Video that debunks the Sorrells study?

[TopHat]

Video ID at YouTube:

kJDhh5mPbqc


Can anyone speak to this? I'm sorry for being a nuisance, but I'm not particularly bright so bear with me, lol.

[TopHat]

The one source he cites is titled FINE-TOUCH PRESSURE THRESHOLDS IN THE ADULT PENIS (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06970_6.x/full) which was penned by one Jake H. Waskett and a certain Brian J. Morris. Need I say more?

That's what I was thinking, but honestly I couldn't even understand what point he was trying to make.

[admin]

I've altered the link to the video. Folks would have to go to youtube and copy in the ID and search. This is because the cowardly piece of shit who posted the video to youtube elected to disable commenting. So I'd rather nobody looked at the video.

The embedding wasn't working anyway:

A) because you did it wrong; include only the 11-character ID between the {youtube} tags

B) because the cowardly piece of shit who posted the video to youtube elected to disable embedding.

-Ron

[TopHat]

That's strange- it seemed to be working the day I posted it. Oh well.

{mod: maybe he changed the embedding setting when he disallowed comments}

[Mister.Barbecue]

Whoever the author of this video is, he's a dedicated pro-circ troll.


Tophat:
This video does not debunk the study. It is a giant straw man argument.
The study showed that circumcised and uncircumcised penises' sensitivity was fairly similar--for the parts that were remaining. But the purpose of the study was simply to show that the most sensitive parts of the penis are cut off from circumcision. The fact that the remaining parts aren't that different is basically irrelevent.