It might be minimally invasive but has a far higher risk. You’re no longer cutting loose skin, you’re cutting across the top of the frenulum and urethral artery and if you go wrong it can lead to more nerve damage than circumcision and possibly sepsis. I’m not convinced.
-
-
I had phimosis until puberty which is why I’m using it as an argument. It does cause necrosis after an age of about 14. And non-medical circumcision? When did I say I was a fan of non-medical circumcision?
-
I wanna point something out, I don't mean it as offense or ad hominem, this isn't an insult or an argument, I'm just saying... Your particular life experience makes you vulnerable to two different kinds of bias here, namely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias …
-
1. It’s not a 50/50 procedure, most people don’t suffer major nerve damage. The level of sensitivity is perfectly fine and justified the procedure. 2. No, that doesn’t work because it’s not a shopping product, it’s a surgery. I had my options presented.
-
The amount of nerve damage is horrendous, as the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.pic.twitter.com/Mausf3sP1M
-
Why is the actual gland marked as the least sensitive and regular skin marked as more sensitive?
-
Because that is reality. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. The Royal Australian College of Physicians calls the foreskin "PRIMARY sensory tissue of the penis."
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.