also why do you ignore, studies which indicate that circumcision has no effect on sexual sensitivity, Masters and Johnson, for instance, and NHSLS data which suggests a benefit of circumcision with respect to sexual dysfunction.
When you remove tissue, you remove nerves and nerve endings, thus you removed sensation. This is what I am referring to as "loss of sexual sensitivity" -- and this is simply factual -- less skin, fewer total nerve endings. End of story. And if you want to refer to some studies, please by all means, do so. But actually CITE them don't just refer to them.
you also mention nothing about research showing that nerves severed in infancy have been shown to reconfigure themselves as the person grows up.
Um, as I said above, there is a total loss of nerve endings. And obviously the foreskin does not grow back.
you mention nothing of the males circumcised in adulthood that report no or neglegible loss of sensitivity/pleasure.
There are some men who report only a small decrease in sensitivity. However, I do not consider this "negligible" and as I said in an earlier post, there is also the fact that in adult circumcision, the foreskin has (usually) already separated from the glans. This has a major impact on pain/scarring resulting from circumcision. Furthermore, neither this argument nor any other argument that you have proferred deals with my main problem with circumcision -- namely that it takes away a choice that every man should be able to make for himself.
please flame me all you want, but as someone that wouldn't have their own children circumcised, reading your anti-circumcision diatribes makes me think you're doing more harm than good to your side.
Do you see any flaming? I don't. I will admit that I have strong views, but I think that what I have to say needs to be heard.
i think, you are interested in and will quote ANY research that is anti-circumcision, regardless of how biased it is.
I do my best to quote research that is well-supported. Obviously I quote research that supports my view; who doesn't do the same? You can't argue effectively otherwise. This is a moot point.
i think you will reject ANY research that shows benefits of circumcision, regardless of how credible it is.
Look at some of my previous posts. If you had read them thoroughly, you would have observed that I admit that there are medical circumstances that necessitate circumcision. However, a large portion of the research showing "benefits of circumcision" IS exceedingly flawed. Furthermore, you are ignoring what I have repeatedly emphasized -- namely that
any (minor) benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the more major/numerous risks and negative effects or circumcision.
why? because, deep in your core, you believe circumcision is totally wrong and should be stamped out. Good for you!
While true, this is separate from my belief that circumcision is irrational and medically poor practice.
but having said that, i don't think you're being intellectually honest in your approach to convince the readers on bluelight that circumcision is the evil practice you represent.
I make every attempt to reply to those who support circumcision/ argue with my claims -- and I will continue to do so. How would you like me to be any more intellectually honest? (btw, I find this last accusation rather insulting, but I will do my best to assume that you did not mean it to come across thus)