3701
3702

HealthStudy: 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. (upi.com)

drewiepoodle が 投稿x2

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]kerovonGrad Student|Biomedical Engineering|Regenerative Medicine 1545ポイント1546ポイント  (369子コメント)

Alright, because there is a lot of discussion and anecdote, as well as a fair number of misunderstandings about the study, I'll try to do a quick writeup of it.

First, the study abstract can be found here.

The study was looking at the sensitivity in the penis of men who were circumcised as neonates (infants). They were testing three different hypotheses. First, that circumcised men will have higher penile tactile and pain thresholds (i.e. lower sensitivity). Second, that the differences in penile sensitivity will mostly be at the glans penis. Finally, that the foreskin area will be more sensitive for uncircumcised men than other areas.

This is largely working off of two (untested) hypotheses for why penis sensitivity might be decreased. The first holds that keratinization occurs on the exposed glans penis epithelium, reducing penile sensitivity. The second holds that the removal of the highly innervated foreskin reduces sensitivity (lots of nerves in it).

Methods

They recruited men between 18-40 for the study. They determined initial eligibility through phone interviews (basically screening out people with STDs, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular conditions, smokers, etc.). They tested 4 locations: The forearm 4 inches below the wrist, the middle of the glans penis, the dorsal side with foreskin retracted if present, the anterior midline shaft, the anterior proximal shaft, and for men with foreskin, the unretracted foreskin. In case those locations are hard to follow, they included a diagram (NSFW).

To determine tactile thresholds, they used a modified von Frey filament. They assessed tactile threshold by determining the lowest intensity stimulus to perceive a touch. They assessed pain thresholds by determining the lowest threshold to produce a sensation of pain.
To assess thermal sensitivity thresholds, they used an analyzed that heated at 0.5C/second, and participants were prompted to indicate when they noticed a change in probe temperature (averaged over 3 trials), or a perception of heat pain (averaged over 2 trials).

Results

They ended up with 62 men, 30 circumcised, 32 intact, mean age 24.2, SD 5.1.
First, I am fairly irritated with their data presentation. They did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised at the same locations. They did find differences between the locations. However, they didn't provide a breakdown of the data, just a set of graphs with circumcised and uncircumcised lumped together broken down by location. They should have provided the data, even if it was not significant, but I suspect they had a tight page limit.

For the tactile thresholds, they did not find any statistically significant differences. in any of the shared locations between circumcised or uncircumcised men. They did find differences between the locations they tested (see the graph above).

For the pain threshold, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They did find differences between locations.

For the warmth detection threshold, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They also did not find differences between testing sites. They did a power analysis, which indicated they would need 238 participants to obtain a significant effect.

For the heat pain thresholds, they did not find any statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They did find differences between locations.

Author's Discussion

So, what did the authors conclude from this?

First, that the keratinization hypothesis (the foreskin removal causes the glans to become less sensitive) does not appear to be supported by the data. They found no between group differences in glans penis sensitivity. They do say that to truly verify this though, they will need to perform biopsies of penises to check for any keratinization.

They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli (which agrees with previous research). However, they found no differences for tactile pain, warmth sensation, or heat pain.

The authors do say that the results of the study do not support the idea that foreskin removal reduces penile sensitivity. The sensitivity at the foreskin was not significantly different from the sensitivity at the forearm (control site) for any of the modalities. Other genital sites were more sensitive to pain than the forearm, so the authors conclude that means they may be more sensitive than the foreskin, which means that removing the less sensitive foreskin may not matter (I'm not sure if I am reading this section wrong, but this seems like a bit of a dubious statistical leap to me. It is late though, and I'm operating on less sleep than I like. I welcome correction). They do say that their data is not enough to determine if foreskin sensitivity is relevant to sexual pleasure.

They do bring up that one limitation of their study is that the link between sensory testing and sexual arousal is untested, which means that the lack of significant differences in sensitivity might not translate into a lack of differences in sexual pleasure.

They do say they would like to include larger sample sizes, which would help refine the data for pain and warmth detection thresholds, as well as to test more stimulus types (such as dynamic stimuli).

My Take

They do seem to show that the removal of the foreskin does not appear to desensitize the glans under the foreskin, which is one of the major theories currently. I'm not convinced by their argument that their data may indicate that foreskin removal doesn't affect sensitivity, but I'm also not sure if I am awake enough right now to fully follow it. They do acknowledge that the sensitivities measured may not correlate to sexual function and pleasure. I am rather irritated with their data presentation, but that is likely an issue with only being given 6 pages for their study. They still should have supplementary information or something (assuming the journal allows it).

I'll try to answer a few of the comments tonight, but I am unlikely to be up for too much longer.

[–]homequestion 105ポイント106ポイント  (18子コメント)

And there was no average difference in sensitivity between B and C?

Edit: Actually, I was assuming they tested B and then C (with the foreskin pulled back). Did they not do this?

[–]throwawayfume10 44ポイント45ポイント  (9子コメント)

Its weird they didnt test on the corona or the "rib"/"bottom of the head. That seems to be way more sensitive then the other part of the glans, or the shaft. Pretty weird study of only 60 guys.

[–]brainburger [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

That's the most sensitive part of my uncut penis. That's the part that I'd expect to lose sensitivity if I were circumcised.

Actually I'd find it very uncomfortable to have that part exposed to rubbing on my underwear during normal activities. I find it hard to believe circumcised guys have the same sensations.

[–]TheRabidDeer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Generally, my penis doesn't really interact with my underwear like that. The underwear moves with the penis if they are boxers, or if they are boxerbriefs/briefs they hold things comfortably so there isn't movement. There are moments where for some reason it rubs when I wear boxers (very infrequently) and it is uncomfortable but 98% of the time it isn't noticeable.

[–]The_Hoopla [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That part is still covered when flaccid.

[–]SPARTAN-113 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I just don't think about it. If I'm consciously aware of it yes it's sensitive and uncomfortable, but otherwise, it's like most other stimuli. Brain begins to ignore it after a while.

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

        [–]wearethat 18ポイント19ポイント  (7子コメント)

        screening out people with STDs, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular condtions, smokers, etc.

        Layman question: What % of the population does this kind of criteria include/exclude?

        [–]andrewslug 22ポイント23ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Hard to say exactly, but at least 30% based on smoking and std rates.

        [–]WordSalad11 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

        The study should have a consort diagram that spells out exactly how many people were screened and how many were enrolled.

        [–]00Deege 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Meh. Don't know about should. Other than to sate the curiosity of Reddit scientists, it has little if any bearing on the study itself.

        [–]WordSalad11 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        http://www.consort-statement.org/

        The consort diagram is fundamental to the integrity of medical research. The Consort Statement is the fundamental standard for research. No reputable journal publishes a trial without one.

        [–]gary1994 55ポイント56ポイント  (23子コメント)

        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.

        [–]A_of 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

        This is what I have always heard too.

        コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

          [–]havoktheorem 23ポイント24ポイント  (7子コメント)

          Were the tests done while erect or flaccid? I feel like having an erection markedly increases sensitivity, perhaps even just due to the skin being tauter and under more pressure so thus being in firmer contact with the testing apparatus. I think it's also obvious that static sensitivity tests are not indicative of the role of the foreskin in sex where it moves about and rubs against various surfaces in a way that does not happen with a circumcised penis.

          I'm under the impression that most circumcised males cannot comfortably masturbate without lube, however uncircumcised males can due to the extra slack available. Not jumping to any conclusions but that certainly makes me think the foreskin has a mechanical function in sex as well as, or perhaps moreso, than sensory.

          [–]omegaclick 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

          This. Plus:

          They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli

          It would then follow that if that foreskin was stretched during erection a larger surface area would be more sensitive. So that would make the title of this article false and misleading.

          [–]bozozozo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          agree that it is the mechanical role, that of lubricant for initial intromission, that is why evolution came up with the foreskin.

          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

            [–]TheBananaKing 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I wish people would stress more that whether or not individual receptors are any more or less sensitive doesn't change the fact that having vastly fewer of them in the first place will reduce the total amount and richness of sensation available.

            Removing the skin from someone's palms might not make their fingertips less sensitive, but stroking someone without it would amount to a lot less sensation overall.

            [–]turtley_different 27ポイント28ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Thanks. Great summary and definitely needed.

            I just want to flag that the results plot does, by visual inspection of plot C, suggest that there is a statistically lower heat detection threshold for the foreskin vs. elsewhere. The authors don't say there is, but it is pretty blatant if those error bars are 1-sigma. The plot is wrong or the text is IMHO.

            [–]kerovonGrad Student|Biomedical Engineering|Regenerative Medicine 28ポイント29ポイント  (1子コメント)

            They do say that a power analysis indicated that they need a larger sample size (238) for the warmth detection to identify a significant effect within the penis sites. So I do more or less believe that they didn't come up with a significant difference, and it actually says pretty good things about their statistical honesty that they talked about their study being underpowered for that stimuli.

            [–]its_switz 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

            they need a larger sample size (238)

            Well that's just shy of 4 times their actual sample size, so yes, that result is far from significant.

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]ThrobAway 74ポイント75ポイント  (68子コメント)

              And this is ignoring the most critical part of the issue, which is that there is an enormous difference in the sensitivity of the foreskin. That is, the problem is cutting off the nerves at all, not necessarily how that affects the remainder of the organ - the foreskin contains a large fraction of the sensory neurons in the penis.

              [–]Jumala 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

              It's also ignoring the dynamic stimulus that the foreskin adds by being intact.

              It's like ribbed vs. unribbed, in my opinion: it doesn't seem like much, but there is a difference.

              [–]Avannar 35ポイント36ポイント  (58子コメント)

              They specifically replied to that concern. It was the basis for the study...

              [–]TheRabidDeer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              And this is ignoring the most critical part of the issue, which is that there is an enormous difference in the sensitivity of the foreskin

              Isn't that what they were essentially testing?

              コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                [–]Discarnated 16ポイント17ポイント  (37子コメント)

                Why weed out smokers?

                [–]trumpetspieler 239ポイント240ポイント  (10子コメント)

                Usually are at risk for poor circulation.

                [–]Mr_Dugan 111ポイント112ポイント  (18子コメント)

                Smoking damages blood vessels. Excluding smokers eliminates a potential confounder

                [–]JuanDeLasNieves_ 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Aside from what people mentioned regarding circulation issues, you want your subjects to be comparable. So either you have all smokers or none at all and since smoking can introduce a new variable in this scenario, it's best to have all non-smokers.

                コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                  [–]CJGibson 54ポイント55ポイント  (43子コメント)

                  What are the chances that people with sensitive penises self-select out of a study to test penis sensitivity? Do they do anything to account for that possibility?

                  [–]MotorcycleCK 126ポイント127ポイント  (24子コメント)

                  But how would they know that their penis is more sensitive than most others?

                  [–]dcxcman 31ポイント32ポイント  (8子コメント)

                  They wouldn't necessarily, but people with more sensitive penises might be more averse to the idea of having them stimulated with lab equipment.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                    [–]TheSystem_IsDown 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

                    Out of 32, and with a college-age average, I'm pretty sure it's completely random who self-selected for this test, including those with sensitive glans.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                      [–]freckledass 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      you're the td;dr reddit needs

                      [–]Aezay 24ポイント25ポイント  (22子コメント)

                      They tested 4 locations: The forearm 4 inches below the wrist, the middle of the glans penis, the dorsal side with foreskin retracted if present, the anterior midline shaft, the anterior proximal shaft, and for men with foreskin, the unretracted foreskin.

                      Perhaps they should have included testing of the frenulum as well, as that is sort of the male equivalent of the clitoris in terms of sensitivity.

                      [–]Logifuck 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli (which agrees with previous research). However, they found no differences for tactile pain, warmth sensation, or heat pain

                      They even concluded that the foreskin is more sensitive to the tactile stimulus that people have mentioned for years. But since the pain sensitivity was similar they decided that meant there's no difference. Sounds completely legit.

                      [–]Lynx_Rufus 45ポイント46ポイント  (9子コメント)

                      The clitoris is the homologous correspondent of the entire glans.

                      [–]blablaorka 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      Either you don't know what the frenulum is or you don't know what a clitoris is.

                      [–]ContainsTracesOfLies 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      In terms of sensitivity.

                      Yep. I can orgasm from just rubbing my frenulum.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                        [–]ohmyimaginaryfriends 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Isn't this study testing the wrong type of sensitivity? When people are referring to reduced sensitivity in a circumcised penis they are referring to how much pleasure they feel & how long it takes to orgasm not how they react pain or heat.

                        The nerves them selves might not be physically damaged but the brains interpretation of pleasure signals might be altered due to the gland having much more exposure to stimulation on a daily basis so it is associated with lower sensitivity.

                        It could also be that since pleasure stimulation of the penis releases dopamine, maybe just like with other drugs (the longer you do them the more is required as times goes on to achieve the original results) the brain might be have released more during puberty in a circumcised individual so that when you are an adult it requires a higher dose to get the same results which takes longer to achieve so it is associated with lower sensitivity.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (77 返事)

                          [–]EntropyNZ 599ポイント600ポイント  (46子コメント)

                          EDIT: Just to clear something up, since I'm getting a lot of people stating it below: I'm fully aware that they retracted the foreskin to test the glans, it's clearly stated in the article. What I said about them testing the outside of the foreskin was that they tested the outer layer, not the part that touches the glans. Here's a diagram of what I mean. The "inner foreskin layer' as labeled on there is mucucutanious tissue, not normal epithelial tissue like the outer part. It's physiologically different from the rest of the skin around the penis, and it's a massive oversight not to directly test that area, when it's exactly what you're supposed to be testing. Retracting the foreskin for the other tests doesn't properly test that area either. The frenulum (banjo string) prevents the foreskin from retracting very far past the head of the penis. For the patients to be comfortable enough to test, they'd retract the foreskin normally, at which point it sorta rolls and bunches up below the glans. The points that they were testing that weren't the foreskin were the same on both groups, and weren't expected to have any differences in sensation (and didn't). I'd love to be able to pull the images directly from the study, but I don't have the author's permission to go nicking chunks of their work to post on Reddit.

                          I've just had a read through the full article (to clarify: the actual research article, not the one linked above) for this, and there's a few massive, glaring holes in their methodology.

                          Firstly, the testing sites used. There's the obvious elephant in the room in the 'how do you compare sensation when one of the groups lacks the area that you're testing on". The answer is that they didn't (and obviously couldn't). The testing site on the foreskin was only done on uncircumcised men.

                          However, this testing site was also ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FORESKIN. There was no testing site done on inside of the foreskin (the mucus membrane), which is the sensitive aspect of the foreskin. The outside is just skin (normal epithelial tissue); it's an extension of the skin on of the rest of the penis. That's the same as claiming that cauterizing the inside of someone's nose doesn't alter sensation when you've only tested sites on the outside of the nose. You literally missed the part that you were actually supposed to test.

                          The other issue is the testing used to determine sensitivity. For tactile sensation, they used a pressure-thresh-hold test (testing minimum level of pressure able to be perceived) and similar methods for the pain thresh-hold test (which is when the sensation becomes painful, not how much pain they can tolerate). Both of those are fine, but there's others that are just as easy and probably more useful in determining tactile sensitivity. For instance, where's the two point discrimination testing (minimum distance at which you can differentiate two points of pressure from a single point)? That's a much better test of overall sensitivity.

                          Temperature testing was OK (point heat increasing at .5 deg C per sec, patient indicates when they are able to notice a change in heat, as well as heat tolerance, which is pretty self explanatory).

                          The overall finding were that the foreskin was found to be more sensitive in tactile threshold testing than the rest of the penis, but that their findings showed no other significant differences. They note several times that this is contrary to previous studies.

                          For anyone interested, sample size was a total of 62 men (age 18 to 37 years, mean 24.1, SD 5.1), which is pretty standard for this kind of study.

                          On the flip side, interesting findings from the study were they they didn't find any significant difference between glans sensitivity between groups, which would be expected from a physiological perspective, as the glans SHOULD keratanise without a foreskin (like every other mucocutaneous tissue in the body does in response to exposing it directly to air and contact to other non-mucocutaneous surfaces for any prolonged period), and SHOULD have a higher threshold for sensory stimulus as a result. Again, this finding is contrary to previous studies, which have found the expected changes to the glans with circumcision.

                          Someone needs to do a histology study that looks at epithelial tissue from the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men to determine the level of keratinisation present. The study above stated that one of their hypothesis was:

                          "2) Differences in penile sensitivity between the groups will be most pronounced at the glans penis, where keratinization is hypothesized to take place"

                          Now I'm sure that's just poorly worded, because it's well understood that the glans is heavily keratinised in comparison to the other tissues of the penis, and that they meant to say '... the increased/further keratinization...", and that's something that's fairly easy to determine, although it does involve lopping small bits of glans off, which I'm sure you'd struggle to find participants for.

                          [–]Orckilla 84ポイント85ポイント  (18子コメント)

                          They pulled the foreskin back.

                          Edit:they tested a fifth spot on men with foreskin, as a study point. Obviously they cannot compare that to a guy without one.

                          [–]throwaway131072 17ポイント18ポイント  (14子コメント)

                          I also haven't seen any mention of whether or not they were testing the scar on cut men. That skin closest to the head is the best part, and the best part of that, the foreskin, is what cut guys like me are missing. It seems like edit: MANY (guess you can't get away with the smallest big of obvious exaggeration around here) uncut guys agree the foreskin is the best part.

                          If this study only tested parts of the penis that are unmodified during circumcision, and parts that are only present in one of the populations, then obviously, no conclusions can be made. We need to test the parts that are present, but changed.

                          I can't find it anymore, but I had found a study on men who got circumcised in order to prevent premature ejaculation, and they found that average time to ejaculation went from 3 minutes to 10 minutes, suggesting there is a significant reduction in stimulation, and that the conclusions in these studies are simply adapted to agendas.

                          [–]Ridley413 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Skeptical of this because typically premature ejaculation isn't caused by physical stimulation or how "good" it feels. It can be but typically it's not. That's why wearing a condom usually doesn't have a significant effect on men with PE.

                          [–]Reddit_Moviemaker 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Yes. This area of research is very sensitive (pun intended) to all kinds of cultural biases. There is a reason why this was on the front-page.. don't get me wrong, all the power for people with cut penises, but it would make much more sense to study possible ejaculation differences, when trying to research if cutting affects one's sex life.

                          [–]Orckilla 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

                          Then the study you mentioned does not hold much weight in solving the hypothesis. The study you referenced, according to you, found the post-circumcision sensitivity to be reduced, but in men that had it done later in life. There is still a large discrepancy between the men who get it for that reason (to reduce sensitivity) and the men that were forced to have it done, and what differences are there between the two.

                          The age old argument is that by forcibly mutilating the penis, there is no added health benefit and if there was any to be negligible at the cost of an extreme amount of desensitivity in the penis.

                          We would ultimately want to know how much guys that are circumcised, are missing out on. This study has determined that there is little difference between the two. Which is contrary to every study prior

                          [–]Wordshark 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                          If circumcised men had glans as sensitive as mine (uncircumcised), they wouldn't be able to wear underwear or pants and walk without wincing.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                            [–]andrewbing 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            If you find it please let me know. I would be interested in reading up on that.

                            [–]BadAtLife_GoodAtSex 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Sounds like your brain adjusts the stimulation level to what you have when growing up.

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (27 返事)

                                  [–]HeartyBeast 49ポイント50ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                  It does seem a curious study, one that basically concludes that amputating the hand has no effect on the sensitivity of the elbow.

                                  [–]xtremechaos 32ポイント33ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                  "Amputating the clitoris has no affect on the sensitivity on the rest of the vagina."

                                  Such a stupid article that honestly couldn't possibly have a more biased or inaccurate Reddit title

                                  [–]DinkyWinkyDoo 136ポイント137ポイント  (77子コメント)

                                  Anecdotes aside, isn't the argument usually that circumcision removes sensitivity of the foreskin (which makes sense, as foreskin is removed in circumcision)? The study seems a moot point.

                                  Is it surprising that cutting off one aspect of an organ does not impact on the rest of the organ's sensitivity? We do not associate surgeries or scratches elsewhere on the body to decreased sensitivity either, for example, regardless of location, unless there is severe nerve damage.

                                  What am I missing here?

                                  [–]bumpfirestock 51ポイント52ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but anectdotally the hand is a major example of reduced sensitivity due to "wear and tear". The commentor at the top of this post mentioned keratinization, I assume that means some sort of mild scarring or a buildup of a skin later with fewer nerves. The major hypothesis I've heard regarding circumcision is that when the head rubs the inside of someone's boxers, the same thing happens that happens to a farmer's hands when he used a shovel all week - decreased sensitivity. This is way out of my educational expertise (perhaps obviously so), so just speculation. But this study basically states there is no statistical reduction in sensitivity due to not having a foreskin.

                                  [–]DinkyWinkyDoo 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                  Yeah. If we believe the study, then it might be different between the hand and genitals because of a "genetic preconception" if you will- evolution has us have hardening soles of the feet and numbed hands, but we maintain a sensitivity in various spots regardless of torture

                                  [–]Daemonicus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  It could be that. But I would guess that type of underwear would have an effect as well. Briefs/boxers/commando could all have different levels of abrasion.

