03. Circumcision

All right, there are some things that shouldn’t exist today, but I can see how at one point in history, they perhaps made a little sense.  For instance, kids no longer play hoop-and-stick or kick the can, but in the days before video games and robotic prostitutes, you can see why they might have. Then there are other things where I’m baffled— I mean baseball-bat-to-the-head-birdies-and-stars-flying-around-me-boner-shaped-bruise-forming-BAFFLED as to how they EVER existed (much less are still around today).  Circumcision is towards the top of that list.

Oddly, circumcision is propagated by the same simpletons who believe dime-a-dozen adages like “if something’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

This makes slightly more sense to me than circumcision. On second thought, it’s a toss up.

Too bad they never added “oh and if it’s your genitals, why the **** are you thinking about messing with those!!!”  How is it that out of all the unnecessary body modifications that could have come into vogue during our mindless, abysmal past, circumcision is the one that stuck?!  Yet here we are, past the year 2000, and it still exists!  How has such a barbaric, cruel, and sick practice such as this yet to be done away with?  Simple:  Because as a species many of us will follow tradition all the way to a man with a silly hat who chops away at our privates.

Circumcision dates back to the really old days, and you know how often ancient practices were based on good reasoning (like drilling holes into the skulls of the mentally ill to release the demons).  Personally, I don’t even believe in docking dogs’ ears or tails, much less this!

No use crying over spilled penis! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

The majority of circumcisions have always been performed on infants, yet this is socially accepted and in no way considered child abuse.  That’s right, it’s the 21st century and we’re seriously still slicing at the wangs of children for questionable reasons.  Here’s a newsflash:  Do just a bit of research and you’ll easily discover that the supposed health benefits associated with circumcision are debatable, if at all true.  Even when going with the most positive study, the best circumcision does for anyone is to lower the chance of contracting HIV.  Somehow I don’t think the originators of circumcision were thinking about HIV when they first started cutting infants.  And if you really are wowed by the partial HIV resistance bequeathed unto children by the severing of their foreskin, you may want to also staple a permanent condom on as well.  Condoms reduce the risk of HIV even more than claimed by that one circumcision study (the others stated it helps next to nothing, by the way).

Long ago, angry wastelanders decided it was a good idea to slice off part of every male child’s penis.

If this is true, and there’s virtually no benefit, then why did we ever start doing it?  Regardless of the various sociological theories, I’m 99% certain it began with ancient desert tribes tired of getting sand in their foreskin.  After decades of slight irritation, grittiness, and rashes, they developed a psychological disorder resulting in the mutilation of males ever after.  Thanks a lot, cantankerous desert nomads.

Interesting fact #1:  A circumcised male has more chance of dying from the procedure than of winning the lottery.  This saddens me.  I think any kid cut on their winkie deserves to win the lottery or something to balance it out.  And what are parents thinking?  Surely with all the parenting guides many of them read they should have a few minutes to look into the pros and cons of circumcision.

These should be the sketches of an S&M madman, not a standard procedure.

I mean, I understand “keeping up with the Joneses,” but this is ridiculous.  “Hey, did you see the Joneses?  They just mutilated their son’s penis!  Why haven’t we done that?  What the hell are we waiting for?!!  Timmy, get in here and bring the kitchen shears!”  Seriously, there needs to be a superhero that snatches kids away before they can be circumcised.  Years later, they would be thanked by intact adolescents for saving them from their super villain parents’ uninformed machinations.  If stabbing at a baby’s genitals doesn’t make you a super villain, I’m not sure I want to know the standard.

Interesting fact #2:  Just to prove our equality in the context of stupidity, there is a form of circumcision for women (yeah, I’m baffled too).  It has been aptly renamed “female genital mutilation” by the United Nations for obvious reasons.  As with so many issues related to the treatment of women, it is far more cruel and unnecessary than male circumcision.  Rather than spend just a little time mocking this particularly sadistic practice, I will instead include it in an upcoming piece about the ghastly way women are still treated worldwide (which promises to be a long one).

“Seriously, this civil rights thing is obvious! It’s not like I’m suggesting we cut our children’s genitals!”

I wish I could have been present at the conversation when circumcision was first suggested.  People consider Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech to be powerful and convincing, but it couldn’t have anything on this one.  Can you even imagine what someone could have said to make people go from thinking “my infant’s genitals are delicate and a sensitive region” to “yeah… I never thought about it that way, but we should cut off some of my son’s penis!”  Truly a master orator must have been at work (a shame how often psychos are charismatic).  Although most circumcisions happen during infancy, there are a percent that occur during adolescence.  That means some people out there remember the incident.  No wonder there are so many unbalanced and pissed off individuals in the world!

Interesting fact #3:  The part of the penis that is circumcised is often legally sold by hospitals (yes, in the U.S. and other developed nations) to be used in consumer skin-care products!

Easy, breezy, beautiful foreskin girl!

Calling someone a dickface may indeed be accurate after all.  In Africa, the foreskin is sometimes dipped in brandy and consumed by either the patient, the circumsizer, or fed to animals (no joke here as none is required).  Need more fun and a bit of spectacle with your circumcision?  Jewish law requires the foreskin to be formally buried.  I like to picture some solemn pallbearers holding up a teeny-tiny casket as a foreskin-inspired funeral dirge is played.  Holy shite, what a bunch of insane penile-fixated creatures humans can be!  I for one think we should boycott all foreskin based facial products.  I’m pretty sure even if your face is covered in grime, using such a product would make it filthier in a whole other sense.

It’s remarkable how common circumcision is, yet it’s more than a little impolite to ask someone if they’ve had the procedure.  Even less acceptable is when they respond “no” and then you ask them, “do you want me to help?  I’m quite good with knives.”  People can be so ungrateful…

See, I didn’t make it up! The proof is in the pudding– circumcision pudding that is, page 261.

Interesting fact #4:  Recently, I uncovered an old cookbook with this classic recipe:

Sweet Potato and Baby Foreskin Pie

Ingredients:  8 medium sweet potatoes, 2 sticks of butter, 1 cup of brown sugar, 12 babies’ foreskins, dash of cinnamon.

In fresh, clean water, rinse off the potatoes, butter, brown sugar, and cinnamon.  Once dry, mash all ingredients together with half the foreskins using a large, studded mallet in a metal bowl until pulp.  Lightly fold in the remaining foreskins.  Place in a pie crust and put on the top.  Bake at 350 degrees in the oven for 2 and ½ hours or until you smell burning flesh.  Garnish with any spare bits of foreskin that may have dropped on the floor and loose pubic hair.  Serves a family of eight.

Surprise rebuttal!  Okay, everything I wrote makes sense, but I do have one conflicting point to offer forth:  Have you ever seen an uncircumcised, flaccid penis?! !  WTF!!!!  All right, I understand that genitals are already gangly and not at all works of art, but this takes the cake (and then eats the cake and then pukes up the cake)!

Uncircumcised penises in the wild.

I’m not saying this is a good point or that it in any way justifies circumcision, but I seriously believe if my mind were erased and then two penises were dangled in front of me (one circumcised, the other not, respectively), I would look at the first and think:  “Gee, that’s an odd looking, veiny appendage.”  But upon seeing the uncircumcised penis my reaction would be:  “What manner of sandwormy monstrosity is this!  It looks as though someone lopped off the trunk of a baby elephant, thrashed it with a rock, and drowned it in fugly-juice!  It’s like the biological version of those slinky things that are hard to hold onto, but shriveled and dying!

Doesn’t really look like an uncircumcised penis, but I still think the comparison is really funny.

Please put the hideous thing out of its misery!”  Once again, just because I think the aesthetic of uncircumcised penises is the grossest part of either the male or female anatomy, it doesn’t make it right.  Even if I had a son, I would never allow him to be circumcised.  It would just be a shame that his wiener would look like an exploded hotdog (and I’d mock him for this often).

End.

P.S.  Click here if you want a real example of my point.

About nosaj6

Unsatisfied philosopher bending reality with crazed, pantsless mindbeams.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to 03. Circumcision

  1. James Loewen says:

    Thanks for questioning circumcision. The fact that this sexual assault is forced upon children is the main reason to question it, speak out against it and help abolish it.

    One big quibble though. Circumcision did not start because people got sand in their genitals! That is a myth that is quickly dispelled the minute you think about it. The genitals are the last place you get sand if you are in a sandy environment. You are more likely to get sand in you eyes. What then? Cut off your eyelids? Secondly if men got sand under their foreskins and cut them off to prevent this what about women getting sand in their genitals?

    Circumcision is an attack on the pleasure centres of children. The main reason is to permanently diminish sexual response. This is the underlying motive and it is always enforced by adults who had this same abuse forced upon them. This is the same dynamic behind most child abuse.

    • nosaj6 says:

      But isn’t it a historically recorded fact that in the days before internet pornography people used to systematically hump piles of dirt? I think you’ve heard the censored version of history that failed to include desert people rocking the hell out of sand dunes. To recreate it these days you may have to use sandpaper, but afterwards you’ll understand why circumcision used to make sense. Duh.

    • Anonymous says:

      That was actually the very reason that this perverse practice became popular in the during the Victorian era in the USA and other English speaking country’s The idea was to discourage masturbation which it was theorized at the time was bad for health and could be responsible for insanity. Needles to say in time people started to se through this ridiculousness. However being ever conscious of the money that was being made from this practice the medical fraternity in the USA convinced the US army that circumcision was a must to avoid the spread of VD. Which boost the use of this abusive myth for another hundred or so years by wanting the son to be like the father. So the reason for this form of abuse in the USA is quite simply the money that can be made with the practice. THE American medical authority’s still mumble non committally in order to keep the practice alive as long as possible while in other parts of the developed world it is starting to move into realms of child abuse.

      • Jarda says:

        Sorry, the main reason is that the public is too brain-dead to get information and think about it.

      • Keith Rutter says:

        The public in the USA, or some of them, are thinking about it and opting to leave their son intact. Which is why the organisations who have most to lose when parents deny them the money, millions of Dollars, are fighting back. Doctors do it only for the extra money they make, and hospitals encourage it because of the money made by selling the severed tissue.

      • Jarda says:

        @Keith Rutter: Till now there’s no law making circumcision compulsory, even if that might come true one day when the business will need to make so extra money. So if circumcisions do occur on daily basis and for no reason, it’s because people are too stupid to think without assistance (after all nearly half people in Detroid can’t read, for example, so what can you expect?). What will people do when the medical business will start pushing infant legs amputation with the justification, that it prevents injuries in bicycle accidents?

  2. Ofthesea says:

    Someone posted a link to this article as a comment in my blog, where I was also ranting about my (uncircumcised, you’ll be happy to hear) son and the ensuing complications when looking after his wiener.

    But I’m with you all the way, and my boy is keeping all his parts!

    • nosaj6 says:

      Someday I trust you’ll have a proud, though embarrassing, talk with him about this. To the devil with firefighters and police, you’re the hero! Your good choices single-handedly stopped 9/11 on his winkie. Eat a fat filled, extra-chocolately cookie and feel good about your choice. Penis rights in 2012!

  3. Heh. Heh-heh. Wieners.

  4. Blakesly says:

    Pass the IppicaK, I AM gonna hurl. This site make me want to sell my computer, move to Siberia and sit on a block of ice in front of a hole in a lake.

