tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5654757240979234018.post531337048359246090..comments2023-10-03T18:19:16.419+01:00Comments on Circumcision News: The penis and sexual pleasureJakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16079606157046664850noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5654757240979234018.post-35982533959005724772012-03-08T13:00:57.266+00:002012-03-08T13:00:57.266+00:00"The study did not reach STATISTICAL SIGNIFIC..."The study did not reach STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE in terms of foreskin investigation" -- wrong, I'm afraid. The authors did not test for statistical significance, due to the small number of samples. That's a weakness of the study, as I mentioned in my post above, but it isn't the same thing as failing to achieve significance.<br /><br />"So, if a partner avoided the foreskin or paid it scant attention (for example out of personal prejudice), this would very likely have affected the erotic value ("rating") that the intact men placed on their foreskin." -- that's not a logical argument, because it's difficult to avoid contact with the foreskin during most sexual activity (one can hardly leave it in the corridor outside!).Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16079606157046664850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5654757240979234018.post-51468826369317208252012-03-08T12:28:30.539+00:002012-03-08T12:28:30.539+00:00Sorry, Jake, but you can't use the Schober stu...Sorry, Jake, but you can't use the Schober study to demonstrate that the foreskin is less sensitive than the glans (or any other penile part)! The study did not reach STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE in terms of foreskin investigation. For this reason, Schober didn't even bother to enter the foreskin ratings or values at all in Table 1of the study! And she doesn't mention the foreskin at all in the study discussion. <br />But there's a further reason for me to criticise your use/abuse of Schober's study: <br />It is probably fair to say that there is a “circumcision culture” in the USA (well over 70% of US men are circumcised), and many American women don’t like the look of what they’re not used to, and consider the foreskin to be unclean, if not ugly. <br />The study's ratings were significantly affected by the men's sexual partners and presumably their preferences. So, if a partner avoided the foreskin or paid it scant attention (for example out of personal prejudice), this would very likely have affected the erotic value ("rating") that the intact men placed on their foreskin. <br />The Schober study isn't relevant here!sandzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11491850309921175968noreply@blogger.com