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.
-
-
Replying to @DrChaya
Hi again. I was going to drop this, but since you are still tweeting about it
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:https://www.foregen.org/human_foreskin 4 replies . 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @crypto_spawn
On circumcision, 'intactivists' are just wrong - latimes http://latimes.com/la-oe-allen-an … 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.
2 replies . 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrChaya @crypto_spawn
https://circumcisionmovie.com does an excellent job pointing flaws in medical studies w respect to sensitivity, and it’s not wrong to see this as a human rights issue
3 replies . 5 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @Blue_Suede_Shue @crypto_spawn
propaganda piece with no actual science. See slate article I posted.
8 replies . 0 retweets 2 likes
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.
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.