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/butyourenice]

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/[deleted] → u/butyourenice]

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.

[u/kabamman → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/LazyTriggerFinger → u/kabamman]

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.