That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself.

[–]kerovon 45 points46 points47 points 10 years ago* (56 children) | Copy Link

This entire study is the result of an all female feminist psychology lab. They aren't even biologists and have no degree in biology. Here is their page:

One of the authors on the paper is Stephen Steele, who is a MD and a urologist who focuses on reconstructive urology.

In the thread itself, any post challenging the post were being deleted, and I noticed lots of pro-circumcision comments that quickly became highly upvoted.

Pursuant to our rules for comments, "Comments that only rely on the commenter's non-professional personal anecdotal evidence to confirm or refute a study will be removed."

I just now got a message from a mod of r/science saying "he seems to have a connection to the press, just get rid of him."

That, or he was making fun of you for opening your modmail with a threat to go to the press.

I said I had infiltrated the whole group, and suddenly the post is deleted,

You said you had the group infiltrated at 4:19. The post was removed at 9:53, because we woke up (The majority of our mods are on US centric time zones) and determined that the comments in that post were a dumpster fire, and needed some serious attention. At 10:25, the post was reapproved, because we had spent some time clearing out comments that broke the rules.

Seeing as you didn't link it, the reddit thread is here

It should also be pointed out that the authors of this piece have previously written a review article https://www.jurology.com/article/S1743-6095(15)30639-1/abstract (Can't embed the link because the parenthesis mess up the reddit formatting) arguing that there is not enough information on the effects of circumcision to support the American Association of Pediatrics endorsement of circumcision.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (44 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for coming here to post /u/kerovon. I appreciate your work as a mod — it's not easy.

I agree with the mods' approach to this article. You need to keep it 100% scientific, as that's what /r/science is all about. And thank you for posting the mod mail thread. Clearly you folks are up-to-speed with the circumcision controversy in the scientific community.

To add to your knowledge, are you now aware that as of April/May 2106, one of the members of the AAP's "task force" on circumcision has admitted that the task force was lead by non-medical and non-scientific considerations? And that therefore the whole of their latest "report" should be deeply, deeply suspect?

AAP Link here

Link to full text here

But I do share others' frustration on this matter. Here are a group of "feminist researchers" (whatever that is supposed to mean) accepting the premises that male genital mutilation (weasel word = "circumcision") is somehow a scientifically debatable "surgery" (their word), with pros and cons.

The approach to FGM is entirely different. It's always been accepted that girls & women have an absolute right to their genital integrity, and that any idea that FGM has an medical "advantages" or is even debatable is never countenanced — and rightly so — the premise that hacking-off healthy parts of the human body to reduce the chances of future disease is just absurd, except in the most extreme cases.

I could provide you links to bona-fide scientific research showing that some types and incidences of FGM don't reduce sexual satisfaction in a given group of women; and that some FGM has health benefits such as a 50% reduction in HIV infection. If they were under 6 months old I would post them to /r/science and see what would happen!

[–]firedrops 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

Many thanks for that excellent post /u/firedrops. And again, thanks for your work as a mod.

In academia it can be useful to debate medical professionals with evidence rather than rhetoric.

Agreed. My approach to this subject is pretty simple and fundamental. The "evidence" that I am putting forward is that every mammal in the animal kingdom has a prepuce or foreskin. In homo sapiens sapiens, this is the result of 100 million years of evolution.

That's pretty impressive scientific "evidence" 😀

Traits are selected (put simply), as they give the organism the best chance of reproducing and passing-on those traits. Thus we should all start from the premise that the foreskin benefits it's owner and should be left intact. i.e.: just as we treat all other parts of the human body that are not showing immediate or impending morbidity.

Just because we don't know exactly how and why the foreskin helps in successful reproduction, doesn't mean that science should start from the assumption that it's expendable or even possibly expendable (frontal lobotomy anyone?)

Genital integrity should be an absolute right of all humans, just like they have the right to the integrity of all other parts of their bodies. If science wants to amputate the male foreskin of un-consenting infants, then it needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this is a benefit in totality. And that is a suitable, and rightly, an almost impossible hurdle.

I consider that any scientific research or enquiry, that does not support that initial position, to be "pro-circumcision"; as it is starting with a different proposition — namely that it's OK to amputate the foreskin of un-consenting male infants, and the job of science is to prove that that is not a benefit in totality.

It is not a pro-circumcision piece nor are they pro-circumcision.

I disagree. The research and authors are pro-circumcison, as they are "pro-circumcison" until proven otherwise. This is sadly, the position of the vast majority of "research" in to male "circumcision".

And as we all know, FGM is treated in the exact opposite manner. Indeed, the mere suggestion in scientific circles that FGM could have "health" benefits; or that parts of the female genitals are expendable, would be enough to get your fired from your job at the very least.

[–]firedrops 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I think characterizing the authors' statements of:

the generalizability and reliability of the research that has formed the basis of the AAP decision to support neonatal circumcision is perhaps not as strong as many believe.

and

The recent public statement by the AAP [1] in favor of neonatal circumcision may be premature, as further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn with respect to North American populations.

as pro-circumcision is unfair.

I agree it isn't overtly anti-circumcision but it is critical of the AAP and many of the studies supporting circumcision.

As they point out, most studies done so far have tons of methodological problems (both pro and anti circumcision conclusions). If you're looking for really solid academic work that shows sexual, physical, and psychological harm from circumcision you should keep an eye on this research team.

In fact, two of the same authors published this piece:

Bossio, Jennifer A., Caroline F. Pukall, and Katie Bartley. "You either have it or you don't: The impact of male circumcision status on sexual partners." The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24.2 (2015): 104-119.

