In general, I'm surprised by the vitriol in these comments.
I think your claim proves too much:
If you pick a different religion (my siblings and their kids are religious - not Jewish), you could similarly say "even though they're happy being raised in their religion, they have no way to know whether they would prefer to have been raised agnostic/atheist" (or some other religion)
Of course that's true for many decisions parents make on behalf of their children.
I am curious if folks in this thread are similarly incensed by young children having their ears pierced? It's obviously different, but it still seems like a cultural decision.
To my knowledge (having only learned about it incidentally during the pregnancy/birthing process since it wasn't a relevant decision) it didn't seem like circumcision had strong medical recommendations for or against
You can stretch it to religion, if you consider being inculcated in a certain religion a 1-way door.
Circumcision removes nerve endings and results in an exposed glans, which thickens the skin and further dulls its nerve endings. This is a 1-way reduction in sexual capacity, which the child doesn't have any say in. Comparing it to ear piercing isn't the same, which, while cartilage doesn't heal easily, there's no sexual sensation interaction and leaving piercings empty tends to reverse them over time.
The linked study doesn’t measure sexual stimulation, only touch, pain, and heat. The study also found that the foreskin was more sensitive than any other area, which supports the prior commenter’s point.
As far as I can tell it addresses the mechanisms proposed by the parent comment.
If the claim is specifically about reduced stimulation during sex, that's a different claim. I'm simply saying the initial explanation seemed like bullshit
In general, if a claim is easy to verify, someone has verified it, but the US is also somewhat prudish so making the research more explicit might make it less likely that the research happens in the states. If there is an existing study that says this claim is correct, feel free to link it.
Respectfully, this is a case where a lack of "field experience" combines with asking AI about peepees, and it gets weird after that.
Like another commenter said, this is a small (62) group of men tested for stimuli that don't appear to resemble sex.
To be blunt, I think it is apparent to those with experience that uncircumcised penises are significantly more sensitive than circumcised ones. If you wanted to test this - get a big sample size and simulate the 3 common types of copulation in a standard way (lol).
I think your claim proves too much:
If you pick a different religion (my siblings and their kids are religious - not Jewish), you could similarly say "even though they're happy being raised in their religion, they have no way to know whether they would prefer to have been raised agnostic/atheist" (or some other religion)
Of course that's true for many decisions parents make on behalf of their children.
I am curious if folks in this thread are similarly incensed by young children having their ears pierced? It's obviously different, but it still seems like a cultural decision.
To my knowledge (having only learned about it incidentally during the pregnancy/birthing process since it wasn't a relevant decision) it didn't seem like circumcision had strong medical recommendations for or against