The Times has a supplement named Body & Soul each Saturday which deals with matters of health and suchlike. Generally the focus is upon women but this week to make a change they compiled an issue almost solely for men (and concerned girlfriends and wives, I suppose) which covered many things masculine. I had a slight suspicion that circumcision would come up at some point but I was pleasantly suprised by the manner in which it did:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle1937308.ece
"DECIRCUMCISION
It all began with the Romans. They invented a leg-crossingly painful-sounding procedure to reverse circumcision among those who had been born outside Roman society and wanted to avoid ridicule in the baths. Millennia later and the operation is less painful, but the advocates even more militant. The National Organisation of Restoring Men (Norm) considers circumcision to be a "betrayal by parents" and a "violation" that adversely affects sex life and penile sensitivity. It advises foreskin reconstruction, which can be done surgically or by attaching tape or weights to stretch the skin over the tip of the penis over a period of time. Speak to your GP first. Please. More information on www.norm.org"
I conceed that his tone is less than the optimum and that this was the last part of an article which also included "Wonderpants" and a "Testicle Festival" is something of a pity but the important thing is that The Times' readership have, finally, been clued in on the possibility. A previous article in the same supplement's sexual section had a query from a man wishing to regrow his foreskin who was treated with baffled dismissiveness by their two "Experts", one of whom is an archaic pro-circer who once recounted with glee ordering a man who had got his penis stuck in his zip circumcised in another edition of the same column.
Considering the fact that a man who had wished to become circumcised had received far more civil and sympathetic treatment and their labelling of a middle eastern festival as "A Day of Slips and Snips" I had considered boycotting the newspaper at one point but I reckon that this constitutes at least a partial redemption.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle1937308.ece
"DECIRCUMCISION
It all began with the Romans. They invented a leg-crossingly painful-sounding procedure to reverse circumcision among those who had been born outside Roman society and wanted to avoid ridicule in the baths. Millennia later and the operation is less painful, but the advocates even more militant. The National Organisation of Restoring Men (Norm) considers circumcision to be a "betrayal by parents" and a "violation" that adversely affects sex life and penile sensitivity. It advises foreskin reconstruction, which can be done surgically or by attaching tape or weights to stretch the skin over the tip of the penis over a period of time. Speak to your GP first. Please. More information on www.norm.org"
I conceed that his tone is less than the optimum and that this was the last part of an article which also included "Wonderpants" and a "Testicle Festival" is something of a pity but the important thing is that The Times' readership have, finally, been clued in on the possibility. A previous article in the same supplement's sexual section had a query from a man wishing to regrow his foreskin who was treated with baffled dismissiveness by their two "Experts", one of whom is an archaic pro-circer who once recounted with glee ordering a man who had got his penis stuck in his zip circumcised in another edition of the same column.
Considering the fact that a man who had wished to become circumcised had received far more civil and sympathetic treatment and their labelling of a middle eastern festival as "A Day of Slips and Snips" I had considered boycotting the newspaper at one point but I reckon that this constitutes at least a partial redemption.
