{ASSTR 09 2020} Jillie Chopcock,
Circumciser from Hell, 2020 edition {Big Billie} (circ F/MMM,
spank M/F)
Jillie Chopcock, Circumciser from Hell, 2020
edition
By Big Billie
© Big Billie 2020. Not to be distributed or sold for
monetary gain.
Author's Statement: Big Billie is opposed to
circumcision and spanking except for consenting adults. However, circumcision
and spanking sexually excite him, so he writes about them.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Author’s
Prologue
For an account of my experience of, and
attitudes towards, circumcision, please see the Prologue to ASSTR 08.
The weekly download logs are currently
showing my circumcision stories scoring more hits than those about spanking,
and this Jillie Chopcock
story is often the most visited on the site. I would welcome your views on
this.
The story is about a spiteful and vindictive
female circumciser. I find it sexually stimulating to write about her, but please
note that her attitude to circumcision is the opposite of mine.
The early parts of this story can be skipped
if required. They give an analysis of some of the basic facts about
circumcision from the point of view of the (anti?) heroine, a character who is
sexually turned on by it, and who enjoys performing the surgery. The medical
facts, however, are accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I hope that
readers find them enlightening and educational.
Remember that my two main motives in writing
this story are:
1. To sexually excite readers, including myself; and
2. To end neonatal and other unnecessary
circumcisions, especially in the USA where they are currently depressingly
common.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When my best friend, Maggie Phillips, asked
me to circumcise her husband as a punishment for his adultery it had a profound
effect on my life. There was I, Miss Jillian Hayes, in my early twenties, a
trainee surgeon who had never before operated on a man's tool. I will never
forget that lunchtime in the pub when Maggie first broached the subject.
I have
always been stimulated by piercings (especially of belly buttons and of female
labia), as well as by brandings and tattoos. I also like tribal scars on the
faces of black guys. But male circumcision really turns me on because the scar
is in a much more intimate, embarrassing and amusing place. On balance, I
think, it is safest and best if as many men as possible get their cocks chopped
at birth. Chop while the cock holder is too young to protest is my rule. An
advantage of this is that the cock of a neonate is so small that it is
impossible, under normal surgical conditions, to do a precise job. It is very
easy, for example, even if you are not trying to, to chop off a lot more than
the medical textbooks recommend. This is particularly likely if, like many
circumcisers, you are not trained as a surgeon. Moreover, the resulting scar,
as it grows bigger, tends to become ugly, pitted and pockmarked. Frequently
there are one or more holes in the scar, little "stitch tunnels" and
flaps of skin folded in on themselves, or else hanging loose, along it. In the
stitch tunnels blackheads form, and they have to be periodically squeezed out,
to the pain, annoyance and embarrassment of the victim. This is very
frustrating, since the circumcised man knows that these holes will soon fill up
again, as they have always done in the past, and that he will then have to make
his scar sore again with yet further squeezing.
But the problem with infant
circumcision is that what you have never had you never miss. Even better,
therefore, is it for men to escape the surgeon's knife as babies and then for
it to be inflicted upon them later. My favourite age for chopping is during the
teenage years, in puberty. I like to wait until the banana is just fully-grown
and developed, all plump and meaty. I like the victim to have tasted the
exquisite delights of his foreskin in masturbation. Then, when he is at the
peak of his physical potency, when he is ripe for intercourse and eyeing up
young ladies with lascivious eyes, I like to take the skin from his banana and
expose the fruit's delicate and sensitive flesh. Given the chance I chop away
his foreskin while he is a 16 to 18-year-old virgin, and cut it off from the
ultimate pleasure.
There are, however, different
preferences here. My friend Maggie, for example, likes the victim to have had a
few shags before he gets chopped. She prefers him to taste the ultimate
pleasure a few times so that he knows exactly what he is missing. She says this
makes the loss even more infuriatingly poignant for him, and cites the case of
her husband, Jim, in support of her thesis. I must admit that she has a talking
point.
Another interesting talking
point is whether a man with a small cock should be circumcised as severely as a
man with a big cock. Now this is an interesting one. My view is yes, just as
severely, in fact more so. After all, the smaller cock already gets an
advantage. Less is cut off in any case purely because there is less there to be
cut. That, in my view, is benefit enough, and no extra bonus should be given.
In fact, I go much further than that; to echo the Bible, from him who has not I
take away even that which he has - and then a bit more. In the part of England
that I come from there is an old expression, “to clown on.” It means, roughly,
“to bully (usually a smaller, weaker, frailer or more vulnerable child) in a
slapstick comedy manner.” Well, I can tell you that when I get a pathetically
small cock under my knife I “clown on” it something rotten. “You were not much
of a man to start with,” I will tell the anaesthetised victim after I have
trimmed him tight, “and now you are scarcely a man at all!”
I have a number of reasons for
my enthusiastic support for circumcising men. For one thing, they are all
beasts and they deserve it for what they do to us. And even if they do not do
anything at all, they deserve it for what they think about us. They deserve it
for their insolent fantasies and impudent imaginings when, in their lewd and
filthy minds, they ponder on us as sex objects and not as human beings. Yes,
even if we are married to them, they should treat us with more respect than
that, and they should be punished if they do not. For that, and that alone,
they deserve to have their cocks chopped, and chopped hard: every teenaged boy
who leers at a teenaged girl in a bikini; every married man who admires a lady
who is not his wife; and every dirty old man who lusts after any lady at all,
including his wife. Off with their foreskins! Cane their cocks! Chop them back
hard and short - _very_ short! Make them pay for their randiness
by chopping the hoods off their hooded pleasure pythons! For one and all my
motto is the same: "Chop 'em tight and serve 'em right."
Oh, yes, you teenaged boy! Oh,
yes, you dirty old man! I know you, the pair of you, what you are! I have seen
you both on summer beaches eyeing up scantily clad ladies with lascivious eyes!
I have observed your furrowed brows and your licked lips as you lustfully and
lingeringly cogitate on the respective merits of a hipster thong and a
high-rise bikini! You think that thought is free, that your filthy fantasies
are none of my business. Well, my youth! Well, my man! If ever I get the chance
I will _make_ them my business, and I will punish you severely for them. Chop!
Permanent mutilation of the cock is what _you_ deserve, and it is what you will
take if I ever get the chance to inflict it!
