A recent study challenged common beliefs and determined that circumcised men do not have less sensibility than the not-circumcised ones. The team analyzed subjects’ reactions to a variety of stimulus and did not found any significant differences among them.
The study published in The Journal of Urology last week proved as well that the foreskin is not the most sensitive part in a man’s penis, putting to rest others papers that said the opposite, the team said in the study.
“We directly tested whether circumcision is associated with a reduction in penile sensitivity by testing tactile detection, pain, warmth detection, and heat pain thresholds at multiple sites on the penis between groups of healthy neonatally circumcised and intact men,” said lead author Jennifer Bossio.
It was determined that neonatal circumcision is not associated with changes in penile sensitivity and provided preliminary evidence to suggest that the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the penis, explained Bossio.
In addition, the foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, however this affirmation did not extend to any other stimuli where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested.
For the research, the team gathered 62 men, which a half were circumcised and the other half intact, in the Ontario area and tested each individual with the stimulus already mentioned, as reported by Vox.
A small difference
Even though that one of the limitations of the study was that it had a small sample size to be analyzed, ideally 200 participants were the right amount, instead of the 62, the results showed that if there is any difference in sensitivity this is too small and not significant.
Other yet-to-be-published work from the same team gathered the differences among circumcised and intact man for sexual arousal, which was studied via blood flow in their genital region while the participants watched porn. Bossio gave a preview of the results and said that both groups showed similar sexual satisfaction overall.
Source: The Journal of Urology
Their stated results are not only different from the way most media are reporting the study, but also internally inconsistent:
“Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site. The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested).”
so:
a) the site most sensitive to tactile stimulation in intact men was the foreskin
which seems to contradict this:
b) “Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site.”
There’s a fundamental flaw in this research though. They measured the sensitivity of the *outside* of the foreskin, and not the inside. That’s such a basic error that it calls this whole study and the motives of the researchers into question.
The outside isn’t that much different to further down the shaft, but for many men the inside is vastly more sensitive than the outside. That little bit of skin makes a big difference – it’s not just there to protect the glans.
Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.
Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient because of their personal, religious, financial, and political conflicts of interest. Instead, watch a circumcision video and trust your instincts. Would you allow someone to do that to YOU?
Except the study shows the complete opposite. She admits the foreskin is more sensitive to touch. Then contradicts herself. She is not a biologist or even a scientist. She is a feminist studying psychology, which let’s be honest, is not proper science.
There was another flaw in the study in that they refused to retract the foreskin ,so they only touched the outside of the foreskin. The outside of the foreskin is normal skin. It’s the inside and the stretch reception of the foreskin that provide the pleasure.
I was cut at 14 and it destroyed my sex life. I feel nothing. Watch “circumcised at 18” on youtube.
The claim FGM is different and worse than MGM has no scientific basis. Actually MGM is worse in most cases as usually all the erogenous tissue is cut off–the glans penis has been proven to be non-erogenous.
Except the study shows the complete opposite. She admits the foreskin is more sensitive to touch. Then contradicts herself. She is not a biologist or even a scientist. She is a feminist studying psychology, which let’s be honest, is not proper science.
There was another flaw in the study in that they refused to retract the foreskin ,so they only touched the outside of the foreskin. The outside of the foreskin is normal skin. It’s the inside and the stretch reception of the foreskin that provide the pleasure.
I was cut at 14 and it destroyed my sex life. I feel nothing. Watch “circumcised at 18” on youtube.
The claim FGM is different and worse than MGM has no scientific basis. Actually MGM is worse in most cases as usually all the erogenous tissue is cut off–the glans penis has been proven to be non-erogenous.
Except the study shows the complete opposite. She admits the foreskin is more sensitive to touch. Then contradicts herself. She is not a biologist or even a scientist. She is a feminist studying psychology, which let’s be honest, is not proper science.
There was another flaw in the study in that they refused to retract the foreskin ,so they only touched the outside of the foreskin. The outside of the foreskin is normal skin. It’s the inside and the stretch reception of the foreskin that provide the pleasure.
I was cut at 14 and it destroyed my sex life. I feel nothing. Watch “circumcised at 18” on youtube.
The claim FGM is different and worse than MGM has no scientific basis. Actually MGM is worse in most cases as usually all the erogenous tissue is cut off–the glans penis has been proven to be non-erogenous.
Except the study shows the complete opposite. She admits the foreskin is more sensitive to touch. Then contradicts herself. She is not a biologist or even a scientist. She is a feminist studying psychology, which let’s be honest, is not proper science.
There was another flaw in the study in that they refused to retract the foreskin ,so they only touched the outside of the foreskin. The outside of the foreskin is normal skin. It’s the inside and the stretch reception of the foreskin that provide the pleasure.
I was cut at 14 and it destroyed my sex life. I feel nothing. Watch “circumcised at 18” on youtube.
The claim FGM is different and worse than MGM has no scientific basis. Actually MGM is worse in most cases as usually all the erogenous tissue is cut off–the glans penis has been proven to be non-erogenous.