  5. Jim Bob The Hillbilly says:

    You only mention HIV prevention as a (possibly) valid reason to circumcise. There are in fact many other compelling reasons to circumcise:

    -decreased risk of other STI, including chlamydia, HPV, gonorrhea
    -major reduction in yeast infections, which may pass back and forth between husband and wife
    -decreased risk of penile infection (balanitis)
    -loss of “fishy” odor of uncircumcised penis. trust me, even showering twice daily won’t get rid of that smell
    -small reduction of risk of penile cancer
    -major reduction of occurrences of UTI and bladder infections in young boys
    -family history of phimosis would be a good reason to circumcise as well

    I think that the only people qualified to say which is the better penis is adult or adolescent males who’ve had an “adult circumcision.” These people have conciously experienced both models of penis, and you’d be hard pressed to find one who wishes they could go back to being uncut.

    As for the STD’s, I agree that teaching your child about responsible sexual practices: abstinence, condom usage, etc. is the most important thing you can do for their sexual health. But if circumcision does greatly reduce the risk of your child contracting STIs later in life, why not?

    A parallel example to circumcision would be vaccination. Vaccination is painful and carries a minute risk of serious complications. Most choose to vaccinate, however, as the possible future benefits to the health of the child outweigh the pain and risk involved

    • Rational Ron says:

      Citations needed to make those bold (easily google searched and discounted ) claims. Removal of the foreskin does not have any beneficial attributes. Its there for a reason.

      • SecHum says:

        A-effin’-men!

        All the apologetic gymnastics in the world will not make mutilating an infant’s genitalia without their consent ethically defensible.

        There is ONE medical reason for removing a child’s prepuce: severe phimosis. All the other excuses are just that: excuses to continue barbaric practices of the bronze age, cuz Imaginary Sky Daddy told a bunch of desert-dwelling goat herders to do it.

    • Bob says:

      I’m not circumcised and haven’t dealt with any of these issues. So many of the problems listed (yeast infections, blanitis, bladder infections) are easily curable with proper hygiene. Just tell your boys to wash their penises. It’s really not a tough sell. Heck, once they hit puberty, you won’t need to tell them twice to touch themselves in the shower (I keed… actually, no, I don’t).

      And you ask “why not” to the notion that circumcision could possibly result in a reduced risk of STI (a tenable position I’d imagine), to which I answer “because it’s the tip of a baby’s penis, that’s why not.”

      • Bob says:

        And by “curable with proper hygiene” I mean “damned near preventable with proper hygiene.”

    • Dave says:

      “I think that the only people qualified to say which is the better penis is adult or adolescent males who’ve had an “adult circumcision.” These people have conciously experienced both models of penis, and you’d be hard pressed to find one who wishes they could go back to being uncut.”

      I find this rather flawed reasoning.

      Who is likely to admit after the permanent removal of part of their penis that they made a mistake and it was actually better before?

      Nobody, that’s who! Even if you were unsure about your newly circumcised penis to begin with, the mind has a way of explaining away bad decisions to avoid the mental trauma of realising you chopped off a perfectly functional and enjoyable part of your body and can’t get it back.

      (Yes, I know about foreskin restoration, but it’s probably not as good as the real thing.)

      Furthermore, those who choose to be circumcised as adults are undoubtedly those who really want to be circumcised. I have no doubt whatsoever this is caused by living as an uncircumcised male in a circumcising culture, and probably spending your whole life until that point wishing that you fitted in.

      No doubt in a hypothetical culture which routinely chopped off one of every infant’s arms, a child with both arms left intact would spend a considerable time feeling like an outsider, and could understandably believe that they would fit in better if they were to get their arm chopped off.

      Perhaps at the age of adulthood, they would elect to undergo the procedure.

      And no doubt if you were to ask that person if they thought it was better now they only had one arm, they would probably say “of course it is”, because their mind would protect them from acknowledging that actually, having two arms was rather useful, and that chopping off a perfectly good arm was a terrible mistake.

      Well, I live in a country (UK) which does not routinely circumcise, and I have spoken to women who have had sex with both intact and circumcised men (my partner being one of them). Without exception, they have all said that intact is better (and this is without knowing which I am first, by the way).

      It glides more, it hurts them less, it’s more satisfying for both partners.

      And you know what? When erect, my intact penis can look every bit as potent (or whatever you want to call it) as a circumcised penis – and can do so many more things than one too.

      So you tell me: why reduce the functionality of your penis for questionable if any supposed “benefit”?

      The only person qualified to decide what to do with their own body is the person who’s body it is – period! To argue anything else is absolutely ethically bankrupt as far as I am concerned.

      Oh, and if you disagree with me there, I’d be more than happy to chop one of your arms off to prove my point. ;-)

    • Anonymous says:

      none of those would happen if you just practice basic hygiene. My boyfriend has an uncircumcised penis and he hasn’t experienced any of these because he takes a fucking shower. You have been given false information (that is if you even did any research or if you just made this all up in your severely illogical brain). How about you just teach your child hygiene skills and not cut their peener off? Seems a lot simpler.

      • Harold says:

        I presume the boyfriend does not shower many times a day but does urinate more often than that- so as is true in all parts of the world where every urinal would have a bidet alongside one must assume that the urine that seeps out after shaking it a couple times will end up inside the foreskin-wo marinate the foreskin and glans and be absorbed in the underwear.

        Therefore, it will be cleaner and drier, less smell if there is either a permanently retracted foreskin or a cut off foreskin.

        Upon this is based the usual practice of “boys don’t use toilet paper to pee” which is responsible for yellow underwear.

        Really the practice of exposing the glans of human males has intrigued the startup of circumcision in many divergent parts of the world. There is a desire for it.

