- Insufficient foreskin removed
- Excessive foreskin removed
- Adhesions/ Skin bridges
- Inclusion cysts
- Abnormal healing
- Meatal stenosis
- Urinary retention
- Urethrocutaneous fistula
- Necrosis of the penis
- Amputation of the glans
"It's settled. It's done. We can all pack up our foreskins and go home now. "
Science doesn't work that way, it works by consensus, and it's never 'done'. There's just a general agreement that some theory best matches the facts.
And stuff like " no difference in sexual desire" rings alarm bells. If a penis is cut off entirely, men still want sex, they just can't bloody have an erection.
To simulate the effect, if it really is trivial, you'd have to have women cutting off their clitoral hoods, not the clitoris. No anesthetic. (i noticed the pain of it is completely ignored, i wonder why that is?)
I noticed KATE HAKALA isn't volunteering. Surely she knows it's more hygienic if she does? And it won't make any difference to her pleasure... right?
So let's go back to the science. This one starts by claiming everyone else got it wrong. That's a big claim. So what did the scientists say about that? Oh that's right, they weren't asked.
And i have to admit I'm surprised by the subjectivity. If you ask a man if he's sexual potent, most men are going to say "of course!!!1!" A smarter method is to measure responses via fMRI etc. This isn't the 1960s, we've moved a bit beyond relying on surveys. If you really want to be thorough, you can examine nerve paths in a systematic way.
Ms HAKALA comes across as having an agenda.
"Despite Urban Legend"?
RESULTS: The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).
Oh right, these scientists are just spreading rumours for teh lulz.
So on the one side, there's a study that involves asking men if they are real men, and on the other, there's one that uses measurable quantities and statistical analysis.
I know which I'd trust.
I have to wonder what religion the scientists involves has, if any. From a Jewish perspective, there's a very strong motivation to find data to support the practice, as making MGM has been discussed as being banned, and this would mean many Jews would have to face either breaking secular or religious laws.
It can be very tempting to cherry-pick results you like, ones that reinforce existing prejudices. I could sit here spouting sources all day, like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Circumcision-DOES-reduce...
But the fact is, this is a dodgy write-up of a dodgy paper, and it has no credibility. If it was from Scientific American, say, they would have contacted other scientists to get their perspective.
So what sort of journo is KATE HAKALA?
>Just don't Google "smegma."<
Why the fuck not? I have the feeling she thinks that's some hideous male affliction. So what's her level of scientific expertise?
Smegma (Greek smēgma, "soap") is a combination of exfoliated (shed) epithelial cells, transudated skin oils, and moisture. It occurs in both female and male mammalian genitalia.
Both sexes can produce smegma. In males, smegma is produced and can collect under the foreskin; in females, it collects around the clitoris and in the folds of the labia minora.
In males, smegma helps keep the glans moist and facilitates sexual intercourse by acting as a lubricant.
So fuck Ms HAKALA and her body-shaming ways. I don't see her volunteering for the chop. She sees men as existing for the pleasure of women, and wants to use any dirty trick to accomplish that goal.
FGM was seen as perfectly normal once, too. It's still fervently argued by people in thos cultures that it is necessary, and all sorts of excuses are found as to why. But in the end, it boils down to "it's done because it's done".
And you know, it was once seen as freakish and foreign in the west. Something no good christian would do! Then it was promoted as a way of stopping male masturbation, which was seen as sinful to the point of damnation, by .. reducing penile sensitivity... hmm.
It wasn't introduced for medical reasons, but for religious ones, reasons which could be used to apply to FGM had they realised that women did those things they despised as well - but the vision that they had was that male sexuality was wicked, and women had no sexuality, and were purer as a result.
So either it was useless for it's stated purpose - or it is partial castration.
By both measures should be banned immediately.