The Silkworm's Scarf
I've been struggling to decide whether or not I should do a post about my two weeks spent in urology, getting to know the foreskin. I wasn't sure if it would be... tasteful. I didn't know whether or not my parents and family (who read my blog) would approve. I didn't know whether or not my reading public - whom I barely know! because they never leave me comments! hint hint! - would approve. Yes, readers, Karen Little, who once wrote an entire post about the bad things that can happen to your anus without a care in the world, was worried about whether or not people would be offended if she wrote about the little piece of extra skin at the end of a man's penis. What a ninny! And then I came across this post, over at All Scrubbed Up. And it was like a big sign saying Karen, you shall write about the foreskin. And so I shall.
I'll be honest, the concept of the foreskin has always been a little bit difficult for me to grasp. For a long time, I was under the impression that the part I now know is called the glans was the foreskin. This was thanks to Bryce Courtenay, whose protagonist PK (from The Power of One
) was circumcised, and was mocked by the boere-seuntjies at school for his hatless snake. I read The Power of One when I was eleven, and in my eleven-year-old mind, the only part of a penis that vaguely resembled a hat was the glans. (I know you're all thinking about this hard now, and I'm right, aren't I? The glans does look a bit like one of those army helmets!) Second year anatomy didn't help to enlighten me much at all - poor Petrus's penis had been pickling for two years by the time we got to it. What we saw was little more than a super-dry piece of biltong, and there was absolutely no way that the mechanism or structure of a foreskin could be demonstrated on the cadaver. Furthermore, our rather inexpert manner with the dissecting scalpels rendered what was left of the anatomy abnormal, and I was thus once again left floundering in the field of the foreskin.
To be honest, it wasn't until last week, when I performed a circumcision myself (relax - I was 'assisted' by a proper urologist who kindly cautered a little row of spots along the patient's corona, so that in order to make my incision all I had to do was play join-the-dots) that I finally fully and truly understood what a foreskin is. It's not a thing by itself. It's part of a greater thing - the skin over the penis. It's the little extra bit at the end, the bit the flaccid penis is too small to fill. A circumcised penis is not a hatless sake, Mr Courtenay, but rather a scarfless silkworm.
The big question surrounding the foreskin is whether or not to chop. I differ from SA Doc here, and tend towards being anti-chop, unless you have a good religious reason, or a food medical indication (like a pathological phimosis, or genital warts*) for the chop. It's an emotional issue in many parts of the world, I know. Here, it's bordering on a human rights issue, as more and more young men are killed or horribly maimed each year in traditional circumcisions, where their foreskins are hacked off by some blunt and contaminated object and then left to heal by themselves. I'll concede that most bloggers and blog-readers aren't going to submit themselves to that kind of mutilation, but even the small procedure that is a circumcision, when carried out in the best medical hands carries risks, and ones that I don't believe are worth taking unnecessarily.
Urology was a fun rotation. The doctors were relaxed and friendly, the calls quiet, and the subject matter reasonably simple. Let's just hope I enjoy the exam as much.
*On the subject of genital warts, or condylomata acuminata - what a fantastic party trick! Granted, it's one you'd much rather see on someone else than on yourself, but it really is quite entertaining. Now you're grasping what, to all intents and purposes, looks like a perfectly normal, uncircumcised penis. Then you give one little slip of the hand, and - voila! Is it a bunch of miniature grapes? A new and exciting fungus to put on your pizza? A collection of small sea anenomes? No! It's a bunch of genital warts! Marvellous!
I'll be honest, the concept of the foreskin has always been a little bit difficult for me to grasp. For a long time, I was under the impression that the part I now know is called the glans was the foreskin. This was thanks to Bryce Courtenay, whose protagonist PK (from The Power of One
To be honest, it wasn't until last week, when I performed a circumcision myself (relax - I was 'assisted' by a proper urologist who kindly cautered a little row of spots along the patient's corona, so that in order to make my incision all I had to do was play join-the-dots) that I finally fully and truly understood what a foreskin is. It's not a thing by itself. It's part of a greater thing - the skin over the penis. It's the little extra bit at the end, the bit the flaccid penis is too small to fill. A circumcised penis is not a hatless sake, Mr Courtenay, but rather a scarfless silkworm.
The big question surrounding the foreskin is whether or not to chop. I differ from SA Doc here, and tend towards being anti-chop, unless you have a good religious reason, or a food medical indication (like a pathological phimosis, or genital warts*) for the chop. It's an emotional issue in many parts of the world, I know. Here, it's bordering on a human rights issue, as more and more young men are killed or horribly maimed each year in traditional circumcisions, where their foreskins are hacked off by some blunt and contaminated object and then left to heal by themselves. I'll concede that most bloggers and blog-readers aren't going to submit themselves to that kind of mutilation, but even the small procedure that is a circumcision, when carried out in the best medical hands carries risks, and ones that I don't believe are worth taking unnecessarily.
Urology was a fun rotation. The doctors were relaxed and friendly, the calls quiet, and the subject matter reasonably simple. Let's just hope I enjoy the exam as much.
*On the subject of genital warts, or condylomata acuminata - what a fantastic party trick! Granted, it's one you'd much rather see on someone else than on yourself, but it really is quite entertaining. Now you're grasping what, to all intents and purposes, looks like a perfectly normal, uncircumcised penis. Then you give one little slip of the hand, and - voila! Is it a bunch of miniature grapes? A new and exciting fungus to put on your pizza? A collection of small sea anenomes? No! It's a bunch of genital warts! Marvellous!

16 comments:
November 05, 2006
Hey. One humorous dinner time conversation has turned into a nice little flurry of words! Don't get me wrong here - I abhor what's going on in the Eastern Cape - but if we can offer patients a safer alternative for something that's probably going to happen anyway, we should. Next year, as you go into internship - you'll become the hacker - desperately trying to save as many poor souls from the clutches of septic granite.
It's funny. Your post has got me thinking. There seem to be two very different types of doctors. The patient centric doctor and the doctor's obsessed with the bigger picture.
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with either, and both are crucial to a functioning health system. But your post indicates you are still in the individual patient focus camp.
Me on the other hand, for my sins, worry a lot more about the general population. If there is a statistical difference in STD and HIV transmission, then I'd rather apply it to a population where potentially, we're saving thousands!
Even if I start with my kid.
November 05, 2006
Ya, you are probably right about me being more patient-focussed than bigger-picture-focussed at this point in my career. And I hate having these kinds of arguments when I don't actually have the research with me, because well, the pitfalls are big.
What I will say is that I think it's a bit pie-in-the-sky to recommend elective circumcision to people making use of public health systems in this country. At the hospitals I work at, the theatres are already overbooked, and elective circums are absolutely not done. It's sort of a shame, I suppose, because these are the people who would probably most benefit from a circum HIV and STI-wise. And yes, I totally agree, maybe it would reduce the incidence of the traditional circum complications, which would be fantastic.
When I wrote my post, however, I took my reading public into mind. They're people who have regular access to internet, and have education enough to read, and therefore, we can assume (or maybe hope is a better word), know about personal hygiene. As I understand (and I might be wrong), the foreskin only increases the risk of STIs and HIV in the presence of particularly poor hygiene, so the clean man (ie: my blog reader) should technically have nothing to worry about.
November 05, 2006
i still prefer male circumcision over female circumcision...
November 05, 2006
While we're talking penises and foreskin, would you enlighten us as to what exactly its function is (the foreskin, that is)? Is there any particular reason (apart from the STD thing you mentioned) to chop it or leave it on?
There, I commented.
November 06, 2006
Hey Bloute -
Here are some reasons you might want to keep your foreskin, or that of your sons -
Function of foreskin:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
How the prepuce & smegma protect the penis:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/ (and a sublink on this page dispells myths about some STD's)
And apparently, it just plain feels better to keep it as nature intended -
http://research.cirp.org/func1.html
Now I'm a female so I can't personally say if it feels better for the man to have sex with or without a foreskin. And I'm not totally opposed to circumcision - if a *grown man* wants to make that choice. But I certainly think we should leave little boys bodies alone.
November 06, 2006
Thanks for the info.
I don't think many men know whether it feels better either! And if they do discover that it's better with the scarf on, it's a bit late, isn't it?
November 06, 2006
Yes of course, it's also a matter of sexual preference.
Had a discussion about it the other day, and some girls pointed out that it's more attractive circumcised. In America, where most (white) people are circumcised, I believe, many girls claim to refuse sleeping with "uncut" men.
Why all this prejudice and heartache over a little bit of skin?
Anyway, "the chop" is not very big amongst Afrikaners, so I assume we wouldn't do well in the US.
November 06, 2006
arc - ya, female circumcision is a whole other story. But wouldn't it be funny if many years from now, people looked back on our male circumcision practices and thought of them as barbaric?
bloute - thank you for your comment! I see someone has already left you some links to answer your question, so I'm going to leave it at that. What I will say, regarding the feeling better with-or-without question, is that our Urology lecturer, who is also a failrly well known sexologist, firmly states that the most important sexual organ is the brain, and the largest sexual organ is the skin. The couple of centimetres of penis actually make little difference, according to him, and he has apparently trained quadriplegics to climax just by having their nipples tweaked. So, I would hazard to say that having it snipped makes no difference to sensation.
anon - thanks for those links!
November 06, 2006
neil - in America there's a lot of latent hangup about circumcision, due to the efforts of a certain Mr Harvey Kellogg a number of years ago. In his book, Plain Facts for Young and Old: Embracing the natural history of hygiene and organic life, he referred to masturbation as self-abuse, and claimed one of the cures for this self-abuse in infancy (children, believe it or not, masturbate a lot, although they do it without any sexual connotation or motive) was circumcision, without anaesthesia, so that the pain of the procedure and the latent soreness would discourage the 'abuse'. In his quest for the healthy, organic life, he also co-invented the cornflake, which we all know and love today.
November 06, 2006
Sorry to turn the topic back around to that of tribal circumcision in the Eastern Cape, but isn't part of the their whole 'coming-of-age' thing? The fact that it is so painful and they have to live out in the gamadulas for a few days/weeks to recover is all part of the journey towards 'becoming a man'.
Boy, am I glad my parents got me the first-class ticket.
November 06, 2006
Well I was cut as an adult and thus in the lucky position to experience both the circumcised and uncut state. To everybody that ever wonder what the difference is, like I did before the snip, I would like to say that there is almost no difference. I however do prefer the cut state, for both enhanced feeling and the cleaniness.
November 07, 2006
I have never seen a circumcised penis "in the flesh"; it is a relatively uncommon procedure in the UK, though I do know of two folk who had it done for medical reasons as children.
November 07, 2006
mike - ja, it is one of those 'rites of passage things', as boys take their supposed step into manhood. Unfortunately, while they're out in the gamadulas they also often get horrific frostbite and lose their feet. funfun.
riann - yay! At last, someone who can speak from experience. Thank you for commenting!
retired midwife - I bet you probably have seen one, and that you just didn't realise it. I don't think women who aren't really surrounded by pro-circumcision people really think about what a circumcised penis looks like, and therefore don't really recognise one when they see one. That's my theory, at least.
November 08, 2006
A comment about with or without. I prefer with, there is a difference in the friction. The intact male will have steady skin to vaginal tissue contact, while the shaft is moving inside the skin, thus avoiding rubbing the tissue raw, in the case of prolonged pleasure. There is a difference & back in the old days (of "free love") it would be very disappointing to find that little piece of anatomy missing, perhaps akin to a man finding that a woman had on a padded bra.
November 14, 2006
Circumcision could prove a valuable public health measure among African blacks. Blacks do not take daily showers. They shrug off minor VD and genital sores. Black women fear refusing sex with black men. Black men can be notoriously unfaithful. Sex with condoms is scorned. Among African blacks, HIV is heterosexually transmitted.
The white world is radically different. If circumcision mattered for them, public health stats from the North Atlantic would be blatantly revealing. Europeans have foreskins (Muslims excepted), Americans mostly do not, and Canadians are evolving from cut to intact. There is no evidence of an orgy of foreskin related problems in Europe. Most of all, the rate of HIV infection is much higher in the USA than in Europe. Routine circumcision is unnecessary in the First World.
Circumcision performed after puberty, when the foreskin is fully detached from the glans (this makes a careful cut possible), with local anesthetic, is not inhumane.
There are American women who cannot stomach intimacy with a foreskin. But such women are mostly smugly provincial--the sort of people who vote for George Bush! But intelligent and kind American women are either knowledgeable about the sexual role of the foreskin, or come to the foreskin with open minds.
August 01, 2008
As someone cut at birth, I must tell you that I do NOT appreciate it at all. The medical "benifits" of it have been constantly disproven over it's history and these myths that the foreskin is unclean is both sexist and stupid.
www.restoreforeskin.com
This is a group of men who choose to create a remake of the their original foreskin who would be HAPPY to tell you how they feel about it.
Lastly, I would like to agree that male and female circs are different. The male is much worse as not only are they deprived of healthy skin, but then people use said skin to make facecreams for anti-aging companies. and THEN men are repeatedly told that it was for their own good. Comparing female circs to such a travesty is quite insulting, thank you.
Post a Comment