HE DOESN'T EVEN LOOK CIRCUMCISED.
[ MORALOGOUS - Where Morality Meets Culture ]
As the mother of four young children and baby store owner in a high-circumcision area, I have the opportunity to see a fair amount of infant penises. I have noticed that “loose” circumcisions are becoming more common. What does that mean?
In cutting off the foreskin, the doctor can sometimes control how much foreskin is removed, though it is often hard to do this as the newborn penis is so tiny and it cannot be known how it will grow during puberty.
In the mid-20th century, most American circumcisions were very tight – they removed most or all of the mobile skin, thus completely exposing the glans.
This produced the desired look and “ease of cleaning" as there was no foreskin left to clean under; this was thought to be a benefit as they used to think you had to clean under the foreskin from birth.
We know that this is a terrible idea as the infant foreskin is adhered to the glans with the same type of tissue that adheres nails to their nail beds.
Forcing the foreskin back to clean under it causes such immediate problems as enormous pain, scarring, and infection.
Tight circumcisions also create long-term problems, chief among them that there would not be enough skin remaining to support full erection.
This causes pain when erect; shiny, tight skin; and sometimes even splitting of the shaft skin when fully erect.
It usually also causes pain for the female partner, as the lack of mobile skin forces sex to be all friction against the vaginal introitus.
(This is not the way sex is supposed to be – the intact penis moves inside its own foreskin, thus providing a rolling, gliding, frictionless pleasure for the woman.)
It also, of course, destroys the gliding action of the foreskin’s ridged band over the head and shaft of the penis, which is a source of tremendous pleasure for the man.
So what is the outcome of a loose circumcision?
You have a baby who “doesn’t even look circumcised,” who now does appear to “require” cleaning under the foreskin, but who has lost the amazing sensations of the dartos muscle and ridged bands.
You’ve got the worst of all possible outcomes: it doesn’t produce the desired look of the naked glans, it needs special care and cleaning, but you don’t get the best pleasure. Totally stupid.
Why do doctors do it?
Perhaps they think they are doing their patients a favor – acquiescing to the parental need for circumcision while preserving some of the functionality. This idea is misguided; the doctors should have the courage of their conviction and just refuse to do them.
If the doctor thinks that circumcision is useful because it would “lower the chance of acquiring HIV” or “require less care” or “prevent UTIs,” then they need to explain how leaving most of the mobile skin on the penis serves those ends.
The foreskin is still mainly there, minus the most sexually pleasurable part: if it is such a hotbed of disease, then they have not given that baby all the “protection” they could. They are cowards.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..
No comments:
Post a Comment