It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:32 am

new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

FollowersFollowers: 0
BookmarksBookmarks: 0
Views: 952

new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby snoman » Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:22 am

Hi Guys

I was just at reddit and saw this story on the front page.

*** The link is only visible for members, go to login. ***

The argument that the penis head keratinises post circumcision and thus makes the penis less sensitive is so common it's taken as gospel. This article refutes that.

The anti's at reddit are already screaming about methodological flaws (much like they did with your pornstar preference posts Deadheart :lol: ) - but the end result is that, at least in this study, there were no differences found.

I'm a live and let live kind of guy usually, but I have been reacting more and more to all the bullshit propaganda the anti movement has flooded the internet with. Even when I share my own story, I get shouted down and called a liar, or I get told I'm suffering some type of psychologically disturbed thinking (much like you Deadheart :D ).

To any of you who feel the same way as I do about this, I urge you to copy this link and share it with as many people as you can. On your tumblrs (although I guess you already have a biased audience), in any sexuality or parenting forums you may visit, anywhere you think people may be interested in this information. (I'm sorry Gemlt if I've gone against forum policy mentioning parents - i know this is a sexuality forum).

I've heard friends spout this rubbish, saying they read it online. The anti circ crowd have been so loud for so long people are accepting their opinions as gospel. This is a chance to make a small inroad in all that noise.
snoman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: 03.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby Gemlt » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:39 am

No need to apologize. I think this is an interesting article. I saw a preview of it when the Journal of Urology published the manuscript when it was accepted in December. Jennifer Bossio (the primary author and researcher) does some great work trying to conduct impartial research into the subject of comparative sexual response in circumcised and uncircumcised men (spoiler alert, she doesn't find statistical differences). She's also published a review of circ literature to date, and her Master's thesis, at over 200 pages, is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the subject at the present time.

In regards to arguments with Intactivists, I think we can probably all agree that it's an exercise in futility, but I understand if you feel compelled to dispute their claims for the sake of unbiased parents. For what it's worth, there's a great post by Harriet Hall over at Science Based Medicine (*** The link is only visible for members, go to login. ***)that provides a pretty good toolkit for how to logically defuse most Intactivist arguments. Admitted, she also provides the rebuttals to people arguing for circumcision, but I think that her analysis is pretty well-done, so I definitely recommend reading it if you haven't done so.
User avatar
Gemlt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 01.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby Gemlt » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:03 pm

FYI, here's Ms. Bossio's Ph.D. thesis in case you have several hours to spare and a penchant for academic science writing: *** The link is only visible for members, go to login. ***
User avatar
Gemlt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 01.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby Gemlt » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:40 pm

Coincidentally, I can (literally) only imagine how heated the rhetoric on Reddit got, given that at least 95% of the comments on that thread have been removed. It's pretty cool to see that this article made a pretty big splash. I saw it on the Huffington Post, IFLScience, and even Vice. The latter appears to have reached out to Ms. Bossio for comments, because she's quoted as saying that a sequel was made in which the same subjects were observed while watching porn in order to measure comparative sexual response. Admitted, this begins to tread into well explored territory. I'm pretty sure that kind of research is even mentioned during the first season of Masters of Sex.

I will say, some of the remaining posts on Reddit raise some of the shortcomings of this research. I don't think that this is a bad thing, though. Those sorts of questions are necessary before you can find out the answer.

Last thought and then I'm done for now: Are there any circumcised guys that feel like this sort of research robs them of something? I see a lot of stuff on Tumblr where it seems like circumcision's reputation for reducing pleasure is a turn on for some. Does this mean that some of you are disappointed by the prospect of there not being much of a difference in sensitivity? Of course, I'll defer to those of you cut as adults to elaborate on the concept in greater detail than I am capable of.
User avatar
Gemlt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 01.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby jack » Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:39 pm

Gemlt wrote:FYI, here's Ms. Bossio's Ph.D. thesis in case you have several hours to spare and a penchant for academic science writing: *** The link is only visible for members, go to login. ***


This is an amazing paper and it is fascinating to imagine how someone (who doesn't even have a penis :D) could devote so much time to exploring this topic. Although I only skimmed it for 30 minutes, it was interesting to learn that she found no notable effect of circumcision on sensitivity and also that women significantly prefer circumcised partners for vaginal and oral sex, citing cleanliness and aesthetics as significant pluses.

Given that this is such an old and well-established procedure and a third of males worldwide have undergone it, I would say that it isn't really that surprising that no negative effects on sexual satisfaction were found. I doubt circumcision would have become such a widespread procedure if it did indeed ruin sex. Going back to the issue of why intactivism has become so prominent, I see it more as political and moral problem. Body modification has and will always be a tricky subject, especially if done without consent. However, where intactivists lose it and start to irk me is when they state their "expert opinions" on "how debilitating circumcision is on human sexuality". As history, science and personal experience have shown me and many other men happily circumcised as adults, labelling it as mutilation is just nonsense.

