Thursday, March 26, 2009

Circumcision is a bad idea


By Sam Sugar

In Europe, outside certain religious communities, it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t think cutting the end off an infant’s dick is a bad idea. In America, as any Euro who’s dated there knows, opinions differ. With a good urologist making $300 a procedure, and doing up to five circumcisions a day (it’s the most commonly performed surgical procedure in America), the reasons foreskin’s slightly less hip in the US than members-only jackets are clear. Most American women who’ve never experienced a natural penis claim to prefer the cut version they’re used to. The dice are loaded.


The British Journal of Urology’s new study (commissioned by NOCIRC), “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis” explains:

“The study shows that the foreskin is the most sensitive portion of the penis,” said study coauthor Robert Van Howe, a pediatrician at the Marquette General Health System in Marquette, Michigan. “It’s not like you’re chopping off plain old skin. The analogy would be like removing your lips, because the lips are more sensitive than the skin around them.”


And

“…the study authors say they’ve achieved something new with their study: a comparative sensory mapping of the male organ.

This new cartography of the penis proffers nineteen zones. Missing from the circumcised male are eight of these penile destinations, four on the dorsal side (the outer prepuce, the orifice rim, the muco-cutaneous junction, the ridged band) and four on the ventral (frenulum near ridged band, frenulum at muco-cutaneous junction, orifice rim, and outer prepuce). Missing from the uncircumcised anatomy are two regions on this new map, and they’re both scars.


In the areas that cut and uncut men have in common, the study showed a sensitivity deficit of between two and thirty-three percent. In those areas peculiar to the intact penis, the deficit is by definition 100 percent. And it’s in those areas, the study concludes, where most of the sensory action is. Perhaps the most salient of the report’s findings is that “the transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.”


The porn industry plays a part. Manned by lilliputian intellects, and with Jewish men making up a large portion of all male talent, uncut cocks are seldom seen. The American public’s feeling that uncut means unclean feeds a myth about disease and foreskin which people tend not to question. Even if a cut penis is fractionally easier to clean and therefore slightly less likely to carry harmful bacteria, a vagina’s easier to clean when it’s sewn shut and we don’t generally favor that.


With a generation seeing more strange cock on the web as teens than our parents did in a lifetime, the feeling that ‘US porn cock’ IS cock will spread. With the US advocating circumcision in Africa as an HIV prevention measure (ignoring the fact condoms work better) it’s a good time for people who care about free-will and sexual pleasure to point out starting every boy's life by amputating the most sensitive part of his body lies somewhere between unwise and criminal.


Change comes from the young, the young watch porn, and porn has categorized uncut cock as an exclusively gay fetish. Time for a change?

[Read the informative comment on circumcision left by Mark Lyndon of Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]
Post a Comment