Circumcision

Does anyone know whether circumcision actually decreases penile sensitivity? i.e., is an uncircumcised penis more sexually sensitive than a circumcised one? Or, am I going to have to look this up myself?

This is not from a public health organization buy is quite interesting. http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
The claim that circumcision decreases penile sensitivity is probably the only scientifically valid one on that list. The rest sound like something advocated by: 1) Feminists. 2)Hippy,new age "men's groups". Is that right? I never heard that circumcision decreases penile sensitivity. If this is true, then mass circumcision of males has pretty enormous, social implications, overall, I would think, due to the possible impact on adolescent male development.Some research has been done on it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 It seems plausible, because the foreskin has many nerve endings.
.Some research has been done on it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 It seems plausible, because the foreskin has many nerve endings.
This is a very difficult thing to accurately assess. Lots of things (I would even venture to say most) which seem plausible in medicine turn out not to be true when we'll designed studies are done. The study sited above lends some evidence to the claim but must be viewed with a bit of skepticism. It's not a before and after study so when you ask men if they have less sensitivity what are you really asking them? They have no basis for comparison since they have only ever had sex in one condition, circumcised or uncircumcised. Do I feel like circumcision made disminished my sensitivity ? I don't know. The last time I got naked with a woman in an uncircumcised state I was screaming, crying, spitting up and pooping in my diaper (and no, I don't do that anymore). Since its not a randomized study either there may be many cultural confounders playing a role here especially when you are talking about something so completely subjective as sexual pleasure.

Here’s an exchange I had with a leading Humanist on another group.
On Feb 7, 2015, at 10: ________wrote:
The question we debated was the “equating" of FGM and male circumcision.
As far as I’m concerned it’s exactly the same issue. A surgical procedure done on a defenseless child for no reasons other than religious and “cultural” ones. It doesn’t matter that male circumcision does not obliterate sexual feeling (it has been shown to lessen it, though that is not its intention) it is done for different and quite suspect reasons. There are too many parallels for it to be so cavalierly overlooked. IMO. The main point is that male circumcision is a religious practice that has found its way into the mainstream. The intention doesn’t matter nearly as much as the fact of an unnecessary surgical procedure being forced on children that has life-long consequences–whether you want to ignore those consequences or not.
Humanists should not be advancing harmful (and religiously inspired) religious practices, whether it’s imposed on defenseless boys or girls, no matter what the intention or rationale is. Humanists will go to court and spend millions of dollars over “under God” in the Pledge of Allegience and against public displays of religious symbols, yet they cavalierly accept a surgical procedure on babies that springs from religion. Why the contradiction? Just because it’s become part of our culture? Well, Christians claim that “under God” and public displays of their religion are part of American culture–as well as many other things Humanists are against, such as prayers in schools and keeping marriage strictly between a man and a woman.
Why does circumcision, which is not only philosophically damaging, but physically damaging for boys and men, get a pass from Humanists who are so quick to attack every other public religious practice? What is behind this dichotomy?
You, yourself, who have been at the forefront of ending public religious practices outside of religious venues, even relatively minor ones, give this particular, physically rather than strictly philosophically or politically damaging one, a pass. Why? What’s going on with you and other Humanists who would not stand for other religious practices routinely being performed outside a strictly religious venue–and, in this case, with the assistance of the supposedly secular medical community, no less? What’s behind this blatant contradiction?
Lois

