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.
-
-
Little basis in fact? I was circumcised at 13 years old and the level of sensation was decreased in a dramatic and irreparable way from before being circumcised. At least I had the ability to consent to the the medically necessary procedure (in my case), unlike infants.
-
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 -
-
-
The right to decide which body parts you keep is propaganda to you? Good to know
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You seem to be the one pushing propaganda. Somehow mutilating penises is fine because "it's not that bad"... How about drop being a sexist bigot?
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"no actual science..."
"see slate article I posted" 
-
I feel bad for you guys trying to talk sense to her, you’re really wasting your time. She can’t even hold onto her own medical liscense so I don’t think she’s going to comprehend what You’re sayingpic.twitter.com/AOQEeMhVG2
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You haven't watched it, have you? If by "slate article" you mean the (LA Times) article headed "It was good enough for Jesus" well, so was crucifixion. That 2012 article has no science either. This is not about science but human rights.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Slate? That's your idea of "actual science"? Maybe try an actual journalhttps://academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
since you mention the article on Slate, you might find the following of interest:https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1081387115148136448 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oooh. Slate. That bastion of pure science. Face it, you just get off on mutilating infant boys...
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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: