By Dr. Dean Edell
Here is a brand new study on circumcision that got my attention right away. The subject is the effect of male circumcision on women's sexual enjoyment. This article comes to us from the BJU International, a British urological publication.
This is the first study to look at what women said in comparing sexual experiences with sexual partners who were circumcised versus intact sexual partners.
Researchers recruited women through magazine ads and publications and sent the women respondents 40 written survey questions.
The 139 women respondents were overwhelming in favor of sex with intact partners.
With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have a vaginal orgasm or multiple orgasms and were more likely to experience sexual discomfort, the report says. "During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with.'" the authors, Drs. K. O'Hara and J. O'Hara, report.
The authors continue, "Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups...73 percent [of the women] reported that circumcised men tended to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and the clitoris more."
These are group statistics and may not be entirely true for every individual.
"While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking," the authors state. "Why the presence of a foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration." [Side Note: Actually, it doesn't need much further exploration - when we look at the purposes of the prepuce, and how normal sexuality functions between men and women, it is fairly obvious.]
Many societies have seen genital mutilation as a way to try to control sexuality. Female circumcision in Africa is still used to decrease women's desire today [and was used in the United States until the 1960s as well], while the U.S. started circumcision among men in an effort to curb men's desire to masturbate.
Back in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides, a rabbi, said circumcision could control men's desires for sex. He also said women were less likely to leave an intact man once they had had sex with him, which is consistent with what these 2oth century researchers found.
The study's authors conclude that "the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience during coitus," and that, "...the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision."
The point that I am trying to make is that circumcision is painful, unnecessary, and now, we can see from this evidence, less likely to promote a good sex life, and a long and happy marriage. Why don't we stop this practice?
For research on the impact of male circumcision and women's health see sources here.
Here is a brand new study on circumcision that got my attention right away. The subject is the effect of male circumcision on women's sexual enjoyment. This article comes to us from the BJU International, a British urological publication.
This is the first study to look at what women said in comparing sexual experiences with sexual partners who were circumcised versus intact sexual partners.
Researchers recruited women through magazine ads and publications and sent the women respondents 40 written survey questions.
The 139 women respondents were overwhelming in favor of sex with intact partners.
With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have a vaginal orgasm or multiple orgasms and were more likely to experience sexual discomfort, the report says. "During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with.'" the authors, Drs. K. O'Hara and J. O'Hara, report.
The authors continue, "Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups...73 percent [of the women] reported that circumcised men tended to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and the clitoris more."
These are group statistics and may not be entirely true for every individual.
"While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking," the authors state. "Why the presence of a foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration." [Side Note: Actually, it doesn't need much further exploration - when we look at the purposes of the prepuce, and how normal sexuality functions between men and women, it is fairly obvious.]
Many societies have seen genital mutilation as a way to try to control sexuality. Female circumcision in Africa is still used to decrease women's desire today [and was used in the United States until the 1960s as well], while the U.S. started circumcision among men in an effort to curb men's desire to masturbate.
Back in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides, a rabbi, said circumcision could control men's desires for sex. He also said women were less likely to leave an intact man once they had had sex with him, which is consistent with what these 2oth century researchers found.
The study's authors conclude that "the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience during coitus," and that, "...the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision."
The point that I am trying to make is that circumcision is painful, unnecessary, and now, we can see from this evidence, less likely to promote a good sex life, and a long and happy marriage. Why don't we stop this practice?
For research on the impact of male circumcision and women's health see sources here.
I love your heart, your mind, your soul, and your whole body.
*******
~~~~
Maybe this made sense back when we couldn't bathe daily and when hygiene was lacking, but there seems to be no good reason to cut a baby's genitalia in today's day and age.
ReplyDeleteIt never made sense. If one doesn't keep underarms clean or wash after pooping, is there a surgery for that?
ReplyDeleteCircumcision was and still is done for reasons of controlling sexual behavior, meaning I think a lot of people still see men as too oversexed and therefore it's a "good" idea to do the surgery to curb things.
Being intact is not dirty anymore than being circumcised is clean.
It makes no sense.
Actually, Kim, the foreskin acts as a "self-cleaning" agent--like the eyelid or the inner labia. Basic hygiene is always a good idea, of course, but I think the hygiene-circumcision connection/argument has been debunked many times over. In fact, uncircumcised men are probably at an advantage over circumcised men if access to water for cleaning is limited. Also, one should *never* retract a baby or young child's foreskin for any reason, cleaning included.
ReplyDeleteLol, The funny thing is odor and smegma aren't exactly dangerous things. Sure we avoid them like the plague but that's only for the social aspect of it! lol.
ReplyDeleteKim, the penis is self cleaning. So even back then there was no good reason to do it. Its control of religion.
ReplyDeleteMy mother did some research in the late 80's that suggested that the foreskin would also help the male in that it covered the head of the penis and protected it from becoming desensitized in the every day contact with underwear and pants. Makes sense... Don't touch the clasper!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen people couldn't bathe daily, they had no idea of antisepsis either, and circumcision - especially back when it started, with flint knives - would have been much more dangerous than anything it might have prevented. Rabbis used to earnestly discuss how many brothers might be allowed to die of circumcision before one could be spared.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what the study is called so I can locate it?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI was told all of this in 85 when my son was born with a fever and they thought he had spinal meningitis and they could not do a circumcision. at first we were worried because of all the wives tales! but im here to tell u that it was one of the best things we did for our son! I really got angry when my Grandson was born last December and my sons fiance insisted that he get circumcised! we had many conversations about this and she is medical assistant and the doctor agreed with her and not with my son who wanted to spare his son the pain and who wanted for him to not have to answer the question "why is mine different from urs Daddy?
ReplyDeletei thought this was very reasonable but she is one of those that will absolutely win every arguement no matter what !! Im happy to hear that maybe people are finally getting i.And wont mutate these poor boys an longer! My son never had any issues at all!
Hi! I'm a muslim. I have fully restored my foreskin with flaccid overhang & it cover my glans fully when erect. The difference & feel it gives is really AWESOME, I can't explain in words. My foreskin tip is now sensitive as is my dekeratinised glans, the glans is pink in colour & arousing. The gliding action of foreskin is remarkable. My resentment is gone, I feel physically & mentally INTACT as Allah had created. What a feeling of Completeness :)
ReplyDeleteCircumcision isn't mentioned in the Quran. And Allah has forbidden to alter His creation. You can't find any flaw in his creation. Circumcision can't be justified by anything & nothing can challenge or contradict the Quran. Circumcision is mentioned in the Hadiths(which was written over 200 years after Prophet Muhammad death, p.b.u.h. & during his lifetime he had prohibited to write any Hadiths). What a Satanic infiltration by the Satans. Any kind of blood-letting is a satanic ritual act.