Always worth noting that circumcision gained mass popularity within America due to two factors. One being the jewish population, but the second being of course Kellogg, who promoted it to discourage sexuality. He also promoted female circumcision, and no it wasn't the FGM that most instinctively think of but rather the removal of the clitoral hood. Shockingly, only one of these ideas gained widespread acceptance.
Removal of the hood should also be as bad, no? For men circumcision is so bad cuz it removes tons of nerves that are in the foreskin, for women the clitoral head is basically destroying the clitoris, right? One of the most erogenous zones for women same as the foreskin for men. You'll last longer as a man and women might never reach an orgasm.
Kinda insane how this just started to remove sexuality, humans are by nature very sexual beings. If we weren't we'd not have gone so long as to fill all of the planet. Crazy how it's still done to kids, they fall into that rabbit hole and will never recover from the loss they've experienced sooner or later. I still don't get how the practice wasn't outright banned unless it's due to medical reasons.
Morally, it's absolutely just as bad. Mutilation is mutilation, plain and simple. And there is the obvious exemption of these for reactive medical procedures as opposed to the current method of using mutilation as a preventative. We're not cutting off tits to prevent breast cancer, they get cut off in response to breast cancer. And these genital issues should be the same.
But in terms of numbers and pure statistical analysis, the foreskin holds something like 15,000 nerve endings, which compared to the clitoris itself (not the clitoral hood) only has about 4,000. Mind you, I might be off with my numbers, it's been a while since I've really spoken on this topic but I do remember that the foreskin has significantly more nerve endings than the clitoris.
What probably makes the impact is that women typically have slightly less reliable/accessible high-end erogenous zones from which they can utilize.
As barbaric and senseless circumcision is in either case, males still have access to a substantial amount of high-yield sensation from the glans. Granted, the glans has probably taken a fairly significant hit to its effectiveness thanks to the removal of that foreskin.
And in-case it wasn't already obvious, I am not defending the practice in any way shape or form or denying the very real and needless impact that such damage does.
Always worth noting that circumcision gained mass popularity within America due to two factors. One being the jewish population, but the second being of course Kellogg, who promoted it to discourage sexuality. He also promoted female circumcision, and no it wasn't the FGM that most instinctively think of but rather the removal of the clitoral hood. Shockingly, only one of these ideas gained widespread acceptance.
Removal of the hood should also be as bad, no? For men circumcision is so bad cuz it removes tons of nerves that are in the foreskin, for women the clitoral head is basically destroying the clitoris, right? One of the most erogenous zones for women same as the foreskin for men. You'll last longer as a man and women might never reach an orgasm.
Kinda insane how this just started to remove sexuality, humans are by nature very sexual beings. If we weren't we'd not have gone so long as to fill all of the planet. Crazy how it's still done to kids, they fall into that rabbit hole and will never recover from the loss they've experienced sooner or later. I still don't get how the practice wasn't outright banned unless it's due to medical reasons.
It is. Stop cutting off part of babies genitals.
The clitoris dries out just like the glans of a circumcised penis does, how much sensation do you have on your dry elbows or feet?
Morally, it's absolutely just as bad. Mutilation is mutilation, plain and simple. And there is the obvious exemption of these for reactive medical procedures as opposed to the current method of using mutilation as a preventative. We're not cutting off tits to prevent breast cancer, they get cut off in response to breast cancer. And these genital issues should be the same.
But in terms of numbers and pure statistical analysis, the foreskin holds something like 15,000 nerve endings, which compared to the clitoris itself (not the clitoral hood) only has about 4,000. Mind you, I might be off with my numbers, it's been a while since I've really spoken on this topic but I do remember that the foreskin has significantly more nerve endings than the clitoris.
What probably makes the impact is that women typically have slightly less reliable/accessible high-end erogenous zones from which they can utilize.
As barbaric and senseless circumcision is in either case, males still have access to a substantial amount of high-yield sensation from the glans. Granted, the glans has probably taken a fairly significant hit to its effectiveness thanks to the removal of that foreskin.
And in-case it wasn't already obvious, I am not defending the practice in any way shape or form or denying the very real and needless impact that such damage does.