>"Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no negative consequences, so if it helps, then it helps." It's really telling that studies in non-circ

>"Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no negative consequences, so if it helps, then it helps." It's really telling that studies in non-circumcising cultures show that the foreskin has a purpose and that removing it has an actual effect on the body. They do not recommend it as a routine practice, despite the claimed benefits. And, those benefits themselves are also questioned from an efficacy standpoint. But studies done in circumcising cultures confidently declare that such a densely innervated piece of tissue made to protect a mucous membrane does nothing of value, removing it has no negative consequences, and that its removal has no negative impact whatsoever on sexual function. These two schools of thought are mutually exclusive.