                                  I don't know if they had controlled for that or not. But it would be interesting to see if that matters at all.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                      [–]marcm6246 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                      The biggest reasoning behind it was that there's several special nerve endings in the foreskin that are absent in just regular skin. It was presumed that removing these nerve endings = removing specific sensations that would lead to sexual pleasure.

                                      [–]Conisewer 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                      You seem to be refuting the fact that "removing these nerve endings" (via chopping off the foreskin containing said membranes) is in effect "removing specific sensations that would lead to sexual pleasure". Do you really believe that is not true?

                                      The article makes no concrete correlations between the foreskin and sexual pleasure. They even acknowledge that their sensitivity and pressure tests may not correlate to sexual pleasure.

                                      As someone with foreskin (only is this thread would mentioning that part of my penis wasn't chopped off seem make me feel brazen), I can attest that it certainly has sexual sensitivity. I hope no one is shocked or on the fence about whether part of my cock feels good to touch. Trust me. It does.

                                      [–]marcm6246 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Me, personally, no. I was speaking from the standpoint supposing what the title is saying is true. I also have my foreskin and have had, ahem, 'experience' with specific sensitivity there. I think circumcision is awful in every aspect.

                                      [–]Conisewer 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      I see, sorry for misunderstanding. I saw that you could have been echoing that presumption... there is/was just so much misinformation in this thread that I presumed that you were making that argument. But congrats on also being intact... who knows how much better it feels but I wouldn't wish any less feel-good out of mine or anyone else's penis... Just like I wouldn't wish less butter on anyone else's toast. It's just common sense, and it's sad that so many parents follow the trend without much thought.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (31 返事)

                                          [–]thedstrat 202ポイント203ポイント  (51子コメント)

                                          The article directly contradicts the title; there were differences in tactile feeling. "In men with foreskin, it was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than other parts of their penises".

                                          [–]Null_Mutant_Tortoise 87ポイント88ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                          We found that while the foreskin was more sensitive to fine touch, it was not more sensitive to the other stimuli we used, and those stimuli are likely more important in sexual pleasure.

                                          Not directly contradicting what you said, but it's an important clarification.

                                          [–]Blackdutchie 48ポイント49ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                          Do they have any sources for their claim that Heat, heat pain, and pain are more important in sexual pleasure than fine touch?

                                          I'd accept if they made a case for (and measured) frictional sensitivity, but this does not seem to be the case from what I can access.

                                          [–]Null_Mutant_Tortoise 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                          I'm just saying that that's what they believe. And they probably know much more about penis stimulation than I do. Whether there is hard evidence, I don't know.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                            [–]kerovonGrad Student|Biomedical Engineering|Regenerative Medicine 155ポイント156ポイント  (33子コメント)

                                            That is finding that the foreskin of uncircumcized men was more sensitive than the rest of their penis. It is not contradicting the title.

                                            [–]Salindurthas 61ポイント62ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                            Doesn't it?

                                            • The foreskin was more sensitive than the rest of the penis.

                                            • The non-foreskin parts of the penis were equally sensitive in both groups (rather, no difference was found) correct?

                                            • So clearly the uncircumcised penises were more sensitivite, since they had a region of higher sensitivity (and the rest being supposedly equal).

                                            Or did I misunderstand something?

                                            [–]Blackdutchie 74ポイント75ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                            Direct Quote from abstract:

                                            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).

                                            Emphasis mine.

                                            So in tactile stimulation, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis (when it occurs)

                                            The foreskin is generally considered part of the penis.

                                            Therefore, TOTAL sensitivity of the penis is higher in men with foreskin than men without, HOWEVER, there is no measurable difference in the other parts of the penis.

                                            [–]mugdays 85ポイント86ポイント  (25子コメント)

                                            Therefore, TOTAL sensitivity of the penis is higher in men with foreskin than men without, HOWEVER, there is no measurable difference in the other parts of the penis.

                                            Isn't that really obvious? Men with foreskin have more foreskin sensitivity than men without foreskin.

                                            [–]Krakkin 35ポイント36ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                            You would think so.

                                            [–]Conisewer 28ポイント29ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                            You would think so, however that point seems to be ignored in many parts of this thread. No one wants to believe that they are missing out on a significant amount of tactile stimulation on the very best place to be tactiley stimulated.

                                            [–]BraveLittleCatapultBS|Biomedical Engineering and Design 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                            This subject is A) subjective and anecdotal at its core B) beaten to death on this site. No one with a foreskin knows how much relative stimulation he is recieving compared to someone who is circumcised and vice versa. I would argue that objectively measuring sensitivity is damned near impossible due to the more systemic features of the nervous system, such as variant receptor density. We are all "tuned" so differently when it comes to tactile sensation and nociception. A slap on the wrist may feel like a slap on the wrist to you, but a punch on the wrist to someone else. I know these studies use threshold values to represent sensitivity, but think about that. Does that really encompass tactile sensation?

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                      [–]turtley_different 57ポイント58ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                      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.

                                                      [–]good_guy_submitter 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                      This study is garbage. If fails to include relevant data and only includes graphs of such data. Its testing procedure is flawed. The wording is intentionally difficult to follow. This isn't real science.

                                                      [–]xtremechaos 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      America for you. The rest of the developed worlds medical organizations are very clear cut and dry about the sensitivity and benefits to having a foreskin.

                                                      The British journal of urology, just off the top of my head, has a much more extensive and documented study regarding the topic of sensitivity.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                          [–]hirsutesuit 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites.

                                                          Is tactile stimulation not the type of stimulation that anyone concerned about circumcision would care about?

                                                          [–]xtremechaos 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          The foreskin, from the study, is directly more sensitive to heat and tactile stimulation than anywhere on a circumcised penis.

                                                          How did OP manage to screw up a title so badly again?

                                                          [–]MethHitsAndChill 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                          I just wanna say this - There is a reason circumcision is performed at birth; no man in his right mind would remove his foreskin (barring a medical issue).

                                                          [–]CanadianWizardess 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                          That most adult men wouldn't want to be circumcised is, to me, an argument against infant circumcision.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                            [–]vladgrinch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                            Yeah...I'll just wait for a few months till a new study comes out saying the opposite.

                                                            Besides, the point in all this should not be the penis itself but the foreskin. Circumcisions are made(leaving aside religious beliefs and pure stupidity) because foreskin is seen just as extra, useless skin. Which is not.

                                                            [–]JCKSTRCK 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                            What a deeply flawed study this is. The endpoints measured are not representative of the conclusions. For starters, the study group should encompass older men. A lot of the anecdotal evidence for loss of sensitivity has to do with age since circumcision - a lot of older men appear to lose sensitivity as keratinization progresses.

                                                            I'm not even entirely sure the premise of manipulating penile skin for examination purposes = sexual arousal or experience. Clearly not the same otherwise men would walk around fully aroused due to the rubbing caused by clothing.

                                                            How can you test sensitivity without testing the frenulum area? The frenulum is reported to be the most sensitive part of the penis and most circumcized men are missing this area. Also, it is obvious that any foreskin sensitivity examination must be conducted on the inside of the foreskin not the outside. The outside is just regular penile skin.

                                                            If one wishes to assess sexual sensitivity decrease, then sensitivity must be the examined in a sexual context. The men must be aroused, and some sort of masturbatory device must be used to measure time from initial penile stimulation to ejaculation. You cant control for mental status, but that's as close as it will get. OR compare the before and the after in a cohort study in men who were circumcized after 18 and assess sensitivity loss as time progresses. Unfortunately this current study fails miserably.

                                                            Edit: and I've had two friends undergo circumcision after their 30s to help solve early-ejaculation. So I think it's a well known fact in the scientific community that circumcision decreases sensitivity.

                                                            [–]tylerdurden801 9ポイント10ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                            Perhaps I'm very unfamiliar with the current debate on circumcision, but were many people arguing that circumcision caused statistically greater rates of sexual dissatisfaction or dysfunction? I don't think I've read much (not none, but not much) in the way of cut men saying their sex lives weren't fulfilling or functional, but rather that it's a very questionable procedure on hygienic and prophylactic bases on which it is justified given it's done without the permission of the owner of said penis? Cosmetic reasons being ignored for obvious reasons.

                                                            [–]DevilsAdvocate77 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                            There's many people on both sides of the argument looking for objective data that they can use to justify their pre-existing beliefs.

                                                            [–]bozozozo 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                            the only cases where that happened was when there were problems with the procedure itself that caused significant disfigurement and on occasion, led to penile amputation. a famous case of (unsuccessful) sexual identity reassignment at birth was a result of an accident at circumcision.

                                                            there have been recent reports (in Africa) that circ'd men get HIV less often than those un-circ'd, which has led to some medical organizations advocating routine circ for infants.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (646 返事)