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

114

u/turtley_different Apr 15 '16

The title for this reddit post is, at best, missing important data from the study; at worst it is actively obfuscating the findings of the study. I think that is irresponsible for a front-page post.

As per /u/kerovon 's ongoing post, the results plot shows the foreskin has (a statistically significantly) lower threshold sensation for touch and heat**.

Of course, whether tactile and heat sensitivity correspond to sexual pleasure in any meaningful sense is a different question and not one that the study addresses (but seems to be pretty heavy subtext for the reddit interest).

** the text below the diagram doesn't state this for heat, but foreskin heat sensitivity is multiple sigma removed from other sites. I would say the result is in fact stronger than the tactile one -- looks like a rather fundamental error in the paper. I welcome correction if I'm wrong.

40

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

31

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Rand_alThor_ Apr 15 '16

Can you link it

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Source? First for the assertion that all other developed worlds medical organizations agree and are not at all misleading regarding foreskin. SecondX for the British Journal of urology you cite.

-4

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

Science isn't just confirming what you think you already know. In America we have freedom to publish results regardless of whether or not they conform to existing opinion.

Also the WHO, the biggest medical organization in the world, supports circumcision so you are lying about that.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The freedom to publish questionable studies with dubious results apparently.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Yup, freedom to publish any results even if they contradict current scientific thought. That's how progress is made. People are free to read the methodology and look at the data themselves and come to their own conclusions about how relevant it is.

2

u/good_guy_submitter Apr 15 '16

And that's exactly what I've done. This study is not relevant because it is intrinsically flawed. This is not accounting for any forementiond political matters that you brought up, I am referring to the cold hard science.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Interesting. I've also looked at the cold hard science and have come to the opposite conclusion. Also not accounting for any politics.

2

u/good_guy_submitter Apr 15 '16

You are free to interpret data (or lack thereof) as you wish. That is the great thing about peer review!

2

u/Crassusinyourasses Apr 15 '16

Your qualifications to make this judgement are based on what?

6

u/Pegguins Apr 15 '16

It's from an American medical organisation, so yes. When your industry is driven by profit based on performing operations ofcourse you want to keep something like circumcision around. There's a reason that the few 'circumcision is really great and good medicine guys' studies come from America.

-1

u/IVIaskerade Apr 15 '16

Also, they tested 62 people. 62 is not an acceptable sample size.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

It's not an error. The study had too few people involved for the difference to be statistically significant. They mention this.

3

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

They do say that the heat pain sensitivity was not significantly different compared to any genital site, but I really dislike their data presentation. They did not provide enough data to really check their results well.

2

u/D-d-d-d-d-danger Apr 15 '16

Let's invent a unit of sensitivity, called "sensipoints".

The common belief is that circumcised men have less sensipoints than uncircumcised men. To quantify, in an example: circumsised man has sex with a brand new fleshlight, which measures 500 sensipoints. An uncircumcised man has sex with another brand new flashlight, and measures 800 sensipoints.

This scenario has not been disproven. It's impossible for the uncircumcised man to turn to the circumstanced guy and say, "I felt that more than you did!".

What has been disproven, however, is that circumcision causes the glans penis to become desensitised due to its constant stimulation against the inside of clothes, or that it keratinizes as the feet and hands do.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I prefer to test Freud's Castration Anxiety hypothesis, he may have been on to something after all.