You are mistaken. The head of the penis, from which the overwhelming majority of the sensations come from, is not affected in the least. Furthermore, there are no special nerves in the foreskin, it’s just ordinary flesh. The sensation that was previously supplied by the nerves of the ordinary flesh of the foreskin are henceforth supplied by the remaining flesh of the penis. There is no loss of sensation.
[/QUOTE]
As a circumcised man, I can assure you that your claim is specious and false.
Don’t be absurd! Re-read my previous statements. There is absolutely nothing special about the foreskin; the skin that remains provides EXACTLY the same amount and quality of sensation than did the foreskin. Neurologists have established that beyond rational doubt.
Of course they are! Who better??? Furthermore, there is the fact that neurologists have shown that there can be no change in sensation. There is no difference in the nerves, so there can BE no change in sensation.
But the transition for these men who are circumcised as adults is very brief! If there were any loss of sensation, these men would know it immediately. Your claim that the transition is slow is patent nonsense.
I think groman intended to say that for an uncircumcised man, contact with the exposed glans can be painful (and that the fact circumcized men do not experience this discomfort means that there has been loss of sensation).
You may be right; that claim would at least make more sense, even though your such a claim (and your parenthetical claim) isn’t corroborated by science.
Don’t, Mangetout. I don’t know why circumcision threads turn into trainwrecks the way fat threads do, but for some reason there are certain people who think that everyone should have his dick modified to look like theirs.
I’m going to regret this, but does an uncircumcised man actually need science to tell him that his own dick gets uncomfortable if he stashes it back in his pants with the foreskin retracted?
It’s actually rather difficult to google this topic without tripping over lots of sites that are very much entrenched in a pro or (mostly)con viewpoint, but there seems to be consensus among both camps that circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity (not necessarily erogenous sensitivity) to the glans; many of the ‘pro’ circumcision sites even mention ‘staying power due to slightly reduced sensitivity’.
I have no position on personal claims of pain if one chooses to push one’s dick around or anything else with regard to personal anecdotes. What is not scientific is the claim that circumcised men feel less sensation during sex than uncircumcised men. It’s a anti-scientific myth. The scientific evidence is utterly compelling and and is well-confirmed by legitimate scientific evidence.
OK, although the passion with which you’re asserting this doesn’t help to reinforce your claim of neutrality.
But that’s a bit different to what you previously said, which was that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate the claim that the uncircumcised men experience greater sensitivity of the exposed glans (to touch and abrasion).
I’d be interested in see how such a thing could possibly be measured scientifically. Do we have a calibrated scale of sensation?
No. You tell us what it says.
I’m also tempted to ask about that “overwhelmingly” evidence of female preference, since you brought it up, but doubt it falls withing the scope of General Questions. More likely IMHO.
No, I’m saying the Japanese tend to look at Westerners when trying to decide what’s “normal” for the Average Human Being.
And in my not-so-limited experience with Japanese men (I am one, and spent 2/3 of my life there), they are just as likely to be misled by superstition and prejudice as Americans, if not more so. Japanese culture places a high value on conformity, so once some idea or practice gets established as the norm, it’s very unlikely for Japanese individuals to do their own research and make a decision for themselves.
Considering the fact that asians are willing to undergo eyelid surgery just to look more American (or possibly Western is a better description?) I find it plausible that more than a few would consider circumcision for the same reason.
Well, there’s possibly another part of the problem; there appears to be quite a broad spectrum of results and conclusions in the available research; both the ‘pro’ and ‘con’ sides seem (unsurprisingly, I suppose) to select the research that best supports their arguments.
First, that’s not so much passion as a bit of frustration. Second, I don’t hink I’ve suggested that I’m neutral: rather I believe that the great preponderance of the scientific evidence shows that many more benefits – some small, some great – spring from circumcision than the lack of it.
You and I tangled on this issue many years ago, at which tiime I cited scores of scientific studies to establish my point (unfortunately, all that detailed research is on my old computer that I cannot manage to fix). At that time, you were a distinct partisan on the anti-circ side. In this thread, however, I must admit that you are being quite fair, though your posts don’t quite fit the word “neutral” either.
First, neurologists have minutely studied the nervous systems of both the uncircumcised and circumsised penis. They have concluded: (1) there are no special or unusual or distinct nerves in the foreskin, and (2) the nerves that remain after circumcision FULLY provide exactly the same amount of and nature of sensation becuase they KNOW that the nerves themselves are identical; it’s just that nerves that were farther back come to the forefront. They provide identical level and nature of sensation, as confirmed not only by nervous anatomy but by the level, nature, and waveforms of the neuro-electrical signals.
Second, men who were circumcised as adults state that there is absolutely no difference in sensation, precisely as one would expect from the anatomical research.
There are at least as many conclusions in the research to support psi and ghosts and ESP than the reverse. Pro-scientists select their data just as much as anti-scientists, the difference is that some results are sound and others aren’t. It is, in my experience, always the politically active researchers that choose poor science. In this instance, the politically active researchers are the anti-circ advocates.
I don’t remember the encounter to which you refer; the only circumcision debate in which I remember becoming deeply embroiled was this one where, although I plainly stood on the ‘anti’ side (and I don’t see any reason to pretend I feel neutral either, although I strive for operational neutrality), it was generally acknowledged by people (well, most of them) in the thread that I conducted myself in a calm, civil and rational way.
It’s a weird topic; almost impossible to calmly discuss, yet for no particularly good reason; I can understand the emotion of the extreme ‘anti’ side - after all, they believe an atrocity is in progress; I just can’t quite grasp where the extreme ‘pro’ side derives its fervour.
That’s not really what I was talking about and is, I think, a bit of an unfair dismissal; I tried searching around and I discovered what appeared to be valid scientific research supporting the claim that reduced sensitivity of the glans (to touch and abrasion, again, not talking about the larger issue of erogenous response) is a real, observed phenomenon; I’m reluctant to cite any of this material because I can’t find it presented in a neutral context; that might sound like an indication that it is flawed somehow, but I also had trouble in finding the opposing data presented in a neutral context, in fact, I had trouble finding anything neutral at all.
Slightly off-topic, but did anyone else notice the ads at the bottom of this thread actually relate to the topic, with a a blurb for curing phimosis and a place called “The Circumcism Center” instead of the mailing list crap we were getting before?