        You can psyche yourself to accept either way as being “THE RIGHT WAY”!

    • Jarda says:

      Yes, all those invented reasons certainly are worth the screwed up sex life and premature impotency.

      And what for those guys with adult circumcision, you can be sure that the majority would roll back if they could (use google for stories). Just give them 10 years or so, so that the consequences (sensitivity loss…) fully hits them and they find that their penis is nearly good for just one thing: So that they don’t have to pee sitting.

      • Harold says:

        It seems to me the only reason for “screwed up sex life” is from the “intacters” fiction of that being a result of a reduction in foreskin.

        Besides making standup peeing more accurate, circumcision or permanent foreskin retraction will permit late urine from marinating in a foreskin.

        As far as sensitivity loss, I never experience any reduction in the sensuousness that develops when sex is contemplated, activated and engaged in.

        I doubt I would enjoy sex as much with the thing between the legs looking like a finger(skin over it) as with the glans visible and in ready access.

    • Anonymous says:

      Amen!

    • Anonymous says:

      I would also emphasize the advantages of leg amputation. No fungal diseases between the toes or on the nails, no stinky feet, no broken bones thanks to absence of those bones…. I’m sure we could find more, e.g. you’d never step into nettles and got stung.

      As for the “These people have conciously experienced both models of penis, and you’d be hard pressed to find one who wishes they could go back to being uncut.” you’d not have such hard time to find them. Give them some years to become sufficiently impotent and loose nearly all feeling in the penis, e.g. already after 40 years of age. Just use Google.

      What for the vaccination you are wrong again. Vaccination is certainly beneficial, problem is that the vaccination model is tuned not for the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Unlike vaccination circumcision is only beneficial to circumcision doctors who are freaking out at the idea that their good business might go away and who are ready to invent even more reasons to convince parents to have their son mutilated.

      BTW, if you aren’t circumcised, go ahead. Make sure you know what you are talking about.

      • Anonymous says:

        I say just lop the whole thing off and you don’t have to worry about a thing, except maybe wetting your bed more occasionally..

      • Old Hal says:

        If this is a good idea: you first

      • nosaj6 says:

        Do you really think it makes me shake and quake in my booties to think about having a foreskin? Wow, you really think foreskins are the worst, huh? Odd how so many people in the world have them with no problems at all…

      • nosaj6 says:

        Here, here! We could all be eunuchs and sing the Bohemian Rhapsody in one grand, wang-less chorus!

      • Old Hal says:

        I hardly think anyone suggesting a ban on circumcision has any validity.

        In addition to circumcision being part of some religions we also have cultures that expect to see men with the bare headed penis. Many of the Japanese achieve this without surgery but this is partly a matter of slight difference in physical structure making that nearly automatic, and with cultural expectation suggesting that the bare glans should prevail in adulthood there is more incentive to succeed.

        So- since the foreskin is nearly over centering in its nature anyhow there is also rationale to consider the pursuit of the bare glans by surgery if necessary.

        We have had during most of the internet years lately a tendency for those who feel strongly in favor of having a complete foreskin covering their penis (and some members of the opposite sex) to overstate their side of the issue and often present threats of dire consequences from circumcisions and degradation of sexual pleasure caused by exposure to air and “loss of sensation”. The glans is healthier with exposure to air and has the necessary sensitivity for good sensuous activity when arousal is activated.

        There are large numbers of young males that pose questions to health sites asking how to cope with various problems that only exist for those that have an intact foreskin.

        Those of us that have had an adult circumcision and had years of exposure of the glans can tell you there is no shortage of sensitivity.

      • nosaj6 says:

        Old Hal with his old-fashioned views. I never suggested a ban on all circumcision, I suggested we ban parents doing it to their children. I believe strongly that it should remain a viable option for anyone 18 or older who wants to have a part of their body cut off because some book penned thousands of years ago told them so.

    • Ryan says:

      Hello, my name is Ryan and I have a very strong opinion on this subject because I am an uncut sexually active 34 year old man. First off, I have never had a fishy smell or a partner who’d’ complained about a smell. I think rather than a uncircumcised and circumcised penis, the issue rather, a cleanliness issue! My penis doesn’t look like most of the uncut penises that most people have burned in their memories from sex-ed classes! My parents taught me at a very young age how to take care of my penis and keep it from having too much foreskin and I now teach my son. In fact, most women(( I have been with many )) have NOT noticed I was uncut until after we had sex and most of the time the women would ask questions because it felt different, in good way :).. I’m not tooting my own horn but a lot of the women I have been with have said that I have a perfect looking penis and that they had no idea because they can’t tell when it’s flaccid but the sex was better with me! The first time I heard it I thought the girl was just being nice but I have heard several times, even recently. My friend and I talk about our sexual pleasures and I definitely know that he is currently trying to re grow his foreskin through stretching method because of my experiences and what my partners have told him. I can include a photo if someone is interested how to keep foreskin to a minimum!

  6. nosaj6 says:

    The “compelling reasons” you listed have basically been disproven. Do you realize there are many countries in Europe where circumsized males are the exception? Oddly, they have the same rates of the things you listed as we do– what could that possibly mean?? Gee, I wonder…

    Honestly, the data is out there, and unless you go looking already biased, circumcision really isn’t worth anything. The issue clearly becomes people backpedalling arguments to explain an ancient practice with no modern application (like claiming that burning witches helps reduce overpopulation). And I don’t think vaccination is a parallel example. Vaccination is well proven to be effective, whereas circumcision is on the way out and has only stuck around because of conformity and social norms.

    I did laugh at your “fishy smell” comment, so thanks for that. Although now that I think about it, I believe I was laughing at you rather than with you.