Which found:

men with intact partners indicated significantly higher levels of satisfaction than those with circumcised partners. Overall, women and men rated high levels of satisfaction with their partner's circum-cision status and did not wish for it to change. Women indicated a slight preference for circumcised penises for vaginal intercourse and fellatio, and held more positive beliefs about circumcised penises, while men indicated a strong preference toward intact penises for all sexual activities assessed and held more positive beliefs about intact penises. The current study demonstrates distinct gender differences in attitudes toward circumcision status but minimal impact of circumcision status on sexual functioning.

They plan to do future research into sexual pleasure in a more quantifiable way to see if attitudes and sensation match up.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for that link, I had not seen that study, and it's now bookmarked.

I do appreciate that the authors are engaged in (what they consider) to be valid and non-biased scientific investigation and research.

But do take a re-read of my post above. My view is simple: you are pro-circumcision if your position is that it's up to research and science to prove that MGM is damaging overall to males; rather than starting from the morally and scientifically correct position that MGM is inherently immoral, and that science has to prove that amputating the foreskin confers overall benefits that manage to outweigh the terrible damage it does.

And consider this: It's the law in many countries that even a needle-prick to an infant girl's clitoral hood is genital mutilation and a very serious criminal offence. There is no debate about that, and try and publish a scientific paper that says otherwise!

The AAP tried that angle, and they got shot down big time and had to back-pedal fast:

AAP Retracts Controversial Policy on Female Genital Cutting

You can see a little girl suffering such genital mutilation here, it lasts about 3 seconds at the start of the video. A fresh, and anti-septic needle is used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoID2jzfB6o

Compare that to this — which is legal worldwide and scientifically "debatable", and needs "research" in "peer reviewed journals" before we decide if it's OK or not:

https://youtu.be/W2PKdDOjooA?t=3m2s

And try this for size:

NSFL: Warning! Horrific photo collection from a Dutch doctor of hundreds of mutilated, amputated and seriously infected penises (many with gangrene) of African boys and men as a result of "male circumcision" - ie: sexual abuse and genital mutilation. This is just one, tiny area of Africa - where MGM is widespread. Most of these men will have their penis amputated; and many will die or commit suicide:

http://www.ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html

And of course they have recently started penile transplants in South Africa due to the thousands of boys that have their penises amputated each year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31876219

Try getting a grant from a western government or the UN to campaign against that.

Sorry. I don't need "science" or "research" or "proof" before I see this is all evil and deeply immoral.

[–]firedrops 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lightf33t 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well there are three kinds of FGC but there are studies about the pain associated with FGC, sex, and childbirth.

Chalmers, Beverley, and Kowser Omer Hashi. "432 Somali women's birth experiences in Canada after earlier female genital mutilation." Birth 27.4 (2000): 227-234.
Rushwan, H. "Female genital mutilation (FGM) management during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 70.1 (2000): 99-104.
Morison, Linda, et al. "The long‐term reproductive health consequences of female genital cutting in rural Gambia: a community‐based survey." Tropical Medicine & International Health 6.8 (2001): 643-653.
Jones, Heidi, et al. "Female genital cutting practices in Burkina Faso and Mali and their negative health outcomes." Studies in family planning 30.3 (1999): 219-230.
Okonofua, Friday E., et al. "The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria." BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 109.10 (2002): 1089-1096.
Larsen, Ulla, and Friday E. Okonofua. "Female circumcision and obstetric complications." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 77.3 (2002): 255-265.
Behrendt, Alice, and Steffen Moritz. "Posttraumatic stress disorder and memory problems after female genital mutilation." American Journal of Psychiatry 162.5 (2005): 1000-1002.
Einstein, Gillian. "From body to brain: Considering the neurobiological effects of female genital cutting." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51.1 (2008): 84-97.

[–]Lightf33t 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Child genital mutilation [CGM] is one of the hardest practices to eliminate anywhere. It's like trying to eliminate the celebration of Christmas in Italy. People see it as beneficial, as a plus, a good thing, spiritual, clean, essential to their culture and/or religion.

Making FGM specifically illegal in western countries has gone a long way to eliminating the practice amongst immigrant populations. Health education in schools and communities is a great help; but so is the fear of 14 years imprisonment and having your children taken into care.

In countries where it is practiced by the indigenous people, even extensive health education on the subject does not have a big effect. And FGM is becoming more medicalised (performed by doctors and medical personnel), not least because "male circumcision" is pushed by the west in those countries. The best that can be hoped for is that the practice is rejected by the next generation over time.

FGM was never debated in the mainstream in the west. It was a "foreign" practice, performed by ignorant people in 3rd world countries. It was just obvious it was a gross human rights violation.

In contrast, MGM has become normalized in the west over thousands of years; and there are religious, cultural and nationalistic forces that want to keep it "legal". There argument is that the medical argument has "pros and cons", and will "never be decided". Therefore their answer is to let the "parent decide". i.e.: those that want to can keep mutilating their children.

The only pathway to stop MGM in the west and worldwide is to treat it like FGM. i.e.: there are no and cannot be any "health" benefits. Anymore then ISIS amputating peoples' hands has "health" benefits, such as a 50% reduction in the chance of acquiring arthritis because you only have one hand left.

[–]firedrops 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

FGM was never debated in the mainstream in the west. It was a "foreign" practice, performed by ignorant people in 3rd world countries. It was just obvious it was a gross human rights violation.

That isn't true. It used to be medicalized and normative in the West. There are some great pieces about that. See:

Scull, Andrew, and Diane Favreau. "The clitoridectomy craze." Social Research (1986): 243-260.
Gollaher, David L. "From ritual to science: The medical transformation of circumcision in America." Journal of social history (1994): 5-36.
Moore, Lisa Jean, and Adele E. Clarke. "Clitoral conventions and transgressions: Graphic representations in anatomy texts, c1900-1991." Feminist studies 21.2 (1995): 255-301.

A quote from the second article:

Inspired by reflex theory, beginning in the early 1870s American gynecologists, led by James Marion Sims, invented scores of new genital surgeries intended to alleviate psychological symptoms. Cutting the body to cure the mind could lead to frightening practices. Robert Battey, a young Georgia surgeon, for instance, lent his name to the so-called "normal ovariotomy." With no apparent misgivings, he removed women's healthy ovaries to relieve symptoms ranging from hysteria and neurasthenia to backache. Accepted on both sides of the Atlantic, Battey's operation was especially popular in America where, according to one scholar, it "was not a marginal procedure conducted by a handful of crackpots, but central in the arsenal of late-nineteenth-century gynecology."14 Other doctors (including Sayre himself) revived the mutilating procedure of clitoridectomy, with the clitoris subjected to a variety of surgeries, manipulations, and chemical preparations. These practices were sustained in America long after they had fallen out of favor in Europe.15

On the level of theory, reflex neurosis applied both to males and females. Both sexes were thought to be subject to organic disturbances, including pelvic or genital irritations, which might portend dire consequences for body and mind. But in practice, surgery in males to suppress sexual function was comparatively rare. While it seemed permissible for male surgeons to use the scalpel heroically on women's pelvic organs, undeterred by the prospect of "unsexing" their patients, few performed castration unless they confirmed symptoms of life-threatening disease. Even if they had tried to expand sexual surgery on males, there is no reason to suppose that physicians could have overridden men's objections. Clearly, in an age prone to denigrate female sexuality, they found women more pliable when it came to the dictates of medical authority.

What is notable in retrospect, though, is that while female sexual surgery gradually declined, male circumcision eventually became standard practice. Moreover, procedures like clitoridectomy and "normal ovariotomy," even in the days of their greatest acceptance, were performed on a small minority of American women. Yet circumcision, quietly democratized in the last decade of the nineteenth century, was subsequently extended to a majority of the male population. The operation's first medical advocates were physicians who followed the logic and example of Lewis Sayre; but these men were succeeded by others who insisted that performing the surgery was salubrious and appropriate even on patients who exhibited no symptoms of disease.

http://www.birthingalternatives.com/Resources/Circumcision/American%20History.pdf

In non-Western societies the human rights and outlawing has largely not been effective. Outlawing it and interventions for immigrant groups in the West have been somewhat effective but for a variety of reasons. In general, showing that there are opportunities for uncut women and providing pathways for developing value that goes beyond the womb (such as education) have been effective too. When your whole world is your village it is hard to pick a pathway that makes you ostracized. When the world opens up so too do alternate choices regarding the body.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the links and references. I note this sentence:

"Moreover, procedures like clitoridectomy and "normal ovariotomy," even in the days of their greatest acceptance, were performed on a small minority of American women. Yet circumcision, quietly democratized in the last decade of the nineteenth century, was subsequently extended to a majority of the male population."

But FGM was widespread in Africa and many other parts of the world, and when this became common knowledge and raised into the modern public consciousness in the late 1970's and early 1980's it was, as I have stated, never seriously debated in the west as something that could be acceptable for medical, health, cultural or religious reasons.

Instead, the full force international organisations and western political and human rights groups was brought to bear on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Growth_of_opposition

But MGM in Africa and the rest of the world? Cutting infant boys and circumcision "parties" in the west? No problem, carry on. That's totally different because "we" are doing it and it's boys and not girls.

[–]Lightf33t 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I am starting to think there is something a bit fishy about these "researchers". Here is the press release:

http://www.queensu.ca/gazette/media/news-release-new-research-finds-circumcision-does-not-reduce-penile-sensitivity

"One researcher who only used fine touch to measure penile sensitivity claimed the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, so removing it via circumcision is detrimental to men's sex lives,” Ms. Bossio says. “Many anti-circumcision activists believe this is true, but we didn't find sufficient evidence to support this. We found that while the foreskin was more sensitive to fine touch, it was not more sensitive to the other stimuli we used, and those stimuli are likely more important in sexual pleasure.”

So straight away she uses the terminology that is deeply sexist: "anti-circumcision" rather than "intactivist". And then she claims that some forms of stimuli are more "likely" (weasel word) more import in sexual pleasure. Well where is her evidence for that?

Then she blatantly lies: *"...with the American Academy of Pediatrics recent report in favour of neonatal circumcision". But they never declared that — they said the decision should be left up to the parent.

[–]firedrops 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"intactivist"

Do people who aren't involved with the movement know what that is, though? I don't think most readers would understand the term. I understand the concern with anti-circumcision activists but I don't think intactivist is a good solution for general communications with the public.

For use of "likely" that is probably because they are in the middle of studying those issues. But also realize that when you're interviewed for a press release you're talking off the cuff. I've been interviewed by my university press before and despite recording the damn interview I was still misquoted and they left out some really important points that made it all make sense.

I don't think it is inaccurate to interpret the AAP statement as being pro-circumcision.

Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do people who aren't involved with the movement know what that is, though?

Well, they seem pretty well-informed about the subject to say the least.

For use of "likely" that is probably because they are in the middle of studying those issues...

I sense a disturbance in the force with these "feminist" (not that there's anything wrong with that as the man said) researchers. Something does not sit right with me.

Imagine I was a researcher at a major university, and claimed that as a "men's right activist" I was experimenting on womens' clitoral hoods — circumcised and un-circumcised — to see if there was any difference in sensitivity between them.

And the conclusion of my research would be: "Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for clitoral sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the clitoral hood during female neonatal circumcision."

Can you FUCKING imagine what would happen?

[–]firedrops 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it is inaccurate to interpret the AAP statement as being pro-circumcision.

Well according to them — they are not pro-circumcision. There wording was very careful — they don't recommend it, but they do justify access to it. And later in the report they state: “...health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision.”

And Dr. Andrew L. Freedman, one of the senior members of the "task force" on circumcision for the AAP has now clearly stated:

"To many, especially in the lay press, this was interpreted as moving the needle from a neutral stance, as the 1999 guidelines were viewed, to being pro circumcision." [ie: the lay press were wrong].

Freedman has now come out and admitted, that the AAP "report" was nothing more than a sap to "multiculturalism" and that they took numerous non-medical issues into consideration, whilst at the same time stating that were doing the opposite: "although we claim authority in the medical realm, we have no standing to judge on these other elements."

AAP Link here

Link to full text here

And did he declare any conflict of interest — NOPE! And yet...

Dr. Andrew Freedman was one of the members of the committee (AAP Task Force on Circumcision), and was asked:

"Do you have a son and, if so, did you have him circumcised?"

"Yes, I do. I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder."

http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/new-york-minute/fleshing-out-change-circumcision

So he didn't have 100 million years of human evolution and Charles Darwin looking over his shoulder then? Every male mammal in the animal kingdom is born with a foreskin, so it evolved for reasons.

Not only that, Dr. Andrew Freedman makes 20% of his income from treating circumcisions that have gone wrong! (But note that every non-therapeutic circumcision is a botch job). So he makes $500 a pop for circumcising boys, and then more $$$$ for fixing the problems!

"As a practicing pediatric urologist, 20% of the patients I will see today are here because of something related to their circumcision."

http://www.amednews.com/article/20120903/health/309039955/4/

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]K1NTOUN 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The first author has spoken at length in interviews about how they plan to address the existing gaps in knowledge identified in the survey by studying them piece by piece. This piece is one among many in a larger research plan.

This was an attempt to address the issues with measuring pain, heat, and touch sensitivity in unaroused circumcised and uncircumcised penises that previous studies did not address well. They wanted to do a couple things: 1) separate out age at circumcision and look at neonatal circumcised men because that's when most North American men are circumcised yet that demographic has been poorly studied 2) do similar tests as previous studies but utilize a less subjective and more quantitative method of analyzing responses.

They predicted they would find a difference in their review so they were surprised by the findings. This doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't impact sensitivity especially with relation to sex. This study didn't look at that. There are also some issues with placement of the testing mechanisms. But the authors have already stated they plan to address other issues such as blood flow, pleasure, urinary function, etc. in future studies.

[–]K1NTOUN 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]K1NTOUN 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]K1NTOUN 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lightf33t 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lightf33t -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sabz5150 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kerovon 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sabz5150 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]never_said_that -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kerovon 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]factsangeryou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]kerovon 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Yes, feminism is an incredibly broad term so you cannot really make claims that it stands for any one thing or another. It has not been a primary focus but some feminists do certainly oppose male genital cutting, of course. And they do so utilizing feminist theory. Here is a great piece about how ignoring the issues with male genital cutting is anti-feminist and how feminists should advocate for bodily autonomy for all peoples:

Antinuk, Kira. "Forced genital cutting in North America: Feminist theory and nursing considerations." Nursing ethics 20.6 (2013): 723.

Feminist theory assumes that female genital cutting is a human rights and women’s rights issue, while male and intersex genital cutting is assumed to be a medical issue. The dissonance demonstrated in privileging one gender or sex over all others is at odds with the goals of feminism, which seeks to ensure gender equality and justice....Using feminist theory, I have presented a social justice nursing perspective on FNGC. The underlying assumptions of feminism, which apply to male infant circumcision and intersex infant/child genital cutting, have been critiqued. I have compared the responsibility of feminists and nurses with regard to addressing the hegemony of circumcisionism. The need for nurses and feminists to act in consideration of their responsibility to uphold principles of justice for all has been discussed. Society has undergone changes as a result of updated medical guidance and human rights advocacy within the past 30 years, which have laid the groundwork for a challenge to circumcisionism. Although there have been few feminists or nurses who have worked toward an equal protection for all children from FNGC, the time for these groups to fulfill their social justice responsibilities in this area has arrived and cannot be ignored any longer.

If you have access to journals it is worth a full read as a useful critique and call to arms.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I suppose it depends on where you spend your time. In my field of anthropology our approach to FGC is quite different. I'm afraid many pop culture feminist discussions would dislike our approach but we tend to address FGC in an unbiased neutral way that gives a platform to the women who choose to cut their daughters (which in some societies are adults by the time they are cut). Here is a pop culture article with a female anthropologist talking about FGC that got a lot of backlash: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Here is a piece she wrote criticizing the framing of FGC as a human rights concern and the ways that it backfires, removes women's agency, ignores cultural concerns, and ultimately will probably fail to make meaningful change: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bettina_Shell-Duncan/publication/230205609_From_Health_to_Human_Rights_Female_Genital_Cutting_and_the_Politics_of_Intervention/links/004635201418058b8c000000.pdf

She argues a health perspective is more effective and avoids some of the ethnocentrism in these debates. I think she makes some good points that are worth considering for men's circumcision debates. In other words, if she's right that the human rights narrative is ineffective it may be worth considering how to pivot and reframe the movement.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I think the health perspective works well in countries where FGM is practiced by the indigenous population. This "health" perspective will come from the western medical practitioners, and they are generally respected and looked-up to.

