“‘We’re not saying less sexual activity or satisfaction, but sensitivity,’ senior author Dr Piet Hoebeke, from Ghent University Hospital, said.”
“One possible explanation for any potential difference in sensitivity is that a man’s foreskin may protect his penis’s head from rubbing against underwear and clothing. It’s possible, the researchers write, that friction makes the head of the penis thicker, drier and ultimately less sensitive.
The researchers also found circumcised men were more likely to report more pain and numbness during arousal than uncircumcised men, which Dr Hoebeke said is likely due to scar tissue.
‘I’m amazed that people report pain during sexual pleasure… that was unexpected,’ he told Reuters Health.”
“British doctors say that although it can reduce the risk of some types of infection the risks associated with routine circumcision outweigh any potential benefits.”
Don’t hit ‘em with your best shot
Making your strongest case against circumcision may actually be counter-productive.
by Lillian Dell’Aquila Cannon
Arguing against routine infant circumcision was the context in which I first learned of cognitive dissonance. It was in the infancy of my intactivism when I first noticed that the logical medical and sexual arguments against circumcision often did nothing to persuade people to not do it to their own children. It was a mystery to me why perfectly intelligent, rational-seeming people would defend cutting off healthy tissue from an unconsenting child even when they had learned the facts about circumcision, and could no longer rely on the justification of the myths surrounding it. Being more of a thinker than a feeler myself, I naively thought that when I told people that circumcision violated a child’s right to his whole body, they would easily change their minds, because this was what worked for me. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
Sorry I’ve been a bit AWOL on this blog. I do share a lot in Facebook though.
My Facebook fan page