These "time traveler" rumors are getting out of hand! https://youtu.be/gKkUO8T7k8E pic.twitter.com/wgx7nH9wl1
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
1. Circumcision of infants is wrong regardless of motivation 2. It removes the most sensitive part, determined by esthesiometer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 Surveys report lost sensitivity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 And dysfunction https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977
Sorry, I think I may have mis-worded the second question. I mean the historical reasons for individual cultures circumcising, not actual responses to circumcision. But the first question’s response- what if you suffer from phimosis? Do I just let it fall off once you’re 14?
Betamethasone cream, tissue expansion, or preputioplasty. Preputioplasty is a geometrical question, and a big enough axial slit is guaranteed to cure the phimosis. The principle of proportionality of treatment makes circumcision unacceptable in such a case.
Rhetorical question, but isn’t preputioplasty genital mutilation too?
If it were done for no reason, it would be. For curing phimosis, it is the most minimally-invasive surgical solution available. It doesn't removie pieces. That's how surgery is supposed to be: doing as little damage as possible, once non-surgical options are exhausted.
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.
You obviously have no clue of the anatomy of the penis.
You should probably tell me why, because it seems like I’m right here. A lateral cut along your penis does get dangerously close to the urethral artery. But no need to be upset, if you have a qualification or evidence otherwise, I’m all ears.
(1/?) It isn't "fun" at all, it is horrendous. 1. Freedom of religion covers BELIEF, not practice, & NOT bodily harm. Circumcision does not abide by human rights or medical ethics principles of proportionality of treatment, informed consent, physical integrity, & non harm.
(2/2) 2. Because the early medical field INSTITUTED circumcision in the West specifically as a campaign to damage male sexuality. Because Sorrels found the foreskin to be the most sensitive part of the penis, & bc RACP calls the foreskin the "PRIMARY sensory tissue of the penis".pic.twitter.com/M872xMLWGo
You didn’t answer my questions here- I’m asking if I found you suffered from phimosis or chronic urinary tract infections, can I circumcise you as medical treatment (to avoid your penis falling off) or do you still want it banned?
No, because phimosis is treated with steroid cream, tissue expansion, or at worst preputioplasty, and urinary tract infections are not treated AT ALL by circumcision, but with antibiotics.
Just by the way, why would the U.S government approve a medical campaign to provide an expensive procedure just to harm men? Male circumcision isn’t treated like female circumcision because of the researched medical benefits. I agree with you on the religious part though.
Because the US medical field is doing everything it can to avoid appearing to have committed the biggest genital mutilation campaign on earth for the past 100 years. Plus huge numbers of religious fanatics. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION reduces HIV tranission by 50%-Kanki & Stallings!!!
That study has been discredited and it’s because of a low availability of data on it. Also, cultures that have more circumcision discourage sex, and therefore less HIV transmission. Why is it not an issue for women but an issue for men? Why not be equally against circumcision?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.