YZZAJ @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club

Beelzebub

#shota

Male circumcision destroys sexuality forever

The foreskin is a primarily erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

A large portion of the penis's nerve endings and the vast majority of its specialized nerve endings (mechanoreceptors such as Meissner's corpuscles, Merkel's cells, Pacini-Vater corpuscles, and Ruffini's corpuscles) are located on the foreskin. Consequently, circumcision irreversibly removes the majority of a boy's or man's erogenous nerve endings, as well as almost all of the specialized nerve endings.

To the extent that men are able to judge this, because they were circumcised in adulthood, the significant majority report noticeable loss of sensation.

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

A large-scale sensitivity study from the USA, in which penile sensitivity was objectively assessed using specially calibrated measuring instruments, demonstrated that circumcision irreversibly removes the five most sensitive areas of the penis.

https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

The remaining sensitivity after circumcision is primarily located in the glans. This residual sensitivity is further reduced as a result of the removal of the protective foreskin and the associated keratinization of the glans surface. This desensitization of the penis, resulting from the loss of erogenous tissue on the one hand, and the additional loss of sensitivity of the remaining erogenous tissue due to keratinization of the glans on the other, is also reflected in a demonstrable reduction in sexual pleasure.

https://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/kim2006/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14979200/

The increase in time to ejaculation is often presented as a positive effect of circumcision, https://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(03)00926-9/abstract however, it goes hand in hand with the loss of penile sensitivity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022534705650987?via%3Dihub On the other hand, circumcised men report premature ejaculation more often than uncircumcised men. https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

The sexual experience of the partner or the couple is also negatively affected.

https://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

All couples report a noticeable loss of secretion during intercourse due to the lack of lubrication of the foreskin, with noticeably increased friction and resulting discomfort, even vaginal dyspareunia.

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Women of circumcised partners also report a significantly lower frequency of vaginal orgasms.

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

https://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

Artificial lubricants are more frequently required. K. O'Hara notes that couples with circumcised men engage in significantly more sexual practices such as anal intercourse, masturbation, and fellatio, attributing this to the potential discomfort during vaginal intercourse on the one hand, and the man's search for more intense stimuli due to reduced penile sensitivity on the other.

https://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

A large-scale Danish study of over 5,000 men and women examining the sexual effects of circumcision found that circumcision is associated with a variety of sexual problems for both the circumcised men and their partners. According to the study, circumcised men are more likely to experience difficulty achieving orgasm, and women of circumcised partners are more likely to experience sexual problems, including difficulty achieving orgasm, difficulty with penetration, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), and a "feeling of incomplete fulfillment of sexual needs."

https://www.beschneidung-von-jungen.de/home/beschneidung-und-sexualitaet/studie-beweist-beschneidung-verschlechtert-sex-bei-maennern-und-frauen.html

Masturbation is also made more difficult by circumcision, which has long been the primary motivation for this operation in America.

https://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/kim2006/

https://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

In summary, it must be assumed that the negative effects of circumcision on the sexual function and sex life of both partners outweigh the positive ones.

Male circumcision leads to poorer hygiene and higher susceptibility to infections.

Hygiene

Circumcision advocates believe that circumcision can improve genital hygiene. They argue that circumcision "creates dry conditions," which leads to reduced bacterial colonization and can therefore be considered a "more favorable baseline" in terms of the risk of infection. Circumcision also impedes the accumulation of smegma and prevents it, which is identified as a source of inflammation. However, these assumptions are not scientifically proven. Rather, new research suggests that circumcision worsens rather than improves genital hygiene.

https://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

The glans exposed by circumcision is considered dirtier than cleaner, as it is constantly exposed to dirt, skin abrasion, contaminants, and germs of all kinds.

https://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

Studies have shown that circumcised boys are more likely to suffer from balanitis, meatitis, adhesions to the glans penis, and meatal stenosis.

https://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

Circumcision is particularly problematic in terms of hygiene, especially during the diaper years, when feces mixed with urine can not only corrode the exposed urethral meatus but also the amputation wound from the surgery itself.

