Quote from: juliemac on November 06, 2011, 02:09:07 PM
Circumcision was and primarily done for sanitary reasons, Removal of that tissue does not decrease the sensor count of the head of the penis. The idea being that there were no folds to hold moisture, thus remove a potential batirail growth site. This has been done to millions of men over thousands of years with little effect.
I was circumsised as a baby, and again when I had my GRS as I have no clitorus. Female mutilation removes the clitorus, no surgeon in the US has removed the tip of any male babies penis. If you had a problem, then it was accidental not intentional.
I suppose then we should all cut our ears off? Doing so would reduce the number of folds where gunk can grow, and the ear exists only to protect the ear canal, similar to the foreskin. Although the external ear does help in positioning sound waves to be better heard by our inner ears, just like the foreskin plays a normal role in the male sexual response, removing it wouldn't necessarily decrease our ability to hear.
The only reason that cutting off a piece of a person's genitalia is okay, is that it is a social norm. We could just as easily be living in a society where we lopped off our ears to increase sanitation.
I never claimed that this particular method of barbarism removes nerves from the glans, that's not true. However, there is a rich ring of nerves which surround the glans which provide stimulation to non-mutilated men. Of greater importance is the way in which removing the foreskin alters the mechanics of sex for both genders: The foreskin acts as a sleeve which the penis slides through during penetration. For males, (It has been reported.) this is a source of stimulation and protects the glans from becoming chaffed in any circumstance in addition to keeping the glans hydrated. For women, the foreskin prevents the penis from wicking away to much moisture during intercourse. Incidentally, cultures which do not mutilate their males have a statistically significant reduction in the amount of women suffering from insufficient lubrication.
Of course, the argument for the biological necessity of the foreskin is much more convincing from an evolutionary perspective. IF the foreskin was unsanitary, and caused infections, it would be the subject of selective force. i.e. Men born without or reduced yucky bits would be more likely to survive. If this were the case, the foreskin would decrease in prominence over generations. However, NO viable medical, biological, anatomical, or sexological organization claims that the foreskin is a vestigial organ, much less that it should not be removed unless it is specifically causing problems. Of greater importance though, is the fact that foreskin exists in ALL mammals. This would suggest, and really who would'a thunk that organs had actual uses, that the foreskin actually serves a biological necessity!
Aside from the biological importance of the foreskin, the question of best practice and ethical standards looms large over body mutilation. Even if, there were no negative impacts and the possible benefit was great (although that certainly isn't the case.) altering someone's body without consent in the abscence of medical necessity is unethical no matter which way you spin it. Consider this proposition, it is widely known that the removal of pubic hair reduces the amount of bacteria around the genitals. Should we then as a society that provides a safety net mandate that individuals shave their pubes in order to decrease the cost of medical care from infections? Certainly, anyone would consider that a crazy proposition, as the incidence/cost of infections is minimal, as they can be treated vary effectively, and that the right of the individual to self-determination trumps any negligible benefit in costs.
As for the removal of the clit, many forms of FGM exists in backward countries to this day. Although the majority of reported incidences concern the implantation/reconstruction of the hymen, or the removal of labia for aesthetic/cultural reasons. And as for the prevalence, of circumcision, it is purely a Western phenomenon that had died out (except in the Judaic tradition.) and was revived in the Victorian era. Don't try to pass it off as some sort of universal cultural institution.
TL;DR: Please don't mess with the transsexual liberal arts student with a background in philosophy and history involved in the body mod community concerning the ethical ramification of butchering someone.