But MGM will first need to be defeated in the west, before it can be defeated in other areas. And in the west, MGM will never finally be defeated by medical/health arguments, as there will always be a chink that those who wish to continue the practice for ritualistic and cultural reasons will slip though.

The AAP have literally admitted this very recently. A shocking revelation:

AAP Link here

Link to full text here

The only way that MGM will be made illegal in the west is the same that the FGM was made illegal in the west — it's just obviously a deeply immoral and evil practice. And how can feminism demand that even a needle prick is FGM; but require a medical "debate" about MGM?

EDIT: Amended for clarity:

"The only way that MGM will be defeated in the west is the same way FGM was..."

to:

"The only way that MGM will be made illegal in the west is the same that the FGM was made illegal in the west..."

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]never_said_that 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

In academia we'd call that reification. It is the same fallacy as saying "Christianity does X". Christians, feminists, environmentalists, etc. is not a thing that is set, static, and exists independently. It is merely a category that people may adopt (or reject) but in a huge variety of ways. The meanings of that category are always somewhat in flux and the borders change over time. Though we can make some broad generalizations such as first wave, second wave, third wave, etc. there are always outliers. Just look at Elizabeth Canton! So you have to be cautious in saying a huge category does/things/says/stands for something.

However, there are some very important criticisms of contemporary first world feminism. Many pop culture and even some academic variants tend to have huge problems with intersectionality, race, trans*, and non-Western communities. There is a lot of ethnocentrism and bias that can creep into some of the pieces I've read. If you'd like to read some criticisms along those lines take a look at "third world feminism" which has some fantastic and quite cutting things to say about contemporary first world pop culture feminism.

The issue of pulling men back into the discussion is also a big one. The first author of this piece talks about this in the quote OP pulled. The focus on reintroducing women into the studies about sexuality was important and it is great that they are now represented. But as the author points out in that quote, men have been ignored. She wants to address that with her work but this is an issue that goes beyond human sexuality studies. My own field of anthropology has only recently begun studying men the same way that they critically examined women and third genders. It is a huge gap in the literature that is very important to address.

[–]double-happiness 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

In academia we'd call that reification. It is the same fallacy as saying "Christianity does X". Christians, feminists, environmentalists, etc. is not a thing that is set, static, and exists independently.

Feminists typically believe that women are oppressed by men not that men are oppressed by women.

Feminists also typically believe that gender roles (such as 'pink for girls, blue for boys') are socially constructed not biologically determined.

Yes it would be reification to say that 'feminism believes x', because feminism is not a person that can believe anything. That's not what I said though. I said I think it is untrue to say that "feminism is an incredibly broad term so you cannot really make claims that it stands for any one thing or another".

Edit: conservative feminists are an exception though. IDK if that applies to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, perhaps so.

[–]firedrops 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Black_caped_man -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The thing is that in a forum like this the language is usually pretty colloquial and when speaking about certain groups (be they political, religious, biological, or any other kind) it's implied that any assertions are made as a generalization.

When it comes to Christianity there is at least some central themes actually written down that one can take a standpoint towards as well as some general sections of the religion like Protestantism or Catholicism. This can be done alongside making general observations about the behavior of people who would describe themselves as Christian.

When it comes to feminism it's also a political movement but seemingly without any sort of head figures or organizations which is one of the major flaws. It sort of serves to create some sort of untouchable and formless entity. When specific criticism of feminism is brought up people are quick to point out that feminism isn't a monolith. However when people who call themselves feminist work to promote feminism that is how feminism is often portrayed.

I mean people may be quick to call an action feminist but I have yet to find any widely accepted criteria for that makes something feminist. Take a concept of examining something from a feminist perspective (something I hear about work coming from academic feminism). As far as I'm aware there's no real framework for what the feminist perspective is, and if there were such a framework then you'd actually have something tangible to measure feminism by.

If you'd simply go by a simple definition such as "social, political, and economic equality between the sexes" and any action towards that goal was feminist. You'd undoubtedly find that many who claim themselves to be feminists act and speak in a way that is contrary to the stated goal, that is they act in very unfeminist ways.

For an example take "He for She", supposedly a feminist initiative though I can't be sure if it was ever explicitly stated as such a thing. Either way I think it's pretty clear that it was heavily implied to be so when it was introduced by it's creators. At it's core it's incredibly unfeminist because it actually reinforces the divide between men and women.

Even saying something like "contemporary first world feminism" brings with it a need for generalization since even people like Christina Hoff Sommers would fall under that banner. Along with TERFs, political activists, as well as volunteers, social activists, academic feminists and "coffee shop" feminists.

Feminism in itself seems to be a superposition of existence and nonexistence. It obviously has an influence on the world but if you want to go the other direction the concept becomes so diffuse it's basically untouchable, undefinable.

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Arby01 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]libertasmens 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]babno 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coke501 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wufoo2 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenandBoysareGood 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If you want to do a proper study you need to recruit men who have had the procedure later in life so that they can give a first hand account of the change.

Like this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534705650987

A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

The recent study measured those circumcised at birth and were treated with stimuli to determine when they would "feel" something. Any neurologist will tell you that a single nerve ending can elicit a response to the brain.

