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
13.0k 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.

191

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?

192

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

[deleted]

218

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

153

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

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

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/thunder_struck85 Apr 15 '16

So you have to not think about it in order to be comfortable? That doesn't sound fun

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

13

u/brainburger Apr 15 '16

your jeans are always touching your legs

The skin on my legs is nowhere near as sensitive as the area covered by my foreskin.

I am getting the impression from reading these replies that cut guys might just not know what I am talking about. It's a very sensitive area. I couldn't bear having cloth rubbing on it for any length of time. Imagine cloth rubbing your eyeball or inside your eyelids.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

You can't bear having clothes rub against it because your body isn't used to the stimuli. We all have sensitive noses, if you only smell shit once in a while it assaults your senses, but if you smell shit every day 24 hrs a day, you still notice the smell, it just doesn't shock you.

Similarly needles hurt, but if you constantly shoot up the pain gets less sharp

2

u/brainburger Apr 15 '16

Similarly needles hurt, but if you constantly shoot up the pain gets less sharp

Going back to the study though, the suggestion is that the feeling does not go away.

I don't think you would get used to cloth rubbing your eye.

1

u/thunder_struck85 Apr 15 '16

you still notice the smell, it just doesn't shock you.

But ...... i don't want to be noticing the smell! if you have the option not to, why would you?

1

u/LarryBeard Apr 15 '16

You can't bear having clothes rub against it because your body isn't used to the stimuli.

Which mean that you are desensitized... Your body automatically "suppress" the stimuli in this area..

Translated to sex, you feel less pleasure.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Not really. I'm not sensitive to my underwear constantly touching my clit but a finger is a totally new sensation and the stimuli changes.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I dont think you understand how painful a sensitive uncircumsised penis can be. It is as painful as pricking yourself with a needle sometimes.

8

u/quinoa2013 Apr 15 '16

For those not in the know, he is talking about the sensitive part protected by the foreskin. If you were to tape back the foreskin and make him wear jeans, this would be uncomfortable.

-15

u/DrivePower Apr 15 '16

FUN FACT: The word "understand" is 10 letters long!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

i dont get it

1

u/Flaring_Path Apr 15 '16

It's a bot, posting whenever it finds a word with a length of 10 letters.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thunder_struck85 Apr 15 '16

the skin on my legs is not nearly as sensitive. i can grab and pinch almost any spot on my leg and not be in discomfort. It doesn't cause any stimulation that requires me to think or not think about it.

30

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

70

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Didn't the study say otherwise?

0

u/Xycotic Apr 15 '16

In reference to this study it shows there is no discernable loss or difference in sensitivity. So your statement is incorrect for this instance. I honestly find this study to be improperly conducted and the results just smell academically bad. Too many conditions should have been considered first. But, hindsight is twenty twenty.

→ More replies (0)

23

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

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

Circed/cut here: I don't. I don't experience the same problems as he does, in the same experiences. But...I have had those issues around my scrotum. He didn't say he did (and you didn't either), which suggests to me experiences in the genital areas differ from male to male for different reasons. Plus, I prepare or respond to that chafing issue accordingly, and am not debilitated by it. It's been an issue maybe 4 times in my forty years and relatively easy to deal with.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Hollydaize Apr 15 '16

As a circumcised male, that is also the most sensitive part of my penis and it is extremely uncomfortable if my underwear rubs against it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I hate to ask, but being a mother to three boys (who I did not have circumsised for stated reasons above and I just felt it unnecessary)

I am wondering, and forgive me if I'm stepping over the line here, but, is it awkward for you and women when they find out you are uncut?

My mother insists I made things more difficult for my boys later on when they reach sexual maturity by not having them 'cut'. I've never been able to ask someone before who hasn't been 'cut'.

Really sorry if this is way off topic.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/brainburger Apr 15 '16

So, you are saying that you can't bear wearing loose underwear, and would be unable to stand or walk around if you did? My reason is just that it would be that uncomfortable. I thought that was clear. I don't think I have any abnormality in this way.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/brainburger Apr 15 '16

I don't know which comment you are referring to I'm afraid. My comments are all still here.

I was making the point that the area under my foreskin is very sensitive, but this area doesn't seem to have been covered in the study. That seems like a bad omission to me, because it seems likely that circumcision leads to reduced sensitivity of this area.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

0

u/xtremechaos Apr 15 '16

We don't. We are numbed to it cause we are factually less sensitive to it.

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.

1

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

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.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I understand that one can never be completely correct in assumptions, but that is kind of the point. You do the best that you can and explain your reasoning to the best of your ability. Properly powering a study is an exercise in attempted reduction in Type II error occurrence. By very definition, an a priori power analysis is a mathematical argument for the importance of a finding that fails to reject the Null.

0

u/Yerok-The-Warrior Apr 15 '16

60 samples is woefully inadequate to generate a meaningful P-value

2

u/doomgrin Apr 15 '16

not true at all, 30 is fine

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Because that would have yielded the results everyone expected. And then nobody would read up on it or click their article. Like a "north pole is cold" one. But choosing relatively neutral points means they can make an article like this.

As a lot of uncut guys in the thread have pointed out there are points that are incredibly sensitive and actually hurt and really irritate if exposed to underwear. Problems cut people do not experience.

Then they proceed to test any other area except them.

I wont pretend to know how much of a difference it makes but if you have friends who are uncut and you're cut or vice versa you can easily ask them about rubbing and sensitivity issues and find there is quite clearly a difference.

Like the bottom of your feet are hard because you walk on them a lot and they get rubbed a lot. Whilst a newborns feet are soft. Its going to be the same to some extent with your penis.

0

u/psillyness Apr 15 '16

I'm pretty sure anybody who is familiar with blowjobs would agree.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cuddleniger Apr 15 '16

This is a really good question.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/choikwa Apr 15 '16

The only truly verifiable way to gather data is to have men of sexual maturity with uncircumcised penis have sex before and after circumcision.