As We Were Saying Earlier…
Whilst a Victorian bride was expected to be as white as a Persil bed-sheet hanging from the suburban washing line when she was led up the aisle, her husband was expected to be a little more worldly-wise regarding pleasures of the flesh. Those most masculine of trades, the Army and Navy, catered for his pre-marital urges via the unofficial employment of prostitutes, something that was also intended to turn these urges away from any fetching bottoms belonging to fellow members of his platoon or crew. An inevitable consequence of such behaviour in the days before widely available contraception was that many a soldier and sailor contracted an unwelcome souvenir of their adventures; and this increasing problem eventually led to state regulation of prostitution to ensure the nation’s fighting men were no longer hindered from their endeavours by VD. Actually dissuading them from getting their collective legs over whenever not engaged in conflict wasn’t given the same importance; the emphasis was very much on the wicked temptresses who exploited their absence of willpower.
The introduction of the Contagious Diseases Acts of the 1860s gave the authorities the right to submit ladies of the night who lingered in ports and around barracks to gruesome and intrusive physical examinations, ones that involved the kind of ‘medical equipment’ one would expect to see as torture exhibits in the Tower of London. To ensure the ladies in question wouldn’t infect the virtuous boys who were keeping peace in the colonies, any signs of infection sighted by doctors hired to root around downstairs would result in the unfortunate girl being banged-up in what were known as Lock Hospitals for a sentence lasting anything from three months up to a full year. Once considered cured, she would then be released back into the world, where she could once again open her legs for Queen and Country.
The Act slowly extended its original remit and was also applied to cities with no connection to either the Army or Navy, attempting to curb the scourge of prostitution by focusing solely on the women involved in it rather than including the men drawn to it. With the exception of a few notable philanthropists and evangelical reform groups, there were few official initiatives to discourage women from the trade; instead, the government invested in the medical examinations, whilst the clientele of the examined were not submitted to the same indignities. Gradually, opposition to the Act swelled into a powerful lobby group, led by vociferous Christian and proto-Feminist Josephine Butler; and as public opinion turned against it, the Act was finally repealed in 1886.
Retrospectively, we tend to view such crude legislation as archetypal of the era and like to imagine we reside in more sophisticated times. How ironic then that we currently find ourselves in the midst of another moral panic centred around women’s naughty bits, and calls to introduce examinations not a million miles from those legitimised by the Contagious Diseases Acts are deemed by some as perfectly permissible. The moral panic of 2015 is not about FHM (the upmarket men’s magazine) or MGM (the old Hollywood studio with the lion logo), but FGM, AKA Female Genital Mutilation.
Frankly, I still cannot think of a good reason why male circumcision takes place. I remember seeing a drama as a child and asking my dad why a baby was being subjected to what to me seemed unspeakably cruel. He told me it was traditionally part of the Jewish faith, which at least removed the practice from the already-scary list of ‘things to look forward to before you grow-up’; but that didn’t seem to answer my question as to WHY? Male circumcision is believed to be the world’s oldest planned medical procedure, predating Judaism and one of the few traditions shrouded in the mists of time that has crossed otherwise firm religious borders. Secular application of circumcision in countries with no previous culture of it only began to take hold on a small-scale in the late nineteenth century, primarily as a preventative cure for masturbation. The impact on recreational wanking was not recorded, but the western advocates of circumcision’s reasons for singing its praises have been echoed a century later by those that believe it to be a beneficial aid in the fight against HIV.
Interestingly, although there are several lobby groups who campaign that infant male circumcision, such as that practiced within Judaism, is unethical in that the baby cannot provide consent, there is no universal opinion amongst international health organisations that male circumcision is abuse of a minor and that it should be outlawed. When it comes to female circumcision, however, the casual acceptance afforded the male equivalent is in short supply. It has even acquired a far more horrific alternative name. If circumcision sounds like a word from the NASA handbook of technical jargon, Genital Mutilation sounds like the name of an unlistenable Death Metal band from the late 80s. You can even envisage the T-shirts.
Without wishing to reunite any of you with your breakfasts, FGM essentially involves the removal of the external elements of female genitalia and is as much a part of many country’s cultural and religious traditions as male circumcision. Just as the male version is undertaken by men, the female version is largely in the hands of women, so this can’t really be lumped in with man-on-woman crime. Nevertheless, the common perception now is that this is precisely the category it falls into and FGM has consequently been outlawed in most of the countries it remains practiced in, viewed as further male control of female sexuality and removal of personal autonomy. Whilst several campaigners for its abolition have been subjected to FGM, the loudest voices appear to emanate from western countries with no history of it. Is this a case of genuine concern for the subjugation of non-consenting girls to a form of child abuse, or is it looking at strange foreign customs and declaring them to be barbaric in the same way our colonial forefathers did?
The current hysteria over FGM in this country evokes unrealistic images of machete-wielding Muslims who’ll settle for a clitoris if they can’t aim at the head of an off-duty soldier. The aforementioned proposition that schoolgirls be subjected to medical examination to discern whether or not all remains as God made it has an awful irony attached to it in that physicians poking around the nether regions of nineteenth century prostitutes is seen as primitive and misogynistic, whereas doing so to twenty-first century pre-pubescent girls is seen as somehow furthering the cause of feminism.
Don’t misunderstand me – I think circumcision of both boys and girls is unnecessary and horrible; but there are many aspects of cultures alien to western sensibilities I find perplexing and distasteful. Again, we’re back to who has the right to impose a ban on a practice that didn’t form part of their own upbringing and naturally appears shocking as a result. Am I entitled to march into a synagogue and halt the ritual circumcision of a male baby because I personally find it cruel? No more than I’m entitled to march into an African village and demand a mother desist from performing circumcision on her daughter. If the Fuzzy-Wuzzies don’t like it up ‘em, surely it’s up to them to do something about it.
Petunia Winegum
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:39 am -
Well. rightly or wrongly, many countries have intervened to halt practises they find abhorrent in other countries for centuries. For example, “peace keeping” in the Balkans and “regime change” in Iraq. In most cases I take the line that these are matters for the people of those places to sort out for themselves. I understand that many disagree and feel that it is wholly justified to poke our noses in.
My view on the subject of FGM is that it is against the law here, as far as I am aware, and therefore if carried out here those responsible should face prosecution. It gets trickier if the parents of a young girl take her to a country where it is legal to have it done. I admit that my legal knowledge is very limited, but I am under the impression that if someone goes abroad and commits what would be a crime here in the UK but is legal in that country, they can face prosecution upon their return. I don’t know what crimes that applies to. As far as male circumcision goes, I’ve no idea why it isn’t classed as child abuse when done to a child for so called religious reasons. If a young man over 18 decides for himself to have it done that’s another matter entirely. However, as things stand infant male circumcision is currently legal, and whatever you do don’t upset the Jews or Muslims.
I guarantee there will be a raft of comments citing the hygiene/health benefits of male circumcision. I’ve heard it all before, and still think the claims are utter hogwash.
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:38 pm -
It would seem similar to those prosecuted in Britain for planning to carry out acts of terrorism overseas – even though the act is not committed in Britain, the ‘conspiracy’ element was, therefore the participants can be prosecuted. Same applies to those assisting anyone to commit suicide at Dignitas in Switzerland.
So perhaps a brave government would charge these errant mothers with conspiracy – but then we never get brave government where Muzzie or Jewish sensitivities apply, so we? (See ritual animal slaughter etc.)
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:47 am -
I understand the philosophical argument regarding male circumcision and the question as to why it is still practiced in 21 century. However, FGM and male circumcision are completely different things, both procedurally, factually and sociologically. Just because we use the same word to apply to both, out of lazy convenience (“circumcision”) they are in reality two very different things.
