Curaezipirid,

What are you doing posting something that actually relates to the thread title?

You might be interested in Salt Shakers...

Steel,

Your original post left me wondering what the specific lies were. The sinners at birth allegation was out of context as it always comes in conjunction with the message of love and forgiveness and is seldom the type of religious teaching provided to young children.

"mjpb, the definitions of disfigurement do not refer "exclusively" to head and necks. limbs are not "essential" either, if you really want to look at it."

Not all the disfigurement definitions refer exclusively to heads but...eg.
"• A technical term in workers' compensation cases for a serious and permanent scar to the head, neck, or face."

I agree that the limb part is not essential to the definition although it highlights the absurdity of applying the definition to the flap of skin. Nevertheless the definitions require deprivation of an essential part and the flap of skin doesn't slice it.

"if you searched with google.com a little you would see the claims in the video are correct."

Steel if I do a google search as I have done (many) there is no doubt that loopy anti-circumcision sites that propagate that type of nonsense google well. If I hadn't done so I would not have known about the receptor stuff as he didn't go into that detail. I note that there are published papers on the topic that give the detail about the receptors and engage in the speculation. As I recall a Brit was responsible so perhaps he is the man.

"The single sexologist's opinion is the "speculative" one"

But he was making an observation which I believe logically relates to the amount of skin removed.

When I spoke of speculation I referred to the anatomists claim based on wild speculation about the role of certain receptors in the foreskin. Physiological measurement in recent research has proven the speculation incorrect.