The purpose of circumcision is to ruin male sexuality

73 Responses to The purpose of circumcision is to ruin male sexuality

1. John D Fleming says:

   April 29, 2012 at 11:59 am

   This is just an excellent article and cuts to the heart of the circumcision controversy. The original reason for introducing this medical ritual to the English-speaking world was to dull sensation to eliminate masturbation. How ironic it is that this is the ONLY true “benefit” that the medical community has claimed, and that American physicians now disclaim this!

   Reply
   • Lilli Cannon says:

     April 29, 2012 at 12:46 pm

     Thank you. I really love your line: the only true “benefit” of circumcision is the one that the physicians now disclaim!

     Reply

2. Pingback: Your Questions About Women Thoughts On Circumcision | koreatownbbq.com

3. Joseph4GI says:

   April 29, 2012 at 11:20 pm

   It’s amazing that despite what has been written medical literature, despite that it is a historically known fact, circumcision advocates deny it left and right. They insist that diminishing sexuality is a justification only attributable to female circumcision. Now they’re trying to say it *increases* sensitivity.

   The moral of the story is that “studies” and “science shows” exactly what it needs to in order to necessitate what is a historically controversial practice.

   Reply
   • John D Fleming says:

     May 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm

     Sorry if this is offensive. It is not intended to be. This is as low-toned as any of your other posts.

     I was severely injured during my circumcision and have not been able to recover. This is oh, so common: I am not the male that I could have been, and there is nothing that can be done to “fix” me. This is the fate of MILLIONS of men, who are deprived of their full manhood.

     We now know as a fact: this social surgery — male circumcision — has no benefits: every single claimed-benefit has been disproved. I was mangled for profit and because of ignorance. The American medical establishment has failed to keep up with the latest research and modern physicians have failed to honor their own standard of ethics. Now is the time for change.

     Reply
     • Lillian Cannon says:

       May 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm

       I am sorry, John, but I’m not sure I understand the first paragraph of your comment. Would you mind explaining? “Sorry if this is offensive. It is not intended to be. This is as low-toned as any of your other posts.”

       Reply
       • John D Fleming says:

         May 8, 2012 at 4:58 am

         So many people are offended by information that shows the dreadful effects of routine infant circumcision (RIC), circumcision of unconsenting minor males, and circumcision of uninformed/misinformed adult males (MC). I would really like folks to understand the message instead of taking offense to the way I present it. The thread here is one of the most reasonable discussions I’ve seen. I just did not want to heighten the emotion — I wanted to present information. Sorry if I’ve confused things!

         Reply
         • Lillian Cannon says:

           May 8, 2012 at 7:04 am

           Ok, I understand now. Given what you have said about being seriously mutilated and unable to function normally, I would guess that the people who get offended by your message do so because your message and existence are irrefutable proof that RIC is wrong. Pro-circ people deny the existence of men who were harmed by circumcision – they have to deny it to keep their pro-circumcision stance – so you are a living reproach that they may have ruined their children’s lives.
4. roger desmoulins says:

   May 1, 2012 at 2:31 am

   Ms Cannon, glad to see you have discovered one of the two intellectual giants among intactivists: Robert Darby of Australia.

   I do not doubt at all that RIC results in a lot of adult sexual dysfunctionality, including some cases of PE and ED. Some men had too much cut off when they were babies; others have penises covered with scar tissue. But I do not go as far as you do when you wrote “…the purpose of circumcision has always been to curb male sexuality, and it has been enormously successful.” This was apparently correct in the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, but not since 1920. And it was not true at all of the period I call the American Foreskin Holocaust, 1940-85, when a very large majority of white babies emerged circumcised from the maternity ward. I grew up in that era, and I cannot recall ever hearing anything that smacked of “men with foreskins are oversexed”. In fact, it was repeatedly claimed that the foreskin was dispensible because it contributed nothing to sexual pleasure and functionality! As for “enormously successful,” many circumcised men have happy sex lives, especially before their 40s.

   Your post points to the crying need for a survey of the American adult penis, based on a stratified random sample stratified by race, age, education, and religion, with oversampling of intact men. The survey would include a clinical examination of the men by a male doctor. For this reason alone, this study would be very expensive. It would also include a detailed interview of the spouses or gay partners of the subjects. This study would shed light on circumcision damage, and on ED and PE as possible consequences of RIC. The number of subjects would be at least 10,000 and preferably 20-30,000. The budget for this study would be at least US$4 million. Absent a study of this nature, RIC should cease immediately because it is unethical to perform medical procedures without a fair idea of the possible adverse outcomes.

   Circumcision is doomed, simply because it disgusts a growing number of young unmarried women, the mothers of tomorrow. It offends their sex positivity, an ideology that has made deep inroads into the American female unconscious.

   Reply
   • Dan Bollinger says:

     May 4, 2012 at 6:57 am

     Roger, Some of what you propose has been done. My study of 300 men found that the circumcised participants were 4.5 times as likely to have been diagnosed with ED than the intact men. I believe the severing of the perineal nerve if the culprit. See my white paper at Scribd.

     Bollinger D, Van Howe, RS. Alexithymia and circumcision trauma: A preliminary investigation. Int J Men’s Health, 2011;10(2):184-95.

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/73008950/Adding-Insult-to-Injury-Erectile-Dysfunction-and-Circumcision

     Reply
     • roger desmoulins says:

       May 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm

       Subjects have to be selected by a random sampling stratified by age, race and education, and the number of subjects has to be much larger than 300. A major objective of such a study would be to count the incidence of PE, ED, having too much cut off, lack of feeling, and dissatisfied spouses.

       Reply
5. Purist says:

   May 7, 2012 at 12:18 am

   Considering the fact that 19th century physicians understood so well the highly erogenous/pleasurable functions of the foreskin, what do you think accounts for the seeming general milieu of apathy for intactness (I’m assuming this to be true) in non-circumcising cultures such as Europe, specifically the UK?

   Reply
   • roger desmoulins says:

     May 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

     The extent to which the foreskin and its motion were understood to be central players in the sexual pleasure experienced by both genders, were understood before 1800 astounds me. This understanding vanished between 1850 and 1900, the era when many doctors and moralisers began advocating routine circumcision, often on “moral” grounds. It is difficult to write the history of sexuality at that time, given the overall prudishness of the era, and lack of documentation. But back issues of medical journals published between 1850 and 1914 amply testify to a horrendous ignorance of how nature intended sex to work. Once the English speaking upper middle class was mostly circumcised (by, say, 1930 or so), foreskin appreciation was gone from the chattering class. We are painfully reconstructing that knowledge now.

     I can assure you that many younger and less inhibited British women have blogged and commented about how they are pleased by the foreskins of the men with whom they have been intimate. Many women intactivists have never taken a college class.

     European doctors and other intellectuals hesitate to speak the truth about the erogenous character of the foreskin, for fear of antagonising Jews and Moslems.

     Reply
6. Purist says:

   May 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm

   Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Just a follow-up–

   But from my own observation it seems as if, were the average intact “man on the street” in the UK to be polled, the “it’s no big deal either way” attitude will be ubiquitous. (I’ve never done a formal poll to confirm this, but others on the restoration forum have corroborated this observation). If the foreskin is the focus of a man’s erogenous pleasure (and I’m not doubting this for one second–the more I learn, the more it seems apparent to me that the male prepuce is the true analog to the clitoris) what would account for this apathy? Women universally understand the clitoris to be one of the major erogenous areas of their anatomy. How can this general lack of self-awareness on the part of intact men be accounted for? Men are just dumbasses? Ha. I’ve never known intactness so this puzzles me.

   Reply
   • Lillian Cannon says:

     May 7, 2012 at 7:17 pm

     Glen Callender gave a great interview to Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon for his Cut Tour podcasts. He is intact and yet he did not understand how important his foreskin was to his sensation until he was an adult. He explains it as when he was young, sex just felt so good and was so exciting that he just felt general good feelings, but when he got older, he learned to separate out where each sensation was coming from. http://infocirc.blogspot.com/2011/12/33-cut-podcast-new-sexual-revolution.html

     As for analogizing from women, don’t be so sure. I just read that 43% don’t orgasm during each sexual encounter. I find that appalling, that they do not know how/will not take responsibility to ensure they are satisfied. I think sex knowledge is pretty lacking, actually.

     Reply
     • roger desmoulins says:

       May 7, 2012 at 8:46 pm

       Even Callender, who is pretty sophisticated, had to learn a lot as an adult!
       Nearly everything I know about the virtues of the intact penis, I learned after I turned 40. It’s not because being middle aged made me smarter, but because I had to wait until my 40s before I began encountering shrewd probing writing about how the natural penis enhances sex!

