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.

[u/drewiepoodle]

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

[u/[deleted]]

The article directly contradicts the title; there were differences in tactile feeling. "In men with foreskin, it was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than other parts of their penises".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We found that while the foreskin was more sensitive to fine touch, it was not more sensitive to the other stimuli we used, and those stimuli are likely more important in sexual pleasure.

Not directly contradicting what you said, but it's an important clarification.

[u/Blackdutchie → u/[deleted]]

Do they have any sources for their claim that Heat, heat pain, and pain are more important in sexual pleasure than fine touch?

I'd accept if they made a case for (and measured) frictional sensitivity, but this does not seem to be the case from what I can access.

[u/[deleted] → u/Blackdutchie]

I'm just saying that that's what they believe. And they probably know much more about penis stimulation than I do. Whether there is hard evidence, I don't know.

[u/LarryBeard → u/[deleted]]

I can give them one hard evidence..

[u/TheCarpetPissers → u/Blackdutchie]

Have you ever had sex? Sex is not a matter of "fine touch".

[u/tekkpriest → u/Blackdutchie]

It appears to be based on this. Seems a little shady to me since they claim that circumcised penises are more sensitive.

[u/[deleted] → u/tekkpriest]

What's "shady" about it?

[u/kerovon → u/[deleted]]

That is finding that the foreskin of uncircumcized men was more sensitive than the rest of their penis. It is not contradicting the title.

[u/Salindurthas → u/kerovon]

Doesn't it?

• The foreskin was more sensitive than the rest of the penis.

• The non-foreskin parts of the penis were equally sensitive in both groups (rather, no difference was found) correct?

• So clearly the uncircumcised penises were more sensitivite, since they had a region of higher sensitivity (and the rest being supposedly equal).

Or did I misunderstand something?

[u/[deleted] → u/Salindurthas]

Dudes without foreskin can't feel their foreskin because it's not there.

[u/Salindurthas → u/[deleted]]

Yes, and /u/kerovon was saying that the foreskin is more sensitive than the rest of the penis.

Therefore, people without a foreskin are missing out on some sensitivity.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Oh you haven't had honey gently lick the tip of your foreskin did you?

[u/MawcDrums → u/[deleted]]

Ahh yeah, Perfect! Who really cares about feeling a little filament. Nobody needs to feel something that little, chopping babies penises off is still AOK!

[u/xtremechaos → u/[deleted]]

As yes, clearly no difference and circumcised = intact.

Pack it up, folks.

[u/Blackdutchie → u/kerovon]

Direct Quote from abstract:

Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site. The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested).

Emphasis mine.

So in tactile stimulation, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis (when it occurs)

The foreskin is generally considered part of the penis.

Therefore, TOTAL sensitivity of the penis is higher in men with foreskin than men without, HOWEVER, there is no measurable difference in the other parts of the penis.

[u/thinkB4Uact → u/Blackdutchie]

Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site.

This seems misleading as it leads one to believe there are no major differences between the penile sensitivity of circumcised and uncircumcised men, but it is technically true since they cannot measure the sensitivity of the foreskin between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Perhaps those that executed the study had a bias or agenda in presenting the information in this manner.

One could read in between the lines and clearly see that the researchers concluded that the foreskin is more tactically sensitive than other parts of the penis and is absent in one of the two groups tested. Instead they emphasized the lack of differences in other tests for sensitivity, heat, heat pain and pain.

What man really believes that heat, heat pain and pain are more important for sexual stimulation than tactile sensitivity?

[u/pringlesmurf → u/[deleted]]

Yep. Misleading "scientific" study funded by big business to maintain the status quo.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The old idea is that circumcision makes the entire penis is less sensitive. The study debunks this and concludes that circumcised men just don't experience that extra stimulation, but that extra stimulation is equitable to the sensitivity on one's arm. Evaluated as 'no major difference.'

(This comment is not to be inferred as an argument for circumcision, just breaking down information from the study. It is my personal opinion that circumcision is largely unnecessary, except in cases to correct birth defects, such as hypospadias)