Email a Friend
Print Article
Foreskin Facts: Turtleneck or No, It All Feels the Same
Okay. It's official now. A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine1 looked at a question that has been plaguing men for thousands of years. I know I stay up many nights tossing and turning, wondering the answer to this question. As a urologist, I know in my heart that millions of other men also spend hours each day thinking about this timeless problem. But now we finally have an answer. We can all put this behind us and get on with our lives.
The study looked at the age old question, do circumcised men have less penile sensation than uncircumcised men? The answer, no. It appears that whether or not a man is circumcised, whether aroused or not, his penile sensation is the same. Thank God. I was so worried that because I was circumcised at birth, I have been missing out on lots of fun. And wouldn't you know. it's the Canadians that figured this one out. Another advantage to those long dark winters.
But wait, there was another interesting fact that Dr. Payne and others discovered. They found that the penile sensitivity of men, whether circumcised or not, is actually less than they had anticipated. I'm not sure how much sensitivity these researchers expected.
So now that we are all the same, will all those men who have wanted a foreskin rebuilt change their minds? What about all those that travel the world warning us about the horrible catastrophic hazards of circumcision? I have read accounts of men who just knew that they had dramatically reduced penile sensation since their newborn circumcision. Now they too can rest assured that they are fine...at least physically.
Thank you Dr. Payne. Thank you Canada. I am finally complete and ready to move on, circumcised on not.
1Kimberley Payne PhD, Lea Thaler BA, Tuuli Kukkonen BA, Serge Carrier MD, Yitzchak Binik PhD (2007) Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men The Journal of Sexual Medicine 4 (3), 667-674. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x
Related Topics:
Technorati Tags: foreskin, circumcision, sexual health
The study looked at the age old question, do circumcised men have less penile sensation than uncircumcised men? The answer, no. It appears that whether or not a man is circumcised, whether aroused or not, his penile sensation is the same. Thank God. I was so worried that because I was circumcised at birth, I have been missing out on lots of fun. And wouldn't you know. it's the Canadians that figured this one out. Another advantage to those long dark winters.
But wait, there was another interesting fact that Dr. Payne and others discovered. They found that the penile sensitivity of men, whether circumcised or not, is actually less than they had anticipated. I'm not sure how much sensitivity these researchers expected.
So now that we are all the same, will all those men who have wanted a foreskin rebuilt change their minds? What about all those that travel the world warning us about the horrible catastrophic hazards of circumcision? I have read accounts of men who just knew that they had dramatically reduced penile sensation since their newborn circumcision. Now they too can rest assured that they are fine...at least physically.
Thank you Dr. Payne. Thank you Canada. I am finally complete and ready to move on, circumcised on not.
1Kimberley Payne PhD, Lea Thaler BA, Tuuli Kukkonen BA, Serge Carrier MD, Yitzchak Binik PhD (2007) Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men The Journal of Sexual Medicine 4 (3), 667-674. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x
Related Topics:
Technorati Tags: foreskin, circumcision, sexual health
106 Comments:
After reading the study i have no idea what this other person is complaining about. The study was carried out in a very effective manor. Some people just cant accept that what they had always believed to be true is not.
Previous Poster "Anonymous,"
Answer this question.
Did the Payne study measure sensitivity of the foreskin?
[The accurate answer is "No"]
--Unimpressed
I may be an isolated case, but I was circumsized in my teens. The difference in sensitivy between the foreskin-protected glans (normal) and the later unprotected one (surgically changed) was dramatic. The protected one is more sensitive in my experience...and it is kept moister. An unprotected glans, I think, has to get tougher to protect it. I remember that before the circumsion I could barely touch my glans without being stimulated. After the circumsion it was "tougher" and was much less sensitive.
Anonymous, have you ever actually read a scientific (and peer-reviewed) study that proved circumcised guys have lower cancer rates? Penile cancer is extremely rare to begin with, so that's like removing your eyelids to protect from getting a sty.
And recent studies try to prove that circumcision protects against HIV infection, when really the areas they study are areas where circumcision is part of a religious rite. Religions that also prevent sexual promiscuity, thereby reducing HIV transmission.
Circumcision is a personal choice, but it doesn't protect you against anything.
Wow, so much heat, so little light. First, there were only 20 men of each variety. The study claims to have established a "baseline," but unless the men serving as a baseline were being circumcised, this is just nonsense. The men were somehow "matched." The criteria were not given. The measure of "sexual arousal" consisted in measuring the temperature of the penis at engorgement. Unless they were dead, all this measured was the temperature of their blood. Surprise, the temps were the same!
I am uncircumcised and I do know that the foreskin protects the head of the penis, allowing it to be more sensitive. If I pull the foreskin back and leave it that way for day or two before having sex, it is much more difficult for me to reach climax. If I leave it covering the head, climax is much easier to reach. Because of this, I do believe that having the foreskin intact does allow a man to have the best of both worlds and use it to his and his partners advantage. Of course, this does not answer the question of the effect that removing the nerve endings in the foreskin itself. As far as all the health risks go, most doctors and research will show that a little soap and water on a regular bases negates those risk factors.
I cannot see how any person can make a statement about how sensitive another man's penis is or is not. What is arousing to one man may not be all that arousing to another. I know men and women have varying degree of sensitivity in their nipples, but I would not theorize that the length of time you were or were not breast-fed is the culprit. Some of those who have had their nipples pierced have had a loss of sensation while other experienced greater sensation. Others never had it to begin with and it didn't change after piercing.
With very few exceptions, almost every man I have met (or read a blog from) is pleased with their parents' decision to circumcise or not. It is fanciful to wonder what life would be like has your parents made the opposite decision, but my guess is that you would hold the opposite opinion.
I trust neither camp has been with the likely thousands of circumcised and uncircumcised men through arousal to make a blanket statement regarding sensitivity.
To the "Anonymous" who keeps questioning the sensitivity of foreskin, listen up: there is no sexual sensitivity in the foreskin, just normal skin sensitivity. there isn't the same erectile tissue in it.
Listen up, I totally disagree with this “research” to find the truth you would have to use subjects such as myself. About three years ago my wife and I adopted two wonderful children after years and thousands of dollars of trying to conceive. Well, after the kids come along we thought sure as the world we would come up pregnant, so I opted to get a vasectomy.
My wife always had a phobia about my foreskin, it wasn’t that I didn’t keep it clean or anything like that, she just had never been with a man with foreskin and did not like it during oral sex. So the dumba** I am without telling my wife and to please her while in preop for my vasectomy ask the surgeon when he come by if he could circumcise me while he was down there? He said sure not a problem.
After the six weeks of penile recovery (It looked as if the head had been cut completely off and reattached) I was so disappointed, masturbation to put it bluntly suc***. It was awful, and has not gotten any better in the three years since the surgery. Sex is not any better, the great sensitivity I had during sex and masturbation is gone forever.
My advise to anyone thinking of having a circumcision do after adulthood is think twice, if it is not medically required, and sometimes it is, do not do it.
A. T.
Tennessee
OKAY, GUYS. I WILL WEIGH IN WITH MY SECONDHAND EXPERIENCE REGARDING SENSITIVITY: FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FEMALE OBSERVATION. THE CIRCUMCISED MEN APPEAR TO BE MUCH MORE EASILY AROUSED AND FOR A LONGER TIME. AS FAR AS MY PERSONAL AESTHETIC PREFERENCE GOES, UNCIRCUMCISED MEN WIN. TO ME CIRCUMCISED PENISES BY COMPARISON LOOK BUTCHERED, UNNATURAL, ALMOST AMPUTATED.
I was circumcised a few years ago in my late 30's (for no medical reason except to please my partner) and I can honestly say that sensitivity is significantly different. It took a few months to reach a point where it no longer declined and settled down a tolerably lower level. If one could really measure the difference I would say I lost about a third to one half of the sensitivity. So there is a difference, at least for some individuals. Unlike others people that I have talked to, I am not totally discouraged by the change but to say there is no difference specially for those considering the operation for themselves or their baby could be somewhat misleading (at least it was for me)
tdkziWell
does it all depend on which head one is using. Great sex is in the mind. Period
To Darren:
The cancer threat isn't for the man's penis, it's for his female partner's cervix from the smegma lubication produced by the foreskin, and it is a documented danger.
Oh for crying out loud. I have never imaged so much talk about what in most cases such a small subject. I guess it is just my opinion that an uncircumsed penis , is unhealthy, ugly, and disgusting. They look like a dogs penis or little elephant trunks. I had this done in high school and am very glad I did. If I were not circumsized already I would have it done as soon as possible. I also thought only gays worried about such a problem. To be or not to be? Is the question. Get circumsized and get a life.....LOL
small minds worry about small things....You people need to get a life and enjoy what you have...Dont you actually have better things to do with your time then worry if your getting the very very best out of your poor little organ?..If your not getting the most out of it your probably bored with your partner or lack creativity..Our society seems so obsessed with sex you'd think we just discovered it...As the old saying goes "Those who talk the most about it are probably those who are getting the least of it"..Grow up!
I was not circumcised. however, sometimes i wish i was. my penis becomes engorged, & the foreskin tends to irritate the glans penis. my
urologist has prescribed an R/X that tends to prevent this problem.
After reading all of the comments I'll add a few thoughts...
I'm circumcised.
I have no problem becoming aroused...Ask my wife!
It always feels great!
I will never know if there is a difference and I really don't care. As far as I'm concerned it's Great!
I am not circumcised, but I do feel that the circumcised men can hold off longer in climaxing ,because being cicuncised the head of the penis is rubbing constantly on you shorts an i feel this makes it tougher so during intercourse it would not be as sensitive.
can't compare who lasts longer, circumcised or not. but from my experience (circumcised) the moment i get aroused, the head becomes so sensitive and becomes very very uncomfortable in the pants
A circumcised penis is great to have. No smegma, easier to keep clean. Just imagine when you have to rough it, whether it's camping for a few days, hiking, etc. -- and no running water is available. In this case, I'd rather have the cut penis because it's absolutely low maintenance and more hygienic. Imagine what's going on under your buddy's foreskin after a few days in the bush.
Uncircumcised penises have stopped entire armies dead in their tracks with the myriad problems when hygiene is not available.
I got circumcised at age 25, I am now 29. I have a big difference in sensitivity.. Masturbation is not even close to feeling the way the foreskin felt. You never had to use lube before and now I have to almost everytime......... It sucks..........
I for one can tell you that there is a difference. Whe I was in my early thritys I had my foreskin removed. It was one of the worst decisions I have ever made. I lost appox. forty percent of my sensitivity as a results.
There is one way to stop all of this stupidity. Have uncircumcised men design the test. Another way is to actually measure all the parts of the penis. The glans sensation might be equal, but the foreskin sensations are not going to compare in any way.
This is a classic example of a poorly designed test, with an insignificant number of participants, inadequate measuring, etc.
I guess we can put a man on the moon, but we can't measure erotic sensation worth a damn. Hard to believe, but true.
Dr. Marks, when you say, "Okay. It's official now. A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine looked at a question that has been plaguing men for thousands of years.", does this mean that the study has been peer reviewed, and accepted by the American Medical Association, or held up to any scientific scrutiny at all?
I find it really questionable that a study with such a small sample, and such weak methodology held up to any scrutiny at all. Why would you publish something with so little credibility? Perhaps, because it said what you wanted it to? The sad part is that somebody may take it seriously, and make a medical decision based on it. WebMD should be more careful. This is not responsible medical advice.
People come to WebMD looking for facts and studies, and well-thought out advice. Is this what they are getting, when the study is of 20 people, and not very scientifically sound?
This is a feel-good piece, the medical equivalent of infotainment.
The people who come to WebMD deserve better.
We natural men get called unclean in the Bible. We have such untrue and ignorant things said about us in here, such as "listen up: there is no sexual sensitivity in the foreskin, just normal skin sensitivity", "The cancer threat isn't for the man's penis, it's for his female partner's cervix from the smegma lubication produced by the foreskin, and it is a documented danger.", "an uncircumsed penis, is unhealthy, ugly, and disgusting. They look like a dogs penis or little elephant trunks.", and my personal favorite, "Uncircumcised penises have stopped entire armies dead in their tracks with the myriad problems when hygiene is not available."
Should we have to put up with a circumcised doctor calling us turtlenecks, too?
Do doctors who do mammographies say, "Please put your knockers in the machine"? If not, what is the difference here? I honestly don't understand why this is acceptable.
And no, a foreskin is not like a dog's penis, or an elephant trunk.
It is like a human foreskin on a human penis, just like everybody is born. Do you folks say the same derogatory comments about the clitoral foreskin? It has the same secretions, and performs the same protective functions. Should women's foreskins be cut off, too?
If not, isn't that pure sexism?
I got an original copy of the study.
It is amazing.
What it proves is that circumcised men have warmer forearms.
It also shows that, measured with the foreskin unretracted, the outside of the penis of a man with a foreskin is not as warm in temperature as the outside of the penis of a man without a foreskin.
The study conveniently avoided testing any areas where intact men have parts, and circumcised men do not. What it showed, in my opinion, is that the glans of the circumcised man and uncircumcised man is similar in response. That is truly not the same thing. The study doesn't even begin to attempt to test whether the parts that give such joy to an intact man add anything to sexual response, such as the inner foreskin, or the frenulum.
Anybody who reads this study can't help but come to the conclusion that even highly educated, well-meaning people can be awfully dumb sometimes. There was a distinct lack of common sense in the design and execution, and no valid attempt to see if there are real differences in sexual feeling or response between the two groups.
I'm happy for Dr. Marks that the study gave him the morale boost he was seeking. As a scientist, it did not do a lot for me.
I have stared to streatch my cut skin to try and regain my fore skin. I can tell you that the skin that is always covered by other skin is alot more senestive. I was cut very tight. Now that i have enough skin to go over my glands durin masturbation and intercourse. I believe that uncut me are very lucky and some day i will be as close as I will ever get and I'm very happy about that.
CNN/Time came to the opposite conclusion. It's not a study, and it is highly anecdotal, but it is what it is. You can decide which makes more sense for yourself.
How could removing all those nerves
add to the sensation?
The answer is, it doesn't.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1679981,00.html?cnn=yes
Here's another one, from CNN/Time.
The backlash against circumcision.
Looks like the kid voted with his face.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680141,00.html
I just wanted to say to all who think that they remove the foreskin in this operation, YOU ARE WRONG! They just simply fold it back so you dont look like a freak. And so you don't get inffections ans such.
Why is there a scar around a circumcised man's penis, then?
Where is the foreskin, and the frenulum? If they are not removed, why doesn't the foreskin cover the head? Why is the man with the foreskin a freak in your small mind, when 80%-85% of the men in this world have foreskins?
Grow up, pal.
Dude I don't know how educated you are but you don't sound like you know anything! Read up on circumcision and you will find out what it is and for you saying uncut guys look like freaks then buddy take a look at your own penis!!!
from www.dictionary.com:
The surgical removal of the skin that covers the tip of the penis, usually performed soon after birth. Although circumcision is common in the United States, the procedure is no longer widely recommended as a medical necessity by physicians.
from wikipedia.com:
Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and cædere (meaning "to cut").
You might want to rethink that "I just wanted to say to all who think that they remove the foreskin in this operation, YOU ARE WRONG! They just simply fold it back so you dont look like a freak. And so you don't get inffections ans such." stuff. Especially since you insult most of the world's population with your incorrect words.
Being an uncircumcised guy and a premature ejaculator, does this mean I should look into this in order to alleviate my problem ?
If I lose sensitivity as a result of circumcision then I should be able to last longer upon vaginal intercourse.
There are no shortage of premature ejaculators among circumcised men.
Circumcision is not a cure for premature ejaculation. A man can feel less with his penis, and still ejaculate prematurely.
I am circumcised and I have always ejaculated fast and I am 29 years old!
Wow..i can honestly say iv'e never had my penis referd too as looking like a "dogs, or elephant". Im no doctor, but as far as the "hygeine" debate goes..two words.."soap & water". Its not that difficult. I mean we all take showers right? we all use soap right? so how hard is it too pull back and rise before u get out? Second..Never has a female partner been "appauled or disgusted" with my INTACT penis. I think it looks better than the bald, skin tight look anyday! And for sensitivity, YES i belive we do have more. Its mostly common sense..Lift weights all day with no glove and guess wat happens too your hands..not so soft huh? "Being "cut" is more clean"?? how?? Your penis is being exposed to every little thing that just might so happen to end up in your pants. All we have to worry about on the other hand is wat our bodies NATUARLLY produce. Which means we take MORE time and clean MORE often! Like i said..im no doctor or scientist, im only 18 and this is MY 2 cents..take it or leave it.
Its kinda funny how people say uncut=unclean. But are we that lazy where we can't teach our sons to clean themselves.
I mean we should cut hanging stuff of f of us women, no its not wrong because they'll leave your clit alone, and only cut the hanging crap, and look you can clean it better.
Oh and ps there is a study out on HIV infection in american. Circumcision doesn't reduce men's risk of getting aids in the US.
thought you'd like to know.
ps a condom is 98% effective in previnting aids.
and the study didn't test the foreskin, studies that have found that intact males (uncircumcised men) are 4 times more sensitive then the circumcised penis.
But really there's more to a man then his penis. but teach your son to clean himself, because circumcision doesn't equal clean. it can still get infected, and smell too.
I cannot explain the medical procedure that made it possible, but my parents and my doctor left me with the ability to choose between circumcision and non-circumcision. As as young child I was left non-circumcised. As a teenager when I didn't want to look different from the other boys, I pushed the foreskin back behind the head and left it where it has remained most of the time. On occasion when very flacid, the foreskin will revert to the non-circumcision mode, but rarely does. My preference is for the circumcision mode because it is easier to clean and for me it is more sensitive. Why can't all men be given the same choice?
This study can tell you more about what the foreskin actually does.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
for all you people out there that believe you can cut off sensitive skin and not lose any feeling. this is for you. if i cut off your whole penis instead of half, would you have feeling left? ultimately everyone that reads this will and should answer "yes". what is it that makes people believe that cutting a piece off wouldnt? the doctor/man/women/child/brother/sister/father/wife that can tell me cutting half off versus all of it off not make a difference on the sensitivity is either not worried about it or are to ignorant to face the truth. the study was done correct 100% and i even agree with the study findings. what the study shows is that there is no lose in the skin sensitivity that is remaining from the mutilation. but what they do not show/tell you is the cut male has approximately 50% less of the erogenous skin left on their genitalia. what this study tells me is that any person man or women can remove their finger and retain all sensitivity of the nerves that are no longer there. how can anyone believe removing skin from the most sensitive area on the body not remove sensitivity but losing some in an area less sensitive such as your finger/leg/hand/arm (to name a couple) will remove sensitivity? how can you justify this? another fact that i would love dearly to hear an explanation too is, if there is no lose of sensitivity why is it that my skin leading to my circumcision scar continues to feel better and better until it suddenly stops after the scar, where this pleasurable feeling skin should continue? any doctor that thinks they can answer that, do all us men a favor and save it, we all no ultimately removing any portion of the body "especially" the nerve packed areas will take the nerve endings with whichever piece of skin that is removed.
Being gay or at least bi-sexual, I have some degree of undocumented, but very "hands" on experience with both cut and uncut men. Most experiences being equal, the foreskin men reach climax more quickly than those of us who are cut. Not good or bad, just different and like other traits, can be very exciting!
Circumcision is a personal decision and I would't say it's for everyone. But it worked for me. The advantages are low maintenance,no smells, more intense orgasms and
better oral sex. Loss of sensitivity? Perhaps, some. But I
have no problem becoming aroused with the right woman. "You pays your money and you gets your choice."
How do you get more intense orgasms, when you have about 50% less skin on your penis than before?
I am a nursing student and observed several circumcisions. It is the most barbaric thing I have ever witnessed. I am amazed at the misinformation that people have on this site. Circumcision is genital mutilation whether done on a male or female. It looks like something a tribe in a third world country would do. It has no place in a civilized society other than to perpetuate what has been done to the fathers. One baby had convulsions from the pain and I will have to live with witnessing such brutality.
y'all whine too much. "barbaric genital mutilation" "i will have to live with witnessing such brutality" huh?! sweetbaby blue, if you're a nursing student maybe you should try a different profession if that is so horrible to you. If you think that is bad i laugh to think what your response would be to witnessing an abortion. Back to the topic at hand, most penises are circumcised, so most guys are used to seeing normal looking penises in locker rooms and pornography, so it is only natural to have a bias against uncircumcised penises . Because, in all honesty, they do look like elephant trunks, and if you can't see that you're deluding yourself.
The simple truth is that an exposed glans is less apt to be stimulated than a covered/protected glans and that's the way it goes. But if they're both lubricated than there's probably not a huge difference. If your penis is circumcised or not do what you want, but if sex or masturbation isn't satisfying to you then you're obviously doing something wrong, and it's probably in your head.
you no what guys it really boils down to this. everyone listen. im not going to say anything for or against either side. but i will say this. circumcision is a choice that is irreversable. all im saying is personally i think we should stop trying to figure out if its good or if its bad. personally i dont care, but what i do care about is the actual lack of either sides thought of the baby itself. personally i think if everyone had the choice ourselves of whether or not to have it done we would all be happy men right now. people often think it needs to be done before the baby gets older. but truth is, if they would leave it alone (given that no problems present during childhood) it should be left up to the kid if no problems show up until he can choose for himself. all i see is 95% of babies are circumcised with healthy* foreskins.
circumcision was made popular singlehandedly in this country by J. Kellog (yes of the Kellogs cereal) to decrease masturbation in boys because he believed it caused insanity. Kellog had some serious sexual problems (look it up). So all of you circumcised men have Kellog to thank along with your misinformed and ignorant parents.
I swear its crazy how u all are just waisting ur time on something so stupid either u have the foreskin or u dont if u never had the foreskin then u dont know how it fells so keep your 2 cents to ur self the only people in this world that can comment on that topic is the people that had foreskin and had the surgery and for everybody that say it looks disgusting people might think urs look disgusting too so i just want to say everybody that got mad or offended or just left a comment just to be heard GET A LIFE! GET WIT IT OR GET LOST and most of yall is grown men leaving comments im a teenager and thats what yall are acting like a bunch of teenagers getting mad and all bent out of shape over something that has nothing to do with u if u dont have foreskin why did u leave a comment anyway? I guees u got offended because they say guys with foreskin feel better well i wouldnt know but if it do O well be happy that u have one and it isn't disease infested lol ok im out!
A penis with a foreskin is no more likely to be infected, than a penis without a foreskin. Just ask the 85% of the world who has a foreskin. They are about as likely to become infected as your eyelid.
But thanks for implying that they are all infected, and showing your deep ignorance of basic human anatomy.
Think of that when you are pleasuring a girl, after all, they have a foreskin.
Here is a dose of scientific reality--the foreskin has a much greater number of nerves than does the remainder of the penis--so the loss the the majority of nerves means a loss of the majority of sensation and any study or person that pretends otherwise is simply assurd...
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
Ok, being a man that is cut. I am very sensitive. It dose not take much, sometimes just a simple touch will do it. and once I do get off, the head is so very very sensitive.
"Ok, being a man that is cut. I am very sensitive. It dose not take much, sometimes just a simple touch will do it. and once I do get off, the head is so very very sensitive."
This is called premature ejaculation and is much more common in cut men than normal men--this is due to too little nerve feedback and the skin stretched too tightly over the glans due to excessive skin removal--the glans is a pressure-sensing part of the penis
this is false. i can tell you right now that the sensitivity of the intact foreskin is much much greater then when it gets cut off and nothing is there
To all commenting here --
This is a sensitive subject, and emotions tend to run high. Disagreement is fine; personal attacks are not. Those will be removed.
Thank you.
Name another body part which you can remove half the skin from, and have sensation remain the same. Face? No.
Hand? No. Leg? No. Vagina? No.
I guess the penis is way different than any other body part, for this "magic" to occur.
What part of "first, do no harm"
covers removing a healthy body part from someone to young to consent?
Does this strike anyone as ethical?
What if he wants it later?
Half the skin on a genital, is a big thing to have no decision over, for the owner. Why is the US the only country who doesn't see it this way?
Foreskins are protective, for both the man and the woman. To say that it feels the same either way is illogical, and absurd.
