"Cut to the chase: I am an RN and have seen hundreds of uncircumcised males. No turn on. But when my most recent lover happened to be such it was so totally unexpected that my sexual arousal rate went up 200%. I am very turned on by stroking him to expose the head, kissing and licking it and then covering it again by pulling the foreskin back up. Sucking ever so gently with the skin covering the head gives him pleasure, but pulling it down near the base of his penis completely exposes him and his reaction is amazing. All it takes is tender gentle swirls to drive him crazy.... The wanton horny bitch that resides within myself has now been released and owes you all at the Goofy Foot Press gratitude and the author the best blow job ever!" female age 27
Drive south on I-5 until you reach the Corvallis exit, go west...
Medically speaking, routine circumcision makes about as much sense as removing a kid's eyelids or cutting out the labia of a baby girl. So why are so many American boys routinely circumcised?
During the 1880s, a few influential men like John Harvey Kellogg, physician and founder of a famous American cereal company, started preaching that boys masturbate because the foreskin rubs on the head of the penis.
Until that time, most American men were not circumcised. As a leading anti-masturbation fanatic, Dr. Kellogg believed that boys who were circumcised at birth would be less likely to play with themselves. His influence helped circumcision to become a routine operation in America. Swell guy that he was, Dr. Kellogg also recommended that girls who masturbate have their clitorises burned out with acid.
America's medical establishment has tried to justify its hand in circumcision by saying that it prevents cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix and and now AIDS. If this were true, why would physicians in England decide that the operation is not such a good idea? Less than 10% of the newborn blokes in the UK have their dicks docked. As for cancer of the cervix, a strain of the HPV
virus is the culprit. Women who live in countries where men aren't circumcised have no higher rate of cervical cancer than women in America.
There is no evidence that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis. In circumcised men who get cancer of the penis, the cancer tends to break out on the circumcision scar. Besides, cancer of the penis is extremely rare. More men get breast cancer.
In Sweden, where few men are circumcised, cancer of the penis is just as rare as in the circumcision-happy United States. It would be interesting to compare the number of penises lost to cancer with the number of penises mutilated through botched circumcisions.
As for other claims, one study years ago did show that circumcised males were less likely to get urinary-tract infections during the first year of life. However, in that study, the parents of the uncircumcised babies were instructed to pull back their foreskins and wash under them. Yet parents should do just the opposite, because nature did not intend the foreskin to retract before one year of age. It is quite likely that the instructions given to the parents were what caused the higher rate of infections among the uncircumcised boys. But even if those figures are correct, the number of urinary-tract infections is still much greater in female babies.
There have also been claims that uncircumcised men are more apt to catch sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. However, European men don't show any greater incidence of these diseases than American men, and Most European men are uncircumcised. Until recently, American men who were uncircumcised tended to be from poor families. Whether circumcised or not, poor people often get diseases at a higher rate than those who are rich.
There was a recent article in the LA Times saying that a new "study" from Africa has shown that the rate of HIV infection for circumcised males was lower than for those who were allowed to keep what Mother Nature saw fit to equip them with at birth.
The LA Times article forgot to mention that the "study" they quoted had so many serious flaws that the highly respected British medical journal Lancet refused to publish it. The study claims to be a random controlled trial, but it wasn't. It was also stopped early. Some reviewers of it feel that if it had been completed, it might have shown no difference in infection rates between men who are circumcised and those who aren't. Worse yet, it forgot to mention which of the men in the study used condoms, and it didn't control for the number of men who had visited medical clinics, which in Africa are so disinfection-technique challenged that many cause more infections than they cure.
For those of you who genuinely care about your infant son's health, why not consider a danger that is a wee bit more immediate than what is or isn't going on in Africa? It is called Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This infection has at times reached near epidemic levels in the United States, and it can be a serious problem in newborn nurseries. Its most frequent infant victims are circumcised boys, although more research on this is needed. The infection gets into the body through the circumcision wound, and it can cause impetigo, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, bacteremia, cellulitis, pneumonia, arthritis, osteomyelitis, pustolosis, pyoderma, empyema, and sometimes death.
(This chapter is continued in the book.)
