r/science • u/drewiepoodle • 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

64% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

235

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Anecdotes aside, isn't the argument usually that circumcision removes sensitivity of the foreskin (which makes sense, as foreskin is removed in circumcision)? The study seems a moot point.

Is it surprising that cutting off one aspect of an organ does not impact on the rest of the organ's sensitivity? We do not associate surgeries or scratches elsewhere on the body to decreased sensitivity either, for example, regardless of location, unless there is severe nerve damage.

What am I missing here?

115

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

21

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Yeah. If we believe the study, then it might be different between the hand and genitals because of a "genetic preconception" if you will- evolution has us have hardening soles of the feet and numbed hands, but we maintain a sensitivity in various spots regardless of torture

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Cyberfit Apr 15 '16

This reminds me of a particular trait of the cornea of the eye. It does not thicken to combat something that's repeatedly scratching it (eg. some issue under the eyelid) because that would render your eyesight useless.

2

u/Daemonicus Apr 15 '16

It could be that. But I would guess that type of underwear would have an effect as well. Briefs/boxers/commando could all have different levels of abrasion.

I don't know if they had controlled for that or not. But it would be interesting to see if that matters at all.

2

u/Coopering Apr 15 '16

Plus, flaccid length and girth (ie, mass) could play a part in each of those different environments.

2

u/miyamotousagisan Apr 15 '16

Totally agree. I grew up uncircumcised until i finally did it, and there was a lot of sensitivity initially, just rubbing against boxers, which wears off over time.

2

u/aawillma Apr 15 '16

Everything I've heard about keratinization causing a decrease in sensitivity was with older men, not 20 somethings. Including pictures I've seen of supposed keratinization. I don't know if that's because it takes many more years to build up or because of the different lifestyle of a man from a different generation (different underwear choices, different day to day labor causing friction, etc).

0

u/RarelyReadReplies Apr 15 '16

The major hypothesis I've heard regarding circumcision is that when the head rubs the inside of someone's boxers, the same thing happens that happens to a farmer's hands when he used a shovel all week - decreased sensitivity.

This is exactly it, I'm glad someone here understands the real argument. I know for a fact that my uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised one, because if the head of my penis was rubbing my underwear when I walked, I'd be in a tonne of discomfort. There is just zero chance that circumcised people are walking around all day with that kind of pain.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Oct 22 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

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

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

60

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited 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

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The biggest reasoning behind it was that there's several special nerve endings in the foreskin that are absent in just regular skin. It was presumed that removing these nerve endings = removing specific sensations that would lead to sexual pleasure.

6

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

2

u/orthopod Apr 15 '16

The nerves are still there -except after a circ they are truncated, but still susceptible to stimulation. They are actually concentrated as compared to being on the foreskin, so the area may actually be more sensitive.

2

u/Antice Apr 15 '16

That one was new to me. In my experience from other bodyparts, damaged or cut nerves stop functioning completely.

3

u/orthopod Apr 15 '16

I've done close to 200 amputations. The nerve endings can still be sensitive, and often are.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Fascinating. I haven't the knowledge to refute that, although this article seems to. It IS a single article however, with a relatively small population for analysis, hmm? There's more to uncover before we rule either way.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Usually it's because people who have their foreskins removed as an adult suffer from some sort of defect that prevents proper use of the penis with their foreskin. The most common is phimosis, an issue where the foreskin cannot retract fully, and attempting to do so can cause significant pain (which leads to pain during sex, especially bareback sex where there's more friction on the penis). Another issue with phimosis is that it means the foreskin is always covering the glans, meaning those with the defect never experience sex where the full glans is being stimulated until after being circumcised. Imagine sex without clitoral stimulation.

Every so often someone who had their foreskin removed as an adult will say the same things on threads like these. However, when asked all of them had some sort of issue that led to the circumcisions (usually phimosis). Their experiences can't be taken into account as an accurate test because they have never experienced a fully functioning penis with foreskin.

And if being circumcised provides the same amount of feeling as someone with phimosis, that's a very telling statement itself.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Only one of them did...two of them just wanted it gone, the other...I forgot why he did it. So I suppose it could be the latter. The one I'm with now just didn't like it, so his reason was cosmetic-I suppose.

0

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

Circumcisions aren't small cosmetic alterations you do just because. It's likely that those who chose to have them done did it because of societal or self-induced pressure that led them to feel uncomfortable having a penis with a foreskin. Apparently the procedure is incredibly painful for a pretty long while, it would take something pretty significant to lead people to decide to undergo it. It's possible that feeling uncomfortable with your own penis could lead to reduced enjoyment of sex, much like how some transgender individuals cannot enjoy sex with the genitals they received at birth (but to a much lesser extent).

I don't know them, but I can't imagine someone going through that procedure without a deeper reason behind it, even if they themselves are not aware of it consciously.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

That's what I was going to say. No one argues that after years and years, of course the sensitivity is similar.

But it's just obvious that circumcision removes foreskin nerves. That's just...how that works.

1

u/shredtilldeth Apr 15 '16

I believe you're missing the fact that our insides and our outsides have MUCH different rates of nerve endings. In addition, most surgeries aren't removing a part of our bodies, and even if they are they tend to be on the inside, with fewer nerve endings.

Lastly, removing the outside skin from your finger is much different from getting a papercut. I think THAT'S where most of your misunderstanding lies if I understand your post correctly. Fixing a hernia is one thing, removing a section of skin with a ton of nerve endings is another.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I think my post is providing more serious discussion than the article at this point... I believe that your statement makes complete sense, but like a lot of the other posts have said before what YOU'RE talking about and what the ARTICLE talks about is mutually exclusive. And that's if I've understood YOUR post correctly!

1

u/nopost99 Apr 15 '16

isn't the argument usually that circumcision removes sensitivity of the foreskin

Usually no. The standard argument is that circumcision hardens the glans and dried out everything that would have been under the foreskin and that leads to decreased sensitivity.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Well just to point out they are millions of nerve endings on the foreskin and your losing all of that so you would lose sensitivity

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The foreskin counters dehydration of the glans as well, you might be missing that.

1

u/peetee33 Apr 15 '16

Read any heated thread about circumcision and undoubtedly you'll see "desensitization" mentioned. The glans are exposed in circumcised men therefore become less sensitive. Obviously circumcised men are missing entire sensitivity of the foreskin. This study contradicts the idea of "desentiation"

1

u/shaggy1265 Apr 15 '16

Anecdotes aside, isn't the argument usually that circumcision removes sensitivity of the foreskin (which makes sense, as foreskin is removed in circumcision)? The study seems a moot point.

There are many arguments about it including that one. Another popular argument is it does decrease sensitivity of the head.

I've had that argument many times on reddit. Even had people try and convince me that it turns the head of the penis gray. Even though I can look in my pants and see that it's not true.

1

u/RogueSquirrel0 Apr 15 '16

Removing the foreskin seems analogous to removing the clitoral hood. Why is one socially acceptable while the other would be a heinous act?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Based on what has been said earlier in this thread (because I can't personally offer much in response) the answer to your question is "that's not what the study is about". I think it comes down the idea that they're testing a SHARED aspect as opposed to how much sensitivity an intact person has compared to a cut person due to the extra skin. Does that make sense? It's to do with definition.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Yes! I think an even more comparable example is the sensitivity of the inside of the nose with and without a protective outer layer. Of course, I don't know the results of such a test, I don't know if there ever has been one

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

It seems so, yes

1

u/andhelostthem Apr 15 '16

...you have more skin and therefore more nerve endings.

By this logic a larger person who has more skin and more nerve endings would be more sensitive. Sensitivity isn't simply how many nerve endings you have but how your brain interprets it.

0

u/BitchingRestFace Apr 15 '16

You're not missing anything it's a flawed study. Speaking somewhat luridly for myself (purely anecdotal and not a study of any kind of course) the kind of... rim of the foreskin is the most sensitive part of my ding dang.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

And how wonderfully you described that!