Penile Lengthening Column

[Jack Dean Tyler]

It is commonly reported by circumcised men who non-surgically restore their foreskins that their penis lengthens by an inch on average. This is thought to occur because their circumcisions were so tight that their penises couldn't fully extend when erect. The new foreskin that is created allows for the full extension that nature intended.
Also, it is commonly reported by these same men that the circumference of their penises increases by about an inch (no one has really come up with any obvious reason why this would be so, though).

[Diane]

non-surgically restore their foreskins

I have to ask. . .

How do they do this?

Regarding the curve - The guy I am currently dating has a curved penis that bends toward his stomach so far that it almost touches. It hits "the spot" during sex, if you know what I mean. Why anyone would want to surgically correct the condition is beyond me.

[Nanook of the North Shore]

Beating Arnold to the bunch again...the link to the column is http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001020.html

God I love doing that lol

[Jack Dean Tyler]

>How do they do this? <

Diane,
Many methods are used by circumcised men to restore their foreskins. Most men use tape to just tug the remaining shaft skin forward over the period of perhaps two years. A new invention called the Tug-Ahoy is more convenient and involves no tape. It's a painless procedure. All men who do this agree that the results are well worth the effort.
BTW, slight curvatures in a man's penis can occur naturally with no ill affect. However, extreme curvatures are usually the result of badly performed circumcisions (I don't mean to imply that there is any such a thing as a good circumcision, though. All circumcisions amputate the most erogenous part of the man's penis. The very part needed to stimulate the woman effectively during coitus is amputated).

[Chronos]

All circumcisions amputate the most erogenous part of the man's penis.

I'm uncircumcised, and it seems to me that my glans is a lot more sensitive than my foreskin. As for stimulating the woman, I fail to see how there would be any difference between a circumcised an uncircumcised penis.

[Tansu]

What, pray, is a 'Tug-ahoy', and could a less ridiculous name for it not have been chosen?

I'm not sure what the foreskin is supposed to do for me either. I can see why the bloke would want to keep it, and I do think they're kind of cute, but I don't see what the foreskin does for the woman during coitus.

[Carina42]

Diane...agreed on the curvature thing. My ex had one of *those*...damn, the only thing I miss about him. And from this woman's perspective, no difference in circumsized/au naturel as to the sensory experience. Though I must say I think au naturel is cuter, the way it peeks out like a little turtle's head. awww.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Chronos,
>I'm uncircumcised, and it seems to me that my glans is a lot more sensitive than my foreskin.<

Are you sure that you are intact? The only place on the body with fewer light-touch nerve receptors than the glans is the heel of the foot. The glans is a very primitive part of the penis capable of very little erotic sensation. Men who are unlucky enough to have been circumcised, but who are still lucky enough to have had a relatively kind circumcision, will almost always say that their frenulums are the most sensitive part of their penises. Generally speaking, intact men have so much sensation in the area of their penises that they don't know where precisely all of the sensation is coming from.

>As for stimulating the woman, I fail to see how there would be any difference between a circumcised [and]uncircumcised penis.<

The sensory component on the dorsal (top/back) of the penis seeks out small firm areas such as the G-spot and the clitoris. When this component contacts these areas in the woman it sends out a burst of a special sensation to the man. Of course, this causes the woman to simultaneously get a burst of sensation.
Also, a foreskin eliminates friction on the woman's vagina. And, for various reasons, a woman doesn't have to struggle to stay lubricated because there generally is no "wet spot" when she is engaging in coitus with an intact man.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Tansu,
>What, pray, is a 'Tug-ahoy', and could a less ridiculous name for it not have been chosen?<
The inventor of this device is named James Hoy. So, you see the play on words here. Those that carry out a restoration of their foreskins are usually very angry about what has happened to them (especially as they start to experience sensations that they have never felt before). They are very serious about getting something back that was forcibly taken from them. However, they often will say that "you gotta have a sense of humor if you're going to do this thing." The Tug-Ahoy is named in this vein, I'm sure.

[bibliophage]

If you must know, here is a DETAILED DESCRIPTION
OF HOW THE TUG AHOY© WORKS. Now I wish I didn't know.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
The sensory component on the dorsal (top/back) of the penis seeks out small firm areas such as the G-spot and the clitoris.

Geez, I've heard of "it" having a mind of its own, but this? How does the penis seek out the clitoris anyway? I'm assuming this is during intercourse, right?

When this component contacts these areas in the woman it sends out a burst of a special sensation to the man.

Does it? Being concave, not convex, perhaps I'm not entitled to question. . .

I'm dubious--can you provides any cites for this?

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Podkayne,
>How does the penis seek out the clitoris anyway? I'm assuming this is during intercourse, right?<

The main course of sex for an intact man who knows how to use his penis is not actually penetration. The main course is when the intact man slides the dorsal side of his penis over the clitoris of the woman. The man is getting the best sensations when he does this. In the process of doing this, the man is inadvertently manipulating the woman's clitoral hood which gives her by far the best sensations (clitoral orgasm).

> Does it? Being concave, not convex, perhaps I'm not entitled to question. . . <
What are you asking exactly? The clitoris and the G-spot are convex. They both have a low profile, but they are convex. There is an area of about 1 square centimeter on the dorsal side of an intact man's penis that is the primary area that contacts or otherwise benefits from the pressure of the clitoris or G-spot. This area is contained in a ridged system on the intact man's penis.

> I'm dubious--can you provides any cites for this?<

What precisely do you want a cite for? All areas of the human body have been studied extensively with the exception of the foreskin. Unfortunately, there are many political, religious, and psychological reasons as to why the foreskin will not be studied in the well-funded peer-reviewed way that every thinking person would prefer (Certainly, by now, there is even enough published research to stop circumcision. Yet, American medical schools are still today teaching students to circumcised all infant boys.). There is some published research on the foreskin coming out of Europe, though. Anyway, for now, we are stuck with anecdotal evidence. But, IMHO, anecdotal evidence isn't all that bad. One can still check to make sure that it is consistent with what is known for certain.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
There is some published research on the foreskin coming out of Europe, though. Anyway, for now, we are stuck with anecdotal evidence. But, IMHO, anecdotal evidence isn't all that bad. One can still check to make sure that it is consistent with what is known for certain.

Sooooo. . . you don't have a citation. . . Okey doke. Please don't be offended then when I remain doubtful. There are more myths than truths about sexual anatomy, seems like.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Podkayne,
>Sooooo. . . you don't have a citation. . . Okey doke. Please don't be offended then when I remain doubtful. There are more myths than truths about sexual anatomy, seems like.<

Maybe I have a cite and maybe I don't. Exactly, what do you want a cite for?
I'm not offended by anyone who systematically doubts all that he hears. That impresses me, actually. If you are someone who systematically doubts everything that he hears, then I am very sad that you weren't around when the doctors and religious leaders were inventing nonsense to justify circumcision.
As I have already explained, the problem that we face with regard to the foreskin is that there will not be extensive research done on the foreskin in our lifetimes because of the political, religious, and psychological repercussions. The shift is already on to slowly phase out circumcision in America. Circumcision is an issue that will be sidestepped for now by researchers who value their careers. An intact generation in the future will study the foreskin and then it will be fully known what the disaster was. It will be easy to face the disaster then because all circumcised men will be deceased.
Anyway, some research is happening. It does have some peer review even if all of the peers are not necessarily professional scientists. You would be wise to not forget that major scientific discoveries were made all of the time centuries ago by non-professionals. The same thing is happening now with the foreskin.

[Chronos]

Yes, I am completely, totaly, 100% intact. When I was born, my mother decided that that was a decision my father would be better qualified to make, and my father decided that there was no reason to have me circumcised. I have just as much sensation in my foreskin as I do in the skin anywhere else on my body, but my glans is easily more sensitive than any other part except possibly my tongue (I've never done comparison trials between the two).
As for differences during copulation, surely you're aware that the foreskin pulls back, producing the exact same profile as a circumcised penis? I can see how this might possibly reduce friction slightly, in the process of pulling back, but other than that, what difference could there be between a foreskin that is pulled back and one that is cut off?

The reason that we want a cite is that without one, it's just your word versus everyone else's. It's nothing personal; if you stick around this board for a while, you'll notice that people ask for cites for everything.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with a person deciding not to be circumcised (I wouldn't do it, myself), or to take measures to reverse a circumcision; I just doubt that the reasons you give are good ones.

[Simetra]

Due to a medical problem I had as an adolescent I had to have surgery on my more sensitive member. I shan't give any more background than that, save it might be disgusting to some, and is very private to me.

However, during the operation there was some irreversable damage done to my cavernosa. (I think that's the correct term but correct me if I'm wrong.) What I'm refering to is the spongey tissue that runs up the shaft. Due to this damage, I'm afraid that my member will "never live up to it's full potential". At least that's what my urologist told my father. This was a very hard topic for my father to explain to me, and an even harder one for me to grasp. I've spent many a night depressed as all hell about this, because I know what the average is (according to most of my RN cousin's medical text-books), and I know I'm not anywhere close to being "average".

Enough about me. What I want to know is, if anyone knows of any other types of penile enlargement practices besides those cited by Cecil. I doubt there's anything else out there that I haven't tried. But I can't help but ask the smartest people I know. The dopers.

Just to give you a run down. I've tried stretching the skin, using a pump, pelvic floor exercises, blood flow exercises, herbal medicines, keeping in shape (I do that anyway), I stopped smoking because I thought it would help... Like I said, I tried everything.

But I would appreciate anything you could tell me. This is so hard for me. I just wanna be average. Thanks in advance to all of you. And thanks for taking the time to read this.

[samclem]

Jack Dean Tyler said

Maybe I have a cite and maybe I don't. Exactly, what do you want a cite for?

Let's assume you are an Engineer(as your profile says).

If I were to offer an opinion on a matter of Engineering that is in your field of expertise, you might ask me to offer some proof as to my assertions.


[Jack's employer] Jack! How did you come up with these calculations on the xxxxx project?[/Jack's employer]

[Jack] Maybe I'll tell you and maybe I won't[/Jack]

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Chronos,
>I have just as much sensation in my foreskin as I do in the skin anywhere else on my body, but my glans is easily more sensitive than any other part except possibly my tongue (I've never done comparison trials between the two). <

It sounds like there may be a problem with your penis.

> As for differences during copulation, surely you're aware that the foreskin pulls back, producing the exact same profile as a circumcised penis? <

No, I wouldn't agree with you. The foreskin remains attached under the meatus on an intact penis. Even if a man has a short foreskin, it still looks different than a circumcised penis if one takes a close look.
On your penis, it may be that you have no problem whatsoever. Or, it may be that your foreskin is too loose and you have keritinization (this is easily fixed). Or, it may be that your foreskin was prematurely retracted when you were a baby and your frenulum was snapped (this is quite common although I have never had the opportunity to observe one close up so I'm not sure what kind of nervous damage results. I would say that it is possible that a frenulum snap could result in catastrophic damage to the erotic nerves of the foreskin, though).

>I can see how this might possibly reduce friction slightly, in the process of pulling back, but other than that, what difference could there be between a foreskin that is pulled back and one that is cut off? <

There are a lot of differences. The main way that friction on the woman is reduced is that the stroke length of an intact man is something like ½" as opposed to a circumcised man whose stroke length is virtually his whole penis length (4 to 6 inches more or less). This shorter stroke causes the speed of the penis to decrease a lot. And, the shorter stroke length means that the penis changes directions before the foreskin has a chance to move on the woman. So, the woman experiences a rolling motion more than any sliding motion.

> The reason that we want a cite is that without one, it's just your word versus everyone else's. <

I'm sorry, let me rephrase my question: What information that I have given you do you want a cite for? I have a gazillion cites that I can offer. You should know that a lot of the information that I am giving you is cutting edge and so sometimes I can only offer cites that are consistent with the information that I have given you. That's the position that we are in, unfortunately.

[samclem]

You should know that a lot of the information that I am giving you is cutting edge,<snip>

[Alphagene]

I don't want to make a big flap here, and I realize you guys are going along at a good clip, and I don't mean to cut you off. Just so this discussion is completely covered, I will mention that Cecil has previously discussed the circumcision debate. I mention it because it seems to be where this thread is headed.

Take a glans at it when you can.

[OneChance]

Jack, you said, "The shift is already on to slowly phase out circumcision in America." Do you have a cite for that? What evidence do you have that what you're stating is true? Besides, why are you so concerned about what other men are doing to their penises?

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Cecil,
>I turned up four men who were circumcised as adults and were thus in a position to compare. Two said sex was better before, two said it's better now. <

The problems with using men who have been circumcised as adults to make the before and after comparison are many. In the first place, any man who would consent to having such a large amount of his penis amputated is certainly assuming that everything is going to be fine afterwards. That is: He doesn't even consider the possibility that there might be some loss in sensations. If these thoughts entered his mind, he would be irrational to continue. In the second place, because the man assumes that no sensations or will be lost, he doesn't make a major effort to quantify or qualify the sensations he has before he is circumcised. So, he must use his memory of what it was like before the circumcision. He must remember a sensation that is unlike anything that he is familiar with in any other way.
After their circumcisions, many men do report that sex feels better. I believe that this is because their frenulums are now exposed. The sensation of the frenulum is a tickle and everyone is familiar with that sensation. The newly circumcised men are now comparing a sensation that they can experience and are very familiar with to a sensation that they can no longer experience, must try to remember what it feels like, and is unlike anything that they have felt before. Of course, there is also the psychological need to not admit the biggest mistake of their lives if deep down that is what they believe.

