By Jocel Them
posted with permission
nature intended men to have, terrifying to a new human who is wrenched away from mommy to have his most sensitive area hacked off, and a clear violation of human rights (these things should be a choice, not an ego-driven "I want him to look disfigured like me" idealism), but it hurts women in later life as well.
I have already written about the negative consequences of circumcision on boys. The decision taken from them, the nerves destroyed, and the pseudo-science and ancient social paradigms that we insist on propagating. The practice only gained popularity when the craze of masturbation hysteria drove doctors in the early 20th century to prescribe the procedure as a sort of anti-sex salvation.
Today, there is a lot of media hooplah about 'benefits' of circumcision in regards to HIV in Africa. The pro-cutting group jumps at the chance to back up their senseless practice, without ever really getting into the details of this study. Many scientists question the legitimacy of this study, however, as the techniques used were not reliable, ethical, or substantial (the ratio of HIV infection in circumcised vs. normal men for example).
Although the efficacy of this study is something I won't go into at this time (I'm sparing you), it is interesting to note that America has the highest rate of sexually active cut men in the world, and also the highest prevalence of HIV amongst all developed nations. (Click here to see why doctors disagree with the HIV stance)
Coincidence? I think not.
But what has gone on unmentioned throughout this debate is the effect of the procedure on women. A lot of men may cry about it, saying "you're not a man, you couldn't understand," or other such drivel, but I guarantee if women inserted razors into their nether parts, these infantile men would feel like they have a say.
Cutting off 1/3-1/2 of the functional penis destroys what nature intended. The biological mechanisms are disrupted, and thus cause a disturbance for heterosexual relations.
After circumcision, the glans of the penis hardens into a callous, causing numbness to the otherwise erotic sensory nerve-endings. Because of this, a cut man has to exert more effort while love making than a natural man. Thus, the cut penis needs more friction to feel instigating the male to move in and out of the vagina. This causes vaginal dryness, and is not what the female anatomy needs to fully enjoy the experience. As the New Zealand Medical Journal found, "male circumcision exacerbates female vaginal dryness during intercourse."
Conversely, a man with his foreskin intact stays deeper within his female partner, stimulating the clitoral tissue deep within her body. The New Zealand study found that females experience an orgasm twice as often from an intact man than the cut one. When it is cut, the coronal ridge is abnormally exposed, which causes undue friction on the vaginal walls that would not occur if the lubricating and gliding mechanism of the foreskin remained intact. The cut penis usually prefers an unnatural elongated an arrhythmic stroke, breaking the delicate build up the female arousal system.
What nature intended to be a beneficial experience for both sexes has warped and degenerated the natural act of sex. Female sexual dysfunction (often in the form of dryness) may be "diagnosed" because the woman is sleeping with a cut man whose member has decreased sensitivity, a hardened head, and an exposed coronal ridge that sucks out moisture. Perhaps it is over diagnosed in preference to changing the practice too many Americans infallibly believe is good for their sons.
Point is: Male circumcision is not just a man's problem. It affects our children, our perceptions of the natural body, and the sexual interactions of both men and women.
For research on this subject see: Male Circumcision & Women's Health