[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Ducks and Drakes

Written by RJK at 13 Apr 2002 21:02:01:

As an answer to: Ducks and Drakes written by Paul B. at 11 Apr 2002 13:17:32:

>>> 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.

I may well be confused, but not on this: you state this is not a factual comparison, thus casting doubt on what is actually a careful study with supporting statistics. If you note the DESIGN, at the top of the first page of the paper, immediately under OBJECTIVE, you will find the design to be 'An analysis of data from the National Health and Social Life Survey'. We can then go to the dictionary and find DATA defined as the plural of DATUM, which latter is defined as 'a fact or principle presented.' Not factual? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, as Martin Luther said. You mention that the data come from structured interviews (no-one said otherwise!) and totalled 'just' 1410. That number was sufficient to provide statistical significance where real differences were found, as in the case of older men. The 1410 samples, subjected to statistical analysis, contrast favorably with the six (6) anecdotal stories on the evils of circumcision I found upon visiting www.norm.org at the suggestion of another visitor to this site.

>> 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,

It more than suggests, it REPORTS that differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised American men of differing ages in the group sampled, and shows where those differences are statistically significant. In fact it says 'When all age groups are considered, almost every dysfunction is slightly more common among men who have not been circumcised. In particular, the likelihood of having difficulty in maintaining an erection is significantly lower for circumcised men.' Suggestion and limits of methodology appear to be your take on a study that shows some positive effects of circumcision, but is in no sense a total endorsement of it. The authors at the conclusion of the article state that their results concerning sexual dysfunction 'suggest the need for continued research that should further aid parents in weighing the benefits and risks of circumcising their sons.' Thus they themselves acknowledge that more research is needed, that their paper does not answer all questions about the matter.

>> 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?).

Of course, but the differences are not great except in the 45-59 year group (40% vs. 58%). They vary by one percentage point in the 18-29 year group (47 vs. 46%) and five percentage points in the 39-44 year group (44 vs. 39%).
>
>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.

Yes, but small and insignificant, as the authors mention in their discussion of Table 2 on p. 5.

>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.

Except for syphilis and chlamydia, for which no cases are reported in the uncircumcised with 21+ lifetime partners, Table 2 shows the uncircumcised within this group to have fewer cases of herpes per thousand (17.9 vs 62.1) but many more of hepatitis (72.7 vs 28.2). The authors note what they call a 'small, nonsignificant tendency for circumcised men to contact STDs at greater rates' for each category of sexual experience but they note a significantly greater rate of bacterial STDs (driven largely by differential contraction of gonorrhoea) for men who have had more than 20 lifetime partners. I don't know where you got your 'nearly three times' figure.

>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?

Ample room for nitpicking. Enjoy!

> 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).

You might suggest the authors remedy this deficiency in their next study.

>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.

I find nothing whatever in the study to support your speculation about this. As you note, frequencies of activity are not addressed in the study.

>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.

You are stating that something NOT written by Laumann et al., and SPECULATED UPON by you, is JUST AS reported by Kristin O'Hara, but you give readers no way to access O'Hara's report; just as well, given that your speculation serves as a diversion from the message of the Laumann report, which does note prominent significant differences between sexual dysfunction and circumcision status in the oldest of the three age cohorts observed (but less prominent differences in the two younger cohorts). The paper doesn't finish the work needed, as the authors themselves note in the conclusion where they suggest the need for continued research, as quoted above.

>> 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.

Good point. Confusion has long assailed me in some areas, but I know that my glans penis is as sensitive to sexual stimuli as it ever was, has not lost its sensitivity over time. I was impelled to cite the Laumann report when I saw the comment that 'thousands of guys' had lost sensitivity of the glans by age 40. It simply ISN'T SO, as Laumann et al. amply demonstrate, whatever else you may find in picking their paper apart. [One thing to keep in mind: 90-million males are circumcised in North America, and it just might be possible that a minority of them--which still might number thousands if you're starting with a sample of 90-million--might find neural deterioration setting in around age 40, whether circumcised or not. We're told that in the days of the Roman Empire few men lived to the great age of 40. This idea of course is pure speculation on my part, as to a possible explanation for the reported loss of feeling by age 40. I'll certainly not fight to the death to defend the hypothesis, however.] Another personal note: my own earlobes can be strongly stimulated by appropriate sexual activity, even though they were never covered by foreskins and have never been circumcised. They hang out in the open air at all times, too, are never covered.

>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!

It was indeed studied extensively in research conducted by Masters and Johnson (Human Sexual Response [1966]). These investigators observed men and women engaging in sexual activity under laboratory conditions, using electrocardiographs, electroencephalographs and cinematography to record sexual stimulations and reactions.

>> 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!

So say you. I, basing my reply on my own experience (not a large sample, granted, but one I know very well) am at no disadvantage whatever as a result of my circumcision. As I pointed out in the penultimate sentence of my last posting [2 paragraphs up from here], the orgasm takes place in the brain, and there I'm happily functional.

This brings to mind an incident related in Baron Philippe Rothschild's totally delightful biography, Baron Philippe, by Joan Littlewood (1986. Ballantine Books, New York. 330 p. [published in Britain in 1984 under the title Milady Vine by Jonathan Cape Ltd, London]). Baron Philippe was active in the French Resistance in WWII, was a highly successful winemaker and an enthusiastic bon
vivant. A French lady with whom he was in bed once asked him 'Doesn't it bother you, being a circumcised Jew?', to which he replied 'On the contrary, it prolongs pleasure and is good for the health.' I know exactly where he was coming from (no pun intended!).


Answers: