Talk:genital mutilation

"The ridged band is the primary area of male sexual sensitivity. The ridged band has a high concentration of meissners corpuscles (a type of neural receptor in the skin), which cause said sexual sensation. In cases of prepuce amputation, the absence of the ridged band causes greatly decreased sexual sensitivity, as well as qualitative changes in the sensation. In the absence of the ridged band, there is the loss of most male sexual sensation other than that which occurs during erection and ejaculation." This is simply false, in spite of the "meissners corpuscles". I was circumcised for medical reasons at an age at which I was able to compare, and did not lose my sensitivity a single bit. Also, it has been found that male circumcision reduces significantly the risk of AIDS infection: http://www.thebody.com/content/art48907.html || http://www.malecircumcision.org/

I removed that paragraph, and consider that arguably the terms "genital mutilation" and "penis mutilation" do not apply to the practice of male circumcision, since it doesn't have the dramatic disadvantages that the word "mutilation" connotes, but I decided to leave it open to further discussion, if any.

Funny, I was also circumcised at an age when I was able to compare. My first wife talked me into it. There was a big difference in sexual sensitivity; worst mistake I ever made. I might actually believe your claim that your sexual neurology is much different from that of myself and the other adult-circumcised men that I've talked to, were it not for your conspicuously pro-amputation statements and links. Complacency is insanity 17:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I've actually known tens of circumcised men who claim that their sexual sensitivity hasn't changed at all. Maybe it depends, as you suggested, on neurological differences, or on surgeons' ability. I've edited it again to what I consider a more neutral text. You'll probably want to change it again, and I beg you to respect this search for neutrality, since it is a very sensitive matter. It is so, in my opinion, for two reasons: one, that the emphasis on female genital mutilation is important because it implies gender violence and a devastating action that unarguably needs to be stopped. The other reason is that literally thousands (or maybe millions) of men are choosing to be circumcised and feeling no such consequences. One thing I certainly refuse is to call it "penis mutilation" because it sounds as if the penis itself was cut off, or "male genital mutilation", because it suggests an effect as devastating as it is in women, which is a seriously dangerous and outrageous practice. I am not exactly pro-circumcision, but not against it either--I'm certain that, correctly performed, it is a harmless practice with many benefits. I do discourage it to be performed on infants against their will--for religious or cultural motives whatsoever--but telling adult men that their sexual sensations will be compromised, or calling it "mutilation" are misleading overstatements. And I do support the advocacy for it in HIV-infection risk population; 60% is a good rate even for a vaccine, and I doubt that the sensitivity reduction of a condom be less than that of a circumcision. Also, using words like "promiscuous" or suggesting monogamous behaviors sound to me like judgmental statements that, IMHO, don't belong in a definition. Best regards.