American Men: Put away the scissors!
For most Americans, I'm about to get pretty controversial. For everyone else, this post isn't going to be a big deal.
It has come to my attention that most American men are circumsized, while most men around the rest of the world are not. Has anyone ever wondered why that is?
Americans insist that the circumsized penis is cleaner. An uncircumsized penis is ugly and unsanitary. That's the theory. I think the theory is bullshit.
A European friend and I were discussing the origin of circumcision in the United States. It turns out that this was a Puritan practice meant to discourage young boys from masturbating. By removing some of the sensitive tissue (and tissue that allows masturbation to occur without chafing), masturbation will be less pleasurable.
This practice has continued because, like most long-held beliefs, it is very difficult to get people to admit that they are wrong about something to which they have physically committed themselves. How many men that you know would like to admit that their penis has not been circumsized, rather, it had been mutilated?
African women are circumsized, but we generally recognize this practice as barbaric. Why then is male circumsizion both allowed and encouraged? Although not all pleasurable sensation is removed, glands that protect the penis as well as the protective foreskin are literally cut off exposing the penis to infection and cuts.
I realize that this concept leaves most American men feeling less than adequate. Accepting this argument means accepting that they are indeed mutilated. That's a tough pill to swallow. The only thing that would make it worse would be continuing the practice. Let's just try to think about this before we continue to snip our little boys without even giving them the choice.
posted by Kara Alison @ 8:13 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
*ahem*
I knew this.
I still had it done for my boys.
Yeah, it was a tough decision.
Actually, the practice predates the Puritans. It originally was a Jewish custom - part of the convenant agreeement with God. I want to say it came about after the testing with Abraham and Isaac. So, it has religious connections - nothing to do with "hygiene". That may be the arguements now, but not centuries ago.
Mutilation? Yep -for females for sure because it destroys all the nerve endings and therefore all avenues of potential pleasure for women. Men can still get plenty of pleasure - I've never seen any slowdown in their libidos because of it.
Does it look ugly? No! Of course not! In our eyes I guess it might because it is not what American women are used to - but its because of its difference that would give us initial pause. But that shouldn't "stop" anything. If it did, well, good riddence to the female. There is more to a relationship than the look of his penis. Or size for that matter, but that's a different post...LOL
The custom started with the Jews, but it was brought to America by the Puritans.
As with other Jewish traditions (i.e. keeping kosher), this practice had a practical purpose at the time. Jews were essentially nomads and had little access to cleaning facilities. Circumcision was therefore the sanitary choice. It does not though, make sense given current conditions...and it certainly need not apply to all males.
Hi MJ - Thanks for checking out my posts. I'm very flattered to be read. I hope you continue to enjoy. I'm definitely in this to get some people thinking. So glad it's working!
In response to your...response (he): I agree that female circumcision is far mor barbaric and ultimately much more destructive, but I think the two practices do lie on the same spectrum (although likely on opposite ends). As for little boys cleaning themselves properly, I have no doubt you're right about that too. However, little boys (and girls) eat dirt, boogers and other delightful substances. I can't imagine it would be possible to up the ick quotient too much. Actually, now that I think about it, children who are exposed to more bacteria as children have stronger immune systems as adults. This might even help contribute to a healthier life.
Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize (at least not too harshly). I simply want people to think about this practice and see it for what it is. It's always good to think.
As a person who a) has a circumsized penis, and b) likes to be clean, I must say that it seems like circumcision offers a better chance at keeping that guy spic & span than the alternative. I don't know if it is a medical fact or not, but it certainly seems plausible.
I don't feel that I have been mutilated because of it, and I certainly don't think that it is any less healthy if you take care of youy body and your hygene. I have no problem with having been "snipped" as a child.
Furthermore, as Michele alluded to earlier, an uncircumsized penis is foreign to many American women. I'm sure that some uncircumsized American men have encountered a "What the hell is that?!" expression on the face of an unsuspecting partner - something that would present a rather unpleasant/awkward situation.
I would also (without being too graphic) take exception with the premise that "by removing some of the sensitive tissue (and tissue that allows masturbation to occur without chafing), masturbation will be less pleasurable". In essence, by removing the foreskin you are permanently exposing the most sensitive parts of the penis, basically making *any* contact with it a pleasurable experience. Seems a little backwards in that respect.
Hi Jason! Glad to see you. I can't say I'm able to make the decision myself. I'm definitely still debating . Glad to have so many thoughts here.
Dave - No offense intended. I'm glad your penis is working! I agree that American women might react oddly, but I can't imagine people's ignorance being the fuel for my decision.
eeeeh!1 I think I chose the wrong moment to come back and see what you were up to.
I dont think it adds a great deal to the debate but I used to work at Lloyds in London and still wince at the thought of an American Malpractice Claim I had to cart round the market.
The allegation was that the Doctor performing the circumcision operation had left the patient with 'a permanent and painful erection'.
Being sqeamish in these matters I think I shall lie low for a couple of weeks until the focus of attention shifts.
MacDuff - I think I like your response most of all. I've posted something slightly less "sensitive." Hope you find it to your liking.
Hi Kara - This is my first time on your blog and I wanted to say hello! I haven't talked to you in years, but it looks like things are going great for you!
I also wanted to comment on your subject here and note that while circumcision may not be totally necessary, it doesn't really cause any lasting harm, either. As you note, there's a religious precedent for male circumcision. There aren't millions of circumcised Jews out there mourning their foreskins.
I also think the medical community still falls on the side of circumcision because of the potential health benefits. There may not be any real benefits for healthy men who practice safe sex, but I know there are plenty of men who do not. As such, uncircumcised men are at greater risk of transmitting and contracting STDs. That's a public health issue, here and abroad. Here's a recent article about circumcision and AIDS.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Also, the numerous comments you have here prove that people like to talk about pensises.
Hey Mike - it has been quite a while. Great to hear from you.
Interesting points there. I'll have to put in a little bit of research to round out my opinion on this one. Glad you've pointed this out to me.
Oh, and of course people like talking about penises. I think we're all a little bit obsessed.
Post a Comment
<< Home