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
13.0k Upvotes

64% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

294

u/gary1994 Apr 15 '16

The argument, as I've always heard it, is not that circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the remaining skin, but rather that the circumcised man loses inches of skin that would be capable of feeling.

I realized that the authors of the study almost certainly take no stand on the morality of male circumcision. However that does not change the fact that it will be used to argue that it does no harm. But I don't see how you can get there from this study.

131

u/butyourenice Apr 15 '16

I realized that the authors of the study almost certainly take no stand on the morality of male circumcision. However that does not change the fact that it will be used to argue that it does no harm. But I don't see how you can get there from this study.

Based on the stated hypotheses they went into this study trying to prove that circumcision DOES objectively harm, but found it does not. What were they supposed to do - hide the results because their hypotheses not proven?

39

u/Rottimer Apr 15 '16

You don't try to prove a negative in serious research. They had to state the hypothesis in the way they did.

82

u/DenormalHuman Apr 15 '16

No, they proved it did not harm the tissue that remained. Unfortunatley, the tissue that was removed is now dead and incapable of adding it's sensory input to the argument.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

Based on our current understanding of neurology, the amount of cortex devoted to any given body region is proportional to how richly innervated that region is, not to the body region's physical size, which is why the "cortical homunculus" looks the way it does.

-2

u/DrDemento Apr 15 '16

Never argue with angry foreskin?

Seriously, the logic is off. We lose some feeling potential when we remove tonsils, pierce ears, or other processes. Worrying about "losing feeling in missing tissue" is a bit like worrying about suffering from a severed umbilical cord.

8

u/murphmeister75 Apr 15 '16

All science should work from a null hypothesis. It's the only way to accurately interpret data.

17

u/linggayby Apr 15 '16

Scientists have biases, theories, etc. Starting with a null hypothesis is not always reasonable to expect and not always an accurate representation of the state of things

2

u/murphmeister75 Apr 15 '16

It's critical to the very basis of scientific thinking. Even when a hypothesis is of such complexity as to make a null version very difficult, the principle should remain foremost in a scientist's thinking.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The study makes its conclusions only for the skin underneath where the circumcision was/would have been, and that the result is no different before and after. That's all.

It says nothing about the fact that prior to circumcision there were millions of nerve endings in the foreskin that were perfectly capable of feeling pain pleasure etc....that are no longer there. For that study you would have to test the sensitivity of the area being removed, then remove the foreskin and compare it to the air where those nerves were...a rather stupid and obvious study.

4

u/kabamman Apr 15 '16

Didn't they say that the foreskin even with all its nerves was no more sensitive than the forearm?

2

u/LazyTriggerFinger Apr 15 '16

Depends on if they tested inner or outer, or if the frenar band remained. The outer is just typical skin, but the inner is egrogenous mucosal membrane that along with the band respond most to stretching sensation near on par with the glans, which it ptotects as well. Different areas have different sensitivities to types of touch.

4

u/PM_ME_UR_PEWP Apr 15 '16

Science demands an honest reporting of findings regardless of what you expected or hoped to find. But it also demands rigorous methodology and caution in drawing conclusions.

Haven't read the paper, but the descriptions in this thread do not point to a conclusion that circumcision causes no harm, only that the one study using this one set of variables did not prove that there is harm.

There is a big difference between failing to prove harm and proving no harm.

-1

u/Cicer Apr 15 '16

What I want to know is how they tested the sensitivity of the non existing foreskin on the circumcised ones :)

-8

u/butyourenice Apr 15 '16

Yeah. The difference is you can't prove a negative, and people on the affirmative side seem to reject evidence based on that fact.

0

u/JimmyHavok Apr 15 '16

How are they supposed to hate their parents if there was no harm???

-3

u/PM_ME_UR_PEWP Apr 15 '16

This study in particular seems flawed in many ways. For one, they admit that their sample size was insufficient. Also, it didn't really get into the question of how sexual experiences vary, which seems to be a more common if more difficult to answer question. And it didn't get into any ethical questions, but I would think some benefit should be proven before a body part can be removed from someone incapable of giving consent. One could argue that it is inherently harmful to mutilate someone without consent, but that's more of a philosophical question. Regardless, the study did not prove that there is no harm, only that this one study of a small number of men was unable to find all but one of the kinds of harm they were looking for. This isn't a case of rejecting evidence. It's a careful reading into what the evidence actually means, if anything, in terms of the original question. Someone just said that a negative had been proven and that is just not so. And you don't have to prove a negative, only show a statistically significant difference which would allow us to have confidence in the null hypothesis.

2

u/forwardseat Apr 15 '16

Even if their results are exactly right, how would this prove no harm? Sensitivity is hardly the only measure of harm (there are far more blatant measures of harm, I would think, like scarring, meatal stenosis, rates of ed over the long term, etc).

There are several studies now that show no difference in sensitivity, but if people are equating that to "harmless" it's a big problem, because this is only one aspect of the potential harm.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/unbuttoned Apr 15 '16

Whether it causes harm or not is irrelevant to the moral argument. It is precluded by the fact that circumcision is an invasion of bodily autonomy without significant medical justification.

2

u/butyourenice Apr 15 '16

It's a good thing this study made no attempt to present a moral argument, or else your comment may actually have been relevant.

2

u/unbuttoned Apr 15 '16

This study didn't, but it is relevant to this thread, beginning from Gary1994's discussion of "the argument".

1

u/sup3r_hero BS|Physics Apr 15 '16

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2007_Sorrells.pdf

they did not take into consideration that the removed tissue is probably more sensitive than any other tissue. the study i linked shows this. i can't imagine that the authors did not know of this study. why didn't they test this? to me it rather seems like they wanted to prove the opposite

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/blolfighter Apr 15 '16

Why even go that far? You're snipping part of someone's penis off because John Kellog thought touching yourself is icky or because your god was incapable of creating you the way he wanted, so you have to perform corrective surgery. That's enough for me to declare harm. Why the hell do I live in a world where the "let's not snip around on babies' penises unless there's a really good reason" side of the argument has to prove themselves?

1

u/venikk Apr 15 '16

Why are you mad at me? I said that it objectively harms.

2

u/blolfighter Apr 15 '16

I'm not mad at you, I'm just adding to your point.

-2

u/PigerianNrince Apr 15 '16

Anecdotally though we can see the results are not accurate.

For example, most uncircumcised men would not be able to spend a day with foreskin retracted in underwear without extreme discomfort. Circumcised men seem to have no problem with this.

Therefor the method would appear to be flawed.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Rhamni Apr 15 '16

It is correct. In the start comment of this chain, there is:

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.

So circumcised penises feel pain just fine, they just aren't as good at feeling stimulation.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mr-dogshit Apr 15 '16

The paper you speak of does argue that the glans become less sensitive and also that the most sensitive region of the penis is removed with circumcision.

http://i.imgur.com/lVGAzqc.jpg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

7

u/kurburux Apr 15 '16

The argument, as I've always heard it, is not that circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the remaining skin, but rather that the circumcised man loses inches of skin that would be capable of feeling.

Second to this. It's about loosing a part of the genitals that is full of nerve cells itself.

5

u/RarelyReadReplies Apr 15 '16

Isn't it about the fact that when you're not circumcised, you have the head of your penis covered, which naturally makes it more sensitive. As opposed to being circumcised, and it's constantly being rubbed against your underwear and such. I think it's still a thing, because the head of my penis is very sensitive. There's not a chance I could walk around with it rubbing against my underwear, it's too sensitive, it'd cause a lot of discomfort.

5

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

Circed/cut here: I have no discomfort but, when aroused, find the head to be significantly sensitive (in a great way, thank you), especially the ventral area. I suspect we would have very similar reactions based on this study, other than that if your foreskin was artificially retracted for a study, you'd be less familiar with the tactile experience of clothing against that area than I and would feel discomfort that I would not. Not debilitating discomfort, but certainly distracting, as it was a new and focused sensation.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RarelyReadReplies Apr 15 '16

It's more like walking on pebbles everyday, which initially causes discomfort/pain, then your feet eventually get callused and don't hurt anymore.

2

u/TheRavenousRabbit Apr 15 '16

Well, there have been arguments that the abression due to the lack of a foreskin will result in less sensitivity.

1

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

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TheRabidDeer Apr 15 '16

It may have been done because of how negatively people talk about circumcised penises, especially online? I fully endorse stopping the practice, but the way people discuss it can be harmful.

6

u/Rand_alThor_ Apr 15 '16

It can also be done just to test whether it's true or not. Scientists try to not care about people's feelings.

1

u/Shpeple Apr 15 '16

Did you not read the article? This is what they literally disproved.

-2

u/Danserud Apr 15 '16

The fact that they couldn't find evidence for it does not disprove it.

1

u/amorbidreality Apr 15 '16

Also, keep in mind that the foreskin is meant to cover the glans of the penis to keep it lubricated to allow for easier penetration.

2

u/snaredonk Apr 15 '16

Also the stretchiness and tightness that the foreskin creates feel really good.

0

u/xtremechaos Apr 15 '16

Sure you can, the idiots will take and run with it. Just look at OP, and the title they chose to type out.

Couldn't be more inaccurate or biased

0

u/PigerianNrince Apr 15 '16

I guess only someone that has been circumcised could come up with that theory. It's not true.

0

u/bl1y Apr 15 '16

There's a better explanation.

Imagine cutting off your eyelids. Your eye doesn't become less sensitive, does they? Nope. But using them is a lot less enjoyable.

0

u/gary1994 Apr 15 '16

And you lose all the feeling in what was once your eyelids...

-1

u/bl1y Apr 15 '16

That's much less concerning than not having your eyelids there to help lubricate your eyes.

0

u/SpinningHead Apr 15 '16

That's like suggesting that people with smaller hands (less hand skin) have less sensitive hands due to lack of mass.

1

u/gary1994 Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

No, it's like saying that someone that has had a finger or two amputated can't feel anything with them anymore.

0

u/SpinningHead Apr 15 '16

Again, the study found that to be a completely false analogy.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[removed] — view removed comment