: not a blog

20 jan 07

does it matter if a man is circumsised or not? which do women like better?

people opposed routine circumcision in the usa have amassed into an internet cult, which makes the issue harder to assesss (clouded with shrieking, so to speak). of course, the main concern is "does circumcision affect sexual sensation?". the results of studies have been mixed and inconclusive.

so no, from a practical perspective, it apparently doesn't matter much. some studies have shown that a minutely decreased risk of penile cancer comes with circumcision, and some people consider the circumcised penis to be more hygenic (although what we consider to be "dirty" here comes under question as an absolute).

the women i've talked to prefer circumcised penises, but i'm sure it's just a matter of what one is used to. i've read that coitus involving a circumcised penises can lead to vaginal dryness. not my call, really. but the consensus at the moment seems to be "cirucmcised penises are more attractive" or at least "less weird". now that routine circumcision is becoming less routine, i'm sure aesthetic preferences will shift along with what's out there (so to speak).

the men who are so strongly and emotionally opposed to circumcision i believe take up this stance because of the choice issue, and the body modification issue; here is a cosmetic and medically unecessary body modification performed without the patient's consent. ie, no one asked the circumcised man whether or not he'd like to keep his foreskin.

my take? circumcision is silly and unnecessary (not to mention costly), but in terms of long-term real-world effects (as opposed to "being circumcised makes me sad"), appears to be a non-issue. but i don't dismiss people who are upset about it as being lunatics or oversensitive; i just don't happen to share their worry. but i do think it serves no purpose and shouldn't be carried out -- i put it in the same category as piercing your baby's ears.

circumcision is a feature of the abrahamic faiths. however, gentile followers of the christ haven't done it as part of their religious tradition since the 3rd century or so. breaking from the jewish practice was, in fact, a significant component of christendom's efforts to forge its own identity apart from judaica. cirucmcision came into vogue in america in the 19th century as a sort of medical fad, one originally suggested as a way to curtail excessive masturbation. this plan didn't turn out to be a successful one, to say the least. there was also, i believe, some "return to roots" religious justification for it among observant christians. all in all, it just seemed like a good idea.

yet again, i wrote about this in an earlier essay (there are now officially too many of them for me to search for a link). the number of questions i get that have been partially addressed already in other, previous text, is increasing. eventually, every one of my responses is going to end up being a paraphrase.

i'm getting way too many submissions these days. i might have to start getting selective, or at least to start writing short, poor-quality essays. hah.