Here's an exchange I had with a leading Humanist on another group. On Feb 7, 2015, at 10: ________wrote: The question we debated was the “equating" of FGM and male circumcision. As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same issue. A surgical procedure done on a defenseless child for no reasons other than religious and "cultural" ones. It doesn't matter that male circumcision does not obliterate sexual feeling (it has been shown to lessen it, though that is not its intention) it is done for different and quite suspect reasons. There are too many parallels for it to be so cavalierly overlooked. IMO. The main point is that male circumcision is a religious practice that has found its way into the mainstream. The intention doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact of an unnecessary surgical procedure being forced on children that has life-long consequences--whether you want to ignore those consequences or not. Humanists should not be advancing harmful (and religiously inspired) religious practices, whether it's imposed on defenseless boys or girls, no matter what the intention or rationale is. Humanists will go to court and spend millions of dollars over "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience and against public displays of religious symbols, yet they cavalierly accept a surgical procedure on babies that springs from religion. Why the contradiction? Just because it's become part of our culture? Well, Christians claim that "under God" and public displays of their religion are part of American culture--as well as many other things Humanists are against, such as prayers in schools and keeping marriage strictly between a man and a woman. Why does circumcision, which is not only philosophically damaging, but physically damaging for boys and men, get a pass from Humanists who are so quick to attack every other public religious practice? What is behind this dichotomy? You, yourself, who have been at the forefront of ending public religious practices outside of religious venues, even relatively minor ones, give this particular, physically rather than strictly philosophically or politically damaging one, a pass. Why? What's going on with you and other Humanists who would not stand for other religious practices routinely being performed outside a strictly religious venue--and, in this case, with the assistance of the supposedly secular medical community, no less? What's behind this blatant contradiction? Lois
What did the other humanist say?
Here's an exchange I had with a leading Humanist on another group. On Feb 7, 2015, at 10: ________wrote: The question we debated was the “equating" of FGM and male circumcision. As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same issue. A surgical procedure done on a defenseless child for no reasons other than religious and "cultural" ones. It doesn't matter that male circumcision does not obliterate sexual feeling (it has been shown to lessen it, though that is not its intention) it is done for different and quite suspect reasons. There are too many parallels for it to be so cavalierly overlooked. IMO. The main point is that male circumcision is a religious practice that has found its way into the mainstream. The intention doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact of an unnecessary surgical procedure being forced on children that has life-long consequences--whether you want to ignore those consequences or not. Humanists should not be advancing harmful (and religiously inspired) religious practices, whether it's imposed on defenseless boys or girls, no matter what the intention or rationale is. Humanists will go to court and spend millions of dollars over "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience and against public displays of religious symbols, yet they cavalierly accept a surgical procedure on babies that springs from religion. Why the contradiction? Just because it's become part of our culture? Well, Christians claim that "under God" and public displays of their religion are part of American culture--as well as many other things Humanists are against, such as prayers in schools and keeping marriage strictly between a man and a woman. Why does circumcision, which is not only philosophically damaging, but physically damaging for boys and men, get a pass from Humanists who are so quick to attack every other public religious practice? What is behind this dichotomy? You, yourself, who have been at the forefront of ending public religious practices outside of religious venues, even relatively minor ones, give this particular, physically rather than strictly philosophically or politically damaging one, a pass. Why? What's going on with you and other Humanists who would not stand for other religious practices routinely being performed outside a strictly religious venue--and, in this case, with the assistance of the supposedly secular medical community, no less? What's behind this blatant contradiction? Lois
What did the other humanist say? Not much. Just dug in his heels. Lois

Regarding male circumcision, and whether it equates to female genital mutilation:
In the western world, male circumcision is generally performed on infants (often by medical professionals). In some parts of Africa, it is often performed during adolescence, as a manhood ritual. It is often conducted by someone with no medical training and can be quite harmful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulwaluko
http://www.ulwaluko.co.za/Home.html (WARNING: Site contains VERY graphic images on the “Complications” and “Photos” pages.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-south-africa-circumcision-ritual-becomes-health-crisis/

In 2012, Asanda lost his penis to gangrene in a botched circumcision ritual performed by a traditional surgeon wielding the same spear on more than a dozen initiates. He was an unusual case among thousands of men hospitalized after such ceremonies in past years because he broke a code of secrecy about the tradition and spoke out in protest. For that, he endured public humiliation and even a severe beating a few months ago. "People would just stare at me, as if I were not a man," 25-year-old Asanda told The Associated Press. He did not want his family name published for fear of a bigger backlash from his community.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352015/Nelson-Mandela-Circumcision-ceremony-teenage-boys-presidents-Xhosa-tribe-South-Africa.html
[Nelson] Mandela wrote in his autobiography that he went through the circumcision ceremony aged 16. He said: ‘Without a word, he took my foreskin, pulled it forward, and then, in a single motion, brought down his assegai [spear]. I felt as if fire was shooting through my veins. ‘The pain was so intense that I buried my chin in my chest. Many seconds seemed to pass before I remembered the cry, and then I recovered and called out, 'Ndiyindoda!' [I am a man!]’ South African police said last month that 23 teenagers had died in nine days at initiation ceremonies, and they had opened 22 murder cases in the deaths in the north-eastern province of Mpumalanga.
Whatever might be said of infant circumcision, this certainly seems disturbingly similar to female genital mutilation.