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.
-
-
that flies in the face of several studies that were done comparing circumcised and uncircumcised men that found no differences in sensation
-
Are you stating that my experience is falsified in some way?
-
no just anecdotal.
-
True, however there is room for error in any procedure, why open oneself up to error when something isnt a necessity. That is my point. Sure circumcision has no negative consequences for many people, but for many there are consequences, both severe and minor.
-
Many people don't think there are negative consequences. However it strains reality to think that there are no negative consequences to an entirely unnecessary surgery on a child's genitals. Barring actual medical need, an intact body is a human right.
-
The United States is an outlier when it comes to how widespread the practice is, how strongly the medical community supports it, but even AAP stops short of recommending routine circumcisions for all male newborns
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: