Anonymous @ 4:08 AM: The study you refer to regarding keritinization by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents. You have to know your sources. Cold & Taylor disected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadivers and found that the keritinized layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men. The significance of this is that the keritinization covers over sexually sensitive nerve endings reducing the sexual sensitivity of the men.
In "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4)" the authors claim protection from keritinization that you claim does not exist. Which way is it?
Regarding "Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91;" Masters and Johnson were surely pioneers in sexuality but in this case, there was so little known at the time their research was poorly constructed and totally eliminated the foreskin as a source of sexual pleasure.
Regarding "Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity." Bleustein, et.al. failed for the same reason Masters and Johnson failed. However, they did find that circumcised males suffer impotence at an average age 8 years younger than intact males.
Both research and logical and rational thought processes confirm that removing part of a sexual organ and the encompassed nerves will have a deletory effect on the sensitivity of that organ.
Comment Reply
Anonymous @ 4:08 AM: The study you refer to regarding keritinization by Short, Szabo, et al is by rabid circumcision proponents. You have to know your sources. Cold & Taylor disected the glans of circumcised and intact medical research cadivers and found that the keritinized layers were up to 10 times thicker in the circumcised men than intact men. The significance of this is that the keritinization covers over sexually sensitive nerve endings reducing the sexual sensitivity of the men.
In "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320: 1592-4)" the authors claim protection from keritinization that you claim does not exist. Which way is it?
Regarding "Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91;" Masters and Johnson were surely pioneers in sexuality but in this case, there was so little known at the time their research was poorly constructed and totally eliminated the foreskin as a source of sexual pleasure.
Regarding "Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity." Bleustein, et.al. failed for the same reason Masters and Johnson failed. However, they did find that circumcised males suffer impotence at an average age 8 years younger than intact males.
Both research and logical and rational thought processes confirm that removing part of a sexual organ and the encompassed nerves will have a deletory effect on the sensitivity of that organ.
.
February 4, 2010 - 9:44amThis Comment
Reply