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.