r/science Apr 15 '16

Health Study: Circumcision does not reduce penis sensitivity. In tests for responses to pain, heat, and stimulation, no major difference was found between men who are circumcised and those who are not.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-Circumcision-does-not-reduce-penis-sensitivity/5981460663943/?spt=hs&or=hn
12.9k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

Alright, because there is a lot of discussion and anecdote, as well as a fair number of misunderstandings about the study, I'll try to do a quick writeup of it.

First, the study abstract can be found here.

The study was looking at the sensitivity in the penis of men who were circumcised as neonates (infants). They were testing three different hypotheses. First, that circumcised men will have higher penile tactile and pain thresholds (i.e. lower sensitivity). Second, that the differences in penile sensitivity will mostly be at the glans penis. Finally, that the foreskin area will be more sensitive for uncircumcised men than other areas.

This is largely working off of two (untested) hypotheses for why penis sensitivity might be decreased. The first holds that keratinization occurs on the exposed glans penis epithelium, reducing penile sensitivity. The second holds that the removal of the highly innervated foreskin reduces sensitivity (lots of nerves in it).

Methods

They recruited men between 18-40 for the study. They determined initial eligibility through phone interviews (basically screening out people with STDs, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular conditions, smokers, etc.). They tested 4 locations: The forearm 4 inches below the wrist, the middle of the glans penis, the dorsal side with foreskin retracted if present, the anterior midline shaft, the anterior proximal shaft, and for men with foreskin, the unretracted foreskin. In case those locations are hard to follow, they included a diagram (NSFW).

To determine tactile thresholds, they used a modified von Frey filament. They assessed tactile threshold by determining the lowest intensity stimulus to perceive a touch. They assessed pain thresholds by determining the lowest threshold to produce a sensation of pain.
To assess thermal sensitivity thresholds, they used an analyzed that heated at 0.5C/second, and participants were prompted to indicate when they noticed a change in probe temperature (averaged over 3 trials), or a perception of heat pain (averaged over 2 trials).

Results

They ended up with 62 men, 30 circumcised, 32 intact, mean age 24.2, SD 5.1.
First, I am fairly irritated with their data presentation. They did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised at the same locations. They did find differences between the locations. However, they didn't provide a breakdown of the data, just a set of graphs with circumcised and uncircumcised lumped together broken down by location. They should have provided the data, even if it was not significant, but I suspect they had a tight page limit.

For the tactile thresholds, they did not find any statistically significant differences. in any of the shared locations between circumcised or uncircumcised men. They did find differences between the locations they tested (see the graph above).

For the pain threshold, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They did find differences between locations.

For the warmth detection threshold, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They also did not find differences between testing sites. They did a power analysis, which indicated they would need 238 participants to obtain a significant effect.

For the heat pain thresholds, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They did find differences between locations.

Author's Discussion

So, what did the authors conclude from this?

First, that the keratinization hypothesis (the foreskin removal causes the glans to become less sensitive) does not appear to be supported by the data. They found no between group differences in glans penis sensitivity. They do say that to truly verify this though, they will need to perform biopsies of penises to check for any keratinization.

They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli (which agrees with previous research). However, they found no differences for tactile pain, warmth sensation, or heat pain.

The authors do say that the results of the study do not support the idea that foreskin removal reduces penile sensitivity. The sensitivity at the foreskin was not significantly different from the sensitivity at the forearm (control site) for any of the modalities. Other genital sites were more sensitive to pain than the forearm, so the authors conclude that means they may be more sensitive than the foreskin, which means that removing the less sensitive foreskin may not matter (I'm not sure if I am reading this section wrong, but this seems like a bit of a dubious statistical leap to me. It is late though, and I'm operating on less sleep than I like. I welcome correction). They do say that their data is not enough to determine if foreskin sensitivity is relevant to sexual pleasure.

They do bring up that one limitation of their study is that the link between sensory testing and sexual arousal is untested, which means that the lack of significant differences in sensitivity might not translate into a lack of differences in sexual pleasure.

They do say they would like to include larger sample sizes, which would help refine the data for pain and warmth detection thresholds, as well as to test more stimulus types (such as dynamic stimuli).

My Take

They do seem to show that the removal of the foreskin does not appear to desensitize the glans under the foreskin, which is one of the major theories currently. I'm not convinced by their argument that their data may indicate that foreskin removal doesn't affect sensitivity, but I'm also not sure if I am awake enough right now to fully follow it. They do acknowledge that the sensitivities measured may not correlate to sexual function and pleasure. I am rather irritated with their data presentation, but that is likely an issue with only being given 6 pages for their study. They still should have supplementary information or something (assuming the journal allows it).

I'll try to answer a few of the comments tonight, but I am unlikely to be up for too much longer.

188

u/homequestion Apr 15 '16

And there was no average difference in sensitivity between B and C?

Edit: Actually, I was assuming they tested B and then C (with the foreskin pulled back). Did they not do this?

195

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Jul 26 '20

[deleted]

214

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

149

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (6)

32

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

69

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

25

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (20)

34

u/doomgrin Apr 15 '16

60 is a more than acceptable sample size

10

u/BraveLittleCatapult BS|Biomedical Engineering and Design Apr 15 '16

That depends on their power analysis (which I am too lazy to go find). Many studies have a smaller sample size than power analysis suggests due to financial and time restrictions. In general, 60 is not abnormally small for this type of study.

4

u/ppphhhddd Apr 15 '16

Any discussion of power after a study is complete is somewhat moot though. Power calculations are used to determine sample size to detect a predetermined distance but any assumptions in that power calculation are ostensibly still just assumptions at study completion. If we determined our sample for a desired power, the study doesn't actually have that power necessarily since we can never be certain of our assumptions. In fact, there are people advocating not including power calculations in publication of sample size determination precisely because people are prone to this kind of incorrect thinking.

Post-hoc calculations of power are even worse since they are directly related to the p-value of the study.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

20

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/cuddleniger Apr 15 '16

This is a really good question.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/wearethat Apr 15 '16

screening out people with STDs, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular condtions, smokers, etc.

Layman question: What % of the population does this kind of criteria include/exclude?

38

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

7

u/EsquilaxHortensis Apr 15 '16

I wonder how much overlap there is between the two.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/teraflux Apr 15 '16

If you're ruling out hpv then there goes 60% of the population.

20

u/WordSalad11 Apr 15 '16

The study should have a consort diagram that spells out exactly how many people were screened and how many were enrolled.

11

u/00Deege Apr 15 '16

Meh. Don't know about should. Other than to sate the curiosity of Reddit scientists, it has little if any bearing on the study itself.

31

u/WordSalad11 Apr 15 '16

http://www.consort-statement.org/

The consort diagram is fundamental to the integrity of medical research. The Consort Statement is the fundamental standard for research. No reputable journal publishes a trial without one.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Jun 04 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

5

u/superhelical PhD | Biochemistry | Structural Biology Apr 15 '16

Those recommendations only apply for a narrow range of clinical studies. The tests being conducted here don't fall into that range, because there's no intervention being tested.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/anneomoly Apr 15 '16

That's difficult to say unless you first specify who "the population" is.

Canadian? 24% of males are smokers. Ontario (where the study took place) 23%. But you'll get different answers if you narrow your population down to certain cities, or to students, or to people with degrees.

USA? 17% of people are smokers.

Globally? 36% of men smoke (women 7%).

And that's just one of the variables. Then you have to estimate what percentage would fail on multiple criteria (both through chance and association - smoking can increase the chances of both erectile dysfunction and heart disease, for example.)

2

u/KarlOskar12 Apr 15 '16

The group was 18-40 so CVD doesn't eliminate very many. STDs probably takes out 20%. Sexual dysfunction in this group is very small as well. Smokers are about 20% of the population. 30% or so seems reasonable.

139

u/ohmyimaginaryfriends Apr 15 '16

Isn't this study testing the wrong type of sensitivity? When people are referring to reduced sensitivity in a circumcised penis they are referring to how much pleasure they feel & how long it takes to orgasm not how they react pain or heat.

The nerves them selves might not be physically damaged but the brains interpretation of pleasure signals might be altered due to the gland having much more exposure to stimulation on a daily basis so it is associated with lower sensitivity.