Male circumcision originated thousands of years ago, like most religious rituals, as a way of protecting against disease. Just as a hindu ritual of scattering water before a meal was, at the beginning, merely a way of dampening the dust to stop it flying around.
As the ritual matured into a religious symbol, it became a way of identifying an allegiance to a particular God. It had no effect on a man’s ability to “perform” or enjoy sex. It was not a way of subjugating men. It was not a sign that men were inferior.
FGM does not simply take a little bit of excess SKIN off you. It takes the actual flesh, nerve endings, an actual piece of your body, just as much as cutting your finger off.
FGM is not about identifying with your “one true God”. It is about preventing women from having wild sexual desires for men and therefore the risk that they will cause impure thoughts in men, cause men to sin, bring shame and dishonour on the family – especially the men, and at the end of the day, to control women.
No harm has been done by silly religious symbols or ritual. Catholics don’t get circumcised because they don’t masturbate anyway
But Catholics and other denominations may flay themselves in penitence for the odd time they succumb to temptation. They don’t flay children.Perfectly fine to ridicule or question a religious ritual practised by some, even when it is out of date in the 21st century in a country where there is no more medical need to do it. But please don’t make the mistake of even thinking it is comparable in any sense to FGM
-
July 24, 2015 at 8:54 pm -
Excellent post! Thanks for putting things in perspective.
-
July 25, 2015 at 12:26 am -
The initials YKK still can make me tremble, that terrible time those teeth tucked into “a little bit of excess SKIN”! Not a mere nibble, but a greedy mouthful, and a Rambo-esque act of self-control of PAIN to liberate myself…
It certainly felt like nerve-endings in there!-
July 25, 2015 at 7:59 am -
Took me a minute, knew i’d seen YKK before and that it wasn’t Y2K, but you are so right. /end discussion about ‘just’ skin.
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:55 am -
Suttee, Thugee and foot-binding are just three of the eastern wisdoms the British Empire destroyed. God forbid any more oriental enlightenment should be interfered with. On the other hand, the vast majority of FGM is as innocuous as circumcision, so hysteria over the extreme slicing and dicing does seem restricted really to primitive African cultures and that might be blinding us to the “live and let live” possibilities.
Presumably Mrs. O’Barmy will be having stern words today with her husband’s extended family about all of this…
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm -
Most fgm if not all involves removing part or all of the clitoris so it is hardly innocuous in terms of sexual function.
One obvious reason why male circumsiom persists is that it is performed on infants who will have no recollection of the pain suffered when they are adults.
-
July 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm -
It’s noticeable that internet sources are becoming more and more vehement and the nomenclature can be confusing. Type 1 was the version I had in mind and my understanding was that that was by far the most prevalant. Confusingly Type 4 is somewhat vaguely defined but seems likely to be much less bad than 3 or 4, since it’s hard to imagine anything worse than 3 or 4 outside of a gorno flick.
Re-reading this 1998 explanation of Type 1
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.full
seems to suggest much is perhaps dependant on the steady hand of the cutter, so I wouldn’t argue the point much.Types 3 & 4 seemed to be pretty restricted:
“the most severe types of FGM carried out in Somalian and Sudanese populations”I would add that back in 1998 it didn’t seem to be a “Muslim” problem.
“female circumcision is not prescribed by their religious doctrine, emphasizing that the procedure is almost never performed in many major Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan…”-
July 24, 2015 at 5:49 pm -
That should have been “much less bad than 2 or 3, since it’s hard to imagine anything worse than 2 or 3 outside of a gorno flick.”
Sorry for any confusion…
-
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 10:09 am -
Perhaps male circumcision came about because of what all uncut adolescent males call ” foreskin cheese” and the educated call smegma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma-
July 24, 2015 at 11:14 am -
And here’s me worrying about reuniting readers with their breakfasts!
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:22 am -
I always recall being surprised the BBC allowed “Smeg” to be used in Red Dwarf, but then once upon a time I was surprised the BBC allowed “Plonker” in Only Fools & Horses. Little Weed that I am.
