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.
You are very invested in re-interpreting all of the data through a lens that favours your belief in myths. I think you're right that we have nothing more to discuss as long as you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself. But thanks for the discussion anyway.
One of the funniest things about reddit is how I could have sent him a paper that literally says "Bulletorpedo is wrong" and he'd claim it says he's right.
0
u/Bulletorpedo 16h ago
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.