[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: circumcision myth exposed!

Written by Ivan at 30 Apr 2003 16:34:51:

As an answer to: circumcision myth exposed! written by Tara at 30 Apr 2003 15:34:57:

Oh, well, in that case it must be okay to hack body parts off of infants to make them conform to the sexual predilections of a small minority of adults.

As for the study, no results are considered definitive until it has been thoroughly examined for sources of bias and error - not that this would stop the media.

The test seems deficient on the face of it for failure to compare foreskin sensitivity - my foreskin's a lot more sensitive than any that have been cut off - so the conclusions are already flawed as not including the sensitivity of that integral part of the penis. As it stands, it's as if they compared knuckle sensitivity between people who either kept the ends of their fingers and others who had lost them. Similar, but not entirely accurate - part of the claim has been that the glans itself becomes less sensitive after many years of exposure to rubbing. But still it is an enormous flaw to say 'penis sensitivity' rather than 'glans sensitivity' when you are not including the sensitivity of the foreskin as part of the overall 'penis sensitivity'. This is strongly suggestive of a study conducted with the prejudgment that the only part of the penis that matters is the glans. If you start with that attitude, there will be many opportunities in the testing and the handling of the data to mke the results conform to the prejudgment.

Oh, and just how was this done as a double-blind test - that is without either the testers or the subjects knowing which guys had the foreskins? Without that, there is a huge gap for prejudice to drive the results.

Another problem is if they used American intact men as test subjects who ahd been largely surrounded their whole lives by circumcised men - in making comparisons, viewing porn, comparing masturbation techniques, having intercourse with women unfamiliar with intact penises, the men would have had their penises subjected to much rougher handling than an intact man normally would 'on his own.' Again, this would toughen up his glans and minimize the differences. Comparison would best be made to intact men from a non-circumcising society, such as most of Europe.


Answers: