Does circumcision reduce sensation in the penis?

[hellanicus]

I've been hearing a lot about circumcision being the cause of loss of sensitivity in the penis. I myself have noticed my head has almost no sensitivity and was wondering if circumcision was the cause. Do any of you have knowledge of being circumcised as an adult, having foreskin restoration, or even just dealing with sensitivity loss or any related subject.

[Joker]

I don't have personal experience, but a couple of people i know had it done sort of late teens early 20s and they said they noticed reduced sensitivity.

It makes sense i guess, as the foreskin protects it from excess contact/rubbing on clothes etc, so it follows that if its not protected it'll get more 'used' to the sensation

[jeffrey]

Yes, without question, but to an even greater extent it reduces our society's respect for innate human rights.

[michaelson]

Circumcision does remove many of the nerve endings in your penis hence less stimulation however I highly doubt sex/masturbation ends up being much different. You get used to a certain feeling when you stimulate your penis. If you start stimulating yourself more intensely you start to consider that as normal and it doesn't feel as special or in some cases you can't even reach orgasm without that stronger type of stimulation.

I can't say I know about this first hand however I would assume that most adult men who are circumcised later in life notice the sensation being different but they probably get used to it after a while.

[dfiant]

I'm not sure...anyone out there want to convince me one way or another? ;-)

[marshlander]

We have had lots of discussions about this issue. This website might offer some food for thought if you haven't already seen it

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

Genital autonomy is a human rights issue. The practice of circumcising babies and children for religious and cultural reasons remains barbaric. Circumcision for "medical reasons" should be a last resort, not a first, nor should it be offered as a pre-emptive treatment for medical pproblems that could arise is some imagined future.

What fully informed adults do to their own bodies should be their own business and that of any colluding medical practitioner, but to inflict these irreversible decisions on children is just wrong.

To answer your question, rather than just rant from my soapbox

The Foreskin which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches( the size of a 3x5 inch index card). This highly specialised tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing(keratinisation), and contaminants of all kinds.The effect of glans keratinisation has never been studied.
[1. M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81. 2. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.]

[jeffrey]

To add insult to injury, if a man does consult with a physician concerning any type of foreskin restoration he will probably be laughed out of the office. People can have sexual reassignment surgery, penis implants and everything else and that is perfectly ok, but if a man doesn't like his circumcision the medical community assumes he has a mental problem.
This needs to change and the people responsible for circumcision need to step up to the plate. We also need to quit passing the buck to the parents. If a doctor tells the parents that circumcision is a bad idea, most parents will go along with that. Circumcision has been a blame game far too long. The one doing the cutting is the one ultimately responsible. Doctors would not remove any other part of a child's body if a parent requested it.
BTW, NORM is an excellent organization.

[michaelson]

I think that circumcisions performed directly for religious reasons are a different case than circumcisions done for cultural reasons. For example, a Jewish baby circumcised at birth as a symbol of his family's faith is different from a boy circumcised for reasons like, "He needs to "fit in" in the locker room" or "I am so my sons will be."

[OrphanPip]

I feel it should be pointed out that we have Jewish and Muslim forum members and acting like circumcision is a major human rights violation is a bit of hyperbole and likely insensitive to several members who may be reading.

The risks and downsides of circumcision is not all that effectively demonstrated. There are equal numbers of studies looking at positive sides of circumcision. Personally, without any evidence for substantial psychological or physical torment caused by the process, there is no reason to come out against it. At some point we have to step back and wonder whether or not we're just acting out of cultural prejudices. We endanger the lives of children unnecessarily constantly, the likelihood a child is killed in a car crash every time someone drives their kid to the park outweighs the risk from circumcision, should we outlaw driving kids?

Of course, the fact that it involves a physical change complicates things, but I'm not sure imposing a surgical procedure on a child is necessarily unethical. If I had a child I probably wouldn't have him circumcised, but then I have no cultural association to the practice.

[Mark]

I once got told that older guys shouldn't get it done without a valid reason as it does result in scarring and more complications than at birth. I think to be fair id consider doing it now, just because sometimes it feels a bit tight something that does get uncomfortable! But for vanity reasons I wouldn't mile: