The fact that there are studies that show benefits from being circumcised doesn't mean that being circumcised is a good thing, especially when the studies skip discussing the benefits of not being circumcised.
Being dead prevents all kinds of infections and diseases... but we wouldn't advocate dying as preventive medicine.
Please note: I'm not advocating an anti-scientifc position. What I'm advocating is balance. The equation is not just benefits of circumcision vs. risks. There are 2 states: circumcised and intact. Each state could potentially have pros and cons. Then there is the risk of transitioning from intact to circumcised, and the impossibility of transitioning back, and we have 6 variables to take into consideration. If we ignore 4 of those variables our equation is out of balance.
is really no such thing as unbiased information about circumcision.
There are scientific studies that prove both sides of the equation, but
scientific studies sometimes are only as good as the people performing
the studies, and a professional title does not constitute proof of being
is nobody objecting to or trying to promote say, heart surgeries, liver
transplants and other medical interventions? Because those
interventions are performed when they are needed. In particular,
amputations are normally performed when a part of the body is so sick
and damaged that it constitutes an immediate threat to the rest of the
is no denying that circumcision is an amputation, not an immunization.
It removes a part of the body. Immunizations strengthen the immune
system and motivate the generation of antibodies that protect from
can be therapeutically performed in cases of necessity, such as a
severe phimosis, repetitive paraphimosis, balanitis xerotica obliterans
(BXO) and it wouldn't be a cause for any controversy.
makes circumcision controversial is its application as a preventive or
prophylactic procedure, and even more, circumcision as a social or
you know of any other amputation of healthy tissue that is performed as
a prevention, and particularly on non-consenting individuals who do not
have the age to provide informed consent?
becomes even more critical due to the voices of men who feel physically
and psychologically damaged by their circumcision, whether by surgical
mishap, improper healing, secondary effects and the simple realization
that they were subjected to an unnecessary amputation before they were
even aware of their own bodies. This phenomenon has been generally
dismissed by the medical community.
most circumcisions turn out okay (and the individuals circumcised at
birth are not usually aware of any ill effects even if there are any),
some circumcisions turn to the worse, causing severe damages to the
genitalia, sometimes making a normal sexual life impossible.
document "Neonatal Male circumcision global review" of UNAIDS (the
organization promoting voluntary male circumcision in Africa as
prevention of HIV) states that "some of the serious complications that
can occur during the procedure include death from excess bleeding and
amputation of the glans penis. Postoperative complications include the
formation of skin bridges between the shaft and the glans, infection,
urinary retention (this has caused deaths), meatal ulcer, impetigo,
fistulas, loss of penile sensitivity, sexual dysfunction and oedema of
the glans." They also acknowledge that the frequency of complications is
"underestimated because events occuring after the discharge are not
captured [in the discharge sheet]" and sometimes are treated at a
note that there is a difference between sexual function and
reproductive function. Being able to orgasm, to impregnate a woman and
make her pregnant, or the female ability to become pregnant, do not
necessarily mean that the sexual function is complete.
don't mean this to belittle anyone - I am circ'ed myself. We all would
like to think that we have the best penis and that sex as we experienced
it is as good as it gets. But only keeping an open mind we can
understand what was done, and the reason to do it is really to evaluate
whether the act itself is positive or detrimental, before we decide to
impose the same act upon our own children.
one analogy. Imagine that you take these 3 guys to watch the most
recent 3D movie: a colorblind guy, a guy who lost one eye shortly after
birth, and a deaf person. They arrive at the theater and put their 3D
glasses on. Do you think they enjoyed the movie?
The answer is yes, each one of them enjoyed the movie.
the colorblind guy won't be able to tell you anything about the colors
of the film. The guy with just one eye won't be able to tell anything
about the 3D effects. And the deaf guy won't know anything about the
soundtrack and dialogues. Each one enjoyed the film in spite of the
limitations of their sensory organs.
man who is circumcised at birth looses approximately 20,000 nerve
endings. This is 2.5 more than the number of nerve endings in a typical
clitoris. The rigged band also serves a purpose of stimulating the glans
during sexual activity, whether masturbation or intercourse, producing
circular pressure over the glans. Those functions are removed by
circumcision, so the perception of sex is definitively altered.
doesn't mean that a circumcised man won't enjoy sex. It only means that
he will enjoy it to the extent allowed by the lack of sensory input.
Which for some men is fine, and for some it is more like a 75%
reduction. And some men have reported a strong decline in sensation at
40 to 55 years of age, which has often been improved by foreskin
AAP has denied this, stating that "There is both good and fair evidence
that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised
and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual
and satisfaction" and "There is fair evidence from a crosssectional
study of Korean men of decreased masturbatory pleasure after adult
circumcision". However it is noteworthy that both, Jew philosophers of
antiquity (Philo, 1st century, and Moses Maimonides, 12th century) along
with the doctors that started medical circumcision back in the late XIX
century as a form to curb masturbation, agreed that circumcision
of these doctors stated: "I suggest that all male children should be
circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason
why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall
copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end
covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive
stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans
of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive
than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much
less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the
circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to
argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R.W. Cockshut.
Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764. There are
plenty of similar quotes.
since the 60s, American doctors started denying any effect on sexuality
from circumcision. However, doctors in the 60s were most likely
circumcised at birth themselves, so they were lacking first person
experience of the foreskin.
problem with circumcision of minors is that this is the result of a
parental choice, not a personal choice, and that the affected individual
most of the times is not even aware of the effect that it has.
How do we know that men feel more when uncircumcised?
Let me start with anecdotal information:
My best friend, intact, made an experiment at some point of keeping his glans uncovered. He acknowledges quick loss of sensation.
read direct messages from at least 3 men who got circumcised during
adulthood for aesthetic concerns. The 3 of them regretted it due to the
loss of sensation afterwards.
also part of the foreskin restoration forum. I know there several guys
(including one who invented one of the most common restoration devices),
who at age 40 to 55 had a strong decline in sensation, to the point
where sex was no longer fun. After a few months of restoration all of
them reported improvement.
I have been restoring for 6 months. One thing I learned is that the
foreskin and the glans interact. The foreskin (the rigged band) produces
circular pressure over the glans during sex, as it glides up and down.
This circular pressure is the perfect way to stimulate the glans, sorry
if this is TMI, but it works like a small mouth giving oral all the time
during sex. This is lost to circumcision, but restoration partially
restores this even though the rigged band cannot be recreated.
up in the thread I posted an analogy of 3 men watching a 3D movie: one
who is colorblind, one who is missing an eye, and one who is deaf. My
opinion is that the 3 men will enjoy the film, but each one is missing
something due to limitations on their sensory organs. The colorblind guy
won't know about the colors, the guy without one eye won't see the 3D
effects, and the deaf guy won't know anything about the soundtrack.
Likewise, I don't imply that we circ'ed men do not enjoy sex, we do of
course. But we don't feel everything that could be felt because we are
lacking a sensory organ of the penis (the 20,000 nerve endings - 2.5
times that of a clitoris), and the rigged band (which stimulates and
perceives stimulation at the same time).
this, I don't care about any study comparing the sensitivity of
circumcised and uncircumcised males. They normally ignore the foreskin
and then conclude that there is no difference in sensation or
satisfaction. That's like comparing a guy with one hand and a guy with
two hands, and stating that the two can do the same tasks as long as the
two-hands guy keeps his extra hand tied to his back. The only real good
study I've seen in sensation is Sorrells (2007). It concludes that "the
transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the
most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than
the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. It appears that
circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/74475.php
tried to debunk it and readjusted the data, ignoring all data related
to the foreskin because it's not present in the circumcised guys. Just
like I said: the two guys can do the same tasks as long as the two-hands
guy keeps his extra hand tied to his back.