It is sad that this is even here.
Everyone has a right to their whole body, unless it is to preserve their life until they can make that decision for themselves.
Circumcision violates everything ethical, by taking that choice away from the person, by removing a healthy body part, and by inflicting unnecessary pain.
With the speed at which medical knowledge changes, it is really incorrect to remove parts in the name of what may or may not be good for someone in the imaginary future.
How many of these studies have been initially accepted, only to go down in flames, like the Castellsague study which purported to show higher HPV rates in uncircumcised men, but was later shown to be based on faulty assumptions. Doctors and studies have tried to blame the foreskin for everything from insanity to cervical cancer to AIDS, and none of it sticks.
It's time to give it up, and say that nature designed a human body this way for a reason.
there are three main sexually responsive areas on the penis. the inner foreskin, the frenulum, and the head.
3 - 2 = 3 ?
or is it
3 - 2 = 1 ?
you decide. some studies will tell you anything, no matter how logic-defying it is. how they get funding, or recognition, and not a belly-laugh, is beyond me.
The study was carried out in an effective manor? What?
They measured the temperature of the circumcised man's glans, and the temperature of the uncircumcised man's glans with the foreskin covering it.
Of course, the temperature of the bare head is going to be higher. The same would be true for measuring the temperature of the eyeball, and the eyeball through the lid. It says nothing about sensitivity, just temperature. At no point did they attempt to analyze electrical impulses to the brain from the penile nerves. This might show a great difference. At no time did they attempt to measure sensation in the uncircumcised men from the parts which circumcision removes.
Could this make all the difference in the world? Yes!
If this study was taken seriously, it would be in JAMA, the AMA, the AAP, etc.
It wasn't. What does that tell you?
Who else ran to embrace it? No one.
Why did it get here? Who knows. It was not likely for its scientific value.
It is shameful to cut up a defenseless baby, for an operation which offers no clear, measurable immediate benefit. That the sensation is the same, or is not the same, makes no difference, nor does anaesthesia. Circumcision is the wrong thing to do, physically and especially ethically. It is painful, and steals something which is rightfully his, and his alone.
when the AMA and AAP don't recommend circumcision for medical reasons, the American Cancer Society doesn't recommend it as effectively preventing penile cancer, and it has never been proven to prevent any disease ever, why is this sad attempt at justification even taking place?
it defies all reason. a decade ago, the medical community told us that babies didn't feel their circumcisions, because their nervous systems were not developed enough. anyone who has heard the screams of a baby being circumcised would know in their heart that that was not true. what reason is there to believe this study? it defies common logic, that if you take away something it feels the same. how is this study any different than saying babies don't feel pain? this study will be a sad footnote to self-delusion in a few years, when circumcision is less common, and leaving babies with all their parts is considered the norm.
why is cutting off healthy body parts even entering the picture?
can you imagine a discussion that a person with an ear cut off hears as much as a person with two ears?
why is it so hard to accept that we have all of the body we have, because it's best that way?
Well, even assuming the study is right and there is no difference between the two, if you are circumcised you are still missing the natural back and forth movement of the penile foreskin and like some have mentioned it is a lot dryer
That is what makes the study so irrelevant. If we give it the benefit of the doubt, look the other way, and pretend that removing two of the three most erotic parts of the male body, your points still remain. Even if we pretend that permanently exposing the head does not damage it (picture a tongue hanging out of a mouth forever, or picture a vagina open forever, and that gets harder to do), the head of the penis is a mucous membrane. Once it dries out, it becomes like skin, instead of like a vagina, mouth, or anus, as it was intended to be. The protective sleeve of foreskin makes sex gentler, makes insertion a breeze, and keeps moisture in the vagina, instead of pulling it out. Circumcision causes real damage. That's why it leaves a scar. Even though viagra was invented in Britain, it is mostly consumed in the US.
All things considered, what rational person would rely on this statistically flimsy study, and take the risk that removing two out of the three most sensual parts would not harm their child? All for an operation which has no proven benefit? Why are we even talking about it? If this was not the accepted American norm, people would be locked up for doing it, and thought crazy for suggesting it.
Calling a foreskin a turtleneck is demeaning. If you went to the doctor, and he said, 'let me see your turtleneck', would you think he was unprofessional? I know I would.
I would also like to know why the comments that someone doesn't like, get removed from the blog. Selective editing benefits no one.
To the last Anonymous commenter, it's clear from reading all the comments here that any and all opinions are welcome, both positive and negative and everything in between. What will be removed are attacks on other commenters. As long as the opinions are expressed with civility, they will remain.
Most people look good in a turtleneck.
I think whether or not they feel the same, depends on the fabric.
I'm one of those people who made a post that the admin removed. It's easy to get angry when people claim that circumcision is harmless: they haven't seen my medically damaged penis. One topic circumcisers won't touch is the 0.04% of men whose circumcision amounted to genital mutilation. This amounts to thousands of men in the U.S. who were needlessly butchered. Get circumcised if like, heck, get circumcised several times. But it is absolutely outrageous that sexually sensitive tissue is amputated from non-consenting children, sometimes with disasterous results, and this is being done by "doctors." The Payne study is nothing but a proxy for continuing neonatal circumcision.
good point. circumcision is often the first operation that an intern is allowed to do unsupervised. I can't imagine putting my child's reproductive health in the hands of someone inexperienced.
I also am one whose polite and non-combative posts have been removed.
don't you wonder what it is that is being protected?
doesn't it make you think, when the study supports an operation that no major medical organization in the world recommends as effective in preventing anything? Not the AMA, AAP, American Cancer Society, Canadian Paediatric Society, British Medical Society, no one.
it's just my opinion, but there are better things to do with babies, than cutting them.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument only, that the study was correct, and that circumcised men and uncircumcised men feel the same sensation.
Why would you subject your child to surgery, with all its risks of excessive bleeding, infection, MRSA, complications later (meatal stenosis, skin bridges, too much skin taken off), just to feel the same as someone who had nothing done?
I don't for a second believe that you can remove half of the skin off of anything, and retain the same sensation. But, even if I did, the logical argument makes no sense whatsoever. Circumcision does nothing for hygiene, that washing does not do. We don't remove parts of our girls, so they don't have to wash. Circumcised men get all the same diseases, and if you believe many of the most recent studies, at about the same rates. Given a choice, I would rather have all my parts, and practice protection, which I would have to do anyway, than lose half the feeling in my penis, and still have to use protection. Circumcised men still get cancer of the penis. You don't hear about it, except for the Maden study in Washington state, but it's true. 37% of the men who got it were circumcised.
Why is this operation the exception to every medical rule? I truly don't understand why logic and reaason and sexual equality go out the window, when the subject is circumcision. There are studies that show that hygiene is better when the clitoral hood is removed. I see no line forming, and no outcry in the press, and no support in blogs here or elsewhere, for this practice. Why so much heavy sell for this one exceptional operation which cures or prevents not a thing.
circumcision is a sick hoax.
a man can live his whole life, perfectly healthy, with a foreskin, as much as a man can live his whole life healthy without one. the difference is in the sensation. one has all he was meant to. the other is missing a large percentage. this study, well, put it on the scrap heap with Wiswell, Schoen, Castelsague, and all the other 'studies' which proved nothing significant. These studies end up being yesterday's news, but circumcision is forever.
circumcision has been a cure looking for a disease, for 120 years and more. it has been dropped by every country that embraced it for medical reasons, except the US. it is no longer routinely done where it used to be commonplace, in New Zealand, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.
the only reason it is perpetuated in the US, is force of habit, and these little two bit studies, that people point to and say "see, I was right".
circumcision prevents nothing, it cures nothing which can't be cured by gentler methods, and it robs a baby of his birthright - all of his genitalia.
this study is a weak rationalization, to try and justify that loss. every baby deserves to feel all he was born to feel. those who say that it all feels the same, simply have never experienced what a whole penis feels like.
With all due respect, there seems to be a serious anti-foreskin bias with WebMd.
This is not an attack, it is an observation.
In the WebMD article Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Circumcision
http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits
it says:
"I sure as hell wasn’t going to have any son of mine sporting a flesh hood over his ding-dong."
Again, with all due respect, if that was posted in this blog, it would be deleted. If a post calling a foreskin a turtleneck is posted by a doctor, it's OK, but if another blogger used a jocular reference to a body part, it would be deleted.
More troubling, though, is that the above article was reviewed by
Dr. Edgar Schoen, who wrote the poem "Ode To Circumcision". Dr. Schoen currently maintains Medicirc.org, an online resource which focuses on benefits of circumcision, according to wikipedia. In any other business, wouldn't this be viewed as a conflict of interest? How can one expect medical impartiality?
And on the basis of that article, parents are advised to have surgery performed on their children, on which the AMA states "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision".
Again, with all due respect, there is something wrong here.
I wasn't circumcised as a baby, and I thank my parents for their wise decision. When we had our son, we also chose to leave him intact. At least those of us that are intact have the right to make the decision whether we want to be circumsiced. I cringe to think of what is routinely done to a baby to one of the most sensitive parts of their body. I've found no evidence that leads me to believe that the human male is defective and requires surgery at birth as corrective action. It's also disturbing at the number of circumcisions that are done based only on the reasoning that they want the son to look like his daddy.
Even in this day and age of modern medicine, and with the AMA's strong suggestion that every baby be given pain relief, a huge percentage of babies are circumcised without anaesthesia. This is truly torture, in the most real sense of the word. Since there is no compelling evidence, in well conducted peer-reviewed studies that circumcision provides any health benefit to anybody in North America, why do it? In case anybody is thinking about the African HIV studies, ask yourself this. Why does the circumcised US have such a higher rate of HIV infection than uncircumcised Denmark, Sweden, or Switzerland?
I've heard the scream of a baby being circumcised, and it is chilling and unforgettable. Besides, foreskins are fun, both for their owner, and the owner's partner.
Does it seem reasonable to leave a blog entry purporting to be factual up for over a year, describing a very questionable study, which has yet to be corroborated by any other source?
With no disrespect intended, does this seem to be an ethically questionable practice to anyone else?
Especially when the outcome could affect the genitalia of another person, who has no say in the matter, for the rest of his life?
Yes, it is just as reasonable to leave this blog post up as it is for them to let you complain (even though you are "anonymous" I bet you've written a lot of the other complaints here). You can disagree. You obviously dislike the fact that not everyone agrees with your point of view. But it is not okay for you to question the ethics of the post. This was a research project carried out using scientific methodology. It was reported in a peer reviewed medical journal. Every study isn't reported in every journal. You just don't like the answer. There are other articles and posts on WebMD that follow your line of thinking. If it makes you feel better, read them. Parents make decisions for their children all of the time. I don't recall my parents asking me about removing my tonsils any more than they asked me about being circumcised.
If you are not circumcised, then be happy with your status. If you are circumcised and you're upset that your parents had the procedure done, deal with them. If you are a parent, don't have your son circumcised. Just don't question the ethics of scientific research or the doctor or the website because you don't like the test results.
Did you actually read the study?
I did.
I got it directly from Dr. Kimberly Payne, the author.
I am fine with my circumcision status, or lack of circumcision status, thank you.
That study is junk science. If you care to discuss the finer details, let's have at it, once you've analyzed it.
It's not OK to remove healthy body parts from a non-consenting person.
It's a violation of their civil rights.
Did having your tonsils out remove half the skin from your genitals?
It's apples and oranges.
Do you think it is ethical, to put up one study as a medical fact, and then say it's OK to surgery performed against the advice of every major medical organization that exists?
I thought that's what you were saying.
Were you in the room when someone had it done? If not, perhaps you could try watching one of the many videos of circumcision on the web, with the sound up.
worth reading.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/03B54A29-5328-43FE-80D8-735C78D21F56.asp
it makes you wonder, with the following, just how real the study cited in the original entry is.
A rate of adverse events, infections and delayed healing described as ‘shocking’ and ‘unacceptable’ by the investigators has been revealed by a survey of both traditional and medically performed circumcisions amongst a traditionally-circumcised ethnic group in Kenya.
