Chaingang -> RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) (6/14/2006 3:19:26 AM)
|
Traditionally many believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive [10][11] and this belief has been documented by opponents of circumcision [12] [13] [14]. Some more recent researchers have also suggested that the foreskin may be sexually responsive [15] [16] [17] [18]. Opponents of circumcision have cited these studies, which report on the sensitivity or innervation of the foreskin, claiming a sexual role based upon the presence of nerve-endings in the foreskin sensitive to light touch, stroking and fluttering sensations. However, these studies have not been followed up. Circumcision removes the ridged band at the end of the foreskin [19]. John R. Taylor, a pathologist and a critic of circumcision, [20] observed that the ridged band had more Meissner's corpuscles - a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity [21] - than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes. Taylor postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the gliding action, possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the glans penis during vaginal intercourse.[22] This gliding action was also described by Lakshmanan, (1980) [23]. However, Taylor's claim about the sexual sensitivity of the ridged band has not been followed up by other researchers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision [Comment: All I would argue is that even IF there is a chance you are reducing the possible future pleasure of a human being in your care, it seems ill advised to pursue a course of action like circumcision because there is a very good chance of doing just that. If the medical reasons for circumcision are equivocal at best, then all you are left with is religious reasons. Personally I cannot accept such religious reasoning unless a person makes such a decision for him or herself. That people have this butchery performed on their own children just boggles my mind.] ... This page should be read in whole, tons of interesting things in there - but I'll pick out this bit: The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not support routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Major medical organizations in the United States state that parents should decide what is in their child's best interests, explicitly not recommending the procedure for medical reasons. Neonatal circumcision remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ... So mutilate away. What do you care? No one will apparently stop you. But it is mutilation. mu·ti·late. verb, transitive mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1. 3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. [Latin mutilare, mutilat-, from mutilus, maimed.] Take a look at Michaelaneglo's statue of David and tell me it's not mutilation. [img]http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/Art/Davids2.jpg[/img] I found these pages useful also: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html http://www.circumstitions.com/Notjustaflap.html http://www.circumstitions.com/reasonsnotto.html http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html http://www.circumstitions.com/Lost.html http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html
|
|
|
|