Mothering Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070425/hl_afp/healthsexcircumcision;_ylt=AjxK_R0A1CawfisO1E0h.CLVJRIF" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070425...sO1E0h.CLVJRIF</a><br><br>
Does circumcision affect your sex life? Scientists are divided 51 minutes ago<br><br><br><br>
Two studies have thrown up conflicting evidence as to whether circumcision could harm a man's sex life, New Scientist reports in its next issue.<br><br>
The question is especially important, given the World Health Organisation's (WHO's) recent endorsement of circumcision in the panoply of weapons to tackle the spread of AIDS.<br><br>
In a study led by Kimberley Payne of the Riverside Professional Center in Ottawa, 20 circumcised and 20 uncircumcised men watched erotic movies while their penises were measured for sensitivity at two points, using filaments that pressed down with predetermined amounts of pressure.<br><br>
There was no difference in penile sensation between the two groups, according to their research.<br><br>
However, a team led by Robert Van Howe of Michigan State University used a similar method, but measuring penile sensitivity at 19 points among 163 circumcised and uncircumcised men.<br><br>
The five most sensitive points are all in portions of the penis removed by circumcision, especially those in folds exposed as the penis becomes erect, Van Howe believes.<br><br>
"The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis," his paper says. "(...) Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."<br><br>
The report appears in next Saturday's issue of the British weekly. Payne's research appears in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, while Van Howe's is published by the British Journal of Urology (BJU) International.<br><br>
On March 28, the WHO and other agencies in the fight against AIDS gave the stamp of approval to promoting circumcision to help prevent the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).<br><br>
Three studies carried out in southern and eastern Africa found that circumcised men were more than half less likely to be infected by HIV compared to uncircumcised counterparts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
Here we go again. There wasn't any difference in sensation between the two groups eh? And 20 men - can anyone say "tiny sample size"?<br><br><br>
So, how much feeling exactly did the circumcised group have in their foreskins?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Daisyuk</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7950344"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Here we go again. There wasn't any difference in sensation between the two groups eh?<br><br>
So, how much feeling exactly did the circumcised group have in their foreskins?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Well that was according to that one study, and they only used two points to measure sensitivity!<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/lol.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="lol"><br><br>
I find it really interesting that on this issue, the media is very catious and quick to say "Scientists are divided" but when spreading the circ reduces HIV/AIDS transmission, there's no tempering it with common sense or talking about any reservations and opposing views on that research or its results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
I just sent off this letter to the New Scientist about their article:<br><br>
Letter to the Editor of New Scientist 4/24/07<br>
Re: Does circumcision harm your sex life? Print edition, 26 April 2007.<br><br>
The research by Payne et al. was primarily trying to demonstrate whether arousal made a difference in sensitivity between circumcised and intact men. It was not designed to draw general conclusions about the overall relative sensitivities of the two.<br><br>
The researchers only tested two points, the glans and the shaft (and a comparison point on the inner surface of the forearm). In terms of the study's value in drawing general conclusions about relative sensitivity of the circumcised vs. intact penis, these researchers are making the same mistake that others before them have, i.e. only testing parts that circumcised and intact have in common, thereby missing the important point about the sensitivity of the lost foreskin itself, which is a ZERO in the circumcised male.<br><br>
The smaller number of subjects in Payne's study (compared to Sorrell's) may be inadequate to detect a significant difference in glans/shaft sensitivity. It also depends where on the glans or shaft they were testing, since Sorrell's study shows certain glans or shaft points to be more sensitive on intact than circumcised men, a few to be more sensitive in circumcised than intact, and no significant difference in others. Sorrells et al. clearly show, in any case, that the glans is the least sensitive area of the penis in both circumcised and intact men, and the shaft only slightly more sensitive, whereas the foreskin is drastically more sensitive than both.<br><br>
In short, Payne et al.'s study doesn't prove very much.<br><br>
Gillian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
It affects MY sex life as a woman. Being with a circ'd partner causes me friction and irritation. Just had to chime in with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Now they claim no difference??!!! Funny how the pro-circ's will laughingly promote the idea that less sensitivity for the cut male is actually better. It doesn't take a study, just some common sense, to see how hacking part of the male sex organ off and exposing things that weren't meant to be constantly exposed will eventually deaden the sensation. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,674 Posts
I agree with the pp's. I and my dh are great together, but we could be even better.<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
I believe Van Howe's work showing that sensitivity is lost. It was a better planned and executed study. Plus, it's an insult to human intelligence to suggest circ doesn't make a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
nak<br><br>
It doesn't affect me personally because my MIL researched circumcision before dh was born <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/thumb.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="thumbs up"><br><br>
