FGM is performed to remove sexual pleasure and appeal, circumcision is not. They are not equal. I wouldn’t even lump circumcision in with mutilation.
-
-
Try telling that to circumcised men who almost never complain about their sexuality due to their surgery. Without being able to compare uncut to cut, men don’t notice or experience a loss of sensation. The sensors might, but the subjects don’t.
14 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tesslatweets @CriticalOfAll and
Unless he's in complete denial, or would rather not have more sexual pleasure for some reason, a cut man who can understand the objective fact that foreskin is innervated genital tissue will take notice of - and be at least a little bothered by - that fact. I know b/c I'm one.
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CriticalOfAll and
You may be bothered, but not all men are. You can try to deny them that thought, but if they express it I choose to believe it same as I believe that you would or do object to the loss of it.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @CriticalOfAll and
Not trying to deny anyone anything. Rather, I'm trying to prevent boys from being denied a healthy part of their own bodies. Since one can't know or control if a particular infant will object as I always have, infant circumcision is wrong unless absolutely medically needed.
#i23 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @tesslatweets and
Infant circumcision is particularly insidious because the individual never had the opportunity to compare. Like being color blind or deaf all your life. The body compensates as best it can, but you really can't know what you are missing.
#i21 reply 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @ReedNelson9 @cooney21 and
The body does compensate and most men who are circumcised never know the difference. America ranks with its competitors in terms of sexual fulfillment, our boys don’t seem to miss what they never had.
6 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @ReedNelson9 and
What they never *knew they had. As I've stated before, the more a man learns about the structures and functions lost during circumcision, the more likely he is to be unhappy about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @JazhuStreaming @tesslatweets and
Honestly, that's akin to saying it is justified to chop off a finger because the other fingers can still feel just fine and the hand can compensate for the damage. Basic human rights tell us that subjecting un-consenting babies to the loss of erogenous tissue is wrong.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Yes, the bioethical analysis depends on evaluation of the utility, function, enjoyment, etc. naturally derived from the body part that is amputated & destroyed, not the degree to which other body parts may (or will not, when it comes to functions like self-lubrication) compensate
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @ReedNelson9 and
Evidence points out that a man can ethically exist intact or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @ReedNelson9 and
A woman can "ethically exist" whether intact or not as well. Again, the issue is not about the value of what's left; it's about the value of what's taken.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.