And I will inflict it good and hard too. I will cut you tight and chop
you back to your balls. I will completely remove your foreskin, both the outer foreskin
and the inner mucosa. I will also take a thick swathe of you back skin higher
up your cock. I will completely bare and
expose your cockhead. It will lose much of its sensitivity, keratinise and turn
from plum coloured purple to pink. I will strip out your frenulum. I will
desensitise your cock and make it numb. Oh yes, you teenaged boy! Oh yes, you
dirty old man! I will tighten your lusts and luxuries! I will curb your fun!
But even if it was not me who cut you (alas!), if you _are_ cut I still
have hopes to make your cock sore and raw. I want to develop into a good and
effective writer of sexy stories and pornography. My main and biggest market is
the United States of America, where there are almost 300 million citizens, or 5
times as many people as live in my own homeland, the United Kingdom. So beware,
US ladies! I aim to moisten your vulvas and stiffen your clitorises! I am
trying to stir you up, and I want to incite you, to stimulate your cunt meat to
throbbing, gushing orgasm! As for you, gentlemen of the USA! My ambition is to
titillate you and to excite your cocks to bone hard erection! Come on, you US
male, reading this now! Is it turning you on? Are you nice and stiff? Then go
on! Tug at your cock! Bring yourself off! Stimulate yourself to orgasm, and I
hope that you ejaculate so hard that you spatter the ceiling with your spunk!
But beware! As the Bard’s Hamlet put it, “there’s the rub”! A large majority of
you US males are circumcised, and every time that you have dirty and lascivious
fantasies during masturbation, every time that you tug at your cocks during
your lewd and filthy imaginings, you make yourselves sore and raw in a very
sexy, very amusing and very intimate place. And the more you tug and the more
excited you get, the more sore and raw you make
yourselves. Oh, yes, my American friends! Not for you the “up and over” of the
long, sensitive foreskin as it slides past the end of the responsive, unkeratinised purple cock head. For you there is only the
“tug, ouch”! O.K. Perhaps I am not yet that good a
writer. But, if I cannot do it, there will be plenty of other fantasies to make
you raw and sore!
As for sexual intercourse, you
US males, we ladies are beautiful. Many US ladies are stunning, and among the
most beautiful ladies in the world; you are very lucky to have such ladies at
your disposal, but you do not deserve to taste, enjoy and luxuriate in them
perfectly. There is not one of you good enough to be granted that exquisite
privilege, even though, unfortunately, some of you are uncircumcised and get
it. Your circumcised cocks have had about 15 square inches of sensitive,
nerve-enriched foreskin hacked off them that would otherwise be pleasurably
sliding up and down your cock shaft during intercourse. Now 15 square inches is
a lot of skin. In surface area it is roughly the same size as a man's palm. I
well remember the fate of Nicholas in Chaucer’s ‘Miller’s Tale.’ He was branded
on the bare bum with a red-hot coulter. “Off flew the skin,” writes the poet,
“a handbreadth about.” Well, that is what happened to your cocks at
circumcision, and your cocks are a lot smaller, a lot less meaty, and a lot
less able to take it than Nicholas’s bum. And at least Nicholas might
reasonably have expected the skin to grow back over his branded arse, whereas
the US victims of circumcision can have no such hopes for their denuded and
exposed cock heads.
Then, after circumcision, the
prick tip becomes cornified and desensitised. The
purple coloured glans, beautifully moist and intensely sensitive while covered
and protected by the foreskin, becomes pink, dry, calloused over and less able
to enjoy itself after it has been circumcised. This means that circumcised men
have to work a lot harder if they want to get themselves excited. Not for them
the slow, leisurely, delectably lazy sliding of the uncircumcised foreskin up
and down the lady's cunt. The circumcised man has to wriggle his bum and flex
his haunches with some vigour to get a hard on for his chopped and desensitised
member, thereby giving the cunt a brisk, vigorous and (for the lady) sharply
pleasurable rubbing. But the extra work that the man has to do, and the fact
that the skin is pulled tighter over his engorged shaft, helps to chafe the
circumcised cock and make it raw and sore. Thus, the circumcised man sweats and
strains to work his desensitised cock towards orgasm. It frustrates him, makes
him smart, and reduces his pleasure. What a hoot!
For the fact is that a
circumcised man has less control over his orgasms. He cannot hover on the brink
of ecstasy for hours on end by gently rubbing his delicate purple glans and his
deliciously sensitive inner foreskin up and down his lady’s love tunnel, and
then pausing for protracted periods in joyful anticipation of future bliss
before he explodes. The uncircumcised man can linger at the gate of Nirvana
until his pleasure becomes unbearably intense and he is forced to enter in
violent delight. In contrast, the circumcised lover has a dick that is
keratinised and desensitised; for most of his life, but especially as he gets
older, it is either up or down, stiff or soft. It is either ready to shoot, or
it is not cocked, on the wane, and subsiding; and, if his cock is primed to
shoot, he had better fire it off, or he will miss his chance and go all floppy
again. Oh wow! When I ponder on exactly what it is that I have done to the men
that I have circumcised, on what I have robbed them of, and on the incomparable
ecstasies, pleasures and delights from which I have so cruelly and abruptly cut
them off, I am aghast and amazed that I am allowed to do it, and that I get
away with it unchecked.
I see circumcision as a simple
once and for all way of forcing men to pay a sex tax, at the point of pleasure,
for the rest of their lives. I sometimes refer to circumcision as “the cock
tax” and very taxing it is to the comfort and equanimity of those upon whom it
is inflicted. This cock tax is not a monetary tax. It is “the most unkindest cut of all” in the words of the Bard. It is
unkind, but it is paid in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a
foreskin for a fuck. Even better, unlike with the Inland Revenue, evasion and
avoidance are quite impossible. The tax for a shag is
a sore and less pleasured cock, and that tax is strictly and sharply enforced.
It is paid to the full 100 per cent of the time. Better still, it is paid to
the full not only when the victim shags a lady but every time that he has the
effrontery to even think about it in a masturbatory fantasy. Or, if you like,
circumcision is like having a fixed penalty parking ticket slapped onto your
windscreen. Whack! The offender does not like it, but he has to pay the fine.
Even better, unlike with a parking ticket, he pays it for so much as thinking
about parking illegally, and he has to go on paying it time after time! Mother
Nature is a niggard, but in this case she generously provides an intensely
sensitive and pleasurable fold of cock skin for man's pure enjoyment and
delight. What could be a sexier wind-up than to spitefully chop this off?
