Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision

This one appears to have been conducted by an actual research MD employed by a university. He also does not appear to have a website selling his book on the matter that contains links to erotic stories about foreskin and "fictional explorations" explaining why men without foreskins can't seem to emotionally connect with women. So, have a look . . .

*****************************************************************

Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision In Sexual Partners

Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N.
Assistant Professor, College of Nursing
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Paul S. Williamson, M.D.
Associate Professor, College of Medicine
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA


Abstract

Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn circumcision, U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study hypothesized that, because circumcision is usually a maternal choice and the circumcised penises are perceived by young women as more attractive, most women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons.

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed.

Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominate reasons for favoring circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had their sons circumcised. This study furthers debate over whether circumcision decisions should be based solely on medical considerations limited to the newborn period.

In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of routine newborn circumcision, new parents have continued to request the procedure at the same high rates. In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn males are circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of males in general worldwide.

One survey of 200 women concerning their maternal attitudes circumcision revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid reasons for having their sons circumcised, and the authors concluded that health care providers needed to do a better job of educating parents about the medical risks and benefits of the procedure.

Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform prospective parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication" for circumcision, no significant change in the rate of newborn circumcisions could be observed in targeted samples. Parents within the United States who do not have their sons circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That is, most are a part of a subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally does not circumcise.

Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised cite being convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice.

It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide whether to have their sons circumcised. Although informed consent for circumcision now includes information on how easy it can be to give proper penile hygiene to an uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in their desire to have their male infants circumcised. This trend is particularly noteworthy within the current financial context in which many third party payers deny coverage for newborn circumcisions.

Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework

Controversy characterized the history of circumcision.

Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons. In earliest written records documenting its use, religious beliefs required that the male foreskin be removed as an outward display of faith and membership in the group.

In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into manhood. In whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon for being pagan or unmasculine.

Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege in the Victorian era. This notion persisted even into the early twentieth century as evidence that a man had been born into a situation where the luxury of circumcision could be afforded.

Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within certain circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found themselves immobilized by balanitis, a painful inflammation under the foreskin due primarily to lack of access to bathing facilities. Societies that live in arid, sandy environments where water is precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision.

Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the health care system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the mentally handicapped where patients may resist personal hygiene care, that circumcision eventually has to be performed to prevent infections or other complications of the foreskin.

Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men, is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis. After the proclamation by the American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies have since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the incidence of urinary tract infection in male children.

Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in circumcised boys. Good hygiene, which itself can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not entirely eliminate these problems.

It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete perspective in the current debate over whether circumcision for newborns is necessary. Furthermore, medical indications and contradictions aside, insight into the cultural and sexual rationale for why the American public and American women in particular prefer circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being unjustifiable existing "scientific" proof.

In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about circumcision fail tests of logic when posing as premises for concluding that circumcision for any reason is wrong.

The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the reasoning, though. In the face of the current campaign against circumcision, why is it still requested at such high rates? What motivations do American women have for wanting American males to be circumcised?

In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78% reported favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and having to make a conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately decide to have their newborn son circumcised. Even those woman whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for circumcision.

The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown & Brown go as far as to say that "the circumcision decision of the United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents".

One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual instrument, not just a passageway for urination. For example, circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual recognition of the emerging man. The permanent exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.

Most research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are circumcised fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual appeal of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one.

Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered only hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and other traditional explanations. At the most, an "Other" category included in some surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived advantage of circumcision. Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes toward penis type on such a list, respondents would typically hesitate to spontaneously present sexual rationale favoring circumcision, particularly in reference to a newborn penis.

Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for subjects even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher conceding the possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer information about her hopes for her son's future sexual attractiveness.

It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the decision to circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews, that the sexual overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly reported. One of her findings was that a circumcised penis has a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America the exposed glans is more pleasing aesthetically.

She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based on cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be a more "perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a society's view of beauty.

In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a few surveys have included a response category labeled "cultural," which may have been construed by some subjects to include sexual attitudes.

One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than pediatricians believed that the culture was a valid reason for neonatal circumcision.

What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are accustomed to seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what people are used to is what they prefer.

This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in which the rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and resistance. Some go so far as to say that opting for circumcision indicates an emotional response that is not based on rational decision making.

A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that 89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones.

This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent preference by American women for circumcision, as best displayed by new mothers of male infants. To date, no study has explored the possible sexual motivations behind circumcision, however.

It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if women, particularly mothers who recently made a decision about circumcision of their newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised sexual partners, and if so, for what reasons. This study hypothesized that most American woman prefer circumcised penises in their sexual relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of medical indications for the procedure.


Methods


Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a 6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires were mailed for this study.

Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual issues.

Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this type of information, it is necessary to first confirm the content validity through it's review by several experts. The survey instrument was tested on a pilot group of women who gave subsequent feedback about its clarity and the completeness of the response options available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of this questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on the group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of the individual subject's responses over a period of time.

The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own sexual experiences with men and about their preferences for circumcised or uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No reference was made to the women's decision to circumcise their own sons or not.

This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and preferences in order to distinguish the two issues and allow for correlational tests between their choices as parents and their attitudes as sexual adult women.

Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the hospital when deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure. Each was also shown drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. It was assumed, therefore, that the subjects knew what circumcision meant and what types of penises their sexual partners had. Lay terminology was used in each question. Prior to implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received approval by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality was guaranteed to the subjects and was maintained throughout the study.

Results

Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised (89%). This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in the geographic area at the time of data collection.

Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and 3.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed.

By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were Hispanic. Another characteristic consistent with the midwest population generally was religion: 46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were Jewish, and the remaining 2.8% listed other religions.

The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school and 25.3% had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had finished college. There was a weak correlation between higher education and the choice to circumcise the newborn (rpb =3D 0.27).

In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised men.

The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex partner, which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the following activities?" as shown in Table 1. There was a strong correlation between the circumcision status of her newborn son and a woman's ideal male partner's status for the purpose of intercourse (phi =3D 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual appeal (phi =3D 0.50).

To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision status of one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal sexual partner, correlational tests were made on those subjects who knew whether these family members were circumcised. No similarities were found that could be attributed to childhood exposed to penises of either type (phi =3D 0.12 for fathers and 0.06 for brothers).

It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether their fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did not know whether they were circumcised.

TABLE ONE

Activity Penis Type


Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)
Sexual Intercourse

71 6 23

Looking at to Achieve sexual arousal
76 4 20



Giving manual

penile stimulation
75 5 20



Giving Fellatio
83 2 15



It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises because that their sole experience in sexual contacts.

However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).

Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N =3D 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter.

Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised swayed women to sexually prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire sample consistently preferred uncircumcised partners for all sexual activities, and those subjects came entirely from the group which had had sexual experience only with uncircumcised penises.

When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?", subjects were instructed to mark all options that applied to them.

Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated appeared in the following ranked order from most frequent to least:

Stays cleaner (92 %)

Looks sexier (90%)

Feels nicer to touch (85%)

Seems more natural (77%)

Smells more pleasant (55%)

Stays softer (54%)

It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised penis seemed more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within the American cultural context.

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an uncircumcised

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an uncircumcised penis looked sexier.

Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn son was circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual intercourse. There was little or no correlation between the newborn circumcision decision and demographic factors including race, upbringing, or sexual experiences.

Conclusions

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual stimulation, and visual appeal.

They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being cleaner and looking sexier.

The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent balanitis and other complications.

To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions.

Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What is sexier about a circumcised penis?

Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all, such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the erect penis involves exposure of the glans.

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son circumcised may not be significantly affected by increasing the already rigorous efforts to explain the supposed lack of medical indications. While many mothers may not consciously view their sons as sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with the belief that the son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual partners, based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this issue within a different cultural setting where most males are uncircumcised.

Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local anesthesia, silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism". Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth).

The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition of such a decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In response, those favoring circumcision point out that the many men who later want or need to be circumcised face a major surgical procedure that would have presented only a minor inconvenience if done as an infant.

Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one that can be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice.

*****************************************************************

Damn, that's a long one. Persoanlly, I think it supports what most men know already, but, as they say, whatever. Ask some women in your life. The other article on women's preference says that 6/7 prefer an uncut penis, and that circumcision pretty much ruins sex. Read them both, make an evaluation.

Here's the link, by the way

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/womenpref.html

I don't know where it was originally published, but if you are interested I would encourage you to contact the author of the website for information.

Still waiting for some links from you Kong . . .

I'd rather pass on the painfull infant surgery to be slightly more aesthically pleasing to women.

Swank! OMG! lol

You don't even know how big a moron you look like now! This study was described in my original post and discounted because only 15% of the women had even had relations with an uncircumcised man!

Regarding this study...Hmmmm, let's see... only 15% had had experience with both cut and uncut men. In the study, 15% said that they prefered uncircumcised men for sex. So what you are saying is that 100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock! OMFG, dude, duhhhhhhh! Hey, thanks for supporting my ideas! You're great, man! :D

Kong, read it closely.

In the study, the women who had experienced both were used as a subsample and their perferences were similar to the grout at large. They make this VERY CLEAR in the study.

I have to say, I suspect oyu have some difficulties with reading comprehension due to the constant misinterpretation of my comments and nearly anything that you read.

Also, I would like to repeat that this study was conducted by research MDs and collegiate professors at a university with a highly esteemed medical faculty. They are quite clear about their methedology and the artcile is clearly and plainly written. None of these are true for the other article describing a contradictory study.

That article was also conducted by individuals who we have yet to identify as any kind of expert on the matter or even qualified or experienced
reserachers. We do know they are selling a voraciously anti-circumcision book from their website, and that a portion of the book claims to be able to show circumcised men how to overcome their handicap as well as information on FR. Hmmmmm . . .

Kong, you have often described the medical establisHydromaxent as a money making scheme. You also often accuse me of being a closed-minded idiot (I've heard these two phrases from you a genuinely crude number of times). Well, if you are in fact so open-minded, then consider that the FR angle can be used to exploit people for money as well. Do you not see some conflict of interest there?

Oh, yes. I see it now. Only 15% of those women have actually had sex with both cut and uncut men. 15% of that group of women say they like the uncut men better. However, they don't count because they don't support your view. The other 85% of the women in the same group who have never had sex with uncut men are the only ones that count because they say they prefer their men circumcised. I'm sorry. I guess I misread it somehow. Guess I should have finished college.

lol

About FR being a money making scheme...all I can say is "bail while you still have some credibility". You're sinking fast. Yes, I will admit that I have spent approximately $60 in the last 10 months on FR products like the TLC Tugger and Johnson and Johnson Bandaids. Oh, the horror...! :D Dude, I spend more than $60 on toilet paper in 10 months! Maybe you should look into that...! :D

Once again, you have misread. I am not sure if you do this intentionally or not, but it seems to happen with nearly every post I make.

I was referring specifically to the author's of the study which you have used as evidence of your claim that nearly all women prefer an uncircumcised penis. The authors are selling a book about how circumcision seperated men and women sexually but can be overcome with FR and use of techniques to compenstate for the circumcision.

My exact words were: "consider that the FR angle can be used to exploit people for money as well"

THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE FR MOVEMENT and I believe that nearly anybody reading this can see that.

Didn't I ask you not to put words in my mouth? Once again, you have made an ad hominem attack against me and failed to address the issue that I raised.

Anybody reading this can clearly see that you dodge discussing anything with some substance by making comments about me, and frankly it's very dissappointing. I think it also reflects poorly on you and your positions, and you ought to at least consider addressing me rather than these brief and callow posts on the state of my intelligence and character.

You are a hypocritical moron, and I will say it until you realize it.

You say that my study is discounted because the researchers published a book about it and are (gasp!) trying to SELL their book!

Yet your pro-circ study, conducted by doctors-- who make approximately 1 BILLION dollars every year from circumcision-- is perfectly okay.

How many copies of that book do you think they sold? Do you think it possibly approached 1.2 million? That's the number of circs done every year on non-consenting babies, but somehow I don't think my "dubious" authors ever got to the best sellers list.

I am not dodging your questions, swank. I am turning them over and fucking them in the ass, one after another. You just can't comprehend that...or the fact that you might be wrong.

PS-- Your study supports my viewpoint. You can't change math to suit your mindset. 15% actually had both. 15% prefered uncut. :D So funny!

Kong, the study was authored by collegiate reserachers. They don't work for hospitals or HydromaxOs, they are professors of medical study. They don't stand to make a red cent from circumcisions. I would hardly call that an "ass-fucking" so much as you displaying a lack of knowledge about the professional world, but lets not quibble. Those men don't make any money from circumcision.

My study doesn not "support" yours. As it was conducted by individuals who hold advanced educations and are skilled in evaluating data, they would say as much if that was their findings. For the record:

The sample of women that had sex with both cut and uncut men still preferred circrumcised men in proportion with the rest of the study. This is quite clearly defined by the authors and a read of the article will clear up any confusion about Kong's assertion that it supports his point.

Please do no confuse Kong's difficulties with numbers and research principles with the actual results of the study.

Read it for yourself and see.

Okay, heed closely.

100 women are asked if they prefer cut or uncut
Only 15 have had both.
15% of the group say they prefer uncut.

NOW IF 85% OF THE WOMEN WHO HAD HAD BOTH CHOSE "CUT" (AS YOU SAY THE WOMEN WHO HAD HAD BOTH WENT ALONG WITH ALL THE REST), HOW CAN THE REST OF THOSE ANSWERING "UNCUT" BE THE WOMEN WHO HAD NOT EXPenis EnlargementRIENCED SEX WITH AN UNCUT MAN?!?!

We'll call this brand of math "swank-metic"!

:D

PS-- Where do you think the grant money comes from to do these studies? Do you think McDonald's would pay for a study that examines the health hazards of a fatty diet? Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Heading out the door, don't have time to fully address the post. When I next get a chance I will fully explain the error in your reasoning here, as well as break down the differences between the two articles.

The university most likely provided them with reserach funds as part of their tenure, or they were awarded grant money. No academic study is conducted with the intention of making it fit a ceratin outcome.

Your comparison of a clear and standard research experiment that fully explains it's methedology and results and was conducted by credentialed professors to a an opaque and bizarre study conducted by people that are trying to sell a book on an ameteurish website that contains links to foreskin erotica and is marketed towards men pissed off about their circumcisions is a poor one in my opinion.

Two health reserachers who hold PHDs and are employed by school of medicine are not the same as a husband and wife team that market an internet focused book that is clearly meant to capitalize on internet hyoe surrounding circumcision. We at least are assured that your authors will monetarily profit from men becoming upset about being circumcised.

Once again, lots of capital letters and an insulting tone do nothing to bolster your contentions.

100 percent of the women in the study I presented had sexual relations with both cut and uncut men.

85 percent of the women in the study you presented had sexual relations with only CIRCUMCISED men.

Yet, both were asked the same question: what do you prefer, a circumcised or uncircumcised penis?

It's so ludicrous I just laughed sitting here at my desk!

You can talk about PHDs and use words like "accredited" and "academy" til you're blue in the face, but anyone can see how flawed that study is! The term "educated idiot" was coined for a reason!

Game set and match Kong. 6-0, 6-0, 6-0

Sorry to butt-in yet again here guys. But I normally read all new post and this one really caught my eye. Allow me to explain. And I am not picking or choosing a side here. I just read the study presented by Swank and came to my own conclusions.

1st point.

I refer to this line:

"Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual issues."

In my opinion, this is not nearly enough women to get a proper across the board, reliable result. I will also add that from here it goes on to say that 16.5% had had sex with both.

"In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men."

Now...16.5% of 145 is 24. So now we have 24 women who have had sex with both. Fine. And now this line:

"Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners"

5.5% of 145 is 8.

I now have these number break downs out of 145 women:

8 have only had sex with uncut men
24 have had sex with both---key group
113 have had sex with only cut men.

I note the 24 being the key group because that much is obvious. Now, to quote further from the study my second main point;

"However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01)."

According to that line, it would mean that 16 of the 24 women in this test favored the cut men.

Also this line intrigued me as well;

"Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N =3D 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter."

This line tells me that only 4 of the 8 women that have only been with cut guys want to only be with cut guys.

Out of all of this, I have come to several conclusions;

1. 24 is no where near enough women to get an accurate result.
2. The study plainly states that out of the 24 that have had both, 16(66%) prefer cut.
3. The study also goes on to say that out of the 8 that have only had uncut, only 4 of them want only uncut while the othe 4 said it didn't matter, even though those 4 had only had uncut.

My opinion;

Kong, I agree with you 100% that this is no where near enough women to have an accurrate test and I refer to this line of your immediate post;

"Regarding this study...Hmmmm, let's see... only 15% had had experience with both cut and uncut men. In the study, 15% said that they prefered uncircumcised men for sex. So what you are saying is that 100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock! OMFG, dude, duhhhhhhh! Hey, thanks for supporting my ideas! You're great, man! "

To be fair, I can see you using 15% as a round number even though the test clearly states 16.5% of the 145 have actually had sex with both. However, the study does break down the sub groups and it clearly says that only 4 of 8 of the women who have had sex with only uncut want to only have sex with uncut. Which is completely against what you said above, that 100% of the women who have only had uncut want to stay with uncut. And you saying that, "100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock!" is entierly misleading as well as that group who had had both, 66% prefered cut.

