Circumcision may not affect sensation
|
|
|
MONTREAL, July 26 Canadian scientists have determined circumcision might not have any affect on sexual sensation.
Researchers at McGill University used genital sensory testing on circumcised and uncircumcised men during various states of arousal. Results showed no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to either touch or pain.
"This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded," said psychologist Kimberley Payne, principal author of the study.
"People have been arguing about the sexual effects of circumcision for at least 1,000 years and I hope these data will encourage more research," added Professor Yitzchak Binik, co-author of the research and director of the university's Sex and Couple Therapy Service.
The study is reported in the current issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine. Copyright 2007 by UPI
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Mistakes Repeated
By:
Joe in CA ,
Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:37:13 GMT |
|
This is basically the Masters and Johnson study all over again. Same method, same results.
The Sorrells study is much more detailed and takes into account the sensitivity of the foreskin, which this study purposefully ignores.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf
Study conductors with a slant for circumcision purposefully omit or misrepresent information in their favor. In this case, the foreskin and its sensitivity was completely ignored. Could it be because had they included it in their studies, the results would have been detrimental to their case?
Also, let's not forget that the people performing these studies do it out of self-interest. Yitzchak Binik is most likely Jewish and circumcised himself. Of COURSE the studies are going to indicate that circumcision "makes no difference." That makes mutilating children A-OK.
If it "doesn't matter either way," what's wrong with leaving the penises of children alone??
|
|
None so blind...
By:
Hugh ,
Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:10:45 GMT |
|
This study is just as bad as the old Masters & Johnson one which didn't look at the foreskin either.
The study by Sorrells et al, Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, British Journal of Urology International,Volume 99 Issue 4 Page 864 - April 2007 did look at the foreskin and found that the foreskin is more sensitive than any part left on a circumcised man. You can find a clear explanation of it at www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
|
|
Dumb study, bad title
By:
commenter ,
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:34:01 GMT |
|
Earthtimes, you got the title for this UPI story all wrong.
The title should have been"
"Circumcision sensitivity study ignores the foreskin"
This study says nothing about the sensitivity of the foreskin, the part which circumcision cuts off!
That makes it, well, pretty damn stupid.
How can you say there's no difference, then, when you didn't even look?
This study did look:
Penile Touch-Test Sensitivity Study
I understand, Earthtimes, that you didn't write this story, but you could at least pick an accurate title.
|
|
|
|
|