The study’s authors, who include Robert Bailey, the principal investigator of one of the three randomised controlled studies (RCTs) of circumcision as an HIV prevention method, urge training for practitioners, the provision of low-cost kits of circumcision materials, and the integration of circumcision into a full complement of HIV prevention and reproductive health services. They urge the adoption of a certification process for traditional and medical practitioners.
The rate of adverse events observed – 35% in traditional circumcision and 18% in medically performed ones – are an order of magnitude above those seen in the RCTs of circumcision, and in medically supervised circumcision in the developed world. Six per cent of operations resulted in adverse events described as permanent and irreversible.
I don't want my penis, or the penis of a loved one, to be an "adverse event".
If these are the facts, doesn't it make you wonder what the speculation is?
My 'turtleneck', as it is so colorfully called, feels exactly like nothing else.
I don't know about you guys, but I would rather be dead, than alive without it.
No man who never had one could imagine what use it could be, and no man who had one could imagine life without it.
I was circumcised 4 years ago, love making is better. The only regret I have is leaving it so late in life to be cut- 30 years old. John
Did you have an unretractible foreskin?
If you did, it stands to reason that you would feel more afterwards.
If you didn't, and just wanted to get circumcised, then I don't understand how having less parts gives more feeling.
Please, ask the doctor who posted this blog, whether he believes it, or whether he was just having fun.
To all of the posters discounting this study: how many of you actually know anything about human physiology. I'm guessing very few. As someone who has a graduate degree in neuroscience and who has written and published research it's not exactly a walk in the park to have your study published - they are peer reviewed and need to follow specific guidelines. So no, this is not junk science and no, you don't know more than scientists or doctors about circumcision or any other subject related to health. So can the hysteria and hyperbole and your reliance on anecdotal "evidence".
I know enough to know when something doesn't make logical sense.
You have a master's degree. We less educated people are supposed to take your word for it, that the study is not flawed.
How is measuring the temperature of a foreskin-covered glans and a foreskin-free glans supposed to tell anything? It's like measuring an eye's temperature, and then measuring the eye's temperature with the lid closed. If they had compared brain scans, they might have had more evidence. Why did she not test frenulum response, inner foreskin response, and ridged band response? How does one compare the two kinds of penis, and declare them equivalent, when not all the parts are being measured?
Is this an example of a carefully, scientifically designed study?
If so, why has the medical community not run to embrace it?
Perhaps if you read the study again, with a more discerning eye, you will spot its inconsistencies, and not be so quick to slam others as so much "hysteria and hyperbole". This is not science's finest hour.
The doctor who posted it said, "I wrote what I thought to be a farcical (is that a word?) blog about a single paper, and as I recall, kind of made fun of it as the "end-all" to the question of circumcision sensitivity."
He apparently wasn't taking it seriously. Should we? If so, why?
i too had a problem with tight foreskin. IT was fully covered.http://woofaboomus.ngender.net/penis1.html these photos offcourse these are not mine but explains the same problem of me .please help me i am very much worried about it
im 18 years old hispanic and i am not circumcised, i dont want it to be that way i feel like my penis is not "normal" and when i have sex ( still virgin ) i would feel very uncomfortable.
Circumcision actually enhances sexuality, as well as all the other penile functions of hygiene, urinary function, on top of that all the foul debris and rancid viral secretions which lead to diseases, out of the way. On top of that the foreskin can be pierced, and incised with a sharp scalpel, also clamped to numbness,with no apparent pain. Only tearing and twisting only incites slight discomfort. Foreskin is just extra insensitive tissue like the umbilical cord, it is also a virus-secreting tissue after the birth period. Regardless to what ignorant people think, compulsory circumcision of all boys without any "consent" should be standard procedure. They need to go back to the way it was before the 1970's, where circumcision, umbilical cord removal & vaccination were all classed equally the same. If parents today care about their sons, they'll say yes to circumcision. I know there's a lot of ignorant and emotional people who misunderstand things. This is exactly why circumcision should be mandatory and completed behind closed doors, before they even hand the boy over to the parents. It seems as though, when You Tube videos show circumcisions, the circumcision hurts those who watch it, not the baby. The pain is superficial, most of the pain from circumcision involves peeling the foreskin back. Since on the infant the foreskin stuck to the head, peeling/retracting the foreskin is 95% of the pain of circumcision. Once the clamp, clamps the thin & nearly insensitive foreskin, it turns numb, cutting the foreskin off is like cutting the umbilical cord. Peeling the foreskin back is very painful, cutting it off is not. This is where people are being mislead into ignorance. If they kick the Anti-Circumcision Lobby out for good and go back to doing routine and standard circumcisions without any consent, since consent isn't needed for medically approved procedures. Then I would say all this hype would diminsh. No one ever heard of a "circumcision debate" in all the years before the late 1970's. Before then no one had any problems. After some psychologically ill people started misunderstanding circumcision, all this has happened today. It would be nice if circumcision was just as routine as removing the umbilical cord since circumcision is really a form of vaccination. No "consent" should be needed.
Wow! Really. Do you have first hand memory of your circumcision? What about the 2 months of care it takes, both children and adults who have it done.
Vaccination? Of what?
Oh yeah, that 'disease' you're born with, (foreskin) but the doctor who is nice enough to relieve you of it. Oh and let us not count the $150-$300 per cut he makes. If I could make $300 for 10-15 minutes of work (with no posibility of litigation risk for deforming or botching - which happens) I think most people would. Do 5 of those a week and I'll take a vacation too.
Do you wash your a55 in the shower? If you didn't, yeah it would most likely smell too. And so would your pits and your hair. So wash under the foreskin.
Read the Bible instead of a text book and find out that, "God created man in his image." Oh that's right, God must have messed up, but lucky for us humans, some Dr. can fix His mistake.
And do you know that Dr. Kellogg, in the early 1900's published his belief that if you weren't circumcised, then you would be a cronic masturbater. What a fool. That is about as intellegent as saying, "You'll go blind," if you do.
Try expanding your horizon outside of the USA. Europe has been around for a lot longer that the US and they never got caught up with the whole money making aspect of cutting up kids. Lets brand them for life next, with a cool lazer of course. I mean if it doesn't hurt then it must be good for them.
