Canada Journal – News of the World Articles and videos to bring you the biggest Canadian news stories from across the country every day
While extensive research has been conducted on the hygienic results of neonatal circumcision, significantly less study has focused on how circumcision affects penile sensitivity and sexual function.
The study, published in The Journal of Urology, got incredibly specific: The investigators examined whether the tip of the penis was less sensitive in circumcised men as well as whether the foreskin was more sensitive than other parts of the penis. They tested 62 men between ages 18 and 37 on their sensitivity to touch, pain thresholds, warmth detection, and pain induced by heat. (It really doesn’t sound like fun to be a part of this study.)
And, on all fronts, they found no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They also asked participants about their sexual functioning and discovered that a guy’s satisfaction, desire, and ability to orgasm didn’t differ based on whether he was circumcised either.
“This study indicates that neonatal circumcision is not associated with changes in penile sensitivity and provides preliminary evidence to suggest that the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the penis,” lead author Jennifer Bossio said in a press release.
With some saying circumcision has health benefits and others arguing it unnecessarily puts infants in discomfort, the debate is by no means resolved. But with regard to your sex life, it doesn’t seem to matter either way.
Agencies/Canadajournal
Evolution had a reason for keeping the foreskin, and it was not religious dogma.
The stated results are not only different from the way most media are reporting the study, but also internally inconsistent:
“Pen1le sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or pen1le site. The 4skin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other pen1le sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where 4skin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested).”
so:
a) the site most sensitive to tactile stimulation in intact men was the 4skin
which seems to contradict this:
b) “Pen1le sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or pen1le site.”
There’s a fundamental flaw in this research though. They measured the sensitivity of the *outside* of the 4skin, and not the inside. That’s such a basic error that it calls this whole study and the motives of the researchers into question.
The outside isn’t that much different to further down the sh@ft, but for many men the inside is vastly more sensitive than the outside. That little bit of skin makes a big difference – it’s not just there to protect the glans.