I've found that if I walk barefoot a lot my feet toughen up, but they do not lose sensitivity.it doesnt harden up like like a fingertip or the heal of your foot.Also, there is an abundance of sensitivity.
Do i understand Mr TB, is he saying that Mr TB has the right to do anything with babies, even cut their hands off so that they may not look at masturbate, or cut their ears off so that they may not hear 'devil music'.
So you see your Children as slaves, Mr TB; I see children as a continuation of your own legacy and appreciation of evolution. So you want a continuation of slave, or min wage workers.
They should respect you as you respect them. They too may and, mostly are going to raise their children, and may most likely treat their children with the same respect, I don't think we may evolve far with people like Mr TB, as Mr TB does not believe in evolution.
And... Mr TB... mate... what does this have to circumcision?
You're assuming the sensitivity remains constant. Why should it? Toughening up involves the foot adding protective material so it is less easily damaged. If muscles adapt to requirements why should nerves not adjust to requirements? I know from experience of walking barefoot and from wearing boots with thicker soles that the foot adjusts its sensitivity.
From a female perspective a restored foreskin is probably as good as an original one. From what I have read it looks almost the same, restores the glans to its mucosal state and moves in the same manner. From the male perspective the nerve endings lost cannot be restored, but presumably any in the remaining skin are replicated when the new skin is created.
In the past it was done almost automatically. It is a bizarre practice and we know today that there are few good reasons to do it.
It would only matter if it influenced their fine motor control. Since there is no reason to believe his nerves would not adapt to compensate we have no reason to believe that any thickening of the skin would reduce his skin sensitivity (if it did you would never find any surgeons doing any physical activity or exercise that required them to use their hands).
Probably because there are no justifications. I haven't expressed any support for circumcision.
Ok, so I know I don't have a penis (I looked), but maybe that means I can be more objective about the circumcision issue. Also, as a consequence of my gender and heterosexual nature I've probably been in contact with more penises than most of you in this thread (unless you're gay, of course). So read if you care for a female's perspective.
1. Cleanliness
Circumcised penises tend to be cleaner and, er, smell nicer. Uncircumcised does not necessarily mean dirty though.
2. Doing the deed
Prefer uncircumcised. Feels different. Better. Easier. Nicer.
3. "Hard and dry"?
Yes, circumcised tends to be noticably drier and the skin harder, and from what I can tell, less sensitive.
All in all, imo, uncircumcised is better, but it's not really a big issue to me. I'd compare it to having small tatoos- imo, better without, but if you've got then so be it.
If I ever have kids, I would choose for them not to be circumcised, even though I come from a family where boys are circumcised.
"piece" bwana
There is absolutely no qualitive difference between the two acts. They are BOTH genital mutilation and as such, anyone who violates another person thus without a *truly* sound medical reason deserves nothing less than to be charged with assault with intent to do grevious bodily harm. And by a true medical problem, I mean rare cases where the foreskin is too tight and causes problems with urination (though that can be far more easily solved by splitting the foreskin rather that complete removal.)You dont see a difference between the practice of female genital mutilation and male circumcision?
Then you need to get out a bit more. There are women around who have had voluntary clitoridectomies and have been satisfied with the procedure and its results. Similarly there have been men that have been entirely unsatisfied with their experiences. But in niether case does this justify either FGM or MGM.
What's there to understand? It's a violation of the human body. Furthermore, restorations merely stretch the skin on the shaft of the penis, they do not restore the 20 000 nerve endings which are lost, which is the largest number of nerves on any part of the penis.
See above.
No, we would hopefully spend our time convincing people to stop the barbaric mutilation in the interests of saving as many people from suffering such an injury.
By putting the existing skin under tension, i.e. stretching it.
Rubbish. those nerve endings sit in a specialised part near the tip of the foreskin called the ridged band; foreskin restoration does not and cannot restore this specialised and unique tissue.
That would be the frenulum that disintegrates before or around puberty through apoptosis?
Does it matter if I slit your throat with a beer bottle or if I do it in a sterile hospital enviroment?
Did you know that in the Victorian era, they used to apply carbolic acid to the clitoris to discourage masturbation? Did you also know that that's when this BS about circumcision being 'healthy' first came about? Both measures were intended to achieve the same effect; to enforce some insane and perverse idea that sex and sexual stimulation was inherently bad/wrong.
Sign up with Google