Circumcision doesn't kill your sensation
It turns out uncircumcised guys don't actually have more intense sexual sensation than circumcised ones, according to a new study from researchers in Canada that flies right in the face of what most people believe.
Researchers at McGill University found that circumcised men were just as sensitive to touch and pain at various levels of arousal as those who still have their foreskin. "This study suggests that the assumptions regarding differences in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men might be totally unfounded," noted the lead author, Kimberley Payne. This research, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, looked at forty men, half of whom were circumcised. Using sensory equipment, they monitored the men at
two points—on the penis and the forearm—while they watched erotic films, using thermal imaging to track sexual arousal. People have been arguing about how circumcision affects sensitivity for ages, and the authors are hoping these findings kickstart more serious research into the matter. In Canada, the practice of removing the foreskin has been dropping every year; back in 2005, only 9.2 percent of men were circumcised.
http://index.com/bin/article.php?article_id=22129 The World Health Organization (WHO) views the issue of circumcision as incredibly significant, not just for a man's sex life, but also in the fight against spreading AIDS
_________________Given the growing mountain of medical evidence pointing toward the benefits of circumcising male infants, the American Academy of Pediatrics formulated and adopted a new stance on this in May 1996 (2). That document essentially urges doctors to give parents a full rundown of the health advantages of infant circumcision. The trend toward leaving newborns uncircumcised really started picking up about 20 years ago.
---Dr. Edgar Schoen, head of the working group on circumcision at the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated that the perks of routine newborn circumcision as a preventive health measure far outweigh the risks of the procedure itself.
These benefits include: a lower risk of phimosis (narrowing of the foreskin) (36), less balanitis (inflammation of the glans) (17), fewer urinary tract infections, fewer issues with erections during puberty, a reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, and even prevention of penile cancer. Urinary tract infections in infants
---According to a Wiswell study covering 400,000 newborns between 1975 and 1984, it was proven that uncircumcised babies were 11 times more likely to suffer from UTIs (58). During that timeframe, the percentage of circumcised children dropped from 84% to 74%, a decline directly linked to a noticeable spike in urinary tract infections (61). UTIs were simply much rarer in circumcised kids. Studies conducted in 1982 showed that 95% of all infant urinary tract complications occurred in uncircumcised children (60). These and other studies highlight why circumcision is done: to reduce the incidence of urinary tract diseases.
Penile cancer in the USA occurs in about 1 in 100,000 men (roughly 750-1,000 cases annually), with a mortality rate sitting between 25-33% (27, 31). Penile cancer accounts for 1% of all cancers among Americans. It’s important to note here that a huge percentage of men in the USA are circumcised.
-------Cervical cancer in women whose partners are uncircumcised
Plenty of studies point to an increased rate of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more sexual partners who were not circumcised. One study involving 5,000 cervical cancer cases and 300 penile cancer cases, conducted in the Indian city of Madras between 1982 and 1990, showed that cervical cancer was extremely rare among Muslim women compared to Christian and Hindu women, and not a single Muslim man was among those with penile cancer (22). Another study of 1,107 Indian women suffering from cervical cancer, carried out in 1993, found that sex with uncircumcised men—or men who were only circumcised after their first year of life—was linked to a fourfold increase in the risk of cervical cancer, even after controlling for other factors like HIV.
In parts of Africa, depending on which country you're looking at, up to 10% of the population is living with HIV. Take Nairobi, for example—one study involving 340 men being treated for STIs found that the odds of being HIV-positive were three times higher if they weren't circumcised or if they had genital sores (50). Later on, an investigation covering 409 different ethnic groups across 37 countries showed a clear link between a lack of circumcision and high AIDS rates (7). Writing in the "International Journal of Epidemiology," Dr. Moses points out that a massive study of 700 tribes across 140 locations in 41 African nations showed a significantly lower occurrence of HIV in places where male circumcision is standard practice (33, 34). Even among truck drivers—who naturally have more frequent contact with sex workers—the infection rates for HIV were noticeably higher in uncircumcised men. There was also this interesting finding from West Africa: men who were only partially circumcised, leaving some foreskin behind, actually caught HIV-2 more often than those who had the entire foreskin removed (40). Because of all this data, scientists Moses and Caldwell actually proposed using circumcision as a major strategy to help reduce the spread of AIDS (9, 19, 23, 26, 32-34).