[wat0n]

Yes:

I asked for an independent source, not one that admits is biased against circumcision as part of its own policy statement. I'm still waiting!

[ArtAllm]

I asked for an independent source, not one that admits is biased against circumcision as part of its own policy statement.

What are you talking about?

[wat0n]

Well, you quoted results where they use words, like "seem not to affect sexual satisfaction", but the stupid journalists translated this into headlines: "Circumcision Does Not Affect Sexual Satisfaction".

That's not the fault of the researchers or the studies, though.

You quoted studies that are mostly 5 to 10 years old, done with black Africans or with people that had problems with their foreskin.
Why not take healthy men from civilized countries?

Why does it matter if the subjects were African? Are we getting into a genetic-based argument?

Here are more recent studies done with healthy European men:

2011 Oct;40(5):1367-81. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark.

CONCLUSIONS:

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

Interesting, this further adds to the mixed evidence available. Despite being an observational study and the impossibility of the subjects to compare between pre- and post-circumcision sensitivity, in this sense it's similar to the Australian paper I posted earlier.

Article first published online: 23 AUG 2011

Clinical elicitation of the penilo-cavernosus reflex in circumcised men

CONCLUSION

• The study confirmed the lower clinical and similar neurophysiological elicitability of the penilo-cavernosus reflex in circumcised men and in men with foreskin retraction. This finding needs to be taken into account by urologists and other clinicians in daily clinical practice.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

What does this mean for sexual function in light of the mixed results of the literature?

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2012/01/medical-research-studies-on-circumcision.html

Dr. Prescott indicates that the levels of violent crime (especially violent sexual crimes such as rape) have increased in direct proportion to the increase in the number of sexually active circumcised males in American society.

Circumcision severs all the nerves to the prepuce and frenulum. This results in sensory deprivation to the brain. Sensory deprivation causes permanent brain damage and/or dysfunction. Brain atrophy and/or dysfunction due to sensory deprivation is well-documented by Nobel Prize winners D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel.

http://www.gr8birth.com/circumcision.html

[...]These findings overwhelmingly support the thesis that deprivation of body pleasure throughout life – but particularly during the formative periods of infancy, childhood, and adolescence – are very closely related to the amount of warfare and interpersonal violence [in a given society].

Dr. James W. Prescott, Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, November 1975, pp. 10-20. [129, 81]

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/02/male-cir ... ights.html

That's circumstantial evidence, at best. I was expecting a study actually comparing the probability of committing rape among circumcised and uncircumcised men, controlling for other factors.

What are you talking about?

Read my previous post. They say explicitly they don't aim to be impartial when analyzing circumcision:

Policy Statement

This site does not pretend to be "balanced". The case for circumcision has been made daily for decades in public media such as TV sitcoms, magazine articles, by medical "authorities" and by word of mouth. Now, thanks to the Internet, the opposition has a chance to be heard uninterrupted. This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.

There are some pictures of penises on this site, including erect ones and also a few babies' ones, where necessary for their purpose. They are preceded by warnings.

This site does not claim to offer medical advice, etc. etc

[ArtAllm]

This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.
...
This site does not claim to offer medical advice, etc. etc

What is wrong with this statement?

Are you afraid of the truth?

Well, I think that the MGM-Supporters are afraid of the truth, that is why they are referring to "studies" done in backward countries where you can easily buy the results that you need.



But is it not idiotic to sell these results in civilized countries?

BOSTON - July 21, 2012 - Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center and author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, is concerned about the International AIDS Conference in Washington, DC starting July 22. He says it offers a one-sided view by promoting male circumcision to reduce HIV transmission in Africa. "There is nothing scientific about a process that excludes opposing views.

Circumcision advocates are afraid to debate circumcision critics," states Goldman. "This shows up at professional conferences where critics are not provided equal opportunity to participate. The fear of open discussion was also apparent when two circumcision advocates refused to debate me on two different radio talk shows." He also notes that circumcision advocates tend to be circumcised and have personal, political, and financial conflicts of interest connected with circumcision.

