Thank you Stephanie Welch, this information needs to be regularly circulated far and wide. Genital mutilation of children (male, female and intersex) is abhorrent to all rational human beings.
@@MT-yd3yc Neither fully male nor fully female, or partly male & partly female, & it occurs to varying degrees in about 1 in 1,000 births. Yes, it is that common.
I've heard american doctors refer to foreskin as "extra skin that needs to be cut off"! And this coming from Doctors??? Says a lot about the american medical school system!
I had a botched circumcision when I was 10 years old. I am 59 years old now. The doctor did a very aggressive circumcision on me taking more than half my penile skin. I’ve had many years of skin tears, bleeding, and scarring. Became a very emotionally insecure child with anxiety afterwards.
The foreskin is very similar in both tissue composition and purpose to the eyelids. After all, you don't "need" eyelids. You can live without them. How often do you blink anyways. And removing them will make you more vigilant and less prone to falling asleep during boring meetings etc. See, there's almost no downside. Think about it!
Thank you for this presentation. Asa mutilated man, I I’m frustrated and disgusted with society, culture, courts, and witch doctors, and how when I complain about how I’ve suffered my entire life, I am laughed at and ridiculed. THIS….MUST…..END
It says the foreskin comprises 33% to 50% of the penile skin, but in some cases it can be much more than 50%, as much as 75%, because some men have short shafts and long foreskins.
At 29:55 the pediatrician in the audience had a poor understanding of statistics and wanted to make the claim that any reduction in UTI during the newborn period should be pursued because it can have deadly consequences. If that physician had done a little bit more research she would realize that genital mutilation does not offer an protection against UTI. The studies compared full term boys who had undergone genital mutilation compared to premature intact boys. Of course the premature intact boys would be more prone to UTI, they are less developed and more fragile immune system. Mutilating their genital will not confer protection of UTI as evidenced by no other country doing this to infant boys and there is no pandemic of UTI's in infant boys in other countries. Furthermore girls are 10x more prone to UTI And we don't make heroic efforts to reduce their UTI's by cutting off parts of their labia.
I'm a regular donor to Foregen. It feels good to be supporting something that may help bring back what was taken. I just hope I live to see the day where human foreskin regeneration is finally here.
I think most people don't care about circumcision because they think it really is just a "tiny flap" of skin. Once they find out that it's literally half the skin on the penis they start to see.
@Hirame Sensei the primary (fore) skin is 1/2 the surface area 75% of the nerve endings including BOTH most sensitive parts the frenulum and the ridged band
Parents please remember, doctors are not space wizards who always succeed at their operations 100% of the time. Sometimes your kid will get the frankencock treatment.
It so depressing and infuriating to watch this especially for those who had their penises mutilated by this barbarous procedure at birth. I had no say in this outrage whatsoever. Whom can I sue over this? What is my recourse? Will it ever be possible to undue all the damage and regenerate the foreskin? So very depressing and at the same time infuriating. I have suffered a severe decline in sexual function because of this and which has gotten progressively worse over time. Now there is almost no erogenous sensitivity left. What a shame and yet this atrocious procedure continues in this country.
Unfortunately, you will never get justice, and likely will never see society acknowledge the gravity of this crime and your pain. That's just the reality. There are too many strong forces at work. The most likely best outcome is that the practice simply falls out of favor and is only practiced by fringe religious zealots. Your best bet is to restore your foreskin. www.reddit.com/r/foreskin_restoration/ No, it will never be exactly the same as the original one, and yes it takes a long time (~5 years), but it will be the best decision you ever make. It can restore up to 80% of the sensitivity, so, you say you have no sensitivity left? So imagine your current state is a 0 or a 1, and an intact you would have been a 10. Restoration may be able to get to an 8. Again, not perfect, but a lot better than what you have now right?
Conspiracy theories are the final bastion for those who will not acknowledge evident truths that they cannot accept. You sound like antivaxxer conspiracists.
I hope after parents watching this do I learn that it is not right sick of massages son as you can see some of the graphic images that were just posted let's fight this together and abolish circumcision around the world because is that child's right and you'll be saving a baby's life so they don't die from getting circumcised
Scam whether works or not the medical system started this now you want them to fix it it's like the mafia selling dope in harlem and opening a high end drug rehab in Tribeca scam either way.