>The two who bitched said that over time the foreskinless glans (the tip of the penis) became less sensitive. This may be due to abrasion from clothing. It certainly isn't because the foreskin contains the greatest concentration of nerve endings, as some circumcision opponents allege;<

Are we talking about the foreskin or the glans? They are two very different things. Of course, the amount of innervation in the foreskin is not going to affect the keritinization process of the glans.

> from an anatomical standpoint, God's little mudguard is basically ordinary skin.<

Cite please. This is absolute nonsense. The inner foreskin is mucosa and not skin at all. In addition, the dartos fascia muscle has a different construction near the mucosa-skin boundary.

>Of the two satisfied customers, one was circumcised because he had a tight foreskin that split and bled copiously during his first attempt at intercourse--admittedly (and mercifully) not a common problem. <

Actually, my understanding is that this is a common "problem." Intact men bleed like women do when they first have sex. I don't see this as a problem, though.

>The other guy just didn't like the way his stalk looked. Now, he says, not only is he more sensitive,<

He is more sensitive on his frenulum (if it was spared) and his glans that are both now external organs instead of internal organs. Nature will compensate for this by growing a layer of keritinization over both of these. Give it ten years or so and let's see how sensitive he is then (he will be erotically dead).

>Your kid's prospective partners (in a moment of heterosexism, Cecil assumed they would be women) are also divided in their views; several said an uncircumcised man had more to play with, while others prefer the streamlined look.<

This is saying nothing. All this says, apparently, is that some women are repeating what they have been taught. I know of a survey that was conducted with women who have had both intact and circumcised partners and most preferred intact.
I have more to say on this, though. For a woman to thoroughly experience an intact man, she has to be with him for some time. She should avoid circumcised men at this time. This is because she will develop something that is sometimes referred to as "traction." Her vaginal muscles will start working. Her vaginal muscles will start to grip the man's penis so that she can control how much pressure the penis puts on her G-spot. With a circumcised man, a woman does just the opposite and has to learn to relax her vaginal muscles in order to get out of the way of the locomotive. Once the woman experiences traction, you know which she'll prefer.

>This isn't really helping you, is it? It gets worse. One cost-benefit analysis (Ganiats et al, 1991) found that circumcision had a "net discounted lifetime cost" of $102 and a health cost of 14 hours of healthy life. In other words, you wound up poorer and sicker--but only slightly. "These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making," the researchers wrote. <

Alright then. So, there's no reason for circumcision anyway. Stopping now would be my suggestion.

> it remains common only in the U.S. <

Actually, in South Korea the circumcision rate is 95%. It isn't cultural in South Korea since circumcision was unheard of before America arrive to help them out during the Korean War.

>In 1989 the AAP withdrew its opposition to circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in infants. <

No study worth anything shows this.

>The chief evidence for this seems to be research by John Taylor. Dr. Taylor opposes circumcision, has not formally published his research, and is not a specialist in neurology. <

Dr. Taylor's paper was published in the British Journal of Urology. Dr. Taylor is a professional. He is getting on in years and I assume is less concerned about the affect that such research will have on his career. You take what you get, Cecil. When it comes to the study of the foreskin, we're lucky to get any tidbit.

>His remarks on the structure and purpose of the foreskin are highly conjectural and include such statements as, "We haven't done a strict quantitative study [but] to my mind [certain nerve endings] are rather more commonly found here in the prepuce than they are in the glans of the penis." <

Well, Cecil, why don't you contact Congress and demand that they release $20 million for a proper quantitative study? I'm all for it. As far as I know, Dr. Taylor financed this study himself.

>It would be foolish on the basis of such work to make any definite statements about the foreskin's contribution to sexual sensitivity or anything else.<

Then what should we base the decision of circumcision upon? Should we just assume that the foreskin is nothing because no one is willing to pay for a proper study of it? That would qualify as an informal fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) if we do.

>Complications from circumcision are low, approximately 0.2 to 0.6 percent. A total of three deaths have been ascribed to circumcision since 1954. In contrast, more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year, 225-317 of whom die. Circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. Of 60,000 cases since 1930, fewer than 10 have involved circumcised men. <

There's some debate as to what the true numbers are for deaths due to circumcision. Anyway, in 1996, the American Cancer Society wrote a letter to the AAP that said the following: ". . .fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer." In the same letter, the American Cancer Society also said, "perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

>Circumcision also eliminates foreskin problems such as inflammation, failure to retract, etc. These persist in non-circumcising nations such as the UK despite presumed familiarity with proper foreskin hygiene.<

If you amputate one's foreskin, arm, or any part of one's body, then you decrease the chance that you will have cancer or any problem with that body part to zero---what a revelation ! ! !

>Anesthesia presents a greater danger to infants. <

This could very well be true. I am of the opinion that if someone is crazy enough to circumcise their child with all this lack of information as to what is taking place, then they should do it without anesthesia because it's too dangerous.

>Circumcised infants remember nothing of the operation later in life. There is no evidence for the claim that this early trauma conditions the infant to a life of sexual violence.<

There is plenty of published evidence that the behavior of the child has been altered as a result of his circumcision. It has been argued by researchers that enough evidence exists to justify further exploration of the thesis that circumcised men have a propensity for violence.

>Female circumcision often destroys the woman's capacity for sexual pleasure; male circumcision does not. <

Cite please. In fact, all indications are that male circumcision does just as much harm to the man as FGM does to the woman. If one compares a very kind male circumcision to a very kind female circumcision, the affects are the same. The woman will not be able to experience a clitoral orgasm and the male will not be able to experience the equivalent of the female clitoral orgasm. The woman will still be able to experience a vaginal orgasm and the male will still be able to experience his frenulum.

>Parents routinely consent to operations on behalf of their minor children. Post-infancy
circumcision is far more traumatic and expensive.<

No, they don't. It is illegal for a parent to carry out a "cosmetic" procedure on their child without the child's permission---except when it comes to his foreskin.

>According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the evidence for this is conflicting.<

The statement put out by the AAP uses the term "potential" as in circumcision has "potential" benefits. IOW's, attorneys are now issuing statements from the AAP because of this circumcision disaster. They are protecting themselves.

>The gist of my original column was that no compelling argument could be made either way regarding circumcision. Having read the above, does anybody still have doubts?<

Ah, yeah. Sorry, Cecil. I still have my doubts.

[Northern Piper]

Cecil said: > from an anatomical standpoint, God's little mudguard is basically ordinary skin.<

Jack sez: Cite please.

So you don't have to give cites, but someone who disagrees with you does?

[Diane]

I have been with men with the cute little turtle neck and men without. I too would like a cite, other than Jack's word, that there is a difference in the way they pleasure the woman.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

jti,
>So you don't have to give cites, but someone who disagrees with you does?<
You have a right to ask for a cite. I'm not clairvoyant, though, so you'll have to ask what Info. you want a cite for.

