Saturday, 30 October 2010
Make it illegal, refuse to spread-eagle!
Skin removal is mutilation, demand emancipation!
Give the child a choice, at 8 days old you have no voice!
Genital rights, hear our plight!
Indoctrination, what's the price?
A life-long victim of this vice!
Rah! Rah! Rah! The march commences, and picket signs are raised in unison like an army of heavenward swords bellowing for justice. I can't imagine anything of the sort ever happening, but it's a cause worth fighting for. Foreskin preservation ranks up there along with curing cancer and rigging the Oscars as one of the most important topics of our time.
This archaic practice serves absolutely no purpose, and a study has estimated that 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States. Now, this is completely preventable if parents forgo the ritual of degradation. However, circumcision is still being put in practice and a good amount of the time it's being done out of tradition's sake.
It's no secret that cut penises are more prominent in the United States when compared to Europe. As far as aesthetics go, you'll get wildly different opinions from women in the U.S. and those in countries where the circumcision rate is below 20 percent.
American-made pornography is littered with hairy, overweight men thrusting their skinless ding-dongs, so the average American female will consider cut penises to be the standard, accepted, and expected look. In Europe, women are exposed to uncircumcised penises far more often, and find circumcised penises to vary between looking "absolutely hideous" and being a "godless abomination." Yes, I'm a fan of using hyperbole, deal with it.
To get back on track, the circumcision rate varies a great deal between countries. The point I'm making is that circumcision is absolutely unnecessary, and every male should be given the right to decide whether or not they want to get circumcised at a later stage in life. The key here is choice. Unlike a name, a parent shouldn't be allowed to decide how sensitive their child's penis will be over time.
The foreskin allows for a natural lubrication to form, most likely in place to prevent yourself from feeling like a dried up 84-year-old, dousing the 'ol rod in grape seed oil. In contrast, if a male's foreskin just doesn't do it for his masturbation sessions in front of the mirror, it can be removed through a procedure, which would avoid the chances of a sexual partner's gag reflexes violently spazzing out, resulting in projectile vomit from the sight of such ugly, smelly skin.
We need to start this revolution, man. It's like, hip and rebellious and stuff. In fact, circumcision is becoming less popular in the U.S. so it's a great time to ready those Molotov cocktails so we can take out the authorities responsible for giving parents the choice, disregarding the child's possible wishes to have a fully clothed glans.
How do you feel about parents having the right to decide whether or not they want their son to be circumcised? Do you prefer the look of a cut or uncut penis? Would your preference influence your decision on whether or not to cut your potential, future child?
**EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION**
I'm aware that we can't remove circumcision as a religious practice, but I do believe it's unnecessary and should be unlawful for reasons outside of religious practices or medical issues. There are, in fact, places where circumcision has been rejected and is only allowed for the aforementioned reasons.
Nuñez Love Doctor
Certified with a PhD in Foreskin Sciences and Hyperbole.