UNCUT AND PROUD OF IT. I CAN ALWAYS BECOME LIKE YOU 'CUT'.
i find this to be completely rediculous...i myself am uncircumsized and i am completely happy with it...im glad that my parents gave me the choice of keeping it or not. true some moments i wish i had a bit less then i have but its subjective as to men judging other men on their sexual stimulation if they havent had a word in the matter.
(replying to Anonymous a couple back...) Hey, yes the Bible says man was created in God's image, but God also commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his sons as a sign of His covenant to them. It wasn't to correct a deficiency.
And why are you talking about biblical circumcision? You sure don't seem like one who practices Judaism.
I'm a chick and I had never even seen an uncircumsized penis until I met my Husband. At first, I wasn't really into it. 2 years later, I love it! It is way more attractive. All natural MAN! Sexy as hell. Anyways, I know this has nothing to do with the feeling, but this is for those guys out there calling it gross and stuff. And as far as the sex goes, I've been with my share and my husband is the only one that can give me an orgasm 98% of the time:-)
being circumsized makes your penis bigger (according to south park) and anyways in porn they are always circumsized so that must mean that it is more attractive to have a circumsized penis.
I read some articles, circumsised penis should be well taken care of due to the absence or the foreskin.
Without the foreskin the glans can get dry and some infection can result...
If you have your foreskin, please do keep it..
Every part of the body has its reason...
But please make sure that you clean under it everyday to prevent any kind of acumulation..
Take care guys and keep safe.
from Hal 84:
I was uncircumcised until age 42 was circed then by choice - no medical urgency. However I had been keeping the foreskin retracted since about age 12 because I liked it better that way optically and it felt right for me and was easier to keep clean.
Sex improved for me because I was getting more direct stimulus to the coronal ridge and sulcus areas with coitus and also during maturbation the orgasmic triggering nerve endings located there had more direct contact and the bunched up foreskin was no longer insulating the coronal ridge from direct contact.
There are sites that get questions from young men that have real problems that are caused by the presence of the foreskin. There are often things that can help, but there is often some recurrence of foreskin problems. I had occassional irritations in the foreskin itself which are gone since the snip.
In my 84 years I have noticed that in the US those with a foreskin seem to have a verrrry big need to claim it makes them superior! The large number of anti-circumcision sites is evidence that the trend continues!
Actually both ways work!
Wearing the foreskin retracted is a good cross between the two states!
I believe this is a circumcised male that is pro circumcision and therefore promotes it. Being a guy with foreskin, retracting it during the teen years, I can say that there must be a difference. I felt much less sensation of the frenulum and head during those years regardless of the constant erections. Keeping my foreskin over the head as it is designed to do, the head is easily stimulated and sensative compared to those teen years. Asking Urologists and Doctors if they had foreskin when countlessly offered circumcision for little to no reason, I found that they were all circumcised. I mistrusted them about my foreskin as I do with this article. I am kind proud of my penis and it's natural look, I don't care if another guy finds it strange looking. The one Doctor that said he had foreskin was conservative and did not offer circumcision to correct a slight curve of the penis or my tight frenulum. He offered to refer me for frenular breeve, a cutting of the frenulum to release the foreskins elasticity. Ask them their penile status if they offer circumcision in North America, you may find birds of feather understand each other better and relate to his own foreskin loss before suggesting you to lose yours.
Dr. Marks' conclusion is now dated and wrong. A newer study by Sorrells et al. showed that circumcision regularly removes 3/4ths of the penis' sensitivity. And that the three most sensitive portions of the penis are on the foreskin.
Payne tested 40 men at two locations on the penis. Sorrels was a much larger and complete study. They tested 163 men at 19 locations on the penis.
Sorrells ML, Snyder ML, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007;99:864-9.
When our sons were born in 1989 and 1993, the only reasons that our obstetrician gave for circumcision were that the boys would be troubled by being different from their dad and their schoolmates. Circumcisions were so routine at the time that we were billed $400 by the doctor’s office for the procedure, even though my wife and I decided to keep our boys intact.
Our decision against circumcision was based on a well known publicized in which two newborn’s penises were burnt off during routine circumcisions one day in 1985 at Northside Hospital in Atlanta. In our minds, no amount of benefit could balance even the most remote chance that something so tragic could befall one of our children. Our boys, now 16 and 20, readily affirm that we made the right decision for them and will tell you that they are proud of their natural endowment and never gave a second thought to being different from their dad or other boys.
I cannot help but think that physicians have a conflict of interest when they recommend routine circumcision that is a significant source of their income.
Anonymous in Tallahassee
Please see the following article from the New York Times, to support my earlier post.
A CIRCUMCISION METHOD DRAWS NEW CONCERN
Published: October 8, 1985
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/08/science/a-circumcision-method-draws-new-concern.html?&pagewanted=all
Anonymous in Tallahassee
The article that started this thread is a shoddy peace of work. The frenulum, and the inner foreskin that anchors the frenulum, are exquisitely sensitive. I speak from personal experience. These tissues are absent from nearly every circumcised North American male. Case closed.
The difference between cut and uncut does not reside in tissues that both men possess, but in tissues circ removes. That said, I do not subscribe to the view that a circed man cannot have a happy sexually fulfilled life. Many do.
"...the only reasons that our obstetrician gave for circumcision were that the boys would be troubled by being different from their dad and their schoolmates."
It is sad to see medical professionals falling in with such craven fears. But such was my experience nearly 50 years ago, when a doctor first examined me alone. He did not check my retractability and cleanliness. He did not ask whether I knew how to take care of myself. He did not tell me what circumcision meant or ask whether I had any questions about my penis. All he asked was "are the boys in your school circumcised or not?" This spoken with a very nervous voice, in the most medically sophisticated society on the planet.
The main reason so many USA families circumcise is a fear that an intact boy will be ridiculed when he grows older. The gnawing fear that other boys will make fun of an intact boy in summer camp and in the school locker room. The greater fear that girls will reject him as a sexual partner when he begins dating. The belief that fellatio is a necessary part of intimacy, and the Great Fear that sucking on an intact penis is impossibly disgusting. Nobody can love a Weird Dick, you know...
When emotions clash with the body, I say re-examine the emotions and leave the scalpel in the drawer.
i have an uncircumsized penis and sex is paintful. no stds or diseases of any kind. sex should not be painfull
Post a Comment