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
69 Comments:
Are you really a doctor?
Can't you see that this study did not measure sensitivity in the foreskin?
You know, the part that circumcision cuts off!
By the very same logic, one could remove somebody's entire and hand, then claim it caused no loss of sensation because their armpit is still ticklish!
Sir, this commentary of yours seriously damages your credibility.
Oh, by the way, there is a study which didn't pretend that foreskins don't exist, and measured their sensitivity too.
Penile Touch-Test Sensitivity Study
You are either shamefully unaware of the evidence on the topic of which you speak, or you are shamefully biased in not sharing it.
-- Unimpressed
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
INTERESTING, BUT THE FIRST TWO RESEARCHERS LISTED ARE FEMALE: "KIMBERLEY" AND "LEA". FURTHERMORE I FIND IT HIGHLY IRREGULAR THAT "LEA" ONLY HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE--SHE'S NOT EVEN A GRADUATE STUDENT. RATHER UNUSUAL FOR A RESEARCH STUDY TO HAVE A PERSON WHO DOESN'T HAVE A PH.D. OR M.D. NOT BE AT LEAST A DOCTORAL CANDIDATE WITH A MASTER'S.
BEING FEMALE I CAN'T SPEAK WITH FIRSTHAND AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT OF PENILE OR FORESKIN SENSITIVITY, BUT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED IF BEING CIRCUMCISED WASN'T, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SENSITIVITY, SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO DOING MANUAL LABOR WITHOUT GLOVES: I.E., THE SENSITIVITY OF THE SKIN ON YOUR HAND GETS DIMINISHED FROM CONSTANT EXPOSURE TO RUBBING AND THEREFORE GETS CALLOUSED. I WOULD IMAGINE THE UNCIRCUMCISED PENIS TIP WOULD RUB DAILY AGAINST THE UNDERWEAR OR TROUSERS OF THE FELLOW AND THEREBY HAVE DIMINISHED SENSITIVITY FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
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.
Not only can I not believe that someone was actually inspired to do this study, I cannot believe the study was done by those prudish Canadians, of all people.
Also, I can't believe that there are people posting to this article that actually want to debate it. It's just skin. Have you also been looking for a way to recover the skin you scraped off your knees while you were a kid???
Here's some perspective: A burn victim is burnt over 85% of his or her body, do you think that burn victim isn't going to enjoy what little is left that wasn't burnt???
Grow up, be happy with what you've got and move on. Debating this is just plain stupid. Not even remarkably stupid, just plain stupid.
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 think this in some what contradictory - I just read a report here: http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html that showed that uncircumsized men are more sensitive. The bummer is that we (the circumsized) will never know.
-Ryan
The Best Source for Health News
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.
Dr. Marks, how much can you let wishful thinking get in the way of your scientific objectivity? About a year ago, you said that no circumcised man has ever been unhappy with the results of being circumcised. I called you on it.
Later, you started advising people that it was possible that circumcision lessens sensitivity, because one of your peers had gotten circumcised, and he had experienced a marked drop in sensation. Now, here you are, lauding a study which purports to show that sensations from both circumcised and uncircumcised men are the same...and ignoring one which purports that 5 out of the 5 most erogenous parts of the penis are on the foreskin.
How can a penis which has had half of its skin removed, possibly feel as much as one which has been unaltered? To the poster who says the foreskin is just skin, it is just skin on the outside. It is mucous membrane, like the inside of the mouth or vagina, on the inside. The inside foreskin, often removed during circumcision, is amazingly responsive. If you watch an intact man masturbate, he more often than not is not even touching the glans, he is using the friction of the inner foreskin. To the poster who said that lack of hygiene has stopped armies, are you aware that women produce about 10 times more smegma than a man? While busy casting aspersions on 80% of the men of the world, you missed, and hit every one of us. Nice try with the misinformation, though. A for effort, F for content.
How much denial do the people who come here for medical information have to dig through to get something with evidence, and not cheerleading such as this? Dr. Marks, with all due respect, your audience and patients deserve better information than this. Circumcision should not be a popularity contest, it should be a medical practice of last resort, when all other, more conservative methods, have been exhausted.
This is not about making circumcised men feel good or bad, or uncircumcised men feel good or bad. This is about medical advice.
There is no medical organization in the world, which recommends circumcision on a medical basis.
This blog should be removed. It is actually misleading, and embarrassing. Postings such as this blog would be laughed at until removed, in almost any other country.
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.
seriously, is this a joke?
how could someone with years of medical training think this to be true? is common sense that uncommon?
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?
"Okay. It's official now."
How official is this announcement? When can we look forward to this being published in more respected peer-reviewed medical journals, such as the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, etc?
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.
Time in CNN has a contradictory opinion. It's not a study, and it's really subjective, but it comes to the opposite conclusion.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1679981,00.html?cnn=yes
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.
Know what is sad? Most of the people know that this is not a study, it's an opinion piece. The ones who actually looked at the study know that the premise is absurd. You can't measure the glans of a circumcised man, and an uncircumcised man with the foreskin forward, and expect the same temperature reading. The study failed to test any of the parts that an uncut man has which a cut man does not.
Now, how long is this going to linger here, misleading people with the title? Busy people read only the title, go out and have their kids circumcised because they don't know any better, and the cycle of dumb is continued. Why is this only a problem for America? Why is this not an issue for other peoples very much like Americans, like Canadians, for instance.
Truly bizarre, but misleading, and rather unethical to leave this here for the public. Let's start counting the days until it is gone, and see how long WebMd leaves it there. Starting November 29th, 2007.
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 as 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.
4 times more sensitive
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.
I am writing in regards to a bloody stool, earlier today i had a bloody stool, I wanted to know if it had anything to do with the fact that i abuse alcohol, It isn't something that i am proud of, but it is in fact the truth, I have to know what is going on with me, i have a five year old son to live for and watch grow, I have gotten myself to the point where i feel like there is no return, what could my family and i do to make this process easier for me to overcome? I am 23 years old, I am considered to be an alcoholic, whenever I cannot have a drink, I develope tremors, I have had 2 alcohol withdrawls in the past(alcoholic seizures)due to severe dehydration. What is the possible prognosis? Could it be hemorrhoids? Could it be an ulcer? If ever and whenever i drink, I have real bad heart burn. So please inform me of what is possibly going on with me, also, Ihave a physical scheduled in a week or so, Im getting alittle anxious, and i want some type of answer of what the possibilities are/could be.
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.
Thanks for sharing all that ignorance with us.
A penis with a foreskin is as likely to be infected, as a penis without a foreskin. Infections of the foreskin are about as common as infections of the eyelid.
Think about how likely foreskins are to be infected, when you are pleasuring a girl. They have foreskins.
Just a little word from one of the 85% of the world's men who has 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/
Poor Doctor. I'm sorry your parents weren't happy with ALL of you at birth. Unfortunately, you were one of the unlucky souls that "had" to be edited. We hope one day, boys will be welcomed into the world without the need for emergency "medical correction".
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
It seems that when something untruthful is posted in WebMD, it lives on forever, despite anyone's best efforts. This article is one of them. It does not require rocket science to figure that if you remove half the skin of a penis, as the typical circumcision does, the person is going to feel less sensation.
The same would be true for removing half of the skin of your face, or hand. I guess some people have a hard time dealing with the truth.
If you want to read an opposite conclusion, posted from the same medical source as this article,
here it is.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
Post a Comment