I've already pointed a number of flaws in your Zambian study which you have not answered. I think we can reject that. All it says is that circ does not reduce sexual feeling and its own data do not show that.
All other studies have been discredited for similar reasons.
think you can refer to the history of the "justification" for
circumcision in the US (and Britain). First it was to prevent
masturbation (around 1870) then it was to prevent going insane (from
excessive masturbation), then it was that women find it more attractive,
then it was that it's more hygienic, and now it supposedly prevents
STDs including HIV. That simply doesn't make sense. It's obviously a
solution in search of a problem. That is one of the many issues with
circumcision. When you discover that it doesn't prevent masturbation,
that children don't go insane upon being fixated on masturbating all the
time, when it's not unhygienic, when it doesn't prevent AIDS, at some
point you have to question the process OR determine that it does
something else. Is it mere habit? or is it something deeper, does it
provide some kind of strange social benefit? Also, what is the
psychology of men who have been circumcised and not admitting they
regret it? They don't want to hate their parents? They don't want to
accept that it's bad (less sensation and higher risk of ED later, etc.)
and can't be fixed?
THOSE are the interesting discussions!
That it prevents AIDS or has no impact on sexual feeling or function has
been discredited as far as research goes, and is sheer nonsense when
you look at logic, physiology, the fact that NERVES TRANSMIT FEELING,
and the accounts of men (other than you) who got circumcised later in
life and describe it like a loss in hearing (can't hear conversations
well, loss of appreciation of music and nature, etc.).
interesting conversation is about why we keep doing it. It may be that
it somehow makes America and Britain more competitive as societies,
which is also plain to see.
From this discussion