u/Far_Fly5100

Studies have found that flooding the neonatal brain with massive trauma creates detrimental physiological changes in brain structure. Boys who have been subjected to circumcision have a lower threshold for pain than intact boys or girls. One study, published in the British Journal of Medical Psychology, found that circumcision of children causes a remarkable decrease in IQ and has a detrimental effect on the child's functioning and adaptation, particularly on his ego strength, resulting in behavioral and personality disorders.

Full Post Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/1ukvntz/sexual_mutilations/

There is a subreddit where they debunk intactivism, well, opposition is welcomed, nature and the science is in our favour, we will not be defeated.

The Subreddit is: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebunkingIntactivism/

But when I went for actually replying it shows "This is a restricted community. Only approved members can contribute.", If you wanna play opposition, play it fairly, Play it honestly, play it based on proofs, not based on superstition and false beliefs. These people are idiots and they lack common sense smh.

The Pinned Post says:

"Friendly reminder that the only word for "not circumcised" is "uncircumcised", and the only people who try to substitute incorrectly with the word "intact" are either insecure about being uncircumcised, or are uneducated"

As far as I have seen the intactivists, many of them are very highly affiliated to credible sources, you can barely find false claims, most are true, but these Anti-Intactivists, Modified Dih Promoters, they themselves throw fake claims or outdated studies.

One Guy even replied "According to normal English, a man who has had his tonsils removed is NOT intact as he has lost something. According to the intactivists, a man who has lost his tonsils, but still has a foreskin is intact. They just don't understand English!" , But the guy who removed tonsil did it because it was hurting it, not helping it. Foreskin helps a man fr. It is not the enemy.

And Intactivism focuses on this point because 1.4 billion are cut around the world. Tonsil removal, etc are also not being intact, but here, specifically, raising voice against cutting, we name ourselves Intactivists.

If name is such an issue, then lets call ourselves 'Foreskin Police'.

But these ignorant idiots will keep mutilating children because a natural organ, a part of a person's sexuality was labelled as 'dirty'.

What do you say?

A person did research about Foreskin in a very detailed manner about the immunological responses and they found out that Foreskin has a lot of good bacteria and antibodies such as Corynebacterium which maintains a symbiotic relationship with immune system for fighting STDs and UTIs.

"The foreskin itself is a mucosal membrane that protects the glans, and covers the opening of the urinary tract which furthermore protect against pathogens."

"Another important factor in immune response is antibodies, the foreskin was found to contain both IGG and IGA antibodies which can help neutralize pathogens."

"The mucosal and epithelial integrity of the foreskin make for conditions that don’t allow for pathogenic anaerobic bacteria to multiply within the foreskin, meaning that contrary to popular belief, harmful anaerobic bacteria don’t multiply uncontrollably and cause infections."

"When circumcision occurs, it removes the epithelial integrity around the urethra, which makes the individual more prone to urinary tract infections."

"So based on this information and as seen in appendix A, both the inner and outer foreskin had the presence of all three indicating that the foreskin indeed produces antibodies as a specialized tissue. Within the foreskin, the inner foreskin had more antibody producing cells and cell nuclei in general."

"The presence of the IgG antibodies were seen in both. This would lead to the conclusion that the inner foreskin is the primary part of the foreskin that has the antibody producing cells, this is in line with how mucosal tissues are seen to have moreantibody producing cells compared to non mucosal tissues."

"Another aspect that speaks to the importance of the foreskin is the presence of Interleukin-15."

"The importance of Interleukin-15 from an immunology perspective is its signaling effect within the immune system. When it was administered to mice 3 weeks after infection from m. tuberculosis, it was found to promote their survival, suggesting that it has immunological effects against bacteria."

"The methods of how Interleukin-15 promoted their survival were its abilities to activate and expand killer NK cells, NKT cells, CD8+ effector memory and central memory T lymphocytes. Which can make Interleukin-15 very beneficial for immunity, good for vaccine strategies against infectious pathogens and good immunotherapeutic agent."

"For viral infections like HIV-1, Interleukin-15 was found to restore the ability of NK cells that were weakened by HIV-1. With that being said however, Interleukin-15 has also been implicated with several autoimmune conditions and chronic inflammatory diseases"

"In summary, Interleukin-15 is beneficial for immunity against both bacterial and viral infections. Interleukin-15 within the foreskin doesn’t over react causing an immune response to non pathogenic bacteria and the non pathogenic bacteria found in the foreskin modulate it so it’s not in excess."

"Over this time period it was found that circumcised males had a 53% higher risk of developing any given STI. Circumcised males had higher rates of gonorrhea, angiogenital warts and a 3 fold higher risk of syphilis when compared to intact males as seen in Appendix C"

"The study also goes on to establish how circumcision fails to provide any clinical benefit in the prevention of HIV. The studies done in Uganda which showed that circumcision prevented HIV was flawed as it failed to take into account the use of antiretrovirals like Truvada for HIV prevention

which is arguably the most important variable as it is the most effective way to prevent HIV. Additionally the study failed to examine the demographic and behavioural differences of the group which leaves room for confounding variables."

" (Frisch & Simonsen, 2022) Infant circumcision also places the infant at risk of MRSA. The new strands of MRSA have been found to carry toxin producing genes that cause hemolysis and tissue necrosis. MRSA is typically found in hospital based settings and is reaching epidemic levels within the United States. "

"This is relevant because following infant circumcision, the infant is left with an open wound where MRSA can enter and infect. In fact, a circumcised boy is at a twelve fold risk of an S. Aureus infection when compared with an intact one"

"During birth, the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, during circumcision a blunt probe is used to tear it off then a device is used to crush the foreskin to maintain homeostasis when the physician later uses a scalpel and cuts it off.

During this procedure the infant's heart rate and blood pressure increased along with cortisol levels by 3 to 4 fold baseline levels, and it stayed elevated for days following the circumcision as well."

"Studies also report that parent-infant bonding, sleeping patterns, breast feeding and mood are all impacted in a negative way. Circumcised infants showed higher pain responses to vaccination even 6 months post circumcision.

A later follow up study showed that circumcised infants had more avoidance and anxiety when compared to intact males in adulthood, as seen in Appendix L (Miani et al., 2020)"

"Lastly, a study conducted on 342,877 boys between 1994 and 2003, then followed for 9 years showed that infants who were circumcised had a 46% higher incidence of developing autism when compared with intact males with a confidence interval of 95%.

The possible links between autism and circumcision arise from early pain and stress to an increased incidence of neurodevelopmental, behavioral or psychological problems later in life. (Frisch & Simonsen, 2015)"

The whole study is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403975444_Immunological_and_Microbial_Functions_of_the_foreskin_in_sexually_transmitted_infections

It is a compilation of all the different studies and it shows a clear line why Foreskin is very much important. And we can cite this study for it. Credit to u/Remarkable-Fox-6470 for this Research!

Source: https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with' (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really get into it.'

When the women were divided into those older or younger than 40 years, the older women were more likely to rate their frequency of orgasm as higher with an unaltered partner (Z=2.04, P=0.02). Women 29 years or younger were more likely to prefer orally induced orgasms (2.61, 1.14-5.97), while women over 40 years preferred vaginally induced orgasms more than those aged <29 years (3.00, 1.16-7.32). The older women also had more lifetime unaltered partners (Z=2.95, P=0.002). This may have reflected the decreased availability of unaltered men of similar age for the younger women.

When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).

Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with' (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really getinto it.'

When the women were divided into those older or younger than 40 years, the older women were more likely to rate their frequency of orgasm as higher with an unaltered partner (Z=2.04, P=0.02). Women 29 years or younger were more likely to prefer orally induced orgasms (2.61, 1.14-5.97), while women over 40 years preferred vaginally induced orgasms more than those aged <29 years (3.00, 1.16-7.32). The older women also had more lifetime unaltered partners (Z=2.95, P=0.002). This may have reflected the decreased availability of unaltered men of similar agefor the younger women.

When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).

These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed agaist the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis^(1) to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans^(18). This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey^(19) and in the human clitoris^(18).

As stated, circumcision removes 33-50% of the penile skin. With this skin missing, there is less tissue for the swollen corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum to slide against. Instead the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve pulls the vaginal secretions from the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine touch^(20). To compensate for the imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa, and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubisand clitoris.

Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.

The responses in Sets 1, 2 and 3 (Table 3) are more a measure of intimacy than physical differences in thrusting patterns. While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin^(21). Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.

When this information is compared with that collected by Laumann et al.^(22) in the same period the women in the present survey had more lifetime partners (a median of 2 and 10 respectively). When the women with one partner in the former study were excluded (because having sexual experience with both a circumcised partner and an unaltered partner necessitates at least two partners), the women in the present survey were more likely to have had >4 partners (7.26, 4.46-11.83), >10 partners (5.83, 4.02-8.48), and >20 partners (4.16, 2.48-6.98). The high incidence of lifetime partners is a consequence of the inclusion criteria for the present study. If a woman were to randomly find partners among American sexually active males, 70-90% of whom are circumcised, 3-7 partners would be needed for a woman to have an even chance of having had both a circumcised and unaltered male partner. However, women do not procure their sexual partners randomly. Most sexual partners are found within a fairly close social network^(22). Likewise, circumcision does not occur randomly; within some of these networks, circumcision rates can approach 100%. For a woman to have a sexual partner with an anatomically complete penis involves having partners outside her immediate social network, which is uncommon. For these reasons, a median number of partners of 10 is not unexpected.

While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences. This selection bias may be compensated to the degree that each respondent acted as her own control, using her subjective criteria on both types of penises. The findings cannot be completely attributed to selection bias.

In asking women to evaluate their experience based on all of their lifetime sexual partners, there may be an element of recall bias, but the circumcision status of the most current sexual partner did not alter the findings. Because the surveys were not completed 'face-to-face', not all questions were completed by all respondents. There were also several other questions that were misunderstood by the respondents, but these were only a very small proportion of the respondents. Women who preferred vaginal orgasms had a strong preference for unaltered partners. Women who preferred circumcised partners were half as likely to prefer vaginal orgasms, but there were too few women preferring circumcised partners to make any valid statistical claims. This would suggest that the foreskin makes the most positive impact during vaginal intercourse.

Another weakness of the survey is its preoccupation with vaginal intercourse. Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men^(5) suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying^(20).

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision.

Usually, we are not supposed to argue with AI, because they hold the same facts from the internet, and barely change themselves, but I think this conversation did put up some thought provoking things which I would like to share:

1. Some Fake Facts - Some things that I found very much alarming that the prevalence of fake facts and trying to debunk the real facts is such a normal thing for the AI about Circumcision, the AI at first says "There is no difference in sexual pleasure" , but then I debunk it, and it says "Some people experience difference in sexual pleasure". Most cultures around the world do MGM before the child's first org@sm ( after puberty ) , they never feel what real pleasure is, those who are cut after their first org@sm usually do say they feel reduced pleasure, and many do feel more pleasure by restoring foreskin someday. Now Placebo can work up, but once again, assuming there is no reduction in pleasure ( atleast in the first moment of the chat ) is a wrong idea.
2. The FGM Comparison trigger : Supposedly the AI was openly telling the benefits of MGM and then it should be done on males to prevent those diseases , I then asked AI that 'What if for disease prevention or for health benefits on females, we remove those specific parts from female genitals which can harbour them, it would be good overall isn't it ?" , once again, I'm not supporting FGM, but if some Female Circumcision ( or a certain form of it ) had health benefits, will it be practiced? To this the AI obviously said " It will be FGM which is illegal in most parts of the world " , we all know Male Genitals and Female Genitals evolve from the same "base" form ( dont know the actual terms ) and hence they are very similar. The clitoral hood's inner skin is similar to foreskin's inner skin and has very high amount of cells which promote immunological growth and also catches diseases ( such as UTIs ) as they are resource rich and moist, and also the initial part of the vaginal tissue also is prone to STDs, so logically removing them is a health benefit, it prevents logically headaches of these infections such as UTIs which are much more prone in women. But even for health benefits, the world has a different views, they view this practice as cruel as its done without consent to women, and hence feminists movements strongly demand against it , and since feminism is well heard, the practice of these type of FGMs are under heavy scrutiny, and I honestly praise this move, cause gives us an idea/a plan, MGM is an issue for male rights, where a male child doesn't have bodily autonomy to permanent changes of its body because we label them legal due to those some "health benefits" (which are actually not true in some senses tho obv), but the pressure should be the PAIN, the DISCOMFORT, the COMPLICATIONS, the CONTROL over ONE'S BODY PART BEING TAKEN AWAY, CURBING MALE SEXUALITY, POTENTIAL DEATH DUE TO A SPECIFIC CONDITION OF BODY ON TOP OF CIRCUMCISION ( UPTO 2 DEATHS PER WEEK in US ALONE, 112-140 per year ) and all these things even with the Anesthesia or so called 'MEDICAL PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES" don't make this procedure any good, it still remains a barbaric and painful way to torture childrens. One wise person once told me that Anything made by nature is normally in its best condition ( in your body ), any external hindrance can never make it better than its original state if not destroy it in most cases. Circumcision should not be a routine thing, it openly destroys a normal natural and healthy penis into a worsened one, with the risks and complications, even if there are benefits, we are not interested in it, let the child make a decision instead, and no child would prefer cutting it naturally unless they are brainwashed by society. Human evolution is there for a reason. And these points are very strong, they fall under Human Rights especially, and the right to Bodily Autonomy, the rest of the world lives care-free with an intact one, not regularly suffering with UTIs or HIVs or Penile Cancer which the Anti-Intactivists assume, the Benefits are just a cover, real reason is that they are stubborn and don't wanna change unless a large revolution, similar to anti-FGM one takes place.

Although this was at first an assumption, that what if the scenario is similar except a girl child is here instead of a boy, and the AI's reaction was a proof that system is definitely going wrong, although some sources ( not credible enough tho ) say that the Clitoral Hood can harbour infections and stuff. Source - www.reddit.com/r/Intactivisits/comments/1rqarxh/comment/o9qyqjd/ ( not a reliable source tho ) , but I think more reliable sources might be there on the internet, gotta find it ig.

3. The Analytical Breach : When I told the AI that there are studies that show no increase or decrease in HIV and STDs, infact Frisch et al. (2022) found higher STD rates for cut men, the AI said "Its because they assume that the circumcision provides protection and that's why they try to engage in more sexual activity and cause more STDs" , but isn't the purpose of the study ( i.e. trying to prove that HIV decreases on cutting ) not usually told to the people? even if its told, but it is in those cases where any such study has not been prominently done previously, in cases of circumcision, the studies have been done for a century rn, you usually don't tell the fact that " HIVs are reduced by cutting " or else it can become biased, people may do more actually, still, even if we dodge this point, another thing, that the WHO VMMC ( Voluntary Male Circumcision Program ) in Africa use the study of Africans where a reduction of 50-60% HIV, HPV and Syphillis was seen, but this is the analytical breach, it was a RELATIVE REDUCTION, that means, the difference of 50-60% can be small, like 10 men from cut and 25 men from uncut from a pool of 300 or 500 or 700 men potentially, or even more, the real datas are not shown tho ig. Plus there are factors such as reduced sensations and smoothness of glans which demotivates people to have sex also. So the thing is that they are using a form of data that is in itself is insufficient or showing it in a biased way, while calling other datas wrong. In other words, the AI is biased towards cutting favour, and yet, it doesn't justify or pass the point number 2, plus STDs can only take place if you can become hard and be able to do sex, which is not possible until you hit puberty.

In my opinion, If you want your penis cut as an adult, you can go ahead if you want, but imposing something on another person, who cannot speak, or who is not well informed, plus its a procedure painful and violent enough that its female counterpart was stopped even if some support for so called benefits seem to arise, people have already chosen their bodily autonomy over these so called benefits once. Intactivists will win, because naturally, any child/person who is not brainwashed by society, internet or bullies will choose not to cut their jewels, as they are their own and are very precious to them, and they do not want as well as justify any form of removal, especially these organs are used to born a new child into the world.

You can also think this way that an intact infant is taken to a country where Circumcision is very rare, he will grow up realizing he never needed a cut, and he will actually end up thinking a barbaric practice. Plus it also takes money

And overall due to this realization the world is transitioning to less being cut, which is a good sign. Many circumcising countries are now uncut, for some there are people such as Dr. Douglas who wrote a book against it and trying to stop it in UK. And countries like Australia and New Zealand, it naturally stopped after generations. Countries like America and South Korea where religiously/culturally/historically no cutting was done. Circumcision will also drop below 10%, slowly but someday for sure. Anything you wanna point out my fellow Intactivist friends ?

I have seen a lot of people around the internet who compare circumcision with different things, lets break them down why its wrong.

1. "Just we cut hair and nails, foreskin is the same" - I found one website which labelled circumcision similar to cutting hair and nails, and while cutting and maintaining hair and nails are a good things as they increase a hygiene of the person, the circumcision causes bleeding ( and potentially death ) and a lot of pain to a child, and most importantly maintaining hygiene of a penis is not that hard.
2. "Parents do a lot of things without child's consent such as vaccinating" - Activities such as vaccinating are a scientifically proven way to work, they create antibodies in the child's immune system to counter such diseases easily in future, circumcision however, has no benefits, the studies originating from US and pro-circ countries are all biased because these organisations want your money in reality, and they don't care about your health.

Only these two points rn came to my mind, you can add more in the comments, but what do you say ?