Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › From ABC News, Sex is equally satisfying with or without all the parts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From ABC News, Sex is equally satisfying with or without all the parts

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9364015

Quote:
The study, published in the latest issue of BJU International, did not examine the effect of circumcision on male sexual satisfaction. But one of the study's authors, Dr. Ronald H. Gray, told Reuters Health in an email, "We previously reported on this and found no effects on (male sexual) function or satisfaction."

The finding could help curb the spread of HIV/AIDS by allaying widespread concern that women find sex with circumcised men less satisfying. "The finding that circumcision does not adversely affect female satisfaction should increase acceptability of the procedure," said Gray, who is a professor of population and family planning at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Oh, and this just about made me CHOKE:

Quote:
"If we can get a significant proportion of men circumcised, it will drop the prevalence of HIV over the next 10 to 20 years.
I'm sure that's why the US, with it's overwhelming majority of adult men having been circed, there is vitually NO AIDS to speak of. (Sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.)
post #2 of 26
Funny, today I was reading this web page from a doctor that does labiaplasty which is basically FGM but these are women who seek it out.

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/la...cal-study.html

Their findings:

* The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction,
* An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work.
* The clinical study also cited data specifically regarding improvement in sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction.
* The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

So I suppose that makes it OK to do FGM. At least by the logic of those other researchers.
post #3 of 26
Another similar article

It's also important to have realistic expectations: Both cut and uncut penises work the same way; they just look a little different. And no matter what you decide, either way is normal and healthy.


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/tee...envy-25149.htm
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
But they DON'T work the same way, and only one way (intact) is "normal".

The foreskin does have a functional part to play in sex. For one thing, it helps keep the woman's natural lube in place where it is needed. There's more, but I don't think we can describe them here.

It is no more normal to have a penis with the foreskin cut off than it is to have a hand with the fingers cut off.
post #5 of 26
Thread Starter 
Oh, tlh, I thought YOU were saying either way is normal. But that's a quote from the article you posted, isn't it.

Where do these people get off describing an amputated body part as "normal"?!
post #6 of 26
What upsets me about these studies, as well as pretty much every study about circ's sexual effects, is they never look at circ'd men's partners and how satisfied THEY are! this seems to say to me that the researchers think circ would only effect one person involved in the love making OR they honestly don't care about both persons satisfaction, only the circ'd male.
post #7 of 26
Except the fact that circumcision cuts into important veins (blood return) and possibly an artery (in the frenulum; blood supply). This alters the normal vascularity and ultimately the physiology of the penis, forcing a complex healing by putting capillaries into different duty. This affects the amount of blood that reaches the meatus -- likely an important component of meatal stenosis and the chief reason almost all intact men have functional meatal lips and most circumcised men don't. The meatal lips are the culmination of the raphe and are direct beneficiaries of the frenular artery. The lips, of course, are what close tightly together to keep pathogens out of the urethra. Another marvel of nature.

Also, the veins running through the foreskin ensure that in its relaxed, forward position the prepuce is not just a blanket, but a heated blanket. This in turn regulates the temperature of the glans, which in turn helps determine how close to the body the testicles ride (cool=closer to body=less sperm produced). Most circumised males have a consistently colder glans than intact males; some have an uncomfortably cold glans, particularly after sitting for long periods or after sports.

The efficiency of bloodflow through the foreskin & glans is a factor in proper tumescence and detumescence, though the body works mightily to overcome the vascular obstacles posed by the severing of a significant chunk of the venous system of the penis through circumcision. The alternate "mapping" the body is forced to do after iatrogenic injury is a marvel of nature, but never quite as effective as the original.

One of the foreskin's primary functions is to serve as an "early alert" system to tumescence; it is ultra-sensitive to any change in diameter of the glans and lets a male know well in advance of any change. Obviously, without a foreskin there is no monitoring of the glans and some circumcised males joke that they are well on their way to erection before they realize it. Not a big problem in most settings, but also not the way the body was designed to work.

The skin of the penis is unique on all the body, in that it is not attached to the underlying fascia. You can actually roll the tip of the foreskin all the way down to the pubic bone (depending on the elasticity of the frenulum). The body achieves this through a complexly-evolved nerve system that does not have the nerve endings run down from layer to layer as on the rest of the body; but rather, laterally in a specialized structure that allows complete freedom of the gliding top layer of skin. This means that the nerve endings are in fact attached to the body only at their extreme ends -- the pubis, and where the foreskin doubles back again and "ends" at the sulcus behind the glans. Since the rested foreskin is doubled-over, any cut that "shortens" it in this doubled state actually removes a cylindrical section from this sleeve, short-circuiting the complex nerve structure. Again, the body springs into action to repair this injury by having nerve endings attach over time to whatever nerves are nearby; but the section of the brain that corresponds to the nerve endings severed through circumcision go "black" and remain that way.

Circumcision, as a wound, also lays down a complex and irrreversible system of fibroblasts at the site of the circumcision scar, between layers of skin and the underlying fascia. Invisible to the naked eye, this dense web of cells defeats the purpose of the unique outer skin structure of the penis by creating an "anchor" which limits the mobility of the shaft skin and its gliding mechanism so important to sex.

So perhaps these articles report that both circumcised and intact penises look and function the same way, but they fail to explain what is really happening. You can have an Andrew Wyeth original painting or you can have a cardboard poster of it that you bought at the National Gallery gift shop, and they do same same thing in your hallway; but they're not the same.
post #8 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by intactDS View Post
What upsets me about these studies, as well as pretty much every study about circ's sexual effects, is they never look at circ'd men's partners and how satisfied THEY are! this seems to say to me that the researchers think circ would only effect one person involved in the love making OR they honestly don't care about both persons satisfaction, only the circ'd male.
You might want to go read the first article linked in this thread. They are talking about women's persception of sex with circed or intact men. They mention briefly that they already did a study on the guys, and of course in their previous study, it showed basically no difference.

Sometimes it just amazes me how ingrained circ IS in our culture, that some will actively deny that cutting off the most sensitive part, the ONLY moving part in sex, has ANY effect at all on sex for either partner.
post #9 of 26
I was not asked to participate in this study. I would have swayed the data to a different conclusion.
post #10 of 26
And of course the womens' possible underlying prejudices about intact penises would have nothing to do w/ outcome of the study right?
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuppyFluffer View Post
I was not asked to participate in this study. I would have swayed the data to a different conclusion.

Me too.
post #12 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyfluffer View Post
i was not asked to participate in this study. I would have swayed the data to a different conclusion.
ditto!
post #13 of 26
This is a little off topic, but I just watched the latest NBC report on RIC. Intact America sent out an email today with a link to it. Does anyone know if Ann Curry was talking about her own son being circumcised at the end of the segment or was she referring to Nancy Snyderman's son? Mrs. Curry did mention the look like daddy argument was "not a good reason". The entire segment was rather biased tho, as per usual
post #14 of 26
Wow brant31, penises are amazing! I never knew the whole organ was so complex. I'm so glad I live in Europe where they don't routinely mutilate the genitals of babies of either sex.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
You can have an Andrew Wyeth original painting or you can have a cardboard poster of it that you bought at the National Gallery gift shop, and they do same same thing in your hallway; but they're not the same.
Wow, Brant31! PM'd you
post #16 of 26
Anther study conducted in Uganda. After the women were told that it would prevent HIV infection. Gee, there couldn't have been any biases or methodological flaws or anything there.
post #17 of 26
This study isn't even credible unless they are testing men and women who have experienced both. I find it hard to believe that any man who was previously intact, and later circ'd would tell you that there was no sexual side effects from the circumcision.
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler View Post
Funny, today I was reading this web page from a doctor that does labiaplasty which is basically FGM but these are women who seek it out.

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/la...cal-study.html

Their findings:

* The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction,
* An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work.
* The clinical study also cited data specifically regarding improvement in sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction.
* The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.
Blech, this makes me sick to read about.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
So perhaps these articles report that both circumcised and intact penises look and function the same way, but they fail to explain what is really happening. You can have an Andrew Wyeth original painting or you can have a cardboard poster of it that you bought at the National Gallery gift shop, and they do same same thing in your hallway; but they're not the same.
Brilliant! So true.

Having experienced both cut and intact partners I really don't see how anyone can say it changes nothing. They are in denial.
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire and Boys View Post
Brilliant! So true.

Having experienced both cut and intact partners I really don't see how anyone can say it changes nothing. They are in denial.
I've been wondering about that. I never had the chance to "experience" a circumsized man. (I'm German, they're rather rare in that place, apart from the Muslim (mainly Turkish) population).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › From ABC News, Sex is equally satisfying with or without all the parts