The glans most certainly keratinizes. This effect makes the glans no longer moist and soft like it is supposed to be (I assume that it is supposed to be moist and soft rather than hardened and dry, from what I read), and supposedly intact males have sensitive glans (I assume the glans is supposed to be sensitive, from what I read), but I don't really know if the glans is really supposed to be sensitive because I am not intact, but people say it is supposed to be, so I would assume that means sensation is lost. The loss of nerves isn't an arguable point -- that definitely equates to less sensation. Less nerves = less sensation.
I respect your disagreement with the peer-reviewed study that I linked you to. If you can support your claim that the glans keratinizes significantly more in the circumcised population compared to the uncircumcised population, I certainly welcome it.
Your argument certainly makes sense as a logical approach. Indeed, loss of nerves means there are less impulses firing. The question is whether the difference is actually noticeable to the male. People who undergo abdominal surgery frequently have a transient loss of sensation that largely goes unnoticed. In the same fashion, I agree that there is quantitative sensation loss, but not significant qualitative sensation loss. For someone undergoing sexual activity, it's qualitative sensation loss that matters to the male.
I did not mean the foreskin in an infant is the size of an index card, I meant in an adult male it is.
Understood.
If there is a rare medical need for the procedure due to a rare disease, then it is medically justifiable, although I feel they might be able to take less skin than they do or use a less invasive procedure. Otherwise there is no medical reason for it.
I appreciate your answer. My follow-up question is what you think the implications of a circumcision ban, written by politicians who largely consist of lawyers (with limited medical understanding, likely to overlook the possibility of a therapeutic value to circumcision), would be.
Of course, I'm likely beating a dead horse with that point, since I've already noticed your posts acknowledging that legislation isn't as desirable as public education. I just feel inclined to make the point why I feel this ban proposal is a poor idea.
If an adult male decides they voluntarily want to be circumcised, I have no problem with that, it is their body and it is their right to do what they please to it. But where you said "It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child." -- No, wrong. It is the responsibility of the individual to make a personal, informed decision for themselves. We own our own bodies, at least until we die -- or unless we're a slave. If a parent decides they don't want you to feel as much touch-sensation on the pads of your fingertips, that doesn't make it right to singe them. Similarly, if the parent wants to reduce the touch-sensation of their child's genitals, that doesn't make it right to cut the most sensitive part off.
To be frank, parents are indeed responsible for their child's health decisions. Indeed it's the responsibility of the individual to make personal informed decisions for themselves. In a child, that is not an option. I would argue that the risks of circumcision are actually higher as an adult than they are as children, largely for reasons that were outlined in a link you provided earlier. While my experience in infant circumcision has been that anesthetic is
not used, my experience in observing adult circumcision is that generalized anesthetic (with its complications inherent) is
always used. As you mentioned, the amount of tissue removed in an adult is larger than the infant, making infection and bleeding a higher risk. While there are arguable pros and cons to circumcision as an infant, there is definitive less risk in doing the procedure as an infant over doing the procedure as an adult.
