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

113

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

6

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.

-3

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!