Being an intactivist can become irksome at times, earlier today was one such occasion.
Circumcision is rarely tackled directly over here as a consequence of it never happening and the religious reasoning given being protected by our somewhat over-extensive concept of tolerance.
The one area that can not help but be affected by circumcision however is sex and accordingly every once in a while it comes up in advice columns. I had seen it come up a couple of times before but could not quite recall their response, it was in response to a man in his 40s who wanted to be circumcised and although overall they were opposed to such a notion they did not seem completely opposed to the procedure overall.
I did recall however a comment by Dr. Thomas Stuttaford about a year ago (roughly) that raised my heckles. Stuttaford is regularly lampooned in our weekly satirical publication the Private Eye by a character named Dr. Uttafraud and all to apt that moniker has proven, he rights regularly in The Times, is a circumcised man (probably a victim of British RIC) and when it comes to this issue he becomes simply loathesome.
In the article in question he recalled an annecdote he apparently expected to amuse where he displayed vast medical incompetance by ordering a man who had trapped his foreskin in a zipper to have that entire organ amputated. Asides from the appalling treatment of the man and the ignorance behaving in this fashion displayed his tone seemed the most unnerving, a sort of wistful amusement that was most chilling.
I had forgotten his backwards views on this matter though when I first saw the article's title. I finished my examinations yesterday and seeing circumcision's affect on sexual existance highlighted in the mainstream press was something I anticipated with glee.
Accordingly what followed came as something of a dissapointment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...3-2227674.html
Circumcision is rarely tackled directly over here as a consequence of it never happening and the religious reasoning given being protected by our somewhat over-extensive concept of tolerance.
The one area that can not help but be affected by circumcision however is sex and accordingly every once in a while it comes up in advice columns. I had seen it come up a couple of times before but could not quite recall their response, it was in response to a man in his 40s who wanted to be circumcised and although overall they were opposed to such a notion they did not seem completely opposed to the procedure overall.
I did recall however a comment by Dr. Thomas Stuttaford about a year ago (roughly) that raised my heckles. Stuttaford is regularly lampooned in our weekly satirical publication the Private Eye by a character named Dr. Uttafraud and all to apt that moniker has proven, he rights regularly in The Times, is a circumcised man (probably a victim of British RIC) and when it comes to this issue he becomes simply loathesome.
In the article in question he recalled an annecdote he apparently expected to amuse where he displayed vast medical incompetance by ordering a man who had trapped his foreskin in a zipper to have that entire organ amputated. Asides from the appalling treatment of the man and the ignorance behaving in this fashion displayed his tone seemed the most unnerving, a sort of wistful amusement that was most chilling.
I had forgotten his backwards views on this matter though when I first saw the article's title. I finished my examinations yesterday and seeing circumcision's affect on sexual existance highlighted in the mainstream press was something I anticipated with glee.
Accordingly what followed came as something of a dissapointment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...3-2227674.html
:
