Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision

Congradulations Jake on a very sensible article. Didn't know you had it in you.  ;} Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article in conjunction with the original research

First of all, Jake, congratulations for the work that you have done. You will notice that I have added a caution to suggest that people follow the links to the reports of the original research. I hope you'll agree that this is an appropriate and sensible thing to add to the article. Michael Glass 12:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll adjust the wording, Michael, since it's not up to us to dictate what use people make of material. Jakew 13:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed your changes to the wording, Jake. However, I would class my wording as advice rather than an order. Michael Glass 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerned Cynic, 22.10.05: I submit that if the title of this entry is taken as a question, it has no answer. There is no scientific instrument that records sexual sensations in numerical form. The random assignment of several hundred men to the categories "circumcised" and "intact", who would then be followed up for the rest of their lives, would be at once unethical and very expensive. Most or the respondents to the questionnaire circulated by the O'Haras were women recruited through ads in anti-circ newsletters and the like. This is not the way to do careful objective social science.

I do not know what to make of claims by some women that the foreskin makes a big difference either way in their enjoyment of intercourse. I think that the length and quality of foreplay, the woman's admiration of her partner, and many subtleties of mood and hormones (even her menstrual cycle) all play major roles in how a woman responds to a particular sexual episode. If I am correct, the foreskin slides into insignificance, especially given that most American women cannot distinguish circ from intact when both are fully erect.

When comparing the sensitivity of both kinds of men, one can only carry out measurements on tissues and erogenous zones retained by both. This evades the crux of the matter: intact men have extra nerve endings located on the underside and tip of the foreskin (about which the neuroanatomical work of Taylor and coauthors is convincing). Hence a comparison of the penile sensitivity of the two sorts of men cannot be carried out.

I predict that American parents are slowly coming to the opinion that circ makes intercourse less enjoyable. Any year now, that will become the conventional wisdom pushed by Cosmopolitan and the sex columnists in other women's magazines. I do not wish to assert that it is necessarioly true. But if I am correct, the rate of routine infant circumcision in the USA is about to go into free fall.

As they should. Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubbing

This is regarding the current quality offensive on circumcision, of which this is a sub-article.

I'm making this article a stub to further encourage addition of material. I have already voiced concerns that studies alone on the topic of circumcision unfortunately have little meaning, as for example it is not possible to make truly double-blind tests for obvious reasons. Also, several psychological factors are also notable, like cognitive dissonance. The impression that I am having from reviewing a few studies is that circumcised men tend to "brag" more about their sexual exploits than those that did not undergo the procedure, and as most studies inherently rely on males reporting things, are only of dubious reliability.

I would like more real material added to this article, rather than just a table. What are the sexual effects of circumcision? Dabljuh 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)