Circumcision and you

[Politesse]

Why do genitals look like undersea creatures?

In the grand scheme of things, all animals are pretty closely related, made of the same stuff formed into initially subtle variations on the same basic embryonic structure.

 

[unapologetic]

 

[James Brown]

Read it out loud if you don't get the joke.

 

[Tammuz]

I am not. It is simply not something that is common in Sweden, unless you are Jewish or Muslim.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm circumcised, as are most men my age. IIRC, I didn't even know what the word meant until I was an adult. I had thought all guys were born this way. Thinking back though, I remember goofing around with some friends at the local stadium during off hours and one of my (uncircumcised) friends pulled his pants down to pee on the field and....WTF was I seeeing? I was sorta dumbfounded. I couldn't make sense of it (I concluded he was deformed and moved on). Even later in gym class locker room, everyone was circumcised.

Have you considered that you’ve been tricked? Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure dramatically--by about an order of magnitude.

For a long time, I thought circumcision must have originated for health reasons. I remember being told as a kid that many Biblical taboos had practical roots--for example, avoiding pork to prevent trichinosis. The ancients, lacking science, saw illness and death, then invented magical explanations and ritual rules to cope. I assumed male circumcision was in that same category.

But the more I’ve thought about it, the more it seems plausible that its origins were closer to female circumcision: a deliberate attempt to suppress sexual pleasure and channel people toward procreation.

 

[southernhybrid]

My current husband and my son aren't circumsized but my ex husband was and as far as I could tell, it never interfered with his sexual pleasure. We had sex almost daily and he never had any problems with erections or orgasms. I've read a bit on the topic and it's controversial whether it interferes with a man's sexual pleasure.

My guess is that the reason it was enforced during Biblical times was for cleanliness reasons, as there was no fresh running water or soap to wash beneath the foreskin during those days, so they made up some bullshit religious reason for circumcision. Who really knows?

I refused to have my son cut because I felt it should be his decision. My ex was pissed about that but I was one who gave birth to my son and I was the one who told the doctors that I wanted him left intact. I did a lot of reading on the topic and decided it wasn't necessary.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My current husband and my son aren't circumsized but my ex husband was and as far as I could tell, it never interfered with his sexual pleasure. We had sex almost daily and he never had any problems with erections or orgasms. I've read a bit on the topic and it's controversial whether it interferes with a man's sexual pleasure.

Let me clarify what I wrote. Males who are uncircumcised may have way more sexual pleasure. Males who are circumcised have sexual pleasure, too, and they have no idea what they are missing because they've never had it. It's like if you only ever had brownies for dessert, then you never tried brownies with ice cream and chocolate syrup with whipped cream on top. The people to listen to about this are males who had gotten circumcised later on in life and therefore know the difference.

This presents a problem for a lot of study designs which rely on asking group A about pleasure and group B about pleasure when they ought to be asking group C to quantify the difference between when they were members of group A vs when they were members of group C. Meta-studies which include the former type of study design will no doubt have some mixed results or inconclusive results because they have added statistical noise. So, for example, this type of study is most appropriate:

The effect of male circumcision on sexuality - PubMed

There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Note that while I have framed this as always a negative difference, yes, everyone is different and so there is variability. Even so, the group average goes one way. Consider also that this is in modern times with many surgical changes from when this was implemented in ancient times. Death rate and various mistakes would have been much higher than today.

An example of the former type of study would be one like this:

Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review - PubMed

The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration.

First and foremost, it is not an examination of group C when they were in group A versus group B.

Mechanistically, this makes sense. The foreskin contains tens of thousands of fine-touch nerve endings, protects the glans so it remains more sensitive, and provides natural lubrication. Remove the foreskin, and you remove those nerve endings, expose the glans to abrasion (which toughens it), and take away natural lubrication. That affects masturbation most of all--penetration less so, because lubrication is supplied by a partner.

Getting back to the point as I had written "channel people toward procreation," I had written this because this makes up for the natural lubrication of the foreskin. That is, in my opinion penetration is less effected than masturbation or masturbation is way more fun for the uncircumcised. If you want to get them in line to pro-create and enjoy penetration as much or more (than masturbation), they will only get the lubrication (in ancient times) from pro-creation.

I should add that the pattern of sensitivity changes after circumcision. The foreskin and the tip of the glans (especially when covered and protected) are normally the most sensitive regions. After circumcision, the foreskin is gone and much of the glans becomes desensitized through constant exposure, leaving the ventral area near the frenulum as the most sensitive part. That area is primarily stimulated during penetration rather than masturbation. This shift again appears to bias sexual pleasure toward procreation rather than solo stimulation.

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - PubMed

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If masturbation became less pleasurable while penetration was relatively unaffected, the cultural incentive would be obvious. In that sense, the function looks uncomfortably similar to female circumcision — reducing solo or “excessive” sexual pleasure in favor of reproduction.

 

[Bronzeage]

When Paul told the Galatians that circumcision was not necessary to join a Christian community, this was salesmanship, not theology.

