Agreed, I was wrong there. I should have said the pleasure comes from the foreskin moving over that area you mention.

Geez, this is starting to get more and more vivid.


I read your article, there are a lot of theories there, and studies conducted too, but nothing conclusively states that uncut men are at higher risk - it just states that it's possible for uncut men to be at higher risk.

As for the theory of "viruses more able to survive" in the "prenuptial skin" in the case of uncut men, well, then would this mean women are always at a higher risk for AIDS than men too?

The total affect is surprisingly high (I was surprised anyway). Somethign like a 40-60% decrease in the risk of infection. This is from the same article as my last post, but you can find these studies referred in about any news article talking about this.

I'm quite surprised too. And I'm not so sure I can say for sure that those studies are conclusive -there may have been other factors missed by those studies.

A lot of these fears IMO come from the fact that people (not you probably, but a lot) think that uncut = dirty.

This link says

Circumcision - Sex Effects of Male Circumcision

And this one says the foreskin can enhance sex for both partners:

Circumcision FAQ -- NotJustSkin.org

Maybe all that soft skin is missing with the cut men?

Note: I dont mean to be risque - just keeping in line with the general bent of this particular thread.

edit: Just read the link, and saw this was one reason.

Interesting how all the news sources cite the upper bound of their confidence interval, but not the std. deviation or the median. Both of which are necessary to determine how good this science is. On the UN website there aren't links to any kind of study.

Further from the research it is far too broad, its based upon differences between nations. But I saw nothing to suggest the study down to the individual level.

I wouldn't be overly convinced that this isn't simply correlation without causation. Which would make for bad science, and even worse policy.

Exactly - which is why I am loathe to completely trust the studies.

Good point again - plus, many of the studies simply state one fact and not the others - for instance, study A shows that x number more circumcized men didnt get aids, or something to that effect, but doesn't show demographics or other social factors ...

Regarding sheer sexual pleasure, as opposed to health concerns, studies are all over the map and pretty much any combination of increased/decreased/no change in pleasure for the male/female/both/neither sexual partner has been found by one study or another. I heard a report on NPR once (of all places) about a survey of men who'd been circumcized as adults and asked, along with their wives/partners to compare their sexual satisfaction before and after. The results were utterly inconclusive with some people feeling strongly one way and some another.

Really, I'm sure it just depends on the individual in question, just like most sexual pleasure questions do.
Or, to put it another way, "different strokes for different folks"

...and on that rather risque note, I think I'm going to slink quietly away from this discussion because, to be honest, discussing this kind of stuff is unnerving for us guys.

Speaking from experience, I can tell you that the differences aren't really noticeable during sex. The foreskin in an uncircumcized male generally doesn't cover the end of the penis during an erection so it's not an issue. I believe if there is a difference, it's a psychological one.
As for the whether I recommend circumcision, it really depends. If a mother or father teaches the cleanliness that's needed, then circumcision is unnecessary. However, if the male doesn't learn to clean under the foreskin daily, infections will develop.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

And I've been with women who would disagree. Meh, in either case I still think that it should not be mandatory.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

No, it shouldn't be mandatory!!!!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I was 12 when I was circumcised. I'd been taken to the doctor for something else and he decided it would be best for me to be circumcised. I had no say in it of course. I've got no problems with it. As for babies being circumcised, I think there needs to be a good medical reason for any intervention so if there's a good reason and the parents are convinced then fair enough. Mandatory circumcision - no way.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

smegma-

'nuf said.

Mrs M brought up an interesting point.
Perhaps circumcision is so prevalent in the U.S., and many other countries with Religion shaping policy, is that to remain intact would require those daily cleanings to prevent infections.
No doubt these daily cleanings were subverted into something unholy in the eyes of Religion and that is why this the norm, accepted as necessary.

__________________
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life

The problem is that people seem to think that somehow those of us who weren't cut are unclean. It's really not that big of a deal.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Can someone say HOW foreskin removal prevents aids? I dont see the connection: genital mutilation is sick and needs to be stopped.

__________________