Medical Reasons to Oppose Circumcision
Dean
The other day I received a very interesting email on this subject, one that was pretty turbulent and emotional. I may or may not reprint it, but I will say I've had many of the same emotions.
On Sunday I attended a group meeting of men who are working to restore what was wrongfully taken from them, against their will, in infancy: their foreskins. I was a bit worried that it would be a group of weirdos and flakes, but it was not. I saw men from their twenties to at least one grandfather, all reporting varying degrees of success and universally stating that their sexual function and pleasure improved enormously from their efforts at renewal--and those running the group showed substantial medical research showing not just why what's cut away in circumcision is far more than "just a flap of skin" and how yes, the methods of restoring are medically valid--although they take years of diligent effort and aren't easy, and can only promise to restore some, not all, of the various types of tissues that were cut away.
From a medical perspective, it's rather interesting how American physicians still seem mostly unaware of groundbreaking research that's been done in the UK, Canada, and Australia about the unique and vital role the foreskin, prepuce, and frenulum all play in both sexual pleasure, and the undeniable fact that most of what is cut away in circumcision is not merely "a flap of skin" but an intricate set of erogenous tissue with important functions. It's also interesting that they generally seem unaware of the sexual dysfunctions that have been proven to be caused by circumcision.
A good starting point is Dr. John Taylor's Ridged Band site. Of particular note are also scholarly papers including:
Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor. Brit. J. Urol. 1996
Cold and Taylor. Brit. J. Urol. Intl. 1999
The Frenular Delta by Dr. Ken McGrath.
It is also very informative to look at the statements of various medical groups around the world, and compare how timid the statements of American medical groups are by comparison.
The restoration group's "science geek" was kind enough to pass these along to me for the reading of some of you more hard-core resistors. Simply put, this is more than a flap of skin and if you've "never noticed a difference" it's because you haven't been informed, not because there is no difference.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Medical Reasons to Oppose Circumcision
- From the Mailbag
- Religious Reasons
- More on Circumcisions
- Breast Reduction At Birth?
- Circumcision Bulls**t
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The restoration has been medically shown to improve sexual performance and sensation. Denying the medical evidence is simply an exercise alternately in self-justification or in simple denial.
Ah, the unfairness of it all. Life can be such a piece of shit, when you think about it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
For the 60% of America's males who got the axe shortly after birth, good sex is where you find it, and with whom, and the regularity with which you take advantage of what nature gave you (and the prick doctor left you) while you are young enough to enjoy it as you ought.
I still do, and I'm an old man of 71. I wish for you similar luck, long life, and lots of screwing. Meantime, stop whining about how your mamma and her MD cheated you at birth.
Or, if it works for you and you feel strongly enough about it, grow a new one. Which, I understand, is something that you can do by stretching the rest of the skin, or getting a skin graft, or something weird on that order.
Anyway, we will all love you just as much, whether or not your one-eyed pope stares up at you from under a funny new hat, as they say.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I have provided you with copious medical references which you may check for yourself. If you cannot be bothered to read them, then there is simply no point--you may continue telling yourself that this practice is meaningless and that attempting restoration is simply a matter of vanity like fixing baldness if you wish. You are incorrect--flatly so, undeniably so--but you will think what you will think.
As chance would have it, I too have been reading medical references about the pros and cons of circumcision. Some of these references support your point of view. Some of them support circumcision. There is neither medical, social or even religious agreement over the practice.
I have tried to treat the matter with levity, because most men and women treat this as a sort of joke. I admit I am included in that group.
But I can cearly see that you have a strong concern about the fact that you were circumcized, presumably at birth, and that you either want or intend to reverse it through foreskin restoration.
OK, Dean. I wish you well. I hope it succeeds. I hope the solution is not more painful to you than doing nothing at all. And I truly wish you 50 or more additional years of the best fucking that man ever enjoyed. And improved self-esteem too, if you feel yours was damaged because you had no say-so whatsoever in what in essence was an amputation performed on your body.