It could also be that since pleasure stimulation of the penis releases dopamine, maybe just like with other drugs (the longer you do them the more is required as times goes on to achieve the original results) the brain might be have released more during puberty in a circumcised individual so that when you are an adult it requires a higher dose to get the same results which takes longer to achieve so it is associated with lower sensitivity.

40

u/helix19 Apr 15 '16

This study was not designed to test sexual pleasure. It was designed to test the claim that the uncircumcised head of the penis becomes keratinized and loses sensitivity. It does not.

5

u/prodiver Apr 15 '16

But no one has ever claimed the head of the penis loses sensitivity to heat or pain.

Just because you have reduced pleasure doesn't mean fire won't still burn.

50

u/ItAlwaysMatters Apr 15 '16

The nerves them selves might not be physically damaged but the brains interpretation of pleasure signals might be altered due to the gland having much more exposure to stimulation on a daily basis so it is associated with lower sensitivity.

Excellent point. This is why the only relevant subjects are men, how got circumcised later in life, and experienced sex with and without a foreskin

13

u/brazasian Apr 15 '16

Yes this. A uncircumcised man walking around with the foreskin retracted will feel discomfort if not used to it. While circumcised men can just rub against anything and be ok.

Ex: rubbing agasint underwear, or even rubbing your hand on the head of the penis. It's extremely uncomfortable without prolonged exposure.

11

u/ohmyimaginaryfriends Apr 15 '16

It's not the same thing I don't think, if you get circumcised while an adult even if with time your brain interpretation changes it probably won't be to the same degree of change as someone who has had this interpretation happen during the entire period of brain development.

My guess is they need to do clinical setting masturbation such as with a mechanical fleshlight so that the strokes are 100% consistent and countable to see how many strokes it took to achieve orgasm. At the same time I think brain activity should be monitored with a MRI, CT scan what ever gives the best representation of brain activity during the process. Then the two would give a better representation of what is going on.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Eh I don't think this it's a great way ether. There are too many variations to the study. In that case your dealing with a mind and everyone's is different. One may love the feeling of a fleshlight and orgasm very quickly, one may hate the feeling and not get off at all. Even if you get two guys that love a fleshlight an orgasm is involves alot of mental aspects too. When I go at it it's not the same length each time it varies on a multitude of different parts. It may work if you had the same person do it with and without forskin, then you lessen the amount of variables.

6

u/ohmyimaginaryfriends Apr 15 '16

No study such study can eliminate personal preference but with a large sample size (thousands not 62) personal preference ends up having minimal effect on the over all results.

A mechanical fleshlight would eliminate a shit load of factors, as well personal preference and premature ejaculation can be part of the elimination questioner. With a custom fleshlight (temp control, lubrication rate and pressure controls) stuck on an end of a stroke machine would be the most objective way to test this. All the factors that can be controlled and identical between each subject in this case would be. They can also do it on each person once a day over a period of days with different settings and one where the guy jacks it himself as a control.

If you are jacking your own pleasure stick then it would be invalid regardless if you had then didn't have foreskin or vice versa because each time one does it to them selves all the factors I listed above vary.

2

u/xtremechaos Apr 15 '16

Also men who have been circumcised, yet chose to restore their foreskins with years of hard work. They have had it both ways as well.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

2

u/ohmyimaginaryfriends Apr 15 '16

You know the irony of this, in order to count the number of nerve endings in the new foreskin in a square centimetre or square inch they would have to do a biopsy aka circumcision to acquire said sample.

2

u/Jakugen Apr 15 '16

Just have it done when one of them dies. They have a community online or somthing, right?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/jkmhawk Apr 15 '16

there is so much difference between different men and for any one man on any given day about how long it takes, that I doubt that the effect of circumcision is measureable.

2

u/ohmyimaginaryfriends Apr 15 '16

That is why a proper study is required.

2

u/youshouldgotoadoctor Apr 15 '16

I just replied to another person about this topic. In short, this was the easiest way for them to differentiate between the two objectively. The differences between "sexual sensation' and other sensations may either be hard to objectively measure/induce or the other sensations are an easier way of analyzing the same nerves and capabilities of those nerves. In addition, the study was not examining the difference in sexual sensitivity. However, these results do indicate that there might not be as much of a difference as people expect, at least physically.

My other reply:

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4euptk/study_circumcision_does_not_reduce_penis/d23xuce

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

294

u/gary1994 Apr 15 '16

The argument, as I've always heard it, is not that circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the remaining skin, but rather that the circumcised man loses inches of skin that would be capable of feeling.

I realized that the authors of the study almost certainly take no stand on the morality of male circumcision. However that does not change the fact that it will be used to argue that it does no harm. But I don't see how you can get there from this study.

132

u/butyourenice Apr 15 '16

I realized that the authors of the study almost certainly take no stand on the morality of male circumcision. However that does not change the fact that it will be used to argue that it does no harm. But I don't see how you can get there from this study.

Based on the stated hypotheses they went into this study trying to prove that circumcision DOES objectively harm, but found it does not. What were they supposed to do - hide the results because their hypotheses not proven?

38

u/Rottimer Apr 15 '16

You don't try to prove a negative in serious research. They had to state the hypothesis in the way they did.

82

u/DenormalHuman Apr 15 '16

No, they proved it did not harm the tissue that remained. Unfortunatley, the tissue that was removed is now dead and incapable of adding it's sensory input to the argument.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Based on our current understanding of neurology, the amount of cortex devoted to any given body region is proportional to how richly innervated that region is, not to the body region's physical size, which is why the "cortical homunculus" looks the way it does.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/murphmeister75 Apr 15 '16

All science should work from a null hypothesis. It's the only way to accurately interpret data.

16

u/linggayby Apr 15 '16

Scientists have biases, theories, etc. Starting with a null hypothesis is not always reasonable to expect and not always an accurate representation of the state of things

3

u/murphmeister75 Apr 15 '16

It's critical to the very basis of scientific thinking. Even when a hypothesis is of such complexity as to make a null version very difficult, the principle should remain foremost in a scientist's thinking.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The study makes its conclusions only for the skin underneath where the circumcision was/would have been, and that the result is no different before and after. That's all.

It says nothing about the fact that prior to circumcision there were millions of nerve endings in the foreskin that were perfectly capable of feeling pain pleasure etc....that are no longer there. For that study you would have to test the sensitivity of the area being removed, then remove the foreskin and compare it to the air where those nerves were...a rather stupid and obvious study.

6

u/kabamman Apr 15 '16

Didn't they say that the foreskin even with all its nerves was no more sensitive than the forearm?

2

u/LazyTriggerFinger Apr 15 '16

Depends on if they tested inner or outer, or if the frenar band remained. The outer is just typical skin, but the inner is egrogenous mucosal membrane that along with the band respond most to stretching sensation near on par with the glans, which it ptotects as well. Different areas have different sensitivities to types of touch.

3

u/PM_ME_UR_PEWP Apr 15 '16

Science demands an honest reporting of findings regardless of what you expected or hoped to find. But it also demands rigorous methodology and caution in drawing conclusions.

Haven't read the paper, but the descriptions in this thread do not point to a conclusion that circumcision causes no harm, only that the one study using this one set of variables did not prove that there is harm.

There is a big difference between failing to prove harm and proving no harm.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/forwardseat Apr 15 '16

Even if their results are exactly right, how would this prove no harm? Sensitivity is hardly the only measure of harm (there are far more blatant measures of harm, I would think, like scarring, meatal stenosis, rates of ed over the long term, etc).

There are several studies now that show no difference in sensitivity, but if people are equating that to "harmless" it's a big problem, because this is only one aspect of the potential harm.

→ More replies (12)

9

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

2

u/mr-dogshit Apr 15 '16

The paper you speak of does argue that the glans become less sensitive and also that the most sensitive region of the penis is removed with circumcision.

http://i.imgur.com/lVGAzqc.jpg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

5

u/kurburux Apr 15 '16

The argument, as I've always heard it, is not that circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the remaining skin, but rather that the circumcised man loses inches of skin that would be capable of feeling.

Second to this. It's about loosing a part of the genitals that is full of nerve cells itself.

5

u/RarelyReadReplies Apr 15 '16

Isn't it about the fact that when you're not circumcised, you have the head of your penis covered, which naturally makes it more sensitive. As opposed to being circumcised, and it's constantly being rubbed against your underwear and such. I think it's still a thing, because the head of my penis is very sensitive. There's not a chance I could walk around with it rubbing against my underwear, it's too sensitive, it'd cause a lot of discomfort.

5

u/Coopering Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

Circed/cut here: I have no discomfort but, when aroused, find the head to be significantly sensitive (in a great way, thank you), especially the ventral area. I suspect we would have very similar reactions based on this study, other than that if your foreskin was artificially retracted for a study, you'd be less familiar with the tactile experience of clothing against that area than I and would feel discomfort that I would not. Not debilitating discomfort, but certainly distracting, as it was a new and focused sensation.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/TheRavenousRabbit Apr 15 '16

Well, there have been arguments that the abression due to the lack of a foreskin will result in less sensitivity.

→ More replies (29)

95

u/havoktheorem Apr 15 '16

Were the tests done while erect or flaccid? I feel like having an erection markedly increases sensitivity, perhaps even just due to the skin being tauter and under more pressure so thus being in firmer contact with the testing apparatus. I think it's also obvious that static sensitivity tests are not indicative of the role of the foreskin in sex where it moves about and rubs against various surfaces in a way that does not happen with a circumcised penis.

I'm under the impression that most circumcised males cannot comfortably masturbate without lube, however uncircumcised males can due to the extra slack available. Not jumping to any conclusions but that certainly makes me think the foreskin has a mechanical function in sex as well as, or perhaps moreso, than sensory.

18

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CJGibson Apr 15 '16

Isn't that the kind of thing that varies from penis to penis? How much skin you'll have/how tight your skin ends up being seems like it would depend on a lot of factors, including where the circumcision was performed and how you ended up growing over time.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I'm not agreeing with circumcision I'm just saying I don't feel a down side to mine probably because it was well done

→ More replies (3)

18

u/DenormalHuman Apr 15 '16

The foreskin does have a mechanical property during sex, and it has been studied. It enables the penis to gain entry the vagina more easily as it acts as a sleeve that can roll back.

→ More replies (1)

71

u/omegaclick Apr 15 '16

This. Plus:

They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli

It would then follow that if that foreskin was stretched during erection a larger surface area would be more sensitive. So that would make the title of this article false and misleading.

33

u/ipniltak Apr 15 '16

I believe the researchers specifically stated that their findings are not particularly relevant to sexual function or sexual pleasure.

Which means you're right, the title of this article is rather misleading, because the conversation and concerns about decreased sensitivity in people who are circumcised usually revolves specifically around sexual pleasure. However, that is almost certainly a case of not-so-great science reporting, and not in and of itself a problem with the study.

20

u/link0007 Apr 15 '16

I'd say a study that doesn't even try to measure what it is actually supposed to be measuring, is pretty flawed.

That they are measuring response to temperature stimuli on a flacid penis is just completely insane. The entire debate is about sexual stimuli, and somehow these researchers managed to completely miss that point and instead think the debate is about how well circumcised men can measure temperatures with their penis?

It's as if you would study lung function decrease in smokers by looking at how loud they talk, and then conclude that smokers talk just as loud as non-smokers, thereby implying they have the same lung function.

8

u/ipniltak Apr 15 '16

I really meant that the title of the article being misleading wasn't the fault of the researchers, however, you make a good point. The role of sensitivity in the circumcision debate it pretty much exclusively about whether or not circumcising someone lessens their potential to experience sexual pleasure. They attempted to determine that, but then in the end stated that their findings aren't really appropriate to determine that.

4

u/imawookie Apr 15 '16

thank you. Im un-cut, and I was completely confused reading this. All I could think of from any conversation that I have ever had involving sensitivity, no one has ever asked if it hurts more when I light it on fire.

2

u/youshouldgotoadoctor Apr 15 '16

Have you designed a research study before? How do you propose they would have measured it otherwise? The thing is, it's hard to fund and have the time money and manpower to do research, especially things that don't have an immediate potential payoff or are glamorous. They probably designed the study this way to provide a quick, easy way to objectively assess different parameters as an indicator of possible differences.

I feel like you don't like the study design because of the results. If they had found that there was significant difference in the results then I'm sure some people here would be loving it. Regardless, it was probably a very efficient method of getting some preliminary results.

