Should we routinely circumcize

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Should we routinely circumcize

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned? is there any credible science based justification for what is - to all intents and purposes - genital mutilation?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #21

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:46 am Asian J Androl. 2013 Sep; 15(5): 662–666.
Published online 2013 Jun 10. doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.47
PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.


This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:10 am We could do this all day, I can find just as many published studies countering this as you can supporting it.
Goes back to peer reviewed scientific and medical journals. Or not peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
There's no shortage of opinions -
But as you see above there is a shortage of data-supported contrary opinions. Notice that this is a meta-analysis, surveying results of as many medical and scientific journals as possible.
even in science, never heard of lies, damn lies and statistics?
Figures don't lie. Liars do figure, but of course statistical analysis isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of math. All sorts of faulty statistical games are used on the net, but that kind of thing doesn't play so well with journal referees. As an anti-science devotee you simply must have come across this kind of thing again and again.
The very suggestion that an evolved organ that appears widely across the animal kingdom and reflects adaptation to the environment, is actually detrimental to humans and must be cut off because we know better -
- is a rather blatant strawman. As you have been told, the question of circumcision or not has a number of considerations, but the actual procedure has only rather small benefits for health, and no documented drawbacks. Unless there are some emotional or aesthetic issues for one.
just flies in the face of everything people claim about evolution.
If you think so, you have a very limited understanding of the way it works. The human spine, for example, is a rather cobbled-up adaptation to bipedal locomotion and thereby a great deal of pain and misery occurs. If evolutionary theory is right, we should see all sorts of these inefficient fixes. And we do. On the other hand, if we were poofed into existence, or "designed", you wouldn't see anything like that.
If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #22

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:53 am
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:46 am Asian J Androl. 2013 Sep; 15(5): 662–666.
Published online 2013 Jun 10. doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.47
PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.


This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:10 am We could do this all day, I can find just as many published studies countering this as you can supporting it.
Goes back to peer reviewed scientific and medical journals. Or not peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
There's no shortage of opinions -
But as you see above there is a shortage of data-supported contrary opinions. Notice that this is a meta-analysis, surveying results of as many medical and scientific journals as possible.
even in science, never heard of lies, damn lies and statistics?
Figures don't lie. Liars do figure, but of course statistical analysis, isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of math. All sorts of faulty statistical games are used on the net, but that kind of thing doesn't play so well with journal referees. As an anti-science devotee you simply must have come across this kind of thing again and again.
The very suggestion that an evolved organ that appears widely across the animal kingdom and reflects adaptation to the environment, is actually detrimental to humans and must be cut off because we know better -
- is a rather blatant strawman. As you have been told, the question of circumcision or not has a number of considerations, but the actual procedure has only rather small benefits for health, and no documented drawbacks. Unless there are some emotional or aesthetic issues for one.
just flies in the face of everything people claim about evolution.
If you think so, you have a very limited understanding of the way it works. The human spine, for example, is a rather cobbled-up adaptation to bipedal locomotion and thereby a great deal of pain and misery occurs. If evolutionary theory is right, we should see all sorts of these inefficient fixes. And we do. On the other hand, if we were poofed into existence, or "designed", you wouldn't see anything like that.
If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.
Stop right there, let me get this crystal clear. Are you claiming there are numerically more peer reviewed medical papers published across the developed nations, that advocate routine male circumcision than there are peer reviewed medical publications that oppose it?

If you are claiming that then also tell me what are the respective number in each category.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #23

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:53 am
This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/
even in science, never heard of lies, damn lies and statistics?
Figures don't lie. Liars do figure, but of course statistical analysis, isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of math. All sorts of faulty statistical games are used on the net, but that kind of thing doesn't play so well with journal referees. As an anti-science devotee you simply must have come across this kind of thing again and again.
The very suggestion that an evolved organ that appears widely across the animal kingdom and reflects adaptation to the environment, is actually detrimental to humans and must be cut off because we know better -
- is a rather blatant strawman. As you have been told, the question of circumcision or not has a number of considerations, but the actual procedure has only rather small benefits for health, and no documented drawbacks. Unless there are some emotional or aesthetic issues for one.
just flies in the face of everything people claim about evolution.
If you think so, you have a very limited understanding of the way it works. The human spine, for example, is a rather cobbled-up adaptation to bipedal locomotion and thereby a great deal of pain and misery occurs. If evolutionary theory is right, we should see all sorts of these inefficient fixes. And we do. On the other hand, if we were poofed into existence, or "designed", you wouldn't see anything like that.
If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.

PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.

Stop right there, let me get this crystal clear. Are you claiming there are numerically more peer reviewed medical papers published across the developed nations, that advocate routine male circumcision than there are peer reviewed medical publications that oppose it?
I'm showing you that a meta-analysis of studies on this subject, published by an Asian journal, shows that the consensus of studies shows no difference in sexual disfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
If you are claiming that then also tell me what are the respective number in each category.
See above.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #24

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:49 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:53 am
This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/
even in science, never heard of lies, damn lies and statistics?
Figures don't lie. Liars do figure, but of course statistical analysis, isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of math. All sorts of faulty statistical games are used on the net, but that kind of thing doesn't play so well with journal referees. As an anti-science devotee you simply must have come across this kind of thing again and again.
The very suggestion that an evolved organ that appears widely across the animal kingdom and reflects adaptation to the environment, is actually detrimental to humans and must be cut off because we know better -
- is a rather blatant strawman. As you have been told, the question of circumcision or not has a number of considerations, but the actual procedure has only rather small benefits for health, and no documented drawbacks. Unless there are some emotional or aesthetic issues for one.
just flies in the face of everything people claim about evolution.
If you think so, you have a very limited understanding of the way it works. The human spine, for example, is a rather cobbled-up adaptation to bipedal locomotion and thereby a great deal of pain and misery occurs. If evolutionary theory is right, we should see all sorts of these inefficient fixes. And we do. On the other hand, if we were poofed into existence, or "designed", you wouldn't see anything like that.
If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.

PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.

Stop right there, let me get this crystal clear. Are you claiming there are numerically more peer reviewed medical papers published across the developed nations, that advocate routine male circumcision than there are peer reviewed medical publications that oppose it?
I'm showing you that a meta-analysis of studies on this subject, published by an Asian journal, shows that the consensus of studies shows no difference in sexual disfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
If you are claiming that then also tell me what are the respective number in each category.
See above.
To claim A > B is true, can only be supported by divulging the values of A and B, are you unwilling to do so? could it be you just made it all up? that it was just rhetoric?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #25

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:36 pm If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.

PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.

Stop right there, let me get this crystal clear. Are you claiming there are numerically more peer reviewed medical papers published across the developed nations, that advocate routine male circumcision than there are peer reviewed medical publications that oppose it?
I'm showing you that a meta-analysis of studies on this subject, published by an Asian journal, shows that the consensus of studies shows no difference in sexual disfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Notice the metadata above. Is it now your claim that they "just made it all up"? If so then its clear that no amount of evidence would get you to admit your beliefs are mistaken.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:36 pm could it be you just made it all up? that it was just rhetoric?
That isn't a realistic claim, given the journal that published the results. And no, I don't think anyone else here will buy the idea that they are all lying.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #26

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 3:04 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:36 pm If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time
The way it eliminated wisdom teeth? About 35 percent of humans now fail to grow third molars. Which is a good thing, because there's no longer any room in the smaller faces of anatomically modern humans. But 65 percent of us do have them, and they frequently cause major problems. So natural selection is working on it, but not done yet. If creationism were true, this sort of thing would not exist.

The evidence from a large number of medical studies suggests that there isn't much advantage or disadvantage of having foreskin. So with a low selective value, it probably isn't changing at all in the human population.
No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception,
If you had taken my advice and learned about Hardy-Weinberg, and the mathematical basis for it, you would have already realized how it works.

As is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in creationism, we'll just get denial and an assertion that one doesn't have to understand the math and science in order to discuss issues like this.

Either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I'm a devotee of "evolutionism", another common escape tactic.

PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.

Stop right there, let me get this crystal clear. Are you claiming there are numerically more peer reviewed medical papers published across the developed nations, that advocate routine male circumcision than there are peer reviewed medical publications that oppose it?
I'm showing you that a meta-analysis of studies on this subject, published by an Asian journal, shows that the consensus of studies shows no difference in sexual disfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Notice the metadata above. Is it now your claim that they "just made it all up"? If so then its clear that no amount of evidence would get you to admit your beliefs are mistaken.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:36 pm could it be you just made it all up? that it was just rhetoric?
That isn't a realistic claim, given the journal that published the results. And no, I don't think anyone else here will buy the idea that they are all lying.
Why not show me an article that demonstrates that the consensus of some studies shows there is a difference in sexual disfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised men? Why pick only the articles that seem to support your own beliefs?

It is a realistic possibility since you claim A > B is true yet have no values for A or B, perhaps you evolved telepathy? or is it magic? surely not guesswork? no please tell me it wasn't guesswork, an evolutionist guessing, what is the world coming to.

:lol:

Here's something for ya:
A new medical study in Belgium suggests circumcised men experience less intense sexual pleasure and orgasm than uncircumcised counterparts.

The study by Dr. Piet Hoebeke from Ghent University Hospital surveyed 1,369 men over the age of 18, who responded to leaflets handed out in train stations across Belgium, the Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Neieuws reported on Monday.

The men were asked whether they were circumcised, and were then asked to rate how sensitive their penis was, how intense their orgasms were and whether they experience any pain or numbness when they are aroused.

Overall, 1,059 uncircumcised men reported between 0.2 points and 0.4 points higher sensitivity and sexual pleasure compared to the 310 circumcised men surveyed.

“It’s not a very big difference in sensitivity, but it’s a significant difference,” Hoebeke is quoted as saying.

The researchers also found circumcised men were more likely to report more pain and numbness during arousal than uncircumcised men, which Hoebeke said is likely due to scar tissue.

“I’m amazed that people report pain during sexual pleasure… That’s very amazing and that was unexpected,” he said.
and
This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.
From: Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort.

or how about this:
Conclusions: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
From: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Great thing that peer review stuff isn't it, always gets things straightened out...

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #27

Post by The Barbarian »

You've confused a few outliers with the meta-analysis of many studies. I get it; you're going with the minority, because they say what you'd like. If the best you can do is one report of very small differences, and the analysis of many studies shows no significant difference, maybe it's time for you to accept the facts and go on.

Even if your much smaller sample is valid, the best you can do is a tiny amount of difference with a significant additional risk of cancer and infection in uncircumcised men. As I said, not much of a difference either way.

Unless it's an emotional issue for one.

Which maybe is what we have here.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #28

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:25 pm You've confused a few outliers with the meta-analysis of many studies. I get it; you're going with the minority, because they say what you'd like.
How did you determine it was a minority if you've not counted them? This is clumsy reasoning, you say A > B is true yet don't know what A and B are, you now express this as B is a minority and still you have no idea what the numeric values of these are.

The articles I quoted from are all peer reviewed, why don't you accept their findings? bias perhaps?

I have a foreskin you do not, which of us is best placed to express an opinion on how a foreskin feels? what pleasurable sensations it can generate? you or me?

You can never ever know what kind of sensory loss your circumcision led to, it was taken from you before its sexual function ever had a chance to develop.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #29

Post by The Barbarian »

Even if your much smaller sample is valid, the best you can do is a tiny amount of difference with a significant additional risk of cancer and infection in uncircumcised men. As I said, not much of a difference either way.

Unless it's an emotional issue for one.

Which seems to be what we have here.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #30

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:56 pm Even if your much smaller sample is valid, the best you can do is a tiny amount of difference with a significant additional risk of cancer and infection in uncircumcised men. As I said, not much of a difference either way.

Unless it's an emotional issue for one.

Which seems to be what we have here.
The papers I referred to are in peer reviewed scientific publications.

Post Reply