Written by Richard Simmons | Thursday, 30 April 2009 | There are 12 comments
there is no difference between having a foreskin or not
Research done on whether circumcision will affect sexual pleasure or sexual function in men has shown that there is no difference between having a foreskin or not. The study which was done by researchers in the United States and in Kenya will put to rest a lot of old wives tales that say that men who are circumcised were more likely to suffer from sexual problems. (In fact some people say the opposite!)
The conclusions reached by the researchers who undertook a randomised and clinically controlled trial were that being circumcised did not increase the chances of suffering from premature ejaculation, a lack of sexual pleasure during intercourse, erectile dysfunction or any other sexual problem. For the study almost 2,800 men between the ages of 18 and 24 over a three years period were looked at and half of the men in the trial underwent circumcision at the beginning of the trial and the rest of the men during the next 30 days. They were asked detailed questions about their erectile function and any other sexual issues after one month, three months, six months, twelve months, eighteen months and 24 months.
The researchers did note that men who had been circumcised were less likely to report any coital injuries and at the end of the two year time period the number of coital injuries were almost 50 percent down. One of the reasons for this study was that it has already been clinically shown that men who are circumcised are significantly less likely to contract HIV when having unprotected sex, and therefore it was important to establish that there were no disadvantages along with the procedure.
It is worth noting however that for some men circumcision does reduce sensitivity which it has been said makes them less likely to use condoms because they also reduce sensitivity. The World Health Organisation has actually recommended that men who live in regions which have high rates of HIV get circumcised.
There are 12 comments on this article.
Robert said:
Thanks for this article, I am circumcised and it is good to know that I am slightly better off re HIV.
Guffy said:
Robert, just make sure you keep it covered!!!
Hugh7 said:
They circumcised a lot of paid volunteers who wanted to be circumcised, and then they went through a questionnaire with them. Does anyone seriously think this answers the question of whether cutting off the most sensitive part of the penis impairs sex? In a similar study in Uganda, they found circumcision made no difference, but that was because they found virtually every man enjoyed virtually perfect sex both before and after circumcision. Clearly either Uganda is a sexual paradise, or their questions were too insensitive. The fact that they don't WANT to find any downside to circumcision couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
And Robert, being "slightly better off re HIV" is like being slightly pregnant.
Rod said:
My girlfriend was unable to reach climax until I got Circumsized 8 months ago. Things have really changed for the better now!
Frank OHara said:
One study and end of discussion, right? How about the two studies that show circumcised men reach impotency years before genitally intact men? How about the statistics that show The US (80% - 85% circumcised) consume 54.6% of the world's production of Viagra, Malaysian men (Muslim and circumcised) are the world's highest per capita consumers of Viagra and Israel (Jewish and circumcised) is the world's leading counterfeiter of Viagra? How about the two studies that show circumcised men are more resistant to using condoms? Apparently, circumcision desensitizes them so much that the further desensitation is unacceptable. How about the studies that show circumcised men suffer premature ejaculation? If circumcision prevents HIV, why does The US have both the highest circumcision rate and the highest HIV infection rate among the industrialized nations? With a claimed effectiveness similar to the polio vaccine, why is this infection rate possible? The polio vaccine wiped the virus from the landscape in a single generation. Why did circumcision not prevent the disease in The US? Why are there not significant differences in circumcised and intact populations anywhere in the world? Richard, until there are some reasonable answers to these questions, we must assume there are no health benefits to circumcision and only sexual damage. .
Ben Trunch said:
"Genitally intact"? - WTF! I think you mean "uncircumcised"...
mark said:
TORONTO July 2007,(Reuters) - Uncircumcised men receive no more sexual sensation than circumcised men, according to a new study that contradicts the widely held belief. Researchers from McGill University in Montreal Canada found that circumcised men felt the same amount of sensitivity to touch and pain in various states of sexual arousal as those with foreskins.
Hugh7 said:
Ben Trunch: I assume you still have both feet. Are you then "unamputated"?
Mark: It's easy to show that cutting something off makes no difference when you don't look at the part cut off. That study did not test the foreskin.
Jim said:
I'd rather be a Cavalier than a miserable Roundhead. Long live the King!!
Robert said:
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does not look like I am better off after all....any ideas...can I have a replacement foreskin.. help me help me!!!
Jack said:
It looks like they can replace anything nowadays, you would have to wait for a doner and I don't think that would be very difficult.
rau/23 said:
All you guys are making a big deal about it!! with or without it, it works the same and trust me, every guy at some point of his life will need viagra... so, lets just be realistic!! no matter what we do to prevent erectile dysfunction === we all are going to get fucked at the end... thank you very much.
Fields marked with * are required.
