Circumcision May Not Impact Sexual Sensation
According to a new study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be so different after all. The research, performed in the Department of Psychology of McGill University in Montreal, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal. Results showed that no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to touch or pain.
“This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded,” says Kimberley Payne, Ph.D, 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,” says Dr. Yitzchak M. Binik, co-author of the research and Professor of Psychology at McGill and Director of the Sex and Couple Therapy Service of the McGill University Health Center.
The authors note that the presence of scar tissue formation from circumcision, as well as functional and mechanical changes related to sexual activity, are factors that may have secondary effects on genital sensitivity and should be considered in future research.
Irwin Goldstein, Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine observed, “In this fascinating study performed by renowned sexual medicine researchers, not only do they dispel the myth that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised male due to the protective function of the foreskin, but they show that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall during sexual arousal. This appears to be an important factor in the normal sexual response and pleasure.” This is the second manuscript in The Journal of Sexual Medicine this year (1) examining the effects of sexual arousal on genital sensitivity. “While more research is needed, diminishing genital sensitivity during sexual arousal may be an important factor helping protect against pain during sexual activity.”
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
July 27, 2007
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
Should Jake have disclosed
August 5, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 13 weeks ago
Comment id: 24454
Should Jake have disclosed that he's the co-author of footnote 5 in his comment?
Confirms The Same Flawed Conclusion, contains same flaw
August 1, 2007 by Grrr (not verified), 2 years 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 24417
Yes Jake it confirms only sensitivity in the glans, which is what everyone is complaining about these "Studies". They don't account for the highly senstive bundle of nerves that is removed by circumcision, which Sorrells showed to contain the most sensitive areas. These reports would be more accurate if they added "In the Glans" to the headline. They aren't bad studies of the glans, but to make a claim on total sensitivity while ignoring the key difference of the groups you are studying, makes this "Junk Science"
1) Measured the glans
2) Measured 1 point on the glans "tested on the dorsal midline glans of the penis"
3) Measured 1 point on the glans"The patients were tested on the dorsal midline glans of the penis"
4) Measured 19 points including the glans AND The foreskin, you know the part that circumcision removes?
5) Measured 1 point on the glansand 1 point on the shaft and I heard one on the forearm?
Wheres the foreskin?
Confirms earlier findings
July 29, 2007 by Jake (not verified), 2 years 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 24377
These results are similar to those of earlier studies.(1-3) With one exception, every study to investigate penile sensitivity has found no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. The sole exception was a study by Sorrells et al, funded by NOCIRC, which reported lessened glans sensation.(4) However, the authors incorrectly analysed their data. When it was re-analysed properly, no significant difference existed (their claim that the foreskin was more sensitive was also erroneous).(5)
1 Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91
2 Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity. Paper read at the American Urological Association 98th Annual Meeting at Chicago Illinois, April 26-May 1, 2003. Publishing ID 1260, Abstract ID: 100769
3 Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation. Urology. 2005 Apr;65(4):773-7.
4 Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9.
5 Waskett JH, Morris BJ. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Jun;99(6):1551-2.
I declare bullshit
July 28, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 24371
WTF is the bias of these jerks? WTF were they looking at sensitivity of the glans when it is the foreskin itself that has the sensitivity important in sexual excitement? They missed the point [pardon the pun] entirely.
As one who was circumsised post-puberty [don't ask] and with some prior sexual experience, I declare unequivocal bullshit.
These "researchers" should be drummed out of science for life. Their pro-circumsision bias is unquestionable.
Built in bias
July 27, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 24359
This study measures sensitivity in the glans. Both circumcised and intact men have a glans. The study does not measure sensitivity in the foreskin, which is removed during circumcision. Since the study completely ignores the sensitivity of the parts removed by circumcision, how can it claim that circumcision doesn't impact sensitivity?
The study is biased since it assumes that the foreskin has no value.
Um, no, they didn't test the foreskin at all!
July 27, 2007 by CommonSense (not verified), 2 years 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 24358
This is a science blog, so why not actually think scientifically.
Look at this study, they didn't measure sensitivity in the foreskin, they totally ignored it!
But that's the part that circumcision cuts off!
Didn't they notice that the foreskin is very sensitive? No. they didn't check.
Didn't they notice that circumcision removes 100% of sensitivity in the foreskin? No. They didn't look
Here's the study that did look:
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
They found that the parts of the organ cut off by circumcision were the most sensitive, and overall, sensitivity was reduced significantly.
Seriously, why post such nonsense as the study, with it's absurd conclusion, without criticism? This is a science blog?
Post new comment