[ ARC forum 2 ]

Confused?

Written by Paul B. at 12 Apr 2002 12:37:21:

As an answer to: Re: Circed??? written by rjk at 12 Apr 2002 00:25:28:

> The Journal of the American Medical Association (a reasonably prestigious publication) has a study of circumcision in the US by Laumann et al. (hhtp://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/) that suggests there are some benefits from circumcision, notably in reduced sexual dysfunction in circumcised men between ages 40 and 59,

That may well appear to be what the survey suggests, presuming that your primary goal is to synthesise justifications for an unethical procedure. It is interesting, perhaps not surprising, that the third author has a Jewish name.

> but this is only part of what is presented.

If on the other hand, you wish to explore other interpretations of the survey results, as I pointed out in a previous post, it would seem to paint a very sad picture of circumcision. If it be true that circumcised men are all the more likely to engage in oral sex (and curiously enough, both receiving and giving it - why would being circumcised oneself actually make it more appealing to "give head" to someone else, male or female, one has to ask?), and practice masturbation more frequently, it might be almost "romantic" to imagine that circumcised men were "more highly sexed".

A little contemplation in the cold light of day however, suggests something else. This study (curiously?) omits to include a particularly important factor - how functional the respondents are in heterosexual relationships. Is that not the single most important parameter of all? Now why might it have been omitted?

Is it not straightforward to observe that if as Kristen O'Hara argues, with her own surveys in her book "Sex As Nature Intended It: The Most Important Thing You Need to Know about Making Love", circumcision is a major contributor to women's dissatisfaction with intercourse, then all the observations that Laumann et. al. makes are entirely consistent. Circumcised men, particularly as they age, are less comfortable to their wives, and are thus less likely to enjoy the same frequency of intercourse. To compensate for this, they resort more frequently to masturbation, to alternative sexual partners (possibly homosexual) and in such relations as they do have with their wives, oral sex is more likely to be an acceptable compromise (particularly so, the higher the educational attainment of both partners - as a general rule, the more educated you are, the more likely to find a compromise, the less educated, the more likely to find another woman!).

Thus the excess exposure of the circumcised to STDs is explained, the lower rate of "sexual dysfunction" (less likely to lack interest, or be anxious about it or have pain, or premature ejaculation, or not enjoy it, or have difficulty maintaining an erection, if you don't have the opportunity in the first place!), and the greater interest in alternate practices and in particular, masturbation.

I'd call it a "no-brainer"! I'd have to agree with the British Journal of Urology, the so called "benefits" of circumcision are indeed illusory.


Answers: