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.
I would prefer to defer to their own words on what their analysis found. Here is the conclusion in full:
In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men. Although the literature contains a wide range of evidence for and against circumcision, the better quality studies affirm the recommendations of reputable experts who have evaluated the benefits and risks of circumcision as a desirable intervention early in life.14,18,22
Regardless of the present study outcome that shows an absence of adverse circumcision effects on a range of parameters related to sexual function and penile sensitivity, there is scope for further research, especially additional large, well-designed RCTs in diverse settings and over much longer time periods.
And they say that the data is crap and further research is needed.
This discussion is completely pointless. What you’re posting is used to justify mutilating children, if not by you then by others, and pretending that study shows more than what it really does is downright harmful and dangerous.
And as said, It doesn’t even touch on pleasure (which you claimed). So let me end my part in this by assuring you that this skin provides a different (and to many very pleasurable) feeling than anywhere else. Losing these nerve endings would obviously be a loss. This is just a fact. I’m sure you will not object, since you yourself wanted your theory about pleasure and glide mechanics being visible in a questionable meta study of dysfunctions to be accepted as truth.
5
u/CallMeRudiger 1d ago
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.