has much less than a tenth
of the subtle sensitivity
of an uncircumcised one.
The underside of a man's foreskin
is dense with Merkel cells,
Herbst corpuscles, Grandry corpuscles
Ruffini endings as well as free nerve endings.
The glans, however, has only a few free nerve endings
which are often desensitised by masturbation and rough clothing.
This would suggest that
sex between humans of certain religions and traditions is fated
by human caprice and false gods to be altogether more violent
and unpleasant than sex between those whose genitals remain unmutilated.
Which would explain why monotheistic societies
are so 'hung up about sex'.
1 comment:
The science is incontrovertible. Perhaps (I've read on the internet) as much as 70% of my nerve tissue on the most fantastic, glorious part of my body was removed at birth when I was circumcised, without my knowledge and without my consent. I wish I had not had it done to my two sons, but in the US in school showers, college dorm showers, and gym locker rooms, an uncircumcised dick was a rarity, and an object of intense shame to its owner and awkward hiding. Now those "unhacked" penises are more common, and it was last year 2015 when a small majority of male babies (1% or 2% more than circumcised) went uncircumcised in the United States. Having conceded the scientific facts, I would like, however to correct a number of false assumptions and conclusions above, carefully shrouded in the subjunctive voice "would suggest"…etc. Circumcision started not with the Jews and Muslims as you imply, Auban, but in ancient Egypt (the famous Middle Kingdom temple frieze illustrates its ancient common practice in that civilization) and in most subequatorial tribal Africa, where it was an "uralt" rite of passage to manhood. These are and were hot and sweaty climates where bacteria often festered underneath unwashed foreskins. Therefore circumcision served a practical medicinal function it no longer needs to serve. Now to the part of "more violent and unpleasant" sex resulting from a circumcised penis, you are indulging in hearsay, not experience, a distinction that is important. Let me say from my experience as a circumcised male that I have never had unpleasant sex. In my youth, when I was not married and had serial relationships, my lovers were insatiable for my circumcised cock. Women's experience of sex with circumcised men is highly laudatory. There is, of course, a number of women, led by the American female doctor Christiane Northrop, who very vocally complain about the pain caused by the circumcised penis (its prominent coronal ridge, for example) and its need for vigorous thrusting to bring about its ejaculation. There's even a website sexasnatureintendedit.com that details the female problems with the circumcised penis. Okay, to each her own, but that has not been my experience with women and their enjoyment of my very prominent coronal ridge, nor have they ever complained about my physical varieties of exuberant thrusting. So let me conclude, and I am not making an ad hominem justification here, that I am proud of my penis and very grateful for its talents, circumcised as it is, and its ability to connect with my lover, my wife, and the mother of my children of forty-one years, and the glory of the pleasure we share together. Would that pleasure, could that pleasure be greater, more subtly nuanced, if I had 70% more nerve endings? Science would say "yes," but I say, categorically, emphatically "no." The penis like the mind is a given, but what we make of them both is our own creation.
Post a Comment