[–]firedrops 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The three authors are purposefully looking at neonatal circumcisions because they see it as a gap in the literature. If you take a look at their review article you'll see their specific points:

Bossio, Jennifer A., Caroline F. Pukall, and Stephen Steele. "A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature." The journal of sexual medicine 11.12 (2014): 2847-2864.

(Which, btw, got some angry letters to the editor because they criticized male circumcision).

Their review makes a lot of important points that many readers here would be interested in so I'll quote some of it:

Neonatal circumcision in North America is considered a relatively safe practice; however, as with any surgical procedure, it is not without risk. The literature documenting the risks and benefits associated with neonatal circumcision is often influenced by author biases [5], as well as methodological shortcomings...

For example, adult men were circumcised as part of clinical trials, yet the vast majority of circumcisions within North American populations occur as a routine procedure in neonates. The question of whether circumcision performed in adulthood confers the same benefits against HIV transmission as the procedure performed in infancy remains unaddressed. It has even been proposed that adult circumcision may result in behavioral changes (as the result of a “false sense of security” regarding the protective benefits of circumcision) that may increase the risk of HIV transmission [31]...

[They note that the literature that is pro-circumcision to reduce HIV transmission ignores that it isn't effective for anal sex thereby dismissing concerns of LBGTQ (and heterosexuals who enjoy anal).] Furthermore, an analysis of 118 countries found that circumcised men are significantly less likely to transmit HIV than intact men in countries where HIV transmission occurs mainly through penile‐vaginal intercourse, but not in countries where it occurs mainly through penile‐anal intercourse [40]...

Given the considerable methodological shortcomings of the existing research, as well as the significantly different demographic characteristics of African and North American populations, the generalizability and reliability of the research that has formed the basis of the AAP decision to support neonatal circumcision is perhaps not as strong as many believe. In fact, the majority of the research is likely not generalizable to a North American population. [emphasis my own]...

In North America, the majority of circumcisions occur in neonates, and the effects of undergoing circumcision as a neonate versus as an adult are unknown with regard to factors such as pain perception, penile sensitivity, and sexual functioning....When policy statements about neonatal circumcision take sexual functioning into account, they primarily cite articles with the methodological shortcomings outlined here; however, the populations that compose the current research in the area of circumcision and sexual functioning are not comparable to the typical healthy, neonatally circumcised male in North America. [Emphasis my own]...

Mixed findings about circumcision and sexual functioning may be due to methodological issues within the research. Age at circumcision is a factor that has yet to be systematically tested, especially with respect to potential differences between neonatal circumcision (as is typical in North America) and adult circumcision. Few studies report on North American populations. Instead, conclusions have largely been based on samples drawn from Europe [66, 75], South Korea [59], Africa [54, 70], and Australia [77, 78], where cultural differences may account for some findings (e.g., age at circumcision, reasons for or beliefs about the procedure). These differences, which have yet to be systematically evaluated, represent an area that requires further research. Furthermore, the majority of these studies rely exclusively on self‐report measures of sexual functioning, which can be subject to participant biases, particularly among self‐selected populations....

Many of the same methodological concerns hold for studies looking at penile sensitivity as for research investigating sexual functioning as it relates to circumcision status. For example, only one study that objectively measured penile sensitivity (i.e., Rowland et al. [84]) reported recruiting men who were circumcised neonatally. The age of the participant at time of testing also appears to play a role in sensitivity (e.g., Rowland et al. [84]), although few studies control for this important factor. Among studies that employ a within‐subject design looking at pre–post‐measures of circumcision, findings are likely to be conflated with preexisting medical conditions precipitating adult circumcision, or authors failing to allow for full healing times. The most significant issue with respect to penile sensitivity and circumcision status is the lack of research employing objective measures of penile sensitivity... [Note: this is what this specific study was addressing - they wanted to look at neonatal circumcision patients and use a quantitative measurement that was less subjective]

It is naïve to assume that potential differences in health correlates, sexual functioning, penile sensitivity, and anatomical features associated with circumcision do not extend beyond the individual. In fact, emerging evidence suggests that circumcision status has a significant impact on men's sexual partners; however, research on this topic is sorely lacking....Indeed, the research seems to support this hypothesis for women, such that intercourse with intact partners is associated with better lubrication (particularly with longer length of intercourse [63, 103]), fewer orgasm difficulties, fewer complaints of vaginal pain [63] or discomfort, and greater ease of orgasm during penile‐vaginal intercourse [103]...

The growing number of anti‐circumcision groups (and especially online communities) often reference psychological distress as a result of circumcision status; perception about one's own circumcision status, and presumably genital body image, may also play a role in the experience of this distress. However, almost no empirical research exists on the topic, which clearly represents another critical gap in the literature....

Concluding Remarks

The recent public statement by the AAP [1] in favor of neonatal circumcision may be premature, as further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn with respect to North American populations. Circumcision as an immunization against HIV transmission may be warranted in high‐risk populations where less expensive and less invasive procedures (e.g., condom use, safe sex practices) are proving insufficient in the reduction of HIV infection rates. However, a more inclusive picture of circumcision and its long‐term effects as they apply to North American populations is needed before medical bodies continue to make generalizations that can be expected to drastically alter the rates of circumcision in the United States [93] and Canada [117, 118].

This review highlights specific areas of research and methodological considerations that require attention in order to inform policy. First, a shift toward more rigorous and consistent methodology in future research is warranted. That is, researchers should use objective methods in conjunction with validated self‐report measures, and they should include samples of men with no history of sexual dysfunction who were circumcised as neonates in order to minimize potential confounds. Second, empirically rigorous studies of the physiological effects of neonatal circumcision on penile sensitivity and sexual functioning are needed. Research should employ well‐established measures of sensitivity (e.g., tests for touch and pain thresholds for pressure, heat, and vibration) on different regions of the penis and—if present—foreskin. Sexual arousal should be assessed via blood flow (e.g., thermography, laser Doppler imaging) across healthy men who were circumcised as neonates and those who have never been circumcised. Third, important psychosocial factors associated with circumcision (e.g., impact on sexual partners and on the men themselves; factors impacting decision makers) need to be addressed. High‐quality research about the sexual correlates of circumcision should be included in decisions on recommendations made by professional associations.

This article intends to draw attention to the current gaps in the literature, specifically the need for research focusing on the long‐term effects of circumcision performed on neonates, objective measures of sexual functioning and satisfaction, the impact of circumcision status on female and especially male sexual partners of men, the impact of circumcision on the men who undergo the procedure, and factors that influence the decision to circumcise or not. Dissemination of this knowledge will help parents of infant boys make well‐informed decisions when considering the circumcision status of their children and give health‐care providers valuable information about long‐term effects of circumcision on the urological and sexual health and functioning of men and their sexual partners.

Sorry it is so long but it is paywalled yet I thought many of you would find it very interesting. The authors are attempting to address these gaps they note piece by piece with this study as a first step. Next they want to look at sexual pleasure as well as blood flow. They have been highly critical of the way that medical professionals have promoted circumcision in North America. It will be interesting to follow their work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]firedrops 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]enjoycarrots 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd written out, and subsequently lost, a long comment that I don't care to reproduce. So, I'll give you the very short of it instead.

Thanks to the mods of /r/science because from my perspective you are the best mod team on reddit. Your rules are strict and lead to a lot of deletions, but the only agenda those rules serve is keeping the discussion science based and about the science.
I think some of the deletions here were unfortunate. Putting aside accusations of feminist conspiracy, /u/MensRights2016 also had some well argued, valid criticism of the study, or at least certain interpretations of the study. One such interpretation is represented by the title of the submission in question. "Circumcision does not reduce penis sensitivity." That statement is far too bold. Other comments on the science subreddit are critiquing this as well, but I felt like /u/mensrights2016 made a very strong case, but it appears to have been deleted because in the process he also made heavy reference to his own personal experience. If his comment were to be stripped of self-reference, would it have stood?

[–]firedrops 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate when that happens! I've lost many a good comment and it is so frustrating.

So he had a few comments removed and I'm not sure which one you're referencing. But yes, the anecdotes were a problem that we tried to crack down on because they were derailing discussions of the study. Some of his criticisms of the study didn't make sense such as claiming studies disproved its findings when the studies he linked weren't about this issue (this study wasn't about sexual pleasure but that is what his linked studies were about.) He also didn't seem to understand the methods utilized for testing pain sensitivity and his criticisms really didn't make sense there. If someone is heavily criticizing a study that they clearly either haven't read or weren't able to understand we do remove those comments too.

However, it is important to have comments that clarify the study's findings and methods (and their limitations.) The title alone isn't really very informative for what the study was actually looking at (pain, heat, and touch sensitivity in neonatal circumcised men vs uncircumcised). The study doesn't tell us anything about sexual pleasure or performance (or any other health issue.) So informed comments about that are welcome and perfectly fine. If he could write a new comment that does that it would be perfectly fine.

[–]Lightf33t -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]enjoycarrots 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AVAtistar -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vanriel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lightf33t 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I sent Jennifer Bossio an email the other day when I saw the so-called study.

"Dear Jennifer,

I'm Lawrence, a 37 year old man from Perth, Scotland. I came across an article linking me to your recent paper on circumcision. I was dismayed when I read it because I know the true harm this mutilation causes men. I'd like to tell you my story.

When I was 14, I pulled my foreskin back in the bath and ended up with paraphimosis. I was rushed to casualty and this problem was fixed quickly by nurses with an ice pack and dexterity. I was then perfectly fine and able to go about my life as before. Unfortunately, one bright spark (sarcasm) surgeon accosted my father and told him I "needed" a circumcision to "cure" my tight foreskin. My dad, not being a religious man and not knowing the history or what circumcision actually was, deferred to this so-called professional's expertise. My mother didn't know what circumcision involved either as she was also irreligious, and the doctors didn't inform them or me about what it entailed or what the repercussions were going to be, or, indeed, that no case of tight foreskin requires removal of the foreskin (which is like removing a foot to cure a verruca-obvious overkill). The least invasive treatment must always be chosen; otherwise, it is medical negligence.

I had a general anesthetic and had this mutilation performed on me without my knowledge. Upon coming home after the surgery, I removed the bandage. My heart leaped into my throat. I knew as soon as I saw the damage, I would never feel sexual pleasure again. I was right. Pre-surgery, I would masturbate by circling the tip of the foreskin (as it wouldn't retract). This, I later discovered via research, is the ridged band, the most erogenous part of the penis. All circumcisions remove this. I estimate it accounts for at least 80% of the erogenous sensation of the penis. The frenular delta and frenulum were also removed, as happens in the majority of circumcisions, from what I have deduced from research.