I think that either you are misreading this study or missing the part about the 2 sub-groups, or, you are dismissing it entirely due to the low number of test subjects that actually had both, or you are being obtuse intentionaly just to goad Swank. The numbers you present in your post that refer to this study do not reflect the numbers actually found in the study. But, in your defense, I again state that 24 women is just not a fair number to even come close to an accurate result.

I hope I have not pissed anyone of, I just wanted to state how I interpeted the study and what the numbers said to me.


kookman

To each their own. And in regards to whomever my woman is, she needs to prefer me, whatever I am...circumcized or not. All there is to it.

I would also like to state the following to go with what I just posted.

Until there is a large enough test to include variable factors such as age, mariatial status, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It will be very hard to clearly understand the truth about a woman's preference. I also would say that the only organization large enough and with the proper funding to conduct that sort of large study would most likely be the medical field and I would think they would never, ever fund such a large, defining test due to the fact that it could effect how many women would change their minds about having their sons cut at birth. I do not think the current medical field would spend that much money on a large scale test that could possibly lose them money in the long run.

Sorry...I had to add that.

kook

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect . Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

Their preconcieved bias is really showing here. When was this study done? In the 60's? It's still talking about penile cancer and the horrors of having to wash an uncut cock! Oh, the humanity! :D

Kooky, thanks a million for explaining that for folks in such a clear and concise manner, saved me another long post.

I agree with you 100% about the sample size, nor do I think that study is a very convincing argument for much at all. I primarily posted it to show anybody can dig up some research to support their claims. There are detailed acrticles about finding human footprints inside that of dinosaurs, claiming to disprove the fossil record and evolutionary theory. This doesn't mean those studies are accurate or from reliable sources. I think the same can be said for much of the information about circumcision circulated by certain activist groups.

Kong, how many times are you going to need to call me an idiot before you feel good about yourself? You're averaging at least a personal insult directed at me per post these days. And also, I've certainly never used the words 'academy' or 'accredited' that I know of. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure where they'd fit into my rhetoric here. I believe I know what variety or language you are referring to, which is realted to my tendancy to not place a lot of faith in poorly sourced material on the internet circulated by independent anti-circumcision websites, but what is the deal with repeatedly saying I said things that I did not? Even in minor details you fabricate things.

Esteban, way to call it. Probably the best attitude a man could have.

I agree with you on one thing, swank. It's not very convincing.

Sample question: "Okay, Mrs. Jones, which penis do you prefer to have oral sex with? This gorgeous, squeaky clean and flowery smelling good Christian circumcised penis, or this hideous, smelly, wrinkly heathen uncut penis that has germs and balantitis under the foreskin?" Woman screams!

Furthermore, why would 15% of the woman who had had only cut cock answer that they prefered uncut, especially in a cultural climate in which circumcision is considered the norm?

This whole study smells as fishy as my day-old smegma!

Finally, why ask me for sources to discount them, then present your own sources only to discount them? If you don't even believe in what you are arguing, why argue? Are you that bored?

Kong, I wouldn't necesarily say so. The researchers say that not one of the subjects selected an uncut penis as more visually appealing, but that only a few women found it to be more 'natural looking.'

The authors make a major point of saying that a primary draw of the circumcised penis, as per their findings, is that women across the board found it to be more asthetically appealing and sexy looking. It can also be construed that there is a natural level of feminine excitement when seeing the glans exposed in terms of evolutionary sexuality, as this coincides with erection in an uncut male. Just as a man might find an open vagina provokes a more sexual response than a closed vulva. Either way, the study is clear on what women prefer in terms of appearence. Their statement about ����������� is also quite true. How much ����� do you see featuring men with wrinkly, elongated foreskins prominently featured? This is a bit of trite fact anyways, as most ����������� is market to men in the first place.

Now that Kooky has explained the statisitical break-down in very decisive terms, would you care to apologize for suggesting that I'm a moron, since you are actually the one who was incapable of properly understanding the information?

It seems that you guys wont give on this. Commendable BUT, unless youre having fun I dont think its going much of anywhere. In my opinion neither of you is wrong, because "a preference" is just that "a preference". You will always find someone that prefers what you prefer and you will always find someone who prefers exactly what you are fighting to stop. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the only option.

I have my own personal opinions on circs. Not going to jump in on that though. Because they are just my thoughts without any research.

Esteban nailed it. As long as you are happy with what you have and your mate is happy with what you have then that is all that matters.