Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
-
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm
Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Been busy doing stuff
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
When I saw the German court decision a few days ago, I knew that our Spengler would comment, and I understood it would be a real challenge for him to avoid confirming Godwin's Law.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Reading the beginning of his piece, I was hopeful and prepared to congratulate our host...
...Alas, in sixth paragraph:
Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.
Godwin won.
Again.
- Endovelico
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
People who do funny things to their bodies under religious pretenses should be confined to some nut-house.
Whoever thinks that God prefers this...
circumcised penis
to this...
uncircumcised penis
is out of his/her mind...
Whoever thinks that God prefers this...
circumcised penis
to this...
uncircumcised penis
is out of his/her mind...
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
AmenAlexis wrote:.
.Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.
.
.. just jokin
look, folks
am 1000% sure German court will uphold the law
parents can not decide for a non medically necessary surgery on a child
what about if that child grows up and would object to being circumcisioned ? ? can not be reversed
fact is, DICKS not circumcisioned provide more pleasure in sex .. some man could object being circumcisioned when infant .. in fact some could sue their parents for deciding for them to be Jewish (or Muslim) by circumcision them
One more of David garbage
.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
____
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.Typhoon wrote:Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
____
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
Been busy doing stuff
-
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
You know Jews. They always love a sale. Who could pass up 20% off?One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Certainly did.Hoosiernorm wrote:Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.Typhoon wrote:Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
____
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
So I'll rephrase.
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.
What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
More like an opportunity for Israeli Jews to make some money off their German brothers. "Special circumcision&holiday package: get your son's foreskin cut off and see Israel. Now this is a true HOLIday!"Alexis wrote:Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.
Godwin won.
Again.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Perhaps while we're at it we should not have newborns cords cut. After all, it's not medically necessary and results in as much trauma as circumcision.
For the same reasons, no trimming their nails, hair, or bathing them anytime they protest!
For the same reasons, no trimming their nails, hair, or bathing them anytime they protest!
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
-
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
We would probably be singing a variant of the Colonel Bogey March at Easter Mass....Typhoon wrote:Certainly did.Hoosiernorm wrote:Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.Typhoon wrote:Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
____
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
So I'll rephrase.
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.
What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
Been busy doing stuff
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Milo wrote:We do any number of things to infants without their consent that they have to live with all their lives. However, this one always seems to get the bulk of the objections, despite that the most pessimistic evaluations of it consider it being neutral in terms of health benefits. Wonder why that is, not!AzariLoveIran wrote:Milo wrote:.
Perhaps while we're at it we should not have newborns cords cut. After all, it's not medically necessary and results in as much trauma as circumcision.
For the same reasons, no trimming their nails, hair, or bathing them anytime they protest !
.
what a rubbish Milo, what a rubbish
why you shoeshining Zionist ? ?
what is the difference between boys being circumcisioned and girls being circumcisioned ?
how come those Bedouins doing girl circumcisioned are called criminal, called sexual mutilation, and, not the boys circumcisioned ? ?
both same concept and same garbage
but
that beside the point
point is
a male must himself decide whether he wants to be circumcisioned .. or not
many Muslim and Jew adult maybe would like not to 2B circumcisioned .. fact is sex more enjoyable when not circumcisioned and many would like not have been circumcisioned
other tribal ceremonies included in many weird religions would want similar stuff with their new born .. what than ? ?
you Milo, when things for Jews, become dumb, but slightest thing about Islam, you fist in line beating the drum . . 2B effective, one must be fair and unbiased
.
What you call female circumcision is not circumcision.
It's becoming evedent that you are not a Muslim or have stopped being one.
Azari is Rumi-Muslim
and
nobody, including parents, is allowed to order medical surgery on new born or children, except when medical doctors decides it is necessary .. that valid for everybody, including Muslims, Jews, and and and
that is exactly what German courts said .. and Azari 2nds it
.
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8390
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
edit: nvm, I don't care enough about this issue to argue for or against it.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Is lowering the risk of diesease medically necessary?Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
This one is not definitely bad, and quite arguably beneficial, so it can be the choice of the parents.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Milo wrote:Is lowering the risk of diesease medically necessary?Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
This one is not definitely bad, and quite arguably beneficial, so it can be the choice of the parents.
it is now medically proven that Circumcision is not medically beneficial at all
.
-
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Zack Jews have a covenant to maintain that is both ritual and practice that is handed down to them and received with all of it's duties and requirements. They aren't going to become tree hugging Methodists just because of some judicial ruling.Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
Been busy doing stuff
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.anderson wrote:How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Some history:
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.Typhoon wrote:You forgot the biological role of pleasure.anderson wrote:How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Some history:
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
-
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Yeah and having the head of it exposed keeps you hand from flying offanderson wrote:Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.Typhoon wrote:You forgot the biological role of pleasure.anderson wrote:How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Some history:
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
Been busy doing stuff
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
No, but it does diminish it.anderson wrote:Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.Typhoon wrote:You forgot the biological role of pleasure.anderson wrote:How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Some history:
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
The Hippocratic maxim is "First, do no harm."
One can argue that circumcision is a violation.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
Had to look that one up. Very good.Hoosiernorm wrote:We would probably be singing a variant of the Colonel Bogey March at Easter Mass....Typhoon wrote:Certainly did.Hoosiernorm wrote:Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.Typhoon wrote:Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
____
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
So I'll rephrase.
One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.
What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
As the original essay already Godwined the thread:
yB5odk3saa0
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
it diminishes itanderson wrote:.
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.
.
nature has made a the way it for a reason, to protect the sensitive head
when Circumcisioned, the head is exposed, rubs on clothing and becomes to a degree, desensitized
.
Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision
This is such a joke of an argument though.Typhoon wrote:No, but it does diminish it.anderson wrote:Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.Typhoon wrote:You forgot the biological role of pleasure.anderson wrote:How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
- Expel urine
- Become erect to enable intercourse
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.
- Fire semen out to impregnate a female
The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.
If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
Some history:
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
The Hippocratic maxim is "First, do no harm."
One can argue that circumcision is a violation.
Circumcised men do not, in general, report any dissatisfaction in their sex lives and sexual enjoyment relating to "lack of sensitivity."
If men have issues sexually with sensitivity, it's usually a matter of being too quick on the draw from having too much sensitivity.
I think most men could probably benefit from a little dulling down there.