I read your paper and just cannot make head nor tail of it. At first, upon discovering a comment you made about misogynist medicine and how women's sexuality was seen through the eyes of the patriarchy, I though, is she a man-hating radical feminist? Upon further consideration, I don't think this is the case. I think you probably genuinely want to get to the truth. I believe you may unconsciously be affected by bias due to your gynocentrism. After all, would you ever conduct research asking partners of circumcised women if they like it or don't like it, whether it provides them with more pleasure or less? No, because you automatically assume female circumcision (or FGM as we refer to it in these days of doubletalk) is damaging and no research is needed. Just as you assume all the external genitalia of the female has a form and a function and cutting anything off would be damaging. Even though there's no histological evidence that the glans clitoris is the most erogenous zone on the female genitalia. It's a folk theory that's accepted as gospel. Meanwhile, the glans penis being the source of the majority or all pleasure for the male, is also a folk theory assumed to be gospel truth. However, hard science (as opposed to methodologically flawed trials with misguided assumptions) disagrees.

Your paper reminds me of the mental gymnastics Brian Morris, the well-known circumfetishist and cod scientist, performs. He said in one paper that a man's sexual pleasure comes from heat, not touch. I've asked several friends if sticking their penis on radiators is pleasurable, but all of them said no, very much not. You seem to be using the same bizarre logic. Do women get pleasure from sticking hot water bottles on their genitals? Here was me thinking the high sale of dildos proved that women enjoy penetration and vibration of their erogenous tissue, but apparently it all comes from temperature. Can you see how silly this notion is? I'm not trying, nor do I want to, insult you. I'm a victim of this life-destroying procedure (of course, I know how it affects men because it was done to me in later life, whereas the men you're testing were mutilated at birth and have no point of comparison) so I'm understandably upset. I put it to you that if you conducted the same flawed trial on women who'd been circumcised as pre-pubescents, you would get the same result, and if you were logically consistent this would mean female circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure. But you would never say that. Hence why this is not science.

"Results: Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site. The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested)"

This is a contradictory statement. You say sensitivity does not differ between any sites, then admit that the foreskin is more sensitive to tactile stimulation. It's tactile stimulation of fine-touch receptors that causes sexual pleasure. Think of how a woman derives pleasure--through the touch/friction of the penis sliding next to the vaginal canal, and the touching/vibrating of the clitoris and clitoral hood.

I present to you some papers showing real hard science, involving the neurology of the penis. You seem to be under the assumption, as many are, that the glans penis is erogenous. This is not the case and there is actually zero empirical evidence that says it is. The glans is actually protopathic, just like the surface of the eyeball. It sense pain, pressure and temperature, but it does not give erogenous sensation, which comes from the stimulation of fine-touch receptors such as Meissner's corpuscles (almost all are in the foreskin's ridged band). Even many intact men assume it is the glans that provides the pleasure; however, all you need to do is ask them to localise the feelings. A simple experiment is all that is necessary. Try masturbating by only touching your glans and not touching your foreskin. The result: it's not possible to get anything remotely approaching the pleasure the foreskin generates and it's very unlikely he'll be able to ejaculate (though stretching of the ridged band and excitement upon erection may make this possible). I will also link you to videos of an anti-circumcision activist who subjected himself to public embarrassment in order to expose the truth about this human rights abuse. He clearly shows the glans is unimportant-he never touches it. I will also link you to a recent book that has real stories of 50 men who've had their lives deleteriously affected by this awful procedure. My story is also in it, and I sue my real name. I also include a video of a young man who stupidly got circumcised due to peer pressure when he was 18. He will tell you exactly what I'm telling you.

If you would like to discuss this further, I would love to. I'm only interested in exposing the truth, and I know with 100% certitude that circumcision is highly destructive, causing ED and in most cases a complete destruction of sexual pleasure. But if you have no point of comparison, how are you meant to know? And therein lies the problem. People who defend circumcision have the following logic: circumcised men exist, circumcised men don't complain usually, circumcised men have children and have sex, ergo circumcised men aren't damaged. If this logic was applied to FGM, then FGM would be legal and only a minority of truthtellers would be opposing it.

When you look at the histology of the prepuce and see the sheer density of erogenous nerves located there, nobody can be expected to be taken seriously when they say that removing this tissue doesn't affect sexual pleasure. It's an impossibility!

Circumcision is no different from FGM. It was invented by religion to deny earthly pleasure. That is the exact reason Judaism does it, as it is sex negative. The Jewish scholar Maimonides admitted that without reservation. Contrary to what many intactivists say, there isn't any loss in pleasure due to "keratinisation" of the glans. The glans has no significant erogenous function. It's role is simply physical, to provide part of the shaft for penetration.

I like to think you try to be objective as I can see neutrality in some of your writing. But I do feel that you, like we all are, are socially conditioned to a degree and because circumcision is a cultural norm, while you may not be a circumcision advocate, your gut feeling is that "it's not that big a deal" and that "FGM is far worse and isn't comparable". The main problem is, even if you recognise the truth via a sudden epiphany, would you have the courage to expose the truth publicly and the scale of the lies and corruption that's going on in the medical community on both sides of the pond (but particularly in the USA)? Haven't you ever wondered why the medical community is so desperate to find "benefits" of an unnecessary, non-medical act of sexual suppression? They are post hoc rationalisations. I can give you a "benefit" of clitoridectomy right now. It prevents glans clitoral cancer. But neither you, I nor any medical professional in the West would even suggest we could do this. The UTI and HIV claims are bogus. There is a handful of UTI studies that don't take account of breastfeeding status or forced retraction (one of the most common causes of infection). The HIV studies are just methodologically absurd, failing to conduct a control experiment and were clearly done to promote a conclusion that had already been decided. The WHO received lots of funding from US and the WHO's circumcision "expert" is the creator of a circumcision device. So much for impartiality.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lightf33t -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lightf33t 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]K1NTOUN -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link