NEW RESEARCH British Journal of Urology: Circumcision Removes most Sensitive Parts

[MotherNurture]

OBJECTIVE
To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.

CONCLUSIONS
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

Thoughts?

Jen

[MotherNurture]

PDF of the entire study you can print, HERE (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf).

HTHs,

Jen

[prideNJoy]

I have heard that an uncircumsised penis is more senstive so to speak than a circumsised. i don't necessarily think it's a bad thing as i have never heard a circumsised male complain that they have less stimulation/feeling whilst having sex.
Maybe circumsision would be a good option for males that have a problem with premature ejaculation as it would de-sensitise them slightly...who knows...:confused:

Mel:)

[MotherNurture]

I wonder what we would think if a man asserted he preferred women have a surgery that delayed or made orgasm more difficult because sexually frustrated women are insatiable?

"Oh, it's not so bad...she wants it all the time and can go and go and go."

We'd be appalled that anyone would suggest performing amputative surgery to decrease one person's sexual sensitivity, pleasure, and function to benefit a sexual partner, wouldn't we?

Jen

[prideNJoy]

I can see your point, like i said though, Ive never ever heard of any male that has had a problem with sexual sensitivity/pleasure and function during intercourse due to circumsision.
And i too would be appalled if anyone was to pressure a partner into circumsising unless it was something they(male) thought might help with their problem!!!!
There's no proof that it delays or makes orgasm more difficult! Ask any male and im sure they'll tell you they dont have any problem in that department unless of course they have some sort of irrectile(sp) dysfunction anyway.


Thoughts?

You asked for thoughts!!

Mel:)

[MotherNurture]

Mel,

When you have about 20 minutes, if you're willing to watch a little presentation on the anatomy & physiology of the foreskin called, "The Prepuce", I'd be curious what you think. You can find it 2/3 of the way down THIS (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/) site's homepage under, "Medical School Curriculum".

Believe it or not, there are actually many men who are extremely unhappy they were circumcised. Many are even attempting the tedious process of foreskin restoration which usually takes a few years. It cannot bring the lost nerves, but it does provide coverage/protection for the glans and restors the 'gliding mechanism' of normal intercourse.

Jen

[prideNJoy]

will take a look when i get the chance, thanks.

[Moorish]

MN you did ask for thoughts and Meljellybean gave her thoughts. It's obvious from your past posts that most of us know where you stand on the whole circumcision issue.
I actually agree with Mel - I've never heard of a circumcised man complain about sexual sensitivity etc during intercourse because of the lack of foreskin.
Possibly, Mel's point about the surgery was maybe it's an option a male can CHOOSE to consider if he is dissatisfied because he suffers from premature ejaculation? That's what I understood from it anyway.

[allysophia]

How can you miss something you never experienced??


The things society condones...:no:

[xkwzit]

I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is open for thoughts from both sides of this discussion. It is a bit hard to have a discussion when people are beaten down for sharing their thoughts. Please keep the tone of this thread open and respectful.

Thanks

[Can I?]

Jen

I just watched that video you talked about up there a little, and found it excellent. Very informative! Thank you. :wave:

The research is fascinating. It is great that there are studies out there that can give some numerical value to what is actually lost due to circumcision. Here's hoping that these sorts of studies will convince more doctors that circumsision is not only unnecessary, but detrimental for healthy boys.

[prideNJoy]

I cant really comment on the vid as it keeps cutting off at a certain point. I get the idea though. I guess it comes down to whether people are willing to take a risk in getting their children done as they could suffer more than usual sensitivity loss.
Like i posted before
...Ive never ever heard of any male that has had a problem with sexual sensitivity/pleasure and function during intercourse due to circumsision.

There's no proof that it delays or makes orgasm more difficult! Ask any male and im sure they'll tell you they dont have any problem in that department unless of course they have some sort of irrectile(sp) dysfunction anyway.


I dont know of any health or medical reasons why people would need to get a lip removed (unless they had cancer) an eyelid removed or a clitoris hood removed. But there are many reasons as to why you would have a foreskin removed and im sure there is much medical articles to back this up to.
Much like everything else in this world today, it comes down to risk assessment and whether you think the risk of a reduced amount of sensitivity outweights the risk of health problems in having a foreskin.
Hope that makes sense (have severe baby brain atm) not sure that it does, im sure someone will tell me! hehe. :yes:

BTW i dont have any sons, one on the way. But all the males in my family are circumsised and i asked them their thoughts( i know thats strange but we speak openly in our family) None of them have ever had a prob in that dept. As far as they are concerned they have excellent sensitivity during sex. So i guess like posted previously if youve never had a foreskin you dont know what your missing. :ecomcity:

Mel:wave:

[MotherNurture]

According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, the chances of a boy ever needing a circumcision for medical reasons is l%

On the other hand, if you circumcise him he'll have a 7l% risk of penile adhesions and a l0% risk of meatal stenosis, in addition to the immediate surgical risks of hemorrhage, infection, and death. No medical organization in the world recommends RIC because not one has concluded that the potential benefits outweigh the known risks.

The only absolute indications for circumcision are frostbite, cancer, and gangrene. Everything else is usually treatable without amputation. Yes, a lip or an eyelid may require surgerical correction or amputation. On another board, awhile back, I used the labia as an example:


Each and every part of the human body is susceptible to problems, regardless of age or gender. No part of the body is "immune", from our tips of our toes to the top of our heads. Bacteria, viruses, fungus, cancer...even our own immune systems can be the culprit.

It seems obvious that removal of the foreskin would prevent foreskin problems. No foreskin, no problem...right? The same would be true of any part of our bodies not required to sustain life.

I wanted to share with you some problems that may affect a woman's labia. The list seems to be significantly longer than any list of potential foreskin problems I've ever encountered. It would seem that labia have an enormous potential to cause various problems throughout a woman's life. In a previous thread, someone asked, (paraphrasing here), "What have your labia done for you lately?"

A brief googling revealed a few functions:

The labia majora enclose and protect the protect the other parts of her genitalia lying between them.
The labia minora lubricate the skin around the genitals and provide bactericidal secretions to help protect against infections.

Interestingly, the labia seem to provide some of the same functions for women that the foreskin provides for men.

Based on this list of potential problems involving the labia, should labial removal at birth be considered an acceptable parental choice? I'd venture to guess no special clamping devices would even need to be developed. A simple hemostat could be used to achieve hemostatis of each labia before excision.

After all, labia are just "ugly", "useless", "flaps" of "excess skin" that "get in the way" during sex and are prone to all sorts of embarassing and painful problems. Many adult women are choosing to have their labia reduced or removed; if it was done when they were newborns, they would heal faster and wouldn't remember it. Besides, I've heard of girls being teased in the locker room for having unusually thick/large/long labia, and I wouldn't want any daugher of mine to go through that. To top it all of, my friend's sister got a yeast infection and said her labia burned and itched horribly! Better to remove them now, rather than later.



NO LABIA, NO PROBLEM.

No labia=no risk of labial adhesions.

No labia=no risk of smegma or bacteria being 'harbored' in the folds between bathing.

No labia=no risk of labial irritation from candida (yeast) infection.

No labia=no risk of Bartholin's gland cysts of the labia.

No labia=no risk of cyst of the canal of Nuck (processus vaginalis peritonei) of the labia.

No labia=no risk of of mucous (dysontogenetic) cysts of the labia.

No labia=no risk of skene's duct cysts of of the labia.

No labia=no risk of epidermal inclusion cysts of the labia.

No labia=no risk of furunculosis of the labia.

No labia=no risk off varicosities of the labia.

No labia=no risk of lentigo of the labia.

No labia=no risk of nevi of the labia.

No labia=no risk of seborrheic or hyperkeratosis labia.

No labia=no risk of fibroepithelial polyps (acrochordon) of the labia.

No labia=no risk of papillomatosis of the labia.

No labia=no risk of fibroma/fibromyoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of hidradenoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of lipoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of dermatofibroma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of hyper pigmentation of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Vulvodynia affecting the labia. (Less vulva=less vulvar pain.)

No labia=no risk of HSV infection of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Crohn's disease of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Behçet's Disease of the labia.

No labia=no risk of labial tears during intercourse or childbirth.

No labia=no risk of labial swelling after childbirth.

No labia=no risk of the labia 'getting in the way' of the penis and vaginal opening.

No labia=risk of of Vulvar Vestibulitis affecting the labia.

No labia=no risk of Condyloma Acuminata of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Herpes lesions of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Syphilis sores on the labia.

No labia=no risk of primary irritant dermatitis of the labia.

No labia=no risk of allergic dermatitis of the labia.

No labia=no risk of seborrheic dermatitis of the labia.

No labia=no risk of psoriasis of the labia.

No labia=no risk of hidradenitis suppurativa of the labia.

No labia=no risk of labial Intertrigo.

No labia=no risk of excoriation of the labia.

No labia=no risk of of Paget's Disease of the labia. (may require vulvectomy)

No labia=no risk of fissuring of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Lichen Sclerosus of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Lichen Planus of the labia.

No labia=no risk of eczema of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Squamous Cell Hyperplasia of the labia.

No labia=no risk of Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasm affecting the labia.

No labia=no risk of Vulvar Neoplasm-Melanoma affecting the labia.

No labia=no risk of basal cell carcinoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of verrucous carcinoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of sarcomas of the labia.

No labia= no risk of adenocarcinoma of the labia.

No labia=no risk of labial pruritus.

No labia=no risk of HIV entering through tears, abrasion, or sores on the labia.

(Many of these found here (http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2001/05_01/larrabee.htm) and here (http://classes.kumc.edu/son/nrsg835/vulvardiseasenew.htm).)

[prideNJoy]

Nice to see you have done alot of research, Im sure if i did some on the pro side of circumsision i could come up with some startling facts too.
Like i said before i dont have a son(as yet). So this is something i am interested in as we are going to have to make a decision as to whether we circumsise our son or not . My DF is not circumsised and it was something he wished he had had done at an early age because of medical reasons, one being that the foreskin was too tight which is excrutiating( in his words). Thankyou for presenting the info, as i'd like to make an informed choice. At the end of the day it comes down to choice and no parent should be made to feel like they have brutally damaged their child, when this is not the case. Everything can be made to sound alot worse than it really is. But i will keep my options open, and if we do decide to circumsise it wont be in the first few weeks of life thats for sure.
Now im rambling.....again:ecomcity:

Mel:wave:

[MotherNurture]

Mel,

"Brutal" is probably debatable. I'll say as someone who's assisted with dozens of circumcisions in the past that I, personally consider it quite brutal. Baby get's strapped down, poked, prodded, clamped, and cut on. There's generally wimpering/crying/shrieking depending on the effectivness of the anesthesia. There's blood. It is, quite literally, skinning a penis.

danheller.com/images/Topics/Circumcision/circumcision-17-big.jpg
(If you C&P this into your browser you can see the result of a typical newborn gomco circumcision.)

Regarding, "damage", however, there's less and less controversy. Damage means, "injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness". Circumcision is surgery, it results in a wound. It leaves the glans unprotected, and, as a result a process called keratinization begins and will continue throughout his life. Keratinization is when the surface of the glans dries and thickens, it's similar to the way your feet would callous if you went barefoot all summer. This is because the head of the penis is designed to be covered when not in use. It's mucousal. This drying and thickening makes the head less sensitive. Another effect of leaving the glans unprotected is that the urinary meatus (peehole) is exposed to the diaper environment, and in about ten percent of boys this leads to ulceration, scarring, and the passage becoming blocked. The condition is called meatal stenosis (http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm); additional surgery is required. Circumcision also removes specialized structures like the ridged band and frenulum (male g-spot). In addition, the average adult foreskin itself contains 3-4 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, and tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings. Another function of the foreskin is the 'gliding mechanism'; during masturbation & intercourse the foreskin slides back and forth over the glans providing stimulation and preventing accessive friction/abrasion.

Many people think the foreskin is just a snip and that the foreskin is just a little flap of extra skin. If you C&P foreskin.org/3zones-c.htm into your browser, you can see just how much skin is actually removed.

Anyway, good luck with your research. :)

I'm sorry your DF had a painful experience. A pathologically tight foreskin after puberty is a condition called phimosis. In over 80% of cases, it can be cured by applying a topical steroid cream (betamethasone) for a few weeks. How is he now? Has the tightness resolved?

If you do come across any startling pro-circumcision facts, don't hesitate to share/discuss.

Best Wishes,

Jen

[prideNJoy]

I porbably wouldnt post any pro-circumcision facts on here for the simple fact that i would probably get beaten down buy a pack of anti-circ people :D seems to be the way!

Anyhoo yes DF did get past that problem, and i realise that there are topical creams etc that do help with this sort of problem but i also know alot of young males(teens) will not discuss this with their parents as they are too embarassed, thinking there is something wrong with them. So they just suffer through it...

nuff said...

[pookiesossige]

According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, the chances of a boy ever needing a circumcision for medical reasons is l%

On the other hand, if you circumcise him he'll have a 7l% risk of penile adhesions and a l0% risk of meatal stenosis, in addition to the immediate surgical risks of hemorrhage, infection, and death. No medical organization in the world recommends RIC because not one has concluded that the potential benefits outweigh the known risks.

That really sums it up, doesn't it? :yes:

Thanks for such well-researched, detailed and honest posts, Jen. What every parent considering circumcison needs. It's our job as parents to be aware of facts such as the above.

[MotherNurture]

You're very welcome, Em.

With so many great resources available online, we can read studies, medical organization policy statements, and watch videos of the procedure. We can research anatomy & physiology and sexual effects. We can gain a broader, more accurate and balanced perspective than we could if we just relied on a few mainstream pregnancy books and rumors from coworkers, friends and family.

IMO, the perpetuation of this procedure thrives on he-said-she-said. If parents focused more on thorough, open-minded research, with the exception of religious circumcision, I think this practice would end overnight because nobody wants to subject their bub to a painful surgery without a good reason.

Jen