Verified answer

This study sounds familiar to me, but it would be nice to see the article.

Do you agree that gender sexual roles plays a significant part in the continued practice of circumcision? I really don't know, but they could play some part.

The main reason why male genital mutilation continues to happen is because of ignorance. Some parents mutilate their sons because they didn't know male genital mutilation was harmful. While others mutilate their sons because they think male genital mutilation is all benefit and they deny any information about male genital mutilation being harmful. They choose to live in deliberate ignorance even after they found out the truth because they can't the painful truth. Next, are the people who force male genital mutilation on boys for religious reasons, even when they know the practice is harmful. These people are religious extremists because they care about their religion more than their son's well-being. The last group are the people who mutilate boys because of preference. This group doesn't care if male genital mutilation has a benefit or not, they only mutilate their sons out of sheer vanity.

I've never read the book, but here is what I think... Gender Male and Female, Male hormones vs. Female hormones, plus a lot of influence (orientation & role nonexclusive) Sex Roles: Orientation and gender nonexclusive, but still has a lot of human influence, probably based on peers Sex Orientation: Gender and role nonexclusive (Usually against peers). 80/20 between nature and nurture and the way it comes out is about the same. I cannot say that people don't undergo stress as pre-adolecents that change their views, but it seems most homosexuals lead a normal healthy life.

It would be nice to see the study prior to answering this particular question. Lots of press releases do not accurately represent the results of a scientific study.

No, the difference in sensation between standard male circumcision and most of the various female circumcisions practices around the world is immense.

THE POINT of female cirumcision is to deny sensation to the woman. Indeed one of the purposes is to make it so that she doesn't have a particular fondness of sex so that she can control her urges and remain chaste for whomever she ends up with.

That is not the point of male circumcision. Male circumcision may have religious significance, or may have some medical basis - but nowhere is it used to actually remove sensation. That is considered an unfortunate side effect.

That's not to say that I believe we should be circumsizing boys - I don't (nor do I think we should be circumsizing girls) - but no, I'm not going to turn it into some sort of feminist conspiracy.

Sorry.

the main promoters of circumcision are men who were cut and refuse to see something wrong was done. A lot of babies who get cut had mothers who didn't want them cut but faced intense pressure from their husband, who took it as an attack on their own penis. Many doctors who promote circumcision are cut men who don't accept that they've lost a lot of penile sensitivity and functioning and who definitely don't want to hear that intact men pleasure women better. Professionals who have been involved in circumcision tend to get very reluctant to stop cutting, as they kind of become addicted to doing it, and don't want to hear that it's wrong to do.

and yes, the sole purpose of circumcision of males historically WAS to reduce sexual pleasure and to damage penises. The most sensitive part of the penis is the very tip of the foreskin and the foreskin lips. Even very loose circs remove this and replace it with scar tissue. But it was MEN who started it. Not women.

Circumcision increases sexual pleasure for men. Your question doesn't make sense to me.

I seriously doubt it considering the effect it has on sexual pleasure.

“92.3 per cent said they experienced more sexual pleasure”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/surgica...