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:08 pm -
Don’t Smeg make ovens and fridges now? Gives a new meaning to getting the cheese out of the fridge doesn’t it?
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:41 pm -
Sounds a bit neff to me.
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm -
Quite a Hot-Point you make there.
-
July 24, 2015 at 6:19 pm -
How very Fridgedaire you?!?
-
July 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm -
That’s a load of Bosch!
-
July 24, 2015 at 7:02 pm -
Gonna be some mieles in these fridge puns, I think…or maytag not?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 10:48 am -
I find the even idea of these practises repugnant, & would make male or female circumcision an offence against any person here regardless of consent. I would include any attempt to carry out these acts on a UK resident by arranging ‘a trip home’.
Even so, I don’t think we as a state have the responsibility to interfere in other states’ internal affairs; I think those who wish to encourage change should involve themselves as missionaries once did. I just think that these acts are just part of a wide range of culturally less advanced behaviours, some of which have far more serious consequences & a higher priority.
Anyone know how many men willingly submit to circumcision as adults?-
July 24, 2015 at 11:13 am -
From what I’ve seen on the internet on occasions, I think many men do far scarier-looking things. I try not give it too piercingly a look.
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:08 pm -
“many men do far scarier-looking things. I try not give it too piercingly a look.” Now this is just Tolkien the piss!
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm -
Sounds painful.
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:29 am -
Well, I submitted to medical circumcision aged 47 as treatment for BXO. Life afterwards is definitely preferable to life before as BXO was advancing, and not much different to life before its advent. It’s really no big deal.
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:01 am -
Who wants sand and dust in that part of their tackle? As well as smegma! In my young days when the staphylococcus ruled ok in the form of impetigo. it frequently entered into the lickle lads tackle and caused a sealing up of the prepuce, thus leading to ballooning and inabilty to pee. So many mums and dads and doctors had an early circ done on sons to reduce that risk. As antibiotics became more efficient and easy to take the practice was no longer needed. These days we can’t keep our noses out of other people’s affairs. Never have been able to for hundreds of years! As for religious reasons. Circs used to be done at Ilford maternity unit…..now a hotel and flats …….on the 8 th day after birth ,if fit,by the mohel. Discharged 2-6 days later, still under the supervision of a very capable rabbi. Yes the babes cried, some mums cried. It was cruel and upsetting but we did not see fit to be judgemental at that time. Now we are teeming with office chair critics tapping at their keyboards and having a go at one another on so many issues. If it is ,or could, affect us directly, let us spout it out, if it is not our business….hold back. FGM do not get me on that. All I can say is….it must cause expensive unpleasant problems in some maternity units. The professions involved are entitled to campaign against its inherent dangers in childbirth, if they see deaths and poor health resulting from FGM affecting their work and soaking up funds too.
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:43 am -
“In my young days when the staphylococcus ruled ok in the form of impetigo. it frequently entered into the lickle lads tackle and caused a sealing up of the prepuce, thus leading to ballooning and inabilty to pee.”
They say you learn something everyday. I remember when I was somewhere between the ages of 3 or 5 being taken to the doctor to have my tackle inspected. Until reading your comments I had no idea what it was all about, but your description certainly fits with my memory of the event and the symptoms I recall having, except I was still able to pee. I’ve no idea what the outcome was, whether I was given antibiotics or if mum was just told to take extra care washing me down there. Anyway, it cleared up and thankfully I’m still intact all these years later. Thank you so much for shedding light on this mystery.
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:56 pm -
Similar tale (tail?) here, although I was 8 at the time. My outcome was different, as I was parcelled off to the local hospital where a small amount of my small member was removed surgically. I was not aware of its claimed effect of inhibiting masturbation but experiential evidence confirms that this claim is wholly without substance. Obviously being only 8 at the time, I cannot compare its full functionality on a before-and after basis, but the absence of that apparently superfluous component has never led to a soprano chorus of complaints, indeed some who have had the benefit of its use have expressed a positive preference.
This event occurred in the late 1950s and I got the impression that, in those relatively early days of the NHS, there were a number of ‘fashionable’ procedures delivered on almost a production-line basis as a response to any issues in the target bodily areas, of which tonsilectomy and male circumcision were two examples, to both of which I was subjected. (Ms Mildred may have a view on this perception.)
But I find deliberate female mutilation in order to eliminate sexual pleasure to be utterly offensive, wholly without justification and requiring legal sanction where that can be applied and cultural education to eliminate the practice elsewhere. Maybe if that ‘cultural education’ was linked to the provision of UK foreign aid, they might just get the message sooner – “No Clit = No Cash.”
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:58 am -
As often stated earlier, elsewhere?
Many ancient mid-east wisdoms were for ‘Elf & Safety’. Including non consumption of shellfish/seabed scavengers and cloven-hoofed creatures, likely to carry festering parasites harmful or deadly to humans in tropical climates.
Such ancient wisdoms now replaced by modern Brit ignorance about ancient barbaric FGM. Clitoris removal for brutal male control of females known to be far more sexually voracious than the male.
FGM, ancient and modern butchery, performed not on babies, but on young girls c. 3-13 yrs – and rightly made pan-EU illegal in 1985.
FGM , the sexual, physical, mental and emotional permanent bloody torture of young girls. Soon all but eliminated (by prosecution and education) in caring mainland modern EU, with no Fascist Market media.
But, you guessed it, exactly 30 years on, NOT ONE conviction in callous Fascist Market Media UK. Instead, for 4 decades ongoing, kid-seXploiting just 4% of all supposed ‘child abuse’ (as stated earlier in Anna’s stunning NSPCC/Childline expose). While criminally neglecting a vast 96% of NON-sex serious child abuses with millions of child victims about whom the callous Fascist Market Media UK don’t give a damn!
Paraphrase caring Jane Dodge, UK C4 News, 14 Nov Y2K, to a senior French prosecutrix, “After 15 years, why do you think that only Britain, in modern-EU, has not prosecuted ONE case of FGM (publicised in our stage show ‘The Vagina Monologues” since 1996) with an estimated 30,000 past and present UK victims-survivors of the brutal medevil practice?”
Came the blunt reply, “It’s because you’re chicken! Due to your cripplingly correct British P.C.”
Oh so ‘appropriate’/(yuk making Brit buzzword), from a BIG French hen/COCKerel !
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=vagina+monologues&fr=dss_yset_chr
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:40 pm -
http://www.trust.org/item/?map=france-reduces-genital-cutting-with-prevention-prosecutions-lawyer/
One of the problems for Anglo-Saxon law is the rights of privacy. It’s easy to see how this issue crosses over with the rights of the parent in respect of their own children – a clash indeed. It’s an odd one really because I’d guess that those to the “right” who would say smacking should be allowed and is none of the State’s business, would be much more proactive about measures to stop FGM, whereas those who would get hysterical about smacking would prefer to look the other way if it came down to challenging cultural habits such as FGM.
Reading that French article, they have implemented “Mandatory Reporting” for health professionals.
“Genital checks are not compulsory in France, but Weil-Curiel says they are “indispensable” in bringing successful prosecutions, because medical staff have a duty to report FGM to the authorities when they discover it.”-
July 24, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
I’m sure that I’ve heard more than one politician lecturing us on how we should “embrace cultural differences” – er, does that include such things as FGM, ritual slaughter, arranged marriages and non education of females I wonder?
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 12:47 pm -
“No more than I’m entitled to march into an African village and demand a mother desist from performing circumcision on her daughter.
And if the African ‘marches’ into your ‘village’ and persists in the practice what then? What other ‘African’ practices would you be happy to see continue in your ‘village’?
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
I ‘don’t’ quite ‘get’ your ‘point’. Just in case, you should know I’m a Racist Marxist Paedo, so maybe that would explain my stance.
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:11 pm -
You imply that you are happy for Africans, (and presumably every other foreigner), to live the way that they want to in their own countries, e.g the French can be French in France and the Germans can be German in Germany and it is none of your business how they live their lives. All fine and dandy.
BUT is it still none of your business if these Africans, (or French or Germans), come and live next door to you, (in your ‘village’), and continue to behave in the way they did ‘back home’, i.e. are you a ‘multiculturist? If you are, what are the limits? Can they practice FGM on their own girl or speak their own language or roast oxen in the middle of the high street?
Live-and-let-live is easy when it is going on somewhere ‘foreign’, not so easy when it is next door. You might not wish to change the way that they live but multiculturism effectively forces a change on the way the host community lives, in other words ‘the African has marched into your village’.
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 1:20 pm -
Strangely the rules on CQC registration for performing circumcisions apply only to health care professionals. So a doctor in Leicester recently got prosecuted for doing unregistered procedures, whereas I with no experience or qualifications (or interest!!) Could set up shop and offer the chop- without breaking any laws.
-
July 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm -
“In 2014, more and more women are asking for surgery to ‘tidy up’ or shorten their labia. This is happening all over the western world, but particularly in Britain and America. In 2013, the number of labiaplasty operations on the National Health Service (NHS) was over 2,000 – which is five times what it was in 2008. However, the vast majority of operations on the labia in Britain are done privately, since the cash-strapped NHS doesn’t have the money to fund non-vital surgery. If you want to have a private operation, at present the cost in Britain will probably be around £3,200 to £3,500. Think carefully before you spend all that money. Warning: in 2014 there have been suspicions that some rogue surgeons may be carrying out female genital mutilation (FGM) while pretending that they are ‘only’ doing labiaplasty.
In a moment, we’ll look at why so many women want their sexual organs reshaped. But first let’s make clear what we’re talking about, because there’s still a great deal of confusion about this particular area of the female anatomy…”
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex-and-relationships/labiaplasty.htm#ixzz3goxJwX7W -
July 24, 2015 at 4:02 pm -
The Chop I refer to here is to boys of course- girls is illegal regstered or not!
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:02 pm -
Sorry- replied you not addendum to myself as intended!
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 1:28 pm -
Rephrase Moor: “One of the problems for Anglo-Saxon law is their ancient so called ‘rights of privacy’. Now made irrelevant in an increasingly public world. Where there is no problem for proactive authorities when parents in respect of their own children clash with the CRIMINAL law about Anglo-hysteric SEX! Those backward Anglos who still say CRIMINAL-assault smacking, or CRIMINAL SEX should be allowed and is none of the State’s business, sadly also won’t be concerned about stopping CRIMINAL FGM.”
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:04 pm -
I wonder if a daughter of Eve could mount an historical abuse prosecution of their parents and/or cutter. Hard to see why not if Rolf Harris squeezing your breast forty years ago is a heinous crime, but would the CPS consider it to be “in the public interest”? If it doesn’t go through the criminal system the victims have to pay their own lawyers fees and that’s hardly closure is it.
-
July 24, 2015 at 7:23 pm -
Respectfully rephrase Moor, er, once more?
“Callous UK Right wing cut backs now mean that even if does go through the crumbling criminal system, victims including many falsely accused, may have to pay their own lawyers fees. Causing even more lifelong trauma in families and communities including children. And that’s hardly true Brit justice is it?”
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm -
I have a small scar inside my foreskin. When questioned, my mum said that the meds had wanted to circumsize me, because my foreskin was too tight, leaving me with potential future problems. My mum refused and and the meds performed an op to enlarge my foreskin. That was over 70 years ago. Personally I think the male organ looks far more attractive and masculine without that useless, ugly, bit of skin. (I’m 100% hetro, by the way, in case anybody is wondering). May I say I enjoy your website immensly, each posting is an absolute gem, and so wonderfully written. An absolute delight.
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:04 pm -
” I still cannot think of a good reason why male circumcision takes place”
I can. Phimosis. Look it up.
