22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
using KimDS PangMG 2007
An intact [[penis]] enables many men to reach orgasm just by manipulation of the [[foreskin]]. During [[masturbation]], the man can choose whether he wants to stimulate the [[Glans penis|glans]] directly or indirectly through the movement of the [[foreskin]]. Since he has the full, naturally given potential of sensitivity at his disposal, he can use it to according to his own preferences. The circumcised man, however, does not have that freedom of choice. He has neither the opportunity to include the [[foreskin]] into the stimulation, nor can he utilize its nerves and touch receptors. He also only has access to 15-50% of the potential sensitivity of an intact man, depending on the amount and kind of tissue that was removed, and the degree of keratinization of the [[Glans penis|glans]]. In some cases, the limitation can be even more severe. On a heavily desensitized [[penis]], condoms can limit the sexual stimulation to the point where not enough arousal can be built up to reach an orgasm - which means that fulfilling safer sex is not possible.
In particular, the tight styles of circumcision bear the risk, that the loss of the friction-reducing gliding effect leads to unpleasant feelings or even pain for both partners during intercourse. The ability to masturbate without aid - for example, from lubricants - can be significantly reduced or even be lost in such a case. In a study<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Kim |first=Dai Sik |init=DS |author-link=Dai Sik Kim |last2=Myung-Geol |first2=Pang |init2=P |title=The effect of male circumcision on sexuality |journal=BJU international |date=March KimDS PangMG 2007 |volume=99 |issue=3 |pages=619-622 |url= |quote= |pubmedID=17155977 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x |accessdate=2019-10-11}}</ref>, 63% of the men interviewed reported problems with [[masturbation]] after being circumcised. If a boy or man is circumcised, without him making that decision for himself after thorough consideration and in full knowledge and understanding of all possible consequences, he is denied his constitutionally guaranteed freedom to experience his sexuality according to his own preferences. This is much like parental interference to promote a prohibition of [[masturbation]], or to inhibit a homosexual relationship - with the key difference that the parental intervention in form of a circumcision, unlike prohibitions during childhood, will have an irreversible, lifelong effect. Both do not comply with modern views of children's well-being and accepting the child as an autonomous individual, and are, therefore, not ethically justifiable.
The basic right to equal treatment of the sexes is also breached, since girls are legally protected from violations of their [[genital integrity]], while boys are not. This not only contradicts the constitution, but also is contrary to all efforts of equal treatment. Because in this case, decisions are made during childhood that will affect the entire later life, it equals the attempt to have certain educational grades open to one gender unconditionally, while giving parents the right to deny them to the other gender for life. That such an unequal treatment of genders is not justifiable, neither legally nor morally, is obvious.