 

[ideologyhunter]

There were some Native American groups that circumcized, including the Mayas, the Aztecs, and some Eskimo groups.
If you're LDS, the reason is simple: Native Americans are the descendants of Jews who came to the New World back in 600 B.C. I think it was Samuel the Lamanite who, somewhere in LDS scripture, utters the immortal "Oy, mene, mene, tekel upharsin", or, roughly, "Ouch!! Mama, mama, tomahawk circumcisions blow!"

 

[No Robots]

I was circumcised as an infant. I am opposed to infant circumcision. I support adult circumcision. Here is Harry Waton on the rationale for male circumcision:

The perfect man is he who is both male and female, and the perfect woman is she who is both female and male. Examined physiologically, this is true. But this must be made complete. The woman possesses both forms of sex: the female sex organ and the clitoris, which is a homologue of the male sex organ. Thus the woman is made complete at once. But man remains incomplete. His sex organ does not contain the homologue of the female sex organ. This homologue is made complete by circumcision. The male sex organ then assumes the form of the female sex organ. Thus man becomes complete. This is the physiological aspect. The psychological aspect is this. Reason is feminine, it is Elohim. To attain to reason, man must become perfect as a woman as he is as a man, and this requires circumcision, as stated above. Hence, circumcision is an absolute condition to the attainment of explicit reason. No man can attain to explicit reason without circumcision. Elohim will not reveal herself to man, unless he is circumcized. This is the reason why, of all races and nations, only the Jews attained to explicit reason, and through explicit reason attained to the intellect.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In biology, homologues are structures with similarities because they were inherited from a common ancestor. In the quote above, what is the meaning of "This homologue is made complete by circumcision. The male sex organ then assumes the form of the female sex organ."
I've read that over a few times and I have no idea what this guy is saying. Any insights?

 

[No Robots]

^The clitoris is the homologue to the penis? Isn't that self-evident?

 

[ideologyhunter]

How does circumcision make a penis into a homologue of a vagina? Isn't that what the sentences that I copied say?

 

[steve_bank]

I was circumcised as an infant. I am opposed to infant circumcision. I support adult circumcision. Here is Harry Waton on the rationale for male circumcision:

The perfect man is he who is both male and female, and the perfect woman is she who is both female and male. Examined physiologically, this is true. But this must be made complete. The woman possesses both forms of sex: the female sex organ and the clitoris, which is a homologue of the male sex organ. Thus the woman is made complete at once. But man remains incomplete. His sex organ does not contain the homologue of the female sex organ. This homologue is made complete by circumcision. The male sex organ then assumes the form of the female sex organ. Thus man becomes complete. This is the physiological aspect. The psychological aspect is this. Reason is feminine, it is Elohim. To attain to reason, man must become perfect as a woman as he is as a man, and this requires circumcision, as stated above. Hence, circumcision is an absolute condition to the attainment of explicit reason. No man can attain to explicit reason without circumcision. Elohim will not reveal herself to man, unless he is circumcized. This is the reason why, of all races and nations, only the Jews attained to explicit reason, and through explicit reason attained to the intellect.

A load of horse pucky.

 

[lostone]

Apparently the creator of the universe commanded his people to be circumcised. Then Paul thought it was no longer necessary, perhaps to encourage more gentiles to convert to Christianity.

Personally I am circumcised because of my Australian Lutheran heritage. What about you and people you know?

I was circumcised because I was born in an area of mainline Christians in the 1940s where everyone circumcised male children. My family was Presbyterian.

 

[No Robots]

More from Waton:

The destiny of the the whole human race is to adopt circumcision and attain to explicit reason. Now, the Arabs also circumcize; and it is known that many other races and peoples circumcized, but their circumcision is not like the Jewish circumcision. In the case of other forms of circumcision, in time it is obliterated, but the Jewish form remains during the whole lifetime. One that does not circumcize is cut off from the Jewish people, and this means he is cut off from explicit reason and from eternal life. It was a fundamental breach of the most sacred duty on the part of Paul and Peter to free the Christians from circumcision. By this [they] retarded the progress of the Christians, But historically this was inevitable, since the Christians were not yet prepared for explicit reason. However, in due time the Christians will become mature and will adopt the Jewish form of circumcision. This is the profound mystery involved in circumcision.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7691872/

Of course, since I'm a woman, I can only describe the sexual experiences of the men I was married to or dated in my 20s. But, I found several articles that contradicted the idea that being circumsized reduces sexual pleasure. The above link in one. And, male circumcision is very different compared to what the religious extremists to do females. There is no comparison.

The link is very long and it goes into a lot of detail regarding how these studies have been done. Again, based on my experiences with men, I didn't see any difference in their pleasure. The only one who is intact is my current husband.

Results​

Searches identified 46 publications containing original data, as well as 4 systematic reviews (2 with meta-analyses), plus 29 critiques of various studies and 15 author replies, which together comprised a total of 94 publications. There was overall consistency in conclusions arising from high- and moderate-quality survey data in randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, physiological studies, large longitudinal studies, and cohort studies in diverse populations. Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality, as explained in critiques of those studies.

Conclusion​

The consensus of the highest quality literature is that MC has minimal or no adverse effect, and in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthood.