Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
(3) Some studies have found apparent medical benefits to female gentital mutilation. You wrote earlier that "there are no benefits to female circumcision."
A Tanzanian study found that circumcised women had a significantly lower risk of HIV infection: Stallings, R. Y., and Karugendo, E. (2005) Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: For Better or For Worse, International Aids Society Conference
http://ww4.aegis.org/conferences/ias...5/TuOa0401.pdf
As for the question of what a man's sexual experiences might be like if he had not been circumcised as a baby:
I imagine that a male who lacks his foreskin is a little like a person who has had his outer ear (the auricle) removed. He can still hear (he can have an orgasm), but he is missing some of the sensitivity (no sensitive earlobes; can't gather as much sound), and the way he moves to hear (achieve orgasm) is altered to compensate for the losses.
I have read that circumcised men, in order to reach orgasm, need bigger motions, which can sometimes have negative ramifications for both the circumcised men and their partners.
|
These two are bullsh
it.
First, correlation =/= causation; don't try to establish baseline similarities between FGM and HIV incidence. How many partners do you think devout Muslim women have in their lifetimes? See what the incidence of HIV is in married Muslim women vs. unmarried. There's your cause.
Second, you really must be confused if you think that about circumcised men. The glans is the most sensitive part of the penis, you aren't aware that its increased exposure amounts to more unusual forms of stimulation? There are more accessible ways to bring circumcised men to climax than uncircumcised, I imagine.