Which was later criticized/debunked in a systematic review study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749001 And one that shows how it confused the data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27610340
-
-
So wouldn't cut men sensitivity be lowered? If the "evidence" say that cut men lost their most sensitive part of their penis, then studies where it shows sensitivity to be the same with uncut shouldn't exist.
-
I've yet to see a study that presents actual evidence in the form of objective sensitivity measurements (not a survey or some other subjective way) that shows no sensitivity difference in men who were cut as infants vs. intact men. If you know of any, I'd be happy to read them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.