Read on Twitter
Hot take & I'll make a thread: this week's poll shows how just uninformed US clinicians & the public are on what is clearly unethical and unconsensual. To say no is to trivialize the trauma of thousands of ppl coming forward about the psychological harm suffered in infancy, and
carried in the grief of adults who've had their trust and bodies violated by their parents who claimed ownerships of their bodies. After just watching The American Circumcision documentary, Ive learned there are thousands on circumcision grief forums expressing anger & depression
about the psychosocial and physical effects. There's estranged relationships with parents because they will not apologize, and double down on claiming ownership of their child's body. Cut people admit to having mental pain from the diminished sex life with their partners. As well
as having anguish in their body image, they see their penises as mutilated. There's a high # of complications: curved penises, painful erections, scarring, deaths, etc If it wasn't a problem why in the US there's estimated at least a quarter million ppl undergoing foreskin
restoration? They've clearly felt like they've lost something they never experienced or had a say in. A lot of that grief comes from realizing their sex has been impacted with their partners. There's a totally different anatomy now and sexual mechanics are not the same as an
intact penis's. It's apples & oranges. At least 12 sq inches of an organ has been removed, so yes it's overly less sensitive in losing so many nerve endings comparable to the sensitivity of a clitoris. Scar tissue is less sensitive than mucosa. There have been studies finding
some of the highest pleasurable areas are in the foreskin, and that the frenulum (which is often removed) the highest rated zone. Cut ppl report having the most pleasure around the scar tissue of where a ringed band would have been. Circumcised penises also are desensitized due
to friction on the glans being exposed and keratinzation forming. Many studies show the changing mechanics with a vaginal partner, different stroke lengths and speeds, etc The lubrication and rolling motion/gliding of the foreskin being removed more likely causes vaginal pain and
dryness because the natural lubrication of the vagina is pulled out. This altered sex with a partner, the erectile dysfunction of keratinzation, etc contributes to a lot of the user submitted grief I've read on forums. It varies but the loss is immense, but as Dr Guest says it
is akin to not hearing the violas in a symphony. A dimension of sensual data is missing. This presentation explains the nerve sstructures.
Now for myths, circumcision is not cleaner. There's showers & soap. Nature is fine with what was intended. Foreskins
Now for myths, circumcision is not cleaner. There's showers & soap. Nature is fine with what was intended. Foreskins
need washing, just like everywhere else on a body. It doesn't lower the chance of STI's. There's studies on this. Penile cancer? There's an HPV vaccine. UTI's? Antbiotics. Circumcision is rare in Europe yet their STI rates are lower in the US. Plus it's not like chopping off an
organ is an actual substitute for a vaccine and safe sex practices. There's a study that shows circumcision actually lowers condom use, because the condom will even more lower the sensitivity of a desensitized penis. There's the claim that it lowers HIV in Africa, but that study
is flawed in that the men that got paid for circumcising were also more likely to use a condom. Someone said it succinctly in The American Circumcision movie in that it's tied to imperialism & racism inAfrican bodies being seen as expendable to try this experiment on. Plus its
history in America has been used to racially denote immigrants in the time of Ellis Island as unhygienic/unclean in being intact compared to Anglo whites. Its racist history also occurs in the myth of the "hypersexual" Black male, and white supremacist surgeons began implementing
widescale circumcisions. Its relationship to imperialism also makes an appearance in South Korea where the practice was largely introduced from US occupation with military surgeons. I guarantee that most Americans do not know that circumcision largely only takes place in this
country where it's practiced non-religously compared to the rest of the world. It originating with the sexphobic, Puritanical views of Harvey Kellogg at a time when masturbation was seen negatively, because the removal of the foreskin adds difficulty to masturbating. From the
12th century physician/rabbi Maimondes to Kellogg, much of history agreed that circumcision's purpose was to curb sexual appetite for the cut individual AND the partner. But only recently in America has the discourse shifted into there being "no harm" done. Frankly because I
think a lot of people are in denial/uninformed because it became a cultural practice and the norm. I'll agree with many doctors around the world in not even calling it a surgery, because there is no medical benefit to it but just harm: a purely cosmetic procedure. The culture in
America doesn't even know what natural penises look like. There are thousands of cases of US health workers being unknowledgeable about foreskin, and trying to prematurely retract the foreskin before puberty and causing pain and possible trauma. I know from experience in
the exam room as a kid. I've been in leftist spaces, and see the criticism of circumcision labeled as from "incels and MRA's" which insultingly trivializes what a lot of people call their trauma. I've had a "social justice educator" coworker say they'll do it to their child even
when discussing issues about consent. Frankly it's proven the vast majority of Americans don't even know what circumcison is or know that they even were. I heard people think the foreskin naturally falls off with puberty, or not know the foreskin can retract. I know there's
a large profit motive to continue this practice from practitioners making money to beauty companies harvesting tissue, etc. It's a medical scam. But this is a feminist issue that doesn't get much notice in this country concerning larger discussions about consent, and is mostly
played for laughs in the media. There needs to be a cultural shift. I am not circumcised and can't speak on the negative emotions people have expressed, but can say I have read many people and friends' shames and vulnerabilities on something which seems to be largely ignored.
