Do you suppose it also might have something to do with the loss of sensitivity (as in the skin is no longer regularly protected and becomes "tougher", dryer, etc.. than it was meant to be)?
how does circumcision cause E.D. in adults? - Page 3
This thread has been such an interesting read. I am vehemently anti-circumcision, and I had heard about circumcision and ED being connected, but I had not found any studies supporting this (until now!) Though, it always made sense to me that cutting off the most sensitive part of the penis, and combining that with the drop in testosterone that comes with age, WOULD be associated with ED. It just seems like common sense.
I wish more there was more of this discussion, really. Many of the mothers of circed boys that debate elsewhere contend that their sons made it through the procedure "just fine" and they have no problems whatsoever.
But do they have a crystal ball? How will it affect their son's sex life? Will it contribute to ED and other problems later in life? That's what astounds me. He won't be a little kid forever.
I have had the circ debate with other women on other forums, and the problem is that most of them think it is creepy and gross to be concerned with their sons' future sex lives. It's very sad.
This is a small part of it - the glans is supposed to be an internal organ, and when circumcision makes it exposed the surface becomes keratinized and many times thicker and drier than it is supposed to be.
HOWEVER, the main reason is that the foreskin is a not only the most sensitive part of a penis, but also a complex structure with neural connections to the brain that allow an intact man to feel where he is at. See:
That infant circumcision can result in impotence for men older than 60 - or even younger - is interesting to older men and their wives. But I know of no real research on this issue. The point has been made that the tremendous use of Viagra and other phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors does suggest American men have a big problem with potence and, the problem gets worse in the older age groups.
Research on the pleasure receptors on the inside of the foreskin
would suggest that complete loss of the foreskin can result in some diminishing of pleasure in sex. In the late 19th century when some doctors were promoting routine infant circumcision many of them said it would prevent masturbation, knowing something then about the sexual pleasure provided by the foreskin. The frenulum, which is a band of tissue under the glans that connects to the foreskin, can be left intact in circumcision, but it is often removed also.
On http://intactnews.org/node/138/1319461990/acquisition-erectile-dysfunction-circumcision they say "The perineal nerve runs the length of the penis on the underside and terminates in the frenulum. This “little bridle,” which attaches the underside of penis shaft to the inner foreskin, is one of the most sensitive portions of the penis and is solely innervated by the perineal nerve....Circumcision partially or completely excises the frenulum, always severing the nerve at this point. This variable frenular aspect, and the fact that there are other, compounding risk factors, might explain why not all circumcised men suffer from ED." In other words, whether the frenulum is removed and the
perineal nerve is cut in circumcision determines to a considerable extent whether impotence will result as the man gets older.
Taylor J.R., Lockwood A.P., Taylor A.J. The prepuce: specialized
mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of
Hill G. Foreskin motion generates Meissner corpuscle stimulation. BMJ
2003; Rapid response: 16 December.
Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study:
Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and
Satisfaction. Journal of Urology 2002;167(5):2113-2116.
They studied 123 men who were circumcised as adults, and "...found
that adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile
function, decreased penile sensitivity and improved satisfaction."
While this study has the advantage of men being able to compare their sexual pleasure before and after circumcision, the study has a problem in that the men were circumcised because of medical conditions such as an extremely tight foreskin. Perhaps many of the men reported they were satisfied with their circumcision because it corrected their
Now, in 2013 not many people remember that the Baby Boomer males were the first American generation who were almost all circumcised as infants. Many men born in more rural and small town parts of the country in the thirties were not
circumcised - because they were born at home, and in Texas and the states of the Great Planes many births at home were attended by the country doctors, who, as a rule, did not circumcise. Not much is known now about those country doctors.
Laumann et al (1997) did a survey on 1511 men in 1992 who were then age 18 to 59 years, to get an estimate of the rate of infant circumcision for the years 1933 to 1974. These men were born from 1933 to 1974.
They say that "..the steady increase in circumcision rates among respondents during much of this period reflects the increase identified by other investigators. The proportion of newborns that were circumcised reached 80% in the years after World War II and climaxed in the mid 1960s. This rise mirrors the increasing prevalence of hospital births."
Their graph shows that in 1933 about thirty-three percent of American men were circumcised, but by 1941 about sixty-five percent were circumcised and by 1944 the rate rose to around seventy percent. Their graph shows that the rate for hospital births for the entire country rose from about forty-five percent in 1938 to around 85 percent in 1950.
Although they do not show the hospital birth rates by state and by urban verses rural and very small town areas, the rate of people born in hospitals during the thirties and early forties was higher in the urban areas than in rural and very small town areas of the country. So, since the circumcision rate parallels the hospital birth rate, we can expect that during the period of about 1930 to 1945, the circumcision rate in rural and small town areas was lower than in urban areas.
This data implies that during the period of about 1930 to 1938, circumcision was still not widely practiced in rural and very small town areas, especially in the states of the Great Planes and West Coast. A man born in the rural areas of the Great Planes and Texas during the thirties, up to perhaps about 1938, would more likely be uncircumcised rather than circumcised, because he was born at home..
Edited by texian - 3/1/13 at 5:19pm
don't know yet if i am having a little boy or girl but i have made it clear to my hubby that i dont want our son cut. this has become a touchy area with him because he does want our boy cut. his reason , he dont want his boys to look different than him. i try to explain what cutting will do to to our sons later in life if we have it done. i dont have any thing to really back me up thou as i have not really looked up any books or papers showing the effects of cutting. i know in my heart of hearts it does effect men thou . i cant till you how much trouble it must be causing for us in the bedroom at night. any links to some good websites on this subject?
Totally unsupportable reason. Using this argument simply confirms that he is being emotional about something that happened to him that he has not yet figured out how to deal with. You do not need to do anymore than work throught this fallcious argument with your husband.
Take the argument a little further and you can easily see how it falls apart. Say you DH has a beard. What does he propose to do so that his son looks like him? Glue a beard on your infant son? Shave his beard? What about his hairy gentials? Is he going to start shaving? Wait, what about his hairy under arms? Better shave them too. Hold on, your DH is so much taller than his infant son, geeze, how will he handle that? That is a stumper... And what if your DH was missing an arm or leg? Would he even, for a secon,d consider amputating your son's healthy, valuable arm or leg? I didn't think so.
If you DH was really concenred about how your son will react if he sees he is different than your husband, then your husban should restore his foreskin...
It makes no sense at all to amputate a healthy body part, that is the most important and critical for sexual feeling and function, for the sake of your DH's feelings and insecurites. Your DH needs to dig deep and sort out his own feelings on this matter, rather than simply get emotional and use the "two wrongs make a right" argument.