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.
-
-
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
The “body does compensate”? You are confusing say blind peoples’ becoming more aware of sounds with actual missing genital nerve endings - those endings don’t regrow elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eshu321 @tesslatweets and
Tessla has a strange morality. She is arguing that if you can get away with a crime without the victim noticing then that justifies it. Like robbing someone's home without them noticing. If they don't notice then maybe it isn't even a crime.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReedNelson9 @tesslatweets and
You’re right! Here’s an article that expressly addresses a victim not remembering the crime: https://intactamerica.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/circumcision-and-rape-does-a-victims-memory-matter/ … Another good one on consent: https://www.academia.edu/33041051/How_different_are_female_male_and_intersex_genital_cutting … And one on false beliefs about circ leading to “satisfaction” with it:https://www.academia.edu/35001238/False_beliefs_predict_increased_circumcision_satisfaction_in_a_sample_of_US_American_men …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eshu321 @ReedNelson9 and
Not connecting it to morality at all, simply arguing that when the skin is removed the user still has other skin and other nerve that is useful. Sexually men are just as fulfilled cut (as infants) as uncut
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What's not connected to morality is you Tessla. Circumcision removes healthy, innervated skin & smooth tissue. The skin and nerves that are left says nothing about the morality of removing other skin and nerves, no matter what cut men (& their mothers) may imagine about that.
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.