Sexual injury of circumcision: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add external link. |
m wikify 'uncircumcised' in quotes; exchanged 'uncircumcised' by 'intact' elsewhere |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'', showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal penis anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. | Masters & Johnson (1966) in their book, ''Human Sexual Response'', showed little interest or understanding of the human foreskin. One illustration, labelled normal penis anatomy, showed a drawing of a penis without a foreskin. A listing of penile pathology in their book included “[[uncircumcised]] penis”! Their work was done in St. Louis, located in the highly circumcised Midwest, and almost all of their subjects were circumcised. There testing was quite limited. With regard to the foreskin, they said only: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans.</blockquote> | Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
With regard to the [[glans penis]], Masters & Johnson stated: | With regard to the [[glans penis]], Masters & Johnson stated: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and the uncircumcised glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook | Routine neurologic testing for both exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination were conducted on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the penile body, with particular attention directed toward the glans. No clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and the [[uncircumcised]] glans during these examinations.<ref name="masters-johnson1966">{{REFbook | ||
|last=Masters | |last=Masters | ||
|first=William L. | |first=William L. | ||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
William Keith C. Morgan, M.D. (1965), a Canadian physician practicing in the United States, had a comment critical of the then American practice of non-therapeutic (routine) circumcision of infants. With regard to sexual function, he identified the ease of penetration and said: | William Keith C. Morgan, M.D. (1965), a Canadian physician practicing in the United States, had a comment critical of the then American practice of non-therapeutic (routine) circumcision of infants. With regard to sexual function, he identified the ease of penetration and said: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Now let us consider whether the operation is in any way harmful or contraindicated. The function of the prepuce is to protect the glans, the latter being almost insensitive to most ordinary tactile and thermal stimuli. It has, however, specific receptors for other pleasurable sensations. Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors. During the act of coitus the uncircumcised phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the circumcised organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the glans and vaginal mucosa. Penetration in the circumcised man has been compared to thrusting the foot into a sock held open at the top, while, on the other hand, in the intact counterpart it has been likened to slipping the foot into a sock that has been previously rolled up.<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal | Now let us consider whether the operation is in any way harmful or contraindicated. The function of the prepuce is to protect the glans, the latter being almost insensitive to most ordinary tactile and thermal stimuli. It has, however, specific receptors for other pleasurable sensations. Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors. During the act of coitus the [[uncircumcised]] phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the circumcised organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the glans and vaginal mucosa. Penetration in the circumcised man has been compared to thrusting the foot into a sock held open at the top, while, on the other hand, in the intact counterpart it has been likened to slipping the foot into a sock that has been previously rolled up.<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Morgan | |last=Morgan | ||
|init=WKC | |init=WKC | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
Morgan (1967) addressed the issue again in the ''Medical Journal of Australia'': | Morgan (1967) addressed the issue again in the ''Medical Journal of Australia'': | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
The subcutaneous tissue of the glans is provided with special sensory receptors that are concerned with appreciating the pleasurable sensations that occur during coitus. They are stimulated normally only when the glans is exposed. In the circumcised subject these receptors are constantly stimulated and lose their sensitivity. During the act of coitus, the uncircumcised phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the circumcised organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the glans and the vaginal mucosa.<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal | The subcutaneous tissue of the glans is provided with special sensory receptors that are concerned with appreciating the pleasurable sensations that occur during coitus. They are stimulated normally only when the glans is exposed. In the circumcised subject these receptors are constantly stimulated and lose their sensitivity. During the act of coitus, the [[uncircumcised]] phallus penetrates smoothly and without friction, the prepuce gradually retracting as the organ advances. In contrast, when the circumcised organ is introduced during coitus, friction develops between the glans and the vaginal mucosa.<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Morgan | |last=Morgan | ||
|first=William Keith C. | |first=William Keith C. | ||
| Line 288: | Line 288: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 | An examination of 7 circumcised and 6 intact males found no difference in [[keratinization]] of the [[glans penis]].<ref name="Szabo">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Szabo | |last=Szabo | ||
|first=Robert | |first=Robert | ||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."<ref name="sorrells2007"/> | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 [[uncircumcised]], adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the [[uncircumcised]] men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity."<ref name="sorrells2007"/> | ||
=== Foreskin sensitivity === | === Foreskin sensitivity === | ||
| Line 391: | Line 391: | ||
}}</ref> They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well." | }}</ref> They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well." | ||
Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells ''et al.'', the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.<ref name= "sorrells2007" /> | Sorrells ''et al.'' (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the [[uncircumcised]] penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells ''et al.'', the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.<ref name= "sorrells2007" /> | ||
In 2009, Schober ''et al'' reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.<ref name= "schober2008">{{REFjournal | In 2009, Schober ''et al'' reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were [[uncircumcised]]. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.<ref name= "schober2008">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Schober | |last=Schober | ||
|init=JM | |init=JM | ||
| Line 518: | Line 518: | ||
== Ejaculatory function == | == Ejaculatory function == | ||
Waldinger ''et al.'' recruited 500 men (98 circumcised and 261 not-circumcised) from five countries: the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, and the United States and studied their ejaculation times during [[sexual intercourse]]. They found that the circumcised men in the study took on average 6.7 minutes to ejaculate, compared with 6.0 minutes for the uncircumcised men. This difference was not statistically significant. The comparison excluded Turkey, which was significantly different from the other countries studied.<ref name="Waldinger2005">{{REFjournal | Waldinger ''et al.'' recruited 500 men (98 circumcised and 261 not-circumcised) from five countries: the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, and the United States and studied their ejaculation times during [[sexual intercourse]]. They found that the circumcised men in the study took on average 6.7 minutes to ejaculate, compared with 6.0 minutes for the [[uncircumcised]] men. This difference was not statistically significant. The comparison excluded Turkey, which was significantly different from the other countries studied.<ref name="Waldinger2005">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Waldinger | |last=Waldinger | ||
|init=MD | |init=MD | ||
| Line 574: | Line 574: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
In a telephone survey of 10,173 Australian men, 22% of | In a telephone survey of 10,173 Australian men, 22% of intact men and 26% of circumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year. The difference was not statistically significant.<ref name="richters2006"/> | ||
In a study of 255 circumcised men and 118 | In a study of 255 circumcised men and 118 intact men, Kim & Pang (2006{ reported no statistically significant difference in ejaculation or ejaculation latency time between circumcised and intact participants.<ref name="kimpang2006"/> | ||
In a study of men circumcised for benign disease, Masood ''et al.'' reported that of those who stated they had prior premature ejaculation, 13% reported improvement after circumcision, 33% reported that it became worse, and 53% reported no change.<ref name="masood2005"/> | In a study of men circumcised for benign disease, Masood ''et al.'' reported that of those who stated they had prior premature ejaculation, 13% reported improvement after circumcision, 33% reported that it became worse, and 53% reported no change.<ref name="masood2005"/> | ||
| Line 605: | Line 605: | ||
|date=1997 | |date=1997 | ||
|accessdate= | |accessdate= | ||
}}</ref> For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men." | }}</ref> For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for [[uncircumcised]] men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that [[uncircumcised]] men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."<ref>Study Is Adding to Doubts About Circumcision | ||
By SUSAN GILBERT | By SUSAN GILBERT | ||
Published: April 2, 1997. New York Times. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260]</ref> | Published: April 2, 1997. New York Times. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260]</ref> | ||
| Line 631: | Line 631: | ||
==Female preferences and response== | ==Female preferences and response== | ||
Wildman & Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the | Wildman & Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the intact penis).<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Wildman | |last=Wildman | ||
|init=RW | |init=RW | ||
| Line 675: | Line 675: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an | Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an intact partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.{{Verify source|date=2008-10}} They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.<ref name="boyle2002" /> | ||
A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised.<ref>{{REFjournal | A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||