Post by @wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz

2026-04-14 20:48 UTC

Even the glans loses sensitivity. On an uncircumcised penis, that whole area is basically a mucus membrane. On a circumcised penis, it becomes dry an rougher, like the skin on your knuckle. It absolutely does reduce sensitivity. Also, > I would consider that as much loss of sensitivity as amputating a leg is loss of sensitivity. You wouldn't say doctors should amputate babies' legs to reduce risk of gangrene, would you? How is that even an argument? "Oh, those nerve endings don't matter cause it's just like losing a leg, nbd." What the fuck?

Replies (1)

@mr_satan@lemmy.zip 2026-04-15 06:01

> On a circumcised penis, it becomes dry an rougher, like the skin on your knuckle. It absolutely does reduce sensitivity. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I didn't notice loss in sensitivity since my circumcision. Healing was a bit of a pain, but other than that I experience just as much pleasure as before. > How is that even an argument? "Oh, those nerve endings don't matter cause it's just like losing a leg, nbd." What the fuck? The point is: it's a bit facetious to call nerve loss from removing a part of a body a loss of sensitivity. You got a piece of skin removed, of course it's not sensitive, **it's gone**. As for the skin under the foreskin, it didn't got removed, why would it lose nerve endings? From what I experienced, again anecdotal so not a study, I highly doubt loss of sensitivity argument. Just to be clear, **I don't think babies should get circumcised**, but I wouldn't use an argument I feel is weak to argue against it.

Open ##1479959