Diane,
>I too would like a cite, other than Jack's word, that there is a difference in the way they pleasure the woman. <

Here Dr. Dean Edell talks about the study: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/deanfulltexttopics.cfm?id=8812
Here is the published paper:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Jack said:
"The shift is already on to slowly phase out circumcision in America."
OneChance asked:
Do you have a cite for that?
Jack Responds:
http://www.hcia.com/findings/990513_circum.htm

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
Podkayne,
>Sooooo. . . you don't have a citation. . . Okey doke. Please don't be offended then when I remain doubtful. There are more myths than truths about sexual anatomy, seems like.<

Maybe I have a cite and maybe I don't. Exactly, what do you want a cite for?

I want a cite for the claim that I specifically asked about, namely that the top of the penis has some sort of special sensory response to the female erectile tissue. Thank you for finally providing a couple links, but neither of them addresses this particular claim.

If you are someone who systematically doubts everything that he hears, then I am very sad that you weren't around when the doctors and religious leaders were inventing nonsense to justify circumcision.

Fascinating. Can you please point out where I advocated circumcision? Do you assume that if I doubt you in any detail, then I'm against you? I questioned a particular claim you made. Please don't jump to conclusions about my stand on this issue.

Anyway, some research is happening. It does have some peer review even if all of the peers are not necessarily professional scientists. You would be wise to not forget that major scientific discoveries were made all of the time centuries ago by non-professionals. The same thing is happening now with the foreskin.

There's nothing I love more than getting a lesson in science from an engineer. Anyway, I don't care if the research is being done by your neighbor's gerbil and reviewed by his peers, the hamster and the guinea pig; you still haven't provided any cites for it. If you don't have a cite, admit it; there's nothing dishonorable about saying, "I read it once and I don't remember where it was," as long as your realize then that this means your statements will carry less weight.

[Irishman]

A couple comments here...

First, a word of support for Jack Dean Tyler. This thread is taking on the all-too-common appearance of a lynching. One noted behavior pattern on message boards (especially this one) is the tendency for the group to swamp a newcomer with responses, with the appearance of ganging up on him. While it usually is not a coordinated effort to make the person unwelcome, it is a reflection of the group's shared ideas and the rather natural tendency for everyone to want to get their own word in and have their say. It has the effect of putting the newcomer against a seeming wall of confrontation that sometimes gets perceived as hostility. This problem has come to my attention, and I don't really know a good solution, except to ask that everyone please take a moment when reading a thread to ensure your comments are helpful, and please try to keep the tone polite and non-hostile. Generally, a confrontational attitude seems to multiply, from my experience. So I would like to welcome Jack to the SDMB. Hopefully your interaction here can be informative, and maybe you can learn something too.

Jack, regarding an intact male having a sensitive glans, I read somewhere (no cite) that some circumsized males who perform the "foreskin restoral" do gain some regained sensitivity to the glans. This would imply that circumcized males have some glans sensitivity loss, perhaps being the keritinization you are referring to? So I would imagine that a non-circumcized male might have some more sensitivity in the glans.

Regarding Cecil's column, you raise some thoughtful criticisms that are worth considering. However, at one point, you state:

(Cecil)>His remarks on the structure and purpose of the foreskin are highly conjectural and include such statements as, "We haven't done a strict quantitative study [but] to my mind [certain nerve endings] are rather more commonly found here in the prepuce than they are in the glans of the penis." <

(Jack)Well, Cecil, why don't you contact Congress and demand that they release $20 million for a proper quantitative study? I'm all for it. As far as I know, Dr. Taylor financed this study himself.

I understand your point about Dr. Taylor funding the study himself, and only limited amounts of research being conducted mostly by private funds, so data is preliminary. However, it is not Cecil's job as columnist to pressure Congress for anything. He is presenting the current standing of information on the topic, with perhaps some editorial opinions offered on the matter. His comments and representation are an accurate representation of the statements made in the paper and their overall standing in the medical community. (Or do you disagree?) If the studies are woefully inadequate and seriously in need of study, that is an issue beyond Cecil's purvue. Not that Cecil needs me to defend him, but your statement strikes a certain tone that, for whatever reason, is reminiscent of the alternative medicine/ herbal supplement/ psychic/ and other paranormal communities. Perhaps I am just reading too much into what you said.

I don't mean to stir this into a Great Debate. ;-)

Simetra, I'm sorry I don't have any information that can help. Just didn't want you to think nobody noticed. I wish you luck for the future.

[sublemon]

As far as the circumcision thing goes, I think (as Cecil says) it can go either way. A few thoughts (bear in mind that I am a circumcised male) :

-Even if the foreskin is sexually sensitive, I personally don't need any extra sensitivity (and most men probably don't as well). I don't have any problem reaching orgasm and additional sensitivity might just make things too fast, if you know what I mean.

-I've never had any problem getting a woman to orgasm, so I'm sure the foreskin isn't necessary for that. It is much more a question of mood, foreplay, and, um, the proper pelvic positioning.

-Most women I have heard from about this subject prefer circumcised males, especially for oral sex. However, they might just be saying that...

-Finally, I don't see how you could "restore" a foreskin by stretching the skin on your penis. It wouldn't really be a foreskin, and is just as much an alteration (I won't say mutilation) as the circumcision itself. Also, "circumcisions were so tight that their penises couldn't fully extend when erect" just sounds ridiculous.

I will say, it is probably simpler just to leave the foreskin on, after all it is there to begin with. But there are many cultural/religious reasons for body modification, including piercing, tatoos, etc.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Podkayne,
>I want a cite for the claim that I specifically asked about, namely that the top of the penis has some sort of special sensory response to the female erectile tissue. <

I didn't notice where you specifically asked about this. Anyway, this is cutting edge information. No cite exists for this at the moment. However, a study is underway in San Francisco that is measuring light-touch sensations of the foreskin. It is being financed by private individuals and everyone is making sure that they jump through all of the hoops so that the results can be published. I've got information that this study is showing overwhelmingly that this dorsal area of the penis is the most sensitive to light touch.
Further, I have conducted informal surveys of intact men who say that sensations are on the dorsal side of their penises.
And, I have conducted informal experiments where several intact men have been kind enough to temporarily adjust the way that they engage in coitus with females in order to test for this area. All of the feedback that I get supports the existence of this area.
And, there is a repeatable experiment that will demonstrate the existence and function of this area. This experiment has only been carried out once. It will take a massive effort to carry it out again. I have recently found a sympathetic researcher who I think is going to help me conduct this experiment again in such a way that the results can be published proper. I won't give the specifics of how the experiment is carried out without the permission of the researcher. The experiment has to do with triggering the keritinization process of an intact foreskin and finding subjects is going to be very difficult.

>Fascinating. Can you please point out where I advocated circumcision? <

Fascinating. Can you please point out where I accused you of advocating circumcision?

>If you don't have a cite, admit it; there's nothing dishonorable about saying, "I read it once and I don't remember where it was," as long as your realize then that this means your statements will carry less weight.<

Of course. I agree. And, I said in the above that much of my information comes from my own personal research. That does have less weight than if it was published research in a prestigious journal. But, when it comes to the foreskin, you take what you can get.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Irishman,
>First, a word of support for Jack Dean Tyler. This thread is taking on the all-too-common appearance of a lynching.<

Confrontation is fine with me. I don't mind.

>So I would like to welcome Jack to the SDMB.< I appreciate it.

>Jack, regarding an intact male having a sensitive glans, I read somewhere (no cite) that some circumcised males who perform the "foreskin restoration" do gain some regained sensitivity to the glans.<

Inevitably, a restored foreskin will cause a man to regain sensitivity in his glans to the point that it cannot remain uncovered in the air without his experiencing discomfort (just like an intact man).

> This would imply that circumcised males have some glans sensitivity loss, perhaps being the keritinization you are referring to?<

Absolutely.

> So I would imagine that a non-circumcised male might have some more sensitivity in the glans. <

A male with a restored foreskin will have major sensitivity in his glans just like an intact man. I'm told that there is some evidence that a circumcised man's glans takes on a greater potential for sensation than an intact man.

>I understand your point about Dr. Taylor funding the study himself, and only limited amounts of research being conducted mostly by private funds, so data is preliminary. <

No, this data is not "preliminary." This is the final data. There's no money for the major research that is needed in this area.

>However, it is not Cecil's job as columnist to pressure Congress for anything. He is presenting the current standing of information on the topic, with perhaps some editorial opinions offered on the matter. <

I don't agree that Cecil is objectively presenting the evidence. He is begging the question. He is presenting the evidence as though there is some legitimate effort on the part of the medical research establishment to get to the truth, which there is not. On top of that, he encourages us to proceed into the darkness based upon the best-case scenario. This is not rational. When a rational person does not know what is going to happen, a rational person always assumes a *worst-case* scenario. So, since everything we know about the foreskin indicates that it might very possibly be a very important piece of tissue (organ???), then a rational person assumes the worst-case and leaves the tissue alone just in case it is very important. Cecil is acting counter to this philosophy and is helping the disaster to continue.

>His comments and representation are an accurate representation of the statements made in the paper and their overall standing in the medical community. (Or do you disagree?) <

Taylor's paper is not the best written paper. It does go into a couple of other points about the foreskin, though. The Ridged Band is identified, for example.
I really have never heard anyone attack Taylor's paper before Cecil (I may have heard a few ad hominims, but that doesn't count). I don't believe that anyone in the medical/research community has taken a position on Taylor. When any establishment is confronted with ominous opposition such as this, the establishment usually does a *duck-and-cover* because it's not in the establishment's best interest to call attention to such opposition. As far as I know, this is what the medical establishment is doing with Taylor. A duck-and-cover strategy is very effective in modern American society and that's why modern America finds itself in the middle of so many disasters, I would say.

> Not that Cecil needs me to defend him, but your statement strikes a certain tone that, for whatever reason, is reminiscent of the alternative medicine/ herbal supplement/ psychic/and other paranormal communities. Perhaps I am just reading too much into what you said. <
I don't agree with this statement at all. One should be close-minded to dogmatic beliefs and open-minded to all evidence. It would be a relatively easy task for experienced researchers to explore the structure of the foreskin. That they refuse to do this demonstrates that they are close-minded to evidence. That they adopt assumptions that the foreskin is nothing but unnecessary skin indicates further a close-minded attitude to the scant evidence that is available. And, these assumptions about the foreskin indicate an open-minded attitude toward the dogmatic belief that the foreskin has no value. I'm afraid to say that Cecil is part of this mindset, apparently.

[Podkayne]

Apologies, Jack, it's indeed correct that you didn't accuse me of advocating circumcision--I was jumping to conclusions myself.

Still gotta tell you that I don't put a lot of weight in your evidence, what without any of it being published, or anything. Kinda funny how we went from unspecified published studies from Europe (that maybe you will cite, and maybe not) to elaborate experiments that you are peripherally involved with, but which you cannot tell us anything about.

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest or anything, but please realize that, not knowing you from Adam, I don't have any real reason to take you at your word. In the end, you're posting a lot of information that we're expected to take as fact, but without providing us with any real support. If you're familiar with the process of scientific inquiry, then you know that's not a good way to win people over. The safest course is to keep your cards close to the chest and don't make claims until you can substantiate them.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Podkayne,
>Apologies, Jack, it's indeed correct that you didn't accuse me of advocating circumcision--I was jumping to conclusions myself. <

Apology accepted. I understand.

>Still gotta tell you that I don't put a lot of weight in your evidence, what without any of it being published, or anything. <

I don't blame you for being skeptical. So you desire well-researched theories and lots and lots of data. So do I. Unfortunately, when it comes to the foreskin, you and I have Champaign taste on a beer budget (unless you happen to have a couple of million dollars to spare to finance some really good research). So, you are stuck with what you get.

>Kinda funny how we went from unspecified published studies from Europe (that maybe you will cite, and maybe not) to elaborate experiments that you are peripherally involved with, but which you cannot tell us anything about. <

Why the red herring? "(M)aybe you will cite, and maybe not." I only said that you had to tell me what information that you wanted a cite for and maybe I have cite or maybe I don't. If I've got the cite, I'll give it to you.
I don't know what "published studies from Europe" that you are talking about. If you want a cite, you must ask for it otherwise I don't know that you want it.
There's only one experiment that I'm not at liberty to discuss at the moment. I've told you something about it, though. It has to do with triggering the keritinization of an intact foreskin.

>I'm not accusing you of being dishonest or anything, but please realize that, not knowing you from Adam, I don't have any real reason to take you at your word. <

I do understand. But, be aware that as far as my own research is concerned, you won't find an argument against what I am telling you that I have found. As for any research that I cite, you can take the argument up with whatever journal it was published in.

>In the end, you're posting a lot of information that we're expected to take as fact, but without providing us with any real support. <

I presume that you are talking about my own personal research. I don't expect you to believe anything of it. It's completely up to you what you want to believe. I really don't want to get into the philosophy of when you should believe and when you shouldn't. Everyone has to decide that for themselves, I guess. Don't you forget why we are having this conversation, though. We are having this conversation because the research establishment won't do its ethical job of investigating the foreskin. So, we have to do this major inquiry into our own ethics. Don't lose sight of that, I would urge.

>If you're familiar with the process of scientific inquiry, then you know that's not a good way to win people over. The safest course is to keep your cards close to the chest and don't make claims until you can substantiate them.<

In the case of circumcision, what you're saying is right in principle but wrong in practice. It is the circumcision-advocates that are making the unsubstantiated claims and then convincing lots of people to act on these claims. Even my own personal research is at least consistent with the available data.

[wolfman]

hey Jack, your posts are awfully long, are you sure you can't cut just a little bit off, it would make your points a lot cleaner, and prettier to look at.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
>Anesthesia presents a greater danger to infants. <

This could very well be true. I am of the opinion that if someone is crazy enough to circumcise their child with all this lack of information as to what is taking place, then they should do it without anesthesia because it's too dangerous.

