/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11288039
why is this website obsessed with circumcision

>>11288047
that isn't circumcision you simp, he's talking about the clamping of the umbilical cord after birth.

>>11288047
>thinks this is about circumcision
welcome to the thread, fellow clampee

>>11288039
lmao get a load of this clampedcel
23 years old here and still have my umbilical cord

>>11288062
I JUST WANT MY UMBILICAL CORD BACK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>11288039
look at this clamplet and laugh

clampeeeeed

>>11288047
Because /pol/tards think that the Jews are to blame for them being incels and that a tiny piece of skin makes any difference.

>>11288332
The question is, do Jews clamp themselves too?
If yes they're retarded, case closed.
If no, that's a very dangerous precedent for pogroms.

>>11288039
Unclamp. Clamping is part of a greater constellation. Reject the clamp.

>>11288039
>another IQ thread

>>11288525
Everything Jews do to their own bodies, they also do to others.

>>11288047
>what are human rights

>>11288645
Judaism is a cult of people mistreating each other but with perks.
Then they mistreat white people sans the perks. (Or really, all people.)

>>11288655
>>11288699
>NOOOOO NOT A TINY PIECE OF SKIN, YOU RUINED MY LIFE

>>11288701
ahh yes i suppose your in favour of female genital mutilation and child grooming as well. fucking retard.

>>11288730
I haven't even mentioned either of those, nice strawman tho.

>>11288742
>>11288701
But it really isnt a strawman, fundamentally you shouldn't be fucking with someones body permanently for a non essential potentially harmful procedure when they cannot give consent. Even if a foreskin is just a numb piece of skin that happens to have higher neuron density than most of the rest of the penis, why would you mess with it? Do you give children tattoos? Even if its just cosmetic with no risks why would you make s permanent cosmetic alteration to a child.

>>11288855
>But it really isnt a strawman
Yes it is because female genital mutilation is actually harmful while male circumcision does no harm.
>b-but muh sensitivity
Literal myth

>>11288055
keked and checked

>>11288864
shoo shoo kike

>>11289321
Not an argument, but then again it's not realistic to expect anything smart to come from /pol/cels.

>>11288864
>Literal myth
Foreskinned male here, it's not.

>>11288039
Might as well end it. But better tell me a board that is combination of /sci/, /x/, /his/, /an/, /g/.

>>11288055
Who would ever cut the left string? Blood would go everywhere.

>>11289344
That's why they put a clamp on it, then cut. They're doctors, they're not stupid ya know!

>>11288864
>female genital mutilation is actually harmful while male circumcision does no harm
It's the exact opposite.

>>11289398
I'm literally clamped, circumsized AND vaccinated and I'm fine lmao you fucking retards another FOTM meme I see huh huh

>>11289451
>Live in a society where everyone has their toes cut off at birth, and gets a standardized blow to the head with a hammer
Dude lmao I'm just fine! Everything is normal here.

breh

>>11289451
No wonder you're on 4chan

>>11289451
I bet you drink flouridated water too, simp

I ate my own cord , you weak clamptards !

>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST CLAMP UMBILICAL COOORDSSSSSS
>IT'S NOT NATURAL STOP IT STOP IT STOOOOOOOOOOPPPP!!!!!

>>11290209
Clamped.

>>11290221
>Clamped

>>11290226
Circumclampifluoraccimated.
Irricumclabrourinated,

>>11290240
>Circumclampifluoraccimated.
>Irricumclabrourinated,

>>11288039
Fuck off with this meme

>>11290245
Pmalc'd
Vegginated.

>>11290248
>t.

>>11288864
>Cutting off part of someone’s body isn’t harm

??

>>11288701
low iq V seething jew

>>11290250
>Pmalc'd
>Vegginated.

>>11290251
There is no way you can harm a man. Anything that happens to him, no matter the circumstance, is up to him to deal with. Suck it up, kiddo.

>>11290257
S-O-Y'D

>>11290259
(This is satire of the underlying mindset, by the way)

>>11288864
Kys JIDF

>>11289324

>>11288864
>Yes it is because female genital mutilation is actually harmful while male circumcision does no harm.
It does though. How retarded do you have to be to think mutilating a baby does nothing? It's not a myth. Circumcision literally exists as an anti-masturbation tradition. More than sensitivity, sexual mechanics get fucked up as the foreskin and dick are meant to move separately, gliding over to make a pleasurably motion without damaging yourself or requiring tools. It also makes your dick dry and scaly.

>>11290461
This is why men need to restore. You can't get the anatomy back, but you can recover the function.

is = ought

>>11290461
>Circumcision literally exists as an anti-masturbation tradition
No it doesn't, it was used by muslims and Jews to increase hygiene in their environment.
>b-but muh sexual pleasure
It doesn't reduce sensitivity. Once again, it's a myth made by /pol/tards.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/
>hurr I'm an incel, I have to rely on masturbation and can't enjoy the benefits of sex and a much lower chance of STDs due to circumcision!
Well, too bad.

>>11288047
Because we are overrun with teenage trannies and faggots.

>>11290746
I don't know how you can convince yourself that cutting off part of a body part, doesn't reduce the sensitivity of that part. Like cutting off your fingers doesn't reduce the sensitivity of your hand, or more accurately, burning off the finger tips.

So fucking stupid.