Anatomy, Histology, & Physiology demonstrate prepuce foreskin is inundated with neurovascular tracts (courses of nerves & blood vessels) continuous with the rest of genitals & body. Prepuce foreskin has abundant (1) specialized sensory nerve endings from neurons that transmit tactile & other autonomic sensory information, & (2) blood vessels (arteries, capillaries, & veins) with nitric oxide producing endothelium glycocalyx. Prepuce foreskin’sPenis erection mechanisms, visual, genital tactile, facial & other bodily tactile, or any other stimulations are mediated by parasympathetic autonomic sensory neurotransmissions. Sensory neurotransmissions are not all consciously felt, perceived, or sensed, & those consciously perceived & sensed, may or may not be pleasurable. Prepuce foreskin sensors include proprioception, so males have corporal awareness of prepuce foreskin position. Genital tactile reflex erection mechanisms are mediated via sensory input by multiple types of specialized nerve endings, including Meisner’s & many or most penis sensory nerve endings are concentrated in prepuce foreskin. Similarly, the most concentrated area of sensory nerve endings in arms & hands is in skin of fingertips. Visual erotic stimulated erection mechanism is irrelevant to circumcision, & becomes less prominent as men age. Genital touch sensory reflex mechanisms become gradually & progressively more important for parasympathetic sexual function as men age. Because these sensory mechanisms are autonomic, they are not necessarily felt as pleasurable, or even noticed or perceived sensations. A significant portion of genital tactile sensory reflexive erection mechanisms is permanently cut off with circumcision. Because people don't necessarily consciously feel or perceive autonomic sensations, males may not detect or notice loss of such sensations even if their penis was circumcised in adulthood. Lack of conscious notice or perception does not diminish or negate significance of nerve ending sensory detection & neuro-transmission of autonomic sensory information. When prepuce foreskin is amputated, the nitric oxide production capacity of its blood vessels is permanently gone. Missing nitric oxide producing vasculature often gradually becomes significant as men age. Circumcision induced deficit of nitric oxide producing vasculature can become noticeable erectile dysfunction (ED), but not always, depending on the individual. In part, because the United States has of the greatest prevalences for circumcised penises of technologically advanced industrialized countries, United States is the greatest consumer of ED drugs (Viagra, Cialis) & devices (penis pumps), including all Europe, where circumcision is uncommon. Many or most males with intact (not circumcised) penises can attain erections & some can achieve orgasmic climax & ejaculation solely via prepuce foreskin stimulation alone. Abundant study reports & medical advice does not negate natural anatomy, histology & physiology. Any potential neurons & specialized nerve endings that contribute to parasympathetic mechanisms for reflexive erection capabilities, including mucosal mucosal interface with sex partners & associated parasympathetic autonomic sensors, are eliminated with circumcision. Removing these components of parasympathetic erection contributors is not usually significant in younger men. Aforementioned resulting deficits can become contributory factors for parasympathetic deficits as men age. Adequate sensory neurotransmission & nitric oxide is required for parasympathetic male sexual functioning. Males whose penis was circumcised as infants have no reference point required to make an experience based comparison about sensitivity, & those whose penis was circumcised as adults do not necessarily notice circumcision induced sensory deficits because such sensations are autonomic rather than consciously perceived. Orgasmic sexual climactic & ejaculatory responses are facilitated & mediated by sympathetic neurologic pathways, & not parasympathetic. Most "research" studies & medical advice address & report only sympathetic response mechanisms including sexual satisfaction & climactic orgasmic intensity. These reports are not reflective of parasympathetic autonomic sexual functioning.
The ribald ignorance on display in these “medical professionals” is appalling (time stamp 31:00+). And they admit to doing thousands of circumcisions while not having a clue as to whether harm would ensue. May all those horrific screams torment them as their confirmation bias wears out as they grow old. This barbarism needs to stop - by any means possible!
To the uninformed viewer, this presentation may seem scholarly and evidence-based, but most of her assertions are easily refutable. I'm agnostic on circumcision but the quality of scholarship in her sources is very low and rife with confirmation bias. For example, she bases her assertion that sex with a circumcised partner is less pleasurable for women entirely on a single survey conducted over many years wherein most participants were recruited via an intactivist website and presented with prejudicially worded questions. The wealth of evidence finds no discernible difference in female partner sexual satisfaction based on circumcision status. The "ridged band" of the foreskin is a poorly defined term coined by Dr. Taylor in1996 and hasn't been replicated by subsequent studies. Using Taylor's own definition, other studies have found that the "ridged band" is absent in about 1 third of uncircumcised males. Also, Meissner's corpuscles are not even implicated in sexual stimulation. The list of scientific errors goes on but her sophistication on this topic is very superficial and low and laughable by scholarly standards.
Frisch 2011 also found that women with circumcised partners are more likely to have difficulty achieving orgasm, painful intercourse, and a lack of lubrication. It's not just one source that gives this conclusion. The only study that says the ridged band doesn't exist is by Brian Morris who is a known circumfetishist and he has been trying as hard as possible to tilt the literature to reach the conclusion that circumcision is not harmful. And even if circumcision doesn't affect sexual pleasure it's a violation of bodily integrity to injure a person and remove a healthy body part from him when he didn't give consent. If you were circumcised without your consent it might be difficult for you to accept this information.
You spoke about a subject (male foreskins) which is rarely spoken about in great detail. As you mentioned correctly male foreskins are not taught in medical school, hence the ignorance of doctors and nurses about the subject. I myself have researched this subject for more than 30 years. You covered the entire spectrum of foreskins really well. Yet I have a problem with your presentation. YOU DON'T SPEAK VERY CLEARLY, YOU RUSH ACROSS VERY IMPORTANT POINTS , I SOMETIMES HAVE TO STRAIN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU FADE OUT ON YOUR SENTENCES SO YOU'RE NOT VERY AUDIBLE. This is a subject that I have researched as you have and I was very frustrated by your presentation. YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SPEAKER. You are involved in a very important subject important to many people especial expectant parents. SLOW DOWN AND SPEAK CLEARLY AND SLOWLY SO THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OTHERWISE I LOVED YOUR RESEARCH AND COMPASSION FOR THE INFANT VICTIMS OF CIRCUMCISION. GOOD LUCK AND KEEP FIGHTING.
Yes, the audio quality did leave much to be desired, but at least, she did broach the subject head-on, and she did it more thoroughly than is done in Medical and Nursing schools.
29:55 cringe at the pediatrician claiming that genital mutilation is worth it if it can reduce UTI's in the newborn period. Genital mutilation is not done in other countries and their infant boys are happy and healthy with no UTI's.