Serves the bastards right!
Yes, I suppose that I am a bit
of a prude really. I have some sympathy with the puritanical Victorian idea
that sex is dirty. Without doubt, the foreskin and the cock-head that it covers
are dirty. Underneath the encasing sheath of the foreskin, the dirty, smelly
white creamy substance, smegma, builds up. Drops of
urine are also harboured there; and the mind boggles at what the prick-tip
acquires during sexual intercourse, such as dribbles of semen and of smelly
ladies’ vagina juice. Disgusting! Foreskinned sex may
be wild, abandoned, ecstatic and enjoyable; but it is also dirty, filthy and depraved,
and we must do our very best to stop it and to wipe it from the face of the
earth! It is true that tightly circumcised sex is also dirty, but it is still a
lot cleaner that the alternative. It is blander and more hygienic. It has been
sanitised, disinfected, and sterilised. The quantity of filthy enjoyment and
depraved pleasure is sharply cut and reduced, and the victim is a cleaner,
purer, more moral, more upstanding and more virtuous gentleman as a result of
it. If, in addition, he is less interested in sex that is an added bonus. After
all, we cannot have him continually pestering and annoying ladies in his
attempts to secure sexual favours.
Oh, yes! Those Victorians were
very shrewd prudes and far from naive on the subject of sex. They knew precisely
how to curb pleasure and how to increase pain. They wanted to prevent, or at
least to reduce, masturbation, or self-abuse as they called it, and wow, were
they effective! They knew exactly what to cut, where to cut and how to cut, and
they left their victims very denuded and very tight in
a certain place. "There,” you can imagine them saying to themselves as
they smugly and complacently laid down their scalpels. “Take that! That’s
trimmed down _your_ pleasure, young man! That’s curbed _your_ lust for you!”
One good Victorian example is A.E. Housman, the English poet and author of “A
Shropshire Lad.” He and his brother were both circumcised when Housman was 16
years old. I suspect that the pair of them had been caught masturbating or
getting up to some other form of sexual hanky-panky together (Housman,
remember, was a homosexual), and that in consequence their father summarily
slapped them both down with a painful and effective punishment. I bet he had
them both circumcised very tightly, too, and told the surgeon to teach them a
good lesson by well chopping off their frenulums for
them. After all, if a punitive circumcision is to be effective it has to make a
difference and it has to punish; if you have gone to the trouble of hiring a
surgeon, why not make sure that you get your money's worth out of him? This interpretation is endorsed by a
biography of Housman that I once read; it quoted a letter written by one of his
sisters on the incident. She said that the victims were loudly bemoaning their
fate and feeling very sorry for themselves. In her
opinion their father was correct to get them snipped, but he should have
thought of it when they were younger. I may have been imagining it but I noted
in her words a tone of detached amusement, and I got the distinct impression
that she regarded the incident as saucy, risqué and funny, particularly since
the victims were pubescent boys rather than neonates.
(Incidentally, another shrewd Victorian idea was the development of the
cane as a disciplinary implement in schools. The traditional tool had been the
birch, but this was only effective if applied “on the bare” in a fashion that
was, by the mid-nineteenth century, increasingly considered indecent. In
contrast, the cane could be applied over clothing and still inflict very
considerable pain.)
But I digress. Let me return to
the topic of old men. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) we are
young from when we are born until our 45th birthday. Then we become
middle aged from 45 to 59. Finally, on our 60th birthday we become
old. Now all men have an ample amount of time for sexual intercourse before
they arrive at old age. By the time they are 60 they should have fathered all
of their children. They should also have satiated their passions for ladies,
and be in a state of “calm of mind, all passion spent.” But are they? No, these
days they frequently are not. A little continuing hanky-panky with their ageing
wives is, perhaps, tolerable. But far too many old men go much, much, further
than that; and when they do no lady is safe. Dirty old bastards into their
sixties, seventies and older frequently regard a middle aged lady as a nubile
and desirable wench, and they will pester and importune her in their attempts
to secure sexual favours. But this, dear reader, has got to be stopped! As I
have said, apart from familiar, relaxed and anodyne shags with his wife every
old man of 60 plus must be prevented from entering ladies, especially younger
ladies, in the Biblical sense. Oh yes! We have to stop the filthy old sods from
being so rude and lascivious, and bring them to their pipes and slippers.
This is where circumcision
comes in; one of the most beautiful features of a nice tight cut around the cock is that it carries through into old age. Even
uncircumcised old men find that, as their sexual prowess wanes, it is more and
more difficult to get a hard on and to enter a lady. Tightly circumcised old
men, with no sensitive foreskin, a denuded frenulum, and no delicate, tender,
purple cock head to stimulate them, frequently find that their attempts at
intercourse are sterile, fruitless and barren. Tee hee!
They can no longer trespass against ladies, and they certainly cannot trespass
into them! How frustrating for them! They cannot get it up, and it serves the
filthy old bastards right! The USA has a greater number of circumcised old men
than any other nation ever, in the whole of history. No wonder that it is the
Viagra capital of the world. All that we need to do now is to get Viagra and
other drugs than enhance sexual performance banned on the grounds that they are
unsafe, and we will have stitched up the dirty old perverts beautifully.
Let me explain to you dear
reader, what, in a reference to the oldest god of Greek mythology, I call
"the vengeance of Chronos." Most primitive
societies, such, for example, as used to exist in the Old Testament, were male
gerontocracies. The old men ruled, and they used their wealth, status and power
to secure for themselves young brides and the pleasure of sleeping with youthful
ladies. The same, however, is not true of advanced modern democracies. In the
USA, for example, old men, as they get older, increasingly lack sexual access
to nubile females; and, naturally enough, they dislike this and harbour a deep
resentment, spite and envy towards young men. In the Old Testament King David
and King Solomon, in their latter years, both had
large harems and numerous gorgeous young girls at their sexual disposal, even
when they were too old to take advantage:
Now King David was old and stricken in years; and
they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king
a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and
let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. So they sought
for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought
her to the king. And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and
ministered to him: but the king knew her not (1 Kings: 1-4).
