[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Confused?

Written by RJK at 25 Apr 2002 22:56:29:

As an answer to: Confused? written by Paul B. at 12 Apr 2002 12:37:21:

>> 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.

My goal is to synthesize no justification in any direction, but to point out facts which came to my attention that give the lie to claims that the glans of circumcised men loses all sensitivity by age 40, if you'll go back and see the statement that provoked my initial effort. No justification, just facts which, as it happens, are substantiated by statistics, not simply anecdotal alegations. The Laumann study neither defends nor attacks circumcision, as anyone who reads it can determine at the outset; nor does it discuss the ethics of the procedure. It reports its effects on men, compared with men who are uncircumcised.

It is interesting, perhaps not surprising, that the third author has a Jewish name.

Been reading our old Protocol of the Elders of Zion, have we? Science has no room for anti-Semitism. You must have been told that Hitler died 57 years ago. Regrettably, his legacy lives on.
You appear obsessed with blaming Jews for circumcision when they a) did not invent it, and b) are in the minority of the world's people who practice it today. Many more Muslims (~25% of the world's total population) than Jews practice circumcision for religious reasons. Many more non-Jewish Americans (some 90-million [and also some 38-million Christian Filipinos]) practice circumcision for cultural, not religious, reasons. (Also don't leave out several million Anglophone Canadians, plus a fair number of Aussies. So we're left with the question, why blame it on the Jews? When they took it up, some 3800 years ago, more Egyptians than Israelites already were practing it. This is not to justify it, simply to point out a few facts, not allegations.

>> 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".

Speculation, to which you are entitled.

>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?

All studies have limitations.

>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,

But this begs the question of women's need for clitoral stimulation; although you cite Kristin O'Hara you ignore Shere Hite, whose Report on Male Sexuality is based on reports of 'over 7,000 men, ages thirteen to ninety-seven' who 'speak out about: What they think of women-- as wives, lovers, and friends; why a majority of men like marriage but are not faithful; what they think about love--and why they often distrust it; how they feel about giving women clitoral stimulation, why they often masturbate even with a regular sex life. . . and more.' Among the 'more' we can find that 90% of the respondents to one questionnaire were satisfied with their circumcised condition.

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.

Note what Shere Hite found, and reported, about 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.

Call it whatever, you have the option of agreeing with anyone you wish, and the authors who published in the British Journal of Urology are entitled to their opinions as well. However, in agreeing with them you choose to ignore the remaining fact that Laumann et al. report a SLIGHT (my caps) benefit from circumcision.


Answers: