Looks like the UN is getting into the act.
Why do you keep attacking the British? Routine infant circumcision hasn’t been in vogue there since the second world war, there might be private doctors performing it now but its no where near the rate in the USA or South Korea.
Again what do the Brits have to do with this?
What don’t they have to do with it?!
It definitely changes the sensations and dynamics of sex, but its impossible to deny you are losing a lot of tissue with erogenous nerves in it.
BTW the penile meatus is the urethral opening or slit urine and semen exits the body, I’m guessing you mean glans?
Two things…what in the world does 19th century Britain have to do with a choice your parents freely made in (I’m assuming) 20th century America?
AND…
What the heck at these categories you are talking about? I have never heard anyone refer to their “categories” in the manner it seems you are using, so could you clarify what you actually mean?
If you are saying that you have been emotionally troubled for some time and have some displaced , free-floating anger towards something that happened to you as a child, that you can’t seem to deal with, so you have constructed a grand socio-cultural antipathy towards the British and have tried to link it to a minor surgical procedure you can’t even remember and doesn’t even bother you, then to tried to blame it all on a temporary confusion about which church your family didn’t go to…then I understand all this completely. You have issues, and instead of facing them, you blame everything on the circumcision. Including the current state of American politics. Got it.
If that’s the case, the OP should cut it out.
Because I have serious doubts as to whether you would take any points I made seriously, or with any objectivity. You’ve already assumed that I(and anyone else who is glad they were circumsized in infancy) am in denial. So why in the world should I think that you would believe anything I say?
I absolutely admit it - as an imperial power we were bad bastards, we did awful, awful things, caused untold suffering, and our actions in the past have either directly or indirectly led to terrible geopolitical situations today.
However, pinning your current obsession with circumcision on the British is… well, I have already been admonished in this forum for saying exactly what I think, so let’s just say it’s a trifle fucking extraordinary.
If in real life your conversational abilities, weird obsessions and bizarre paranoia are anything like those you display on this board, that is an opportunity I’ll regretfully decline.
the problem is that I’ve never seen anything more than bare assertion from people on how the loss of that specific tissue causes a difference in sensation because, well, obviously it does.
Well the foreskin obviously has nerves as anyone with one can tell you, there is no part of the human skin without nerves. How does this effect sexual sensation? Who knows really.
Total anecdote but I saw a post in one of these threads once where a guy said he got circed in adulthood and described that while the major sensations were still there a lot of fine detail was missing.
still worthless. the same person can experience markedly different levels of sensation from one time to the next. someone saying the “fine detail” was missing is about as useful as a couple of “audiophiles” talking about which brand of overpriced speaker wire preserves more “nuances.”
There is a useful summary of actual studies here:
Result: the best case appears to be that there is no difference. Of the various studies listed, which study different factors, my unscientific count found that some 22 found “no difference”, some 9 found that circumcision was “worse” in various ways, and some 6 found that circumcision was “better” in some ways.
Significantly, of the studies listed under “penile sensation”, 4 found no difference, 2 found circumcision worse, and 2 found circumcision better.
Well then set some standards for seriousness and objectivity. Forget what you take to be my assumptions for now. We’ll apply these standards to your reasons, and also the reasons for circumcision.
For example, say the results regarding penile sensation are inconclusive. Would you say this justifies surgery?
Given that the surgery’s purpose is neither to enhance or detract from penile sensation, I’d say inconclusive results regarding penile sensation have no effect on the justness of the surgery.
All those studies are for adult circumcision.
My take on reduced sensation caused by circumcision has always been that for people circumcised as infants, the outer membrane of the glans will become roughened and thicker due to constant contact abrasion within the underwear over the course of years/decades. I never considered any effect from losing the nerve endings that are in the foreskin. However this has only ever been an assumption - I’m prepared to be proven wrong.
Thats why I said it was a total anecdote 
The methodology of some of those is wonky as all shit, like measuring pin prick(heh) sensation of the glans in circumcised and intact men. What about sensation in the foreskin itself which circumcised men don’t even have:dubious:
Would the foreskin become rougher and thicker for the same reasons?
The foreskin is, IMO, distinctly less sensitive than the glans, and made of a different material. When rolled down it acts as a cover to protect the highly sensitive glans membrane against friction. That’s what it looks like it evolved to do, as well!
It is impossible for those circumcised as infants to do a “comparison”.
Those circumcised as adults can, in point of fact, experience ‘decades of abrasion’ as childhood only lasts up to 18 years (depending on how you count it) while adulthood lasts far longer. Unless there is some special quality to a young child’s penis that men lack, of course. In fact, you’d expect adults to remark on the process of ‘abrasion’ more than infants, rather than less.
However, as you can see, the studies as a whole range more widely.
The overall impression of the studies taken as a whole is pretty clear: generally, there is little or no actual difference in any measurable respect. It is, as many have suspected, pretty much a non-issue - at least insofar as reasonably objective scientific studies can determine. Assuming of course that the Wiki site is reasonably inclusive as to reporting studies, and is not deliberately cherry-picking those that found no difference.