WWYD? one last question - Page 2

[bell bottom blues]

One rabbi told me that the Mogens were smaller than the other clamps.

I did ask John how he got the 80% number, for the sensation that was often lost during circumcision. He said it was his estimate, taken from the 50+% of skin that was taken off (number from Taylor's study), and the fact that the skin that was taken was the most nerve-dense part of the penis.

I only know that there was a study that claimed that there was no difference in sensation.

There is another study under way, by nocirc, that I believe will be completed this summer.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Originally Posted by bell bottom blues

One rabbi told me that the Mogens were smaller than the other clamps.

I did ask John how he got the 80% number, for the sensation that was often lost during circumcision. He said it was his estimate, taken from the 50+% of skin that was taken off (number from Taylor's study), and the fact that the skin that was taken was the most nerve-dense part of the penis.

I only know that there was a study that claimed that there was no difference in sensation.

There is another study under way, by nocirc, that I believe will be completed this summer.

The size of the clamp doesn't necessarily mean less skin is removed. I've seen hospital circumcisions done using all three methods, and I would not say that a mogen circ is less severe or less damaging than the other methods. The plastibell devise is actually much smaller than a mogen clamp, but it tends to produce the 'loosest' circumcisions. Without getting into a religious discussion, my feeling is that claims about the mogen are just another 'selling point' and a way to say, "The way we do it is okay, because _______." Really, IMO, there's no difference. In fact, some ritual circumcisors actually use a sharpened fingernail to remove the membrane from the glans after the foreskin is cut away.

Jen

[Quirky]

yeah, my understanding is that a proper bris has to remove ALL the foreskin, so to that extent, the "looser" circs being done by many docs these days would leave a lot more skin behind.

But still, any way you slice it, circ is sexually damaging. No way around that.

Also, my understanding is that the study comparing circed and intact men had the intact men draw their foreskins back and tested the sensitivity of the glans. Well, duh, people! That doesn't test overall sensitivity - it just perpetuates the myth that the foreskin is just an extra flap of skin, and the glans is the center of the action.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Quirky

Also, my understanding is that the study comparing circed and intact men had the intact men draw their foreskins back and tested the sensitivity of the glans. Well, duh, people! That doesn't test overall sensitivty - it just perpetuates the myth that the foreskin is just an extra flap of skin, and the glans is the center of the action.

That is my understanding too. I also know that the penis becomes much more sensitive with sexual arousal and I wonder if the men are in a state of sexual arousal or if it is done in a very cold and clinical setting with no arousal at all. Being a man, I think the clitoris gets more sensitive with arousal, Right? Wouldn't that be the way to test it as well? I know for myself, it would have a lot more accuracy if I were sexually aroused. There is a major difference.



Frank

[bell bottom blues]

I think the study must have been rigged, even if they only compared the glans.

In circumcised men, the glans would have years of desensitization from being without its foreskin to protect it and keep it moist. My understanding is that sensitivity in circumcised men decreases drastically with years of rubbing against trousers and even underwear.

My understanding is that restoration, by giving the glans back its protective cover, allows the glans to re-moisturize, and so become more sensitive.

[Frankly Speaking]

Well, yes, but it's not exactly as you are thinking. The level of sensitivity rises as the man's sexual excitement rises. The sensitivity rises to a plateau. The difference is that a circumcised man rises to this level only momentarily and he has an orgasm. With a skilled lover in tune to the man, his lover can take an intact man to this plateau over and over again but the lover of a circumcised man takes him over the edge before she realizes he is there. That's because of that lack of sensitivity.

If the sensitivity were a constant, men wouldn't be able to wash it comfortably and it would be very distracting just to walk around. Who would have thought to make it like this except God/Mother Nature. What a design!



Frank