       Ms Cannon, when I was in college and grad school, tough worldly women, disciples of Erica Jong, routinely wrote, and even complained at parties, that sex with most men was a bore and a chore. It was partly a feminist power trip, to deflate male egos by taking a cynical worldly stance. But I am confident there was a large grain of truth. 30-40 years ago, I assumed that male ineptitude at foreplay was to blame. Or lack of knowledge that KY has to be used with condoms. I now suspect that American RIC had something to do with it. Some women blog and bvlog their sex lives, and these women have revealed that there are young American men who thrust too fast, too hard, and too deep, causing discomfort, even pain. I am convinced that this style of intercourse is a consequence of circumcision.

       My wife comes every time, and my being intact may help here. But the crucial fact could be that she always combines masturbation with penetration. I have never read an explicit description of this simple trick.

       Reply
       • Lillian Cannon says:

         May 8, 2012 at 7:09 am

         “My wife comes every time, and my being intact may help here. But the crucial fact could be that she always combines masturbation with penetration. I have never read an explicit description of this simple trick.”

         You can blame Freud for this one. He said that clitoral orgasms were for the immature and that mature women had vaginal orgasms. Combine that with many women’s prudishness about touching themselves and you have a huge number of women (and, by extension, men) who think they should come just from having a penis inserted into them. This works for very few women, something like 10%. Most women need clitoral stimulation to come, and I do see this in more advanced sex manuals, but rarely in popular titles like Cosmopolitan, etc.

         Interestingly enough, circumcised women actually report vaginal orgasm at much higher rates, and orgasm at all at higher rates! See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975 “The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%.”

         Reply
     • Trish says:

       January 30, 2013 at 8:07 pm

       Just wanted to say Hi, and leave a comment since I’ve written so much about women’s sexuality — I don’t have a medical degree or university funding to support my research, but I’m a woman with a vagina and a clit who began a journey to discover what my body could do, since the medical world and academia don’t value women’s sexuality as much.

       A 2002 study showed 70% of women have never orgasmed during sex — and I am one of those. Many women endure painful sex due, in large part, to male partners who are circumcised and need “friction sex” or “dry sex” to feel anything against their scarred skin. The custom of circumcision is from the Abrahamic religions (borrowed from the Egyptian priesthood) who admit to wanting to limit the pleasure of sex — to them, sex was for procreation only, not recreation. The practice of female genital cutting is equally barbaric.

       I’ve written about circ several times on my blog ArousedWomanBlog.com because, as a woman who likes sex with men, male sexuality affects my sexuality. Knowledge truly is power.

       Thanks so much for such a great article with so many sources. Great job!

       trish

       Reply
       • Lilli Cannon says:

         January 31, 2013 at 8:30 am

         Thanks, Trish! I susbscribe to your blog as well.

         Reply
       • roger desmoulins says:

         January 31, 2013 at 1:43 pm

         Circumcision is a major alteration of the part of the male body that interacts directly with a woman’s body during sex. During intercourse with a natural man, the much of the direct contact between the male and female body involves the moving foreskin. For me, it is entirely credible that circumcision materially alters how women experience sex, and sadly, may also detract from that experience. Hence circumcision is a feminist issue, especially a sex positive feminist issue.

         “70% of women have never orgasmed during sex…”
         In my view, that is too high. The 1970s writings of Shere Hite and Nancy Friday suggest that roughly 25% of women orgasm rarely or never, 25% orgasm usually or always, and 50% of women orgasm erratically. This problem would vanish if women learned to combine masturbation and penetration, something my wife has done since her college years.

         “…and I am one of those.”
         Trish, I cannot believe your use of the present tense here!

         “Many women endure painful sex due, in large part, to male partners who are circumcised…”
         We badly need careful research on this very point.

         Very curiously, Judaism and Islam are not anti-sex. Virginity has not exalted status in either of these religions, who expect men and women to marry and reproduce. The embryonic intactivist movement in Islam uses sex positive language. Jewish circumcision has begun to collide with Jewish progressive thinking about human sexuality.

         The Victorian gentlemen who urged middle class parents to circumcise their boys, starting around 1870, did indeed have an anti-sexual agenda. In those days, male sexual desire was seen as the root cause of many personal and social evils. When this puritanical agenda faded, and when a daily shower became the norm, the desire of parents and doctors to circumcise boys faded in the English speaking countries — except in the USA. The signal difference is the refusal to lead by the American medical profession and American medical schools. Many intactivists are mothers without college degrees, facing a silent but arrogant medical profession.

         “The practice of female genital cutting is equally barbaric.”
         And feminists do not let us forget that. And any public policy that clearly antagonises feminists won’t fly nowadays. The trouble with intactivism is that the chattering class sees it as offensive to Jews and Moslems.. This is why Jewish and Moslem opposition to ritual circumcision deserve our most earnest support.

         Reply
   • roger desmoulins says:

     May 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm

     The female prepuce is the loose skin covering the glans of the clitoris. When women masturbate themselves, they often are playing with this prepuce. If you are thrilled by peeling back and recovering the glans clitoris, then you know more or less what intact men experience during masturbation and handjobs.

     I read French and can confirm that everything I’ve read in French that is foreskin savvy was translated from American intactivist writing! And French men are all intact!

     Before 1970 or so, many American women were ignorant of the clitoris. It was much written about in my teens, because it was assumed that millions of American women were ignorant about it. Most women have small clitorises, which forces women to pay careful attention to details. When I do foreplay on Mrs D, moving my fingers 2-3mm can make a big difference to her pleasure.

     I am nor surprised that the rise of circumcision and then of anti-circumcision has caught most men out. Men are socialised in high school and university to adopt a jocular man of the world stance with respect to all matters sexual. This posture disguises a lot of ignorance. Young men are NOT socialised to truly understand sex. I learned a great deal from my wife, whom I met in my late 30s. I also read everything about sex I could get my hands on after my 13th birthday. I decided a few years ago that the best writing about the male experience of sex, and about how foreskin enhances vaginal intercourse, was by women. Gay men are also more foreskin savvy than str8 men.

     Reply
     • Lillian Cannon says:

       May 8, 2012 at 7:11 am

       Analogizing to my own experiences with an intact clitoris and clitoral hood, I can indeed very easily see how the movement of the foreskin over the penis provides immense pleasure. Sometimes I try to explain it to women in this way, but many women cannot handle frank sexual talk.

       Reply
       • roger desmoulins says:

         November 6, 2012 at 11:29 am

         “…many women cannot handle frank sexual talk.”

         Even when the talk is initiated by an educated fellow woman who is none of bisexual or lesbian, and with no male within earshot?!?

         Sigh…

         For my part, I am amazed by the frank sex talk by younger women can write on Facebook, where using a pen name is frowned on.

         Reply
7. Anonymous says:

   May 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm

   I’m adding my two cents, my apologies for maintaining my anonymity, but the fact is that I’m commenting my rather private things here, and it’s something I’m not supposed to do in my community.

   I can only describe my own experiences. I was circumcised when I was 32. At that point, I had 15 years of sexual experiences with women with intact foreskin, and now almost ten years without. I was lucky, as unlike many the operation was done by an excellent urologist, I had no complications and I healed well and fast.

   Yes, the sensations are different, and they could be described as less intense. No, for me it hasn’t taken out any of the pleasure. To be honest, I think the lost sensitivity has made sex more enjoyable. The final sensations are pretty much comparable, but now I don’t have any rush to the climax. Effective masturbation techniques are quite different, but frankly, nothing one couldn’t figure out.

   I’d say it’s not that big deal either way.

   There’s no point exaggerating the effects. But I think circumcision should only be done when there are medical reasons for it, or when one decides to get it done for himself. As the operation is not risk free, it shouldn’t be done without a sound reason, and parents’ religion shouldn’t be considered as one.

   Reply
   • John D Fleming says:

     May 22, 2012 at 8:10 am

     I do not understand the introduction to your post and I hope that I am addressing a real person.

     I’m happy that you — as a 32 year-old adult — were able to make your own decision. It’s also great that you have no devastating consequences. You have been granted your own choice, your human rights. I hope you continue to have a good experience.

     However, yours is not the common case regarding circumcision — most males have strong consequences from male circumcision and many males have devastating outcome: these are not trivial and can shatter someone’s life. That a male cannot make his own choice is very bitter. The numerous number of circumcision mistakes should not be underestimated and the tragic results are not exaggerated. I know — personally.

     Hope things continue to go well with you!

     Reply
   • roger desmoulins says:

     May 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm

     “There’s no point exaggerating the effects.”

     The problem is that American medical and sexual science have yet to make an honest study of the possible long-term adverse effects of routine circumcision on adult sexual pleasure and functionality. Rest assured that not every circumcision has as good of an outcome as yours, which had a huge thing going in its favour: it was performed when you were fully adult.

     Your post is also silent about a major topic: the satisfaction of women. There is a growing awareness that quite a few women prefer to be penetrated by an intact penis.

     Reply
     • Lilli Cannon says:

       May 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm

       Well, he does say “less intense” and “lost sensitivity.”

       Anyway, my point in writing this was to show that the original purpose of circumcision was to reduce men’s sexuality. It is important for parents to understand this, as many of them seem to think that circumcision serves some grand purpose like health or tradition. Glad this man had a “good” result. He had the choice. Every man deserves the same, as he points out.

       Reply
       • roger desmoulins says:

         May 22, 2012 at 5:57 pm

         The proposition that circumcision dulls the sexual sensations of men is, regrettably, not yet a scientific slam dunk. E.g., the cutting community scoffs at Sorrells et al (2007). We badly need a careful study of a random sample of American and Canadian penises, numbering at least 10,000 and stratified by age, ethnicity and education. The spouses need to be interviewed as well. The subjects in this study will have to agree to have their penises carefully probed while they are erect. The cost of this study will be phenomenal, because the data collectors will have to be male doctors.

         Reply
       • Bill says:

         January 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm

         RE: The purpose of circumcision is to ruin male sexuality, by Lilli Cannon

         The final comment in the thread makes a statement about the cost associated with an in depth study on the effects of circumcision. Has anyone reached out to medical professionals that would be willing to donate their time and talent to this cause?

         Reply
         • hsextant says:

           January 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm

           I think one of the difficulties of funding such a study is that regardless of which side one it on, it is like funding a study to determine “do flowers grow on the dark side of the moon.” You spend a tremendous amount of money on something that everyone concerned is convinced their answer is already correct, and those who are not concerned don’t care.

           Let’s presume a bit here. We do the study and we find out that men lose 80% of their penile sensitivity and women report that sex is not as enjoyable. Will that in any positive way change the pro-circ stand on the huge benefits of circumcision… cleanliness, reduction of STDs, less penile cancer, less cervical cancer etc etc? We already have a firm understanding that condom use will prevent these things yet they persist. I can’t for the life of me fathom how one can say “get circumcised it will help reduce STDs, but BTW you still have to use condoms 100% of the time.” So what the hell do these people care about some lost sensitivity in a penis?
           Will it change the look like daddy crowd? Who stands around at family gatherings looking at schlongs? “Yep, look at that Gomco ring, a chip off the old block, son you make me proud”. Yet “OMG he won’t look like his father” is some kind of battle cry. Do intact men have this generational admiration for each other genitals. If not it might make the thanksgiving dinner a lot saner if everyone is not inclined to zip down their flies and have a look.

           And let’s not even approach religion.

           Going the other way, what if we find out from such a study that it makes absolutely no difference in sexual sensitivity or performance. Does that in any way negate the right of an individual to remain intact?

           You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out that losing 15 square inches of highly innervated tissue is going to cause a change in response. Is it critical? Well now that depends on how you define critical. Obviously circumcised men are able to have children. That’s all that matters in some people’s minds. For those of us who believe that there is more to life than the ability to reproduce and that an individual has a right to decide for himself whether the “benefits” out way the risks of circumcision, I think such studies are really not required.

           What I would like to see is a reliable study that shows whether circumcised men have any worse marriages or psychiatric difficulties than intact men. I happen to very much believe that a good and frequent sex helps to defuse an awful lot of problems in a normal marriage.

           It does not take a neurologist to figure out that my wounded penis is not performing to par. Fortunately my wife and I learned other methods to take the trip to Oz, but I can’t help but wonder, how many marriages suffer in silence and end in divorce. To me if the intactivists could show hard evidence with a good and reliable study that circumcised men have X percentage of failed marriages over intact men, then you have a statistic that people can care about.
         • roger desmoulins says:

           January 10, 2013 at 3:53 am

           The kind of study I have in mind would require a clinical examination of each of many thousands of male subjects, a careful sexual history of the subject, and a detailed interview of his spouse or domestic partner. The data collection could require as much as 3 hours per subject. Multiply that by many thousands of subjects, and you have a time commitment that is much too large to be donated.

           “I can’t help but wonder, how many marriages suffer in silence and end in divorce. If the intactivists could show hard evidence with a good and reliable study that circumcised men have X percentage of failed marriages over intact men, then you have a statistic that people can care about.”
           Trouble is, the sociological determinants of divorce are rich and varied. In the USA, divorce is lowest in New England, and increases with distance from New England. No one knows why. Divorce varies over time in major ways that are likewise not well understood. Divorce has risen dramatically in France and the UK, despite these being intact cultures.

           The study Morton Frisch did in Denmark should be redone in Canada where there is a rich mix of circumcising and non-circumcising subcultures. The latter include Francophones, First Nations, and Ukrainians.
         • hsextant says:

           January 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm

           Roger,

           Great comment over at the Atlantic BTW.
           I basically agree with you about the research. I would love to see it done. Not sure I want to participate in that one. Having a stranger applying various weights of fishing line in gentle caresses probably exceeds my abilities to sustain the required state. The results of such a study would be no doubt fascinating, the only thing I question is of what practical value the results would have in the circumcision argument. Penile sensitivity is not going to be much of an argument to people who can completely disregard the ethical rights of a child.

           You are right about a study on divorce, it may be very difficult to separate the role of circumcision in the overall flood of reasons for divorce.

           You said:

           “In the USA, divorce is lowest in New England, and increases with distance from New England. No one knows why. ”

           Alas, the same demographic for the incidence of non-circumcised men. Don’t let the pro-circs see that, they will use my argument against me.

           Another area I would like to see research on is the biochemical aspects of coitus on men…sort of a Gordon Gallup study in reverse. Gallup ran the study that showed contact with semen reduced depression in women. I have been looking for additional data for women, and data for that the same effect in men.

           For as much screeching I do about using condoms for the prevention of STDs, I have a theory that condoms are destructive to loving monogamous relationships. Circumcision may play a further role in my theory. My theory is this, sex is basically a chemical communication between lovers and it works by the exudation and absorption orally and genitally of hormones and neurotransmitters in Cowpers fluid, vaginal fluid, semen, female ejaculate (if it exists), blood, and saliva. Throw odors and pheromones into the mix as well. This exuded and absorbed chemistry works on the older unconscious emotional centers of the brain. We like to think of our cerebral cortex as us, the guy in control, but from what I am reading lately the conscious us is small part of the whole that operates behind the curtain. So I believe that when we have sex, our blood streams and brains become flooded with our partners chemistry, and that makes us feel real good and engenders bonding. So what happens when you block all that with a sheet of latex? Yes the guy in control realizes that he or she had sex. The other 95 percent of our brains experienced no sex, maybe some masturbation but no sex with a partner.

           So when one is having a one night stand, a condom may actually help the parting of the ways in the morning. But when one is trying to fall in love and establish a monogamous long term relationship, using a condom as birth control might be like talking on a dead telephone line or writing a love letter with invisible ink. I believe this to be the case with both establishing a relationship and maintaining one. Condoms should only be used in non-monogamous sex, emergency contraception, or in those cases where a woman may have a sensitivity to BV or yeast infections, or a semen allergy.

           So how does circumcision fit into my theory? Would the loss of 15 square inches of exudative and absorptive tissue negatively impact the efficacy of this chemical transfer into the man? What about the mucosa layers? Actually I can see two causes for the reduction in the efficacy 1) is the removal of these tissues reducing the area of absorptive tissue. 2) would the foreskin not tend to retain some of the post coital fluids after withdrawal maintain a wet environment on the interior of the foreskin for additional absorption? A circumcised penis by comparison will dry faster and lose the absorption. The foreskin may mimic, to a lesser degree, the vaginal retention of fluids and extend the absorption in the male after withdrawal.

           My theory also postulates that men rolling over and falling asleep are denying themselves of some lovely chemical talk as well as well as denying their women pillow talk. I recommend getting into the scissors position–nice and comfy, plug in, and stick around for a while. There is a lot to be gained in lovers chats both above and below the waist line.

           Roger, if you are up to an experiment, let me know. LOL. My thoughts on foreskins remains purely theoretical. I have no ability to obtain empirical data in my home laboratory. We could author a paper, Comparative Post Coital Wetting of The Glans of Circumcised and Intact Men. “With a sample size of two… ”

           The whole difficulty with my theories is that they remain theories. My experiments are limited to one couple. Next life time when I am a software mogul, the Sextant Foundation will underwrite research in coital absorptions of natural love potion number 9s. In this life time I emailed Gallup and offered him $20 to study male absorption of coital fluids, I never heard anything back.
         • roger desmoulins says:

           January 10, 2013 at 4:43 pm

           I gave the Atlantic my Best Shot, because of the quality of its readership. I also get rather annoyed at people who reveal that their are secular Jews but who still feel a compulsion to circumcise their sons.

           The landmark paper Sorrells et al (2007) had only about 150 subjects, many recruited from San Francisco’s gay community (which strikes me as strongly anti-RIC). I believe that the data collection for that paper required a lot of donated effort, especially by Tina Kimmel, a nurse then doing a PhD. Kimmel is single, menopausal, and commited to a progressive outlook re homosexuality. She probably found it easier to retain her professional composure than most of us.

           Penile sensitivity is not what I am most curious about, which is possible correlations between circumcision and PE and ED. I would also like data on the extent to which adult North American men have structural damage to the penis due to infant circumcision.

           “In the USA, divorce is lowest in New England, and increases with distance from New England. No one knows why. ”

           “Alas, the same demographic for the incidence of non-circumcised men.”

           I beg to differ; the Empire of the Bald Penis is the midwest, Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee. There is no research trying to explain this fact. Missouri and Minnesota are the only states in this area denying Medicaid coverage for RIC. Illinois has the lowest RIC rate in the midwest. Strandjord says that this is probably driven by the enormous post WWII demographic in Chicagoland. The only Third World immigrants interested in RIC are Moslems.

           “…contact with semen reduced depression in women.”
           If that is indeed a hard fact, the evolutionary basis is obvious, no? And how else to explain the enormous number of contemporary women who have been filmed with semen on their faces and bodies?

           “I have a theory that condoms are destructive to loving monogamous relationships.”
           They must be used with a good non-petroleum lubricant.

           “…sex is basically a chemical communication between lovers and it works by the exudation and absorption orally and genitally of hormones and neurotransmitters in Cowpers fluid, vaginal fluid, semen, female ejaculate (if it exists), blood, and saliva.”
           Well, my better half thinks very highly of Cowpers fluid!

           “…the conscious us is small part of the whole that operates behind the curtain.”
           That is neurologically defensible.

           “The other 95% of our brains experienced no sex, maybe some masturbation but no sex with a partner.”
           This would explain the endemic reluctance to use condoms. Condoms + no female orgasm = angry, resentful woman.

           “…when one is trying to fall in love and establish a monogamous long term relationship, using a condom as birth control might be like talking on a dead telephone line or writing a love letter with invisible ink.” LOL!!!

           A major reason why condoms persist is that quite a few women do not tolerate any other method of contraception.

           If sexual bonding results in fair part from the reciprocal absorption of the others’ secretions via mucus membranes, then it is evident that circumcision is dysfunctional. Your scenarios (1) and (2) are worth exploring.

           “The foreskin may mimic, to a lesser degree, the vaginal retention of fluids and extend the absorption in the male after withdrawal.” You know that I agree with George Wald’s hypothesis that the foreskin is a feminine detail placed in the most masculine place? Functionally (but not embryologically) it is the male labia. If your theory proves correct, that will powerfully validate Wald’s hypothesis.

           My better half and I have sex in midday, when our children are out of the house. I revere afterplay, altho’ do not practice what I preach here, alas…

           “With a sample size of two… ” LMAO!
           That can be done, if the journal editor decides that the paper is an interesting “case report”! As you know, I have concluded that str8 men like myself know little about the penis, with or without foreskin. Women with contemporary mores can learn vastly more during the 10 years before they marry. The only evidence that I have bearing on my “typicality” is what my better says, when comparing me with her 20+ lovers during the 15 years before she met me. Basing myself on her say-so, I am not a bad data point.
           My better half believes that men absorb estrogen from the women they have sex with, and that this estrogen is beneficial to health and psychological well-being.

           An implication of your theories is that the fixation on oral sex detracts from well-being. This could explain why religious conservatives, who frown on marital couples deviating from vaginal intercourse, seem to have happier marriages. If there are Happy Chemicals in semen, the place most suited to absorb them into the blood stream is the place Mother Nature intended, namely the vaginal wall.

           My wife and I met fairly late in life. But we had both reached the same conclusion: Mother Nature is a very skilled engineer. She takes an intense interest in reproduction. The fine details of the genitalia probably exist to further her purpose. This includes not only the sensitivity and motion of the healthy foreskin, but also the exchange of biochemicals via mucus membranes. It is too bad that introducing you to my spouse would be a very delicate matter.
         • hsextant says:

           January 10, 2013 at 6:20 pm

           Roger,

           I want to reply to your post in detail but will be tied up (not that way) for the evening. I would like to ask if don’t mind sharing, what is you occupation? You seem very adept at interpreting research. If I have asked you that before forgive me, I have a memory that has been blasted to hell and back by MS. My self I am a retired test engineer, but a sexuality hobbyist. No not with the red rooms of pain and chest full of whips and so forth, just extremely interested in vanilla heterosexuality and its role in long term loving relations.

           Is it not a shame we have been reduced to a two inch column width? Although we should thank Lilly for providing us a nice little chat room.
         • Lilli Cannon says:

           January 11, 2013 at 8:14 am

           I am glad you two are having fun getting acquainted. I am sorry for the column width – it’s because you have replied to each other so many times, and I cannot fix that (I don’t think.)
         • hsextant says:

           January 11, 2013 at 9:08 am

           Thank you Lilly. I realize the column width is because we picked up on a reply to a reply to a reply…. It is just shame that your long winded commenters are inserting several miles of 2 inch text to your post. Thanks for tolerating our comments. Unfortunately I am about to add another half mile this morning.
         • hsextant says:

           January 11, 2013 at 1:07 pm

           Roger
           In reply to your reply.
           The deal with the secular Jews is that it is an ethnic marker. People can be very secular but they still identify with their religion even if they think its hogwash. I am gutless when it comes to religious stuff and pretty much limit my commentary to non-religious–low hanging fruit.

           Well Ms. Kimmel should be thanked for her efforts. With my MS I had an occupational therapist evaluate my fingers (and only fingers) probably in a similar fashion. It takes fine motor control, each stroke has to be identical to get uniform results. Any how excellent point on the PE, ED, and structural damage. I hadn’t thought of that. I am pretty sure that I have PE. We worked around it. Another data point to consider and it would be difficult to quantify, is trauma endurance for both partners. In the days of yore, when my wife and I would spend all day in bed, we both got sore. That didn’t happen on more modest sessions only the longer. My guess is that everyone would eventually get sore, but intact couples might go for a lot longer. Lot of variables there. But I still think that a trend could be compiled.

           Regarding the geographical demographics, I will concur with your statement. I read that it was highest in NE and a pockets in mid West and lower in the west. I could not tell you where or when I read that or what era they were referring to.

           “…contact with semen reduced depression in women.”
           If that is indeed a hard fact, the evolutionary basis is obvious, no? ”

           Absolutely. I think Gallup’s (BTW not the survey people) is fairly well regarded, with the usual complaints…only used college students, small sample size, and the usual complaints that it is a tool of the patriarchy…and so forth. Like all research into sexuality, the money is limited, and if it does not lead to fatalities there seems to be limited interest.
           What pisses me off to no end is how much we have to distrust research any more. You can’t read of a single piece of research that doesn’t have flaws. Everyone finds research to support their theories, and those against find flaws. To be honest, I sympathize with parents trying to do what is right for their sons. You can find research to support any notion and find someone else to point out the flaws. We as society spend a ton of money and then find ourselves back to good old common sense, because you can’t trust research.

           Myself I think there is a strong correlation between happiness in the sack and long term marriage, and I think it operates on a rather primitive level in our minds. I would probably have a hell of time proving it with the available research.

           “And how else to explain the enormous number of contemporary women who have been filmed with semen on their faces and bodies?”

           For the benefit of some of the younger or just obtuse readers brought up on a diet of pornography, never assume that a woman wants to wear your semen. Porn cum shots are for male viewing pleasure and the verification that the action is real–not female pleasure. My own understanding from what I have read, women vary in their response to external ejaculation, some find it exciting on certain areas of their bodies. Facials are almost universally despised because it is considered degrading. Also semen can be irritating to the eyes and any loose semen is a STD concern in non-monogamous relationships. Best to allow the woman to do the aiming and do NOT have expectations for what she should find hot. I will avoid getting into a rant, but sex is an act of love not degradation. Porn is not a sex ed. Anyhow by contact I meant vaginal. However, for those considering pregnancy, a woman’s prolonged oral or vaginal contact and swallowing semen for a period prior to conception and during pregnancy is thought to be a protection against pre-eclampsia. Yes Really!

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia
           Read the section: Induction of paternal tolerance.

           “Well, my better half thinks very highly of Cowpers fluid!”

           I believe your wife has an appreciation for the finer things in life…which quite often are free! It is magical stuff and should never be wasted. I think of it as super glue. Apply it to a nipple or clitoris (either manually or with the convenient applicator) and rub it in…the oxytocin flow will bond her to you immediately. Here is a serendipitous discovery I made. I wasn’t experimenting just playing. One time I was attempting to digitally penetrate my wife in foreplay and she was dry. I had a droplet of Cowper’s handy. Using my finger, I applied it to the internal wall of her vagina. Instant response, she got completely wet rapidly. I have tried this several times since and it always works.
           Now for my theory. The stated purpose of Cowper’s is to make the male urethra alkaline and some vague aid in lubrication for penetration. From my results (sample size one couple) I believe the purpose of Cowper’s is to act as a chemical signal to the vagina to lubricate. Now here is where confusion entered my thinking. Why have a chemical signal that is going to get wiped of externally? But I am circumcised. Would not the foreskin help to retain the Cowper’s until it was forced back by the vaginal wall on the initial penetration preserving the Cowper’s for internal contact? You know this is a lot like engineering! So there is another argument against circumcision although I am probably stretching it. With my huge sample size, we only know that my wife responds to vaginal contact with my Cowper’s.
           Roger can I interest you in a experiment? You and your wife could double my data base. She has to be dry, and you have to get in on an internal wall, so care has to be taken not to lose it externally.

           “This would explain the endemic reluctance to use condoms. Condoms + no female orgasm = angry, resentful woman.”
           My wife used the pill but routinely had to go off it and then we used condoms. So my whole theory is based on, my wife and my reaction to condoms. Why do we dislike them so? For us it wasn’t none of the usual complaints, other than the required rapid withdrawal. We both actually enjoyed the installation. She did it and it was very erotic. She had orgasms, because I took her to the edge orally. Yet we despised condoms far worse than any of the complaints would justify. The sensitivity is not that bad. Actually we had a lot of fun with condoms, but we still despised them. And I believe in my heart it was because we both felt a lack of intimacy, yes we had sex but it was empty. It was an entirely different experience…like we were screwing rather than making love and we both felt it rather intensely.
           I suppose there is an argument, is our feeling generated by a lack of chemical transfer directly affecting our pleasure centers, or is it simply psychological. Are we putting far to much weight on a mere condom. I think it is both quite actually.

           “A major reason why condoms persist is that quite a few women do not tolerate any other method of contraception.”
           I would think, don’t know for sure, that a diaphragm or cervical cap would be effective contraception but avoid the lack of wet sex contact that I think is essential to a loving relationship. Although some people don’t tolerant spermicidal compounds. Hormonal birth control and IUDs have their problems. I have read that hormonal BC can actually modify a woman’s tastes in men. Some women are finding that the guy she dated and married while on the pill no longer appeals to her when she goes off.

           “You know that I agree with George Wald’s hypothesis that the foreskin is a feminine detail placed in the most masculine place? Functionally (but not embryologically) it is the male labia. If your theory proves correct, that will powerfully validate Wald’s hypothesis.”
           I have to research George Wald, never heard of him.

           “My better half and I have sex in midday, when our children are out of the house. I revere afterplay, altho’ do not practice what I preach here, alas…”
           The song Afternoon Delight was no accident. Best time to make love is the day especially when the rugs rats are otherwise occupied. I used to take vacation days devoted to that purpose. After play and post coital plugged in time is one of those free things I mentioned. Few experiences in the world match post coital cuddling.

           “Basing myself on her say-so, I am not a bad data point.”
           It is good to be appreciated! My wife only had one guy, and he treated her like shit. Never inquired about his status, but it wouldn’t matter. A barbarian is a lout regardless of circumcision status.

           “My better half believes that men absorb estrogen from the women they have sex with, and that this estrogen is beneficial to health and psychological well-being.”

           I believe she is correct. I also believe that the estrogen tends to help men not stray. Semen has both testosterone and estrogen, and women absorb it. With a testosterone boost sex engenders more sex.

           “An implication of your theories is that the fixation on oral sex detracts from well-being. This could explain why religious conservatives, who frown on marital couples deviating from vaginal intercourse, seem to have happier marriages. If there are Happy Chemicals in semen, the place most suited to absorb them into the blood stream is the place Mother Nature intended, namely the vaginal wall.”

           I agree totally, but I think the opposite may be true for cunnilingus. From my own experience, I enjoy my wife’s orgasms during oral sex far more than my own. We both go off to Oz during one of her orgasms. I pretty much remain in Kansas during my orgasms. I think my brain is getting a rush of happy chemistry through oral absorption and probably odors and pheromones. Because I have been circumcised, I may not have a really good transfer during coitus.

           “My wife and I met fairly late in life. But we had both reached the same conclusion: Mother Nature is a very skilled engineer. She takes an intense interest in reproduction. The fine details of the genitalia probably exist to further her purpose. This includes not only the sensitivity and motion of the healthy foreskin, but also the exchange of biochemicals via mucus membranes. It is too bad that introducing you to my spouse would be a very delicate matter.”

           Human reproduction is an odd thing. I thoroughly believe that bonding is the prime purpose of human sex, and reproduction although the ultimate goal is actually on a back burner. Its good to have a man around to help raise the rug rats, and human sex seems to account for that. I have read that conception takes place on the average of 1 in 100. That is pretty inefficient in the animal world. We are designed to love each other first and then have a baby. It is one of the reasons I think condoms are terrible for monogamous couples in love.

           Your wife sound like a wonderful, loving, and intelligent woman. Take good care of her Roger. Good spouses are a gift!
   • mike says:

     September 7, 2012 at 6:56 pm

     I would like to point out that the experience and result of someone circumcised as an adult and someone genitally mutilated as an infant are completely different. The infant penis is not yet developed and the foreskin is still adhered to the glans. The penis does not fully develop until puberty, the foreskin does not begin to retract for several years after birth and takes several years sometimes to completely retract. This progress is very variable from one individual to the next. It seems impossible to me to argue that the development of the penis is not affected by the absence of the foreskin from birth. Another factor is that the infant penis is so small that perceiving just how much of the foreskin is being cut off is impossible. Alternatively, as an adult the penis is fully developed and the foreskin is completely retractable and the whole organ is considerably larger and therefore much easier to work with making it much more possible to determine just how much might be reasonably removed without too much deleterious effect. As for your particular experience, you mention that you had 15 years of normal sexual intercourse, you learned what sex is supposed to be like and your brain no doubt is able to fill in for much of the lost sensation. The brain and body’s ability to fill in missing information once the body has been damaged is well documented. You learned what the proper response should be and so still experience it regardless of the fact that you are no longer actually sensing it. I believe it was Beethoven who continued to compose great music even after he went deaf, no? He could still hear the music in his mind even though his ears weren’t actually relaying the sound to his brain.

     Reply
     • roger desmoulins says:

       September 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm

       Mike, your comment is perhaps the finest foreskin-friendly comment I have read in my 15 years on the internet. You write very very well, and are at ease speaking of medicine and the human body.

       You explain extremely well why all talk claiming that circumcision is most easily done at birth is arrant nonsense. When I was a young man, doing it at birth was rationalised in two ways: (1) babies do not experience pain like you and I do, and (2) the Jews have been doing it on the 8th day for 3-4000 years. If doing it at birth was a bad thing, “we’d know it by now.” It was only this century that an Israeli medical journal published an article about the high rate of UTIs in the weeks subsequent to a brit milah, UTI stemming from the fact that the wounded penis is wrapped up in a diaper. This problem had to have been much worse 100 or more years ago, when mohels did not know the need to sterilise their instruments.

       Your remarks about Beethoven and his growing deaf in middle age are very very apt. It is literally true that at the world premiere of his 9th Symphony, he could not hear a note.

       Reply
       • Lilli Cannon says:

         September 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm

         Agreed. I thought the Beethoven analogy was very good.

         However, I think we skate on thin ice when we argue with men about their own experience. Those who were circumcised as adults and are happy with the result are only benefitting from exercising their rights over their own bodies. Many other men are not happy with their circumcisions, and since we cannot predict who will be happy or unhappy, we have no right to force it on children.

         Reply
         • roger desmoulins says:

           September 9, 2012 at 12:17 am

           Rest assured that we agree.
8. Clint Andrew Cloete says:

   June 28, 2012 at 9:38 pm

   I was circumcised as a baby and am now 22 years old. I find that my penis would be bigger if I had not been cut, I cannot believe my parents were so stupid to cut a piece off my penis. I was not even cut for any particular reason, but simply to “fit in”. Circumcision ruins your sex life and affects you forever

   Reply
   • roger desmoulins says:

     June 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm

     Don’t be too hard on your parents.

     Last century, almost nobody writing about sex understood the value of what circumcision cuts off. Until women began blogging their sex lives on the internet, nobody guessed that intact men could be more fun for women. Circumcision was first sold to urban upper middle class parents. Very quickly, having a bald penis was seen as part of “dressing for success.” The natural penis was seen as a body sign that a man was an immigrant, or the son thereof, or was born at home on a farm. A pointed dick was seen as a badge of social inferiority. Parents feared that natural boys would be bullied and humiliated in locker rooms and summer camps. That they would be rejected as dates.

     Last century, mothers often did not like to talk to their sons about genital hygiene. That was simply too gross. Circumcision was seen as eliminating any need for parents to talk to a son about keeping his dick clean. Any need to teach a son to include in his bathing rituals an act that could lead him to discover masturbatory pleasure, deemed hopelessly immoral.

     Before the internet, it was hard to find a photographic image of a natural penis, except in gay porn. Before 1990 or so, the models in Playgirl were seldom intact. The internet changed all that. Our time is the first where every young American woman can gaze on penises in the privacy of her college dorm room. And American women may be growing more tolerant of foreskin just as they have become more accepting of their own bodies.

     Reply
9. Aaron Ashcraft says:

   August 30, 2012 at 11:47 am

   Sorry to say, I find this entire issue to be entirely ridiculous.

   Circumcision provides many benefits, to wit:
   1. Circumcised men are better lovers. Because their is a slightly reduced amount of sensitivity in the penis, they are able to have intercourse longer and are able, therefore, to be better lovers.
   2. Circumcised men are far less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation.
   3. Circumcised men are more healthy: they are far less likely to carry the HP virus, since this virus thrives in the damp area under the foreskin. This is NOT a casual issue: HPV infections are precursors to vaginal cancer in women. My best friend lost his mother at age 12 to cancer of the uterus; his dad was NOT circumcised. BTW, if you don’t believe me, check out World Health Organization statistics. In Israel/Muslim countries where almost every man is circumcised, HPV infections among women is almost unknown. In countries (e.g., Japan) where almost nobody is circumcised, HPV infections among women is VERY HIGH.

   I was circumcised as an adult because of continuing infections under the foreskin. I became weary from treating the infection and was circumcised at my doctor’s suggestion. Guess what? No more infections, and I must tell you, that because it takes longer for me to come to orgasm, I have far better, more exciting and better ejaculations than I did when I was uncut. Further, my lover likes it better because it takes me longer to ejaculate than it did before! She has more frequent orgasms than before, because it takes me longer to have an orgasm.

   This entire issue is ridiculous. If you want to be a better lover, if you want to avoid HPV infections, get circumcised, NOW.

   Reply
   • concerned cynic says:

     August 31, 2012 at 1:43 am

     You were circumcised as an adult, by your choice. That is not controversial. But do not assume that other share your preference.

     1. Circumcised men are better lovers.
     ME. With how many American and Canadian women have your discussed this? I can make my spouse climax 3-4x before I come, and I am intact.
     2. Circumcised men are far less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation.
     ME. Research please. In my wife’s experience the contrary is true.
     3. Circumcised men are more healthy: they are far less likely to carry the HPV virus, since this virus thrives in the damp area under the foreskin.
     ME. Citations please. Do you know what the rate of cervical cancer is in Japan, Australia, Canada, USA, Scandinavia, rest of Europe??

     Reply
     • Aaron Ashcraft says:

       September 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm

       1. I don’t sleep around, but my wife has far more frequent orgasms now than she did before I was circumcised.

       2. You repeatedly stated that removal of the foreskin reduces sensitivity of the penis. It follows, therefore, that circumcised men would be less likely to suffer from premature ejaculations.

       3. Citations on HP Virus infections by country are quickly available on the World Health Organization website. WHO is, I believe, a fairly reliable information source. .

       Reply
       • concerned cynic says:

         September 1, 2012 at 8:08 pm

         1. Our experiences do not agree. I have discussed this point with a number of women via the internet, including with women who were married to one kind, got divorced, and then married a man of the other kind. One woman was first married to an intact man, and is now involved with a cut one. She revealed to me that intercourse with #1 was definitely better. Another first married a cut man, with whom sex never really worked. She then remarried an intact man, with whom passion works well. A Jewish woman intactivist has told me that her intactivism is partly grounded in a 3 month fling with a Latino while she was in college. Another Jewish woman commented that she is proudly and observantly Jewish, but she will not have sex with a circumcised man. Yet another woman has told me that her college sex life was a nightmare. It chaffed, burned, and she was nowhere close to an orgasm. Then near the end of her college days, she agreed to bed a Latino and the result was lovely, complete with powerful orgasms. I have read women say that when they were playing the field in their late teens and early 20s, they felt like the sex was marking time. They had chronic chaffing and Monday Blues. Then they met an intact man with whom sex was a powerfully bonding experience. He was the keeper! No more playing the field.

         2. I agree with the first sentence. I emphatically deny that your second sentence follows from the first, even though I have read many American men jump to your conclusion. The penis-vagina system is more subtle that you allow, in ways that are poorly understood, in part because Master & Johnson were obtuse to the role of the mobile foreskin in vaginal intercourse, and to the great sensitivity of that which circumcision ablates. Intact men may come faster (we have no reliable data on this), but who cares if the partners of such men come faster because the intact penis is more thrilling? (Quite a few American women revealed this about themselves via the internet.)

         3. Links, please. The WHO does no data collection. It is mainly a central repository for data collected by each country’s ministry of health. I do not trust the HPV data from countries whose GDP per capita is less than US$20K/year. At any rate, where circumcision is involved, I no longer fully trust the WHO, who have abdicated to the Harvard-Johns Hopkins-Illinois cabal.

         Reply
       • Lilli Cannon says:

         September 2, 2012 at 10:07 am

         In response to your #2:

         The nerves in the foreskin do not just provide more of the same sensation found in the head of the penis. They have a different type of nerve altogether that is not found in the head of the penis, but which is found in the lips, fingertips and palms. During sex, the foreskin rolls over the corona, alternately covering and exposing the nerves that mediate the ejaculatory response. Because each circumcision removes a different amount of tissue (“high and tight” vs. “low and loose” circumcision styles) and every man is different, it is not so easy to say that “being circumcised makes a man last longer.” In studying this, I have heard of many dysfunctional responses to circumcision. Some men become numb and lose their erection altogether, some men become numb and stay hard but numb, some men become oversensitive and come too quickly, some men lack enough sensation and have to thrust harder and longer to achieve enough sensation to ejaculate.

         At the same time, circumcision is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve your proposed benefits like reduced HPV infections: circumcision is unnecessary because sexual infections can be prevented by using condoms and circumcision is insufficient because being circumcised does not prevent infection with STDs. The relatively high rate of STDs in mostly-circumcised American men attests to that.

         Since it is not possible to predict the effect that circumcision will have on any individual man’s sexual response, and since the proposed benefits of circumcision can be had without surgery, it is unethical to circumcise infants. Again, I have no problem with you, an adult man, choosing to be circumcised. I would not make the same decision myself no matter how many infections I had, but at least you had the choice to make, and have only yourself to blame if you become unhappy with the results. All I want is for the men being born today to have the same choice. The fact that you are happy with your decision does not mean that it is ethical to amputate healthy, functional tissue from a minor, as he may not be happy with the result and may not have made the same choice for himself.

         Reply
         • purist says:

           October 11, 2012 at 6:38 am

           Lilli, that is a brilliant response and your informative, non-antagonistic approach is an inspiration.

           Did anyone else notice how the guy’s knee-jerk objections were a total non-sequitur to the blog piece.

           He opened with, “Sorry to say, I find this entire issue to be entirely ridiculous” yet it’s as if he didn’t even read the piece.
         • Lilli Cannon says:

           October 11, 2012 at 7:43 am

           Thank you very much, Purist. I suspect that he did read the piece, but it filtered through his experiences, and thus his response was very much on point, for him.
         • purist says:

           October 11, 2012 at 6:29 pm

           My spidey sense tells me “Aaron Ashcraft” is a fake.

