Mothering Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nsitivity_dc_1

Circumcision Does Not Dull Sensitivity: Study
Tue Apr 29,12:47 PM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Circumcised men appear to have the same degree of penis sensitivity as men who are uncircumcised, a new study suggests -- in a finding that will probably just add fuel to the fire of a controversial subject debated for years.

The findings are to be presented Tuesday by Dr. Arnold Melman at a meeting of the American Urological Society in Chicago.

"We demonstrated that there are no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men in both patients with and without erectile dysfunction," said Melman in a prepared statement.

"This study does not address whether or not patients should be circumcised, however, it merely served to test sensitivity," added Melman, who is with Montefiore Medical Center in New York City.










That story was on the Yahoo front page for a few hours, then bumped down by other stories (like the Osbourne teen in rehab).
:

I'm so mad. HOW can a circ NOT to dull sensitivity???

Can anybody offer any enlightenment?

(My son is circ'd.
DH wanted it. I caved to pressure, eventhough I did not want it done.
If I have another son, he will be intact. But DH (like so many men on the planet) are convinced that there is no difference/harm. This "study" doesn't help newborn American males.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
I am strongly anti-circ. I believe there are lots of compelling reasons not to circ, and no compelling reasons to circ. (Not "no reasons to circ." "No compelling reasons to circ.") I don't know all the details of the study, so I can't speak to how they tested penis sensitivity...but I'm thinking that in my personal (totally limited, totally nonscientific, probably totally irrelevant) experience--with circ'ed partners and with one circ'ed and one intact son--I don't know that decreased sensitivity is a universal and unavoidable hazard of circ'ing. My point is, if it isn't...so what? That doesn't detract an iota from the other, many and varied, compelling arguments against it. No, publicizing this study doesn't help. But only in the sense that it supports one lame point in the non-arguable position that circ'ing is totally fine. Concede to them the "not-necessarily-less-sensitive" point. It doesn't defeat the overwhelming arguments on risk, pain, trauma, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Remember how people used to firmly believe that smoking pot would make you absolutely insane? Well, no, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's healthy. Non-insanity is beside the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
The thing you have to realize is that the man who did this study is circumcised so he has no understanding of what to test to get a real comparison. Alfred Kinsey, the famous sex researcher, did the same study 50 years ago and it is now known why he didn't find a difference. Melman simply walked down the same path and fell into the same trap.

Melman tested the intact men with their foreskins retracted which totally ignored the sexual sensations of the foreskin which are significant. Melman also didn't test for tactile sensitivity which is significant for intact men and insignificant for circumcised men.

The truth is this study was not done for the advancement of science and knowledge. It was done for the advancement of an agenda.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
I read a story-- I cna't cite it, it was awhile ago- that was featured on the Dr. Dean Edell program that found that circ'ed penile skin was 10 layers think and non circ'ed skin was 2 layers think or something like that and Dr. Dean explained how circ'ed penile skin was a mucous membrane type skin turned callous. That essentially the circ'ed penis is one big callous. THey also tested for sensitivity and the circ'ed males scored way lower, but that probably wasn't a headline because it didn't justify mass ritualized sexual abuse of children.

Lauren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
The thing you have to realize is that the man who did this study is circumcised so he has no understanding of what to test to get a real comparison. Alfred Kinsey, the famous sex researcher, did the same study 50 years ago and it is now known why he didn't find a difference. Melman simply walked down the same path and fell into the same trap.

Melman tested the intact men with their foreskins retracted which totally ignored the sexual sensations of the foreskin which are significant. Melman also didn't test for tactile sensitivity which is significant for intact men and insignificant for circumcised men.

The truth is this study was not done for the advancement of science and knowledge. It was done for the advancement of an agenda.

Frank
An agenda?...like perhaps the more than six figure profit the cosmetic industry makes off of a foreskin? Or maybe the bread and butter flow of income to the docs perpetrating the mutilations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Well as a circumcised male, I can assure evryone that you most certainly do lose sensitivity. I can remember as a child the sensitivity of my glans and compare it to the much reduced sensitivity today. I sincerely wish that I hade never been circumcised!
My husband partially tried restoring his foreskin. He tells me that just slightly covering the corona has totally changed the feeling and sensitivity. He learned to masturbate by rubbing against a pillow. he had to dry out his penis skin to do that. Now he has skin that bunches up behind and slightly over the head. It is moist and he says so much more sensitive that he would never dream even using direct touch. He does it with the skin only up and down.

My point is that there is a difference even if it just the mechanics of how it all works. Evolution gave us what we have for a reason.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top