Jennifer A. Bossio
Adjunct Assistant Professor Jennifer A. Bossio, M.S.[a 1], Ph.D.[a 2], C. Psych., is a Canadian psychologist in the Department of Urology at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario.[1]
Dr. Bossio also maintains a private practice.[2]
Contents
Publications
Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele S. A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature. J Sex Med. December 2014; 11(12): 2847-64. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 15 December 2024.- Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Bartley K. You either have it or you don’t: The impact of male circumcision status on sexual partners
. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2015; 24(2): 104–19. DOI. - Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele SS. Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Qualitative Sensory Testing. J Urol. June 2016; 195(6): 1848-53. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 15 December 2024.
Quote:The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites
- Bossio JA. Re: Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing . J Urol. 2016; 195: 1821-26. Retrieved 15 December 2024.
- Bossio JA, Pukall CF. Attitude Toward One's Circumcision Status Is More Important than Actual Circumcision Status for Men's Body Image and Sexual Functioning . Arch Sex Behav. April 2018; 47(3): 771-81. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 15 December 2024.
Critical commentary
Bossio et al. (2016) have argued that, "Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site."[3] This is an outlier position that is in conflict with several other studies.
Brian D. Earp, Ph.D. (2016) has published a significant criticism of the work of Bossio et al.[4]
Earp commented:
With respect to the specific question of “sensitivity,” the latest findings are a lot less definitive than media reports are making them out to be (and they don’t even all point in the same direction as those reports are suggesting). As Bossio and her colleagues state at the end of their paper, “replication of this study is warranted with a larger sample size” and “associated conclusions should be interpreted as preliminary.”[4]
Earp concluded:
In the meantime, a precautionary approach suggests that we should leave boys’ penises alone until they can assess the sensitivity of their own foreskins as compared to other parts of the penis—as well as their role in sexual experience more generally—in light of their own considered sexual preferences and values.[4]
See also
External links
Official website. Retrieved 15 December 2024
Abbreviations
- ↑
Master of Science
, Wikipedia. Retrieved 13 October 2021. (Latin: magisterii scientiae; also abbreviated MS, MSc, M.Sc., SM, S.M., ScM or Sc.M.) - ↑
Doctor of Philosophy
, Wikipedia. Retrieved 16 June 2021. (Also abbreviated as D.Phil.)
References
- ↑ Bossio, Jennifer (January 2023).
Curriculum Vitae
. Retrieved 16 December 2024. - ↑ Bossio, Jenn.
Meet Dr. Jenn Bossio, C.Psych
, Tri Health Clinic. Retrieved 15 December 2024. - ↑ Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele SS. Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Qualitative Sensory Testing. J Urol. June 2016; 195(6): 1848-53. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 15 December 2024.
Quote:The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites
- ↑ a b c Earp BD. Circumcision and Sexual Function: Bad Science Reporting Misleads Parents. Journal of Medical Ethics. 22 April 2016; Retrieved 16 December 2024.