  7. Jim Bob The Hillbilly says:

    Comparing circumcision to burning witches at the stake may be one of the more asinine statements I’ve ever read. The vitriol oozes from all your responses to opinions contrary to your own, which is fine, as I’m sure this is nothing more than good fun.

    Unfortunately, being well informed on the risks/benefits is impossible, as scientific studies give opposite results in many cases. This may be due small sample sizes, or various socioeconomic factors in the men/children studied, among other factors.

    I’m sure you have ready access to an uncircumcised penis; go give it a sniff after it’s been wrapped in it’s undies and pants for a day. See? Told you it stinks.

    • Intruder says:

      “I’m sure you have ready access to an uncircumcised penis; go give it a sniff after it’s been wrapped in it’s undies and pants for a day. See? Told you it stinks.”

      You either :
      – Have never actually sniffed an intact penis, and are just assuming.
      – Have never sniffed a vagina, otherwise an intact penis would smell like soap to you.
      As you may have guessed I’m bisexual.
      In some countries, you have a little water jet next to the toilet seat, to clean penis/anus/vagina properly. You don’t have that in USA. Good hygiene of penis/vagina/anus doesn’t worth a small piece of plumbing, but “some” hygiene of penis worth amputation on babies?

      “decreased risk of other STI, including chlamydia, HPV, gonorrhea”
      The gonorrhea rate in USA is *considerably* higher than in Europe (and the chlamydia rate is rather high too), same for HIV, isn’t that interesting? For HPV there is a vaccin now… But that doesn’t stop proponents of circumcision to use this argument, because public health isn’t their concern. And just like them, you are ignoring that the claimed (and mostly BS) benefits of circumcision are only relevant to ADULTS, so the decision should be left to adults. The only exception is the “less risk of UTI in babies (under 1 year)”. This is a pretty interesting case of rationalization : UTIs are easily curable and happen in 1% of boys. So basically, you have to perform more than 100 surgical amputations on babies to prevent ONE miserable infection that could have been cured with antibiotic. The fact that this “benefit” can even be taken seriously shows how some people are desperatly looking for excuses to circumcise.

    • Intruder says:

      Oh and btw :
      “I think that the only people qualified to say which is the better penis is adult or adolescent males who’ve had an “adult circumcision.” These people have conciously experienced both models of penis, and you’d be hard pressed to find one who wishes they could go back to being uncut. ”

      That would be like polling transgenders and conclude that men love to have their penis lopped off :) It’s called sampling bias.
      One other thing is called cognitive dissonance, look it up.
      Most of medical circumcisions are due to phimosis, so no wonder they like it better after circumcision.
      According to a survey, that ironically is sometime mentioned by pro-circ, 62% of a group of men were “satisfied” with their adult circumcision. This score is actually low, considering that 64% had phimosis, 4% had extremely long foreskin, and 7% had it done as a plastic surgery. All of those had good reason to prefer being cut. Not to mention that it was in USA, with the cultural bias it implies.

    • Rational Ron says:

      Lets try this Jim.
      Take an infant boy.
      Take a knife and cut a portion of his penis off because of a religious belief.
      Justify it with easily disprovable pseudoscience because its the way an imaginary sky friend “wanted” it to be, or on general tradition.

      Note the part “TAKE AN INFANT AND MUTILATE HIS GENITALS!”
      There is no rational for this, none. Its all based on “tradition” and “religion” not science. And mutilating the innocent in the name of either is still mutilating the innocent.

      If you believe in it, then let the child grow up to an age of consent and let them decide. Otherwise, you’re just imposing your will, in a bloody, irrevocable way on the most innocent among us.

      Funny how many people who are pro-lifers, have no problem brutalizing that life in the name of tradition and religion once its here.

  8. Hamboner says:

    I’d say something but Intruder already hit the nail on the head.

    I find it hard to tolerate that people continually choose to mutilate their sons’ genitals because they believe it will reduce risk of contracting STIs as adults. As Intruder said, this is of no concern to a child. Yes, it is a painful procedure with a long healing process, but if a man is really that concerned about this to have his healthy foreskin amputated, then I think he would sleep easy knowing he at least had the CHOICE.

    Honestly, I don’t understand. I cannot possibly fathom why people would want to fight so hard for the mutilation of baby’s genitals. Scrape and search for adult benefits as you please, but even if they do prove true, I fail to see how stripping a boy of his freedom to choose at the moment he enters the world is justifiable.

  9. Hamboner says:

    Actually, here’s another thing I’ll add in regards to men reporting satisfaction with their circumcision. Not only have most of them undergone this procedure to correct an injury, phimosis, or some other discomfort, but it is basic psychology to realize people value that which costs them. People believe in bullshit magic healing crystals and psychic advice because the quacks charge them an arm and a leg for the service. If you sink money into something, by god you’re going to make the best of it.

    I imagine the same goes circumcised men – they can’t go back to the way they were before, so they may as well enjoy what they have. Some don’t even settle, but opt for foreskin restoration. It won’t have the same nerve endings, but they long for the wholeness they were never given the chance to experience (in the case of an at-birth circumcision, at least).

    • Keith says:

      As Hamboner says, cut men can restore their lost foreskin, which is what I am trying to do now. It would have been far, far, better if a greedy doctor hadn’t persuaded my mother that it was better. After the age of 40, I realised that my penis was getting less sensitive, and now sex is little more pleasurable than inserting a piece of broom handle into my wife’s dry vagina. We have not had intercourse for nearly five years, we gave up because I was no longer able to orgasm in less than three-quarters of an hour by which time she had dried up and she asked me to stop and get out. But then, damaging the penis is the aim of both Jew and Muslim cutters, and though it was deprecated by the early Christian church, it was revived by doctors to prevent masturbation, then seen as a mortal sin.

