This is an article that I am ghost posting for Mr. Praeputii. He responded to an article that I wrote poking fun at this procedure. To read it: click here.

Factoid by Amicus Praeputii:

Circumcision: Medical treatment or rape?

If you think you understand what circumcision means think again. Like the deed of cutting itself the word is notoriously subject to slippage. It s time those postmodernists got to job deconstructing the term: it s a not a stable conception neither love to physical results nor as to context.

The worst thing about such a bland semester (Latin so it must be scientific) is that it is a euphemism or weasel word. It conceals the fact that the vast majority of procedures are carried out by force on infants or boys who have not consented to the surgery and don t want it done to them. Some procedures are performed on minors in situations where circumcision was the only fix for a deformation injury or disease that had not responded to conservative treatment; such cases are rare except they are within acceptable boundaries of medical ethics. Some grown-up men seek circumcision for their own reasons and as adults they are competent to consent to such surgery no thing how poorly-informed they may be or how eccentric the motive: their body their choice.

But to use the same word for every act of foreskin reduction or removal is to suppress these differences; it is like using the word coitus for every act of sexual intercourse from violent assault and rape to mutually eager love-making. When an adult gives informed consent to circumcision it is an instance of the latter situation; when a child is circumcised it is a blatant sample of the former. Something in between is when an adult is circumcised behind having given consent but without having been fully informed of the surgical risks and possible adverse effects as is required for consent to be valid in any other surgical procedure or drug treatment. A boy who complains of having been circumcised is likely to be told that it will now be easier for him to keep his pee-pee clean or that it will save him from getting AIDS when he grows up (assuming he goes on an African sex tour and forgets the condoms). This is disturbingly analogous to the example of a woman who complains of having been raped being told that at least it was proof that she was attractive to men and had the additional benefit of getting her pregnant. Sexual activity without consent is rape; sexual activity with minors is illegal even if there is consent. Radical irreversible body-altering surgery like circumcision should be viewed in the same light as indeed almost any surgery apart from circumcision is viewed.

On the physical side the problem is that there is no right and agreed definition of the foreskin and thus no consensus on what is removed by circumcision . The best definition I have heard is that the foreskin is the non-erectile portion of the penis. It is not a discrete organ like a finger or pancreas but double-layered extension of the surface tissue of the penis; where the foreskin starts and the rest of the penis ends is a matter of subjective judgement. The foreskin is generally described as a hat which fits through the glans but the point at which the doubling of the tissue begins can be anywhere along the penis shaft and shifts according to the degree of tumescence. On average the doubling of tissue begins well beyond the corona of the glans as the position of the scar on circumcised men testifies. The length of the foreskin varies enormously from one individual to another meaning that the same standard cut will be more severe on a boy with a surely short foreskin than on one who had more tissue to begin with. None of this can be judged in infancy or childhood when the foreskin typically extends far beyond the glans in an elegant tapering spout (anteaters are cool) and often makes up more than half the length of the organ.

The physical effects of circumcision are thus highly unpredictable depending on how much penile tissue is removed on the skill of the surgeon the instruments and technology used the precise configuration of blood vessels and nerve networks on the genetically determined length of the foreskin and on the eventual size attained by the penis at maturity. The more tissue excised the greater the damage to the penis and the greater the effect on sexual functioning. Because the slack surface tissue is needed to accommodate the enlarged penis when tumescent a severe circumcision will render erections painful or even impossible. A further common outcome between boys circumcised in infancy especially when the performance excises a large quantity of penile shaft skin (as is the American norm particularly when the infamous Gomco clamp is used) is that scrotal skin gets pulled up onto the penis shaft as the wound heals and even more when the penis enlarges at puberty. These effects were so severe in the case of one Australian teenager that he tried to murder himself.

The dispute about circumcision has little meaning unless the parties specify the context of the operation and the nature of the outcome. To regard the operation as wrong in all situations is as bad as assuming that it is often beneficial or ethically acceptable. Freely chosen by an informed and consenting adult circumcision is a preference to which he is perfectly entitled; imposed on a child it is sexual abuse and analogous to rape. His body his choice.

Ive had a job or a hobby for just about every letter of the alphabet. The many experiences along the way has given me tons of material To write about along the way. Some completely anecdotal some informational. I like to mingle both up with a rush of potty humor.