Most likely you have heard at some point of your life about genital mutilation, so, let me tell you a bit about you. After a few hours sorting facts on different websites, to mention a few, Wikipedia, the site for the Center of Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as well as the program about the topic on Penn & Teller's Bullshit (I know it doesn't sounds serious, but it is), I have been able to collect an interesting set of acts.
It seems that around four or five millennia ago, somewhere in the banks of the Nile river, after the agricultural revolution had started and food was abundant, that allowed the formation of a rich class whose spare time was more abundant than before, as they did not have to be concerned at every moment on where their next meal would come from. Well, this allowed this class to think a bit more about their surroundings, some of them, being proactive, invented engineering, others, being a pain in the rear end, decided it was more interesting to study the moral and spiritual beliefs of their ancestors, and invented that obnoxious thing called Religion (if your religion is one of the Abrahamic, say, Christianity, Islam or Judaism, do you think your religion is not heavily influenced by the early Egyptian beliefs... think again!).
Well, some of the things these guys were very concern about was people fooling around. They were really disgusted with people having more than one sexual partners on their life time, and searched for a solution. Do you believe that these morons came with the idea that the best way to avoid people to fool around was to reduce as much as possible the amount of sexual gratification they were able to feel by amputating as much of the sex organs as it was safe to do without affecting reproduction? This guys effectively maimed, crippled if you prefer, the sexual organs of the population under their ruling.
I imagine that by know, I have very worked up some of my feminist friends, as for some reason, people hear genital mutilation and immediately think on the ritual removal of the clitoris practiced on large parts of Africa and important portions of Asia and the Middle East. Well, I hope you know that according to the WHO, while about one 100 to one 150 million women in the world have been genitally mutilated, there are between 750 million to a billion men who have been genitally mutilated in the world. Don't believe me: WHAT DO YOU THINK CIRCUMCISION IS?
Before you go ballistic on me for equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, please, think what are the difference between them. Let's see, female genital mutilation is considered a violation of human rights and has been banned in almost the entire world, making it go underground and be performed by untrained and unskilled practitioners, resulting on a rate of one on three serious complications post procedure. Male circumcision on the other hand is a widely accepted practice, performed for the most part in sterile environments, by trained and skilled professionals who spent the best part of a decade, if not more, training and perfecting their abilities to treat patients, AKA, medical doctors.
Now, you would say, studies suggest that the total removal of the clitoris reduced the sexual pleasure for a woman on a 90%, making the orgasm very hard to reach. Granted, circumcised men are able to reach orgasm on a very high percentage of sexual encounters. But consider the following facts:
- Although it is known that ejaculation and orgasm are two different mechanisms on the male body, how many men do you know who can achieve either one without the other? Possible, maybe, rare, definitely. The primitives were barbaric, but they were not stupid. For the most part, no orgasm implies no ejaculation, what implies no impregnation, what implies no reproduction, and that's bad for any civilization.
- In average, a circumcision, whether performed in a new born, or at some other stage in life, will deprive the adult male of an average of 20 square inches of penile skin. The average circumcised penis has a surface of 30 square inches. So, effectively, circumcision deprives a man from 40% of the sensitive skin on his penis, so, you could say, that reduced in AT LEAST a 40% the man's ability to feel sexual pleasure
- The nerve terminals in the penis skin are not uniformly distributed, this means, some spots are MUCH MORE sensitive than others. Guess what! It happens to be that the five spots with the highest concentration of nerve terminals in the penis are in the foreskin that is removed by the circumcision. Besides, the Glans on a uncircumcised man is mostly protected by the foreskin, making it MUCH MORE sensitive than that of a circumcised man. So, do you think that it is really 40% what I lost when I was circumcised? Some specialists estimate that it may be as much as 60% the sensation lost by the adult penis due to circumcision.
So, you could hardly maim the penis more than a circumcision without rendering unsuitable for sexual use, and thus, for reproduction. Is it then that much different from those rituals performed by African tribes? Circumcision effectively and significantly reduce the capacity for sexual gratification. Besides, some doctors say that the removal of the foreskin messes up with the mechanism to trigger ejaculation on the men, and argue that premature ejaculation is twenty times more prevalent in circumcised men than it is in those uncircumcised.
Most countries in the western world are mostly Christian, therefore, let me give you a very brief story of circumcision on your religion. Christianity is one of the Abrahamic religions, thus, it shares a core of values and beliefs with Judaism, and most early Christians were in essence Jewish people who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but believe they should follow the Mosaic law to achieve salvation, and they pushed the Christian church to require practice. But there were several problems. First, other converts did not want to maim themselves (they were not that dumb after all), and an important part of the leaders in early Christianity (Peter and Paul, to cite a few) felt they should emphasize the salvation through faith and not through Rabbinic law, and thus they declared that circumcision was not required from new converts. Besides, as Christianity expanded, Jewish traditions and the Jewish population itself felt from favor (ever heard of antisemitism?), and so did circumcision. Indeed, in the Ecumenical Council in Florence, in 1442, the Pope Eugene IV declared circumcision as a deadly sin (don't believe me, check it out).
With this precedent, you would ask why it is somewhat prevalent even in Christian communities. Well, there are two main theories about it, my favorite is this one. Have you ever heard of the Victorian Era? Well, among the resurgence of so many hypocritical moral dogmas, one of them was that masturbation was a sin, and to discourage masturbation among boys, they decided to cut part of their dicks off. Do you really want to trust the principle of maiming your child to the same trend of thought that came with the idea of table covers to take the table legs out of the men sight, and to call different parts of the bird as white meat and dark meat because the terms breast and thighs could provoke impure thoughts? Unfortunately, if you do, you will not be alone.
Now, circumcision screws with the sexual life of the men who have had to endure it. Does it have any health benefit that would justify its practice. Well, the AAP says that “There is no controlled scientific data available regarding the immune function of the foreskin in the penis” and it they further the argument by saying “The benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to recommend all infant boys to be circumcised”. If anybody tells you that circumcision prevents urinary track infections, ask for the source, as I was unable to find either a scientific or even an statistical study supporting this hypothesis.
On the other hand, what about sexual transmitted diseases? Well, here the opinions are divided. There are no scientific studies on this issue, as it would be unethical to willfully expose directly a group of men to STDs. But there are a few statistical studies on the topic, some of which contradict the others. Now, one of those the WHO uses to recommend massive circumcision in Africa was conducted about ten years ago in Uganda, where they concluded, more or less, that if a circumcised man was to have unprotected vaginal intercourse with a woman who is known to be HIV+, his chances to get infected were 50%, while for uncircumcised men it would be of 66%. There are several problems with this study. First, these figures have been called into questions many times, as well as the methodology to obtain them, and second, as any statistician will tell you, correlation does not mean explanation. But let's take these at face value, let's assume they are absolute truths. Let me draw this analogy. Say I have a six-chambered revolver (this means, a revolver with space for six bullets in the cylinder), and I tell you to play Russian Roulette with four live rounds in the cylinder, and thus, two blanks. Would you play? I guess not, the chances for you to blow your brains off is way too high. Now, let's say I tell you that I will remove an additional bullet from the chamber, leaving three live rounds and three blanks. Do you really feel safer? Would you play now? I would guess your answer is no. Unprotected sex out of a steady monogamous relation is just dumb, regardless if your dick was mutilated or not!
Look to England, in 1949 the UK National Health Service concluded that circumcision was an unnecessary procedure, and decided to stop covering it, what implied an out of pocket expense for the parents. Therefore, just about 20% of English men born between 1950 and 1975 are circumcised, just about 12% of those born between 1975 and 2000, and just about 1% of those born this century. Compare that to about 80% in the US. But figures do not suggest that British men are more prone to Urinary Track Infections, STDs, or HIV than Americans are, indeed, they suggest the opposite.
After sorting through a whole lot of information, it seems that from a health point of view, although there is no real consensus, it seems that the general conclusion is that if there are any benefits drawn from circumcision, they are at best rare, and they could be better achieved by less invasive methods.
Now, even if you are a woman, let me tell you: We already mention the belief among some doctors that the foreskin greatly reduced premature ejaculation (don't you think that's good?) but on the other hand, in 1967, Morgan, an English researcher, concluded that foreskin makes penetration easier and smoother, making it more comfortable for women. This study has been validated by several subsequent studies. Besides, have you ever wonder why are many condoms rugged or studded? (Those that say “For her pleasure!”) To emulate the surface of the foreskin!
Believe me, after reading this, I really recent my parents for having decided to circumcise me, and mourn my loss! It is a traumatic, painful, unnecessary and brutal procedure, that its analogous in women is illegal almost everywhere in the world. Did you know that senses are hyper-developed on babies and small children in general? That's why kids dislike in higher rates some food, loud noises, brighter lights, and strong odors. Well, that also applies to the skin. I know, ask any circumcised man, we do not remember when we were circumcised, were were babies, but did you know that many babies go into neurogenic shock when they are circumcised. The pain is so strong for them that their bodies understand that they are about to die.
Now, when you read polls online it seems that the opinion on whether women and even gay men prefer circumcised or uncircumcised partners is split half and half. But let me tell you, from those friends I have asked, most of them claim that they absolutely prefer circumcised partners. So, there may be an aesthetical part to the issue. So, you could say that circumcision may be equated to boob jobs, tummy tucks, rhinoplasty. Well, for the most part these are optional procedures that adults choose to impose on themselves. I never gave my consent to have a doctor hack my penis. Besides, is it ethical to remove healthy functional genital tissue?
In the words of Penn Jillette: “The first principle of Medicine is DO NO HARM. Circumcision is at the very least a harm, and probably fucking bad... and bad for fucking!” Think about this: As far as we know, the foreskin is not a birth defect. It is how the male body is suppose to be. If you are religious, don't you think that asking for circumcision is the same as saying God made a mistake and you have to correct it. And if you are like me a rationalist (read, atheist, but for some reason, the word atheist tends to upset people), can you really rationalize that decision?
Please, if you are having a baby boy, take the whole baby home! He will thank you for that!
