A lot of times, when we don’t have anything to do, it’s best we get a hobby such as knitting, playing pick-up basketball, singing in the choir, gardening, playing Solitaire on our laptops … you know … all those wonderful tangential pursuits that nonetheless fulfill our lives, often better than our professional pursuits.
For it is usually in the absence of a wholesome hobby or leisure pursuit that you find the kind of argument being engaged in by those who have found time to coin the term … wait for it … Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)!!
Male genital mutilation?
The reason this is so preposterous is that they have coined that expression from Female Genital Mutilation; the cutting out of women’s clitorises with razor blades; a practice so terrible and barbaric that women themselves have cried out against it for decades. A practice so traumatizing that no modern medical facility anywhere in the world will undertake it.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a practice still carried out mostly in parts of Africa on pubescent girls ostensibly so that they are made ready for marriage. The thinking behind it, at least in Mali and the Sabiny regions of Eastern Uganda, is that if the girl’s clitoris is removed, she will not have any interest in any other man beyond the one who eventually marries her. In other words, FGM in that part of the world is conducted for the sole benefit of the men.
So, what do those people who love infants’ foreskins so much, so that they are ready to put their literary reputation on the line to save them do? They coin the phrase male genital mutilation and then look for research proving that the foreskin is the be-all-end-all of sexual gratification.
Surely enough, they find it:
This ‘research’ proves to them that ” circumcised men and their partners suffer from higher rates of sexual difficulty than uncircumcised men and their partners. Eleven percent of circumcised men and only 4% of uncircumcised men reportedly experienced frequent difficulties reaching orgasm. Thirty-eight percent of the female partners of circumcised men versus 28% of female partners of uncircumcised men experienced incomplete sexual fulfillment; 31% versus 22% experienced frequent sexual difficulties; 19% versus 14% experienced difficulties surrounding orgasm.”
Game, set and match for uncircumcised penises.
Basically what this research is saying is that the entire Jewish and Muslim population of the Middle East, 90% of Nigeria and the parts of Africa where circumcision is a traditional rite of passage for young men is not enjoying sex. No, that they have practiced sexual abuse of the male child for eons, to unacceptable harm of generations of men and their sexual partners. The best sexual experiences and, presumably, the most superior are to be found in European and Scandinavian countries where circumcision is not that common. If your foreskin was removed at birth, you were automatically condemned to a life of bad, incomplete, difficult, unfulfilled sex.
The arrogance is breathtaking!!
Forget the arguments about circumcision reducing the potential catching of HIV by 60%. That is a new, tangential, argument that likely doesn’t take into account anal sex (which is why a lot of circumcised gay men caught and are still catching HIV). For someone, anyone, to trawl out a study trying to prove that millions, billions of circumcised men (plus the women they have had sex with) since time immemorial have had less satisfactory sex than those with foreskins is surely the pinnacle of superciliousness.
Needless to say, this study doesn’t say what ‘satisfactory, complete, fulfilled’ sex is. How could it when something like that is so subjective?
But, hey, it is enough for the friends of the foreskin to prove that removing it is abuse … mutilation.
It should be interesting to hear what the babies themselves have to say about it. Oh, but the proponents of the foreskin already know the answer to that. Babies cry out loudly when their foreskins are removed so that is the answer to that question. It is painful and so it is abuse.
To which I can only say the following to these MGM agitators:
You DON’T know what babies think about their foreskins being removed because they can’t tell, have never told anyone. We know women’s clitorises are vital for their sexual pleasure because they have told us themselves. The men too, at least in the parts of Africa where FGM still occurs, have told us why they want it to continue; for their own selfish reasons.
Are circumcised Muslim, Jewish, African men coming to you in equal measure to cry out that their sex lives are unhappy or unfulfilled because they have no foreskins? More to the point, are their wives, girlfriends and, dare one say it, boyfriends coming to you to complain that they are unhappy with their sex lives because their partners have no foreskins?
If so, then set up pickets outside clinics and traditional festivals that undertake the practice; it is time to save the sex lives of future generations of young men and, possibly, secure the sexual future of the world.
If not … decorum prevents one from really saying what’s on one’s mind.