Conclusions on the most recent study of sensitivity on circumcised and uncircumcised men, "Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

First, here is the pubmed link to the actual study.

Second, here are the full conclusions [from the abstract]:

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

The italicized portion is simply everything that is removed during circumcision.

Third, it's a shame that I stumbled upon this because I follow a blog that links to scientific articles and studies on "funny" subjects. I'm sure we can all agree that genital mutilation is hilarious. Except when it's female genital mutilation, of course.

Lastly, I find it to be completely absurd that we even have to try and talk people out of mutilating their newborns, and worse yet that we're having to oppose this becoming actual health policy.

It prevents STDs, men don't mind it, women like it, blablabla. If any of that were true about forcible genital mutilation on female babies (which is not true for the male babies, btw), would that ever make it ok?

To lots of you, it seems it would. It doesn't, though, because you're biased hypocrites.