+- Circumcised.com (https://circumcised.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://circumcised.com/Forum-Community)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://circumcised.com/Forum-General-Discussion)
+--- Thread: "Sensitivity of a Circumcised and an intact is equal" is lie from Biased stdy in 1966 (/Thread-Sensitivity-of-a-Circumcised-and-an-intact-is-equal-is-lie-from-Biased-stdy-in-1966)
"Sensitivity of a Circumcised and an intact is equal" is lie from Biased stdy in 1966 - FishyFirefly - 07-13-2026
Lemme be clear, Crystal Clear, if stating facts causes burns then the burns never came from the facts, they came from the hidden practice, Hidden Trauma, and Hidden scars, yk, those Pro-Circs keep screaming "Sensitivity is same in cut and uncut" , they borrow this statement from 1 study in 1966 by Masters and Johnson -
"A prime example is the persistent, yet deeply misleading, citation of early sex research pioneers Masters and Johnson.
As critics like Dr. Ronald Goldman and nurse Marilyn Milos meticulously detail in American Circumcision, proponents routinely invoke Masters and Johnson's highly influential work claiming no significant difference in sexual sensation or responsiveness between circumcised and intact men.
This claim, endlessly repeated, provided a veneer of scientific legitimacy, reassuring parents that nothing vital was lost.
However, a closer look reveals critical, methodological manipulation:
- Masters and Johnson only tested the sensitivity of the glans penis, comparing the relatively insensitive, exposed/keratinized glans (circumcised) with the protected glans (intact).
- They systematically excluded the foreskin itself – the very tissue containing the vast majority of specialized nerve endings crucial for fine touch and nuanced pleasure – from their sensitivity testing.
- Milos recounts the absurd justification: testing the foreskin wouldn't have been "fair" to circumcised men.
Credit : u/C4Charkey , Link - https://www.reddit.com/user/C4Charkey/co...sto_v_the/
The entire table is attached below
Its like trying to compare the speed of two cars, 1st ones all wheels were removed, and 2nd ones wheels were there, but they were not being used, because using them would be 'discrimination to the car which doesn't have its wheels ' , its absolute non-sensical, the car's purpose is to move or gain speed for example, and the wheels of the 2nd car is the reason why when you are using it, it is gonna reach a fucking top speed, not like the car which had its wheels removed intentionally, it wasn't manufactured without wheels, their wheels were removed and then being compared with a car which had wheels, and then you made that specific comparison as discrimination, the real discrimination was removing the wheels in the first place.
If the car has wheels then its superior than the one it doesn't have, in the same sense, The Penis which has foreskin is similar to the Car which has all its wheels intact. It does have an advantage, and no, its not unfair, its fair, because you are intentionally removing the foreskin and then calling this comparison unfair. It is just insecurity to those who love circumcision. The fact is that, Foreskinned one is overall much more sensitive compared to the circumcised one is a fact, and including the foreskin is not a discrimination to circumcised men, its a true standard of comparison ( and the real meaning when you are comparing it actually ) especially when it was intentionally removed, meaning the sensitivity was intentionally reduced. IT IS A FACT, and if it hurts a cutter or the avg ppl ( who do not go through circumcision grief ) , then you should stop doing circumcision .
You are not birthed without a foreskin, you are birthed with one, and if you want sensitivity, then let that foreskin remain there. This is not discrimination, its a fact indicating this practice is harmful for the sensitivity of the penis, and if you want sensitivity of the penis, then stop circumcision. In a world where Foreskin is pretty much removed from all forms of textbooks and images, its obviously evident that these studies will be modified to catch up with them, or spread the same circumcision propaganda.
Btw I also recommend you all for reading the u/C4Charkey 's The Accidental Intactivist Manifesto, about a man in his 40s who was left intact at birth, and his views on circumcision. Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/FriendsOfTheFrenulum/comments/1jvk7qj/the_accidental_intactivist_manifesto_exposing_the/ . Its a good documentary and is worth reading, you will gain some insights about the false propaganda more.
Thank You for reading.