The Daily Bubble

I came across this discussion on the different kinds of circumcision:

Your survey of men circumcised in adulthood has already been conducted - but first let's correct a misconception:

One perennial error of the circumcision debate is lumping together the modern hospital technique with the traditional techniques used by Jewish mohels (and I presume by Muslims). The traditional Jewish technique is much less invasive, and preserves almost all of the erogenic tissue of the foreskin. Briefly: the foreskin is like the sleeve of a suit jacket, with an outer layer of skin and a freely-sliding inner lining of skin. This inner lining is the erotically responsive bit, and traditional Jewish circumcision preserves it. In contrast, the modern hospital technique used since the 1960s totally ablates both layers of skin. This technique replaced the freehand technique with a specialized clamp or cone that allows unskilled health workers to circumcise newborns.

It's possible to tell the difference between the two circumcision styles by visual inspection. In fact here in Israel (where your study has already been conducted) many circumcised Jewish men would not by be "circumcised" by American standards, as their penis heads are partially covered by a cuff of foreskin. Many of the negative effects of circumcision - skin too tight during erection, friction during sex, loss of sensation - are relevant only to the modern medical circumcision technique.

Now for your study: Israel has absorbed over a million Jews from the Soviet Union over the past decade, and most of the men were not circumcised in infancy. Many of these men have undergone (Jewish-style) circumcision in adulthood. An Israeli doctor sent a follow-up questionnaire to several thousand of these men. The results split rather evenly into thirds: One third said "no change." One third said "circumcised sex is better." One third said "circumcised sex is worse." Of course the anti and pro circumcision forces began wrangling over the "no change" group, while the rest of us commonsensically concluded that circumcision (at least, the kinder, gentler, Jewish ritual) had negligible effect on sexual satisfaction.

Because of the international interest generated by the study, a later researcher went back and re-examined the questionnaires. He compared the sexual satisfaction question with the question asking why the subject opted to be circumcised. The result: the overwhelming majority of the "circumcised is worse" group were forced into the procedure by girlfriends or other peer pressure (army service, etc.) - which seems likely to have influenced their perceptions.

I am a rare American Jew who was circumcised in adulthood (Jewish technique), and I would say "no significant change". On the other hand, I have seen some hospital-circumcised guys with whom I would never want to trade equipment - on aesthetic grounds, and projecting what sex must be like for them.

I had no idea there were different kinds of circumcision! I think I have the American kind but I can't even tell. Am I missing something? I don't think so but how would I know? The thought of having my potential for pleasure irreversibly reduced is deeply unpleasant...

It is of some interest to me that there is a trend for the jewish circumcision to leave a more pronounced cuff. This would explain the slightly different appearance of the penis of the young jewish lad's penis that I had seen when in 4th grade. It seemed nicer looking than other circumcisions.

I hope this practice continues and spreads to more circumcisions.

It is of some interest to me that there is a trend for the jewish circumcision to leave a more pronounced cuff. This would explain the slightly different appearance of the penis of the young jewish lad's penis that I had seen when in 4th grade. It seemed nicer looking than other circumcisions.

I hope this practice continues and spreads to more circumcisions.