HOLY SHIT!!! AT THE SUPREME COURT TODAY!!!pic.twitter.com/pLtfMGhVfQ
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
Studies have shown time and time again that sensation between a circumcised man and uncircumcised are non existence. Even with ones that had sex before their circumcision shows no difference, which kinda detroyes that foreskin gives out a much greater sensation.
It doesn't matter what parts they don't have, only how pleasureable the sex actually is, which is the heart of this issue. Because it seems weird that the foreskin that all these sensations that would logically make more pleasure sex, yet studies have shown no difference.
Actually there was, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235976
And their in the small minority. It like using someone who had surgery, say it was the worst decision in his life, therefore surgeries are bad. The vast majority of circumcised have no difference at all.
But there would still be a significant differences if uncircumcised men can experience more pleasure thanks to their foreskin. If that was the case, then circumcised shouldn't have the same sensation to intact ones. Even then, there's studies of men was was intact and then cut-
-with no actual sign of differences. I like you conspiracy theory on why men lie to themselves on their sensations, but I'll need some evidence for that.
Actually, a peer-reviewed study in the British Journal of Urology in 2007 concluded that "Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." Given that conclusion, how could circumcision possibly not cause a difference in sensation? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
Which was later criticized/debunked in a systematic review study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749001 And one that shows how it confused the data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27610340
I see nothing in either of the links you provided that actually debunks the study that I linked.
The first study: Speculative assertions that the removal of fine-touch neuroreceptors of the foreskin, reorganization/atrophy of neural circuitry and keratinisation of the glans penis as a result of circumcision might lower sensitivity and lead to sexual dysfunction-
8,15,16,17 have been refuted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and through evaluations by experts of such reports.14,18,19,20,21,22.
Following the citations, 16 is the study I linked, and 18 is the only citation I see that attempts to refute it. 18 is not a study; it is an opinion piece by B. Morris & J. Waskett, who are not doctors but are known to have a pro-genital-cutting bias. It is not a credible source.
The study that you linked tried to prove ideas and assumptions that has already been debunked by other studies. Nope 18 is a study, it have citations of different studies, shows a clear methodology of their findings, and etc. Just because you don't understand/like it, doesn't-
-mean it's not a study. Morris worked in medical science and you don't have to be a doctor to make conclusive data. Waskett is the same, since he still provide conclusive data for his research. You haven't shown how these studies are wrong, but you don't trust them
And? He used a flawed study for his purpose and it didn't even work. It's like if vaccines was introduced the same way to reduce pleasure. It doesn't matter how it was introduced, if it doesn't even do said thing it was introduced for.
Well when the differences are non-existent and no actual dangerous damages are shown, then really he did failed. It was this one: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/4718/pdf …
Wrong link: https://web.archive.org/web/20150221220002/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KelPlai.sgm&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1 … Basically reach this conclusion or got the results for what he saying thanks to the help of Dr. Archibald, Superintendent of the Iowa Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children
Source?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.