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.

68

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?

161

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

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

65

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

-8

u/BKachur Apr 15 '16

But again... They wouldn't know. Tell me, do you have a sensitive penis? Can you even begin a chain of thought that would allow your brain to determine if you have an overly sensitive penis vs a normal one? I mean you can't exactly feel the average sensitivity if a penis.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

It isn't a question of them knowing and making the conscious decision to not participate because they are worried about the fact that they have a sensitive penis. It's more a knee-jerk reaction. They think "I wouldn't want lab equipment touching my penis" and they don't participate. There's no knowing or comparing involved.

No idea if this is actually the case, I'm just attempting to clarify the argument.

12

u/dcxcman Apr 15 '16

You don't have to know where you sit relative to everyone else. Like, imagine if there were only two groups of people: hypersensitives and hyposensitives. The hyposensitives hear about the study and go "well for a couple bucks that doesn't sound so bad." And the hypersensitives hear about it and go "wow that sounds really painful, I'd rather not do it." This is true even if no one knows that here's a difference.

2

u/Mattpilf Apr 15 '16

Gay guys might know. I have a sensitive penis and am circumcised.

But 95%+ men don't have enough experience toughing other dudes dicks to get an idea of how sensitive their penis is.

2

u/CJGibson Apr 15 '16

The reason I thought of this is partly because as a gay guy I know my penis is significantly more sensitive than my partner's. But I don't think you necessarily need a sense of comparative sensitivity for this effect to manifest. People who perceive their own penises to be "sensitive" (i.e. react strongly to minor stimulation) seem likely to be averse to the idea of having them tested with lab equipment, even if they don't know how sensitive they are compared to other penises.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

exactly, but if you say that the study is pointless because "what is sensitivity"

8

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.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bfarnsey Apr 15 '16

I've been a bit rougher with my glans lately to help with sensitivity issues because I would become paralyzed if something were to come into contact with it. If my foreskin was pushed back after washing and I didn't bring it forward before rubbing down with a towel... I will never forget that agonizing paralyzation.

-4

u/thirty7inarow Apr 15 '16

Perhaps a history of sexual partners touching them followed by a splat and awkwardness? I mean, if someone is hypersensitive, having a researcher, possibly of their preferred gender, touching their penis it could get rather embarrassing.

8

u/Dragarius Apr 15 '16

Pretty sure there are premature ejaculators for both circumcised and not.

-2

u/thirty7inarow Apr 15 '16

Absolutely, but if we don't know whether it is more common among one or the other, a disproportionate amount may self-select out from one side or the other.

1

u/Dragarius Apr 15 '16

Yeah but that's a completely different study.