[ ARC forum 2 ]

Ducks and Drakes

Written by Paul B. at 11 Apr 2002 13:17:32:

As an answer to: Re: written by rjk at 11 Apr 2002 00:39:03:

>> After having restored their skins, the sensitivity in the glans was restored, thus allowing sexual relations again as they had in their twenties. This has happened to thousands of guys.

> You contend that this has happened to 'thousands of guys', but a factual comparison reported by Laumann

You are confused. This was not a "factual comparison", this was an analysis of reports from structured interviews, and totalled just 1410.

> in the {JAMA} [Circumcision in the United States, available on the Internet at http://www.cirp.org.library/general/laumann/] confirms that

No, it doesn't. It suggests within the narrow limits of its methodology,

> in men between 40 and 60 the circumcised have fewer problems ('dysfunction') with sex than their uncut peers.

... that older circumcised men report fewer problems against the questions asked (and the younger report relatively more, did you not note?).

The Laumann/ Masi/ Zuckerman study is certainly quite fascinating, perhaps the more so for what it does not mention, than what it does!

Its finding that sexually transmitted diseases (and chlamydia, which is actually the commonest amongst heterosexuals nowadays) are more likely in the circumcised (indeed only being reported in the circumcised, in the case of chlamydia), is certainly quite fascinating.

A "typo" confuses the reader here, it should read "Table 2 shows a marked increase in the experience of STDs as the number of partners increases" which is only what one would suspect after all, and in the group with the most lifetime partners, the excess in the circumcised (nearly three times) is clearly significant.

Now regarding sexual practices, the observation that masturbation is (significantly) more frequent in circumcised men (except blacks) is noted. What is quite fascinating, is that the apparent preference for circumcised partners for oral sex is quite weak amongst heterosexuals, but strong amongst homosexuals. Even more fascinating is that the figures suggest that the apparent "preference" for a circumcision in the practice of oral sex, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals, is equal for giver and receiver - that is, it is preferred just as much to be circumcised oneself in order to perform oral sex on another, as to receive fellatio. Now what does that suggest?

And whilst looking at that, you may suddenly realise that two things are missing from this tabulation - and presumably therefore, the study; the frequency of heterosexual intercourse, and how common homosexual anal intercourse is (particularly as the rates reported of homosexual oral sex are rather low).

I would be most inclined to interpret this study as being consistent with a more rapid progressive decline in the frequency of heterosexual intercourse amongst the circumcised, who therefore resort to masturbation more frequently as a consequence, and report sexual dysfunction less frequently for the simple reason that they are offered less opportunity for intercourse.

This is just as reported by Kristen O'Hara, whereas the Laumann/ Masi/ Zuckerman study appears to have strategically avoided or ignored such a possibility.

> In any case it would be as strange to lose sensation in the glans or penile shaft as in the fingertips, which of course are never covered with foreskin at any stage of life and whose sensitivity is essential to many human activities.

You are terribly confused! Firstly, in that the sensation discussed it entirely different - the fingertips posses considerable positional and vibratory discrimination which the glans palpably does not, but instead interprets touch of certain types as sexual.

Secondly, it is the utmost common knowledge that manual labour causes callousing of the fingers, and substantial reduction in sensitivity as a result. Let me assure you, you will not find a microsurgeon laying bricks or chopping lumber in his spare time - he values his skill far too precious to take such risks.

> it's still true that the male orgasm, triggered in the brain by signals from the penis, has never been demonstrated to differ in the circumcised or uncircumcised.

Nor has it ever been actually studied, so far as anyone here knows!

> If you've got healthy testicles, prostate, penis and brain, you're well set for healthy sex.

And if a substantial part of the third is not healthy but absent, then you're at an obvious disadvantage!


Answers: