Saturday, August 05, 2006

To cut or not to cut

(little Mr. K?)
Mr. K is having a baby. Possibly he's already had it, I don't know. The beginning of the end of his life as a free man may have ended in the middle of the night last night I have no idea. But nobody knows the gender of the baby as of yet (ok, they do if it's out and I just don't know it). Maybe he will look like this kid. Just remember Charles, genetics is at least 50%. Having a kid is like playing Russian Roulette with your life. Uncle Jim Bob's genes might be in there who knows. Like second cousin like son right?


So the debate rages on, if it is a boy do you have him circumsized? I weighed in and said no. Why participate in this Abrahamic cult ritual? There's no point. I still have an area of scarring, likely due to some first year med student, I've no idea.

Dr. Dean Edell agrees wholeheartedly with me.

Excerpts:

"Well, after analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued new recommendations saying that they do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure. This is too little and too late for the millions of infants who have undergone this unnecessary and inhumane assault."

"The complication rate of the circumcision operation itself - from bleeding to amputation of the penis - is at least one in 200 according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. So you can see that there's no benefit at all." (did I mention my scar? No ladies, it doesn't effect my performance)

"The most common reason men give for circumcising their sons is so they will look like them. This is a poor reason to do this to a newborn baby."

"Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin in the adult male. One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men." (My friend Kathy says that her first uncut man was "a whole new level of sensation")

"Internationally about 80 to 85 percent of the male population is uncircumcised"

Either way, it's okay with me. But I wouldn't do it. I've never known nature to do anything that intentionally decreases my desire to screw. I suspect that the vagina is perfectly made for a foreskinned penis. None of us will ever know. But I remember sitting in on a lecture on this topic once where a man who had an adult circumcision (due to some rare medical complication) said that if cut men know what they were missing they would riot in the streets and invade the hospitals. He said not having a foreskin is like keeping your tongue outside your mouth all day long.

According to the article, men who are cut are more obsessed with anal and oral than those who aren't. This is not scientific, however it seems that there may be more satiation with a foreskin and more sensation. America is the only country in the western world that still routinely circumcizes, and this may explain in part our unique societal sex obsession the Europeans find odd.

3 comments:

Charles said...

Your buddy Kathy is in the minority. All my lady friends tell me the opposite.

We'll have a girl and this'll all be moot. Unless of course I raise her to believe in some central african tribal religion whose social custom is to circumsize their women.

Aaron said...

I hope it's a girl. I always pictured you with a boy though. What is that kid waiting for anyways?

Charles said...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1217831.ece