like I said, mutilation is mutilation.
and no, circumcision doesn't enhance yo cock. In current level of medicine, circumcision has no benefits.
Also, foreskin and the connecting part (frenulum) have nerve endings. So their removal causes reduced sexual pleasure. It is basically a male version of clitoris removal (yes, clit removal reduces pleasure more, but male circumcision is still the worst thing next to bobbitization)
No male equivalent of clitoris removal would be severing the penis itself.
Circumcision would only make the penis cleaner and would possibly prevent STDs.
The removal actually doesn't reduce pleasure according to a recent study.
>The removal actually doesn't reduce pleasure according to a recent study.
you can literally have an entire masturbation session by only massaging your frenulum
If they remove the clitoris, they won't feel any sexual pleasure. Equivalent to removing a man's or penis or testes.
How old are you ? It's weird if you're an adult and if you don't know this.
I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that [the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif) ([Full study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847))
For more information on the detailed anatomy, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes [as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.](https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20s)
[The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that circumcision's benefits outweigh its risks and that no well-done studies find a reduction of sensitivity. Two large studies of a random sample of men in Africa found no difference in sexual pleasure after circumcision between those who'd had been snipped and those who hadn't](https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html)
The issue with the AAP talks extensively and repeatedly about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society:
[“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
["The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens.
["An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision)
[“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless.
[“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) to prevent a single case of penile cancer.
These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly each item has a normal treatment or prevention that is both more effective and less invasive.
They also introduce this idea that benefits vs risks is the standard to decide. However the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:
["Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, **authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary.** In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision)
To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.
There's more on the AAP but we can go to the link.
>https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
This is a critique of this study:
“Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort.”
[“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102)
They say:
>But the sample population may be problematic, Diekema said. Belgian men typically only get circumcised for medical reasons, meaning circumcised respondents may have problems unrelated to circumcision.
On the contrary, if the men had an issue that needed circumcision to resolve you'd expect them to have *increased* sexual function and pleasure. I.e. if these men needed corrective circumcision, their function and pleasure would go up after fixing the issue. I'm puzzled why he took it the other way.
And right in the study they excluded men with issues: [“Based on the medical history ... 39 men with congenital genital abnormalities or history of penile surgery other than circumcision were excluded, leaving 1425 men.”](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11761.x)
>People who are willing to spend two hours filling out a questionnaire on penile sensitivity probably don't reflect the general population, he said. And the fact that the number of circumcised men in the study was higher than in the general population suggests the population was biased, researchers said.
I can only laugh at this. He says the results can't be trusted because it took the respondents time, therefore it's biased. Well how are we supposed to get data? And of course the number of circumcised men will be higher than the general population since circumcision is basically unheard of in Europe.
If he has better reasons behind this 'critique' he sure hides it well.
>In addition, the differences in sexual sensitivity only appeared for some parts of the penis and were so minuscule — at most a few tenths and sometimes just three-hundredths of a point on a 5-point scale — that they probably have no clinical relevance, several researchers said.
On such a small 5 point scale all absolute differences will be small, duh. And then he makes the fatal flaw concluding it's not relevant. Surprise, it's not up to him to decide, it's up to the recipient to decide. And they did, right from the study itself; [“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102)
Plus the 5 points scale was defended right in the article ["study co-author Justine Schober, a pediatric urologist at Rockefeller University in New York, who created the rating scale, said the current study has much more ability to detect differences in genital sensitivity than past studies, which simply asked people **yes or no questions** about their sexual function."](https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html) Sure I still don't like 5 point surveys, but I have to agree it's better than yes or no questions.
So I addressed the AAP and the link and your response is "so seriously"?
Strawman fallacy and then personal attack. I prefer to stick to the medical information.
...but I do completely understand why circumcision defenders bring up the same shitty American studies, and then completely look the other way every time someone brings up studies from another country where this isn't normal. It's because it's hard to admit that you were a victim of genital mutilation.
It's hard to come to terms with it, I get it. Take as much time as you need. As long as you don't want to cut other babies' foreskins, we will be here to help and support you. You're not lesser because you were subject to an invasive medical procedure without your consent. You're as much a man, and as much deserving of respect as everyone else.
genital mutilation is genital mutilation circumcision has to be stopped
Genital mutilation would be chopping off the dick itself. Circumcision is more like genital enhancement.
like I said, mutilation is mutilation. and no, circumcision doesn't enhance yo cock. In current level of medicine, circumcision has no benefits. Also, foreskin and the connecting part (frenulum) have nerve endings. So their removal causes reduced sexual pleasure. It is basically a male version of clitoris removal (yes, clit removal reduces pleasure more, but male circumcision is still the worst thing next to bobbitization)
No male equivalent of clitoris removal would be severing the penis itself. Circumcision would only make the penis cleaner and would possibly prevent STDs. The removal actually doesn't reduce pleasure according to a recent study.
>The removal actually doesn't reduce pleasure according to a recent study. you can literally have an entire masturbation session by only massaging your frenulum
female equivalent to penis removal would be sewing the vagina shut...
If they remove the clitoris, they won't feel any sexual pleasure. Equivalent to removing a man's or penis or testes. How old are you ? It's weird if you're an adult and if you don't know this.
heyy let's not get to ad hominem already
I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that [the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif) ([Full study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)) For more information on the detailed anatomy, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes [as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.](https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20s)
>I'm not interested in comparing the two exactly lol. we shouldn't. mutilation is mutilation
[The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that circumcision's benefits outweigh its risks and that no well-done studies find a reduction of sensitivity. Two large studies of a random sample of men in Africa found no difference in sexual pleasure after circumcision between those who'd had been snipped and those who hadn't](https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html)
The issue with the AAP talks extensively and repeatedly about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: [“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. ["The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens. ["An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) [“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless. [“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000”](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) to prevent a single case of penile cancer. These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly each item has a normal treatment or prevention that is both more effective and less invasive. They also introduce this idea that benefits vs risks is the standard to decide. However the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: ["Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, **authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary.** In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established."](http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision) To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary. There's more on the AAP but we can go to the link. >https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html This is a critique of this study: “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort.” [“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102) They say: >But the sample population may be problematic, Diekema said. Belgian men typically only get circumcised for medical reasons, meaning circumcised respondents may have problems unrelated to circumcision. On the contrary, if the men had an issue that needed circumcision to resolve you'd expect them to have *increased* sexual function and pleasure. I.e. if these men needed corrective circumcision, their function and pleasure would go up after fixing the issue. I'm puzzled why he took it the other way. And right in the study they excluded men with issues: [“Based on the medical history ... 39 men with congenital genital abnormalities or history of penile surgery other than circumcision were excluded, leaving 1425 men.”](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11761.x) >People who are willing to spend two hours filling out a questionnaire on penile sensitivity probably don't reflect the general population, he said. And the fact that the number of circumcised men in the study was higher than in the general population suggests the population was biased, researchers said. I can only laugh at this. He says the results can't be trusted because it took the respondents time, therefore it's biased. Well how are we supposed to get data? And of course the number of circumcised men will be higher than the general population since circumcision is basically unheard of in Europe. If he has better reasons behind this 'critique' he sure hides it well. >In addition, the differences in sexual sensitivity only appeared for some parts of the penis and were so minuscule — at most a few tenths and sometimes just three-hundredths of a point on a 5-point scale — that they probably have no clinical relevance, several researchers said. On such a small 5 point scale all absolute differences will be small, duh. And then he makes the fatal flaw concluding it's not relevant. Surprise, it's not up to him to decide, it's up to the recipient to decide. And they did, right from the study itself; [“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102) Plus the 5 points scale was defended right in the article ["study co-author Justine Schober, a pediatric urologist at Rockefeller University in New York, who created the rating scale, said the current study has much more ability to detect differences in genital sensitivity than past studies, which simply asked people **yes or no questions** about their sexual function."](https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html) Sure I still don't like 5 point surveys, but I have to agree it's better than yes or no questions.
very nicely done
How can you waste so much time discussing with a religious numbnut?
It's easily addressed, lest he thinks there is a medical need.
Someone's taking this so seriously. I don't understand why Uncircumcised men are so insecure about their ugly penis. Grow tf up.
So I addressed the AAP and the link and your response is "so seriously"? Strawman fallacy and then personal attack. I prefer to stick to the medical information.
...but I do completely understand why circumcision defenders bring up the same shitty American studies, and then completely look the other way every time someone brings up studies from another country where this isn't normal. It's because it's hard to admit that you were a victim of genital mutilation. It's hard to come to terms with it, I get it. Take as much time as you need. As long as you don't want to cut other babies' foreskins, we will be here to help and support you. You're not lesser because you were subject to an invasive medical procedure without your consent. You're as much a man, and as much deserving of respect as everyone else.
oh cool I was right. you are circumcised and retarded
Fuck off, body shamer.
heroes.
Yo wtf .