Alas, no matter how futile their efforts and regardless of what further evidence might be uncovered to dismiss their claims, intactivsts will never stop shouting. Fortunately for us, it has no effect on our ability to appreciate the circumcised penis. The only sad part is that I fell there might be many more men and women out there who would find a preference for the cut penis, but are discouraged from accepting and expressing that preference due to fear of being dismissed as mentally unstable. Furthermore, from personal experience, it appears that the phenomenon has also affected medical personnel to some extent as I was initially discouraged from undergoing a circumcision, despite being very clear about my desire to do so. My only guess is that doctors perhaps fear that intactivists may stir up regret in their patients and negatively bias their satisfaction with the procedure, even though in many cases it might be the best option medically.

Anyway, I apologise for the long(ish) post.
jack
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 02.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby Deadheart » Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:03 am

Jenn Bossio is a blessing to this field of study. We could not ask for anyone better: she's intelligent, well-educated, researched, young & beautiful, and she is exploring all aspects of circumcision that has never been explored in a scientific way. Such a lack of information currently on the societal and psychological effects of circumcision status, both among males and their female partners, that Jenn truly is a blessing to us.

This study has made waves, and the timing couldn't be any more perfect with the current "bloodstained men" protests. This new study has further reach and influence than any of those wackos will ever have, basically making their efforts futile and null. (I will spare my comments on intactivists, as it'll only be echoing what has already been said).

As a male circumcised as an adult (voluntary), I have been saying this for years: Removing the foreskin does not effect sensitivity or pleasure. Not on the glans, frenulum, shaft, not anywhere. I could have told you that, or the millions other circumcised men, but this new study is what was needed to reassure the public. I have strong personal beliefs regarding circumcision of newborns, but I would never discourage or try to persuade parents who didn't want to do it ("live and let live" as snoman said). I'm just glad the research is out there to help ease parents minds on this, and give a more balanced perspective that has been dominated by the anti-camp (scare tactics, lies, and all).

It is also very noteworthy that from her research, females significantly prefer circumcised for all sexual acts: including vaginal intercourse, fellatio, manual stimulation, and even anal intercourse. From her studies women hold the belief that circumcised is significantly more hygienic, clean, normal, age-common, attractive, better to touch, and what other females prefer. Less significant but still towards a positive trend, women also believe it is more erotic and better against STI reduction.

As nice as it is to have the facts and data, common sense should prevail in the end. Circumcision has been practiced for hundreds of years, led by men at their discretion, and it wouldn't have continued if it didn't have benefits or reduced sensation. Secondly, ignoring women's preference is disingenuous and insulting, as it directly influences them sexually. Given that it has been common knowledge (for a long-time now) that large majority of women do find circumcised cleaner and visually attractive, it is no mystery why it is the more appealing option.
Deadheart
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 02.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby Frecklover » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:03 am

She has just proved what we already know. Personally I wouldn't want to be any more sensitive! And yes, in my experience women do tend to find circumcised penis' more aesthetically and erotically appealing, and what guy doesn't want to be as attractive as he can be to potential lovers?
Frecklover
 
Posts: 175
Joined: 02.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby snoman » Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:49 am

Ok - here's something kind of interesting.

I've been following the ensuing discussions about this paper on a couple of forums.

It basically says, according to this research, there's no evidence that circumcision reduces penile sensitivity.

So you'd logically think, in terms of reactions to the publication, there would be a bunch of circumcised guys going "Oh - good".

That's not the case at all. The anti's have come out bedecked in warpaint and are arguing viciously about the flawed methodology and general unreliability of this study.

It has nothing to do with them! :P

They're getting so totally twisted and bent out of shape because research has found that guys who've been circumcised have not lost sensation. The research didn't say foreskins prevent sensitivity. It didn't say the circumcised penis is superior to the uncircumcised penis. It didn't say the circumcised penis is the better penis for having sex with....nothing of the sort. Simply that the circumcised guys don't need to worry about loss of sensitivity.

I find this hysterical. Speaks volumes about them I think.
snoman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: 03.2016
Gender: None specified

Re: new study? Circ does not reduce penile sensitivity

Postby jack » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:17 pm

Haha, that's a good point. It is as if they want it to be harmful just to have something to talk about. Like I previously said, the fact that both types of penises have prevailed for so long confirms that none of them has a clear edge medically and sexually speaking. Otherwise men would have clearly favoured one over the other. I think it's just futile to debate these aspects. They may have a point on moral issues regarding infant circumcision, but physically they can't really say anything about it.
jack
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 02.2016
Gender: None specified