New York Magazine has this article written by a Jewish mother arguing in support of circumcision, naming evidence to support her decision.
Author Hanna Rosin’s case for circumcision:
- Thousands of GIs in North Africa experienced painful infections, such as phimosis, where the foreskin gets too tight to recede over the penis head.
- Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission, as noted in several studies, including one where researchers tried to determine why certain Kenyan men who fancy prostitutes got infected while others didn’t. The foreskin is more susceptible to sores and has a high concentration of certain cells that are portals for the HIV infection.
- In terms of sexual pleasure courtesy of the nerve endings found at the sheath, a study found that 64 percent of Kenyan men who volunteered for circumcision reported being “much more sensitive” after the operation, while their female partners reported increased sexual satisfaction after their men were circumcised.
While it’s true that an uncircumcised penis is more prone to penile problems — such as UTIs, STDs, irritation, and inflammation — I would argue that a man who has good hygiene skills won’t have to worry about much of these issues.
It seems to me that often times men are allowed to be messier than women, with the excuse that they just aren’t the type to do the dishes right away, clean the bathroom, sweep the floors, etc., which is, in part, why a responsible and clean man is so attractive. If your house is clean, chances are your dick and balls are just as squeeky clean and shiny.
Rosin uses statistics that, aren’t only outdated, but also fail to mirror the day-to-day lives of American men. Alright, so GIs with uncircumcised cocks in North Africa during WWII were more prone to infections, but how do those results compare to the American man who wakes up, goes to work, goes for an evening jog, and then goes home to shower?
While there may be a wide array of follies that can happen while circumcising a child leading to pain, infections, and damage to the shaft, I would argue that not all circumcised men suffer from these issues, same way not all uncircumcised men suffer from infections.
Furthermore, I am kind of amazed by how we as a society are completely appalled by female circumcision, and yet are in support of male circumcision.
Yes, I’m aware the two aren’t entirely comparable, on account of the circumcised female not being able to have any sexual sensation post circumcision, but I would argue that there is enough medical evidence which states that removal of the foreskin also means the removal of highly erogenous nerve endings, causing a reduction in sexual sensation for circumcised males.
So what do you roosters and clams think? Are you for or against circumcision? Any uncircumcised men who’d like to share with us whether or not they’ve had medical issues because there aren’t cut?
Source: NYMag via HeebMagazine
Comments
Concerning clitoridectomy, the typical kind of “female circumcision”, some women are supposedly still able to masturbate clitorally after such a procedure — right on their scars. This is probably because the majority of the organ is beneath the skin, still intact. Thanks to Mary Roach for that info.
Personally, I did always feel a little miffed that part of my wang was cut off without consent (or anesthesia, so I hear). But I’m used to it now and am kind of glad I don’t have a foreskin. They’re just weird. No offense, uncut dudes.