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?
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.
So you don’t have to give cites, but someone who disagrees with you does?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
There’s nothing I love more than getting a lesson in science from an engineer. :rolleyes: 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Not according to a recent study just published in Discover Magazine:
If true, then anesthesia should be mandatory. If anesthesia cannot be used, there should be no circumcision. Period.
Or so I believe.
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.
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?
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.
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/01/31/aids.circumcision/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