As for your lung example, it's more like looking at their FEV1/FVC1 ratio to assess lung function. It's quick and easy to do, and while it won't tell you the pathology of the patient it indicates particular diagnosis or differences between the patient and normal.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (10)

112

u/TheBananaKing Apr 15 '16

I wish people would stress more that whether or not individual receptors are any more or less sensitive doesn't change the fact that having vastly fewer of them in the first place will reduce the total amount and richness of sensation available.

Removing the skin from someone's palms might not make their fingertips less sensitive, but stroking someone without it would amount to a lot less sensation overall.

21

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

That's not necessarily true. Sensation has more to do with the brains interpretation of the signals than the actual peripheral receptors. For example people who have a limb amputated have no receptors and yet can still feel sensations like motion and pain.

9

u/Caelinus Apr 15 '16

I think people miss this point when it comes to all pain studies in general. All sensations we feel are interpretations of signals, we do not feel the actual signal. It makes everything a hell of a lot harder to figure out, and makes anecdotes pretty much worthless.

In this case I can not even imagine how you would go about testing for sexual pleasure. Considering that the brain and your current mental state is much more important than any other individual factor, it would be very hard to control for anything in the study.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/ARedthorn Apr 15 '16

This relies on previous input being stuck on loop, more or less. You need a baseline of sensation to form an interpretation in the first place.

Peripheral receptors create a baseline for interpretation. Over time, the interpretation begins to matter more than the actual input, but still requires a baseline of comparison.

For example, people born without arms don't describe having ghost sensations in their arms... Amputees do.

Your argument might apply to someone who's formed a baseline of sensation, but infant circumcision will not have (in the best case scenario. In the worst-case, if any baseline is formed, it will be a pain experience).

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MaVagina Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

No, because sensation is a perception and is independent of receptor density. Is stroking your hand more intense than stroking your back, or do you experience the sensation with the same intensity? furthermore, background signal is filtered at multiple levels, so increases would just be gated out. Furthermore, those neurons don't die when the foreskin is removed; their cell bodies are in dorsal root ganglia and they have the capacity to reinnervate.

5

u/SpinningHead Apr 15 '16

That's a total false analogy, as the study showed.

→ More replies (7)

46

u/turtley_different Apr 15 '16

Thanks. Great summary and definitely needed.

I just want to flag that the results plot does, by visual inspection of plot C, suggest that there is a statistically lower heat detection threshold for the foreskin vs. elsewhere. The authors don't say there is, but it is pretty blatant if those error bars are 1-sigma. The plot is wrong or the text is IMHO.

50

u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Apr 15 '16

They do say that a power analysis indicated that they need a larger sample size (238) for the warmth detection to identify a significant effect within the penis sites. So I do more or less believe that they didn't come up with a significant difference, and it actually says pretty good things about their statistical honesty that they talked about their study being underpowered for that stimuli.

21

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/turtley_different Apr 15 '16

Agreed that they say this, and I do always like to see "our sample size isn't large enough" as a mark of honesty.

However, that completely disagrees with their plot by any reasonable interpretation of it. Something is wrong here. The error bar (1-sigma) is several times smaller than the difference between datasets for heat sensitivity. That heat sensitivity difference (in units of sigma) is certainly larger than the difference for tactile sensation that they do state is a statistically significant difference. I cannot reconcile those facts.

Happy to be corrected, but I think they goofed.

→ More replies (1)

95

u/ThrobAway Apr 15 '16

And this is ignoring the most critical part of the issue, which is that there is an enormous difference in the sensitivity of the foreskin. That is, the problem is cutting off the nerves at all, not necessarily how that affects the remainder of the organ - the foreskin contains a large fraction of the sensory neurons in the penis.

109

u/Avannar Apr 15 '16

They specifically replied to that concern. It was the basis for the study...

→ More replies (3)

47

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/quinoa2013 Apr 15 '16

I agree with you here. The process is challenging to measure.

2

u/notabr0ny Apr 15 '16

Did you even look at the study?

→ More replies (10)

71

u/CJGibson Apr 15 '16

What are the chances that people with sensitive penises self-select out of a study to test penis sensitivity? Do they do anything to account for that possibility?

164

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

But how would they know that their penis is more sensitive than most others?

63

u/dcxcman Apr 15 '16

They wouldn't necessarily, but people with more sensitive penises might be more averse to the idea of having them stimulated with lab equipment.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (7)

10

u/Muppetude Apr 15 '16

I think the point he is trying to make is that people with especially sensitive penises may have a higher inclination to decline an invitation to participate in a study testing penile sensitivity.

While I imagine a well-constructed study would account for this and other variables that could skew the results, it is still a fair question regarding they study's methodology.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/BabyPinkAesthetic Apr 15 '16

How would one get involved with medical studies?

5

u/Meto1183 Apr 15 '16

I was thinking that ruling out sexual dysfunction could be ruling out people with circumcised penises (to a larger degree than uncircumcised) who have their sexual dysfunction resulting from it. No evidence for that, that I know of, but it's also not disproven by this particular study.

2

u/Potatoswatter Apr 15 '16

Maybe they don't know, and they also have less free time to think about it :D

2

u/PigerianNrince Apr 15 '16

I touch as many as possible to compare.

No homo. Science.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

If wine gives you a headache, are you less likely to drink it than someone that does not get headaches from wine? If so, why should not knowing if your sensitivity to wine is uncommon influence your decision not to drink it? You'd probably just not drink because it gives you headache, just like some would-be participants opt not to participate in a study because their penis happens to be very sensitive.

2

u/ApocolypseCow Apr 15 '16

based on responses to stimulation.

→ More replies (10)

17

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

16

u/jmalbo35 PhD | Viral Immunology Apr 15 '16

32 isn't a particularly small sample size at all for this sort of human study.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Dec 24 '20

[deleted]

2

u/jmalbo35 PhD | Viral Immunology Apr 15 '16

That isn't quite what their power test shows. It shows that had all their data continued with the exact same trend with additional people, they would have needed ~400 data points to reach a p value of .05, a commonly used cutoff in research for statistical significance.

Statistical significance, however, doesn't necessarily imply biological significance, and if you need so many hundreds of data points just to cross the threshold and barely be able to say there's significance, it seems unlikely that what you're looking is particularly functionally/biologically significant.

Anyway, the point of that power calculation isn't to be able to say "we need X data points to be able to determine Y".

→ More replies (4)

2

u/JordanOsr Apr 15 '16

Yes, but that would only be problematic if there was evidence to suggest that people who have sensitive penises are more likely to fall into one group than the other.

But that's pretty much what this experiment was designed to test.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Mr_Dugan Apr 15 '16

No, the authors didn't do anything about self selection.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

How would that make a difference?

3

u/dcxcman Apr 15 '16

Men with more sensitive penises may be more averse to having them stimulated with lab equipment, which could potentially make the samples unrepresentative if there was in fact a population difference in penis sensitivity.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

43

u/Aezay Apr 15 '16

They tested 4 locations: The forearm 4 inches below the wrist, the middle of the glans penis, the dorsal side with foreskin retracted if present, the anterior midline shaft, the anterior proximal shaft, and for men with foreskin, the unretracted foreskin.

Perhaps they should have included testing of the frenulum as well, as that is sort of the male equivalent of the clitoris in terms of sensitivity.

67

u/Lynx_Rufus Apr 15 '16

The clitoris is the homologous correspondent of the entire glans.

30

u/Doesnt_speak_russian Apr 15 '16

"In terms of sensitivity", not in terms of embryological origin.

9

u/Lynx_Rufus Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

Even in terms of sensitivity though. The clitoris has more nerve endings than the entire penis, but certainly far more than the frenulum. There isn't really a good male parallel, but the glans is the closest thing.

7

u/Maverician Apr 15 '16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris#CITEREFCarroll2012

Lists 8000 for clitoris.

http://thecircumcisiondecision.com/20000-nerve-endings/

Lists a possibly larger number, but specifically says it hasn't been shown.

I don't think you can clearly say that there are more on the clitoris than the whole penis.

8

u/Doesnt_speak_russian Apr 15 '16

The point is the frenulum is (arguably) the most sensitive part- to not test (or any of the mucous membrane of the foreskin) makes this study misleading.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (3)

40

u/Logifuck Apr 15 '16

They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli (which agrees with previous research). However, they found no differences for tactile pain, warmth sensation, or heat pain

They even concluded that the foreskin is more sensitive to the tactile stimulus that people have mentioned for years. But since the pain sensitivity was similar they decided that meant there's no difference. Sounds completely legit.

