Jesse

Ut:
From a sexual point of view, there are no redeeming features to circumcision.

Well, if circumcised men do experience slightly less intense sensations, isn't it possible this would cause them to last longer, on average?

How many studies of the experiences of adults who have been circumcised have been done? I found this one, although only 43 men took part in the survey...but 62% said they were satisfied with the procedure, despite a reduction in sensitivity. Presumably the reduction must not have been too large for these men.

greyline

62% is a pretty pathetic success rate for elective surgery.

The less sensitivity / lasts longer theory is a bit of a red herring when it comes to infant circumcision. Why is it the parents' decision how long their son takes to ejaculate?

tronvillain

greyline:
True, but a handjob with lubricant and the foreskin fully retracted can be fun too.

tronvillain

Jesse:
As has been pointed out, sixty-two percent does not seem all that good, especially if you are going to do it to infants without consent. Besides, to justify having a circumcision as an adult most of those men probably had pretty significant problems to begin with. Show me the statistics for men that had totally elective circumcisions, with no condition to prompt it.

Ut

Jesse,

Look at: Circumstitions.com page on sexuality. Scroll down, about 3/4 of the page, and you'll find an assassine annotation of the very study you posted.

Namely, if at least 64% (those who had phimosis) of these men got circumcised because they had a sexual problem with their penis, it is pretty damning that only 62% (in reality it is 50%, the other 12% reported neither benefits nor harms) of them feel satisfied with the operation.

The following is not an argument per se, but you cannot read the following sentence from the study without scratching your head: Participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision.

Of course, there are obvious statistical caveats to the study. Men who have sexual problems (phimosis) with their foreskins are not representative of intact men in general, especially since phimosis occurs in only about 1% of men (and can be effectively treated without circumcision). Given the low response rate (44%), these 43 men may not even be representative of men who choose to get circumcised due to health problems. Even if they were a representative sample of men who get circumcised for health problems, your results would only be valid within a margin of error of about 15% 19 times out of 20. [1]

Moreover, data about adult circumcisions should not be blindly used as a proxy about the effects of infant or child circumcision. There are two important differences between adult and infant circumcision.

1. The adult can actually choose how much skin and how much mucosa will get removed and which areas he will keep. He can choose from anywhere between a tiny circumcision that removes a little bit of foreskin to the radical circumcision that leaves his shaft skin as tight as a banjo string when erect.

2. An infant circumcision disturbs the natural development of the penis. Normally (i.e. when there is no circumcision), the foreskin and glans are "glued" together at birth and during the early infanthood of the baby. Over time, the surfaces of the glans and the foreskin gradually separate and the boy is able to retract his foreskin [2]. Some boys will be able to do it sooner than other, but by teenagehood most are able to, and by adulthood the overwhelming majority can (those who still cannot have phimosis). Circumcision disrupts this gradual separation.

Finally, let's talk of lasting power. Actually, there is an old 1966 Masters & Johnson that studied this very question. They set out to debunk the "myth" that circumcised ejaculate earlier (which seems paranoid of them given that Penthouse was then telling intact men who had premature ejaculation to get circumcised). Anyway, they found no significant difference between the length of intercourse of intact and circumcised men.

As has been pointed out, even if circumcised men did last longer, that would be no reason for infant circumcision, especially since there are many other ways to gain lasting power.

[1] If my memory serves me correctly, the way to approximate the 19 times out of 20 error margin is to do 1/sqrt(n) where n is the size of sample.

[2] Note the clever usage of words. "The boy is able to retract his foreskin" Not the nurse, not the doctor, not the parent, but the boy retracts his foreskin. Forcefully retracting your son's foreskin is a sure way to hurt him and could cause him problems later down the road (phimosis).

Ut

greyline,

No apologies needed for getting technical . How are we supposed to get a meaningful discussion of circumcision if we don't talk of the mechanics of the intact penis and circumcised penis?

Ut

If by saying you think it is a non-issue for you, you mean that you can't do anything about it, I have to tell you this is not the case. You can first do some "damage control" by treating gently the mucosa that is left (namely the glans, the inner foreskin remnant and the frenulum or its remnant):

Do not use soap on your penis. Would you use soap to wash other mucosae on your body, like your eyelids or your lips? I don't think so.

Minimize the amount of friction that your glans et al. receive (except during sex of course). Wear briefs instead of boxers or no underwear, as the former greatly reduce the amount of friction your sensitive parts are exposed to.

If you have the will for it, the ultimate in gaining maximum profit of your hardware is non-surgical foreskin restoration. (The surgical version is not as rewarding and fraught with dangers) You stretch (just like African tribesmen who stretch their earlobes) your penile skin so that you will have enough skin for your shaft skin and foreskin remnant to cover your glans, thereby granting protection to your mucosa.

If you want an example of a method for achieving this, look at Multiple O-rings for Foreskin Restoration

If you want more details on foreskin restoration, look at National Organization of Restoring Men

Dr Rick

JAMA 1997;277:1052

Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice.

Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW.

Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Ill 60637, USA. eddie@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of circumcision across various social groups and examine the health and sexual outcomes of circumcision. DESIGN: An analysis of data from the National Health and Social Life Survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national probability sample of 1410 American men aged 18 to 59 years at the time of the survey. In addition, an oversample of black and Hispanic minority groups is included in comparative analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:...uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors. CONCLUSIONS: The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes. These findings inform existing debates on the utility of circumcision. The considerable impact of circumcision status on sexual practice represents a new finding that should further enrich such discussion. Our results support the view that physicians and parents be informed of the potential benefits and risks before circumcising newborns.

THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY 2002;167:2111-2112

Effects of Circumcision on Male Sexual Function: Debunking a Myth?

S. COLLINS; J. UPSHAW; S. RUTCHIK*; C. OHANNESSIAN; J. ORTENBERG; P. ALBERTSEN

From the Department of Urology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Departments of Urology and Biostatistics, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut

Purpose: Claims of superior sexual sensitivity and satisfaction for uncircumcised males have never been substantiated in a prospective fashion in the medical literature. We performed such a study to investigate these assertions.

Materials and Methods: The Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) was administered to sexually active males older than 18 years before undergoing circumcision. After a minimum interval of 12 weeks after the operation, the survey was again administered. The 5 domains of the BMSFI (sexual drive, erections, ejaculation, problem assessment overall satisfaction) were each given a summed composite score. These scores before and after circumcision were then analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank testing.

Results: All 15 men who participated in the study between September 1999 and October 2000 were available for followup. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 36.9 ± 12.0 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the BMFSI composite scores of reported sexual drive (p >0.68), erection (p >0.96), ejaculation (p >0.48), problem assessment (p >0.53) or overall satisfaction (p >0.72).

Conclusions: Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.

Med J Aust2003 Feb 17;178(4):178-9 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Medical history and medical practice: persistent myths about the foreskin.

Darby RJ.

Although many 19th-century misconceptions about the foreskin have been dispelled since it was shown that infantile phimosis was not an abnormality, the ideas that ritual or religious circumcision arose as a hygiene measure, and that circumcision makes no difference to sexual response, have persisted. The first idea should be dismissed as a myth and the second has been seriously questioned by modern research.


Pediatrics 2001 Feb;107(2):E20 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let's hear from the parents.

Adler R, Ottaway MS, Gould S.

California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. radler@chla.usc.edu

OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to investigate parental attitudes about circumcision and their satisfaction with the decision. METHODOLOGY: Parents of boys (6 months to 36 months old) in 3 different practices filled out a questionnaire while waiting for their child's well-child examination. RESULTS: A total of 149 families were surveyed. Families (68) who did not have their sons circumcised were less satisfied with their decision. Compared with families (81) of circumcised children, parents of uncircumcised boys were less likely to have been asked by their physician about whether they wanted their child circumcised, believed that they did not receive adequate information about the procedure, felt less respected by their medical provider, and were more likely to reconsider their decision. CONCLUSION: The importance of adequate information and discussion is highlighted by this study.

Jesse

Ut:
Do not use soap on your penis. Would you use soap to wash other mucosae on your body, like your eyelids or your lips? I don't think so.

Is soap bad for mucus membranes? The only reason I wouldn't use it on my lips is that it tastes bad, and the reason I wouldn't use it on eyelids is that it'd get into my eyes. But I just rubbed some soap on my lip as an experiment, and it didn't sting or anything. Uncircumcized men are supposed to wash the glans regularly--is it bad for them to use soap?

Ut:
If you have the will for it, the ultimate in gaining maximum profit of your hardware is non-surgical foreskin restoration. (The surgical version is not as rewarding and fraught with dangers) You stretch (just like African tribesmen who stretch their earlobes) your penile skin so that you will have enough skin for your shaft skin and foreskin remnant to cover your glans, thereby granting protection to your mucosa.

Once the glans has already become keratinized, are you sure it isn't permanent, like scar tissue? I have no idea either way, but intuitively I wouldn't think an adult who'd been circumsized for life could turn his glans back into a mucus membrane just by protecting it against friction.

Ut

I have to correct my previous statement: Mild (non-parfumed, pH-neutral) soap is OK.

Sure, intact men - just like circumcised men - are supposed to wash the glans regularly. However, that depends on what your definition of the word "wash" is. Too many people wrongly assume they must wash their glans with soap and rub it vigorously, thereby setting themselves up for non-specific dermatitis or balanitis (glans inflammation). Some circumcised men even put their glans right under the gym shower spray - causing every intact man around to instantly faint.

If you wash your glans gently with a non-irritant pH-neutral soap, I don't think it will cause any problem.

The glans is still a mucus membrane even after keratinization has occured. AFAIK, the keratin is only layered over the mucosa.

There's also more to it than friction. Keeping skin over the glans also protects it against dry air and cold air. I think Rhode Island's climate is similar to Quebec and you should have noticed that in winter, the dry and cold air often leaves your lips in a dire state: very dry and maybe even cracking and bleeding. Once the spring comes back (or you start using Lipsil) your lips gradually return to their natural state.

Also, the glans and inner foreskin normally have secretions (like pre-cum). When the foreskin is over the glans, these secretions stay inside and keep the glans and foreskin moist. On a circumcised penis, the secretions are absorbed by whatever you're wearing, or are evaporated through exposure to ambient air if you're naked.

Finally, there have been reports (though some kind of formal study would be appreciated) of circumcised men experiencing dekeratinization after keeping their glans covered for a long time. For example, they retracted their foreskin and found their glans by a white layer that went away when they washed it. (They could have confused it with newfound smegma, that's why a formal study would be needed to determine the nature of this layer)

However, even if it would not be possible to revert your glans to a true intact state, it would still be possible to make it moister and more sensitive by protecting it from friction, dry air and by keeping secretions in (until you wash or have sex, of course).