Research from other countries

[dmpmercury]

I been researching circumcision and want to become as educated as possible on the topic. I been looking at he research from both sides and it is clear to me that it does do harm but there are a few studies that show there was no effect including a recent African one. I been looking over tons of sites and links but I haven't found too much from countries that never routinely circumcised. A lot of it is from the UK and the BJU but I don't see much from other countries. A few studies show there was no difference after circumcision in men who had it done later in life. I like the O Hara study but there are a few that show no significant difference too. I think the research on the functionality and stuff is clear that it does have an effect. I just know that there is research from the other side too and I really want to look at what other countries are coming up with or if there are just general surveys done that we can compare to US surveys on similar issues. Tome it is very clear that circumcsion causes harm but I want to be able to present as much as possible.

[Greg B]

You may not find that much, and the ones available generally have methodolgocal flaws preventing one from having confidence in their conclusions.

The biggest problem, if I understand what you are after, is that there is no way to do a double blind study of sexual function and feeling difference when you amputate a person's foreskin. No way to switch back and forth. No way to compare the feelings between the two groups objectively.

The only way to do it is to find people who have experienced both, but this is anecdotal and not objective. It can be very informative, but is not objective, whether a scientist is doing it or you are simply talking to the person.

So one is left in the situation where the various studies seem to give conflicting results, and you will always have uncertainty about these effects of circumcison, form the objective research perspective.

However, uncertainty can be dealt with in a number of ways for decision making, if that is where you are headed. One way is to consider both sides and take a risk averse approach.

Circumcision may have a negative effect on sexual function and feeling. Or it may not. If the decision is to RIC or not, but you are uncertain, then you can look at the consequences in either case.

If you RIC your son, then he may have impaired sexual function and feelings. Or he may not.

If you choose to leave him intact, then he will have whatever function and feelings a foreskin provides, thety may not be much different than a circumcsied guy, or they may be better.

Thge risk averse, conservative choice is to leave him intact. No negative consequences from that decision.

Regards

[dmpmercury]

I think it is pretty clear that it effects function but yes the problem I am finding is the research isn't very strong. There plenty of ancedotal out there and there is one decent study with good questions but the participant selection was not the best. I see a lot of people describing problems in this country that are clearly related to cicrcumcision but they are unaware it is caused by that. I don't think there is good research on the diffference especially since they are studying people who only are experienced with the dominent culture of circumcising or men who sought it out later in life. I am wondering if there is research in other countries not neccasarily on the differences since in those countries intact is the norm but that shows that the anatomy does make a difference and does serve a purpose especially in enjoyment. There tons of ancedotal and it common for Americans to describe not getting much enjoyment unless you employ other techniques and Europeans who say that it is because we circumcise.

[jessjgh1]

There tons of ancedotal and it common for Americans to describe not getting much enjoyment unless you employ other techniques and Europeans who say that it is because we circumcise.

A compilation of places where Europeans (or others) do say this might be helpful. And any research that is found. This is just not something that is easily found, and certainly something that is very unknown by most Americans. I agree that it is going to be very hard to find actual research but perhaps anecdotal evidence should be compelling enough that people won't 'need' the research or some organization would see the need to conduct research or an intactivist organization can find grants or something to do the research after properly creating a research model (hypothesis, etc.). This would include mentioning the studies that have been done, what they found, how they could be improved, etc. There is information that could be used.... for example different viagra rates, the sale (increase in sales) of devices that help men restore or mimick the foresking, circumcision lawsuits, etc.
Good luck!
Jessica

Jessica

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by dmpmercury

there are a few studies that show there was no effect including a recent African one {suggesting no loss of function}.

You must be refering to Bailey.

The two largest "ask if sex got better or worse" studies I know of were that of a Korean doctor and the Bailey Africa/HIV trial.

The Korean surveyed men who had real problems that required circumcision. Three-fourths said sex was neither better nor worse. Of the remainder, three-fourths said it got worse and one-fourth said it got better. This shocks me since they all had symptoms they wanted alleviated; you might expect overwhelming votes of improvement.

Bailey asked about satisfaction among his HIV/circ paid volunteers (an average of only a year after being cut) whether sex was painful and whether penetration was difficult. He compared that to similar "before" questionaire numbers and also to the results for guys who weren't cut yet. What he got was satisfaction numbers around 99% in all cases. Actually, the intact guys went up a tenth of a percent, but statistically it was a tie, so the headlines screamed: "Circumcision doesn't reduce sexual satisfaction."

But he didn't measure anything, not even sexual satisfaction. EVERY other study that asks a general satisfaction question tops out around 90% or below. His questioning was not sensitive enough to pick up any effect. But recall, these volunteers ALL WANTED to be circumcised for cultural reasons, so I'm not sure the results would mean much even if he had designed a relevant survey.

The fact that no placebo-controlled or double-blinded study could be contrived to justify amputating healthy normal body parts is not my problem. I feel equally unconcerned that nobody could use placebo-controlled or double-blinded studies to prove that people see nearly as well with one eye.

Either you value intact genitals and all your pleasure-receptive tissue or you don't. For some reason foreskin is the only healthy valuable body part that it's ok to propose pre-emptive amputation for, simply because we're culturally accustomed to it, not because it ever made sense. Short of an immediate life-threatening condition there is certainly nothing to justify amputating parts from minors whose informed consent we could just as well obtain later.

[Yulia_R]

a couple of links for you...

THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL “Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm” http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/

Male Circumcision Reduces Female Pleasure http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

[dmpmercury]

Thank you Ron for the help analyzing the Africa studies. I did see the New Zealand studies and the O Hara studies. The O Hara studies doesn't have the best participant selction and the New Zealand study is very small. I know it just a difficult subject to objectivelly research. It is pretty clear though that the foreskin very much has a mechanical purpose that does have a dramtic effect when you remove it but I guess it is hard to really prove that.

It is very hard to convince people and make them see that there is a huge difference and you can't really do much for what has been lost. I would just like to have really strong research that is hard to dispute so maybe a few people out there would see it and change their minds. I would like the research that men trying to promote world wide circumscision and change the AAPs reccomendationa to have mass circumcision in Africa to be have strong evidence in the other direction than their studies that were very poorly done. For most topics like the HIV, STI, infections and cleanliness I think you can easily show how it is absurd to use that as a reason.