-
July 24, 2015 at 6:07 pm -
Indeed which is why, when he was aged 14, I finally agreed to the doctors turning my son into an American. “It will look like a dogs dinner for a couple of months”[sic the Surgeon]. It also left my son in agony-needing-morphium for several days and it was a several weeks before he could walk straight….which with his already massively overly developed libido was probably a good thing in terms of the local young ladies getting a rest.
So I have nothing against male circumcision for medical reasons in adults. or even for reasons of fashion (btw there are women who get themselves circ’d inorder to look neater ie their clitoral hood and outer labia are removed)….IN ADULTS. But to lop off baby body parts just on the off chance they might get, or harbour, an infection? No.
-
July 24, 2015 at 6:23 pm -
EDit*not outer labia (majora) but the labia minora
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 4:22 pm -
Two good reasons
HIV: Cells on the intact foreskin engulf HIV and transport it to the immune system, its optimal habitat for multiplication.
Cervical cancer: caused by HPV which happily colonises the foreskin. New vaccinations currently protect against only two of the many varieties. Infection is by sexual intercourse with infected cavalier males.
Jolan: Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart wrote a delightful article on the aesthetics. As a heterosexual female I agree.
Jim makes the differences between male and female circumcision very clearly. Different terms should really apply. -
July 24, 2015 at 4:27 pm -
*Different terms should really apply *
I thought they did. Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation.
It’s only the male aesthetes who seem to want to confuse the issue, although I recall Anna Ford using the word circumcision in the early days of Morning TV in about 1985 and being largely laughed at, probably because she used the wrong word and everyone thought, “What’s she making such a fuss about, and this is putting me off my cornflakes anyway”. Nowadays they’d be listening to boy scouts telling tales of celebrity kiddy sex. How the wheel turns. -
July 24, 2015 at 5:53 pm -
According to The Bestes Frau’s Daily Nannyknowsall , the UN is demanding Britain finally outlaw the smacking of children….so it seems british boys’ bums need require more protection than their willies . I believe the UN still refuses to call for the outlawing of male circumcision, no doubt thanks to intensive lobbying by Big Cold Cream US.
Have I understand the law here aright that having a baby boy’s ears pierced is a CRIME and would probably lead to the piercer being put on the “Sex Offenders” register (if convicted of assault on a child) but his foreskin can be chopped off with impunity? So would giving my baby boy a Prince Albert be legal? Enquiring Death Metal ‘minds’ need to know!
As an aside, I used to moderate one of the biggest and oldest Sex ‘Education’ Boards on the net. As it was an American board, a lot of keystrokes were expounded back and forth on the subject of “Can American Boys not cope with technical things like soap and water?”. One of the most popular posts on the subject contained a video of a foreskin in action (flaccid action I hasten to add). Particularly the American women found it mesmerizing and their opinions seemed to be split 70/30 , respectively “How can anyone chop off something that beautiful and cooOOOOl? OMG! IT GOES BACK AND FORTH IT’S SOOOO CUTE! I am never letting my son get cut!” or ” Why would anyone want to look like a sharpei?”
-
July 24, 2015 at 8:38 pm -
As a gay Brit, when resident in USA, I can also confirm that gay American men were VERY interested to see a live foreskin in action…
-
July 24, 2015 at 8:51 pm -
As the general obsession with men who care about such things seems to be the longer, the better, I would’ve thought extra inches courtesy of the humble foreskin would’ve appealed to most.
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:04 pm -
extra inches
Extra inches? Really? Not sharing Windy’s preference I can’t really claim an encyclopedic knowledge of my fellow mens’ dangly bits but…inches? That’s not a foreskin, it’s a sock! A centimetre or so maybe.
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:33 pm -
I am a product of the metric, as opposed to the imperial, measuring system. I don’t know if I’ve got my measurements wrong or if I was simply smiled upon at birth.
-
July 24, 2015 at 10:06 pm -
-
July 24, 2015 at 10:20 pm -
Honestly, if I cared about weights and measurements, I’d be more paranoid than proud!
-
July 25, 2015 at 8:23 am -
Whenever conversation turned to such matters in the design office, somebody usually makes reference to magnifying glasses at this point. Or, as one of my colleagues once ruefully put it, “If I lost another half inch, I could use the Ladies room…..”
-
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:54 pm -
With apologies to the landlady for the intimate discussion of men’s danglies…An inexperienced friend of mine once referred to is as a “snood”…
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:05 pm -
That’s one helluva foreskin if it adds ‘extra inches’ !
(Or maybe it’s just my scale of reference). -
July 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm -
Ahem, cough, cough, its also a girth matter… no -one really wants to be “stabbed with a pencil”, no matter how long it is. (I’m a bit conscious this may be in the “too much information” category.)
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:32 pm -
As a gay Brit, when resident in USA, I can also confirm that gay American men were VERY interested to see a live foreskin in action…
Returning briefly to my experiences as a mod on a Sex Ed BBS, I recall a post by a Working Girl who ‘worked’ both sides of the pond (and the bed but that’s another story as they say dans Cafe Moustache) . She tried to solve the endless rows between ‘dog dicks’ and ‘muties’ by giving us all the ‘low down’ on what women really think is best. She informed us that, in her professional opinio,n most girls are supremely uninterested in man’s physical makeup (I think she used the phrase ‘give a flying f***’ which was apt), length or girth and are even less bothered about whether the bloke is cut or not. According to her most girls are only concerned that ‘it’ fulfil its preordained function and reach the spots that a certain beer would like to. There was however one proviso about cut men; how extreme was the cut? Apparently men who are ‘fully’ circumcised tend to have organs, when erect, that resemble concrete mushrooms -like ‘riding a broom stick’ (her phrase not mine), painfully hard . Her preference was for cut men to have been 3/4 cut-as is apparently most common in the US. I , for one, hadn’t known until she posted that there were different grades of cuts…
-
July 24, 2015 at 9:40 pm -
Whenever I go down the pub I usually come home “half cut”, does that count?
-
July 25, 2015 at 11:27 am -
The first cut is the deepest, baby I know
The first cut is the deepest
’cause when it comes to being lucky she’s cursed
when it comes to lovin’ me she’s worst
but when it comes to being loved she’s first
that’s how I know
The first cut is the deepest, baby I know
The first cut is the deepestCut Stevens – 1967
-
-
-
-
July 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm -
”I still cannot think of a good reason why male circumcision takes place”
“I can. Phimosis. Look it up.”
Phimosis? Pah! I had that. My bell-end expanded due to a massive build-up of Mycobacterium smegmatis. It looked like an egg-eating snake caught in the act. The Doc paid a visit and unceremoniously pulled back the foreskin which led to an impressive spray of bacteria over himself and the very ceiling. After a few weeks of stretching exercises in a warm bath I restored the appendage to it’s design specification and it has given no trouble since.
It’s not often you’re wrong but removing bits of children’s genitalia is wrong. Not only will they grow up to miss out on sensations supposed to be enjoyed as adults, but the painful memory may well lurk deep within the psyche; Americans, Jews and Muslims all (or mostly, in the case of the yanks) have the disfiguring procedure and funnily enough they loom large in world events where being militaristic/fanatical are qualities they bring to the…fore. -
July 25, 2015 at 12:07 am -
Maybe the UN should form a piece-keeping force.
-
July 25, 2015 at 8:12 am -
Maybe the UN should form a piece-keeping force.
it is, I feel, a toss up between your comment and Bandini’s FKK comment for ‘Comment Of The Day’.
-
July 25, 2015 at 8:26 am -
Given current subject matter, I’m not entirely sure that tossing up is the appropriate action.
-
-
But Catholics and other denominations may flay themselves in penitence for the odd time they succumb to temptation. They don’t flay children.
{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }