Circumcision doesn't reduce sexual satisfaction

---

a new studyPublic Health & Education | Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Satisfaction, Performance, Study Finds[Jan 09, 2008] Male circumcision does not reduce levels of sexual desire, satisfaction or performance, according to a study recently published in the British Journal of Urology International, BBC News reports. According to BBC News, the study's findings should eliminate reservations about using the procedure as a method of preventing the spread of HIV (BBC News, 1/7). For the study, Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and colleagues followed 4,456 sexually experienced boys and men ages 15 to 49 in Uganda who were HIV-negative. The researchers randomly assigned 2,210 to be circumcised at the onset of the study, while 2,246 had the procedure delayed for two years. The researchers followed up with both groups at six, 12 and 24 months and compared information on sexual desire, satisfaction and sexual performance. According to Gray, the study was conducted as part of an HIV prevention initiative (Blackwell Publishing release, 1/8).According to the study, there was little difference between the two groups when they were asked about their sexual desire, satisfaction and performance. The study found that 98.4% of circumcised participants reported satisfaction, compared with 99.9% in the control group, and that 98.6% of the circumcised group reported no problems with their ability to penetrate, compared with 99.4% in the control. Marginally more circumcised participants -- 99.4% -- reported that they had no pain during intercourse, compared with 98.8% of men in the control group, the study found.Gray said that the "study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when we compared them with the men who had not yet received surgery." He added, "Other studies already show that being able to reassure men that the procedure won't affect sexual satisfaction or performance makes them much more likely to be circumcised." Some groups have warned against using circumcision as a primary HIV prevention method, BBC News reports. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said, "There is a fear that people that have been circumcised will feel they are protected when they are not." She added, "Condoms remain the best way of preventing HIV through sexual intercourse." According to Jack, research into HIV transmission and circumcision has been "limited in its scope," and further research into new methods and vaccines still is needed (BBC News, 1/7). John Fitzpatrick of University College Dublin, who also serves as editor of BJU International, said, "We believe that these findings are very important as they can be used to support public health messages that promote circumcision as an effective way of reducing HIV transmission" (Blackwell release, 1/8).

egad!they circumsised 2210 grown men?and this whole idea of a foreskin being related to HIV transmission ranks up there with bear galbladders and rhino tusks being aphrodesiacs... now, if you'll excuse me, I need to light some candles and shake a bag of chicken bones to get rid of this damn cold.

Thats a somewhat reassuring study, what with myself being circumcised ( though I feel so ill will towards those that arn;t"

Whats the problem with the penis being the way that it naturally is?
Is there any medical (or other) reason that my possible future son should or should not be circumsiced?

though I feel so ill will towards those that arn;t What's that supposed to mean?

This recent concept of just circumcising guys in HIV ridden places is absurd. While there may be a slight difference in the spread of HIV rates between circumcised and intact men, the difference is negligible compared to practicing safe sex and using condoms. The difference isn't worth circumcision, IMO, and like the critic in the article said, it will likely give circumcised men in those HIV countries a false sense of security, and I wouldn't be surprised to see HIV rates go up as a result of this circumcision campaign. This is a perfect example of so called experts who can't see the forest from the trees when they get caught up in statistics. I would point out that while the differences in their little survey were very slight, there were differences, and all but one category the difference was worse for circumcised guys. The slightly higher rate of pain during intercourse for intact guys is likely for those who have phimosis of the foreskin, or have never retracted before. No matter what these researchers say, and no matter what statistics they want to come up with to support their view, simple facts remain:1 - the foreskin contains thousands of nerve endings that are removed in circumcision, reducing sensitivity.2 - when the glans keratinizes after circumcision, sensitivity in the glans is greatly reduced from highly sensitive in intact men, to almost no sensitivity in circumcised guys (except when erect and near orgasm). This has been proven. Is sex still great with a circumcised penis? Of course it is. It just could be better with an intact penis. It's like saying a Maserati is fast and should satisfy 98% of people. Well, that's true, but a Ferrari is faster and satisfies 99% of people. Which would you rather have?

hey I posted this just so cut guys dont get brainwashed that they were harmed by being circumcised as infants. I know theres little difference on that score but very few have had it both waysto be able to compare.I do get news alerts on this topic and you should read the information that;s come out in the last year or so. turns out circumcision is very effective in preventing heterosexual transmission of hiv which is the problem in africa. In fact its as effective in preventing it as the gardasil vaccine is at preventing hpv!I dont know why people think this means to suggest guys stop using condoms its not about that at all/

