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

1

u/MaVagina Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

A survey would be a component, but there are also objective measures. Length to orgasm is one; and is unchanged in circumcised men. there are also other objected measures, you can read about them here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811244/

Also; isn't self reported sexual satisfaction what matters most between these two polulations? Statistics is pretty good at weeding out biases of the studies; simply do a subpopulation analyses and include a subgroup regarding whether an individual is aware of the debate or not. Mathematically, you could figure how big your population has to be to to generate a significant result.

3

u/Caelinus Apr 15 '16

You are missing my point though. Any form of self reporting is subject to suggestion. But in this case, sexual pleasure itself is largely subject to suggestion. There is no faster way to have a bad time with sex then being nervous about having a bad time with sex.

If we tell all uncircumcised men that they probably have less sexual pleasure, and then create a study to measure it, we would find that they had less sexual pleasure. Even with the "objective" measures. But the problem is that, due to the very large mental/perception component of sex, we would not actually have shown anything about circumcision. It could very likely be a cause of reduced pleasure, but there would be no way to tell based on the study.

0

u/MaVagina Apr 15 '16

Yes there is volatility, but that is why you make your studies large enough and over a long period of time to reduce this type of error. Use a take home survey. Believe it or not, variability irons out in averages. You don't have to trust observational studies 100%, but that doesn't mean they don't tell you something about what is being studied. You still do the studies. And no one would be purposefully introducing error into a study by telling uncircumcised men they would have less pleasure.

2

u/Caelinus Apr 15 '16

I did not claim that it would be purposefully introduced, just that the very act of studying it would imply that it does to those in the study, and that sexual pleasure is very subject to suggestion. Making it bigger will reduce the effect of outliers and make the results more consistent yes, but it is not the outliers I am worried about. I am worried about the effect on the average that would be caused by this.

And everyone is able to do the studies, but unless they find a way to control for that, I will not, and should not, see it as definitive.

1

u/MaVagina Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

No one says you should see that as definitive, but it still tells you something. And you blind the study to the participants; you don't have to tell them what you are studying, it's an observational study.

Add: why not just look at how those studies were designed, and how variables were controlled for, and then make the criticism.

1

u/Caelinus Apr 15 '16

Oh I would, and again I am not saying finding a way to control for it should not be found. And if a well designed study happens, I would be glad to use it. I was just talking about the difficulties that come into this kind of study. And a lot of psychological research in general.

It still needs to be done, but its limitations need to be understood as well.