      • nosaj6 says:

        I love the unnecessary dig on your wife’s vagina! With your silver tongue, I’m really surprised there are any problems in bed.

  10. Keith says:

    It is not a dig at my wife’s vagina, there is actually nothing wrong with it at all. It is my penis that is the problem, if I orgasmed in a more reasonable length of time, everything would be fine.

    As a side issue, I wonder if this a factor in the taking up with a younger woman that so many older men do, they hope that a younger, juicier, vagina will cure THEIR problem?

  11. …. There is a movement of Jews who are questioning circumcision, and working to end this abuse of children. The movement ranges from the Orthodox to the secular, and includes mothers, fathers, scholars, historians, medical professionals, activists, and intellectuals.

    Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity

    Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective by Miriam Pollack
    http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm

    Jewish Intactivist Miriam Pollack has some great commentary on Foreskin Man in this recent interview.
    http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/07/defying-convention-interview-with_27.html

    Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors
    http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors

    * Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

    * Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org

    * The Current Judaic Movement to End Circumcision: Part 1
    http://intactnews.org/node/105/1311886372/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-1 …………….

    • nosaj6 says:

      Thank you for the links. It’s good to see that people are coming around to something so glaringly obvious. Maybe in another 200 years or so we can finally do away with this senseless practice…

  12. Pingback: The Abyss » The Origin of Male Circumcision April 16, 2011, 09:45:49 PM

  13. harold says:

    I am nearing 90. I was diagnosed with Prostate cancer 20 years ago and the ptostate was removed. Therefore in addittion to age related reduction in the size of my penis I have had extra loss due to the op. In spite of this my wife and I enjoy sexual pleasures.

    If I were uncircumcised with the foreskin forward there would be little to help maintain my interest in things sexual. Those skin covered things are not sexy. The non-sexiness of the foreskin covered penis is why the Greeks could do the olympics in the nude and why they forbade anyone with a bared glans.

    I was not circumcised at birth because my parents were from a european country that did not have much circumcision. It is of interest that my youngest brother was circed at birth, probably on advice from the Dr. re. hygeine and health.

    The first circumcised penises I saw were when I was in about 5th grade- A jewish classmate and an adult changing his clothes.

    Then when I entered high school I found myself to be in the 15% uncirced minority.

    About this time I read a Dr’s advice that the foreskin could be trained to remain retracted providing better cleanliness and disease rejection. I succeeded with this and was satisfied with this status until I had some increase in “accidental coverage”. There were no disadvantages sexually from the procedure. Since the circ was loose about 10 years ago I tried 100 days of keeping the foreskin forward. The glans got shiny and smelly and I discontinued the experiment.

    The “thousands of sensors” that anti circ forces like to talk about losing with the cut are merely touch sensors that always occur in high density to locate where you are being touched. They tend to “lose sensitivity” if exposed. his has nothing to do with the triggering of an orgasm. If it were not so there wold be very few Jews or Muslims!

    I would feel much more supportive of non circumcision it there were more promotion of wearing the foreskin retracted after puberty. Many japanese and other asians do. Also certain subsets in every country expect to get the foreskin to remain back in adulthood.

    I am proud to be a circumcised American. I enjoy having the bare glans be what I see, what my hand grabs ahold of!

    Of my 3 great grandsons I presume one of them is intact, know one is circed, expect the third is also circed.

    The fact that circumcision originated in so many parts of the world is proof that a lot of us like that bare look and the benefits that come with it!

    After the op I was catheterized. Now this would have required considerable extra work for the nurses to manage the foreskin if I had one. I am sure most of them prefer working with the circumcised patient. I was circumcised at age 42.

    • Keith Rutter says:

      Nurses are fully familiar with catheterising intact men, they do it all the time here as most men are intact. You were mis-informed about training your foreskin back, the penis is supposed to be an internal organ, just like the female clitoris. The comment about the Meissner corpuscles not being involved in triggering is also untrue, experiments using imaging scanners prove it.

    • nosaj6 says:

      Wow, someone born in the 20’s who is for circumcision– now I’ve seen everything! Seriously though, the majority of your argument is “it looks sexier,” and that is at best flimsy and subjective. Also, the issue is circumsizing children, so why not leave them intact and allow them the choice like you had? I’m not against people deciding for themselves to have cosmetic surgery. Notice, I wrote “cosmetic” surgery which is exactly what it is– cosmetic and unnecessary.

  14. Amy says:

    My son was 4 when he was circumcised. His was necessary because his foreskin would not retract. We tried steroid creams and considered a half circumcision, but decided to do a full, because the half only works 50% of the time. And I did not want him to have to recuperate twice. It wasn’t ideal, but it was better than non-functioning foreskin.

    • Keith Rutter says:

      Not retractable at 4 years? Ver few boys are, and it does not matter, some don’t retract fully until they are 14 or more. You were mis-informed, and now your son has lost most of the sensitive parts of his penis, even more if a Plastibell was used. He will not be happy when he finds out what has happened.

      • Amy says:

        Somehow, I’m not surprised that I was misinformed. My lack of due diligence, trusting the medical establishment, trusting my mother, etc. I was sad at the time and now more so.

      • harold says:

        It is sad to see such agonizing!

        Men with or without a foreskin get very much the same experience sexually- there are things about the circumcision which enhance response. What I am referring to is that without the insulating effect of the foreskin reducing the directness of contact to the coronal rim and sulcus areas the application of friction to these areas creates some great feelings. This directness is completely lost in those that experience “the gliding action” of the foreskin. Coitus in these cases is purely masturbation. Of course that can be great too!

