While we do not wish to push speculation too far, differences in the association between circumcision status and sexual practice across ethnic groups suggest that cultural, rather than physiological forces may be responsible. In particular, the presented results may reflect attitudes regarding the cultural acceptability of the uncircumcised penis. Note that the association of circumcision with experience of sexual practices is weakest among ethnic minorities for whom circumcision is less prevalent. Among whites by contrast, uncircumcised men are relatively uncommon. A consequence of this may be that a certain stigma is attached to the uncircumcised penis by the white population. If the uncircumcised penis assumes a somewhat negative cultural association among whites, this may lead uncircumcised men to engage in a somewhat less elaborated set of sexual practices.You should also point out that the only statistically significant difference in sexual practice in cut v uncut males, according to this study, was in masturbation frequency (measured as likelihood to have masturbated at least once within the last month).
The way I figured it, however, there are three reasonable explanations why an otherwise sane person would do such a thing. One, as in the case of former President George H. W. Bush, to save his life when his plane has been hit by enemy fire. Two, also as in the case of the ex-president, when one is winding down his life and figures he hasn't much of it left to lose anyway. And three, as in my own case, when one is not yet sufficiently mature to appreciate that his life is far too precious a thing to be thrown casually out of an open hatch at 3000 feet.posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:05 AM on January 9, 2007
If, for example, it were found that removing parts of the vulva would reduce incidence of cancer of the vulva, then we would certainly not begin to think that removal of the vulva may be a healthy option.You have, I take it, never heard of the surgical procedure known as "mastectomy", nor the practice of preventive mastectomy used to reduce the risk of breast cancer?
In fact, it would be considered absurd to even investigate the possible benefits of such a procedure. Such research would never be funded here.
Karmakaze, you realize that breasts are considered secondary sexual characteristics, correct, and aren't analogous to primary sexual characteristics, i.e., genatalia?Astonishingly enough, possessing a pair myself, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that they are a visible sexual characteristic, and are extremely fetishised in our culture. And yet, amazingly enough, some women choose mastectomies rather than risk cancer. Had you bothered to read the quoted text and applied the barest moment of thought, you might have realized this tends to suggest that we as a culture do not reject any research whatsoever into surgical solutions to cancer, just because they involve female parts. Which was the claim made in the quoted text.
Circumcision reduces the amount of smegma produced by the male. Smegma is a combination of exfoliated epithelial cells, transudated skin oils, and moisture that can accumulate under the foreskin of males and within the female vulva area. It has a characteristic strong odor and taste, and is common to all mammals—male and female. While smegma is generally not believed to be harmful to health, the strong odour may be considered to be a nuisance or give the impression of a lack of hygiene.
Seriously, can we? Please? I get that male circumcision is a pretty, er, sensitive issue, but it's not the issue that the post is about and it really does NOT need to be up for debate. For the love of all things holy, the post was about a gynecologist who "realigned" his patients vaginas without their consent. I fail to see the connection between that scenario and anything even vaguely penile.
I also fail to see the reason for dragging that debate out even further in an otherwise interesting thread.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:13 PM on January 8, 2007