There is support for Goldman's critical view of circumcision. Many professionals have questioned the reliability and validity of studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. (See link below for references.) Such studies were not consistent with other evidence. For example, African national population surveys in eight countries found a higher rate of HIV infection among circumcised men compared to men who were not circumcised. There are at least 17 observational studies that have not found any benefit from male circumcision in reducing HIV transmission.

"The campaign to promote circumcision in Africa is a tragic waste of resources that could be used to make a real difference," he says.
...
Goldman explains that advocates ignore the significant harm of circumcision. "Most circumcised men, including doctors and researchers, do not know what they are missing. Studies show that circumcision removes up to one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin protects the head of the penis, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. Cutting it off removes several kinds of specialized nerves and results in thickening and progressive desensitization, particularly in older men."

A survey [2011] showed that circumcised men were 4.5 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug. He describes the psychological harm of circumcision in detail in his book.

http://www.circumcision.org/72112NewsRelease.htm

[wat0n]

What is wrong with this statement?

Are you afraid of the truth?

They have already admitted they don't aim to be balanced - and they aren't. For example, while they disregard several studies that suggest there are no negative effects associated with male circumcision as pointless because participation in these is studies was voluntary thus questioning whether the samples were representative of the population, they don't mention the same applies to the studies they consider as evidence that circumcision is harmful - the most obvious example is the study by Sorrelis et. al. (2007) measuring fine-touch thresholds in which participation was not only voluntary but also some of the participants were personally recruited by the researchers (which includes a doctor associated with an anti-circumcision NGO) and others were recruited as friends of other participants. Not exactly a representative sample either, huh?

Well, I think that the MGM-Supporters are afraid of the truth, that is why they are referring to "studies" done in backward countries where you can easily buy the results that you need.



But is it not idiotic to sell these results in civilized countries?

Do you have any evidence of this? Or this is just yet another conspiracy?

[ArtAllm]

Do you have any evidence of this? Or this is just yet another conspiracy?

Don't you see that repeating the word "conspiracy" in this context is just idiotic?

In any case, it is obvious that the MGM-Issue is controversial.

There is no evidence that it has any health benefits for males who are living in civilized countries, like Germany, and there is a lot of evidence that the MGM can ruin the sexual life of males.

So it is obvious that any person has the right to be informed about the possible consequences and decide for himself whom to believe: the hucksters who profit form MGM, or the independent and decent doctors who tell the truth.

Today the adults can force this MGM upon infants, and that is an obvious violation of the human rights of persons whose genitals are mutilated.

Everybody has the right to mutilate his own body or even kill himself, but nobody has the right to mutilate the body of other persons, even if these persons are his children. The circumcision-law, forced upon Germany by the Israel Lobby, violates the human rights of children, period!

Who does not accept these universal Human-Rights-Principles is either morally backward, or dimwitted or a hypocrite.

[wat0n]

Don't you see that repeating the word "conspiracy" in this context is just idiotic?

Claiming researchers are "buying" the results for their research is pretty conspirational.

In any case, it is obvious that the MGM-Issue is controversial.

So?

There is no evidence that it has any health benefits for males

Wrong, as posted many pages ago, there's good evidence suggesting it prevents the spread of HPV.

there is a lot of evidence that the MGM can ruin the sexual life of males.

Correlational studies are quite mixed and there's some evidence coming from randomized controlled trials this isn't the case, evidence you haven't been able to properly address beyond silly and baseless conspiracy theories.

So it is obvious that any person has the right to be informed about the possible consequences and decide for himself whom to believe: the hucksters who profit form MGM, or the independent and decent doctors who tell the truth.

Please present evidence that each and every author from the studies which have been unable to find any important negative effects of male circumcision are profiting from it.

Today the adults can force this MGM upon infants, and that is an obvious violation of the human rights of persons whose genitals are mutilated.

