Does Circumcision Lead to Less Enjoyable Sex?

[bcohen7719]

Is that what he is saying?

 

[video=youtube;DD2yW7AaZFw]

[Jaker27]

Just like the doc says when you remove the foreskin you remove 50% of the sensory nerves in the penis so I would think it most definetly would feel better if they just left it alone.

 

Makes me wonder if it contributes to later erectile disfunction too.

[bobchitown]

I was deprived of mine at birth. But I can state for fact that having sex with someone still fully equipped is over the moon.

[Diverdan]

This is one issue that will never be solved by science. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for. I know some guys who are circumcised who have incredible sensations, and others who are not, have very limited sensations. It is often the case of "the pasture is greener on the other side of the fence"... or in this case, if I am cut, I wish I weren't and if I wasn't, I wish I was... IMHO, of course!!!

[seeker630]

This is one issue that will never be solved by science. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for. I know some guys who are circumcised who have incredible sensations, and others who are not, have very limited sensations. It is often the case of "the pasture is greener on the other side of the fence"... or in this case, if I am cut, I wish I weren't and if I wasn't, I wish I was... IMHO, of course!!!

 

My thoughts too.

[Guest]

Just like the doc says when you remove the foreskin you remove 50% of the sensory nerves in the penis so I would think it most definetly would feel better if they just left it alone.

 

Makes me wonder if it contributes to later erectile disfunction too.

 

Well, much as lawyers might like to think otherwise, truth and science don't come from "you'd think." There may be a lot of nerves in the foreskin, but I think most men, circumcised or not, would describe the main pleasure they get during sex as coming from the glans (head) of the penis, not from the foreskin or penile shaft. Circumcision doesn't affect the innervation of the glans. One cannot settle the argument as to whether cut or uncut men have more pleasure during sex by making "logical" arguments from anatomical observations (actually more sophistry than logic). Of course, anyone who has ever seen an uncircumcised penis knows that the statement that "50% of the skin of the penis is in the foreskin" is simply a lie. As is the statement that it's painful for cut men to have erections because there isn't enough skin. There is no perfect way to study this (how does one measure pleasure?), but the best answer one could get would be to take a group of sexually experienced uncut men who obtain circumcisions as adults, and ask them to compare the sexual experience before and after. The reality happens to be that men who become circumcised as adults do not notice a decrease in sexual pleasure. Rhetoric, pseudoscience, and "scientists" with agendas don't change that fact.

Although less optimal, one could also compare rates of erectile dysfunction between cut and uncut men (less optimal because ED has much more to do with vascular status and innervation of the erectile tissue than with innervation of the skin). There is no evidence that cut men have a higher rate of ED than uncut men. Large studies have shown no difference between either ED or sexual satisfaction between cut and uncut men:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361453

 

It's quite curious that opponents of circumcision need to resort to lies and fake science to try to make their point.

[Diverdan]

Well put, Unicorn... thanks...

[Jaker27]

Well, much as lawyers might like to think otherwise, truth and science don't come from "you'd think." There may be a lot of nerves in the foreskin, but I think most men, circumcised or not, would describe the main pleasure they get during sex as coming from the glans (head) of the penis, not from the foreskin or penile shaft. Circumcision doesn't affect the innervation of the glans. One cannot settle the argument as to whether cut or uncut men have more pleasure during sex by making "logical" arguments from anatomical observations (actually more sophistry than logic). Of course, anyone who has ever seen an uncircumcised penis knows that the statement that "50% of the skin of the penis is in the foreskin" is simply a lie. As is the statement that it's painful for cut men to have erections because there isn't enough skin. There is no perfect way to study this (how does one measure pleasure?), but the best answer one could get would be to take a group of sexually experienced uncut men who obtain circumcisions as adults, and ask them to compare the sexual experience before and after. The reality happens to be that men who become circumcised as adults do not notice a decrease in sexual pleasure. Rhetoric, pseudoscience, and "scientists" with agendas don't change that fact.

Although less optimal, one could also compare rates of erectile dysfunction between cut and uncut men (less optimal because ED has much more to do with vascular status and innervation of the erectile tissue than with innervation of the skin). There is no evidence that cut men have a higher rate of ED than uncut men. Large studies have shown no difference between either ED or sexual satisfaction between cut and uncut men:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361453

 

It's quite curious that opponents of circumcision need to resort to lies and fake science to try to make their point.

Actually they're are men that have had their foreskins restored by stretching exercises. They say the difference is night and day in terms of pleasure.

 

I agree there's allot of BS I hear when it comes to this. However, removing it has little to do with health and/or welfare for the kid other than religious or traditional reasons and that's not a good reason.

[Jaker27]

There are guys that restore their foreskins through stretching and surgery that say the pleasure difference is night and day.

 

It's my guess that if they at least waited till they were of age 99% of men would never do it.

[+ Gar1eth]

Actually they're are men that have had their foreskins restored by stretching exercises. They say the difference is night and day in terms of pleasure.

 

I agree there's allot of BS I hear when it comes to this. However, removing it has little to do with health and/or welfare for the kid other than religious or traditional reasons and that's not a good reason.

 

If the more pleasurable sex was due to the nerves in the foreskin, stretching other skin once the original foreskin is removed shouldn't do anything regarding the way things feel. Those original nerve ending are gone for good.

 

I actually prefer to be with circumcised guys. But it's not an absolute. I've never refused having sex with an uncut guy or escort :o

 

While this won't sway anyone either way- there are some health benefits to being circumcised. And in Africa for straight guys there is also a decreased risk for being infected with HIV.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/otherconditions.html

 

Gman

[Guest]

Actually they're are men that have had their foreskins restored by stretching exercises. They say the difference is night and day in terms of pleasure.

 

I agree there's allot of BS I hear when it comes to this. However, removing it has little to do with health and/or welfare for the kid other than religious or traditional reasons and that's not a good reason.

 

Well, I would think that men who go through all of that trouble stretching their penis skin do not constitute an unbiased sample. I would agree that performing circumcisions only for reasons of tradition or religion wouldn't strike me as very good reasons. However, there are a number of very well-documented health benefits to circumcision, other than simply decreased risks of HIV and STDs. These include lower risk of kidney and bladder infections in infants, as well as lowering risks of balanitis, penis cancer, and phimosis in older children and adults. Circumcision benefits are greatest and risks lowest in newborns. This does not mean that all baby boys should be circumcised. There are billions of uncut men on this planet, and 99/100 have no problems (and most of the problems are non life-threatening). However, parents deserve truthful statements about the consequences of circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics used to discourage circumcision before some of the benefits of circumcision were brought out by scientific studies. Now they state that there are definite medical benefits of which parents should be aware, and that its an individual decision up to the parents. It's very tiresome to hear bullshit arguments by the anti-circumcision fanatics which come from pseudo-science. This refers to the AAP's latest statement on the subject:

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

[JT Brooklyn]

This is one issue that will never be solved by science. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for. I know some guys who are circumcised who have incredible sensations, and others who are not, have very limited sensations. It is often the case of "the pasture is greener on the other side of the fence"... or in this case, if I am cut, I wish I weren't and if I wasn't, I wish I was... IMHO, of course!!!

 

Indubidably! Totally Agree