Pros, cons and history of circumcision
This week I researched a little thing called circumcision. I found that it isn’t just a little procedure done to brand new baby boys being welcomed into the Jewish faith. It is a surgery surrounded by controversy, focused primarily in this country.
As most of you know, circumcision is the practice of cutting the foreskin off of the penis. Let’s first look at the history and reason for circumcision. Circumcision predates recorded human history. There are ancient Egyptian carvings depicting circumcision.
Reasons for circumcision vary by religion and region. It can be considered a ritual sacrifice, a rite of passage into adulthood, a mark of slavery, a health precaution, a social norm or even a means of improving the aesthetic of the region. In Judaism and Islam, it’s a religious commandment and a cause for celebration. It’s believed that somewhere between 16-30% of males worldwide are circumcised. It occurs mostly in countries where circumcision is practiced for religious or cultural reasons, such as Israel, the United States and many Muslim countries. You’re less likely to encounter circumcised penises in countries in Europe, Latin America and many parts of Asia.
So why is circumcision so popular in this country? Rumor has it that it came about in the time of the Victorians, which occurred in the late 19th century, as a solution to masturbation.Later studies from the World Health Organization found that it is possible that a circumcised penis is less likely to spread HIV from male to female – but don’t use your uncircumcised penis as your only form of birth control!
The foreskin of an uncircumcised penis may allow a secretion called smegma, a mix of skin cells, sweat and oil, to develop if it is not regularly cleaned, therefore hygiene is also a reason for circumcision.
So if there are all of these reasons to cut off your foreskin, why is the United States the only nation doing it for reasons other than religion? Probably because it is a surgery that requires anesthesia and removes a useful and sensitive part of the penis. The foreskin contains extremely sensitive nerve endings called stretch receptors which do nothing but make sex more enjoyable.
The American Medical Association does not recommend the non-ritual circumcisions of newborn boys and its policy statement says that circumcision in the United States occurs largely due to cultural and social expectations rather than health concerns, and that presenting medical information on circumcision to the parents had little effect on their decision to circumcise.
I questioned both circumcised and uncircumcised men and found that both were comfortable with their penises and happy with their parents’ decisions. So we can see that whether or not your foreskin gets cut off, you will most likely go on to have a happy, healthy sex life.
There may be a tendency in this country to discriminate against uncircumcised men as being unclean. If you’ve only experienced a circumcised penis, it may take some getting used to sexually. But just think of the majority of the population that would think the circumcised penis is just as bizarre. Being uncircumcised is completely acceptable, even in our overly hygienic culture. So if you love a guy with the foreskin, learn to love all of him.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am and is filed under Perspectives.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print this post
Email this post© 2008 The Nevada Sagebrush
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
“I questioned both circumcised and uncircumcised men and found that both were comfortable with their penises and happy with their parents’ decisions.”
There are a few problems with this:
1. Unless you were very careful, your sample was probably not diverse.
2. Often people will profess acceptance of what they cannot change.
3. Often American men are not educated about what circumcision cost them.
4. Often males not want to admit their sexuality isn’t what it could be, even if they know it’s true.
“Probably because it is a surgery that requires anesthesia…”
Babies cannot be anesthetized like adults can, and many get absolutely no anesthesia at all (up until a decade or so ago, the party-line was basically “babies don’t feel pain”, a terrible lie).
“…and removes a useful and sensitive part of the penis. The foreskin contains extremely sensitive nerve endings called stretch receptors which do nothing but make sex more enjoyable.”
Thank you for making this extremely important point. Circumcision interferes with two very obvious functions– protection of the glans, and sexual pleasure.
Look, those of us comfortable with circumcising children, we’ve made a mistake. But so long as it was an honest mistake, and we stop making it, then we aren’t bad people cruelly mutilating our children, depriving them of the sexual pleasure they are entitled to, inflicting upon them what was inflicted upon us… We were misled by doctors who shouldn’t have been willing to do it even if we wanted them to. Doctors who circumcise without a medical reason violate principles of their profession, as well as their responsibility to their patients. Thankfully there are others working to uphold the good name of their profession.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“The foreskin of an uncircumcised [sic] penis may allow a secretion called smegma, a mix of skin cells, sweat and oil, to develop if it is not regularly cleaned, therefore hygiene is also a reason for circumcision.”
Hygiene is not a reason for circumcision. Females develop smegma, yet we understand that regular bathing is the answer, not genital surgery. Soap and water work equally well on males.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Perhaps you could have researched the topic a little bit more, and for further notice, a female columnist writing about male circumcision… how exactly are you the best person to broach the subject?
A mediocre column, but only because you’ve written some better stuff before. This was dry and not as informative as it could have been. Leave it to the gay columnists like Dan Savage to talk about male circumcision.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:35 am
“studies from the World Health Organization found that it is possible that a circumcised penis is less likely to spread HIV from male to female”
DANGEROUSLY WRONG! Only from female to male, and not enough to rely on. In fact the people promoting circumcision so avidly seem to ignore is the risk of “vaccinated” men imposing unsafe sex on women more than before - and this after Bill Gates and Bill Clinton stressed the importance of empowering women in the fight against AIDS.
Women also get smegma, yet that is not considered “a reason for circumcision”.
That “medical” circumcision was started to prevent masturbation is not just “rumor” but well researched in two books, “Marked in Your Flesh” by Leonard Glick and “A Surgical Temptation” by Robert Darby.
“circumcised and uncircumcised men … both were comfortable with their penises and happy with their parents’ decisions” But more than one survey has found that intact men were several times more likely to be happy with what they have than circumcised men, and it’s hardly surprising, is it? (The biggest reason for being unhappy with being intact is being “different from the others”, and guys generally grow to realise that it’s the others who are missing something. If not, they can change it much more easily than the circumcised guys can.)
Next time, Karah, spend more than a week.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“a circumcised penis is less likely to spread HIV from male to female – but don’t use your uncircumcised penis as your only form of birth control!”
HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with conception. Making light of HIV/AIDS is dangerous. Instead of the distasteful joke, Karah should have urged her readers to pick up condoms at the student health center as a way to prevent STD infection.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“don’t use your uncircumcised penis as your only form of birth control!”– An interesting point. I know some women who have said they wouldn’t date a man who was uncircumcised, and definitely wouldn’t go down on him. I think it has to do with the smegma buildup, and the unlikelihood of a man showering right before sex.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:48 am
http://www.intactivist.wordpress.com/
December 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
The whole smegma thing is bunk, Alain. Smegma is greek for “soap” and women produce it too. Basic, regular hygiene prevents build-up; it’s not rocket science. Ever see a newborn circumcision procedure? This is a clip from the groundbreaking film Birth as We Know it (http://www.birthasweknowit.com/) produced by Elena Tonetti-Vladimirova: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk
See also the new BJU study from last March that concluded “Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
Male babies deserve the same protection from non-consensual, non-medically indicated genital cutting little girls are afforded. This is a human rights and gender equality issue.
Jen
http://www.intactivist.wordpress.com/
January 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I prefer to use the term natural rather than intact to describe myself and other men who have not been altered.
Some of the comments above about hygiene have no basis in reality. Drawing back my foreskin and washing myself is a lot quicker than brushing my teeth.
My foreskin gives me so much sensation and satisfaction, that I would not know what to do if I loss it.
My girlfriend, who is a very creative person has found ways to play with it by pulling it with her lips. She also says, that she no longer has any vaginal dryness or irritation since we started having sex. She believes that under the foreskin there is a natural moisturizer that lubricates the vaginal tract. Her experience has been that guys that are natural(intact) glide in the vagina as opposed to circumcised guys - who seem to work harder on having sex.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Is Bill Clinton an uncircumcised dog? Did he spray his uncircumcised filth into the face of an innocent Jewish girl named Monica?