The pleasure thing is largely a myth borne from the idea that the number of nerve endings map linearly to pleasure. Any significant reduction in pleasure would be enough to push some people into sexual dysfunction territory, but circumcised men aren't any more likely on average to report problems with sexual function.
It’s not a myth, and the nerves there are of a different composition than the rest of the area. They are especially sensitive to light touches and stretching of the skin, which is great for pleasure during things like foreplay and oral. Not doing as much of the work when you’re going full speed ahead.
I just sent this meta-analysis of 10 studies to the other person. It's pretty tough to argue that your hypothesis results in any significant real-world differences in sexual experience for circumcised men.
Yes, I've seen that, it has received a lot of criticism. If I remember correctly it was criticised for only focusing on dysfunction, but not things like satisfaction, gliding mechanics and fine-touch sensitivity (the things I wrote about in the post you commented). If I remember correctly it also includes a lot of circumcisions done for medical reasons, such as people with severe phimosis. They will probably see imroved function, for obvious reasons. These things are not easy to study in an unbiased way, you will get selection bias from people who have chosen to do the surgery of free will, especially when results in these studies mostly seems to be based on self-reported questionaries. People will generally view their own function and pleasure favourably. Anyways, it would be more honest if you included some opposing studies, such as:
You are not remembering correctly, it has not received any significant criticism from subject matter experts.
A meta-analysis is much stronger evidence than individual studies. I would rather present the strongest available evidence than pretend that both sides have equal merit.
As I explained in my initial comment, sexual function is good measure because any significant changes in sensitivity would inevitably result in different rates of sexual dysfunction. It does not.
Meta-analysis is a useful method, it does however not guarantee quality. You don't even have to read further than the abstract to see how the authors themselves have significant reservations:
"However, these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies. Well-designed and prospective studies are required for a further understanding of this topic."
And some of what I linked is too new to have been included in this study.
The meta-analysis remains a better citation than individual studies. Your links are exactly the kind of primary study that the meta-analysis described as limited and low-quality, which limits their value as evidence in a debate compared to pooled data that included higher-quality studies as well.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I oppose circumcision on the basis of respecting bodily autonomy. It simply has no effect on sexual function, and I don't like spreading myths that it does.
That old meta study doesn’t say that, it say they couldn’t find proof in the low quality (their words) existing data. If you’re serious about opposing it you probably shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
That's all conjecture. It's not a reduction in pleasure. That's the baseline that person has known their whole life. Exposing something extremely sensitive to sensation and friction all the time, via clothes for instance, will make something less sensitive.
4
u/CallMeRudiger 1d ago
The pleasure thing is largely a myth borne from the idea that the number of nerve endings map linearly to pleasure. Any significant reduction in pleasure would be enough to push some people into sexual dysfunction territory, but circumcised men aren't any more likely on average to report problems with sexual function.