ILikeEggs said:
Maybe not, but would it be inaccurate or misleading to say that a burn victim does not have the same sensory experiences(with regard to the burned skin) that a person with healthy, unburned skin has?
No, but it would be misleading to compare the healing practices of the body reacting to burnt skin vs. cut skin. Burning is significantly worse for the body, and the response to being burnt can cause pain for years from a severe burn.
Scar tissue rarely causes pain for years to come, even in sweeping surgeries like knee replacement.
In addition, if the only regions left after circumcision are less responsive to stimulation, is it not logical to assume more/varied stimulation would be required?
They're not less responsive. They respond the same. The glans reacts similarly with or without the foreskin, as does the frenulum, as does the actual body of the penis.
It might be logical to assume that either more or more varied stimulation would be required, but after performing the research, it might be an extra 2 seconds or a slightly wider gyration radius that poses absolutely no hurdle to male pleasure.
Keep in mind that desensitization occurs anyways, the brain will eventually just ignore any 'extra' stimulation after some period of time.
Did you bother to go all the way down to the conclusions?
"In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."
... Yes, I actually read the entire study from its original uploaded PDF.
I can't believe I'm repeating myself another round, but here we go:
Do pierced ears experience less pleasure when nibbled on? Why do back massages feel so good if the nerve density is so low? What about pierced lips? Why can brushing thighs and sucking toes seem so incredibly erotic when they're probably the least sensitive places on the body? What about testis? Why do they hurt so much if you knock them gently - they're chalk-full of nerves?
Nerve density does not correlate with physical pleasure. Period. End. They may allow more stimulation; but whether the stimulation is enjoyable or not depends on a lot of factors.
If you want to go further, I'd say that
varied sensation is far and away more important than the sheer amount of sensation, since desensitization for some nerves happens in a matter of minutes. Combined with the brain's ability to focus and intensify novel stimulus when it's presented, I'm willing to bet that the motion of the ocean is where partners should focus their efforts.
If you had clear data confirmed from multiple studies that there was a statistically significant decline in sexual enjoyment after circumcision, then you could use the Sorrell paper as a plausible
cause, but you don't have that. You're not drawing from data, you're drawing from intuition - and while that's not necessary a bad thing most of the time, it's not science.
True, but no one's making arbitrary, uninformed conclusions. I'm merely making logical observations by drawing parallels.
Parallels which aren't supported by the other studies done. Sorry. It doesn't matter how many different ways you want to say or present your hypothesis/assumption, there just isn't clear data that circumcision results in less pleasure - even when men get it later in life and can consciously remember the difference.
I don't know how to put it any other way.
Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.
Then what, exactly, are we arguing over? If we both agree that nerve endings are lost, but reports of pleasure don't change, why are we debating?
Of course, if you agree that the fine-touch sensory receptors are removed with the foreskin, and the that remaining regions on the circumcised penis(barring the region adjoining the scar) are devoid of fine-touch receptors, you're left with pressure, vibration, pain and temperature receptors.
The foreskin that is removed contains everything you listed. So does 99.9999% of your body, including the skin that heals in place of the foreskin.
What changes is the effective density of the nerves, not their presence.
Additionally, taking into account the pseudo-lubricant function the foreskin provides, is it not safe to say that circumcised men are more likely to have more vigorous(possibly painful for the woman) vaginal sex?
I don't know, you'd have to ask someone with a vagina.
More to the point, it's
moot because it's easy to spend $5 on some lube and have fun for hours - long, long after any natural lubrication is gone.
Again, like I said, measuring sexual gratification is not feasible as it isn't something objectively quantifiable.
My final stance on circumcision is this: There is a reasonable likelihood of circumcision irreversibly changing sexual experiences(in addition to the risks that accompany it as a surgery), and this is the sole reason it should not be allowed without the consent of the person involved.
I'm sorry, what basis do you have for this again? First you bring me junk research or research that doesn't say what most people think unless they're used to Science Journals, then you disregard the research you brought up because it doesn't apply to your apparent 'stance' - and for some reason neither does the testimonies of THOUSANDS of men who have undergone adult circumcision, the vast majority of which didn't report a drop in the sexual experience in any fashion.
Look, it's better to say, "I'm not as well informed as I should be" or "I'm wrong" than contort the debate itself.
Fair enough, but you should realise that you'll have a fair amount of bias in a lot of the studies unless they're based on completely quantifiable properties, strict scientific methods(possibly involving neuro-imaging in the future), and well-varied test pools. For example, studies that involve(even marginally) personal experience and based in the US, will always have respondents favour circumcision, even if it isn't a conscious response.
The entire point of a well-designed study is to account for variables, including bias. There's a difference between realizing the population you're working with has a bias, and willingly introducing it yourself.
Bias is usually minimized with a larger subject pool, and 'p' values become fairly accurate after about 30-50 participants.
Often how the researcher accounts and compensates for bias is the difference between a worthwhile study to accept and a garbage study to disregard.
The golden standard is peer-review and reproducibility, though, and the data from those studies favors no significant experiential difference after circumcision. I'll admit a few studies indicate the opposite is possible, but it's a case of "2 studies say one thing, 8 studies say another - I'm going with the 8 for now."
Lastly, I hate to be the one to bring up something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the foreskin trade for consumer cosmetics is a very real, very lucrative business.
One more reason to let parents decide, right?
I'm not pro-circumcision. My stance is that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Intact or not, the penis is still an erotic organ and 99.9999% of men don't have a problem experiencing sexual pleasure with everything else (psychological state, attraction to partner, etc.) being equal.
Therefor, the parent (particularly the father, if you ask me) should decide to do it if they feel religious or personal reasons. If they don't, they open the door for the kid to decide.
The entire debate is idiotic and pointless since the data I've read from several journals suggests that there isn't a big difference. To me, it's akin to debating whether Evian or Aquafina tastes better - it doesn't matter! They're both water. Any preference isn't built on science, but what's available and the personality of the drinker.
I'm not entirely sure on how accurate/factual the numbers are, but it's something to think about.
As disturbingly ironic as that factoid is, it is purely mental aerobatics. Fun to think about, but doesn't do much in the end. While the market apparently exists, I doubt the foreskin lobbyists have the power to persuade the World Health Organization or the A.M.A. The whole "Hippocratic Oath" thing gets in the way.
However, I do get to thank you for letting me tell every woman I know that she may have remnants of baby penis on her face for most of the day.
