering the fact that asians are willing to undergo eyelid surgery (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=asian+eyelid+surgery) just to look more American (or possibly Western is a better description?) I find it plausible that more than a few would consider circumcision for the same reason.

[ambushed]

It's actually rather difficult to google this topic without tripping over lots of sites that are very much entrenched in a pro or (mostly)con viewpoint, but there seems to be consensus among both camps that circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity (not necessarily erogenous sensitivity) to the glansThat's not in accordance of what my personal research into the medical literature says.

[Mangetout]

Well, there's possibly another part of the problem; there appears to be quite a broad spectrum of results and conclusions in the available research; both the 'pro' and 'con' sides seem (unsurprisingly, I suppose) to select the research that best supports their arguments.

[ambushed]

OK, although the passion with which you're asserting this doesn't help to reinforce your claim of neutrality.First, that's not so much passion as a bit of frustration. Second, I don't hink I've suggested that I'm neutral: rather I believe that the great preponderance of the scientific evidence shows that many more benefits -- some small, some great -- spring from circumcision than the lack of it.

You and I tangled on this issue many years ago, at which tiime I cited scores of scientific studies to establish my point (unfortunately, all that detailed research is on my old computer that I cannot manage to fix). At that time, you were a distinct partisan on the anti-circ side. In this thread, however, I must admit that you are being quite fair, though your posts don't quite fit the word "neutral" either.

[Malacandra]

That's not in accordance of what my personal research into the medical literature says.

That manages to sound quite learned and scientific without actually supplying any additional information at all. :rolleyes:

[ambushed]

I'd be interested in see how such a thing could possibly be measured scientifically. Do we have a calibrated scale of sensation?I guess I'll have to explain again...

First, neurologists have minutely studied the nervous systems of both the uncircumcised and circumsised penis. They have concluded: (1) there are no special or unusual or distinct nerves in the foreskin, and (2) the nerves that remain after circumcision FULLY provide exactly the same amount of and nature of sensation becuase they KNOW that the nerves themselves are identical; it's just that nerves that were farther back come to the forefront. They provide identical level and nature of sensation, as confirmed not only by nervous anatomy but by the level, nature, and waveforms of the neuro-electrical signals.

Second, men who were circumcised as adults state that there is absolutely no difference in sensation, precisely as one would expect from the anatomical research.

[ambushed]

Well, there's possibly another part of the problem; there appears to be quite a broad spectrum of results and conclusions in the available research; both the 'pro' and 'con' sides seem (unsurprisingly, I suppose) to select the research that best supports their arguments.

There are at least as many conclusions in the research to support psi and ghosts and ESP than the reverse. Pro-scientists select their data just as much as anti-scientists, the difference is that some results are sound and others aren't. It is, in my experience, always the politically active researchers that choose poor science. In this instance, the politically active researchers are the anti-circ advocates.

[Mangetout]

First, that's not so much passion as a bit of frustration. Second, I don't hink I've suggested that I'm neutral: rather I believe that the great preponderance of the scientific evidence shows that many more benefits -- some small, some great -- spring from circumcision than the lack of it.

You and I tangled on this issue many years ago, at which tiime I cited scores of scientific studies to establish my point (unfortunately, all that detailed research is on my old computer that I cannot manage to fix). At that time, you were a distinct partisan on the anti-circ side. In this thread, however, I must admit that you are being quite fair, though your posts don't quite fit the word "neutral" either.I don't remember the encounter to which you refer; the only circumcision debate in which I remember becoming deeply embroiled was this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263883&page=1) one where, although I plainly stood on the 'anti' side (and I don't see any reason to pretend I feel neutral either, although I strive for operational neutrality), it was generally acknowledged by people (well, most of them) in the thread that I conducted myself in a calm, civil and rational way.

It's a weird topic; almost impossible to calmly discuss, yet for no particularly good reason; I can understand the emotion of the extreme 'anti' side - after all, they believe an atrocity is in progress; I just can't quite grasp where the extreme 'pro' side derives its fervour.

[Mangetout]

There are at least as many conclusions in the research to support psi and ghosts and ESP than the reverse.That's not really what I was talking about and is, I think, a bit of an unfair dismissal; I tried searching around and I discovered what appeared to be valid scientific research supporting the claim that reduced sensitivity of the glans (to touch and abrasion, again, not talking about the larger issue of erogenous response) is a real, observed phenomenon; I'm reluctant to cite any of this material because I can't find it presented in a neutral context; that might sound like an indication that it is flawed somehow, but I also had trouble in finding the opposing data presented in a neutral context, in fact, I had trouble finding anything neutral at all.

[Broomstick]

Slightly off-topic, but did anyone else notice the ads at the bottom of this thread actually relate to the topic, with a a blurb for curing phimosis and a place called "The Circumcism Center" instead of the mailing list crap we were getting before?

Just throught it interesting.

[Futile Gesture]

They have concluded: (1) there are no special or unusual or distinct nerves in the foreskin, and (2) the nerves that remain after circumcision FULLY provide exactly the same amount of and nature of sensation becuase they KNOW that the nerves themselves are identical; it's just that nerves that were farther back come to the forefront. They provide identical level and nature of sensation, as confirmed not only by nervous anatomy but by the level, nature, and waveforms of the neuro-electrical signals.
Unfortunately there is more to sensation than the basic mechanics of biology. If you are used to getting pats on the back, another pat is no big deal. If you are rarely patted, it is a big deal. Yet they 'feel' exactly the same.

[Futile Gesture]

I just can't quite grasp where the extreme 'pro' side derives its fervour.When you're deprived of something, a good tactic to make you feel better about it is to deny that it is ever worth having. I can understand that.

[Mangetout]

When you're deprived of something, a good tactic to make you feel better about it is to deny that it is ever worth having. I can understand that.Do you seriously think this is the motivation that underlies it all? How could we determine whether or not this is truly the case?

[DrMatrix]

Factual question answered. Thread closed.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator