Friday, March 09, 2007

Circ'd II: A Second Cut At The Subject

I seem to have touched a few nerves earlier this week with my discussions of duplicitous prostitutes, inept governments and crass consterno mouthpieces. Let’s see if I can’t go three for three with my last post for this week.

Over a year ago I did a post espousing a pro-circumcision stance. I won’t revisit all the reasons I proffered at that time; follow the link if you care to read that one.

But the controversial topic has recently shown its head in the news media, and the new information those stories provided inspired me to do a second circumcision post.

Studies have shown that circumcision can significantly cut the equipment owner’s risk of contracting HIV. This was noted as especially significant for Africa, where circumcisions aren’t common, but HIV is.

The practice also helps reduce the overall chance of infections in the penile province.

This article, which details those points, includes one expert essentially stating that, since we don’t remove girls’ breast tissue at birth to help them avoid developing breast cancer later, it doesn’t make sense to circumcise boys on the chance they make get some kind of infection.

That reasoning is fellatios. Or, rather, fallacious. (Damned homonyms!) Removing an entire organ that has a purpose is a radical procedure that is not equivalent to excising a piece of skin without one. (So there!)

There has been another recent, um, wrinkle in the circumcision debate, of concern to women. Specifically, while circumcised men may enjoy a decreased chance of contracting some infections, their female partners may face an increased risk of disease from permitting entrance of a shorn member into their nethers.

Somehow I am reminded of a phenomenon I heard of a few years back: The mounting presence of large, formidable SUVs on road has meant increased protection in an accident for their respective drivers, but greater danger for people in the normal, reasonable vehicles with which they are colliding.

From that standpoint, I guess the health benefits of circumcision may be a wash.

Speaking of wash, I didn’t talk too much about the hygiene benefits of the procedure in my earlier post. My main focus was on aesthetics and social difficulties.

Uncut men do have greater hygiene concerns, not just from the standpoint of serious diseases, but from the fact that they need to pay extra attention to that area, lest some jimmy-jam begin to accumulate.

A very simple thing to do, people will tell you. Hey, I don’t imagine it’s a, um, hard thing to do. But easy habits haven’t necessarily led to their adoption (e.g. some people still can’t remember to put on a seatbelt, or can’t be troubled with it, even though it’s the easiest and smartest thing in the world to do).

Take a look at the fingernails of the average guy. Is the area under them clean? A lot of them are not. And those are visible to the general population. Will most men take that extra care each day to clean the little joey hiding in his pants pouch? I have my doubts.

Some will also speak of the loss of sensitivity circumcised men can suffer in that area. Let’s think about this one for a minute...

Decreased sensitivity means it takes men longer to climax. Women complaining that men just get in and out and then conk out has been a cliché for eons. It's established in popular culture and lore. So why would women object to something that forces a man to stay on the job longer?

There’s a cottage industry of topical ointments that desensitize a man expressly for the purpose of delaying orgasm and lengthening the sex act for the enjoyment of both parties. Further, there’s a cottage industry of pills intended to help “premature” men go the distance.

The existence of these industries seems to indicate that pre-jac is a common problem. So, can you imagine how much worse the problem would be in America if most men weren’t circumcised? Come… on!

Well, I think I’ve done enough damage to my carpal tunnel regions for today. I’ll leave you to imagine me as a hooker-frequenting louse who can’t deliver the goods.

Hey, I’m just saying what you’re thinking. LOL.

14 comments:

Tony said...

Removing an entire organ that has a purpose is a radical procedure that is not equivalent to excising a piece of skin without one.

That would be a great argument if it was true. It's not. The foreskin has several significant functions, including protecting the glans and providing stimulation during intercourse.

Decreased sensitivity means it takes men longer to climax. ... So why would women object to something that forces a man to stay on the job longer?

The man's opinion about his body is irrelevant, leaving only the woman's viewpoint to determine what's best for him? What if, after losing that sensitivity, it becomes virtually impossible to climax in a reasonable time? What will he think? What will she think?

Of course, if you're going to argue decreased sensitivity as a benefit, you're contradicting your earlier statement that the foreskin serves no purpose.

LeftLeaningLady said...

Well, I guess the woman's opinion only matters if you are trying to get naked with her! I personally have not ever had sex with a non-circumcised man, nor will I ever. Ewwwww. From the female point of view, it just seems like it would never get clean.

Great post!
I love your blog.

Pete Bogs said...

tony - welcome... the penis seems to function fine without it... it's really the appendix of the genital world... if one were to remove ALL the skin from the shaft, stimulation would be difficult... as it stands, however, we all have skin there that slides back and forth and feels real good...

your last two paragraphs are interesting, because I included those aspects of the post in direct response to comments I got on my original circ blog... comments, I should add, made by women... so, I was addressing those women's objections...

in actuality, what we think about ourselves matters the most... (in a comment on another blog, I stated that men often face anger if they address a women's personal health issue, and that there may be a double standard if women can comment on circumcision)

but I am willing to play devil's advocate, as I did in this post...

extending sex is better for both partners, so that's not a woman-only benefit, btw...

LLL - thanks, and welcome... my previous post on this topic (referenced with a link) covers what I would expect women's reactions to be to an uncut member... my speculation was correct, at least about what a woman such as yourself thinks... good to know I wasn't completely off-base... thanks!

Tony said...

I don't have a problem with your thought process or conclusion. They're valid as far as they apply to you. My only complaint, and it's based on your previous post as much as anything, is when those conclusions are applied to infants. That's the unsaid issue here.

extending sex is better for both partners, so that's not a woman-only benefit, btw...

Generally, but it's subjective. An adult male and his partner can make that assessment. Parents can't know, so why should they apply their subjective choice for their son through unnecessary surgery? He might not have any issues with controlling climax. The correlation is not automatically foreskin = premature climax.

LLL, that gets at your comment. If you don't want to sleep with an intact man, that's your choice. But that's not a reason to circumcise anyone, much less a child. If you meet a man who is intact, and he deems a (sexual) relationship with you sufficient to justify getting himself circumcised, all is wonderful. That's a choice between the two of you.

Essentially, parents who circumcise for this scenario are making an undiscussed decision about their son's penis and how he should enjoy it with his unknown future partner. That's absurd. What if the parents make that choice because they think it's what he and his partner want, but he (and his partner) would rather have his penis intact?

That's what happened to me. If I'd been left intact as I would've chosen, and I encountered a relationship where it was get cut or walk, I would walk. If who I am isn't enough to overcome what I (should) have, so be it.

That's the bottom line here. The whole decision is subjective. Does the boy value the sensitivity and functions of the foreskin more than the risks and effort associated with a foreskin? Does he value the expectation of circumcision by American women more than any lost sensitivity? And so forth. Only he's qualified to make that decision. The rest is just speculation. Speculation is not a justification for surgery, no matter how appendix-like the healthy body part may or may not be.

Pete Bogs said...

tony - you make good points... though, I must point out that babies don't get a choice in anything about themselves... I would not suggest anyone who is one way be the other... it is a decision parents should make when the boy is born... again, they make 100% of the decisions for him at that point, so this would fall in there, too...

I don't think foreskin means premature climax... but my comments there, as they often are, were devils advocate statements... and in direct response to people who commented on the earlier post...

the point of BogsBlog is always to suggest an alternate to conventional wisdom... that's the running theme... that, and to have some fun with people... hence the satirical and/or tongue-in-cheek posts I sometimes do here... perhaps this was all tongue-in-cheek, or parts of it were? I never like to say...

infinitesimal said...

Oh sweet Bogs,
I don't think you are a hooker frequenting louse who can't get the job done...

I just think you are a gay misogynist.

and even then, it's all in the spirit of debate.
not for realsies

But I am gonna spank you
so you better get ready.
for realsies

and there are SUPER gigantic huge boobs over at my blog that are begging for comment

Tony said...

Don't worry, I know you weren't saying that foreskin = premature anything. I mostly finishing with a bit of hyperbole for effect.

To what you said...

though, I must point out that babies don't get a choice in anything about themselves... I would not suggest anyone who is one way be the other... it is a decision parents should make when the boy is born... again, they make 100% of the decisions for him at that point, so this would fall in there, too...

I have more to say, but for now, I have a question:

If this falls into the realm of decisions parents make, where is the limit of what parents can decide? Essentially, what's the principle underlying the choices they should be able to make?

As you can imagine, I disagree with your stance, but I'm curious to understand yours.

Pete Bogs said...

infini - "gay," huh? I loves me some coochie, baby...

tony - my viewpoint is that, while I was not given a choice, I am ok with the choice my parents made... I do not see the big deal, though it's come to my attention some men do have an issue... I was raised with a perspective that it was "normal" and common to have it done... and, as I write, there are some benefits... though some of what I say is tongue-in-cheek, and intended to spark a dialogue...

infinitesimal said...

coochie?
huh?

let's go with misogynist then
(JK!)
and PS:
Extra sour cream?
is THAT a euphemism? because if so.... EEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

Pete Bogs said...

infini - I was just being gross with the sour cream... I don't like my fish tacos "yeasty"

Bird said...

i simply can't stand it.
it's so effing simple.
hygiene.
hygiene.

would i sleep with a man with filthy dirty hands and nails? no - unless he was already mine and i knew why the hands and nails were dirty (i.e. - he was fixing my, er, um, engine and we were both suddenly overwhelmed by um, er, um, the power of it all...)

would i touch a dirty penis? let alone take it into my mouth?
nope.

heavens to betsy - this is much ado
about
very
l
i
t
t
l
e.

clean yourselves up boys.

Tony said...

I do not see the big deal, though it's come to my attention some men do have an issue...

That's all I'm getting at. Some men do have an issue with it, myself included. At what point should that factor into whether we give parents the option to make the boy's choice?

Parents are going to make choices the kid doesn't like. But forcing oatmeal instead of Frosted Flakes for breakfast can be overcome. Removing the foreskin can't. It's great that you were raised to think circumcision's good. I was, too. But I rejected that. You're not wrong, but I'm stuck because I reached a different conclusion.

That's the flaw in allowing parents to make the decision. They can influence the acceptance, but they can't dictate it. There are (potential) benefits, which I won't deny. They're just not compelling enough because circumcision is permanent with risks and the benefits it aims to achieve aren't needed at the time of the surgery. The body is healthy.

Also, I'm not convinced that parents circumcise for medical reasons. That's what they say because it sounds better, but it's usually second. Aesthetics is first in most cases I encounter. That's bizarre since aesthetics is purely subjective and should be left to the individual.

Pete Bogs said...

bird - who's "little?" ;-)

tony - fair enough... I do understand that some men have been able to regain the pre-circ state by stretching the skin forward over the hood... it easy for us to do this... a lot of times it happens on its own... maybe that is a possibility? though I'm sure you've read up on it...

Tony said...

I have read up on it, but it doesn't restore the nerve endings lost to circumcision.