circumcision removes thousands of nerves & makes the penis less sensative. Why would we want to circumcise?

Answer 1

Here is a study that shows that men contimplating circumcision should be warned of possible loss of sensitivity before they can give informed consent for surgery.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16037710&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Exerpts from the report:

Masood S, Patel HR, Himpson RC, Palmer JH, Mufti GR, Sheriff MK.

OBJECTIVES: Currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin or the effect circumcision has on penile sensitivity and overall sexual satisfaction. Our study assesses the effect of circumcision on sexually active men and the relative impact this may have on informed consent prior to surgery.

Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change. Overall satisfaction was 61%.

CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process. 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

One out of five men circumcised suffers loss of sensitivity and one out of three is not satisfied with the results, these are not very good odds. This damage is also likely when babies are circumcised but the problems will not be apparent for many years.

I would point out that while this study shows that adult men should be warned of the possibility of sensitivity loss before they can give "informed consent" to circumcision, there is no way that a newborn boy can give his informed consent to an elective procedure that has a greater than 1 in 5 chance of leaving him with an impaired sex-life.

His body. His choice.

Answer 2

It is true that circumcision gets rid of many sensitive nerves on the foreskin, and that smega is less when the foreskin is removed. However, there are a no. of studies which show that circumcision should not be resorted to as a matter of routine and only where there is a genuine problem with the foreskin should that procedure be advised.
I have read some literature on the subject and it would be useful if one could read the articles in the site www.restoringmen.net on this subject. Personally, I feel that those who claim circumcision enhances sexual pleasure havent experienced the real pleasure of sex with the foreskin intact.
I suggest the asker of this question refer to the webpage cited and draw his conclusion objectively for the case against or for circumcision.

Answer 3

In healthy boys/men there is no reason to be circumcised and in the UK the incidence of children being circumcised has reduced dramatically in the last thirty or so years.
Boys foreskins are not retractable sometimes until they are 10 years old. Many parents and health workers get a little worried by this there is no need as it is normal.
If after the age of 10 the foreskin is still unretractable the current advice is to leave it as long as it causes no problems. But if there are problems like obstruction of urine, ballooning when passing urine, infection or discharge then the only option is a circumcision.
In these circumstances this is a valid and right thing to do, but by this time the person is probably able to make up his own mind and make the decision himself.
This is not so where a boy is considered to be unable to give consent - a difficult area in itself.
Of course having said all of this there are religions reasons for circumcisions but in my book these are just hangovers from an ancient age and no longer have any validity.

Answer 4

Isn't it amazing how quickly people bring up the Hygiene issue and the Smegma issue whenever you even mention an uncircumcised man. If that weren't bad enough.....they bring up cervical cancer in the same conversation. I'm really awestruck by the amount of misinformation, and exaggeration of some people who really have no idea......they're just passing along information they heard in passing from some other misinformed person. But.....unlike the typical pro-circumcision or pro-uncircumcision militants, I don't push either issue. I do believe that the decision of circumcision is a personal one, and everybody has a right to choose according to their preference. I believe in the right to choose......and I respect when a person is true to their beliefs. What I wish is that people would stop using these unfounded and/or misinterpreted medical studies as an excuse to convince others of what they SHOULD or should not do. Let's be honest here......if every uncircumcised man had the potential of spreading diseases and cancer.....95% of the female population in England and the rest of Europe would be dead or dying. As you know......that doesn't seem to be the case.
the other issue used is the AIDS issue, that an uncircumcised man can contract AIDS moreso than a circumcised man. Come on now, does this even make any logical sense at all? Having unprotected sex with an HIV positive person is the only way to contract the HIV virus that may lead to AIDS.....Circumcision or the lack thereof has no bearing on this whatsoever!!! HAHAHA!!
Anyway.......I'm still giggling on that one! Anyway, like I mentioned before I don't preach one thing or another. I just simply wish that people would be honest about it, and use real substatiated evidence when making certain claims. The truth is that the actual reason most people push the circumcision issue is simply because of "Aesthetics". The fact that people think it looks cute.....and they would prefer everyone to look the same.
That's all and good......but what happened to freedom of choice?
What happened to having the right to be natural, original....unique even? Just because you LIKE it a certain way does not mean that everybody in the world has to like it too. Let people make up their own minds on real facts, and realistic issues.
People would live happier lives if they weren't pestered when having to make choices in their lives about everything.....particularly things that are intimate, and private!
Best of Luck!

Answer 5

Men are circumcised because most men can't figure out how to keep their penis clean.

Also, most women think that a circumcised penis is more attractive and desireable to look at and handle.

Answer 6

Circumcision removes excess skin not nerves. Circumcision will prevent infection, torn skin from having a too tight foreskin. Plus your penis won't look so ugly when not erect.

Answer 7

About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:

NO medical or physiological study has ever shown that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. It is completely FALSE that circumcision reduces penis sensitivity. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm



CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner, healthier and several prestigious research institutions have proved that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV, syphilis or herpes.

Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infections. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.

Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the recent studies by the US National Institutes of Health, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates circumcision again.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

About STD's:

As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have proved that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. It has been confirmed that circumcised men are up to 70% less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/HealthNews/2006121404Circumcision

As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

Circumcision is an easy and nowadays *painless* procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.

Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African, Asian and Latin American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

Finally, this site has a lot of useful and *unbiased* information. Make sure you have a good look: http://www.circinfo.net

Answer 8

For some this is a religious requirement. For a very few, this is required to fix a medical problem. Otherwise, there is no need to do it.

As usual, some dumb woman says there's no difference in sensation, and that having a foreskin causes smegma - how would she know? Fortunately, the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics both disagree with her.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

What you say is completely incorrect and has undoubtedly come from an anti-circ web page! I chose to be circumcised as an adult, some 20 years ago and it was one of the best things that I have ever done. Circumcision gave me better hygiene, comfort, appearance, self-esteem and FAR FAR better sexual sensation for both me and my wife during intercourse. There are no disadvantages to being circumcised - believe me I know from personal experience. All ,ales should be circumcised from the start!