what circumcision does not do
Allegedly a panacea, or at least an effective preventive measure, for everything from masturbation caused epilepsy * to cervical cancer to now the spread of AIDS (HIV), circumcision has nothing to do with any of these things as the foreskin’s presence or absence does not affect cervical cancer rates **, has nothing to do with masturbation habits or practices, and does not play a significant role in transmission of HIV (we have looked over some of the “studies” purportedly showing circumcision as a factor in reducing transmission of HIV and these studies have some serious limitations and flaws). Amputation of the foreskin (and that is what circumcision in the US is) is not medically necessary nor justified.
* We could not make this stuff up, dear readers. This was the rationale for circumcision in the late 1800s in the US: that it would reduce masturbation in young males and masturbation caused epilepsy. The whole thing is quite absurd and serves to demonstrate that we are in the Dark Ages of medicine! Christian doctors of the time even invoked the Bible as supporting circumcision’s (alleged) medical benefits. Apparently, they chose to ignore the New Testament.
** There is some indication that cervical cancer rates are higher in the US than in non-circumcising nations but the incidence of cervical cancer is more dependent upon how widespread various cervical cancer causing STIs are in the population. That said, the keratinization of the glans of the penis which occurs because of circumcision may allow for certain viruses to be transmitted more easily than where such keratinization is not present (non-circumcised penis). Either way, the myth so prevalent in the first half of the 20th century in the US that circumcision serves to prevent cervical cancer has long been debunked.
As to “cleanliness”, a man with a foreskin can easily wash his genitals when he showers or bathes. As to the slight reduction in infant UTIs (claimed by proponents of circumcision), bear in mind that UTIs are fairly rare in infant boys and when these do occur these can be easily treated with antibiotics. Thus, these are not valid reasons or justifications for routine infant male circumcision.
what circumcision does
Here is what circumcision does, besides painfully traumatizing infant boys only hours or days old, it abnormalizes coitus for both the male whose penis is mutilated and for the female on the receiving end of that penis. (This has been dealt with at great length in Kristen O’Hara’s 2002 book, Sex as Nature Intended It.) In circumcised sex, the woman has a harder time reaching or achieving her orgasm(s), and the man, because of the loss of thousands of nerve endings and the keratinization of the glans, has a much less fulfilling experience than if he had his foreskin intact. (These points are based on comparative experiences and those who have had them. Women who have had both natural (uncut or intact) husbands/sexual partners and also had circumcised husbands/sexual partners have preferred natural sex by a very wide margin. Men who were circumcised as adults and had had the experience of natural, uncut sex and then later experienced circumcised sex, also by a wide margin, said sex while possessing a foreskin was much more satisfying. The same is true for those rare men who have been successful in non-surgically “restoring” their foreskins. See O’Hara, 2002.)
As circumcision causes serious harm to married lovemaking, the Christian churches in the US who failed to condemn this practice have been complicit in the harm to tens of millions of marriages over the past century and a quarter in the US.
Circumcision performed on infants in the US tramples upon the child’s right to bodily integrity, and as such is a human rights violation.
What circumcision does do is to line the pockets of the doctors and interns who perform these needless surgeries. There are 2 reasons why the American pediatric community continues to recommend routine infant male circumcision. First, they are loath to admit they are wrong and have been wrong about the supposed benefits of circumcision for more than 125 years now. Second, they have a vested financial interest in the practice continuing.
This primitive, superstitious and barbaric practice that has nothing whatsoever to do with health or “cleanliness”, namely routine infant male circumcision, is performed a million times each year in the US. And, most parents that consent to this needless procedure for their infant sons never stop to think “Why does this need to be done on our infant son?”
The answer is that circumcision does not need to be done to your son or to anyone’s son.
Question circumcision, and reject it now! Reject it for the sake of our sons and our daughters (their future wives).
helpful, related links
As well, the interested reader can see our earlier posts on this topic by using the search box and typing in circumcision.
copyright 2017 – larrysmusings.com