[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: You really ought to be ashamed of yourself

Written by RJK at 02 May 2002 23:21:28:

As an answer to: You really ought to be ashamed of yourself written by Jim at 02 May 2002 06:11:39:

>>>>>>>“Many foreign writers maintain … that the chief source of sexual pleasure resides in the glans penis. That this organ has a considerable share in the sensations experienced is very true, but, from certain cases that have come under my notice, I cannot help thinking that it has less to do with them than is generally supposed. Some time ago I attended an officer on his return from India, who had lost the whole of his glans penis. The patient, completely recovered his health, the parts healed, and a considerable portion of the body of the penis was left. I found, to my surprise, that the sexual act was not only possible, but that the same amount of pleasure as formerly was still experienced. He assured me, indeed, that the sexual act differed in no respect (as far as he could detect) from what it had been before the mutilation.”
>>>>>>>William Acton, The functions and disorders of the reproductive organs in childhood, youth, adult age and advanced life, 3rd London edition, Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blakiston, 1865, pp. 114-15.
>>>>>>This is certainly a remarkable report. Whether we accept it entirely & uncritically, it may have a genuine basis in the indisputable fact that the pudendal nerve, which serves penis, colon and anus, has endings distributed throughout the penis, not just in the glans and foreskin.
>>>>>>It may also help explain why some men circumcised as adults report no significant loss of sexual pleasure.
>>>>>>Concerning the opening sentence of the quote, to the effect that 'the chief source of sexual pleasure resides in the glans penis', numerous modern writers have pointed out that the brain is a vital sexual organ; it's where orgasms are experienced, of course. [Obviously they need to be triggered by activities elsewhere.]
>>>>>>To sum things up, for the normal male whether or not he has a foreskin, completely satisfactory sex demands healthy functional testicles, prostate and penis at one end, a healthy receptive brain at the other, and a loving enthusiastic partner.
>>>>>>Interesting information you've presented.
>>>>>You are discounting the testimony of those who were mutilated as babies, only to find that by the time they were forty there was no more sensation.
>>>>I find this statement bizarre [and unbelievable] inasmuch as I am well over 40 and have experienced no such loss of sensation.
>>>>I am not discounting anyone's testimony, anecdotal or otherwise, only responding to the presentation of William Acton's thought-provoking paragraph.
>>>>
>>>>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 in the Journal of the American Medical Association [Circumcision in the United States, available on the Internet at http://www.cirp.org.library/general/laumann/] confirms that in men between 40 and 60 the circumcised have fewer problems ('dysfunction') with sex than their uncut peers.
>>>>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.
>>>>A man's perception of sexual satisfaction certainly involves an element of subjectivity, but 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. If you've got healthy testicles, prostate, penis and brain, you're well set for healthy sex.
>>>> Contact NORM if you want more information.
>>>>And by all means read Laumann's unbiased technical report.
>>>Before you go off like a loose cannon, it would be adviseable for you to investigate what I have suggested. You can find links at www.norm.org.
>>I suppose it's a compliment to be compared to a loose cannon by you (at least I so consider it), but I have no intention of going off like anything, only of challenging egregious inaccuracies such as the allegation that 'by the time they were forty there was no more sensation'. That simply isn't true, as I knkow from personal experience. This sort of allegation may be calculated to scare the young and inexperienced; instead they need to be able to place their confidence in more reliable sources of information than allegation and conjecture.
>>I did look at www.norm.org as you suggeted, and found six anecdotal stories of men lamenting the loss of their foreskins, from S.B., 47, Atlanta; from 35-year-old man, CA; from V.T., New Jersey; from T.B.; from B.J., Oregon, 17; and from G.D., Ariz. I don't question the sincerity of any of their statements, which appear to express their true feelings.
>>However, at the same time I came across another set of five anecdotal stories under the heading, 'Will I Lose Sensitivity After I'm Circumcised?', from Paul (USA), circumcised at 35 "and have not noticed any loss of sensitivity,"; from J. Badger who asked women in a survey which were more sensitive (circumcised or uncut men) and got 'pretty much an even vote' showing that 'there isn't much difference', adding 'I didn't lose any sensitivity when I got cut'; from Loren (USA, aged 52) who reports 'very little loss of sensitivity, if any, following the operation', then, later 'Today I would say that sex would be hard to improve on'; and finally from Henri (French Canadian? He doesn't say so), who does say 'Those of us who have been cut as young adults know that the "exquisite sensitivity" of foreskins is pure hogwash.' . . . 'As to the "choice" question, I've never encountered a male circumcised as an adult who didn't wish he had been done as an infant!'
>>Sooo, having taken your advice and made the investigation as you suggested, I find this just proves again that the Internet is a source of varying reports and opinions regarding circumcision, just as it is for many other topics.
>>[If you've read this far, please note this: I am NOT pro-circ (not anti-circ), only PRO-FACT! And anti- unsupported allegation. If this is the report of a loose cannon, so be it. . .]
>What point are you trying to make? And whom are you trying to kid by quoting James Badger? Are you seriously not aware of his reputation?

I certainly am aware of yours, of course, based on what I've read here. I don't know James Badger (or anyone else I quoted) from a hole in the ground, but this just serves well to make my point: all these stories (including the 5 I found under www.norm.org at your suggestion, are anecdotal [from ANECDOTE: 'A usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing or curious incident often biographical and generally categorized by human interest' so defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary], in marked contrast to the carefully researched publications, supported by statistics, presented by Laumann et al. and Masters & Johnson; also don't forget Shere Hite's report.

To repeat, I'm not pro- or anti-circ, just pro-fact, unadorned. Your statement that 'by the time they were forty there was no more sensation' was what I felt could not go unchallenged, and so I challenged it. No, I'm not ashamed.

The Internet is a source of much jollity, including your contributions (and perh. mine, if you have a strange sense of what's funny).


Answers: