Complications To Circumcision

[e***@yahoo.com]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/#!po=57.8571

Some of these are quite gruesome, beyond the basic atrocity of the intended unnatural result. I believe this procedure should be limited to actual consent or actual medical requirement, it appears an accommodation made under the presumption parents who desire their infant sons be generally altered would do it anyway despite illegality causing more deaths (deaths from infant circumcision occur at a steady rate from infections) than the current system.

Infant genital anatomy has strong protections against this sort of violation, requiring extremely traumatic efforts to deny the subject experience of life with genitals as functional mucous membrane - the goal is to make the penis more like an elbow in both reduced sensitivity and moisture level. The delusion amongst some devout folk is God wants it that way, forgetting there's a devil who can deceive people into acts of cruelty to demonstrate their unworthiness. God would not have forsaken the rainbow covenant for this mutilation in a mere ten generations, His plan is a longer game.

In the US this emerged from prudish bizarre discredited theories producing torture gadgets to discourage ejaculation, since loss of bodily fluids was associated with disease. The modern American medical community is renegade against an international group of doctors protesting the immorality of forgoing actual consent with infants; they also have conflict of interest, potentially harvesting these valuable tissues for research and even cosmetics. Scripture is full of denouncements for it, even by Hebrew prophets - Hosea's declaration God desires mercy instead of sacrifice could mean little else, and Jesus quoted that significantly.

[e***@yahoo.com]

Of course I meant "genitally altered" not "generally" - auto-correct struck again. And "frenulum" kept getting rewritten as "gremlin" which was easier to catch.

[e***@yahoo.com]

Of course I meant "genitally altered" not "generally" - auto-correct struck again. And "frenulum" kept getting rewritten as "gremlin" which was easier to catch.

I haven't listed the complications graphically described in the government site, suffice to say the posters presenting circumcision as some kind of universal panacea could be deliberately misleading people by not mentioning these risks on top of the obvious destructive goal.

Posters claiming the sensation is the same for cut and intact males are ignoring the conclusion that could not be the case, since many layers of less viable skin cells were found just comparing the glans. The cut male confuses the ability to perform at all with optimal performance, and presumes more sensitivity would increase the tendency to prematurely ejaculate. But the altered penis is re-designed so the coronal ridge around the glans gets constantly directly stimulated during intercourse, whereas the intact male is enjoying an entirely different experience where more intense pleasure is entirely under their control, with the corona protected from getting the climax trigger too soon by residing in the sulcus region (the part between the scar and the head) with the foreskin structurally kept away anchored at the frenulum.

A man cut at birth should not presume having a real frame of reference to evaluate sex for an intact man, the anatomy has been too altered, the development into puberty entirely different. It would be like any man claiming to know what a woman feels in more than an academic sense.