Reply to comment
Um, no, they didn't test the foreskin at all!
July 27, 2007
by CommonSense (not verified),
2 years 18 weeks ago
Comment: 24358
Reply
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!
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?