Letters to the Editor
-
Conryfied
I stand corrected. I did not know the term cornified equated to keratinized, nor was I necessarily fully aware that the latter term was used in this case. So, oyu are right about that.
but no, I would not say there is a 'night and day' difference at all. In fact, to pull an old formula/chestnut out, the variation in penises (functioning, size, shape, etc.) is so great that, within the circumcised and uncircumcised populations variation outstrips the variation between the mean of the two populations.
Beyond that, I never said there was not a change... indeed there was, as we are discussing. It is just that, experientially, it is not to the fantastic, all-encompassing degree that you claim. The body has not been 'fundamentally changed,' and to do so is a case of excessive phallic identification.
There are any number of compliants circumcised men have made, including tears and cuts to the foreskin during sex... This sounds pretty awful to me. I don't advance this as substantive reasoning why people SHOULD be circumcised. I merely think you should afford the same level of civility towards those who practice circumcision, as once upon a time, when circumcising was especially fashionable, the cut in the majority in the locker room afforded the uncut.