Except for the fact that scientific evidence doesn't allow you to conclude male circumcision is mutilation. In fact, you deliberately lied about what German medical associations have to say on the matter.

Everybody has the right to mutilate his own body or even kill himself, but nobody has the right to mutilate the body of other persons, even if these persons are his children. The circumcision-law, forced upon Germany by the Israel Lobby, violates the human rights of children, period!

Who does not accept these universal Human-Rights-Principles is either morally backward, or dimwitted or a hypocrite.

...Yet no Western country bans circumcision (now including Germany) and you have been unable to prove your conspiracy theories. Therefore it's safe to say you are wrong !

[Rei Murasame]

I can't believe that this debate has been going for 37 pages. Obviously the Jews have a vested interest in denying everything, and another 100 pages is not going to suddenly end in them saying, "oh I guess you are right".

Practically all the European posters on PoFo now oppose circumcision, so as far as I'm concerned it was 'mission accomplished' ages ago.

[wat0n]

I can't believe that this debate has been going for 37 pages. Obviously the Jews have a vested interest in denying everything, and another 100 pages is not going to suddenly end in them saying, "oh I guess you are right".

Denying what exactly?

Practically all the European posters on PoFo now oppose circumcision, so as far as I'm concerned it was 'mission accomplished' ages ago.

Really?

[ArtAllm]

ArtAllm wrote:
So it is obvious that any person has the right to be informed about the possible consequences and decide for himself whom to believe: the hucksters who profit form MGM, or the independent and decent doctors who tell the truth.

----

Please present evidence that each and every author from the studies which have been unable to find any important negative effects of male circumcision are profiting from it.

There is no need for that, I do not have to convince you.

As already told, the person whose genitalia are mutilated must be informed about the possible negative effects and must decide for himself what researchers to believe.
That is his human right!

Obviously the Jews have a vested interest in denying everything, and another 100 pages is not going to suddenly end in them saying, "oh I guess you are right".

Practically all the European posters on PoFo now oppose circumcision, so as far as I'm concerned it was 'mission accomplished' ages ago.

Well, I do not oppose the circumcision done to adults, everybody has the right to mutilate his own body, no problem with that.
We are talking about the forced circumcision done to infants who are not informed about the possible consequences!

That is an obvious violation of the human rights of children!

Even if we accept that pro-circumcision results are as valid as anti-circumcision results, the human rights of children are still violated, because the victims were unable to decide whom to believe.

In any other case this "controversial operation" would be prohibited, but here we can see the power of the Israel Lobby.

I think that all Jews can understand this simple moral principle but they pretend to be stupid and just repeat their usual hasbara about the "human rights" of adults (called "religious freedom") to violate the human rights of children.

The crucial point is that the infants do not have any religion, they are neither Jews, nor Muslims, nor Christians.
An infants is a tabula rasa, and in Judaism the adults push their religion down the throat of their children via the MGM that is irreversible.

[wat0n]

So you don't have any evidence for that claim, as expected. Are you going to admit it already?

[ArtAllm]

So you don't have any evidence for that claim, as expected. Are you going to admit it already?

If is obvious that you are trolling.

As I have already pointed out, I do not have to convince you, you are already circumcised, your condition is irreversible, and it does not matter what you believe in.

Let's look what experts in Human Rights and Ethics believe:

Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".[23]
...
Hellsten (2004), [...] describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations", and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children’s rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that, to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection."[22]


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians comments that "The difficulty with a procedure which is not medically indicated is whether it may still be in the child’s “best interests” (that is, in the case of circumcision, decreasing the risk of UTI [urinary tract infection] and penile cancer, and ensuring acceptance within a religio-cultural group) on the one hand or whether it may constitute an assault upon the child and be a violation of human rights on the other. Arguments to justify the "best interests" case are based upon data to suggest a decreased risk of medical conditions later in life, none of which, with the possible exception of UTIs in boys, requires a decision in the neonatal period, and this could be seen to be an argument [b]to defer a decision until the individual can express his own preferences. [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_circumcision

Well, that is a reasonable conclusion.

There is no reason to perform the neonatal circumcision in civilized countries. The possible benefits, like UTIs in boys, are only relevant for backward countries with dismal hygienic conditions. The same with transmission of venereal diseases. It is not normal for a civilized country that males behave irresponsible in sexual relations. It is always possible to use condoms that are a more efficient protection.

Besides that circumcision increases the transmission of diseases from males to females.

It is obvious that the decision about the circumcision can be postponed till the individual can get all available information about the consequences of MGM an take his own decision.

[wat0n]

If is obvious that you are trolling.

As I have already pointed out, I do not have to convince you, you are already circumcised, your condition is irreversible, and it does not matter what you believe in.

Irrelevant, my circumcision status has nothing to do with this alleged bias by researchers due to the said researchers earning income because of male circumcisions. A claim I'm still waiting to be proven by the way.

Let's look what experts in Human Rights and Ethics believe:

You can also find other experts who disagree with this assessment. Example: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/241.2.full

Well, that is a reasonable conclusion.

There is no reason to perform the neonatal circumcision in civilized countries. The possible benefits, like UTIs in boys, are only relevant for backward countries with dismal hygienic conditions. The same with transmission of venereal diseases. It is not normal for a civilized country that males behave irresponsible in sexual relations. It is always possible to use condoms that are a more efficient protection.

Too bad many people in these civilized countries just don't do that, do you realize there is a problem with unwanted teenage pregnancy in the developed world right? Anyway, I don't believe this warrants making circumcision a routine procedure, and I haven't really argued for that.

Besides that circumcision increases the transmission of diseases from males to females.

Depends on the desease. It seems to be the case for HIV, not for cancer-inducing HPV.

It is obvious that the decision about the circumcision can be postponed till the individual can get all available information about the consequences of MGM an take his own decision.

Still labeling circumcision as mutilation? Since you refuse provide evidence for your claim as asked in my post above, I assume you don't have any interest to engage in a honest discussion - well this is obvious since you were caught lying anyway. As such, I won't bother to address the same arguments again, given your inability to address mine.

[ArtAllm]

Irrelevant, my circumcision status has nothing to do with this alleged bias by researchers due to the said researchers earning income because of male circumcisions. A claim I'm still waiting to be proven by the way.

Well, it is obvious that if somebody has mutilated genitalia then his attitude to GM is biased.

The same with female GM, this kind o mutilation is performed by women who have mutilated genitalia, and these women believe that this kind of "operation" was good for them and is good for the girls they are mutilating.

There is really no significant difference concerning the damage done to children via MGM and FGM.

FGM is even less dangerous if performed by a doctor, because a woman does not have to get an erection to get pregnant and her genitalia is invisible, so there are even less reasons to call the FGM a mutilating injury.

Too bad many people in these civilized countries just don't do that, do you realize there is a problem with unwanted teenage pregnancy in the developed world right?

Well, FGM is also done to prevent undesired pregnancy or the transmission of diseases, so why do Jews on the one hand demonize FGM and on the other hand make to appear harmless the MGM in their media?

The answer is obvious: Jews do not practice FGM, but they do practice MGM.

Anyway, I don't believe this warrants making circumcision a routine procedure, and I haven't really argued for that.

Well, circumcision IS a routine religious procedure done to infants or children, be it FGM or MGM, and that must change, because it violates the human rights of children.

Still labeling circumcision as mutilation? Since you refuse provide evidence for your claim as asked in my post above, I assume you don't have any interest to engage in a honest discussion - well this is obvious since you were caught lying anyway. As such, I won't bother to address the same arguments again, given your inability to address mine.

Well, as long as the circumcision of girls is called FGM in Jewish media (though there are less reasons to call the circumcision of girls "mutilation", because there are no visible parts of a female body removed and the operation, done by a doctor in the hospital, does not endanger the reproductive abilities of females), there is no reason to use euphemisms for MGM.

Can you provide evidence that FGM is really more mutilating than MGM, and more dangerous, if done by doctors in hospitals?

Why do you think that euphemisms must be used to describe a barbaric and outdated Jewish tradition, but the feelings of people that perform the FGM can be insulted by blatantly calling this ancient religious tradition Female Genital Mutilation?

Well, I do not believe that Jews must be treated differently, even if they believe that they are "chosen".

I am against supremacism and I am for equal rights for all humans.

[wat0n]

Female circumcision removes the woman's clitoris, which is generally regarded by medical literature as having an essential role in allowing women to enjoy sex and is the main reason of why it's considered mutilation in the West. This is certainly not the case regarding male circumcision and I find it pathetic you are trying to draw a comparison between both as a way to ignore my arguments and continue pushing for the ridiculous conspiracy theories (like references to "Jewish media").

Since you did this, I assume you cannot provide evidence that researchers who don't find that male circumcision has any important negative effects have an economic interest in it. Once you finally do this or admit you don't have any evidence for disregarding scientific research you don't like, tell us so we can continue this debate as I see no point on debating with someone who is against science, has been caught deliberately lying and has an ideological stake against circumcision supported by a racist ideology (instead of concerns regarding bodily integrity) as has been discussed earlier in the thread.

[ArtAllm]

Female circumcision removes the woman's clitoris, which is generally regarded by medical literature as having an essential role in allowing women to enjoy sex and is the main reason of why it's considered mutilation in the West.

Not in all FMG the clitoris is removed, but all kinds FMG are considered to be mutilations.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[1]
...
The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

As we see, in the type III the clitoris is not always removed, but this type of "Operation" is still called mutilation, though the removal of the labia is not a visible mutilation like the removal of the foreskin that plays an essential role in allowing men to enjoy sex.

This is certainly not the case regarding male circumcision ...

As already told, MGM is even more dangerous because a female doesn't need an erection to have sexual intercourse and can be a happy mother and wife after the FGM.

If a female never experienced and orgasm she will not miss it.
That is like the circumcised men, they do not know what they miss.

But circumcision of males not only reduces the sexual pleasure, it also causes erectile dysfunction, and without a normal erection a male cannot have a normal sexual life (with a normal non- circumcised women), and this leads to family dramas, the family life of the couple is ruined.

Acquisition of Erectile Dysfunction from Circumcision

Researchers surveyed 300 men and found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys.

One reason: Circumcised penises can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to non-snipped members, according to a study published in the British Journal of Urology International.

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/13 ... rcumcision

Since you did this, I assume you cannot provide evidence that researchers who don't find that male circumcision has any important negative effects have an economic interest in it.

Well, that was already done.

Besides that there is a lot of "research", done by the supporters of FMG, and the results of such studies "prove" that FMG is a good and useful thing.

''[It] would remove no tissue, would not touch any significant organ but, rather [it] would be a small nick of the clitoral hood which is the equivalent of the male foreskin - nothing that would scar, nothing that would do damage,'' Dr Diekema said.
...
He said some Western physicians working in Africa believed a ritualistic ''nick'' had been used to satisfy parents wanting the procedure for their daughters. He said the academy meant to speak ''to all paediatricians, including those in countries where this hadn't been precluded by a law''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-an ... z2AuMSiPaU

As we see, even a "nick" of the clitoral hood is enough, and it is still called FGM.

And here is a confirmation that FGC are good for the health:

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

http://mondofown.blogspot.de/2012/06/fe ... efits.html

Ergo:

Female circumcision is a more effective way to prevent HIV transmission, and this kind of circumcisions is less harmful.
Females do not have ED due to circumcision, because they do not have erections. If a female had never experienced a clitoral orgasm she will never miss it, but this will not prevent her from being a happy mother and a happy wife.

Now, a new series of essays lays out the evidence that vaginal and clitoral orgasms are, in fact, separate phenomena, activating different areas of the brain and perhaps revealing key psychological differences between women.

"We have plenty of evidence regarding the difference between the two main orgasms, clitoral and vaginally activated orgasm," said Emmanuele Jannini, a professor of endocrinology at the University of Aquila in Italy.

http://www.livescience.com/19579-vagina ... ebate.html

As we see, many women have vaginal orgasm, they do not need their clitoris at all.

So why not legalize the FMG ?

[wat0n]

Not in all FMG the clitoris is removed, but all kinds FMG are considered to be mutilations.

As we see, in the type III the clitoris is not always removed, but this type of "Operation" is still called mutilation, though the removal of the labia is not a visible mutilation like the removal of the foreskin that plays an essential role in allowing men to enjoy sex.

Yes, yes we know that - I posted it earlier. The other types are however (much) riskier for the women's health, all in all completely removing the clitoris is actually the safest kind of female circumcision.

As already told, MGM is even more dangerous because a female doesn't need an erection to have sexual intercourse and can be a happy mother and wife after the FGM.

Wait, are you implying male circumcision bars you from having kids or having an erection? I guess that's why some Muslims and Haredi Jews have so many kids

If a female never experienced and orgasm she will not miss it.
That is like the circumcised men, they do not know what they miss.

But circumcision of males not only reduces the sexual pleasure, it also causes erectile dysfunction, and without a normal erection a male cannot have a normal sexual life (with a normal non- circumcised women), and this leads to family dramas, the family life of the couple is ruined.

What are you talking about? Scientific research doesn't really allow you to conclude male circumcision has negative impacts on sexual pleasure, as shown by the RCTs I have cited. Ditto for ED, correlational evidence is mixed - as shown by other studies I cited - and the RCTs don't really report this.

Well, that was already done.

Where at? I'm still waiting.

Besides that there is a lot of "research", done by the supporters of FMG, and the results of such studies "prove" that FMG is a good and useful thing.

Such as?

As we see, even a "nick" of the clitoral hood is enough, and it is still called FGM.

Not according to the very Wikipedia article you posted. The reason of why some groups rallied against this has to do with the symbolism and is unsupported by medical research.

And here is a confirmation that FGC are good for the health:

Ergo:

Female circumcision is a more effective way to prevent HIV transmission, and this kind of circumcisions is less harmful because it females do not have ED due to circumcision, because they do not have erections.

Looks like the correlational evidence of male circumcision's effects on HIV infection - the one the anti-circumcision groups rightly say is mixed and that doesn't support the idea that male circumcision prevents HIV transmission. The one you and others in this thread choose to disregard, along with much stronger evidence such as the randomized controlled trials

Of course, if female circumcision was shown to have no effect on women's ability to get pleasure from sex and to be a safe procedure, I don't see any real reason for banning it , but that's not what most available scientific evidence suggests.

Now, since this has been cleared already I'm still waiting for your evidence regarding researchers' bias on male circumcision. This is the last chance, if you don't post it I assume you don't really have any - after all, so far you have just done a pathetic red herring by getting female circumcision into this topic as if male and female sexual organs were the same and both procedures were comparable.

[ArtAllm]

Now, since this has been cleared already I'm still waiting for your evidence regarding researchers' bias on male circumcision.

In this cases we use to say in Germany:
Wer lesen kann, ist klar im Vorteil!


[Read first, then ask!]

[wat0n]

Well, since you haven't shown it, I guess this debate is over too.

[QatzelOk]

Well, since you haven't shown it, I guess this debate is over too.

If you really need proof that cutting off part of the penis reduces sexual pleasure, perhaps you ought to get a lobotomy.

It's never been proven that they cause a reduction in IQ either.

And foot-binding has never been demonstrated to reduce mobility.