The fact the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) now receives so much media and political attention after being ignored for so long is to be applauded. Although this makes me angry and upsets me it’s also for another reason, however.
I cannot stress enough how wrong FGM is and how much I am opposed to it. To butcher a girl’s sexual organs for no other reason than preventing their sexual pleasure out of some twisted misogynistic terror of female sexuality is inexplicable. Most readers would agree.
What also makes me angry though is that so few people find anything wrong in allowing something similar to be done to billions of infant boys worldwide for religious or cultural reasons: circumcision. Although not nearly as brutal as FGM, as someone subjected to this as an infant for no medical reason and without my consent, I believe strongly there are some disturbing comparisons, however.
By both design and function the penis is one of the most sensitive parts of the male anatomy. Equipped with unique nerve endings compared to other parts of the body, one of its primary functions is providing enormous pleasure to its owner when stimulated.
A protective sheath of skin, the foreskin covers the glans, the tip and most sensitive part. During an erection the foreskin retracts partially or fully to expose the glans during sex or masturbation to maximise the sensations felt by its owner.
Practised prior to recorded history circumcision is apparently the world’s oldest surgical procedure. With no definitive origin for its introduction, one theory is it was used in war as a less brutal or fatal way of emasculating an enemy than castration. To me, that merely supports the argument that this is a barbaric practice.
Many millennia ago, some idiot decided “God” (it seems to always be His fault doesn’t it?) wanted them to cut the foreskin off male babies either immediately or soon after their birth or at the onset of puberty. After the procedure, although the penis looks the same when erect and can perform the same function it is not. Part of it, a very important part, is missing.
Every major medical body worldwide, including the BMA, is divided on the benefits and disadvantages of circumcision and therefore the subsequent ethical issues surrounding its practice. I can testify myself, as no doubt can billions of other circumcised men, my penis still functions properly, providing me with enormous pleasure. Although there is no way to prove this definitively, according to many doctors however, a considerable degree of the sensation is lost after the procedure. There are many reasons for this.
Unlike the umbilical cord the foreskin is not merely a redundant body part but performs vital functions in its own right. Comprised of a double layer of skin containing muscle tissue, a mucous membrane and millions of nerve endings, when it’s cut off these are therefore also removed. The foreskin acts as a protective sheath and the exterior skin is a continuation of the penis. The interior, however, contains a delicate mucous membrane keeping the highly sensitive glans slightly moist in a similar way the inside of the eyelid moistens the eye. It can retract in a similar way, preventing exposure except during arousal in preparation for the sexual act and, possibly, depending on the person, when urinating.
After circumcision the delicate area of skin at the penis’ head is now constantly exposed, something it wasn’t meant to do, constantly chafing 24/7 against clothing. Without the mucous membrane, the body compensates as a result. The usually moist skin of the penis’ head soon dries out, becoming cauterised and toughening, thereby reducing much of the former sensitivity.
There are some medical arguments in favour of circumcision.
Some men are born with certain penile abnormalities that means sex for them is painful or even impossible due to a tight foreskin. In these cases, circumcisions are medically recommended. Circumcision is also the most effective treatment for certain infections.
There is even some inconclusive evidence, of a reduction in penile cancer and many sexually transmitted diseases, most notably HIV. There have been subsequent arguments for routine circumcision of high-risk populations such as amongst gay men and men in sub-Saharan Africa. However, as circumcision is no guarantee against infection, with many circumcised men globally still becoming HIV Positive, the only real protection against the virus is the practise of safe sex.
As already admitted, in my own case everything downstairs is still working. Indeed, sex is one of my favourite activities and from my own experience, which of course is all I’ve ever known, the way it feels is incomparable. I find it impossible to even imagine how good this would feel if it were increased. If I had only been left the way nature intended, I wouldn’t need to try imagining though.
I’m not angry with my parents: they were only following standard procedure in my native Australia at the time I was born. Thankfully, things there have changed over time though. The view of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has now changed making the child’s “best interests” paramount. Unless medically necessary, despite evidence supporting reduction of possible medical complications later in life, this can be seen to favour giving the patient, not their parents, that decision when they are old enough to be able to make it. In today’s supposedly more enlightened society, my anger comes from the fact an irreversible decision is taken for billions of children before they can do so themselves.
I have no objection to anyone doing anything they wish to with their own bodies. I do in fact know one or two people who have been circumcised as adults purely because they like the way a circumcised penis looks or have converted to Islam or Judaism. That is their choice. In the same way any adult who wants to get their penis pierced is also free to do so.
It is simply not fair however to carry out what is currently an irreversible and, in my opinion, unnecessary, medical procedure with permanent consequences on children who are not yet able to offer any objection.
Although not suffering to this degree myself, some men are sufficiently traumatised to join support groups. If even one person feels the necessity to do this, let alone many hundreds of thousands, surely it is now time in 2020 for us to end this barbaric practice -except of course when medically necessary or when the individual can legally make this choice for himself after he turns 18.
ROBSLOGS 