Our local paper somehow published two locally written articles on female sexual dysfunction/arousal disorder recently. This is what I wrote them to get them to write an article about the effect of male circucumcision on female sexual satisfaction, and also bring their attention to the new penile touch sensitivity study. Feel free to adapt it, to encourage your local papers to write something about the effect of circumcision on the sex lives of both partners.
The word needs to get out on the other sides of the story, to counter balance the HIV hysteria. One of our local Colorado NOCIRC members got a local talk show host to interview Ron Goldman of Boston's Circumcision Resource Center about circumcision especially its harmful psychological effects. If we can each take it on ourselves to prod our local journalists to do articles or talk shows on all the other important aspects related to circumcision, we can do our part to balance out the information floating around, and balance the debate out a bit. Will you take the challenge?
If you copy my letter, make sure you go back and confirm that all the urls are functional before you send it on. The long ones with the "..." in the middle often don't work in the copy.
Gillian
>>>>>>
As a woman and as an RN who has worked in areas relating to human sexuality, I was interested to note that the Daily Camera [Boulder, Colorado] has recently published two articles on problems with female sexual satisfaction in as many weeks (Lisa Marshall’s short book review “Satisfaction Not Guaranteed” on March 12, 2007, and Aimee Heckel’s Fit Section feature on improving female libido on March 27, 2007).
I would like to bring to your attention a piece of the puzzle of women’s sexual satisfaction which has gone unacknowledged in these two articles: male circumcision. This is the other side of the story that has not yet been told. I encourage you to research the information I have provided below, and respectfully urge you to develop a companion article to the ones listed above, discussing the foreskin’s role in sexual satisfaction of both partners, as well as the detrimental effects of circumcision (removal of the foreskin) for both partners.
The United States is unique in the world in the degree to which routine infant circumcision has been institutionalized. Although the rate of infant circumcision has dropped in recent years to less than 60%, the great majority of sexually active, non-foreign-born American men are circumcised, and most American women’s sexual experiences are with circumcised men. Americans are thus mentally primed to overlook the obvious: that circumcision removes a significant amount of highly innervated and mobile tissue situated at the “business end” of the male sex organ.
Indeed, the British Journal of Urology has just published an article (April 2007) that damningly concludes: “The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce [foreskin] is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”
Here is a link to the BJU article as well as graphics journalists can use:
http://www.icgi.org/touch-test
And other press release versions here:
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...essrelease.pdf
The full study is available on-line here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...rells_2007.pdf
And the abstract and journal citation are on-line here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...X.2006.06685.x
If it is a stretch for Americans (including American medical professionals) to accept that the foreskin has a function for men, how difficult must it be for us to conceive that the foreskin could actually play a role in female sexual pleasure.
The citations which I list below make clear that indeed the presence of the male foreskin has multiple sensory and mechanical functions which positively affect the experience of intercourse (as well as other forms of sex) for both partners.
Some of the advantages for women of intercourse with an intact (non-circumcised) man are: increased ease of intromission (insertion of the penis)1 2; conservation of vaginal lubrication3 4 5 6; increased comfort for the woman due to friction-reducing gliding action of the foreskin6; and tendency toward gentler, shorter strokes, allowing for more contact with the pubic mound and clitoris6. According to one detailed qualitative survey, women report that sex with a genitally intact man leads to increased incidence of vaginal orgasm and multiple orgasms, increased sense of intimacy, and greater enjoyment of prolonged intercourse, among other outcomes.6
All of these effects are made possible through the agency of the normal foreskin. When the foreskin is removed, the dynamics and experience of sex as nature intended it are irrevocably and detrimentally altered. It has been argued that the presence of the foreskin is “required for normal copulatory behavior.” 7
The emotional and relational results of the loss of the foreskin to circumcision have not been adequately explored or acknowledged.8 9 However, there is sufficient evidence to strongly suggest that circumcision may play a not insignificant role in the “female sexual dysfunction” about which you have written.
We must not blindly limit ourselves to lamenting and trying to understand female sexual dissatisfaction only through the approaches of lifestyle, communication, sex toys, or correcting supposedly defective physiology, as valid as these may sometimes be. As one group of researchers has written, “it is imperative that future studies of female arousal disorder record and control the circumcision status of male sexual partners.”3 Likewise, when addressing this issue, it is imperative that sex therapists, counselors, medical professionals, and journalists consider, examine, and educate about the effect of the male partner’s circumcision status.
The following urls are excellent resources for understanding the anatomy and function of the intact penis, providing a background for appreciating the potential effects of the presence of the foreskin on male and female sexual satisfaction and intimacy.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/...Physiology.pdf
http://research.cirp.org/index-e.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles...p/lovecirc.htm
For general information on multiple topics relating to the foreskin and circumcision see:
http://www.cirp.org
http://noharmm.org/factfinder.htm
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Gillian Longley RN
Co-coordinator, Colorado Chapter
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)
1. Morgan WKC. The rape of the phallus. JAMA 1965;193
-4. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan/
2. Taves D. The intromission function of the foreskin. Med Hypotheses 2002;59(2):180. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taves1/
3. Bensley GA, Boyle GJ. Effect of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 2003;116(1181):595-6. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
4. Bensley GA, Boyle GJ: Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: an exploratory survey, in Denniston GC, Hodges FM, and Milos MF (Eds): Understanding Circumcision: a Multi-disciplinary Approach to a Multi-dimensional Problem. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001, pp 207–239.
5. Warren J, Bigelow J. The case against circumcision. Br J Sex Med 1994; Sept/Oct: 6-8. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/
6. O'Hara K, O'Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
7. Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:34-44. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
8. Hammond, T. (1999). A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood. British Journal of Urology International, 83, Supplement 1, 85-92. http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm
9. Goldman, RG. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications. 1997. [In Chapter 7: The Impact of Circumcision on American Society, author and psychologist Goldman speculates on possible circumcision-related psychological aspects of “Avoidance of Intimacy in Male-Female Relationships” and “Control of Female Sexuality.”]
The word needs to get out on the other sides of the story, to counter balance the HIV hysteria. One of our local Colorado NOCIRC members got a local talk show host to interview Ron Goldman of Boston's Circumcision Resource Center about circumcision especially its harmful psychological effects. If we can each take it on ourselves to prod our local journalists to do articles or talk shows on all the other important aspects related to circumcision, we can do our part to balance out the information floating around, and balance the debate out a bit. Will you take the challenge?
If you copy my letter, make sure you go back and confirm that all the urls are functional before you send it on. The long ones with the "..." in the middle often don't work in the copy.
Gillian
>>>>>>
As a woman and as an RN who has worked in areas relating to human sexuality, I was interested to note that the Daily Camera [Boulder, Colorado] has recently published two articles on problems with female sexual satisfaction in as many weeks (Lisa Marshall’s short book review “Satisfaction Not Guaranteed” on March 12, 2007, and Aimee Heckel’s Fit Section feature on improving female libido on March 27, 2007).
I would like to bring to your attention a piece of the puzzle of women’s sexual satisfaction which has gone unacknowledged in these two articles: male circumcision. This is the other side of the story that has not yet been told. I encourage you to research the information I have provided below, and respectfully urge you to develop a companion article to the ones listed above, discussing the foreskin’s role in sexual satisfaction of both partners, as well as the detrimental effects of circumcision (removal of the foreskin) for both partners.
The United States is unique in the world in the degree to which routine infant circumcision has been institutionalized. Although the rate of infant circumcision has dropped in recent years to less than 60%, the great majority of sexually active, non-foreign-born American men are circumcised, and most American women’s sexual experiences are with circumcised men. Americans are thus mentally primed to overlook the obvious: that circumcision removes a significant amount of highly innervated and mobile tissue situated at the “business end” of the male sex organ.
Indeed, the British Journal of Urology has just published an article (April 2007) that damningly concludes: “The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce [foreskin] is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”
Here is a link to the BJU article as well as graphics journalists can use:
http://www.icgi.org/touch-test
And other press release versions here:
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...essrelease.pdf
The full study is available on-line here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...rells_2007.pdf
And the abstract and journal citation are on-line here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...X.2006.06685.x
If it is a stretch for Americans (including American medical professionals) to accept that the foreskin has a function for men, how difficult must it be for us to conceive that the foreskin could actually play a role in female sexual pleasure.
The citations which I list below make clear that indeed the presence of the male foreskin has multiple sensory and mechanical functions which positively affect the experience of intercourse (as well as other forms of sex) for both partners.
Some of the advantages for women of intercourse with an intact (non-circumcised) man are: increased ease of intromission (insertion of the penis)1 2; conservation of vaginal lubrication3 4 5 6; increased comfort for the woman due to friction-reducing gliding action of the foreskin6; and tendency toward gentler, shorter strokes, allowing for more contact with the pubic mound and clitoris6. According to one detailed qualitative survey, women report that sex with a genitally intact man leads to increased incidence of vaginal orgasm and multiple orgasms, increased sense of intimacy, and greater enjoyment of prolonged intercourse, among other outcomes.6
All of these effects are made possible through the agency of the normal foreskin. When the foreskin is removed, the dynamics and experience of sex as nature intended it are irrevocably and detrimentally altered. It has been argued that the presence of the foreskin is “required for normal copulatory behavior.” 7
The emotional and relational results of the loss of the foreskin to circumcision have not been adequately explored or acknowledged.8 9 However, there is sufficient evidence to strongly suggest that circumcision may play a not insignificant role in the “female sexual dysfunction” about which you have written.
We must not blindly limit ourselves to lamenting and trying to understand female sexual dissatisfaction only through the approaches of lifestyle, communication, sex toys, or correcting supposedly defective physiology, as valid as these may sometimes be. As one group of researchers has written, “it is imperative that future studies of female arousal disorder record and control the circumcision status of male sexual partners.”3 Likewise, when addressing this issue, it is imperative that sex therapists, counselors, medical professionals, and journalists consider, examine, and educate about the effect of the male partner’s circumcision status.
The following urls are excellent resources for understanding the anatomy and function of the intact penis, providing a background for appreciating the potential effects of the presence of the foreskin on male and female sexual satisfaction and intimacy.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/...Physiology.pdf
http://research.cirp.org/index-e.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles...p/lovecirc.htm
For general information on multiple topics relating to the foreskin and circumcision see:
http://www.cirp.org
http://noharmm.org/factfinder.htm
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Gillian Longley RN
Co-coordinator, Colorado Chapter
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)
1. Morgan WKC. The rape of the phallus. JAMA 1965;193
-4. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan/2. Taves D. The intromission function of the foreskin. Med Hypotheses 2002;59(2):180. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taves1/
3. Bensley GA, Boyle GJ. Effect of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 2003;116(1181):595-6. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
4. Bensley GA, Boyle GJ: Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: an exploratory survey, in Denniston GC, Hodges FM, and Milos MF (Eds): Understanding Circumcision: a Multi-disciplinary Approach to a Multi-dimensional Problem. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001, pp 207–239.
5. Warren J, Bigelow J. The case against circumcision. Br J Sex Med 1994; Sept/Oct: 6-8. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/
6. O'Hara K, O'Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
7. Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:34-44. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
8. Hammond, T. (1999). A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood. British Journal of Urology International, 83, Supplement 1, 85-92. http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm
9. Goldman, RG. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications. 1997. [In Chapter 7: The Impact of Circumcision on American Society, author and psychologist Goldman speculates on possible circumcision-related psychological aspects of “Avoidance of Intimacy in Male-Female Relationships” and “Control of Female Sexuality.”]