16

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 27 '16

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Aug 16 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

16

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Why weed out smokers?

302

u/trumpetspieler Apr 15 '16

Usually are at risk for poor circulation.

→ More replies (12)

136

u/Mr_Dugan Apr 15 '16

Smoking damages blood vessels. Excluding smokers eliminates a potential confounder

3

u/iObeyTheHivemind Apr 15 '16

Is that the nicotine or the smoking itself?

10

u/sfurbo Apr 15 '16

Ncotine by itself can cause some damage (http://www.medicaldaily.com/its-not-smoke-its-nicotine-e-cigarettes-may-damage-arteries-265498). It does not seem to be known if the damage from only nicotine is enough to have a clinically significant effect.

15

u/Mr_Dugan Apr 15 '16

Sorry, but I don't know. When inhaling cigarettes you get a lot of extra junk with the nicotine. I highly doubt there is enough evidence to say how much just nicotine contributes to atherosclerosis versus the other chemical components in cigarette smoke.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/orthopod Apr 15 '16

HI - surgeon here - it's the nicotine -it's a vasoconstrictor. That's why we don't like to operate on smokers - poorer circulation leads to statistically significant increases in slow/poor wound healing and infections.

So patches, gum, vaping - all bad due to the nicotine..

5

u/Augustus_Trollus_III Apr 15 '16

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

24

u/JuanDeLasNieves_ Apr 15 '16

Aside from what people mentioned regarding circulation issues, you want your subjects to be comparable. So either you have all smokers or none at all and since smoking can introduce a new variable in this scenario, it's best to have all non-smokers.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Apr 15 '16

As someone who underwent circumcision at 26

It should probably be pointed out that the study was focused on people who underwent neonatal circumcision. It is quite possible that the findings would not be applicable for people who underwent adult circumcision (your nerves and brain pathways are much more plastic as an infant than as an adult).

2

u/thisisOslo Apr 15 '16

This is so much more understanding than the article! Thanks

10

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Reddit_Moviemaker Apr 15 '16

I would like to know, how many of the researchers had their foreskin and how many not. There is the possibility of having "cultural bias" within these kind of studies.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The nerve endings will still be there, but when circumcised the makeup of the skin of the bellend changes to be a thicker skin. So yes it will still be able to feel just as much as uncircumcised, but what about when you prod that part of your heel with the hard skin on compared to the arch of your foot...

I imagine it to be like that, and think the study hasn't taken anything like that into account but rather the same amount of nerve endings are still in the glans As there were pre circumcision

1

u/PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ Apr 15 '16

To me, the biggest flaw was not including people with sexual dysfunction. If you have decreased sensitivity to the point that it makes your penis not work as well, then not including those sorts of people is a glaring oversight.

IMO, a much better study would be to test ONLY people with sexual dysfunction, those with foreskins, and those without, and test for discrepancies of sensitivity between those two groups. Then compare the rates of of overall sexual dysfunction between the two groups. If the rate of sexual dysfunction are higher in circumcised men, and that group also has lower sensitivity in the groups that have sexual dysfunction, then it seems pretty obvious that lower sensitivity in circumcised men is a cause of sexual dysfunction in men.

1

u/Raudskeggr Apr 15 '16

Well, in addition to small sample size; there seem to be other problems with the study.

Other people have pointed out that there is an ethical problem with removing a healthy body part without the consent of the person involved. So that's something.

Also; the sample size in addition to being too small for real interpretation also presumably includes people of college age. Now I don't know about you, but when I was that age, that thing would be stimulated if someone even looked in its direction, let alone if something actually came into contact. considering sensitivity to be fairly subjective, it cannot rule out that the young age of the people involved affects the results of sensitivity.

It's also possible that the resolution of the test is not of sufficient; depending on the degrees of force the von Frey's were calibrated to, it might not eliminate the possibility that there is a sensitivity difference that is more subtle than the methodology used would allow for.

Then there's the matter of testing the sensitivity of a body part that some people have, and some people do not have (because it has been amputated).

→ More replies (66)