Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Science > Health

January 7th, 2008, 19:06 GMT · By Stefan Anitei

Circumcision Does Not Affect Sexual Sensitivity in Men!

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Circumcision executed in Turkey
Enlarge picture
There is a vivid debate about circumcision: is it a violation of the boy's rights? Many say it is a genital mutilation, decreasing penis sensitivity and causing both physical and psychological damage,
similar to what they do in west/central/northeastern Africa to women, while others see its benefits. Beyond hygiene reasons, some researches point out that it could cut HIV infection rates by about 50%, as the foreskin cells, removed through circumcision, are strong targets for HIV infection, and the circumcision's scar is less likely to bleed, thus decreasing the risk of infection.

But the impact on sexual pleasure is a thorny issue for men. A new research made by a team at Hopkins University and published in the British Journal of Medicine shows it should not be: circumcision does not decrease sexual satisfaction!

The study was carried on about 5,000 Ugandan men, half circumcised, half not. The pool of this study turns it in one of the most reliable realized till now.

"Our study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when we compared them with the men who had not yet received surgery. Other studies already show that being able to reassure men that the procedure won't affect sexual satisfaction or performance makes them much more likely to be circumcised." said lead researcher Professor Ronald Gray.

The differences between the two classes of men (circumcised and not circumcised) were statistically not significant. 98.4% of the circumcised men were satisfied with their sexual sensitivity, while 99.9% of the uncircumcised men declared so. In 98.6% of the circumcised men, circumcision did not affect penetration, while 99.4 % of the uncircumcised men did not complain about this issue. Moreover, more circumcised man did not experience pain during intercourse, while in the uncircumcised group 98.8% reported so.

Many are worried that circumcision cannot be effective against HIV; on the contrary, it boosts a lack of sexual protection, due to the fake feeling of security.

"There is a fear that people that have been circumcised will feel they are protected from HIV when they are not. Condoms remain the best way of preventing HIV through sexual intercourse." said Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust.
FILED UNDER:
circumcision
sex
HIV


42,941 hits · 4 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Is Circumcision an Abuse against Boys' Rights?

Gold against Abortions

The Oldest Human Case of TBC: 500,000 Years Old

Why Do Females Scream While Having Sex?

Soon, Female Viagra!

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: cut on 29 Sep 2011, 05:21 UTC reply to this comment

Your story (and the study) is a lie. Circumcision KILLS your sensitivity.

Comment #1.1 by: JRajah on 22 Jul 2012, 06:10 GMT

At Cut, Yes I totally agree with you its a BIG lie!! Circumcision is against nature that the Muslims believe to keep you clean if you circumcised!! Than why not all people who have to daily wash their eyes also cut their eyelids and pluck out all the teeth as they need to wash them daily or they will rot!!!


Comment #2 by: Jeff on 31 Dec 2012, 17:11 UTC reply to this comment

I'm calling B.S. on this article. The claim that "circumcision does not decrease the sexual satisfaction" is an utter lie, unless you have interviewed every cirucmcised man in the entire world and recieved an agreeable consensus. Your failure to acknowleged the loss of the frictionless glide action provided by the foreskin would be a very obvious difference that leads to dissatisfaction to many men and their partners. Also the fact that most circumcised men are forced to use unnatural lubrication while most intact men do not is a point of contingency. As a man who is restoring my lost foreskin, and gaining sensativity, I can assure you there is a difference. I suspect the men you have included in the cited study; 1. Are bias to cirucmcision because they have been assured of the benefits therefore volunteered to the amputation. 2. Have not had the years of keratinization damage that leads to loss of sensativity. Also the slow progression of keratinization will likely make it difficult to gage the differerence of before an after. There are many studies that show the difference in sensativity, google and see for yourself. You close your article with the fact that condoms should be worn no matter what - why not push for safe sex ecucation and stop promoting the embellished lies about the benefits of circumcision?


Comment #3 by: OldWriter on 30 Apr 2013, 03:20 UTC reply to this comment

As a former photographer of nudes, both male and female, I believe I am qualified to speak with some authority. I talked to many a male over the years, and they all were for the most part cut at birth. I had occasion to speak to maybe five males who were cut as adults. Four of them readily admitted to not experiencing the same level of sensitivity (pleasure). One would not admit his loss but did state that he was 'able to last longer.' I then asked him, 'isn't that an admission that the sensitivity is reduced?' And he then had to admit to his loss.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM