Both Mr. Thomson and Dr. Mathis have brought up the circumcision topic more than once. I am afraid that both remain somewhat ignorant of what a barbaric, nay savage, practice it really is. Prior to our liberated era, it was banned in several enlightened European countries.

Both debaters make the error of assuming that the male infant's genitalia are only miniaturized versions of the adult's. In the infant, the foreskin and glans are not separated. Infant circumcision requires that the foreskin be forcibly torn from the glans in order to facilitate the incision. In normal boys, the foreskin gradually separates itself and most White boys have complete separation by age ten. In the darker races, this occurs earlier as do all aspects of maturation.

The circumcised penis has lost its natural and God-intended protection and develops a callous layer instead. This layer is analogous to the heavy skinned palm of the manual laborer and decreases greatly the sexual pleasure of the male. It is tantamount to having a built-in condom, with an orifice, of course. One theorist gives this as a reason for the greater sexual obsession amongst the circumcised. Less pleasure leads to greater need. The loss of the foreskin diminishes the bulk of the penis thus also decreasing its pleasure value relative to the normal female.

There is simply no rational reason for removing the protective -- and I emphasize this -- skin from any animal's penis, much less man's. In this season of rights for everyone, it would seem that circuimcision violates those of a child who alone should be the sayer of whether his sex organs should be mutilated or not.

That's my two cents.

W.K.K.  09/18/00