You've also convinced me that maybe in the ethical sense, Jews and Muslims ought to carry out circumcision only after the onset of adulthood, when a man has come of age and can decide for himself what to do with his own body. After all, if you want to find allah, adonai, or some other holy ecstasy through chopping off part of your prick, and you have reached adulthood, then, okay, it's your choice.
But not being a believer of any kind, either for or against any particular gods, goddesses, prophets, holy folks or much else of that ilk (sort of like you, I suppose), I certainly cannot find any substance in a religious argument for or against circumcision.
Nor can I have any way of knowing whether sex is more intensely pleasant with or without foreskins.
The truth is, I never really thought about any of this at all until you started raging about it on Dean's World. As I wrote earlier, some 60% of American males are circumcised. I don't suppose that more than a relatively small minority of these are believing Jews or Muslims.
The only place I go where there are naked men is the dressing room of the big, new fitness center on the far southwest side of Madison. Being a straight guy, I don't make a habit of inspecting other peoples' pricks. But when I come to think about it, it's been a long time since I've seen one that wasn't circumcized.
Anyway, with the blessing of all of us, I am sure, I advise you to go ahead and rectify what was done to you. Then I invite you to honestly report back what you feel about it (literally as well as figuratively) a year or so later.
If there can be resurrection for mankind, why not restoration for mankind?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Nope, age 5.
(Mary Janelle, what in hell were you thinking of that day?)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Circumcizing under such conditions is utterly and completely unnecessary, as there are multiple alternatives. But that's still used as justification even today--and men who've had the procedure done as adults (or teenagers) for such reasons (the condition is called phimosis) will almost universally tell you that the loss of sexual sensation is enormous (as is, in many case, the loss of control--premature ejaculation is much more common in circumcized men--see the references I've given again).
Not being racist, I assume pricks are more or less universally the same, except maybe for some freaks like John (Johnny Wadd) Holmes at one end of the scale and some unfortunate short-horns at the other end.
Stefi also reminds me this morning that Muslim males get circumcised at 13 years of age; sort of like taking part in a painful and weird bar-mitzva. Thereafter, do they all go wild over this, spilling their love juice prematurely and taking it out on folks? If so, maybe that helps explain the apparent endless anger associated with Arabs, Iranians, Paks, Indonesians and all the rest.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
You were having erections at five years of age?
(I don't even recall that I knew much more than my own name at five. But maybe I knew more than I realized. But it wasn't until much later that I started dreaming of balling women.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Little pre-pubescent boys often have erections. My own little son Draco, all of four months old, occasionally sports a boner. It has no sexual function of course; I'm not sure but I'm pretty certain he is incapable of producing sperm-laden semen. But an erection is nothing but blood filling his little trouser snake. All little boys--all of them--have erections. It is entirely normal for a pre-pubescent boy to have an erection. Just ask your lovely wife Stefi and she'll tell you they do have them now and then. It's an entirely normal thing.
Occasionally I would have an erection as a 4-5 year old boy. And they tended to hurt. The fix for this is fairly simple and does not in any way require surgery. Even in more extreme cases there are alternatives to circumcision. Alas, in the early 1970s, doctors simply assumed that circumcision was the answer.
My wife is right that I am a little emotional on the subject, as I was circumcized at age 5 and it was terribly painful. Worse, after the circumcision, a part of my remaining foreskin attached to my glans and continued to hurt--and so the doctor put sandbags on my arms and legs to prevent me from fighting him, and with brute force pulled the last vestige of my foreskin down while I screamed in agony.
This only bothers me inasmuch as I now know that none of this was ever necessary.
My first child, one of our three sons, was born when I was already 43 years of age and beyond being impressed by minor phenomena. In any case, when I helped change his diapers, and those of his three siblings (we have one daughter), I found myself more interested in keeping my hands out of their baby shit than paying any attention to what their genitalia were doing.
Last word. If a foreskin seems vital or even just useful to you, then, hell, go for it. And if they took yours away against your will, or if you had it cut off and then changed your mind, then I have no problem with you doing something specific to grow one back, or use a skin graft, or whatever.
I just wish you wouldn't be so preachy about something that so many of us consider so damned inconsequential. But even so, if preaching works for you, then go for it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI