Bio not provided
@Bubjazz Thanks Bubjazz. Of course, sample size is important, but here's a study involving over 4000 subjects, which concludes:
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
We could throw articles back and forth all day, but neither of us can claim that the science is in our favour. My point is that no one should make broad sweeping conclusions from inconclusive data.
1 year, 9 months ago on Cognitive Dissonance and the Truth About Circumcision – By Maria Bangs
@mariaRB@Catdog I'm not presenting an argument for circumcision, simply suggesting that the debate should be based on fair analysis of the science. From the article that you (and Bubjazz below) cite, in which the subjects were self selected and self-reporting:
"We hope readers will heed our advice in not extrapolating these results to the general population from this preliminary investigation, but instead use it as a springboard to fur- ther investigation, perhaps in a sufficiently large random-sample study."
Let's not present this as an open and shut case, when the science is clearly contradictory.
This is an important debate, but this article is riddled with factual errors and selective reporting of research results. For example "..men circumcised in infancy are five times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction." While some studies do show a negative effect, there are others that show a positive effect, and the majority show no significant difference.
Also, "All circumcised men experience keratinization, or a leathering of the glans..." An examination by Short (BMJ, 2000) of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised 60-96 year-old male cadavers found no difference in keratinization of the glans penis. Payne (Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2007), in a study of the sensitivity of twenty circumcised and twenty uncircumcised men, reported that "No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups."
A list of further references is found on this wiki page.
The author's statement that psychological factors bias our views on circumcision are true, but she is a case in point. Please don't claim to be the "clear, rational voice in the debate" when you are pushing a clear agenda with little regard for fact.