>>11296733it pretty much literally is, unless you think the only kind of knee scrapes that exist are lightly hitting your knee against your desk.
But that's beyond the point. The point is that nerves != sensitivity != erogeneity and you might be extremely surprised to learn that there is no consistent evidence that the foreskin is in fact erogeneous. The mechanism by which removing skin affects erogeneity as a matter of certainty is through exposure of the glans at rest, which does seem to impact erogeneity of the glans, but measured impact according to research is barely noticeable. Moreover, if you were to use sensitivity as a proxy for erogeneity, you would be forced to conclude that circumcised penises are more easily aroused because the scar remains more sensitive after circumcision, to such a degree that it greatly outpaces the loss of sensitivity of the glans (in other words, once again, sensitivity != erogeneity).
Moreover, none of that truly matters in light of circumcised men liking sex no less than uncircumcised men, being no less fertile, and women enjoying either form equally according to the literature.
In conclusion, with regard to the debate of circumcision, the only valid argument that either side seems to have ever given (with non-contradictory evidence) are:
1- American doctors being clinically retarded, they botch circumcision almost 100% of the time (the frenulum is not supposed to be touched during circumcision, for example)
2- Any surgery, even one as simple as circumcision, has risks of complication. This risk might not be worth any purported benefits. This depends on the utility model.
3- Circumcision past infancy is increasingly hard and increasingly likely to lead to complications, thus if any circumcision is performed, the earlier it is, the safer and more advantageous it is.