In contrast the old men of today
seldom have such opportunities. For example, imagine this scenario. A rich,
powerful dirty old man watches a neighbour's daughter as she grows and develops
from a little girl, into a pubescent teenager, and finally into a stunningly
beautiful and sexy young woman; and, men being men, he fantasises over her, and
masturbates wildly. Then, despite all of his wealth, power and influence, he is
forced to look on helplessly as some upstart young stud marries the object of
his lusts and fantasies. Now, what thoughts will go through that dirty old
man's mind on the night of the wedding? He would probably be prepared to
surrender all of his wealth and all of his power to change places with the young
bridegroom. But, unfortunately for him, that is not on the agenda; so, instead,
he aches with envy, frustration and resentment. But hey! What if the dirty old
man is a medic who, twenty years or so ago, inflicted a tight routine infant
circumcision on his rival? As the cock cutter lies frustrated on his bed during
the night of the honeymoon, will he repent of his surgery and regret that he
did it? Will he hell! He will rejoice and triumph that
his rival, for all his youth and potency, is not enjoying his nubile, exquisite
and succulent bride perfectly, and as Mother Nature intended. Okay. It is a
"dog-in-the-manger" type of revenge, but it still must be a very
sweet one, and the old man's winces of exasperation will be accompanied by
smiles of smug satisfaction and wicked glee.
Circumcision is a mutilation inflicted upon the young by their elders;
it is partly driven by the surgeons' personal sexual agendas, and envy and
spite are major motives. Imagine, for
example, the thoughts going through the mind of a surgeon during his mid-life
crisis as he wields his knife on the foreskins of neonates; imagine the same
surgeon's thoughts as his victims become sexually active and he grins
lasciviously at their severed foreskins and their lost pleasure.
There is even more to it than
that, though. Here are some excerpts
from an hilarious article in the edition of “The
Economist” published on 19 June 2008. It is entitled “Cutting the competition:
Mutilating male members may mar men’s mischievous matings.”
I would like to replicate it in full but it is quite long so I have, so to
speak, cut it fairly drastically.
(Excerpt starts.)
Circumcision and other forms of male-genital
mutilation are commonplace in many societies around the world. The origin of
these practices, however, puzzles anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.
They wonder what benefit they could bring, especially given the obvious risks
of infection and reduced fertility.
Christopher Wilson, a neurobiologist at Cornell
University …in a recent paper in _Evolution and Human Behavior_
… suggests that male-genital mutilations are actually intended to prevent
younger men from fathering children with older men’s wives.
…There are several ways (circumcision) may affect
fertility: most obviously, the lack of a foreskin could make insertion,
ejaculation or both take longer, perhaps long enough that an illicit quickie
will not always reach fruition.
Older men are in a position to form alliances with
younger men—passing on knowledge, lending them political support and giving
them access to weapons. By insisting that the young undergo genital mutilation
of some form as a quid pro quo, an older married man can seek to ensure that
even if he is cuckolded, he will still be the father of his wives’ children. Of
course, the older man has probably undergone genital mutilation too, and seen
his own fertility reduced. But that, if anything, increases his incentive to
make certain that the young bucks are similarly handicapped. And if all the
older men in a society conclude this is a good thing, it will rapidly become a
socially enforced norm.
…Most of the Western world has already largely
abandoned routine neonatal circumcision, which is seen as an outdated and
unfortunate medical fad.
The exceptions are America, where more than half
of newborn boys are still circumcised, and Africa,
where circumcision helps to stop the transmission of HIV, the AIDS-causing
virus. There, infection really is a far greater threat to the number of
children a man might have than the loss of his foreskin.
(Excerpt ends.)
My, my! How interesting! I can see the old men’s point of view. They
have gone to a lot of trouble to secure sexual access to beautiful young
females. Who can blame them for trying to keep insolent young interlopers from
trespassing on their real estate!
But I have written enough of
old men. I like my men to be young, not old, all fresh-faced, beefcake and
naked. Indeed, I prefer them totally naked; and in my view no man is completely
nude and exposed unless he has been tightly circumcised. To put it another way,
I am turned on by the loss of privacy which circumcision brings. Even when an
uncircumcised man is butt naked, you still cannot see the most intimate, sexy
and interesting bit of his cock. It is hidden and encased in a double thick
swathe of foreskin. He still has some mystery, some dignity and some
self-respect left. The glans or cock head, the bit that we ladies are most
interested in and that we most want to see, remains unrevealed. If he wants to
overexcite us, of course, an uncut man can always pull his foreskin back over
his purple cock head. But that choice is his. The circumcised man has no such
discretion. Whether he likes it or not, his pink prick tip is constantly and
embarrassingly displayed to the female gaze. And so different is the appearance
of his cock from that of his uncircumcised fellow that it is bound to draw
forth ribald and hilarious comments.
Oh, yes! Those 15 square inches
of missing foreskin make a big visual difference! Sometimes circumcision is
referred to as a "little snip." To the victim this is most offensive.
It is a cheap and unworthy jibe. It unfairly, unheedingly and insouciantly
dismisses something that, for him, is a most important and serious matter. Such
jocular and facetious quips are completely inaccurate and quite uncalled for.
(On the other hand, they are very amusing, very saucy and very sexy!)
I think that in the UK we are
more amused by circumcision than you are in the US; in your country it is the
norm, whereas here it is now quite rare.
This was not always the case,
especially for the middle and upper classes. Historically, surveys in the UK
told a consistent story. Public schoolboys were far more likely to be
circumcised than the riffraff. Those toffs may have had blue blood, but they
did not usually have blue cock heads! They may have canoodled with and married
those charming, classy, sexy middle and upper class ladies; but they rarely
enjoyed them with a full set of wedding tackle! Meanwhile the working classes
were, in most cases, bonking their lower class wives with everything Mother
Nature had given them! Wow! How is that for proletarian justice, for Karl
Marx’s revenge! Wealth and comfort to the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie;
perfect sexual pleasure to the workers! Which destiny, I wonder, would you choose, dear reader?
In the UK things are now
changing; these days there are far fewer neonatal circumcisions, even for the
upper classes. For example, our leading UK toff and heir to the throne, Prince
Charles, was circumcised by a rabbi as a baby; but the foreskins of his two
sons, William and Harry, were spared, rumour has it because of the intervention
of their mother, Diana, the “People’s Princess” and Prince Charles’s first, and
now deceased, wife.
These days, therefore, a cut
man, or at least a young cut man, on this side of the pond, whatever his social
class, stands out from the crowd, and is liable to face the singling out and
ridicule that is often aimed at the person who is different.
Let me give you an example of
this. In North London here in the UK there are currently two Premiership
football (or, as you Americans say, soccer) clubs. These are Arsenal (the
Gunners) and Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs), and there is great local rivalry between
them. Clashes between rival fans are frequent and sometimes escalate into
violence. Tottenham Hotspur have a reputation as a club with Jewish
connections, and accordingly one of the favourite wind-ups of the Arsenal fans
when invading the enemies’ turf for a local derby is to sing in unison: “Here
we are with our willies hanging out. Here we are with our foreskins on the
end.” During the song the Gunners lads will wave
their naked cocks around with one hand while pointing aggressively at their
cock ends with the other.
We have a natural inclination
to laugh, or, if we are polite, to feel a fierce secret joy, at the misfortunes
of others; and in the UK these days most people consider circumcision
misfortunate. In England, we often feel the same way about people who get
parking tickets. I remember an anecdote of my granny’s on this one. As a
teenager in the 1950s, just after the fixed penalty parking regulations came
into force, she got stung with a ticket, and in very embarrassing
circumstances. She was an Oxford undergraduate, and she had taken on a
temporary office job in central London for the summer vacation. During her
lunch hour she saw, from her second floor window, a female traffic warden
writing out a ticket for her in the street, and she ran down to remonstrate
with her. Well, the warden was a right vindictive old battle-axe and she
clearly enjoyed her work. She gave granny a long sententious lecture on the
need to obey the law, and on how her punishment was richly deserved. Then she
triumphantly handed the ticket to her and biffed off.
Now when fixed penalty parking
tickets were first introduced into the UK the fine was two pounds (GBP2). That
is nothing today, but then it was a swingeing mulct, especially in those far
less prosperous days, and for an impoverished student like granny. In those
days a pint of beer in a pub cost, in modern money, about 7 or 8 pence as
opposed to the 200 to 250 pence that it might cost these days. Granny’s job
earned her about 14 modern pence an hour, so her punishment was not like the
one-hour detention of a schoolgirl. She would have to work for nearly 15 hours,
or the best part of two days, to clear that ticket.
Naturally enough, granny told
me, she was very upset, and returned to the office visibly shaken and close to
tears. Meanwhile, the young men who worked with her, delighted that little miss
smarty-pants, the clever clogs student from Oxford, had been caught with her
knickers down, opened the windows, egged on the warden, and laughed and jeered
at the distressed victim. “Go on, missus! Put one on
her!” “Take that, swot girl!” and other raucous exhortations and taunts were
shouted down to the street. Granny left the job a week later because she could
not stand the continuing unchivalrous ridicule. Even her boss, while appearing
sympathetic, seemed quietly amused.
“Damn,” granny said to him. “_Two_ rotten pounds! For _one_ measly
offence!”
“Never mind,” replied her boss
archly, with a twinkle in his eye. “Perhaps they’ll do you a 2 for 1 deal and
give you the next one for free!” Meanwhile the female staff and office girls
were similarly amused.
It is usually more amusing to
the observer if, as in granny’s case, the victim is stung sharply with a really
hefty fine. “Ouch!” the amused observer will reflect, archly and with a smug,
complacent smile. “That’s just _got_ to hurt!” At one of the hospitals where I
am based it is difficult to park and many of the more lowly staff cannot get a
parking bay and have to leave their cars in the surrounding roads. Well, a few
weeks ago one of our student nurses had her car towed away by the authorities
and had to pay a swingeing fine of GBP250 (about USD???) to get it back. Some of
us were sympathetic, but others were amused. When the young, nubile, sexy
victim complained ruefully that this was her very first offence one of the more
scatological of my male colleagues joked: “Well you may have been a parking
ticket virgin yesterday, but today you’ve been well deflowered and shafted.”
Further hilarity was caused a few days later when the same victim suffered a
“double whammy” and got a second ticket. This time, however, the sting was
GBP190 (about USD???) less amusing at only GBP60 (USD??) if paid promptly.
If a number of people are all
simultaneously stung with a fine the amusement of the onlookers is increased. A
few months ago our nurses had a dance at their social club, and more than 50 of
them returned to their cars to find GBP60 parking tickets slapped onto their
windscreens. Well some of the victims felt very sorry for themselves; but many
of their colleagues who had not been stung thought it was hilarious and ribbed
them mercilessly.
Granny tells me of something
else, in her day, that was considered amusing to
nearly everyone except the victim: disciplinary slipperings
in schools. At the all girls Catholic grammar school
that granny attended in the 1940s and 50s, when she was aged 11 to 19, such slipperings were numerous; the cane was seldom used, but a
gym pump was routinely applied to the rumps of naughty schoolgirls, and, granny
says, it used to sting like hell. It was inflicted at the end of PT (Physical
Training) lessons across thin, tightly stretched gym knickers. The slaps
(between four and twelve) came very sharp, and re-echoed around the rafters. The
Dean of Discipline who dished them out was a kinky old lesbian nun. With that
large floppy plimsoll in her hand she was a fiend, and she punished all
schoolgirl peccadilloes with joyful ferocity. Granny herself took it regularly,
culminating, just before her nineteenth birthday, in 12 stinging, bum-sizzling
belters for smoking in the lavatories.
All the girls, granny tells me,
used to hate taking these spankings. But nearly everyone, including her,
thought it was sexy and funny when _someone else_ was on the receiving end; and
the harder the victim was spanked, the funnier it was, especially if she was a
well-developed, meaty, nubile sixth-former. What made it all even funnier was
that the disciplinarian nun, Sister Paula, used to spank the older and bigger
girls a lot harder and more often than the 11-year-old first formers. The
latter took a standard 4 slaps that were firm but not vicious, whereas every
victim of 16+ took 12 really hard ones every time. News of the spanking of
girls in the upper forms was rapidly disseminated throughout the school, and
the victims were mercilessly teased. Their red rumps would be pointed at and
giggled over by their classmates in the communal showers; they would be offered
cushions to sit on for weeks afterwards, and so on. Most embarrassingly for the
victims, the younger girls discussed the spankings inflicted upon their seniors
with gleeful interest and delight even if, fearful of the disciplinary
reprisals, they seldom openly teased the prefects.
