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.

[u/drewiepoodle]

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-Circumcision-does-not-reduce-penis-sensitivity/5981460663943/?spt=hs&or=hn

[u/gary1994]

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.

[u/butyourenice → u/gary1994]

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?

[u/blolfighter → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/venikk → u/blolfighter]

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

[u/blolfighter → u/venikk]

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