Jan 9, 2008
Adult Circumcision: No Sex Woes Seen
Study: Men Circumcised As Adults Note No Problems With Sexual Satisfaction Or Function
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
HealthWatch
Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
Previous studies have shown that circumcision may curb men's risk of contracting HIV by half, and, if widely practiced in Africa, might prevent 3 million deaths over 20 years.
Now, in the new Ugandan study, few men -- circumcised or not -- reported sexual problems.
The study included more than 4,000 sexually experienced Ugandan men aged 15-49 who didn't have HIV.
After rating their sexual satisfaction and function, the men were split into two groups. One group of men got circumcised immediately; the other group didn't.
The men completed follow-up surveys six months, one year, and two years after the study started.
Virtually all of the men in both groups -- at least 98 percent -- noted no problems with their sexual satisfaction and sexual function in any of those interviews. And six months after circumcision, almost 99 percent of men reported no difficulty with vaginal penetration, compared to 98 percent among those men before circumcision.
The researchers -- who included Godfrey Kigozi, MD, of the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Entebbe, Uganda and Professor Ronald Gray, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health -- report their findings in Sexual Medicine.
(Do you agree with this study? What is your opinion? Discuss it on WebMD's Sexuality: Friends Talking message board .)
By Miranda Hitti
Reviewed by Louise Chang
©2008 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.



Dear god, to show my devotion to you I''m going to lop off the tip of my man organ! Can we get an ahmen!
But in Muslim countries and in Africa its the females that get circumcised to reduce their sexual urges. How about a study on female circumcision and see how that affects their sexual pleasure.
JeanMarie, circumcision is a substitution for showing males how to wash properly and educating them on practicing safe ***. The reduction in high risk behavior has far and away better results than lopping the end of your son''s *** off.
Are we missing something here. Yeah right, we do not believe in Evolution.
I expect that any man who wants to get it done is probably having some sort or problem or medical issue to begin with ... which skews the result of the study.
Most uncircumcised men in the world are happy and healthy with their complete ***. I imagine if you circumcised perfectly health men who don''t necessarily want to get surgery done on their *** in the first place the study would reach a different conclusion about their (dis)satisfaction of having part of their *** cut off. It''s kind of a no-brainer. For some reason there''s always some old man who grew up in the fifties trying to re-sell the idea of circumcision. Sorry, we ain''t buying it anymore, see ya!
Google "foreskin restoration" and you will discover it is possible to regenerate much of what was lost.
"Previous studies have shown that circumcision may curb men''s risk of contracting HIV by half, and, if widely practiced in Africa, might prevent 3 million deaths over 20 years"...
this means that they are conducting these studies for health reasons. Every man I''ve ever known who WAS NOT circumcised did not know how to clean that area properly. I am expecting a son in Feb 2008 and will be getting my son circumcised. It''s alot more healthier than a man going to the bathroom and not taking the time to clean himself while germs swim around in that enclosed area. Yes I have seen it up close and personal so I believe myself to be an expert without the degree. Especially at the fact that most men DO NOT wash their hands after holding their *** to use the bathroom. It''s for health reasons and not personal reasons, some men have just claimed to have problems so they don''t have to have it done.
Women who have many partners are more likely to get cervical/vaginal cancer and their men are more likely to get cancer of the *** and prostrate so perhaps this is why their God made the rules to not have *** before marriage and to be faithful.. but of course this cant be so eh as their science was so backwards then, but strange how the Jews were told to wash their hands after going to the toilet, or after touching the dead, sick, dying, etc, but we have only just found this out in the last 100 years.
So dear Baileyee, I sure wouldn''t be the one putting these people down for what they do as it appears that we are the backward ones..
jennmarie620, look it up for yourself the pros and cons of both immunization and circumcising..I often use the dangers of ????
Two of my grandchildren were immunized for chicken pox and still got it but of course they were told that the dose would have been worse if they had not been immunized. one wonders if things like the flu are passed on through immunizations, when people sneeze..
rushman71 unfortunately the medical profession have brought this about by saying it is brutality and cruel.. it is they who don''t know what they are talking about. I say that it is brutality and cruel to not have your child circumcised.. and as I said, it looks so ugly if not done and so small..
I also nursed and would recommend it. Men going to war who have not been circumcised often go mad when they cant wash themselves when the sand sticks to the sticky stuff that accumulates under the foreskin.
Folk, we have to remember that it is these Dr''s and pharmaceutical companies who are the 4th cause of death in America so why do we take so much notice of them at all..
And Canada also.
"Dr''''s will put a needle (immunization) into your little baby at birth with..." posted by Gaye5
Wow, never heard of that before! They don''t do that here in Canada.
Wake up. The procedure is another few hundred bucks that the medical business (because it is a for-profit BUSINESS) can squeeze out of your pocket or your insurance provider''s pocket. I''d bet my eye teeth these "doctors" stand to make some nice money off of spreading the practice of routine infant circumcision in Uganda. Every independent study in that last 35 years has shown no benefit to infant circumcision, but several drawbacks. And with the number of other botched procedures, I sure wouldn''t want one of these guys fiddling around with my manhood.
For you jackasses who plan to mutilate your sons, I have nothing to say that this site will allow. If an 18 year old wants to go have his foreskin cut off, fine, but don''t force the decision on a defenseless baby.
Most uncirc males have zero problems, and the problems that might come up are no worse and no more likely than the ones women will have if they don''t clean themselves properly... which doesn''t require surgery. The only reason people believe it is healthier is because they find that belief comforting.
It''s a really bizarre phenomenon that almost every educated country in the world has either never adopted circumcising boys, or have turned away from it years ago, except for the USA.
It''s funny how many people are so educated (reciting old wives tales) about the perils of not circumcising when they have absolutely no experience of the alternative. All these health paranoias are a non issue to most men of the world and they seem to get along just fine without feeling any need to do this to their children.
The medical organizations of the world have all been recommending against circumcising healthy children for years, decades even. I think I''ll trust the professionals instead of believing in middle american folk myths about health.
And to the women who say uncirc is unclean - from experience I can tell you that a women who doesn''t clean regularly can be just as disgusting down there (if not more so) If your going to call a fore.skin a ''cesspool of germs'' you might as well call a va.gina an even bigger cesspool of germs. Let''s get real.
People who say its more painful when its done later are missing the point --- It hardly EVER even needs to happen at all. Why give 100 kids an operation so that one man doesn''t have to go through the exact same operation - except only a little more inconvenient for him?
Whether they remember the pain or not, it is still genital mutilation. I find it barbaric because there is no valid reason for it to be done. I don''t subscribe to religion, but if you must invoke religion, a religious expert (he had a PhD in theology) in one study I read a few years ago stated that Jesus was the last baby who needed to be circumcised for religious reasons. So unless you''re non-Christian, the religious reason argument holds no water. As far as cleaning, it%u2019s no harder than washing under your arms. If you can smell it when walking by, I would imagine they are deficient in every aspect of personal hygiene, not just down there. If we are removing things for health reasons, why not remove the appendix at birth to prevent appendicitis? Or remove a girl%u2019s beast tissue to reduce the risk of breast cancer? Get rid of tonsils to avoid the possibility of infection? Go on, cut off all you can so those parts don%u2019t eventually go bad! I%u2019ve seen plenty of research on the problems that occur with circumcisions. Some pretty horrible deformities result if the doctor performing the procedure is just a few millimeters off. Not to mention the results of infections that can occur after even a %u201Cperfect%u201D operation. Which is barbaric, removing something that might be inconvenient to keep clean or cutting off a body part because that%u2019s just what we%u2019ve always done?
Previous studies have shown that circumcision may curb men''s risk of contracting HIV by half, and, if widely practiced in Africa, might prevent 3 million deaths over 20 years. ------ These studies are known to have been very severely flawed. Only ignorant people still quote them today for justification of circumcision.
-
by hli75
January 11, 2008 9:09 PM PST
- With respect to hygiene, how many women do you know that clean under their (clitoral) foreskins? How dirty do you think they are? They cannot as readily clean under their foreskins. Interestingly, I do not hear much about them being dirty, smelly, etc.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 32 Comments