           This: “Continuing infections under the foreskin,” his perfuntory, milk toast follow-ups, and the last line is especially suspicious:

           “If you want to be a better lover, if you want to avoid HPV infections, get circumcised, NOW”

           But, it’s whatever. I’ll try to be more like you and see the good in them : )
         • Lilli Cannon says:

           October 12, 2012 at 7:05 am

           Maybe. Maybe. I am almost always truthful and so believe the same of others, but that may be naive.
   • Lilli Cannon says:

     August 31, 2012 at 9:04 am

     Thank you for sharing your experience. As concerned cynic responded, your medical claims are easily rebutted. What is more interesting is that you, as an adult, were able to decide that you chose to be circumcised, and are happy with the result. Circumcising infants removes their ability to choose, and so very few men will have any problems with their foreskins that is is absurd to circumcise many to prevent potential infections in a few (which can almost always be treated without amputation.) I am glad you had the choice, and though I personally would not choose to amputate any of my genitals despite having had several infections, your choice is not at issue. Actually, intactivists like me are quite happy that you were able to make your own decisions as an adult. Proselytize to adults all you want; you only help our case that babies should not be routinely circumcised.

     Reply
     • concerned cynic says:

       August 31, 2012 at 4:33 pm

       All my life, I’ve heard women ruefully joke and complain about “bladder infections” “cystitis” etc etc. My wife used to keep cranberry juice in the fridge at all times! But who has ever heard of a woman desiring genital surgery in the belief that such surgery will reduce the incidence of these infections?

       My better half also believes that after a weekend of passionate youthful sex, women are more prone to bladder infections if he is cut. Bladder infections are also the reason why diaphragms did not work for her.

       Reply
       • Aaron Ashcraft says:

         September 1, 2012 at 6:16 pm

         “My better half” isn’t a reliable information source. You asked me for references on my assertions. Rather than relying on your wife’s hearsay, please provide references.

         Reply
         • roger desmoulins says:

           September 1, 2012 at 7:45 pm

           Bensley, G. and Boyle, G., “Effects of Male Circumcision on Female Arousal and Orgasm,” N Z Med J 116 (2003): 595-596.

           I do not lean hard on this study because of its small sample size, and because I hesitate to assert that conclusions that hold for New Zealand women (a down to earth sensible lot in touch with their bodies) also hold for USA women.

           You wish to alter the human body.. I propose to respect Mother Nature’s wishes. The burden of proof is on you to justify taking action on others. I do not not need academic evidence to justify doing nothing, which is the moral default.

           You yourself are guilty of using anecdotes from your personal experience and from your marriage to make a point. For many aspects of human sexuality, such evidence, and evidence gathered from 10-15 years of reading internet forums, is the best we can do, because of the gaping holes in American sexual research, and the nonexistence of non-American sexual research concerning many topics. The prudish silence of American medicine forces us to rely on anecdotal evidence as the best there is. Australian doctors, based on decades of clinical experience, have come to believe that about 1% of circumcised babies grow up to have damage adult penises. This is deemed sufficient to strongly discourage RIC in Australia and New Zealand, and I concur.

           If you are are a trained researcher and can get your hands on some grant money, I will gladly read what you write about your research, and trust you would do the same to may papers.
   • Sherwin says:

     September 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm

     You are assuming that loss of sensation is analogous to lasting longer.
     You are assuming that the sensation is responsible for ejaculation.

     If you want to reduce the attack surface for HPV, wear a condom.

     Reply
     • roger desmoulins says:

       September 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm

       Your third sentence is totally true.
       I amplify on your first two sentences by saying that we do not know the full story about the penis, how it interacts with the vagina, and how that interaction culminates in ejaculation. The subjects of Masters & Johnson were mostly circumcised, and they did not understand intact.
       It is a raw fact that Europe is simply not a premature ejaculation hell. Is not filled with married women seething with frustration because their hubbies mostly come to soon. There is much more to this story than duller penis => longer intercourse => more female climax => happier marriage.

       Reply
   • mike says:

     September 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm

     Here we have the age old trope of ‘this is my experience, it must be so for everybody else’. Hurray for you that as an adult you had the privilege of choosing for yourself to be circumcised. I wouldn’t even begin to conjecture as to why you in particular had such a problem with infections before you were circumcised, but literally hundreds of millions of men do not share your particular experience. There are in fact billions of men alive today with intact foreskins that have no complaints whatsoever and are not lining up to get circumcised. This reality in itself should put all arguments to rest, there simply is not a problem that needs to be remedied. Another reality about infant genital mutilation is that death is in fact a complication, although admittedly rare, it does occur and again this fact should put all arguments to rest. Whenever the risks outweigh the possible benefits to this extent the rational mind avoids the risk. Whenever I hear the pro cutting stance there is never any consideration given to the risks that are involved, they are many and range from the least, of unsightly scaring, to death, with misshapen penis, buried penis, removal of too much skin, considerable damage to and complete removal of the glans, and metal stenosis to name a few. Metal stenosis in fact almost only occurs with removal of the foreskin at birth. Ultimately this is a human rights issue.

     Reply
     • roger desmoulins says:

       September 7, 2012 at 8:25 pm

       Another superb post by Mike. He writes beautifully!

       A horrible ethical lapse of modern American medicine is its refusal to count the number of number of adult men, damaged urologically and sexually by their routine infant circumcisions. Also ominous is the silence of pediatric urologists. The closing sentences of Mike’s post make up a concise listing of some of the forms this damage can take.

       Reply
10. george b wroe says:

    November 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Within the above essays it is mentioned that HIV would be reduced thru circumcision.That is probably true but the procedure which would be most effective would be the proliferation of the 15 minute self HIV test provided by Orasure Technologies but will not be approved by the FDA for “who knows why”.
    Certainly if an amorous couple would both agree to this test on the spot (if it were available) unprotected sex would not take place and HIV probably would not be transferred. No one but no one will answer why such such a test is not allowed. I have written newspapers, WHO (organization), health departments, FDA, Clinton’s foundation, etc. but have received no reply. Oh yes! They all will encourage public health testing but The “amorous” couple will not get around to it, nor do they wish anyone else to know a positive result. So they rely on abstention and protection.

    Reply
11. roger desmoulins says:

    November 6, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    The experiences of men circumcised as adults do not shed light on the sexual damage that can result from infant circumcision. It is possible that the penis has to have been circumcised for a few decades before its sexual dulling becomes an evident drawback. This hypothesis would explain why most circumcised men do fine in their 20s and 30s (and have no trouble reproducing). ED and dull sex often don’t become problems until after the 40th birthday, a half century or so after the infant circumcision. If circumcision is delayed until the 20s, and is done only when the man gives informed consent to the procedure, the dulling of the penis from 40-50 years of exposure does not occur until a man is well and truly a senior citizen.

    What I say here is not relevant to circumcision and premature ejaculation. PE is a possible complication of circumcision that may not require decades to become apparent. My better half’s sexual experience has been far more varied than mine, and included long term relationships with both cut and intact men. She has revealed to me that years before she met me, she dated 3 men with catastrophic PE — they came in less than 30 seconds. All were cut. I have noticed that sarcasm about PE is a staple of raunchy Jewish humour (Madeline Kahn, Joan Rivers, Sarah Silverman perhaps, etc.) That American medicine has made no good faith effort to track down a possible correlation between circumcision status and PE is an abdication of scientific and moral responsibility. We are very far from “first do no harm.”

    Reply
12. hsextant says:

    November 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    I continue to be amazed at the arguments that circumcision reduces HIV, HPV, or other STDs. Exactly of what value is it? Take for instance the famous African studies that claim that circumcision “reduces HIV transmission by 60%” (which is widely refuted). For the sake of the argument, OK, let’s presume that there is a 60% reduction. So what? You can have unprotected sex 40% of the time? I don’t think so. What about the super bug gonorrhea? What about syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes? Circumcision is going to protect one from all these diseases?

    In my estimation making claims about circumcision offering any protection against STDs is dangerous. There are people in the world who hear those kind of arguments and it becomes a license for irresponsible behavior. If one is engaging in anything other than a monogamous relationship with absolute fidelity by both partners, one simply must use a condom…there is no ifs, ands or buts. Engaging in promiscuous behavior without a condom will sooner or later result in a person contracting a STD, circumcised or not, male or female.

    Reply
    • roger desmoulins says:

      November 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm

      hsextant, completely agreed!!

      Also, look up “Risk compensation” in Wikipedia. I trust you will immediately see the relevance to the circumcision and HIV controversy.

      Reply
      • hsextant says:

        November 9, 2012 at 2:40 am

        Roger,

        Thank you! You have provided a terminology for an effect that I have personally witnessed in process engineering–just didn’t know what it was called. The more goof proof and automated we made a facility, the more relaxed the operators became.

        I had to laugh when reading the article you suggested. I had almost wrote:

        “In my estimation making claims about circumcision offering any protection against STDs is dangerous, as though having air bags in my car now justifies me driving faster.”

        There was an interesting link in the article essentially stating that condom distribution programs in Africa did not work.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

        The biggest cause was that people did not use them all the time. Having a condom in your wallet does not prevent HIV transmission. Nor will wearing a condom protect one from other risky behaviors, for instance not using a dental dam during cunnilingus.

        The misconception that unprotected fellatio was relatively safe has led to the genesis of the superbug gonorrhea, that is a strain of gonorrhea that resists current antibiotics. It turns out the the throat is an ideal breeding laboratory for gonorrhea because the symptoms, if any, resemble a typical minor throat irritation that is ignored like most throat irritations and gonorrhea is very receptive to adapting loose fragments of DNA that exist in the throat from other minor infections into its genome. So again unprotected sexual contact has generated problems for human beings.

        So for the life of me I do not understand how anyone can justify using circumcision as a method of preventing STDs. If there is a reduction in HIV transfer, and I sincerely doubt that there is, of what value is it if it is not approaching 100%. Perhaps if it was absolutely the only thing that one could do, then there may be some justification at least to slow the rate down. The US HIV rate verses the European HIV rate would suggest that either circumcision does little or nothing to prevent HIV transfer, or that people in the US are far more promiscuous. The simple fact of the matter is that circumcision probably does very little to provide any protection against STDs, and circumcising may through risk compensation encourage reckless behavior. Safe responsible sexual behavior and monogamy are very effective.

        I think people need it beat into their heads, a condom every time, not most of the time, or its OK not to use one just this once. And monogamy is absolute monogamy. Sex is alway going to be a remarkable vector for disease. Its wet, its warm, it is very intimate, and its fun so we do it lot. If we persist in doing it with a variety of partners and use no protection circumcision is not going save us.

        Reply
        • roger desmoulins says:

          November 9, 2012 at 3:21 am

          “There are people in the world for whom those kind of arguments become a license for irresponsible behavior.”

          This is exactly what is going on in Africa as we write. A Kenyan told David Gisselquist “if I still have to use a condom, why this circumcision business?”

          A huge problem with the African clinical trials is that they were stopped after 12-18 months. Hence we will never know whether risk compensation applies here. Risk compensation in this context means circumcised men engaging in more unprotected sex, so that after 5-15 years, their rate of HIV positivity is at least as high as that of intact men. We also know nothing about whether the willingness to use condoms varies by circ status. It is possible that circed men are more resistant to condom use, in which case circumcision is totally counterproductive in the long run.

          The academic who discovered risk compensation, Sam Peltzman, did so when he discovered that the shift to lap bets and shoulder harnesses lowered in-car highway fatalities, but raised the number of pedestrians hit and killed by moving vehicles. Hence your invoking car airbags was apt.

          Reply
          • hsextant says:

            November 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

            My understanding also with the African trials was that there was not sufficient correction for the time out of sexual behavior while the circumcisions healed, and that the circumcised group received instruction on safe sex which the control group did not receive. I can’t vouch for the validity of those arguments but I have read them.

            Then you have the issue like you mentioned that the study was stopped early, purportedly for humanitarian reasons. Yet as you indicate, we will never know the long range results. My feeling is that IF, and that is a very big IF, circumcision does attenuate HIV transfer then simply by waiting a few years the circumcised group will still catch up to the control group. So in the end what have you achieved? Allowed reckless behavior to run a longer course and spread other STDs in the process. (Sort of the seat belts saved passengers but was deadly to the pedestrians effect.) Stopping that study early may have had exactly the opposite effect, it perpetuated a dangerous belief.

            One of the problems with a highly politicized arguments is the question, how good is the data. Both sides can argue that the other side’s data is flawed. While that may make for lively and entertaining debate, it does nothing for solving the problem of the debate. I am no expert in statistical analysis, ergo I have to rely on the conclusion of the experts. The African study has enough problems that I think we can safely rule it out. Yet it keeps on reappearing in pro-circ arguments. That is why I have taken the stance with the pro-circs, fine, I will give your 60%, so what? Frankly I don’t care if it is 20% or 80%, what difference does it make. Explain how that makes life any different. If one wishes to remain disease free, one must use a condom, regardless of what the percentage of reduction is. If sex was a one time deal perhaps an argument could be made in favor of circumcision, but it is not. So run with the 60% all you want but even those who play Russian Roulette only do so with one chamber loaded not two.

            Again thank you Roger for introducing me to the concept of risk compensation.
          • roger desmoulins says:

            November 10, 2012 at 4:34 am

            Here is a powerful attack on the credibility of the African clinical trials:
            http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

            Matt Dillahunty said on YouTube that condoms were handed out gratis to the circumcised treatments, but not to the intact controls. If that is true, the ACT are dead in the water.
          • roger desmoulins says:

            November 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm

            Here’s the prompt response to Boyle and Hill, in the same journal, by the har

            http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2012/09/14/journal-of-law-and-medicine-update-september-2012/

            I do not know if Boyle and Hill can or will reply to this comment on their work.

            3 of the 9 coauthors are well-known usual suspects: Morris, Bailey, and Morris’s mate Jake Waskett. Waskett polices all Wikipedia entries bearing on the penis, foreskin, and circumcision, and removes all content he does not like (I do not agree with intactivists who argue that the outcome is a badly biased Wikipedia). Waskett is a British man who had himself circumcised in his 20s, likes the outcome, and has advocated for circumcision ever since, including the “right” of parents to have their infant sons cut. He has coauthored several academic articles with Brian Morris. What is queer about this is that Waskett is an IT engineer with no qualifications in human biology or public health. Since when do medical school profs coauthor papers about the penis, a subject where one must be careful to maintain credibility, with a fellow who has an undergrad engineering degree? I have see threads where American women have argued heatedly with Waskett. He does not understand how young women think about sex and child rearing, because he is gay. One day, an American gay man who misses his foreskin will take Waskett to the proverbial cleaners. Best of all, it should be Alan Cumming!

            The vision of scientific enquiry Morris and Waskett practice and preach is a scarily authoritarian one. They simply do not understand that when studying a complex system like a human being, embedded in complex society, a lot of judgement calls have to be made. There necessarily are a lot of explicit and silent assumptions. (I was taught to call such assumptions, required to conduct any empirical study, “maintained hypotheses”.) Good science in such circumstances is very much a matter of art and judgement. And coming to grips with circumcision in the USA requires social science, not bench science, methods. Shweder sees this, albeit imperfectly. But positivist philistines like Morris, Waskett and the Johns Hopkins set, who pound the table on and on about “evidence based” this and that, do not.
          • hsextant says:

            November 10, 2012 at 10:57 am

            Roger,

            Thanks for sharing that report. It is rather scathing rebuttal to these poorly performed clinical trials. What is disconcerting about this is the degree that to which these trials are promoted as proof positive that circumcision is effective in reduction in HIV transfer. I knew of course that the 60% improvement was a manipulation of statistics, but this report removes all doubt about the unreliability of these studies. Jesse Bering in his tiff with Andrew Sullivan on Scientific American stated this:

            “This anti-HIV effect is dramatic; it is at least on the magnitude of a 60 percent reduction in this demographic. Most of this research was conducted with African populations, but not exclusively so, nor has every study been equally incontrovertible.”

            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2012/09/10/hey-andrew-sullivan-stop-calling-my-penis-mutilated/

            Bering and others are promoting a very shabby piece of research. I would like to think they do so innocently, but when you read the histrionics that Bering employs in his post, I think that Bering’s title (Hey Andrew Sullivan, Stop Calling My Penis Mutilated) tells the real story. Bering calls intactivists “science denialists” but when one reads the science for Bering’s 60%, it proves to be a compliment.

            Thanks again for sharing.
        • roger desmoulins says:

          January 11, 2013 at 2:40 pm

          I am in Facebook. Feel free to continue our dialog there.
          If you don’t do Facebook, Lilly has my Email address.

          Are you aware that there is a nontrivial international community devoted to stopping routine infant circumcision in the USA? And that that community is mostly female? And that opposing circumcision is ramping up the sexual sophistication of a lot of women? One of the toughest of these women lives in Pennsylvania.

          Reply
          • Lilli Cannon says:

            January 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm

            Thanks for the compliment, Roger. Changing the format of the comments requires more HTML than I know, so I will ask a friend.
          • hsextant says:

            January 11, 2013 at 4:33 pm

            Roger,
            Unfortunately I am a privacy freak. No FaceBook or g+ for me. I looked all over Lillys blog and see no way to send her a PM with my address. I set up a temporary account at gmail.

            Go to my blog:

            http://navfin.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-editor-in-blogger.html

            The email address is on the only comment on that post. When I hear from you I will delete the comment. I can’t delete comments here.

            Sorry to be such a PIA, but I am a privacy whack job.