https://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/

2. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

The reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) is often cited as a justification for routine circumcision.

https://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/

In the mid-1980s, American military physician Thomas Wiswell concluded in his study, in which he retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of boys born in US military hospitals, that intact infants had a 10–20 times greater risk of developing a urinary tract infection than circumcised infants.

https://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/

Of the 28 cases of urinary tract infections he discovered in his study, 4 were circumcised and 24 were uncircumcised. It was not mentioned that many of the uncircumcised boys had congenital problems that could have contributed to infection. Wiswell further equated the presence of bacteria in the urine with urinary tract infections.

But even according to Wissel's dubious results from his retrospective study, the protective effect of circumcision is modest: According to his study, the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life in an intact boy is 1.12%, while in a circumcised boy it is only 0.11%. According to Wiswell, this incidence is more than 10 times lower. However, given the overall low incidence of a maximum of 1.12%, even based on Wiswell's study, more than 100 circumcisions would be necessary to prevent just one uncomplicated urinary tract infection.

https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1045.x

Other study results suggest that circumcision increases rather than decreases the already low baseline risk of urinary tract infections.

In a study of 47 febrile infants, 17% of whom suffered from urinary tract infections, all of the children with urinary tract infections were male, and the urinary tract infections occurred a few days after their ritual circumcision.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/513140

The results confirm the findings of an earlier study by the same lead author.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/urinary-tract-infections/

Goldman and colleagues observed the incidence of urinary tract infections resulting from ritual circumcision and concluded that there may be a causal relationship between urinary tract infections and circumcision.

https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/goldman/

Cohen and colleagues investigated the epidemiology of urinary tract infections during the first year of life in 169 children. They found that ritual circumcision, as practiced in Israel, is a risk factor for urinary tract infections within the 12-day period following the procedure.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000992289203100601?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

To date, only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections. This study found that circumcision is not an effective means of preventing or treating (recurrent) urinary tract infections, even in children suffering from vesicoureteral reflux—a malformation of the lower urinary tract. This study thus refuted the results of Wiswell's retrospective studies, which suggested that circumcision could prevent urinary tract infections in boys.

https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/kwak1/

Mandatory monthly propaganda:
Male circumcision is intended to prevent masturbation

At the end of the 19th century, circumcision of boys was promoted as a preventative measure against or punishment for masturbation in English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Great Britain, and was widely practiced in these countries during the first half of the 20th century.

In fact, the curbing, prevention, and punishment of masturbation among boys, which was viewed as immoral and pathological, as well as the general reduction of sexual sensation, was the original primary motivation for the introduction of routine circumcision in Anglo-Saxon countries at the end of the 19th century, as the medical and medical-historical literature unequivocally supports.

https://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

https://www.cirp.org/library/history/darby4/

The non-religious, routine circumcision of boys in English-speaking countries thus arose in a climate hostile to sex, especially regarding masturbation. K. E. Paige explains: "In the United States, the current medical rationale [for circumcision] developed only after the operation was already widely practiced. The original reason for surgically removing the foreskin or prepuce was to control 'masturbatory insanity'—a range of mental disorders that people attributed to the 'defilemental' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

https://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

Australian medical historian Robert Darby explains in the Australian Medical Journal that 19th-century circumcision advocates were well aware of the sexual sensitivity of the foreskin: "In the 19th century, the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was very well understood by physicians, who sought to remove it precisely because they considered it the most important factor in masturbation in boys. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) condemned the foreskin as a "source of serious mischief," and most of his contemporaries agreed. Both opponents and supporters agreed that the foreskin's significant role in sexual response was the primary reason why it should either be left alone or removed. William Hammond, a New York professor of psychiatry in the late 19th century, noted that circumcision, if performed in early life, Performed generally diminishes the pleasurable sensations of sexual intercourse, and both he and Acton viewed the foreskin as necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, an English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others considered this the most important reason why it should be removed.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2003/178/4/medical-history-and-medical-practice-persistent-myths-about-foreskin