That goes against most anecdotal accounts by those who have undergone adult circumcision.
Errr...no. Again, when anticircumcision zealots pounce upon some poor bastard who is barely a month or two post-circumcision, yes he is going to complain and complain loudly, as would be entirely expected and reasonable. Anticircumcision zealots will
not do follow-up surveys on those men at one, two, three, or five year post-circumcision intervals, because as the length of time post-circumcision increases, fewer and fewer report any perceptible difference in sexual enjoyment or satisifaction after completely healing, resuming their sexual activities, and regaining their sexual confidence.
No it's not. Either you haven't seen a foreskin before or you're talking sh1t about seeing hundreds of circumcisions. That little bit in the head makes up a huge portion of the skin... it's folded much more heavily at the tip than the base.
I was a surgical assistant for nearly six years. I've personally participated in several dozen circumcisions. You have no clue what you're talking about. I do.
How about some substantial PRO circumsision arguments from YOU, since i assume, from reading your posts and seeing you calling names that you're PRO circumsision.
I'm pro-choice, not necessarily pro-circumcision, unlike my zealous anticircumcision couterparts, who not only must resort to misinformation and scare tactics to support their opposition to circumcision, but also advocate that the procedure be legally banned, removing the parent's right to choose what's best for their child.
The point is, i can tell you already RIGHT NOW that you will not be able to bring ONE substantial, logical reasoned PRO circumsision argument (because there IS none, excempt medical reasons)...and you (AGAIN) might end up calling non-circumsision supporters names.
Welcome to Anandtech Off Topic, you must be new here. You obviously haven't been following the other (three or four) circumcision threads in which I've contributed. Use the search feature, its your friend.
That doesen't mean that an uncircumsized glans can't be more sensive though; it indeed is, just by logic. It is calloused, it can't be as sensitive. Thats the whole purpose of a callous, to protect the sensitive tissue.
Well, I agree that a thickened covering over the glans reduces the sensistivity. You can regain some suppleness in a number of ways. However, most people don't really understand the exact reason we have a foreskin in the first place. I've heard some describe it as 'the way nature intended', but that's not really a justification for keeping it around.
The purpose of the foreskin is to establish what you could call a "competitive infection" to protect against pathogenic microbes from entering the body. It harbors 'normal flora' bacteria, which are largely benign because we have antibodies to them, while keeping foreign bacteria out. This normal flora also establishes through secretions an environment which is hostile to foreign or invading bacteria, no different than intestinal flora.
We don't sleep on soil full of decomposing matter, anymore. We don't stick our penises in vaginas with festering infections, anymore. Well, at least most of us dont. We don't swing through the trees, or run naked through thistles, anymore. We have invented clothes and baths and soap and all kinds of neat stuff in the last few thousand years which make the foreskin a liability rather than a benefit.
So yes, it is 'what nature intended', if you're a chimpanzee or a dog.
Facebook
Twitter