I mean, the entire notion that circumcision doesn't reduce sexual pleasure is headbangingly stupid to begin with. It's impossible to slice off the ridged band and frenulum with losing the sensations produced by stimulation of the ridged band.

She argues (incorrectly) that the glans of the penis doesn't lose sensitivity after removal of the foreskin, thus men don't lose any sexual pleasure from circumcision. She chooses to just ignore the existence of the foreskin and the frenulum. When I challenged her on the phone about the frenulum, she said

Her -"What about it?"

Me- " it's highly erogenous"

Her- "how do you know?"

Me- "countless anatomical studies"

Her - "o, but I've read those studies, I disagree with those."

Yeah, and I disagree that childbirth is painful and with the theory of gravity.

It was pure shit.

Also, I have a problem with a female feminist telling men they're wrong about their own penises when the same feminist criticizes men for "mansplaining" about women's sexuality and how vaginas work. She said it's wrong for men to tell women how vaginas work because men don't have vaginas. She THEN says she is more qualified to talk about how penises work then men are, because since she doesn't have a penis, she doesn't have any "biases" that might cloud her objective judgement . She said that the millions of men circumcised as adults, or who restored their foreskin, are probably all wrong because they're all experiecing the same psychological sensory hallucination. Because she feels it's "more likely" she's right, literally just because "she thinks so."

For real.

That's like me saying periods aren't as bad as women say they are, it's just psychological, and as a male, I'm more qualified to talk about how periods actually are because I never have them, so I have no biases about them.

It's ridiculous. She knows more about the difference between the feeling a cut vs uncut penis than a man cut at both who has literally had both.....it's completely crazy.