Zomby-Timmy Theme #6, Part II

Well, he’s going to need it done anyway. Doing it at birth is best.

There seems to be some strange belief that the foreskin is some diseased flesh. As mammals, we probably wouldn’t be here without the foreskin. Well, okay, I won’t glorify it that much. I remember when I learned about circumcision in school. My public education. *laughs* “Removal of the skin covering the glans.” As if it was there for no reason. Allow me to point our the erotic aspects of the foreskin, not only in rubbing the glans, but on the foreskin itself.

But wait, let’s look at the logic. Performing surgery so you won’t need it later? I’m not talking about holding off something you need. Infantile circumcision is biologically unnecessary. To say that we should perform surgery before it’s necessary is to perform mascetomies on women who are at a high risk of breast cancer. To remove our tonsels at birth. To have our appendices removed at birth. It doesn’t make sense.

I will not claim that the foreskin is perfect. Things happen. The same things that happen to The Vagina. You wouldn’t want your Vagina removed just so you eliminate the risk of a yeast infection, would you? Then there’s the cancer argument. In short, there is no correlation between intactness and penile cancer. (Nevermind that even if there was, correlation does not mean causation.) There’s lots of circumcision in the US. There’s little penile cancer in the. It does not follow that circumcision prevents penile cancer. Circumcision is not that prevelant in Scandinavia. Lot of foreskins there. And you know what? Penile cancer is prevelant there. I lean towards the logic that undeveloped countries have higher rates of penile cancer simply because of hygiene issues, period.

It makes for better sex, I can last longer!

Nevermind that this would be a reason to personally circumcise yourself. (I don’t mean in the comfort of your own home, I mean circumcising yourself of your own free will, which I approve of.) So, the logic is that desensitizing leads to better sex? Really now. I think it’s more that you NEED better sex to get yourself off, because you’re more desensitized.

I thought of this example earlier today. Consider hot food. If you have good, sensitive taste buds, it won’t take much to flare up your mouth. But, if you have desensitized taste buds, it takes a lot more fire to get that same effect. In other words, if you have “great sex” with a circumcized penis, if you were intact, that sex would have been ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MINDBLOWING. Well, maybe. Might be pure speculation on my part. But, think about it. How can anybody justify circumcision using it’s negative desensitizing aspects?

I won’t even get into who’s more likely to be a premature ejaculator.

The boys in the locker room will make fun of him if he isn’t mutilated!

Refer to first two arguments. There is only one way for society to change, we can’t let current societal standards dictate what we think is right.

Dude, get over yourself. It’s not that big of a deal.

Try telling that to anybody else who feels victimized. Finding cases of victims who don’t feel like victims doesn’t make the victimization any more justifiable. That is, if you found a rape victim that didn’t think what happened was a big deal, you wouldn’t be able to justify rape in the slightest. It may not be a big deal to some, but it’s a big deal to me.

That’s about all I can think of off the top of my head. If you have any silly arguments you’ve heard, let me have them. I’d like to pee on them. *nods* And if you’d like to refute me (Ha ha, good luck, I could write a dissertation on the topic), go ahead. I have tried looking for good reasons to circumcise. You know, being “open-minded”. But, the more I read on the topic, the more ourage (read: emotional) I become.

I’d like to state one common misconception. The foreskin is not meant to retract when a boy is just born. The foreskin and glans are usually fused together. How fused? Like a nail to the nailbed. (At least in most cases.) Eventually, this bond dissolves naturally by the time a boy hits puberty. There is the issue of phimosis, where the foreskin is unable to retract because it’s too tight. But, that simply isn’t a good enough reason to circumcise. With gentle nightly stretching, or a simple incision, the foreskin can operate as it normally does.

Fifty to ninety percent. That’s the range of sensitivity loss I’ve heard. Read this little thing about men who were intact, and then were circumcized.

Modern circumcising practices in the US started as a way to reduce masturbation. In 1888, when about 15 percent of the U.S. population was circumcised, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the cereal tycoon, wrote, “The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.”Source Modern dogma takes so-called flaws in the foreskin and says, “Throw out the baby with the bathwater!” I shoot my mouth off with these entries because I can. It organizes my thoughts. But, there’s only so much I can do. I’m restoring, growing a fauxskin. I can leave any sons I have intact, and let them know how lucky they are.

Not sure where to put this, so I’ll stick it here, near the end. I have a link to a company that USES those severed foreskins. There’s just… something wrong about that…

I can’t expect guys everywhere to suddenly realize, “Whoa. I don’t have all of my penis!” Ultimately, it’s up to moms everywhere to think for themselves and do “what’s right” for their sons. I implore you, think about the unnecessary anguish you’re putting your newborn through. Let your son choose for himself what he wants to do with his body. Because for every Timmy who’s outraged, there’s an ignorant guy who will want his son to suffer his own fate. Vive la revolution.