Hers what I get out of that article:"Male circumcision does not reduce levels of sexual desire, satisfaction or performance, according to a study recently published in the British Journal of Urology International, BBC News reports. "I do not belive anyone ever siad that those who got cut are into lesss sex, or that you are nto satisfied when ya cum if your cut, and it seems to me if your less sensative you shoudl actually enhance your performance since your not as likely to cum so fast its over before she began.Ya know there was a reason I had in my head for replying to you instead of anyone else but Ill be damned if I can recall what my point was in that.at any rate...I dont think that being cirumcised means you dont enjoy sex or desire it, just that you get some what less stimulation during sex.This I see as an unarguable point, those nerve endings are gone, removed, you can no longer feel them, but that doesnt mean sex isnt still great.I was cut myself as an infant, Ill never know what its like to have sex with a extra bit oh skin and nerves, but I can not complain about the sex I have with out that. its still wonderful, still great, and still feels fucking incredible.Do guys with a skin have better sex than me?I doubt it, just different,maybe a bit mnroe intense ? but honestly, if sex felt any better than it already does, it would probally fucing kill me anyways.Since I replyed to you (on purpose with purpose at the time) and forgot why exactly i did and what my point was with you, if ya decipher what the hell I was thinking, how about letting me know?I honestly cant for the life of me remember why I thought it most appropriate to reply to you instead of the OP.

Quote: doubt it, just different,maybe a bit mnroe intense ? but honestly, if sex felt any better than it already does, it would probally fucing kill me anyways.I agree, and I'm the same as you - cut as an infant. Sometimes I wonder how much more sensitivity I could handle if I were uncut, because my penis, especially the remnant of a frenulum I have left from the circumcision, is incredibly sensitive, and if my orgasms get any stronger I think my brain would explode or I would pass out! If anything, I think I cum too quickly most times, and I wonder if I were uncut if I could last longer because maybe the nerve endings would be more balanced or smoother so I could have better control over the sensitivity. I dunno.But hey, it would be nice to have the option, and I especially like the ability of uncut guys can jack off comfortably without any lube.

I'd guess it's just the "oh, we're protected by being cut, who needs condoms" mentality. (Not to mention what kind of effect would this have back in America, when people read about these news (and I bet they do), and get enlightened about the "protective" effects of being circumcised -- USA already has the highest HIV infection rate per capita among the first class modern countries, I doubt these "findings" will thwart that.)
I'd like to mention a few things related to this.
First of all, it's Africa. Many people do not have or can obtain condoms (as far as I imagine in the areas most affected). I bet many of them haven't even heard of those things before. We all know that condoms protect against things a lot better than any kind of surgery could -- we're talking about mucous membranes and skin (etc.) getting in contact with each other vs. NOT getting in contact.
Secondly, even if circumcision -- or more precisely the often debated and denied keratinisation process (pray tell, what else than the mucous surface getting thicker and drier, could protect against anything) -- increases the chances of getting away unharmed (there's a stretch of the word there), there is no way in hell that spending half year or one year bare is anything comparable to the "protection" you'd build up when cut as a baby and/or spending decades bare-headed. Quotation marks muchly intended.
Thirdly, it seems to me that most people posting here about having gotten circumcised tell that they take around a month to recover enough to be able to have sex. When I snapped my frenulum in my early teens, well, I can safely tell you the area was uncomfortably tender for more than two months -- and that's just a tiny wound which did fully heal within about ten days. I just can't imagine that these poor fellows taking part in the experiment are all so eager to bang their women for a considerable amount of time -- thus skewing the statistics a bit.

Quote:I just can't imagine that these poor fellows taking part in the experiment are all so eager to bang their women for a considerable amount of time -- thus skewing the statistics a bit. I got my nuts cut a few years ago. 3 now? 4? fucked if I know but I had it done in my recent but not yesterday past.my dick or more accuratly my balls and entire crotch were so sore that I doubt I could of humped her after surgery.after a week though I was desperate and horny and ready for sex, it had simply been too long to go with out.I was still on pain pills for several days and with teh pills in my sysptem couldnt cum. I was having what I wanted and enjoying it but it was pointless because no matter what I did or she did I couldnt finish.Not the same thing as a circ, but Id think the healing would be similar, as least along the lines of time wise before you were ready to have sex.I was ready adn willing in under a week, the doc advised none for 2 weeks. 2 weeks later after the pain pills were gone, I came in a matter of seconds.yay me

first I would never say there is no difference in the feeling of your penis when your cut or uncut since I have had mine both ways but the difference is hard to explain. The feelings from your uncut penis arent lost when your circumcised its more like theyre blended together and it still feels just as pleasurable or maybe even more since you can fuck or jack harder without getting sore.the point in africa isn't that they dont have condoms, they do. its that men dont use them when they visit prostitutes in the city and they have sex with their wives in the villages. and women dont have the status to insist. they already know that the rate of infection in populations that already circumcise is much much less.