|
|
|
Snipped or unsnipped: the circumcision debate
Posted by Shawn Alff on Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM
In a recent study of 445 Ugandan women whose sexual partners were recently circumcised, 40% reported improvements in their sex lives, 57% claimed no change, and 3% said their sex lives suffered. The reasons these women gave for how sex improved may surprise you: better hygiene, it took longer for men to climax, and their partners wanted more frequent sex.
The belief that circumcision desensitizes men has died hard. Circumcision was once promoted as a way of reducing masturbation due to desensitization. However, more and more studies, including one published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, have proven that circumcision has little if no impact on a man's pleasure during sex. This Ugandan study backs up this claim with 97% percent of men stating their sexual satisfaction was the same or better after the procedure.
Until now, relatively few studies have examined the impact of male circumcision on sexual gratification in women. This study was undertaken by Godfrey Kigozi, MD in response to the fear that circumcision will negatively impact a couple's sex life. It was important to combat this mentality because a number of studies have confirmed that circumcision reduces HIV infection rates among heterosexual males.
Three studies of 11,054 men in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya between 2002 and 2006 found that circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV in heterosexual men by 54% over a two year period. The procedure helps prevent transmissions by removing Langerhans cells in the foreskin, which are particularly receptive to the virus. Others believe that removing the foreskin reduces friction, and thus creates fewer abrasions along the shaft of the penis.
Another study of 285 men discovered that of those infected with the human papillomavirus (HPV), the immune systems of circumcised men were three times more likely to clear HPV infections, and six times more likely to clear cancer-linked HPV strains, by the end of the test period.
Read more at WebMD.com
Follow Shawn Alff on Twitter or Facebook
Comments (11)
This study is completly wrong. Circumcision doesn't increase pleasure, it's the exact opposite and more and more studies confirm that. That study was done by some pro circumcision lobbies. Foreskin is the most erogenous part of penis with 20,000 nerve ending. Circumcision destroys permanently these sensation.
like
dislike
This study involved only women ages 15 to 49. The results would no doubt be different if they had included women who had already gone through menopause. Young women still produce cervical mucous that helps with lubrication, but many older women after menopause suffer from painful sex, necessitating artificial lubricants. Circumcised men lose this natural lubrication that intact men have, which can result in unnatural, abrasive, painful sexual intercourse. An earlier study found that women were more likely to experience orgasm with an intact (not circumcised man) than with a circumcised man. This questionable African study is just another attempt by those with an agenda to get unknowing people to accept circumcision, which puts women at an increased risk of acquiring HIV. Christine Northrup, M.D. explains "How Male Circumcision May be Affecting Your Love Life" http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm
Cutting off part of the penis improves sex? Yeah, and cutting off the eyelids improves sight! The Ugandan study of men was really laughable. Virtually all of them enjoyed virtually perfect sex whether they were circumcised or not, so of course it made no difference. How very different from every other survey of sexual satisfaction! Maybe we should all just move to that sexual paradise, Uganda! Was it a coincidence that they asked the questions with six levels of satisfaction but only reported the answers with only three? Perhaps more sensitive reporting would have given an answer that was less to their liking. "Others believe that removing the foreskin reduces friction, and thus creates fewer abrasions along the shaft of the penis." What utter nonsense! Circumcision INCREASES friction by destroying the rolling action of the foreskin. The three trials showed that circumcising 5,400 men delayed (not prevented) HIV infection in a total of 73 men - perhaps, while 673 men (327 of them circumcised) dropped out, their HIV status unknown. That is the whole basis for the mass circumcision campaigns. There have been no field trials. Other studies have shown that circumcision confers no benefit at all.
Yay circumcision. It was not for nothing that thousands of years ago people started practicing it. People who haven't had it done feel self-conscious and try to make a case that its a "terrible procedure" to make the rest of us feel bad for having it. It's fine if you're not cut, but I have def. received feedback from almost every woman I've slept with that they liked it better, so there's no need to hate. All people are equal, you can still be a good person or lover either way, but I think it's foolish for the future generations to deny that it has medical benefits.
"People who haven’t had it done feel self-conscious and try to make a case that its a “terrible procedure” to make the rest of us feel bad for having it." This is the crux of the matter. The fox who lost his tail wants to convince the rest that they should lose theirs too. See Aesop, two thousand years ago! Same old song of the snipped wanting to snip everyone else. "Less is more" might well be the circumcisionists' mantra. (Right up there with "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery"!) What an absurdity. Loss of the foreskin may not be catastrophic, but it clearly reduces sensation and changes the nature of the sexual experience for both men and women. See the Sorrells article, still unrefuted, at http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/. See also the O'Hara study at http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ and the graphic presentation at www.sexasnatureintendedit.com. Sorry, but circumcision is a very bad idea. Abstinence, being faithful, and condoms are the best, and indeed the only, defenses against STDs and HIV.
Circumcision wa introduced in US in 1870 to decrease sexual pleasure and masturbation. The hygiene reasons came after to rationalize this procedure. These studies claiming circumcision prevents AIDS, cancer, syphillis, infections etc... are very debatable. MOst of them have been debunked. Empirical evidence shows circumcision is just a cure searching for a disease. Also the debate about circumcision concerns circumcusion on babies/infants without consent. Every adult has the right to make the decision for himself.