>>11290759
An easy solution to the problem would be not performing forced genital cutting anymore.

>>11288582
Is an unclamped world an achievable future or simply an ideal to strive for?

>>11290864

Fallingwater is still a stupid building design, anon.

>>11290880
Why's that?

>>11288864
Brainlet luddite

>>11290780
Whoa it's almost as if the glans is a completely different part of the penis than the foreskin with a different amount of nerve cells.

>>11291054
>amount
So fucking stupid.

>>11291105
Not as stupid as your non argument, but then again I wouldn't expect better from poltards.

>>11291108
Your argument doesn't even make sense, and you've assumed it's about sheer quantity (resolution). It's about quality, the type of nerve cell and its arrangement is specific to the foreskin.

>>11291112
It makes more sense than your retarded argument.
The glans is more sensitive than the foreskin and cutting off the foreskin doesn't magically make the glans less sensitive.
It's retarded to compare it to something like burning your fingertips where you're actually doing damage to the nerves of the same body part.

>>11291130
The glans is overall less sensitive, and it's a different kind of sensitive. The most sensitive part of the penis is the tip of the foreskin on the underside, where the frenulum meets the ridged band, The band follows as a second, then the rest of the foreskin.

The glans is very sensitive in the sense that it's easily overstimulated, or stimulated in a way that is unpleasant.

>>11290746
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/

Your evidence is a bunch of Kenyans who were circumcised as adults self reported that their sensitivity didn't decrease?

>>11290880
pleb

>>11291276
Racist piece of shit.

I was circumcised in my teens and I can definitely say that it does reduce the sensitivity of the glans. It doesn't affect it much although it is noticable. My frenulums sensitivity was unaltered.

>>11288039
I mean, what else would you do to cut the cord easily?....I don't understand this meme at all. Are you proposing the obgyn leave babies attached to the cord all day? While they are cleaning them up?

>>11291276
>hurr your studies don't count if they don't align with my poltard views

>>11291105
>>11291112
>>11291130
>>11291158
>no u

>>11294735
Clamped, vaccinated, circumcised.

>>11288332
The foreskin "has as many nerve endings as a clitoris". Stimulation and sexual-association are largely responsible for development and intelligence.

>>11296459
If you scrape your knee, do you stop being able to get a boner?
>tripfag logic

>>11288039
Welcome to the club.

is the turnover for /sci/ this high that people are giving the clampposter replies now

>>11288047
lurk moare newfag

>>11288332
kek, go on

>>11290240
based, but I don't get the second bit

>>11296497
>[Non-relevance irony].

>>11296535
They are the same. Both contain many nerves, yet neither affect sexual pleasure according to actual research rather than /pol/tardation. Just because there are nerves doesn't mean it has anything to do with erogeneity.

>>11288332

>>11296544
How strange that countless studies about adverse effects of circumcisions had no problem publishing even at the highest levels, such as JAMA. Hmmmmm, could it possibly be that that particular research is complete bullshit and not that it talks about adverse effects? Nah, can't be. /pol/, after all, is always right, unlike science.

>>11296537
There are whole sensations there that the brain has the option of correlating to others. .. That feeling when your lips are being vibrated and are tingling really lightly, orgasmically *on your face*, is what happens for a whole area on me that doesn't exist for many.

>>11296559
PS: "Staying awake" is a whole meta across the usual demographics, and sensation and stimulation are *very relevant* to performance and intellectuality.

>>11296559
Take your meds, schizo.

>>11296565
"Ha ha ha, >[not an argument]."

>>11296537
Scraping your knee is not a complete amputation of like 20 sq inches of skin and specialized sensory structures.

>>11296506
Lol, saved.

>>11296733
it 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.

>>11296754
>you might be extremely surprised to learn that there is no consistent evidence that the foreskin is in fact erogeneous.
Yes, I would considering I have one and have certainly put it through its paces.

>nerves != sensitivity
Amplification is not applicable if there's no signal to amplify. For a signal, a complexity and resolution of that signal, you need a suitable sensory apparatus.

>sensitivity != erogeneity
Pretty much the entire body is potentially erogenous. Which is why people become aroused by various modes of contact or even just visual input. But yes, degree of ultimate arousal is not linear to degree of sensory apparatus engaged, however the signal produced by some sensory apparatus will be stronger and more directly erogenous. The ridged band and frenulum is one such structures.

>Moreover, none of that truly matters in light of circumcised men liking sex no less than uncircumcised men,
How do you even meaningfully quantify that? Everyone, on the whole, "likes sex".

>1- American doctors being clinically retarded, they botch circumcision almost 100% of the time
Yes, given that there is no superfluous structure on the penis, they have a hard time removing anything right.

>2- Any surgery, even one as simple as circumcision, has risks of complication.
Loss of the foreskin is the primary complication at a whopping 100% of cases.

>3- Circumcision past infancy is increasingly hard and increasingly likely to lead to complications
Kind of, kind of not. There's no advantage.

>>11296773
>>>/pol/ with your anti->>>/sci/ garbage.

>>11296824
Circumcision is religion.

>>11296754
The only logical ~counter-assertion to "the foreskin is erogeneous" is "the individual is low on metabolites / neurochemicals", which is still *way more* than ~none. (You're arguing from ignorance. Even, more specifically, "full nutrition" is some 1% of diets, thus relegating scholarly results.)