Circumcision does not reduce penis sensitivity. Yeah, sure. . .

[dragons]

http://www.themarshalltown.com/2016/04/16/circumcision-does-not-reduce-penis-sensitivity/

[parsecskin]

Well, I left a scathing comment exposing their bullshit with my experience, I truly do know the difference, and a link to elephant in the hospital. We'll see if they approve it. EVERYBODY MUST COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE!!

[BubbleTeddy]

Will do!

[BubbleTeddy]

"Studies have suggested the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, which would make cutting it off for health, religious or other reasons unnecessary mutilation — as anti-circumcision activists portray the practice."

Wow they are balancing themselves on thin ice here. It's like they are saying "either we're utterly correct in our studies, or else it's actually just genital mutilation". What bullshit. It's just like their studies of fluorinated water. Either it's simply good for children's teeth, or it is a toxic chemical harming people's bodies unnecessarily. And of course they've recently found out that fluoride is dangerous, and just covered it up cause it would have been too much money to filter it out of all the water....

Why even conduct a study on such an unecessary topic. If guys want to be circumcised later in life, then let them. There's only massive trauma done to babies who are clamped spread-eagle to a chair unable to move. What a horrible way to enter the world. I don't remember the experience, but I know it affects my every day life in a negative way.

[Guest]

Haha, the first thing that comes to mind is this rag's header, and then, their historical focus. Only ignorance of a subject (let alone one where the premise is possible harm) allows them to merely shake their heads "in quiet contempt". Really? Just shaking your head? How about writing an actual article. What a weenie, uninvolved, intellectually disconnected motto for a "trusted source", .....uh, AKA a music magazine. They're really living up to that motto here.

The article itself is meaningless, literally. It doesn't even waffle, it just says nothing. It fails even for the popular press, and that's hard to do for any competent writer/editor. If you go back and read it, it comes off like a failing middleschooler's "science section" book report, where the kiddie didn't actually read much of the text. It couldn't be more vague, or less focused on the science used, unless she'd said "some guys did some stuff but I'm not sure about it". I'm betting that the actual study, however flawed it probably was, was written with way more detail than this article. It had to be, for anyone (who wasn't high) to start typing the research results.

So that's my criticism, mainly because there isn't anything else substantially scientific to hang my hat on. In a word, there was no true science described, and I'm also betting the "author" didn't realize that. 'Twaddle': it's an old fashioned word, but it applies.

Edit: My point: I don't mind going after a windmill or two on the subject of circ, but this article made it into one of those faux, miniature golf windmills that doesn't do anything, so........I wouldn't sweat it. Neither side can make any real use of it. That's how pointless it is.

[Tony]

the study is flawed, if one even wants to call it a study. It ignores meissners corpuscles and fine touch sensory perception and instead looks at heat/pain perception. The paper was submitted as a students thesis, it is not a real scientific blinded study. I am amazed on how many low quality online news sites picked up the press release, but expect this to nonsense to be soon forgotten.

[mjwise]

These studies always seem to answer the questions no one is asking. You cannot deconstruct sexual activity into constituent parts of heat and friction! And did anyone actually think the shaft skin of a circumcised man is less sensitive than an uncircumcised one? Also, the studies blatantly ignore the fact that circumcision REMOVES a substantial part of the penis. How on earth do you evaluate the sensitivity of something that isn't even there anymore? The logical backflips and silly methodology "researchers" embrace to validate their cultural sacred cow are ridiculous.

[mjwise]

Here's the full study and here's a nice summary on Huffington Post of the issues it has. Basically, they did find heightened thermal and fine touch sensitivity with the foreskin then reported in their discussion that they didn't. These differences existed despite the rather dubious methodological tactic of testing a single side on the "outside" of the foreskin - the inside of the foreskin was conspicuously ignored. Very weird.

[admin]

The study authors are boobs. Any other topic and there would be enough knowledgeable peer reviewers to ferret out such incompetence.

They basically say they studied (in a half-assed way) the sensations of the penis, and that (in their OPINION) the fact that the foreskin IS the most sensitive part doesn't contribute to sexual pleasure. They utterly ignored the FUNCTION of the foreskin in terms of allowing for the option of a frictionless gliding mode of stimulation which cut men simply can't choose.

[Tony]

In response to the recent junk study by Jennifer Bossio from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.
Thankfully Brian Earp exposes Bossio's academic fraud in his response via Huffington Post. How is Bossio even remotely qualified to comment on penile function and innervation when she is a psych major, not a neurologist, urologist, or dermatologist. Her study is merely a student thesis not a clinical trial, hence it does not merit the attention it has garnered by her press release. Furthermore Bossio doesn't have a penis, nor has she experienced genital cutting, yet she writes as if she knows what men experience. Her commentary is insensitive and demeaning to the thousands of men who have to live with sexual dysfunction related to circumcision for every day of their lives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/does-circumcision-reduce-_b…

[Guest]

Hah! I meant to come back and do 'phase two', and everybody beat me to it, with depth and breadth! Feels good.

[parsecskin]

Right on Tony! She's a dumb **** plain and simple.

[dragons]

This is a more balanced article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_9743242.html