Quote:
Originally Posted by elrond  How much will it cost? It will cost your whole foreskin, and probably 70% of your sensitivity. |
What's your source? I seriously do not believe there is any evidence to show that circumcised men are any less sensitive.
Study shows male circumcision results in no loss of sexual sensation
By
Matt Ford | Published: August 01, 2007 - 09:57AM CT
To say circumcision elicits an emotional response would be an understatement. People will argue that it either has no lasting ill effects on one's sexual and emotional well being, or that it can have long term consequences that lead to lessened arousal. Up until recently the debate has taken place in the absence of data, unless one has been circumcised late enough in life to have made it a conscious choice, they can't really know what the other side feels or experiences. When a set of three recent studies revealed that participating African men who were circumcised had a
significantly reduced chance of contracting a new HIV infection—up to a 60 percent reduction—the debate began a new as to whether or not circumcision is in a male's best interests.
Prior to the release of the African studies, it was believed that there was no definitive medical benefit to circumcision. This, in addition to widely held the belief that it would impair sexual satisfaction or perhaps even function later in life led to a decline of circumcision rates in the US in recent decades. What is missing from the picture is actual physiological data of any kind that examines sexual function, ability, or sensation of healthy men, comparing both circumcised and uncircumcised individuals. According to the authors of a recent report, "with one exception, quantitative penile sensory measurement comparing sexually functional uncircumcised and circumcised men appears to be lacking.
Masters and
Johnson reported no differences in tactile discrimination between uncircumcised and circumcised men on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis." Looking to provide hard data, a team of researchers consisting of both MDs and PhDs from McGill University set up an experiment to measure genital sensory testing of both circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of arousal and non-arousal.
The setup and results of the
study have been published in a recent issue of the
Journal of Sexual Medicine. To examine this private matter, the researchers gathered a pre-screened group of subjects consisting of 40 healthy men, half circumcised, half not. To determine genital sensitivity and arousal, three measurements were made; penile temperature, tactile threshold, and pain threshold. In addition to testing the penis for touch sensitivity, the forearm was also used to examine skin sensitivity during arousal. The experiments consisted of two sessions; during each session a participant was shown one of two films: a Canadian Film Board travelogue with no sexual content, or an erotic video showing graphic sexual acts. During the viewing of each film, penile temperature was monitored both by direct skin temperature measurement and through the use of a highly sensitive infrared camera. At set points during the sessions, touch and pain threshold measurements were taken.
Compiling the data, the researchers found that both groups of men, circumcised and uncircumcised, were the same. All came from similar cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, "there were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, education, income, culture, language, place of birth, or religion." The experiments revealed interesting data: uncircumcised men had a significantly lower baseline penile temperature than circumcised men regardless of what film they were shown. However, both groups exhibited identical penile temperatures after only a few minutes of watching the erotic films. The researchers note that uncircumcised men have a larger temperature increase, but this is merely due to the lower starting temperature. An interesting result (to me at least) was that all locations tested—multiple penile locations and forearm—were less sensitive during arousal than during baseline measurements. Uncircumcised men were more sensitive to a touch on their forearm then they were to a touch on their penis, and circumcised men were more sensitive than uncircumcised men to a touch on their forearm.
The authors of the paper really try to hammer home the impact of their data and analysis in the opening to their conclusions section by starting with the following passage.
Contrary to popular theory and existing data, uncircumcised men did not exhibit more penile sensitivity than circumcised men. This is consistent with Masters and Johnson’s earlier findings, and yet, is surprising given widespread assumptions to the contrary. It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis. This notwithstanding, the present data do cast doubt on the notion that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised man due to the protective function of the prepuce.
The fact that both groups of men were less sensitive overall during arousal was consistent with findings from earlier research from other groups. The fact that circumcised men were more sensitive on the forearm than their uncircumcised counterparts can potentially be explained by the fact that young boys can exhibit a heightened pain response after getting circumcised, but the authors stress that this cannot explain why there is no difference in sensitivity on various parts of the penis. The authors admit they cannot explain why the uncircumcised men had a lower baseline penis temperature than the circumcised one. They suggest reasons, but further study would be needed to confirm.
Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2007. DOI:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x
Buzz up!