Not according to a recent study just published in Discover Magazine:

Three years ago, doctors in Toronto found that baby boys circumcised without local anesthesia were far more sensitive to pain six months later than their uncircumcised peers. A new study may reveal why: Painful trauma in infancy seems to rewire the nervous system permanently.

If true, then anesthesia should be mandatory. If anesthesia cannot be used, there should be no circumcision. Period.

Or so I believe.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

jab1,
>If true, then anesthesia should be mandatory. If anesthesia cannot be used, there should be no circumcision. Period. <

I agree with what you're saying. As far as I know, all anesthesia effective enough to block the excruciating pain of circumcision is a threat to the baby's life (in England, a study of the affect of circumcision on babies had to be stopped for ethical reasons because researchers were measuring off-the-scale physical responses while the babies was being circumcised). So, for that reason alone, there should be no circumcisions.
Also, there are several studies that have some very sad implications for the psychological affect on "patients" who have neonatal circumcision performed on them.
That Discover magazine article was interesting. I've heard of researchers speculating that with the advent of HMO's a new type of wiring is possible for a human being. With an HMO, the goal is to get the mother and baby out of the hospital ASAP. So, the circumcisions are done a lot sooner after birth than they use to be. Of course, the amputated foreskins are sold on the open market because a baby's foreskin contains stem cells (cells that are not specialized yet). Stem cells that remain in the baby's penis after circumcision could allow for the pleasure nerves to hook up to the abundant pain receptors in the glans (this would not be possible in the baby in a matter of days). So, trigger a pain receptor and get sexual pleasure---this just may be possible. I wonder what Dr. Frankenstein would have to say about this experiment.

[Irishman]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the pain receptors could be rewired to become pleasure receptors? Or that the pleasure response could require pain first?

[andros]

Of course, the amputated foreskins are sold on the open market because a baby's foreskin contains stem cells (cells that are not specialized yet).

Well, actually they're being sold to companies like Organogenesis, Inc. who culture them for skin grafts. Much more reliable than pig grafts and less disfiguring than thigh or buttock grafts. 'Course it's more expensive, too.

[andros]

From http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm :

Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor studied the foreskin tissue at the Department of Pathology, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Canada. They reported their results in the British Journal of Urology in an article titled “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision.” Based on the examination of 22 adult foreskins obtained at autopsy, they found that the outer foreskin’s concentration of nerves is “impressive” and its “sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole.”

Lost more good stuff at that site, too.

[astraeus]

I was going to just let all of Jack's posts go by without replying, but I can only take so much.

Jack, you've fallen into a very common trap. You believe so strongly that circumcision is bad that you've closed your mind to anything said agaist your point of view.

I am circumcised. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child, who, according to the ultrasound is a boy, and we intend to have him circumcised. There are several reasons for this, among them that I'm Jewish, that it's easier to clean, and that there are potential health benefits.

I can speak from *very* personal experience that my sex life is just peachy, thank you. To say that male circumcision is analagous to female genital mutilation is preposterous--women who've undergone FGM cannot experience orgasm; I'm circumcised, yet I experience orgasm frequently. My wife is pregnant, after all. To say that it decreases the pleasure afforded to the man's partner is possible *in some cases*, but there just isn't evidence to support it being generally true.

Who do you think you are to judge the mental state of the men who've undergone circumcision as adults? How do you know why they think what they do? Has it occurred to you that you *might* just disbelieve them because their statements contradict yours?

There is some evidence that circumcision does promote a healthier life. Take a look at this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/...ion/index.html

As for the trauma that circumcision causes to babies, let me tell you about something I witnessed firsthand...

Friends of mine had a baby boy this past March. They're Jewish, and so they had a bris for him, with all their friends. The mohel anesthetized the baby (as is traditional) with a few drops of wine--which, btw, has never been shown to be damaging to the baby. He also used a topical anesthetic on the boy's penis. He then went through the procedure. I will tell you this: The *only* time the boy cried was *when his diaper was removed.* He cried for about ten seconds, then quieted a bit. Then the mohel did his job, swabbed it, and bandaged it carefully, while the boy's crying was very soft, and quite clearly not any worse than it had been before the cut. Once his diaper was put back on he stopped crying *instantly.*

Please, if you're not going to give any real citations, at least try not to talk about things you just can't possibly know for sure. And if you truly have all these citations you mention, please just list some of them.

-astraeus

[Jack Dean Tyler]

astraeus,

>Jack, you've fallen into a very common trap. You believe so strongly that circumcision is bad that you've closed your mind to anything said against your point of view. <

It is my personal policy to close my mind to all dogmatic beliefs. I am open-minded to ANY evidence or any conclusions that follow logically from the evidence, though. Do you have any evidence or logical conclusions based upon the evidence?

>I am circumcised. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child, who, according to the ultrasound is a boy, and we intend to have him circumcised. <

When he grows up he will be a freak (won't be so many circumcised men when he grows up) and he will hate your guts for what you did to him (sorry to be so blunt). And, you will rationalize that it was God's will that you force your helpless son to have part of his penis amputated. And, the damage done to your relationship with your son will work itself out according to God's plan. Is it any wonder that such insanity as circumcision has caught on in such a non-intellectual environment?

>There are several reasons for this, among them that I'm Jewish, that it's easier to clean, and that there are potential health benefits. <

All true. No way in the world does this justify the loss in erotic sensation. No way in the world does this justify the damage that it will do to your son's future relationship with his wife should he turn out to be heterosexual. BTW, do you know that the US has a higher incidence of AIDS and other STD's than any other western industrialized nation? This might be because (I personally have no doubt) the US is circumcised to such a great extent. Do you know that there are many Jewish people who are no longer circumcising their babies? They have a support group. I'm sure that you have rejected almost every other Jewish tradition, why don't you reject this attack on your son for his sake?

>I can speak from *very* personal experience that my sex life is just peachy, thank you.<

Sorry, based on what I know about how heterosexual coitus takes place with a circumcised man, I doubt if there is anything at all good about your sex life.

>To say that male circumcision is analogous to female genital mutilation is preposterous--women who've undergone FGM cannot experience orgasm<

There are several types of FGM. The most heinous kind of circumcision will turn a woman into a sexual zombie capable of no erotic sensation. However, the kindest FGM, which only involves amputating her clitoral hood, will only prevent the woman from experiencing a clitoral orgasm (at the turn of the century, FGM was very common in America and was justified using the same excuses used today to justify MGM).

> I'm circumcised, yet I experience orgasm frequently.<

If you're lucky, you experience a type of orgasm from your frenulum-remnant which is nothing more than an exaggerated tickle (and this doesn't last long at all). An intact man experiences a completely different type of bursting, sensation from the dorsal side of his penis that goes on for a long time (probably just as long as it does in a woman's clitoral hood).

>My wife is pregnant, after all. To say that it decreases the pleasure afforded to the man's partner is possible *in some cases*, but there just isn't evidence to support it being generally true.<

Circumcision decreases pleasure for both the man and the woman and there is published research to support this. True, as I have explain in other posts, there hasn't been any published study into the precise physiology of the penis, but that's by design of the establishment.

