Another Good Blog to be Read - The tremendous fuss about circumcision
The blog link :
The tremendous fuss about circumcision
The tremendous fuss about circumcision
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Ever since I wrote about the World Health Organisation I've been following a twitter campaign about circumcision. The thing that interests me is that there are people promoting the event as minor and trivial. That you will have to judge for yourself. You are intelligent and capable of distinguishing what is minor and trivial from what is not.
I should not have to repeat that I am not attacking your religious traditions if that is why you circumcise. I respect those traditions and simply dislike them, but I am repeating it to avoid a religious debate in the comments here. That is not what this post is about.
What it is about is the marketing of circumcision as the cure for all the ills in the world. You can research that for yourself, too. There are sites specialising in blackmailing you as a concerned parent into having your newborn baby boy strapped down and having a part of his natural penis ripped off.
Follow the blog link to see the video.
I have no particular axe to grind here. As a baby I was left intact by wise parents. This was in 1952 and the circumcision rate in the UK was about 50%, judging by the view in the school showers. We boys didn't care much either way. So bang goes the "We did it so he would look like his father" argument.
I think I said before that the uncircumcised were Cavaliers and the circumcised were Roundheads. At around the ages of 7-12 that made a simple way of picking teams in the playground. And no, we didn't have to look, we trusted the others!
None of us gave any thought to circumcision, except to wonder, as puberty approached, how the Roundheads masturbated. We cavaliers had it easy. We just moved the skin up and down and lo and behold we achieved a result. But the Roundheads had no such luxury. One boy rubbed his against his leg, another used the bedsheets. Somehow this didn't seem satisfactory to us or to them. Yes, we discussed it openly. We were 11, 12 and curious creatures.
At some point in my childhood my foreskin was damaged, and the inexorable march of inelastic scar tissue began, encouraged by the relentless masturbation of youth. I had the rotten luck that inelastic scar tissue left me with a non retractable foreskin. That caused hygiene issues, as you can imagine, and caused me, eventually, to become brave enough to visit the doctor and book treatment. In those days they simply circumcised you. Today they would have used less radical surgery and preserved all that they could of the rebellious foreskin.
The surgery was not simple, not at all. It involved a ring of stitches and was badly done. The whole process was deeply unpleasant and temporarily disabling. Nonetheless I was relieved to be free of the foreskin, thinking, as we did at the time, that it was a minor, trivial part of my anatomy.
I noticed after a time a decrease in sexual sensation, but I was previously unable to perform satisfactorily sexually, certainly within a condom, since there was no useful movement of the foreskin over the glans. But I was grateful for the newly functional penis.
Because of my own penile history, when my son was born I asked the doctors about circumcision. I didn't want him to have to go through what I went through. Their advice, wise advice, was to leave well alone. They told me something I didn't know: that other therapies were used before circumcision in the event of problems. So we left well alone. We made an informed choice not to circumcise. It was not a default choice like almost all other parents in the UK in the 1980s. We are not a circumcising nation.
Imagine my surprise as the world became Internet linked, that I was able to discover more about the foreskin. It interested me that knowledge of foreskin form and function appeared to have increased. Now we know that there is a huge population of sexual nerve endings. We know that most men have a huge concentration of sexual sensation in the frenulum, often removed in US neonatal circumcision. We know, now, why we strive to keep the foreskin, even if damaged, as intact as possible.
My story gets even less pleasant. After reading it you will wonder why I remain in favour of leaving the infant penis alone, leaving it intact, uncut. It certainly isn't a matter of aesthetics, so let's get that out of the way.
If you look at a sample of penises, and we had communal showers in school, so there was a good sample, you will see that the circumcised penis has differences in length and girth when flaccid, and there are colouration differences, but that is pretty much that. The cut dick is uniform, pretty much. In a military lineup of naked men, all look pretty regular.
Compare that with the natural penis and the variety becomes huge. Some have overhangs, others look like penne pasta, others are partially retracted at all times, and the location of the opening of the foreskin wanders about a bit, too. You will find that some are aesthetically pleasing, others are not. And your concept of aesthetics will differ from your neighbour's.
But no-one selects their male partner because of the look of his penis. We don't meet people, like them and say "Get your dick out, I just want to see if I like the look of it in case I don't want to get to know you properly!" It became a stupid topic in one episode of Sex and the City, but that's in a nation of rabid circumcisers and a natural penis was once almost unknown there.
So aesthetics are irrelevant. And anyway an intact man can always retract his foreskin and appear to be cut if his partner wants. So he has a convertible!
So, back to the point, literally!
As a couple we were infertile. One doctor blamed the naturally small meatus (pee slit) I had at the time, decided it needed to be wider and prescribed dilation.
Dilation meant it was rent asunder under general anaesthetic and I was instructed to shove a golf tee up it for ever to keep it dilated. I think they saw the private medical cover my employer gave me and just rang the till. It made no difference to our fertility, naturally, but we did everything to conceive, even that.
But, and here's the rub (careful!), that surgery let the interesting ailment, Lichen Sclerosus, or Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans, arrive. The jury remains out on whether that is precancerous, so you kind of want that cured. But before it was identified my meatus all but healed up. Remember the golf tee?
Yes, the golf tee would not go in without great pain, so I neglected it for just too long. The BXO was closing the meatus and the urethra. And being unable to pee is life threatening. So into hospital for a meataplasty. That's 'rebore' to you and me.
No-one told me that I would lose my frenulum.
When it healed I had lost 90% of my sexual response. You do not want to lose your frenulum. Orgasm and the effort to achieve orgasm became frustrating. I needed a belt sander, and orgasm during penetrative sex was something that simply vanished entirely. I always suspected I was a but of a wanker, now I knew that I would be for my whole life!
I also had fun peeing. At the urinal my aim was now nil. I could soak my trousers, my shoes, and the bloke to the left and the one to the right, but there was no way I could hit the wall in front of me. Maybe a clarinet player could have held it better, but I'm no musician, and there's never a clarinettist around when you need one.
A huge complaint to the hospital lost that surgeon his job. There was no point in suing because I couldn't afford to lose, and winning was a matter of suing a doctor, which is hard to succeed with. But I did get referred to the best UK plastic surgeon for penises, Mr Aivar Bracka, in the Midlands.
He took one look, kindly(!) dilated the urethra yet again under local anaesthetic (which hurt like hell just before I got home in the car), and booked me in for a urethraplasty - a urethral transplant from the mucous membrane inside my mouth - to remove the BXO completely. That was horrible, and involved two operations of about four hours apiece and substantial pain afterwards, but the penis is now normal enough. I can pee forwards! I have no BXO.
I was, however, circumcised a second time! The BXO had grabbed the vestiges of the inner foreskin that remained after the first effort.
So here I am, having had my dick mutilated on several occasions, all of which could have been avoided had I been circumcised at birth, and you may wonder "Why the heck does this imbecile oppose neonatal circumcision?"
The answer is simple.
Most boys, the overwhelming majority of boys, will never have any trouble with their penis or foreskin. The few boys that do can have the trouble corrected simply and relatively painlessly with processes that do not involve circumcision. The penis has a foreskin for a reason: it protects, moisturises and keeps the glans sensitive; during sex it provides a gliding action which protects the vagina.
So I favour leaving boys as nature produced them, with a cover over their little spouts.
If they want to modify their bodies when they are old enough to make a choice, that's fine. they own their own bodies, but while they are in our care, while they are our responsibility, we must not mutilate their bodies in any way. That includes their little penises.
What I don't understand is why some people campaign for genital mutilation. What's with that?
The God created all things very good & useful till the end of the things.This is the fate,so don't destroy the goodness that the God gave.
Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made,and,behold,it was very good.And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."