        I was circumcised at age 42 of no necessity. I wanted to avoid the occasional “roll forwards” that I had with “permanent retraction” and I wanted to eliminate my wife’s habit of pulling the foreskin forward during foreplay! Success on both counts!

        A noticeable change was that since we were using the diaphragm for conception I could feel it more strongly (as a stroking force)!

        Dr John Taylor has discovered that there is a strong effect on the “inevitability” of orgasm from stimulating the area tppside just behind the coronal ridge in the sulcus area. With a circumcision this gets a maximum of direct contact. This tends to provide all the stimulus needed.

        With those who can achieve it permanent retraction of the foreskin can be a good clean healthy and enjoyable way to go.

        Back to my original comment: With the brain being the main sex organ- sex will be great either way providing you are not poisoned against which version of male genitals you have!!!

        Harold

      • Keith Rutter says:

        Of course, we do experience sex on several levels, but when I was 26, when I first had intercourse, I would orgasm in five to ten minutes and every time. When I got to 40 it would take half an hour or so, although I did have to use a lubricant as my wife was drying out by then, and now at 60+ I can’t orgasm in an hour, by which time my penis is numb. So I gave up, as it wasn’t pleasant for either of us. I can orgasm with masturbation though I fail about half the time. She was, and still is, able to orgasm normally by manual or oral means.

        That is why I am against circumcising babies, you never know what they will want when they are adults.

    • nosaj6 says:

      Amy, thanks for posting and don’t beat yourself up over following the advice of experts. This is a deep-rooted cultural issue in the United States and even otherwise rational doctors often push for circumcision out of reasons of conformity.

      Keith, thanks for all the responses you’ve given and telling us your story. You are obviously well-versed with this issue and your input has been thoughtful, compassionate, and well-written.

  15. harold says:

    Well Keith, since you are “restoring” I know you will have better sexual performance.

    It will be the natural result of the amount of attention you will be giving your penis in the near 24/7
    “tugging”!

    A very obvious thing is that you have no way to know that your slowness to orgasm would not have developed if you still had the foreskin you were born with intact and covering the glans.

    Even at age 86, with the glans exposed for 74 years I have no problems with sensitivity. Unfortunately I underwent surgical removal of a cancerous prostate about 20 years ago. One of the side effects of that operation was an immediate loss in length and the erection being only about 3/4 of that before the operation. After about 10 or 12 years the erection was not sufficient for penetration. Rather than resorting to Viagra (which didn’t do much), the pragmatic thing was to go to “mutual pleasuring” by hand and/or mouth. The manipulation my wife performs is wonderfully pleasant but does not produce an orgasm due to some areas being missed or whatever. This is fine and I don’t want to retrain her to get the process over quicker and miss the
    ecstasy! A few quick strokes with my hand produces an orgasm- that is somewhat downgraded from the pre-prostatectomy version. I usually like to provide her orgasm earlier.

    Circumcision developed in many parts of the world because many men like having no foreskin over the glans!

    • Keith Rutter says:

      In ancient times, initiation ceremonies and rites were common, especially in youth. As they had no knowledge of sexual anatomy, and the prepuce appeared to be expendable, and as few of them lived to be old, the loss of sexual function was not discovered. Now we know better, the enlightened realise that cutting pieces off children does not make then grown-up, (but it does damage them sooner or later). However, the ignorant continue to believe that, hence the rituals of the Jews and Muslims survive, they know that few men would have it done later if they were left intact.

      It is true that our bodies deteriorate as we age, so it makes no sense to reduce the function in early life, we need all the sensitivity we can retain. Restoration can make a huge difference but it will never be as good as the real original organ. Ban infant circumcision, and prosecute anyone who so violates a boy under the age of majority. I suffered at the hands of a deluded doctor, and I am still paying the price. BTW; are you one of those who made money from circumcision?

    • nosaj6 says:

      Once again, Harold, I propose: Why not leave children intact and allow them to decide when they get older. I have a strong suspicion that if this became the norm then very, very few people would be circumsized and the world, and everyone’s sex lives, would be a better place.

  16. Ellie Saari says:

    That photo of the little child on the ground is female circumcision.

    I am pro-male circumcision. 1. It makes the penis look better on an adult male 2. Keeps it cleaner (not all men take care of that stuff) and 3. It is a religious practice that is supposed to be beneficial. I know there are potential side-affects, but there are pros. I also think that if the procedure is to be preformed, that a doctor do it.

    Unlike female circumcision, which is supposed to be a deliberate harm to make women faithful, because sex is far too painful. I think that female circumcision is detestable.

    But, it is up to personal choice. I will most likely get my sons circumcised, but if people choose not to, it’s up to them.

    • Keith Rutter says:

      Even a cut penis can be rinsed before intercourse. 800 years ago the Jewish teacher Moses Maimonides admitted that circumcision was performed to blunt sexual pleasure, Muslims admit that now, and American quacks began doing it to dissuade boys, and girls, from masturbating. There are no pro’s to circumcision, except for the people who profit by doing it. They know that if they did not get the money while the male was young, they wouldn’t get get it later, as only a few men elect to do it to their own penis.

      It is a personal choice, please leave it to your future sons to make it for themselves.

      Lastly, not all women wash their vulva, by your “reasoning” ALL baby girls should be deprived of their labia, those flaps which can harbor evil bacteria?

    • harold says:

      I am glad to see some support for circumcision. On the web it seems people like to adopt
      an anti view- to the extent that we have created a lot of psychotic males that even are mad at their parents for having had them circumcised.

      In truth, there is not much difference in sex for the circumcised or the uncircumcised. The supposed loss of nerve endings is mainly of the type sensors present in huge quantities in any area of skin that exist mainly to pinpoint *where* you have been touched. The sensors that trigger orgasm are placed deeper than that and concentrated in the coronal rim and other areas not removed by circumcision. As a matter of fact, the removal of the insulating effect of the un-needed foreskin area makes for more direct contact with a vagina or hand.

      I tend to feel that the foreskin covered little boy’s penis is appropriate in little boys. The Japanese wear the foreskin retracted as adults, partly a realization of this!

      Before the large increase in circumcision in the US during the last century it was estimated that about 100 years ago as many as 20 to 25% of US males wore their foreskins permanently retracted. There still are many men in various parts of the world that keep the foreskin back. It “is more adult”, cleaner, visually more sensuous.

    • nosaj6 says:

      Ellie, it amuses me that your list of reasons ran out around number 3. I suppose it really isn’t a list without 3 things, so you just had to tack on something. It’s funny you bring up choice, but I must reiterate– why not leave the choice up to your kid once he gets older?

  17. Keith says:

    .”” It “is more adult”, cleaner, visually more sensuous.”” So looks are more important than function? How is “more adult” true? An adult penis is one owned and used by an adult male, if he wants it denuded when he is old enough to know what he is doing, it should be up to him, and nobody else.

    It is down to Harold and his followers that MGM did not die out 100 years ago, but while there is money to be made, ignorant folk will continue to ask for it to be done to powerless children.

  18. hello!,I like your writing very so much! percentage we keep in touch extra approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert in this area to solve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Taking a look forward to look you.

  19. harold says:

    “Jewish teacher Moses Maimonides admitted that circumcision was performed to blunt sexual pleasure”

    OTOH, I read in a “sex” book by a german doctor that the jews were circumcising to increase their race. His idea was that the bared glans rubbing on clothing would stimulate a higher frequency of coitus!

    So we are only dealing with opinions here.

    There is a question often asked by young uncircumcised males on forums on things sexual: “The head of my penis hurts when exposed- what can I do?” The answer always says: “You need to expose it to air!” Next question is” “Won’t I lose sensitivity?” The answer is that you will only lose hypersensitivity. After all life would be a mess if we were continually “horny”. The response to stimulation is produced by the brain energizing the apparatus! This is why I detest the effect produced by some people planting negativity into susceptible minds!

  20. Keith says:

    At what age do human rights start? Birth, or adulthood? Some people think the latter, so it’s OK to do what you want to a child, as they have no rights! When the Victorian quacks were cutting off foreskins to ‘prevent’ masturbation, they were also cutting little girls clitorises off for the same purpose. (And let’s not forget that it was legal to have intercourse with 2 year olds.) The law changed for boys and girls, and quite rightly so. but boys are still mutilated, because the law is not enforced.

  21. I’m extremely impressed along with your writing abilities and also with the structure for your weblog. Is this a paid subject matter or did you modify it your self? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..

    • nosaj6 says:

      Thank you for the compliment. I get nothing for writing this other than the pleasure of spreading uncommon, but rational ideas in a world full of people who mainly piss me off. Allow me to also comment that when I clicked the site linked with your name (yeastinfection.com), it took me to a site about how chronic constipation can leave a person bloated. Oh, how I love a good surprise!

  22. Jarda says:

    A reply to Old Hal, February 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm:

    >I hardly think anyone suggesting a ban on circumcision has any validity.

    I’m not asking a ban on circumcision, I’m asking a ban on infant circumcision. Do with your penis whatever you please, leave others alone and give them the right to do with their penises whatever they please which they cannot if their parents, brainwashed by circumcision machinery propaganda, decide for them before they are old enough to weigh all fors and againsts and make *their own* _informed_ decision.

    >The glans is healthier with exposure to air and has the necessary sensitivity for good sensuous activity when arousal is activated.

    Hogwash. The glans isn’t healthier, it’s just dry like Tutankhamen’s mummy.

    >There are large numbers of young males that pose questions to health sites asking how to cope with various problems that only exist for those that have an intact foreskin.

    Oh, please, how large numbers? Can you use e.g. relative numbers and tell which percent of uncut males are seeking advice for their foreskin problems? Because even if e.g. in USA there would be a health site with 100 000 males asking advice, when expressed in % it would hardly represent a large majority.

    >Those of us that have had an adult circumcision and had years of exposure of the glans can tell you there is no shortage of sensitivity.

    You say that, many others say the opposite. I say the opposite. Having done an adult circumcision trying to correct a screwed up childhood partial circumcision I strongly advice anybody pondering circumcision without really serious reasons (e.g. phimosis) to quickly forget that idea and those having serious reasons to first exhaust all other possibilities.

    • Old Hal says:

      A true anecdote follows: Last week a gelding horse (castrated male) belonging to my wife had to be euthanized because of a tumor in the sheath of his penis. It is usually expected that a non castrate stallion would possibly end up cleaning the sheath by extending the penis often enough in sexual encounters. Many horses including geldings
      will drop the penis out of the sheath to urinate thus doing some self cleaning. Horse owners are advised to hand clean the sheath about every 6 months.

      The tendency for a tumor to form would be enhanced by virtue of the poor cleanliness due to lack of air circulation and the accumulation of “unsanitary materials”. I doubt that circumcision would be an answer here and of course would not “require” circumcision as an answer. I only mention this occurrence to suggest my stance on air benefiting the genital area.

      In the central US circumcision continues to follow a pattern of some families will circumcise and others do not. Circumcision also is somewhat higher in certain areas than others. It is probably better psychologically for this to happen. When I grew up, about ten per cent of my peers were circumcised but I was not. However permanent retraction worked for a while and at 42 I got a circ. No regrets. Certainly handier in hospital care situations and assisted care situations. Some of my peers would brag up their intact state in high school gym and this is going on still with outlandish claims by many anti-circers.

      Old Hal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s