9
939845
Guest
Hi,
Looking through some of the threads here and also based on personal experience I noticed that whenever an adult guy is in the position to consider a circumcision for whatever reason there is quite a lot of vocal opposition on the matter. Many of these comments revolve around the alleged negative impacts on one’s ability to enjoy sex after circumcision: claims that sensitivity drops dramatically, that the foreskin plays a crucial role in male sexuality, that circumcision is mutilation etc.
While some of these opinions might be based on opposition to RIC, which I understand and believe that it is justified to be angry about RIC, I do not see how this would translate to opposing circumcision in all cases, including for consenting adults. Having undergone the procedure myself as an adult I do not feel like I’ve lost anything notable in my sensitivity or ability to fully enjoy sex. My experience seems to be echoed by many men in the same position and there is hardly any scientific literature on the matter demonstrating any meaningful loss in sexual satisfaction for circumcised men.
I feel like the opposition against RIC has led to criticism being brought against circumcision in general, regardless of whether the person being circumcised is an infant or a consenting adult. Also, while I understand that the former is a very ethically challenging situation and body integrity should be respected, I cannot help but notice that anti-RIC camp appears unable to differentiate between the psychological and ethical implications of circumcision, and the actual procedure and its physiological impact. More specifically, I feel like justified criticism on moral grounds is questionably expanded to also make claims against the procedure from a purely physical perspective. I am sure many of us are familiar with statements such as “circumcision numbs the penis”, “you lose 20.000 nerve endings”, “erectile disfunction is far more likely if you are circumcised” etc. However, there is no solid evidence to support these claims and what literature there is on the matter seems to refute these claims.
To summarise my point, I have the following questions for you:
- If you leave aside the issue of RIC, is circumcision for consenting adult males really such a bad thing after all?
- Do you believe that much of the criticism against circumcision comes as a result of opposition to RIC, and not necessarily the actual procedure?
- As far as adult circumcision is concerned, it possible that many of the anti-circumcision arguments are actually anecdotal and more likely to be an anti-RIC reaction than based on scientific evidence?
And finally, to get to the subject of this topic - we do not seem to shame women who might be seeking cosmetic surgery on their breasts or genitalia. I feel that a lady seeking a clitoral hood removal, breast reduction and lifting or labiaplasty would not be faced with as much opposition as an adult man seeking a circumcision. Could there be a double standard here?
Looking through some of the threads here and also based on personal experience I noticed that whenever an adult guy is in the position to consider a circumcision for whatever reason there is quite a lot of vocal opposition on the matter. Many of these comments revolve around the alleged negative impacts on one’s ability to enjoy sex after circumcision: claims that sensitivity drops dramatically, that the foreskin plays a crucial role in male sexuality, that circumcision is mutilation etc.
While some of these opinions might be based on opposition to RIC, which I understand and believe that it is justified to be angry about RIC, I do not see how this would translate to opposing circumcision in all cases, including for consenting adults. Having undergone the procedure myself as an adult I do not feel like I’ve lost anything notable in my sensitivity or ability to fully enjoy sex. My experience seems to be echoed by many men in the same position and there is hardly any scientific literature on the matter demonstrating any meaningful loss in sexual satisfaction for circumcised men.
I feel like the opposition against RIC has led to criticism being brought against circumcision in general, regardless of whether the person being circumcised is an infant or a consenting adult. Also, while I understand that the former is a very ethically challenging situation and body integrity should be respected, I cannot help but notice that anti-RIC camp appears unable to differentiate between the psychological and ethical implications of circumcision, and the actual procedure and its physiological impact. More specifically, I feel like justified criticism on moral grounds is questionably expanded to also make claims against the procedure from a purely physical perspective. I am sure many of us are familiar with statements such as “circumcision numbs the penis”, “you lose 20.000 nerve endings”, “erectile disfunction is far more likely if you are circumcised” etc. However, there is no solid evidence to support these claims and what literature there is on the matter seems to refute these claims.
To summarise my point, I have the following questions for you:
- If you leave aside the issue of RIC, is circumcision for consenting adult males really such a bad thing after all?
- Do you believe that much of the criticism against circumcision comes as a result of opposition to RIC, and not necessarily the actual procedure?
- As far as adult circumcision is concerned, it possible that many of the anti-circumcision arguments are actually anecdotal and more likely to be an anti-RIC reaction than based on scientific evidence?
And finally, to get to the subject of this topic - we do not seem to shame women who might be seeking cosmetic surgery on their breasts or genitalia. I feel that a lady seeking a clitoral hood removal, breast reduction and lifting or labiaplasty would not be faced with as much opposition as an adult man seeking a circumcision. Could there be a double standard here?