>Who do you think you are to judge the mental state of the men who've undergone circumcision as adults?<

Well, let's say that one day you wake up and announce to your wife that you are going to go in and have half of your penis (or arm or whatever body part) amputated even though everything about your penis is working fine. I would have to say that you are behaving irrationally. And, if you say that everybody else is doing it, then I'm still going to say that you are behaving irrationally. You should know better.

>Has it occurred to you that you *might* just disbelieve them because their statements contradict yours? <

This could very well be true. An irrational person can't know if he is behaving irrationally otherwise he wouldn't behave that way. So, maybe I'm behaving irrationally. In order to protect against irrationality, we need proper studies done on the foreskin by professional researchers, don't you agree?

> http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/AIDS/...ion/index.html <

This is such a ridiculous study. And, to think some circumcision-advocates are trying to use this study to justify circumcising the entire continent of Africa.
Others have gone into the incredible flaws of this study, but I'm not going to because I happen to believe that the implication of this study is probably true, namely: circumcision offers some protection to men from acquiring the AIDS virus. I mean, if a legitimate study along these lines was actually carried out, one would probably find that it is true. A thick layer of keritinization forms on a circumcised penis. It's probably as hard for the AIDS virus to penetrate that keritinization as it is for the circumcised man to feel anything through it !
I have a couple of problems with the implication of this study, though:
(1) babies don't have sex so they are not exposed to the AIDS virus that way anyway. So, they can decide if they want to be circumcised sometime after they have learned to speak English (right now, the only way they can say "no" is to let out a blood curling scream or go into shock and that language is not acceptable to the medical establishment); and,
(2) intact babies can be taught the importance of condoms as they grow older and they will be more likely to use them since condoms don't ruin the erotic sensations in intact men the way they do in circumcised men; and,
(3) if a circumcised man does happen to get infected with the AIDS virus, any woman partner that he has is much more likely to become infected as a result of the incredible friction this occurs (American woman get infected with the AIDS virus much more frequently during heterosexual sex than European women).

> He then went through the procedure. I will tell you this: The *only* time the boy [eight day old baby] cried was *when his diaper was removed.* He cried for about ten seconds, then quieted a bit. Then the mohel did his job, swabbed it, and bandaged it carefully, while the boy's crying was very soft . . .<

Well, thank you for your observations. Did you ever stop to wonder what was really going on with that baby when this surgery was being performed on him? We have some information on what the baby was feeling:
(That baby was experiencing the most pain that he will ever experience for the rest of his life.) Here's a bunch of cites to help you understand the turmoil of that the baby was going through: http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/

>Please, if you're not going to give any real citations, at least try not to talk about things you just can't possibly know for sure. And if you truly have all these citations you mention, please just list some of them.<

Here's a zillion cites for you http://www.cirp.org/library/
I have many more. And, I can guide you to the cite you're looking for if you let me by telling me what you're looking for. I won't hold it against you that you have no credible sites to support anything that you say (if you did, I would know about them already so I know you don't have any).

[andros]

Arnold, before I respond to Jack point by point, could you please move this to Great Debates?

[astraeus]

I'll begin by citing some good sources:

A general information page about circumcision, with good references:
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmo...umcision.shtml

Here's an excellent cite that presents both sides to the issue, with much evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/

Jack, I was hoping I wouldn't have to say this, but...

Just who in the hell do you think you are?

I didn't personally attack you. I attacked your points. I suggested you were biased--which you agreed you might be. I never said anything about you personally.

You said my future son is going to hate my guts. How dare you? How dare you presume to know how my son, who isn't even *born* yet, is going to feel? I was circumcised over 27 years ago, yet somehow I've managed never to despise my parents for it. None of my male friends, all of whom are circumcised, hate their parents for it. Of course, you *must* know better, Jack, because you clearly have the power to read other people's minds.

You also called my future son a freak. This is inexcusable. You are insulting a Jewish tradition that goes back thousands of years. I don't believe in God, not that it's any of your business. But I believe in the traditions of my people, and I believe that you are dangerously close to bigotry.

You seem to have magic powers to see into my bedroom. You have absolutely no way to judge my sex life--you don't even know me!! How in the hell could you know? I've had many orgasms in my life, and they're not "tickles." They're perfectly wonderful, mind-blowing orgasms, and arguing with me on this is ridiculous, because I'm the only one with the evidence here! As for my partners' pleasure--well, I've managed to give several of my partners over the years over ten orgasms in one session. Hmm. Must be something wrong.

Maybe I don't know what I'm missing. It's possible. Maybe my sex life could be better. But it's *great* now, and I don't need it to be any better. If I'm happy with it, what the hell business is it of yours?

I'm not saying that circumcision is good. I'm not saying it's what everyone should do. I'm saying it's not demonstrably harmful--not any more than *not* circumcising is. What you are doing is inflammatory, and frankly disgusting.

-Matt

[jab1]

Originally posted by andros
Arnold, before I respond to Jack point by point, could you please move this to Great Debates?

Maybe the Pit would be better. Jack, your attack on astraeus was not called for. (Hey, Matt, maybe he can see the future because he has crystal balls...?

Oh, and despite the fact that I linked to a Discover article that seems to back up Jack's POV, I want it on the record that I have not decided one way or the other. I need to learn more first.

[andros]

What the heck. I'll throw it here anyway.

Matt, please accept my apologies for responding to a post directed to you.


Mr. Tyler:

It is my personal policy to close my mind to all dogmatic beliefs. I am open-minded to ANY evidence or any conclusions that follow logically from the evidence, though. Do you have any evidence or logical conclusions based upon the evidence?

Bull pucky, miladdo. You yourself hold an extremely dogmatic belief and have so far shown no inclination to listen to anyone who does not share your zeal.

When [your son] grows up he will be a freak

No, he won't.

and he will hate your guts for what you did to him

Sorry, no again.

(sorry to be so blunt)

No, you're not.

And, you will rationalize that it was God's will that you force your helpless son to have part of his penis amputated. And, the damage done to your relationship with your son will work itself out according to God's plan. Is it any wonder that such insanity as circumcision has caught on in such a non-intellectual environment?

I'm sorry you have a chip on your shoulder about religious beliefs, but you might do better than this kind of insult. You have given NO evidence whatsoever that a father-son relationship will be damaged in any way by circumcision.

No way in the world does this justify the loss in erotic sensation.

Why is erotic sensation the be-all and end-all of life? Why is it so important?

No way in the world does this justify the damage that it will do to your son's future relationship with his wife should he turn out to be heterosexual.

Again, you have shown no evidence of this. What damage? Are you seriously going to tell me, without knowing me, that my relationship with my SO is crippled?

BTW, do you know that the US has a higher incidence of AIDS and other STD's than any other western industrialized nation? This might be because (I personally have no doubt) the US is circumcised to such a great extent.