This article includes some misinformation. Lets get the facts straight. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, did NOT prove that circumcision has little if no impact on a man’s pleasure during sex. That study showed that cut and natural the mans glans when aroused has little sensitivity and cut and natural are the same. The study did not look at the parts missing from the cut men. The parts missing ARE THE MAIN MALE PLEASURE ZONES with over 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings (SHAWN AIFF must not have these). The study of the patrners of the cut was by circumcision pushers. They convinced a number of men to get the cut to avoid HIV and then asked their mates questions that really does not say much. The mates basically voice their support for their man and his choice to remove the main male pleasure zones (more than 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings). These Uganda women were told hygiene is better and then they said that hygiene is better. This is like a parrot speaking back. In places where water is not a problem, hygiene is not a sex benefit and better hygiene from the mutilation is a myth. Also studies show that natural men do not have premature ejaculation problems and indeed this is a problem for some cut men, where the circumcision scar cause orgasm to early. Old cut men are more prone to ED and have problems with achieving orgasm. Also, several studies show the natural male genitals help women orgasm. The dynamics of sex is changed by the cut so there is no longer inner foreskin vaginal interaction and no flaring of the glans from vaginal pulling on the inner foreskin parts. The circumcision pushers and propagandists timed the release of the study to counteract the data that shows circumcision raises the rate of HIV transmission from men to WOMEN. The studies in Africa that found circumcision decreases female-to-male HIV transmission (from 3.2% to 1.79%) have some serious issues including the cut men having less time in the study for sex (they needed to heal) they got condom advice and they were eager to avoid HIV. It is really almost meaningless given several other studies could find no HIV circ correlation (US Navy study showed HIV the same for cut and natural, US urban studies etc.). The real world study shows mostly cut USA with much higher HIV than natural EU, and JP. ALso, there is no research to support the theory that the cells of the foreskin are especially susceptible to infection. Also there is research that shows Female circumcision FGM also lowers HIV by about 60% IN AFRICA. Who would FGM a girl for this benefit. Oh but FGM results in some men saying the sex is batter (Mostly the hygiene myth again). And BTW, it should be kept in mind that Women are MORE likely to contract HIV from circumcised men -- that is what the data shows. Lets be fair about this and stop acting like the AFRICA studies are so meaningful. Natural SEX IS THE BEST. Do not mutilate the genitals of baby boys.
Circumsion has been practiced for thousands of years. As has ear-pericing and other so-called "mutilations". We don't walk around naked. We don't live outside of shelter. So much for a "natural" lifestyle. We make all kinds of modifications, both internal and external, to adapt to our environments. Circumcision is a touchy subject for many. It seems certain people, probably uncircumcised, have an agenda to push. I am a circumcised male- I have no memory of any pain from the first week of my life, and I have no regrets on being cut. My sex life is explosive, and I receive a lot more oral than I otherwise would. I also have less fuss and mess "down there" maintenance-wise. I'm not surprised to hear there are other health benefits also. The WHO, World Health Organization, publicly endorses this practice, they are not, as one suggested, "circumcision lobby." They're trying to decrease the worldwide spread of HIV/ AIDs. Grow up and get your facts straight. You can call into question any study, but the deeper question is "why?". People have always been afraid of science. Thos eof us who have been circumsized have not asked you to stand up for is- we are doing quite alright thank you. Find other issue to get behind if you have that much free time.
Joe Bob, come on...There are thousands of studies clearly proving how circumcision harms, reduces sexual pleasure without to mention potential risks associated with the procedure. African need water to wash themselves and condoms to protect themselves before undoing surgery. You don't help them by amputating a part of their penis.This is just butchery.
The Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexuality Written by Michael J. Metro, MD Monday, 30 April 2007 BERKELEY, CA (UroToday.com) - There has been suggestion and debate about whether circumcision affects sexual sensation of the penis but there have been few relevant studies to examine this possible consequence of the procedure. South Korea has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world and most are not performed in the neonatal period. This allows a unique opportunity to examine the effect of adult circumcision on sexuality. A prospective study was performed to compare men who were circumcised or not, and to compare the sex lives of men before and after circumcision. The study, by D. Kim and M.G. Pang from Gyungki-Do Korea, is published in the March 2007 issue of BJU International. The study included 373 sexually active men aged 30-57 years of whom 255 were circumcised (mean age 37.1 years) and 118 were not (mean age 38.2 years). Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 were sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised after the age of 20 years. To address the effects of circumcision on the quality of sex life, including masturbation, a modified Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) which included additional questions about whether sex life and masturbatory pleasure had improved or worsened after circumcision. Analysis of the results showed that there were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation and ejaculatory latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but it was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision. This study suggests that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men, and the authors suggest that it may be due to loss of nerve endings in the removed skin. In addition, there was an approximately 9% incidence of severe penile scarring or uncomfortable erections from curvature or tethering after circumcision. DaiSik Kim and Myung-Geol Pang BJU Int. 2007 March; 99(3):619-22
Using pejorative inflammatory words like "butchery" doesn't advance your argument. It makes it clear that *you* have an agenda that you're pushing, probably to cover up an insecurity. Circumcision is a simple surgical procedure performed under local anesthesia. It's not "mutilation." Are any of the recently circumcized African males reporting sexual dysfunction? No. But it's easier to ignore the study right in front of your face. You know, the one that cites A 47% DECREASE IN HIV TRANSMISSION. Those are hard stats. to fudge, my friends. Wake up and smell the smegma.
Showing 1-11 of 11