Stupid article... <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:<br><br>
love and peace. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/love.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="love">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,744 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;"><br>
Study 1:<br>
In a study led by Kimberley Payne of the Riverside Professional Center in Ottawa, 20 circumcised and 20 uncircumcised men watched erotic movies while their penises were measured for sensitivity at two points, using filaments that pressed down with predetermined amounts of pressure.<br><br>
Study 2:<br>
The five most sensitive points are all in portions of the penis removed by circumcision, especially those in folds exposed as the penis becomes erect, Van Howe believes.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Ok, this one is easy. Study 1 only compared points that both penises possessed. In addition to this, Study 2 looked at areas of the penis that were removed from the penis on the circumcised study participants and found that the MORE sensitive areas are only on an intact male.<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">: Why is this so hard for people to ""get""???<br><br>
Jessica
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Lauren82</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7952064"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">It affects MY sex life as a woman. Being with a circ'd partner causes me friction and irritation. Just had to chime in with that.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Absolutely. I hurt really badly after each "session." <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/gloomy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Gloomy">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>jessjgh1</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7954241"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">: Why is this so hard for people to ""get""???</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I could answer this question, but it'd most definitely be a UA violation to do so.<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/lol.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="lol">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>tiffer23</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7954306"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Absolutely. I hurt really badly after each "session." <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/gloomy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Gloomy">:</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Same here<br><br>
And it hurts even during<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/gloomy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Gloomy">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
These kind of studies show how deeply the circ brainwashing can go.<br><br>
If we could remove exact same amount of tissue/nerves/bloodvessels etc.from women and then try to suggest similar kind of study, every one would laugh. Everyone would say that it would be ridiculous - ofcourse circumcised women feel less. If you removed same amount of tissue/nerves/bloodvessels etc from your hand or from your foot, that part of body would feel less.<br><br>
But man's penis seem to be great exception. Ofcourse if someone made global,loud claim that indeed circumcision has bad effects on man's sexlife there would be huge approar from countries where circumcision is practised.<br><br>
And we do not want that - do we? HushHush is best way. Better not rock the boat, better just turn heads away when babies are sliced,harmed and too often even killed!<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>glongley</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7950396"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I just sent off this letter to the New Scientist about their article:<br><br>
Letter to the Editor of New Scientist 4/24/07<br>
Re: Does circumcision harm your sex life? Print edition, 26 April 2007.<br><br>
The research by Payne et al. was primarily trying to demonstrate whether arousal made a difference in sensitivity between circumcised and intact men. It was not designed to draw general conclusions about the overall relative sensitivities of the two.<br><br>
The researchers only tested two points, the glans and the shaft (and a comparison point on the inner surface of the forearm). In terms of the study's value in drawing general conclusions about relative sensitivity of the circumcised vs. intact penis, these researchers are making the same mistake that others before them have, i.e. only testing parts that circumcised and intact have in common, thereby missing the important point about the sensitivity of the lost foreskin itself, which is a ZERO in the circumcised male.<br><br>
The smaller number of subjects in Payne's study (compared to Sorrell's) may be inadequate to detect a significant difference in glans/shaft sensitivity. It also depends where on the glans or shaft they were testing, since Sorrell's study shows certain glans or shaft points to be more sensitive on intact than circumcised men, a few to be more sensitive in circumcised than intact, and no significant difference in others. Sorrells et al. clearly show, in any case, that the glans is the least sensitive area of the penis in both circumcised and intact men, and the shaft only slightly more sensitive, whereas the foreskin is drastically more sensitive than both.<br><br>
In short, Payne et al.'s study doesn't prove very much.<br><br>
Gillian</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
exactly, is anyone suprised that someone who intends NOT to find a difference in sensitivity of the penis between a normal male and a circumcised male found no difference? Are we suprised that they tested the sensitivity of the "penis" somehow without testing the foreskin at all? Doesn't that just show that they do not consider the foreskin to be part of the penis, i mean if they are testing the "penis" for sensitivity they should also be testing ALL of the penis? I'm not suprised at all
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top