Prove it, pally. And please remember that correlation does NOT equal causation.

Do you know that there are many Jewish people who are no longer circumcising their babies? They have a support group.

And your point is?

I'm sure that you have rejected almost every other Jewish tradition, why don't you reject this attack on your son for his sake?

The cardinal rule on this message board is "Don't be a jerk." Unless you can substantiate that accusation, I suggest you apologize for your insult and presumption.

Sorry, based on what I know about how heterosexual coitus takes place with a circumcised man, I doubt if there is anything at all good about your sex life.

HAHAHAHAAAAA! :wipes eyes:

Oh, that was a good one! You know nothing about other people's sex lives, Jack. That's just laughable.

There are several types of FGM. The most heinous kind of circumcision will turn a woman into a sexual zombie capable of no erotic sensation.

I wasn't aware of any female circumcision that resulted in a total lack of sexual sensation. I'm interested in seeing what the procedure is, and where it's practiced, if you don't mind.

However, the kindest FGM, which only involves amputating her clitoral hood, will only prevent the woman from experiencing a clitoral orgasm (at the turn of the century, FGM was very common in America and was justified using the same excuses used today to justify MGM).

I didn't realize it was common in the US. It certainly wasn't due to a Judeo-Christian tradition.

And you know, of course, that there is no such thing as a "clitoral" orgasm, right?

there hasn't been any published study into the precise physiology of the penis, but that's by design of the establishment.

"The establishment??" You're kidding, right? What, the Illuminati and the TriLat are conspiring to keep people fron understanding the penis? Please.

circumcision offers some protection to men from acquiring the AIDS virus. I mean, if a legitimate study along these lines was actually carried out, one would probably find that it is true. A thick layer of keritinization forms on a circumcised penis. It's probably as hard for the AIDS virus to penetrate that keritinization as it is for the circumcised man to feel anything through it !

Er, excuse me, but didn't you claim earlier that the number of AIDS cases in the US was so high because so many men are circumcised? Make up your mind, willya?

Here's a bunch of cites to help you understand the turmoil of that the baby was going through: http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/ . . . Here's a zillion cites for you http://www.cirp.org/library/

http://www.circ.org is a vehemently anti-circumcision site. Can you provide any non-biased information?

I won't hold it against you that you have no credible sites to support anything that you say (if you did, I would know about them already so I know you don't have any).

Again with the insults. Chill out, please. As for credible evidence, as I said above it's clear to me that circ.org is not in any way unbiased. I'd prefer to see some citations from peer-reviewed sources.


Finally, I am not a supporter of circumcision. But I do support the elimination of ignorance, and I believe that your vehement, vitriolic, and dogmatic posts are not doing much toward that end.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Well, it looks like this conversation is moving far enough from a comment on a Straight Dope column to justify a departure from the «Comments on Cecil's Columns» forum and a trip to visit my colleagues David B and Gaudere in the «Great Debates» forum.

__________________
moderator, «Comments on Cecil's Columns»

[andros]

Thanks, Arnold. You're my favorite Swiss hero, BTW.

[Jack Dean Tyler]

Matt,

>A general information page about circumcision, with good references: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmo...umcision.shtml <

Probably everything on this page emanates one way or another from the three well-known Jewish doctors named Wiswell, Schoen, and Weiss. They basically give their medical opinions that circumcision is a good thing and all of the circumcised people listening breathe a sigh of relief and insist that circumcision is fine based on these doctor's opinions. It's a shame that the pro-circumcision persons who love these doctors so much won't listen to all of the medical doctors that have gone on record opposing circumcision.
Dr. Schoen is a real interesting case. He is the doctor in charge of pediatrics for Kaiser Permanente. Those supporting Schoen usually tout his important position in such a large hospital. Funny thing is that recently Kaiser Permanente itself has taken the position that it doesn't recommend circumcision. Do you know what else? Dr. Schoen's son is intact !

>Here's an excellent cite that presents both sides to the issue, with much evidence: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/ <

Yes, a whole bunch of nonsense here. Do you really think that there's enough evidence on these sites to support circumcision? I'm sorry, but you are very gullible if you do. Why do people like you not insist upon knowing what the physiology of the foreskin is, in the first place?

> You said my future son is going to hate my guts. How dare you? How dare you presume to know how my son, who isn't even *born* yet, is going to feel? <

You're talking about mutilating his penis, Matt. Any rational person knows how he is going to feel. I'm sorry, but I don't consider anyone who doesn't condemn circumcision to be rational. And, I feel myself to be morally required to at least warn people like you of your impending fate. You will have to face your depressed son when he realizes what you did to him (and when he realizes all of the information that you had available to you). In 15 or 20 years, can you just imagine how you are going to feel if you carry out this illegal action against your defenseless son when your son has to face the results?

>I was circumcised over 27 years ago, yet somehow I've managed never to despise my parents for it. None of my male friends, all of whom are circumcised, hate their parents for it.<

You're not a freak because in the society in which you live almost all of the men are circumcised. Your son probably won't be living in such a society.

>You also called my future son a freak. <

I only mean that he is going to stand out within society in a negative way. It's just like you cut off his ears and sold him to a circus.

>This is inexcusable. You are insulting a Jewish tradition that goes back thousands of years. <

Actually, no. I'm insulting a Jewish tradition that goes back several centuries. Before that, "circumcision" involved only some slight cutting that drew a drop of blood to be valid or something. In this millennium, some Rabbis decided that they didn't like the way some Jewish persons were passing themselves off as gentiles so they invented this bris pariah procedure that we all know as circumcision.

>I don't believe in God, not that it's any of your business. But I believe in the traditions of my people, and I believe that you are dangerously close to bigotry. <

Well, if you're traditional, then give your son the true traditional bris rather than this radical new procedure. Better yet, just don't touch his penis.
Don't bother calling me anti-Semitic because I'm use to it. I'll tell you one thing, though, your future son sure doesn't think I'm anti-Semitic.

>You seem to have magic powers to see into my bedroom. You have absolutely no way to judge my sex life--you don't even know me!! How in the hell could you know? <

I know the physiology of you wife because all women are constructed more or less the same. I know your physiology under the best-case scenario of your circumcision. That's all I need to know in order to know what your sex life is like. It's not good no matter how your wife tries to convince you otherwise.

> I don't need it [sex life] to be any better. <

That's what they all say. Many, many years ago, I use to be a salesman. And, occasionally, I would run into a businessman who would tell me "I don't need to make any more money." What does one say to that?

[andros]

Sigh . . . I guess the Pit would have been a better choice.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
You're not a freak because in the society in which you live almost all of the men are circumcised. Your son probably won't be living in such a society.

Here's my anecdotal evidence - I was circumcised at birth (born in the USA) but grew up during my formative years (grade school, high school, college) in a country where most people aren't circumcised (Switzerland). My first day in the gym shower I was a little surprised, my parents explained to me the difference, and that was that. I never felt like a freak and I don't hate my parents.