Thursday December 14, 2017
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Nov-21-2011 16:45printcomments

The foreskin is a lip, and thus an organ; its ablation is a mutilation

The reason is simple: the foreskin is taboo, like autosexuality that is designated by a word with reproachful connotations.

Lips
The biggest difference is location.

(PARIS, France) - Abstract – Only mentioning the lips of the mouth and the vulva, anatomy textbooks do not generalize the notion of lip to all the organs that have a similar structure and function.

Among these, the foreskin moreover includes an erogeneity and an ability to retract that make it the specific organ for masculine autosexuality. Generalizing the concept of lip and giving lonely pleasure a scientific and non contemptuous calling, this short article fills two medical gaps.

Lips are organs frontier between the interior and the exterior. Their great characteristic is being both-sided: skin on one side, mucosa on the other side. The exterior shelters the interior from rubbing and desiccation. They also are particularly provided with fine-touch nerve endings. They comprise: the eyelids, the nostrils, the lips, the labias, the foreskin, and the anus.

The generalization of the notion of lip forbids proponents of circumcision to claim that the foreskin is not an organ but a useless and anti-hygienic fold of skin.

Indeed, that generalization all the more overthrows that view as, like the clitoris, the foreskin has particularly dense erogenous innervation... in synergy with the fine-touch innervation.

So, the – unique in nature – rolling back and forth of that double-sided blind enables, besides easy cleaning, particularly pleasurable stimulation both of itself and the glans. Since it can be suppressed without impeding reproduction, the foreskin, like the clitoris, is not a genital organ; it is the specific organ for masculine autosexuality.

These observations do not figure in any medicine textbook. The reason is simple: the foreskin is taboo, like autosexuality that is designated by a word with reproachful connotations. However, it is biologically established that its ablation is an as unnecessary, painful and risky as sexually, ethically and legally inadmissible mutilation4. Under cultural or religious pretexts, the deep reason of circumcision is always forbidding autosexuality to children.


Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux (Sigismond) is the author of "Sexual mutilation: excision, circumcision, the victims' point of view", for free at circabolition.multiply.com; he is an Independent psychoanalysis researcher (Chercheur indépendant en psychanalyse) based in Paris, France, who works with Salem-News.com to help raise awareness of the massive societal problems connected to the blindly accepted, mutilating practice of circumcision. He says, "Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, justice and injustice. But power is at the tip of the tongue and the sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons."

(La non violence est aussi fondamentale que la violence, l'amour et la haine, le juste et l'injuste. Mais le pouvoir est au bout de la langue et la douce violence de la parole, si l'on s'en empare, peut faire taire les armes.)

End Israel's Unwarranted Murder of Kids




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



David January 13, 2012 5:30 am (Pacific time)

Ralph, cutting erogenous skin off means you have less of it, there are studies that show intact/cut men do have a difference in sensation and many adult men who were cut who deeply regret it. Circumcision is a clear violation of human rights and is wrong when forced on someone without there consent. Male circumcisions are justified in the same way female circumcisions are where it is practiced. You mentiond circumcision would deprive 'individual rights, including religious liberty' - well it would not be the 'individuals' choice if the owner of the penis was not the one who chose it, therefore it is liberating to protect boys/girls from forced forms of bodily mutilations


Anonymous January 12, 2012 10:43 am (Pacific time)

Trivializing the foreskin as "just extra skin" is factually incorrect, as was reinforced in the 90's by a Canadian, Dr. John Taylor: "... Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity." Religion is not an excuse for the forced and irreversable genital mutilation of boys without their consent. At the time that the practice began, they were ignorant of the structure of the foreskin, and did not accept that children had rights. Those who say that circumcision, aka genital mutilation, is harmful are speaking the truth. As a 65 year old male, my penis is now insensitive, to the point where I cannot orgasm in intercourse, and only with great difficulty in masturbation. Taylor, J. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," BJU 77 (1996): 291–295.


Marc November 28, 2011 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph, the Masters and Johnson study did not measure the foreskin. By contrast, the Sorrells study used fine touch medical instruments found the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. And a study of Korean men who were circumcised as adults found about half of them reported a significant loss of masturbulatory and sexual pleasure. Since the effects of circumcision increase with age, those figures would certainly increase with time. The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded that circumcision is harmful, medically unnecessary, and violates a child's right to bodily integrity. A recent study in Denmark just found circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment.


Circumcision DOES affect sensitivity November 28, 2011 7:29 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph E. Stone, you are incorrect. The Masters and Johnson study did not even measure the foreskin, and it was based on self-reports of men who were cut for medical purposes, which biases the results. By contrast, research using fine touch medical instruments found the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x/abstract
The actual full study has be re-posted here with pics and all. www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

A study of Korean men who were circumcised as adults found about half of them reported a significant loss of masturbulatory and sexual pleasure. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x/full

The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded:

"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical or psychological complications."

"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."

"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as there is for female genital mutilation."

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitemanditem=1306

A recent study in Denmark just found "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

New research also find circumcised men are five times more likely to suffer from premature ejaculation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492404 The sample size was small and needs further research, but it's certainly reason to pay attention.


Eli November 23, 2011 11:41 pm (Pacific time)

@Ralph E. Stone: Physicians from Moses Maimonides to John Kellogg have documented the harmful effects of circumcision. Religious liberty is quite different from religious oppression. Compulsively harming someone else is a form of oppression. As for the medical question, preventative amputation is lousy medicine. Would any doctor recommend removing 50% of an infant's healthy lung tissue to prevent lung cancer? Would any doctor recommend removing a child's eyelids to prevent pinkeye? Any medical or religious institution that recommends circumcision as anything other than a last resort is a threat to public safety. Of course, any individuals who wish to modify their own body (for whatever pretext) deserve the right to do so. However, forced circumcision is a crime against humanity.


Ron Low November 23, 2011 8:58 am (Pacific time)

The ONLY person who should have a say is the owner of the penis. He can decide when he is old enough, based on the best evidence then available. About half of even US babies are being left intact. Over 3/4 of the world is NOT circumcised, and 2/3 of the males who are cut got circumcised in supposed adherence to Islam (even though the Qur'an says not one word about genital cutting for either gender). The baby's mom HAS a prepuce (foreskin) over her clitoris, and she knows how good it feels to rub it. A cut father has NO idea. HIS body, HIS decision.


Ralph E. Stone November 23, 2011 7:40 am (Pacific time)

Studies indicate that there is little or no difference in sensation during arousal or sensitivity of the flaccid penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For example, Masters and Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men [Masters and Johnson, 1966]. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.

Two US studies published in 2002 both found similar or greater sexual satisfaction in men after circumcision as adults [Collins et al., 2002; Fink et al., 2002]. The mean age of the men in each study was 37 and 42, respectively. In the smaller survey [Collins et al., 2002] there was no difference in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, problem assessment or satisfaction compared with what the men recalled sex being like prior to foreskin removal. Penile sensitivity was the same.

Circumcision is a recognized medical procedure with clear health benefits. In addition, a ban on circumcision would deprive individual rights, including religious liberty.

DJ: The most important sexual organ is between the ears. 


Marc November 22, 2011 3:47 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you for this information!

[Return to Top]
©2017 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for November 20, 2011 | Articles for November 21, 2011 | Articles for November 22, 2011


Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

googlec507860f6901db00.html
Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.