Cú Chulainn

No I saw your source from a psychology journal, first psychology is not the right science to measure physical pleasure, and second, there are alot of subjective arguments in that article. just because you can enjoy sex without a foreskin does not mean it should be removed.

Your argument, unless I’m mistaken, is that circumcision hampers sexual satisfaction. If circumcised men, especially those who underwent the procedure as adults, don’t think so, I think that means something.

I am a circumcised man, I believe it does, but again, there is a great difference between asking someone within a year of the surgery and asking someone 20 years later, or in my case 32 years later. None of those surverys have been done to look at long term damage and effects.

This is true. I was using the best surveys I could find, granted I didn’t do a very deep comb.

That's because they don't exist, no such study has been done, but they use these studies to defend circumcision on infants who cannot consent to say that there is no loss of feeling or function, something that is totally different due to the amount of time between and the >>

2> difference between neonatal and post pubescent bodies, They don't know if there's any extra loss caused by having those severed nerves and keratinzed glans during the pubescent period, they don't know if everything being fully formed before surgery changes the results.

I can’t argue that. If there’s a lack of research on this subject, I can’t comment.

At which point the research that does exist cannot be used to defend infant circumcision, yet it is. Research like Sorrels measured the relative sensitivity of men who were circumcised at birth and men still intact and found a massive difference.