Post From Vox:
Lemme start of by sayin’ that I’m a guy, and with that fact it hopefully goes without saying that I do have a penis. I do not, however, have a chunk of it surgically removed.
Why, may I ask, does such an operation exist?
If I was to ask someone today why on Earth someone would actually cut a chunk off, the most common argument is some dribble about health. I say dribble because despite the urban legend that circumcision is actually medically beneficial to you, it’s not ever been proven that it actually helps keep you healthier, with the small exception of potential reduced risk of HIV contraction during sex, which is such a small reduction in liklihood to contract the virus that you would probably catch it anyway, circumcised or not.
Of course, we could also just look at the theorised roots of the procedure and throught a huge number of candidates about how this crazy operation actually came to be, healthcare was almost unanimously not one of them.
Healthcare, then? Not bloody likely! Why do people look at a dick and assume it’s dirty? It’s a shame to think that most american males look at their penis and think that it’s so filthy, when the hands they use to masturbate with are probably hundreds of times more germ-infested… In fact, that very part of the body that’s so badly assosciated with filth is actually cleaner than a large number of other body parts, especially since pre-cum has this nifty advantage of cleaning it out of germs to prepare for healthy sperm to be launched, and lemme tell you that the foreskin being chopped has sweet fuck all to do with that, so let’s drop this falacy that it has, or ever did have anything to do with health.
Although it’s become far worse than a prevaling medical procedure done to combat disease. These days it’s become a trend of sorts in america. Being cut seems to be the popular, cool, fashionable way to do it, despite the fact that female circumcision is looked upon as an act of barbarianism. Young males might actually get mocked or bullied in schools because their body is natural and not deformed; it seems like lunacy to me that mutilation is the commonplace, and the natural growth of the body is a weird, taboo defect in that culture.
Hell, I even saw a post by someone some time ago asking if it was alright to be uncut….of course it’s bloody alright!! Might as well ask if it’s alright not to have your ears, nose, tongue, nipples, belly, balls and spinal chord pierced or punctured in some way…who needs to be normal, eh?
Ignoring the fact that it’s somehow cool to the american kids, I can’t see how people don’t look at enforced circumcision on infants as some kind of abuse. You can sue hospitals and surgeons for performing unwanted surgery, so why can’t you sue the surgeons and your parents for giving the go-ahead of a life-altering amputation at an age where you don’t even understand what’s going on.
I’m pretty sure that if said child grew up and decided he wanted to have a skinless dick so badly, he could opt for the operation himself, but who the hell’s to say he will? What gives the parents the right to decide that for a child at that age?
Religion? Well, not much need said about that; considering that there’s no religious benefits and the popular answer in america is “for sex”, it hardly coincides with the religious views of “no sex”. Given that and the fact that circumcision is virtually a default operation on newborns and not all families or jewish, so it clearly has squat to do with religion.
Going back to the argument about medical benefits, there have actually been people who’ve sought reattachment procedures from a few specialist surgeons (shockingly, america is the only country who even bothered (or indeed needed) to develop such a procedure) which rarely have perfect results and can actually cause more harm than good, not to mention potential PTSD or the long-term anger and hatred instilled within their brains when they were forcibly cut up.
So, phsyical and phsycological harm and distress aside, what else would there be?
Sex, obviously!
Wait….that can’t possibly be an argument for circumcision, can it?
Somehow, it is. For the benefit of the female, there is none. Some claim that circumcision removes some kind of smell, but get real….a tiny chunk of skin won’t get rid of an entire smell from the genitals…he either smells or he doesn’t; whether his cock is cut or not won’t change that.
Circumcised males are typically reported to have sex hard, angry and “pounding”, which can result in the female being less than pleased (depending on what kind of lass she is!) and it creates a certain skin friction (which would otherwise be prevented by the soft foreskin) which can, again, potentially harm the female.
Not to mention that many women who’ve commented on the subject mention that foreskin adds more…variance and interest!
Benefits for the guy? Well, supposedly they can reach orgasms faster….go you….
Other than that, well thousands of ultra sensitive nerves on the foreskin are chopped off, so they quite literally only lose sensation.
Great sex, eh?
What the hell do I know, though eh? I’ve never tried it…maybe I’d like the feeling of my dick being chopped up by some lunatic with a knife (although that sounds curiously similar to a certain threat that’s been issued to me by my girl should I ever cheat on her…) but it’s not somethin’ I’m crazy about.
Although one last thought….
For anyone who finds the fun in mocking uncut dudes, or thinks they’re cool because they’re cut, you might wanna know my favourite theorised origin of circumcision…
It was supposedly used, way back when, as a method to demasculinise, maim and otherwise humiliate slaves.
Circle of Tangents 