On circumcision, 'intactivists' are just wrong - latimes http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-allen-anti-circumcision-activists-20120812,0,2269752.story … The notion that circumcision reduces a man's sexual sensitivity has little basis in fact. Obsession with penis is the issue of the men in movement & their sex life.
-
-
The problem is the way it was done. Maybe if intactivists did not hijack the doctor’s unrelated thread and then personally attack her she would have been more open to hearing our POV. imo this was a missed opportunity for an important issue

-
I don't think so. Over 6 years ago she declared the foreskin has no "purpose" and then blocked me. This does not suggest an open mind. https://twitter.com/DrChaya/status/189888528396726272 …
#i2This Tweet is unavailable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
I just want to leave this right here. This page does a good job of summing of some of the anatomical point intactivists make regarding physical benefits of keeping foreskin: