Sorry I started reading as if you were in support of fgm. FGM is mutilation. Nothing less, nothing more.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @pistolpaulieon
Ive spoken to both cut and uncircumcised and no loss of sensation in circumcised men.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @pistolpaulieon
It develpoed in the middle east to prevent balantis, infection from sand and dirt. I do beg to differ with women who lose the clitoral region. It would be equivalent to us losing our penis head where most sensation comes to enable orgasm.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaulLee78908138 @pistolpaulieon
#Circumcision 1) wasn't "developed...to prevent balanitis [or other] infection" b/c it started thousands of years before the germ theory 2) reduces sensitivity in the foreskin to zero 3) isn't as extensive or invasive as Type IV#FGM, which is rightly & universally condemned#i21 reply 6 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @pistolpaulieon
Go away, the post is days old. Neonatal no bloody loss of sensitivity. Was to prevent balantis, study, I did. Dont bother replying. Just another push by the left to get their own way.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414114249.htm …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The foreskin is richly innervated. When it gets amputated, its sensitivity is necessarily reduced to zero. That's an irrefutable fact.
There's absolutely no evidence #circumcision was started b/c of balanitis, & it is utterly ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. #i2
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.