Many times, says granny, she
witnessed a spanked 18-year-old ruefully reproach her fellow sixth-formers for
ribbing her, even though she herself regularly mocked them when they suffered
the same fate. “It isn’t funny!” she would blurt out hotly as she rubbed her
hot, red, tingling bottom. “Oh yes, it is!” was the inevitable reply from her
classmates, and they maintained that position until the roles were reversed and
it was them on the receiving end.
Again, if a lot of big girls
were all spanked together it was even funnier than if only one of them took it.
Granny reports that once a friend of hers pulled off a superb practical joke
when she succeeded in getting 30 gross (30 x 144 = 4,320) of condoms, addressed
to the headmistress, delivered to the school from a mail order firm. There was
an attempt to hush the incident up by the school authorities, but, of course,
the culprit leaked reports, and accurate details of the incident were soon
circulating all around the school and causing great merriment. The origin of
these reports was traced to the Upper Sixth, and granny and her classmates were
asked to reveal who had done it. If apprehended, says granny, the offender
would inevitably have been caned and, in addition, almost certainly expelled.
Well, respectable middle class young ladies they might have been, but, true to
the criminal culture of the East End of London, granny and her colleagues
steadfastly refused to “grass up” their friend, and, as a result, all 127 of
them, among whom were many prefects, were slippered;
they all received 12 stinging, butt-scorching spanks as hard as Sister Paula
could lay them on, much to the amusement and delight of the lower forms.
Granny says that she has often
pondered on the psychology and the morality of all this. After all, this strict
Catholic school put the emphasis firmly on the Christian virtues such as loving
thy neighbour as thyself. Yet, despite a sound religious formation, even nice
middle class young ladies from this posh grammar school, like everyone else,
were tainted with original sin. They did not love their neighbour as
themselves; they laughed and rejoiced at their neighbour’s misfortunes, and
they thought it was sexy and funny when their neighbour took something that
they hated and resented when they took it themselves.
Well! Repent young ladies now
grown old! Think what price the Lord may exact for your atonement on the Day of
Judgement when he resurrects you in your prime as young women again and you
stand as sinners before him! Did not God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy,
provide young ladies with a perfectly proportioned section of their anatomy,
and did he not design it excellently as a target for the reception of
retributive justice? When the moon turns to blood all of those little minxes
who teased each other about their spankings may just get their comeuppance, and
be made to sting and tingle again for their sins. The prophet Isaiah with a
plimsoll in his hand would be the perfect avenger, fatherly and fair, but firm
and just, as he was in the olden days when he thundered against the evils of
Judah.
Which brings me, after lengthy discursions off-topic, to my point: many people in the UK
who are not victims of circumcision are amused by people who are, just as they
are amused when _someone else_ gets a parking ticket, or takes a spanking; and
if the circumcision is tight and/or messy, or if, as in the USA, it is
inflicted upon numerous victims, it is all the funnier. Thus in the UK the
circumcised, like the victims of parking fines and spankings, often try to cover
up what has been done to them and to hide it from view. Secrecy is their
defence against being teased and laughed at; but, of course, if it becomes
known that they have been devious and evasive, their exposure is likely to be
all the more humiliating, and their discomfiture all the more enjoyable to
their tormentors.
My dear reader, do you know
what _penis envy_ is? Well, here is the definition from
http://www.psybox.com/web_dictionary/Penisenvy.htm
Penis envy –
An aspect of Sigmund Freud’s developmental theory. Freud believed that during development girls had to switch from having
the mother as the love object to having the father as the love object: and also
switch from the clitoris to the vagina as the main genital zone. At about the
age of four, Freud believed that girls first discovered they lacked a penis.
The girl will blame her mother for the lack of a penis and the consequent hurt
to her own self-esteem. This causes the girl to give up clitoral sexuality, and
turn to the father as love object. This aspect of Freud’s theory has received a
great deal of criticism, particularly from feminist psychoanalysts.
Yes, well, I see the feminists’
point. Not “Freud” but “Fraud” is how I would describe the famous Viennese
psychoanalyst. I myself think that penis envy is a useful concept, but that it
is a lot simpler than Freud claimed it was. At a young age a little girl sees a
little boy naked; and he has got a dick and she has not. This makes her
envious. Then, as she grows up, she finds that boys are full of testosterone
and “side.” They are not girly, sensitive, interactive, and into relationships;
they are action oriented, arrogant, full of themselves and, well, cocky. And
the young girl ascribes these unpleasing, unfeminine character traits to the
fact that the young man has got a cock. So if she then finds out that this same
young man has been circumcised she is amused, and delights in the fact that his
cock, if not his ego, has been “cut to size.” [At least, that is my impression
of how it is in the United Kingdom; in the USA there are so many men who have
taken the chop that the girls may well think that it is normal.]
In my experience, one of the
best times for a lady to observe and scrutinise a man’s dick is during
fellatio. I remember talking to my girlfriend at Medical School, Jennifer,
about this one. In the UK it is now unusual for a man to be circumcised;
Jennifer's boyfriend, however, has taken the chop, and she describes to me her
feelings about it. In the UK these days circumcision is, as I say, seldom
practised and seldom discussed; when it is it usually amuses everyone except
the victim. Jennifer is certainly amused by what has been done to her
boyfriend, Simon, and by his resentment and dislike of it. Smiling archly, she
tells me that it saves her the trouble of “unzipping her banana.” Her lover,
she adds, likes it when she fellates him; and she herself does not mind, since
circumcision helps to keep his cock nice and clean for her invading lips and
tongue. “There is no need to unpack my lunch,” she adds slyly. “The meat is
_prêt a manger_,” or ready to eat, with no necessity
to roll a bulky foreskin back down the cock shaft.
The embarrassment of
circumcision continues into a man’s marriage, and, even more so, when he acquires
children. In the latter case he has two choices. Firstly, he can have his sons
circumcised. This is fine by me since I always rejoice when a foreskin bites
the dust. The father's fear of appearing different is, as I note above, a
massive reason for the continuation of routine infant cock chopping in the USA,
and a very good thing this is too! Secondly, the man can spare his sons'
foreskins, as usually happens, on medical advice, in the UK. But he then has to
face embarrassing family questions about his operation, not only from his sons
but also, and even more embarrassingly, from his wife and daughters.
So there you have it, dear
reader. If, like Elvis Presley, you are a US male, but if, unlike him, you have
taken the knife, you are probably in embarrassed denial of the truth.
Circumcision is no “little snip”; it is a "massive chop." It is not
only me, but also many other circumcisers, who do not snip off only the
foreskin (the skin covering the glans or cock head and lying in front of it). We
also take a thick strip of what you might call "back skin," or shaft
skin that lies behind the cock head and up the shaft, together with all, or
almost all, of the frenulum, the delectably sensitive triangular patch of
stringy, twangy skin that is joined to the glans on the underside of the cock
shaft. Indeed, like many other circumcisers, I always try to do as thorough and
comprehensive a job as possible by chopping off the whole of the frenulum, so
that not even a vestige is left! I like to make absolutely sure that the skin
on the erect shaft is pulled as tight as a drum skin, even before orgasm.
Then, when the victim fires
away, the skin is pulled tighter still. Not many people know this, but during
ejaculation the scrotum significantly (and for the circumcised
man painfully) reduces the amount of skin covering the base of the penile
shaft. This is because, during the sex act, the scrotum and the Dartos muscle located in the scrotum contract strongly,
thus causing the shaft skin and (if there is one) the foreskin to contract with
them. For the uncircumcised punter this process merely takes up much of the
slack in penile skin resulting from retraction of the foreskin onto the shaft
of the penis; as nature intended it to, it gives him a much better bonk. But
for the tightly circumcised shagger the effect is
much more amusing. His denuded, foreskin-free cock skin, already pulled as
tight as a drum skin when he first got overexcited, is tugged even tighter down
his shaft by the strong muscular contraction of his bollock bag and of its
attendant muscle. Thus, as he fires off, his already reduced sexual pleasure is
accompanied by a sharp, tugging pain as the denuded housing of his cock
struggles to cope with the extra strain that is inflicted upon it. If he is
lucky he may be too excited to take very much notice of the pain and discomfort
at the time of ejaculation. But you can bet your boots that his cock skin will
feel pretty sore and tender immediately afterwards.
And, of course, that is just half of the
story. As well as what it is taking, the question is also about what the
circumcised cock is not taking, and it is not taking anything like the amount
or the intensity of sexual pleasure provided by Mother Nature. The latest
research on foreskins highlights the crucial importance of the so-called ridged
band, a deliciously sensitive flap of wrinkled
skin that lies just behind the frenulum. If this is cut off, the research
indicates, the cock enjoys a considerably less pleasurable and ecstatic sexual
experience. Well since I learned of the existence of the ridged band I have
always been most careful to excise it completely, at each and every
circumcision that I perform. Oh, yes! I am Jillie
(Nemesis of the Willie) Chopcock, the Circumciser
From Hell! To paraphrase Damon Runyon, I never (and I mean never!) give a
fucker an even break! Wow! I can tell you, buddy, this gal don’t cut you no
slack! Or rather, I do. I cut all the slack there is and leave you very tight!
Just once is all that it takes! I promise you, that if ever I get your cock
under my knife, I will make you pay. Oh yes! I will give you something to feel
cut up about! I will make you very, very sorry for yourself!
But I digress. In fact, the
ridged band is dead meat, and routinely cut off, in the vast majority of
circumcisions anyway. Wow! What a pity that most circumcised
men have no idea what exactly is happening down there, or exactly what
it is that they are missing! If they knew they would be even more incensed and
inflamed than they already are. They would be both sorry for themselves and
hopping mad; at the same time they would be wallowing in self
pity and boiling with fury against those who cut them.
Another
thing that I find a sexy turn on about circumcised men is the growing evidence
that their mutilation causes them to practise kinkier sex. Here is a CNN
report, dated April 1, 1997:
Circumcision offers little advantage where health
is concerned, but men who are circumcised tend to have more varied sex, a study
published on Tuesday said. The study, by University of Chicago researchers and
published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association,
found "significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men
in terms of their sexual practices." "We were quite surprised to see
such clear evidence, at least within the white population, that masturbation
was correlated with being circumcised as well as engaging in oral sex and anal
sex," University of Chicago researcher Edward Laumann
said.
The study said 47 percent of circumcised men
reported masturbating at least once a month versus 34 percent for their
uncircumcised peers... Circumcised men were found to be nearly 1.4 times more
likely to engage in heterosexual oral sex than uncircumcised men, the study
reported. They also were more likely to have had homosexual oral sex and
heterosexual anal intercourse. The study was based on an analysis of data
collected from a sample of 1,410 men, aged 18 to 59, in the United States,
which has one of the world's highest non-religious circumcision rates...
The new report offers no firm guidance for parents
to reach a decision on the question of whether or not to circumcise their sons.
Alex Enakifo and his wife Russa-Marie
Oni decided to circumcise their boy, despite her objections. The prevailing
factor: "It's a family tradition that we all get circumcised," Enakifo said. That's usually how it works, obstetrician
Stephen Blank says. "In most families, the father or ... male children in
the family have already been circumcised, so they don't want to appear as the
outcasts or different from those other members of the family"
...
Circumcision rates reached 80 percent in the United
States after the World War II but peaked in the mid-1960s and have since fallen
off amid debate over whether the practice has health value or adversely affects
male satisfaction, the study said. "The considerable impact of
circumcision status on sexual practice represents a new finding that should
further enrich such discussion," the researchers wrote. "Our results
support the view that physicians and parents be informed of the potential
benefits and risks before circumcising newborns."
Oh my! Oh yes! That certainly
does “enrich ...discussion”! And it strongly endorses my views about
circumcision. A man with a foreskin enjoys perfect sex. The greatest and most
intense pleasure that this world has to offer is his for the taking. It is all
too easy for him. When he enters a lady he is completely fulfilled, and asks
for no more than to be allowed to repeat the experience again and again. Why
should he be a sexual pervert? Why should he want anal sex and cunnilingus with
his lady? (On the downside, however, his enjoyment of the ultimate pleasure
makes him infuriatingly complacent. Grrr! How I would
just love to take the foreskin of every uncircumcised stud in the world and cut
it off! Given half a chance I would soon wipe the smug, self-satisfied smiles
from off their faces. How I would love to rattle their cages of contentment,
and make them wince, fume and curse!)
In contrast, the sex act leaves
the circumcised shagger frustrated and unrequited. He
feels the need to do something more to get satisfaction. So he puts his head
between his lady’s thighs and pushes his tongue into her hairy, dirty cunt hole
while she licks, sucks and bites around the annular scar of his circumcised
cock. Then, to pleasure his desensitised dick, disappointed by its experience
in the vagina, he violently shoves it up his lady’s dirt box! Beautiful! And I
bet you a pound to a pinch of poo that it does not stop there. I bet you that
circumcised men are far more likely to be into sadomasochistic practices like
spanking and caning, rape, and other sexual perversions. Oh yes! Those of us
with a kinky disposition, who like a bit of rough play and violence in our sex,
should be very grateful that so many men are circumcised. Who wants a gentle,
sensitive lover who bonks his lady with consideration and is happy with what he
gets? Such easy ecstasy is bound to make him lazy. He needs to be made to
sweat, strain, grunt and suffer, and, for example, to
give and take the odd cut from a cane across the bare arse, and so on! Let the
sex research continue! We must get to the bottom of all this! And may the
public debate be long, passionate, intense and furious!
The other point made by the
researchers, of course, is the one that I have myself made already. Cut men
like their sons to be circumcised as they have been. They do not want to look different, or to be personally embarrassed by their humbling
little snip; and the infants take the chop for this utterly trivial reason. So
when once one cock is cut, others take the knife too, again and again, down the
generations. And thus the discomfort and sexual frustration during intercourse,
the buggery, the cunnilingus, the sadomasochistic spanking and caning, and the
sexual perversion, goes on, and on, and on. Oh, wow! That is just beautiful!
By the way, to digress yet again, do you know
what a Gomco Clamp is? It is a device that is used by
some US doctors as an aid to surgery at neonatal circumcisions. It looks to be
very fearsome, and for this reason features large on anti-circumcision sites on
the Internet. It certainly has its charms. For example, it stamps onto the cock
a gorgeous, thick, clear brown ring or halo. This has been described as the
“brown ring of justice.” It is a mark of civilisation and domestication. It
tames the primeval lust of the cock perfectly, and subjects it to control and
curtailment; and it civilises and domesticates the cock owner by shrewdly
chopping off some of his more intimate macho bits. Take a look at some of the circumcised
cocks freely displayed on the Internet, ladies, and you will soon see what I
mean. This prominent brown scar indicates a “circumcision by crushing,” in
which a Gomco Clamp, or similar, is used like a tight
metal vice, to press together the inner and outer skin of the prepuce, with
considerable force, for a period of time. This closes off the arteries and
veins, reduces bleeding when the foreskin is chopped off, and removes the
necessity for stitches or sutures around the scar. The good news, however, is
that a Gomco circumcision stencils onto the cock this
thick, prominent, highly visible brown ring, and thus makes it absolutely clear to everyone that the owner of the scarred dick
has taken the chop.
The domestication of men, and the control and curtailment of their
lust, is necessary for the stability and continuance of monogamy. When a man
marries his wife he vows to remain loyal to her. Thereafter he should work hard
to bring home the money to support his family. Wives need husbands, children need
fathers, and every family member needs a stable and loving home. Yet men are
naturally randy; the world is overflowing with beautiful and sexually desirable
ladies and husbands are constantly tempted to adultery and betrayal. A
circumcised cock helps to keep them on the straight and narrow path of
righteousness by lessening the pleasure that they can expect to gain from
illicit sexual intercourse. This is a necessary discipline to reduce marital
breakdowns and divorces. Scandinavia, for example, has hordes of gorgeous
ladies and virtually no circumcised men. The temptations are far too great. No
wonder there are such high levels of adultery and divorce. What is needed is a good tight circumcision and the excision of
the entire frenulum for every single man who lives in Denmark, Sweden, Norway
and Finland. Oh yes! And for good measure throw in the Germans as well. Their
country also is far too full of stunning, beauteous ladies and the men there
also need their sexual pleasure to be reduced and their cocks to be cut.
“But wait!” I hear all of you men crying. “That is not fair. These days
you ladies are just as likely to cheat on your spouses as us guys. Indeed, the
ladies of Scandinavia and Germany will be even more likely to break up their
family homes if their husbands have been tightly circumcised and their
desensitised cocks and denuded frenulums cannot
deliver sufficiently satisfying marital sex.” Well I suppose that the answer to
that one is to circumcise every single man so that sex with the whole lot of
them is equally unsatisfying and adultery is no more appealing than matrimony.
Chop! Chop! Chop! Got y’all, Europeans! No longer
will images of your bulky foreskins, your frenulums,
and your sensitive unkeratinised purple cock heads
vex and irritate me on Internet forums!
Recently, on the UK’s Sky
Travel TV station, I saw a programme about nude beaches. One scene depicted a
naked seaside wedding on Hawaii. Wow! The small, meaty, voluptuous,
white-skinned bride was gorgeous. The groom was a tall man, and he towered
above his diminutive partner; but, small as she was, the blushing bride had a
curvaceous, pulchritude packed physique guaranteed to stiffen the cock of any
healthy male. The groom himself was clearly anticipating the delights of the
marriage bed, and the pleasures of his wedding night. He was dangerously
over-excited, protruding at “half cock,” sticking out at about 45 degrees to
his balls, and explicitly showing off his beautiful thick brown scar. The
cameraman captured the scar, and the rest of the cock, to perfection; there was
some exquisite, minutely detailed footage, and I got an excellent eyeful of
beat up, battered, mutilated dick.
Meanwhile, the bride gave a
winning smile, and blushed delightfully; she was understandably embarrassed and
flustered that her naked charms were broadcast to the whole world on network
TV. “How did I let myself get talked into this?” she seemed to be thinking.
Well it sure worked for me! “Wow, lady!” I thought. “You are stunning!”
Then I returned my attention to
her over-excited partner, and to his tumescent manhood. “Yes, mate!” I thought
to myself with grim satisfaction. “You’re enjoying this, aren’t you? And I bet
you’ll enjoy it even more when you get this little stunner into bed with you!
As you both stand there, your cock is hovering well over her cunt; but when you
lay her flat for a spot of horizontal jogging her love tunnel will be much more
assailable! That’s a big, thick cock that you’ve got there, and I bet it will
be a deliciously tight fit up your wife’s little pussy! But don’t get too
triumphalist! That’s a really drastic, taut, comprehensive cut you’ve taken,
and there will be a sizeable and significant piece of you that won’t be going
to the party, including, by the look of it, your entire frenulum! Think of a
purple, unkeratinised glans! Think of the sybaritic
delights of a wrinkled ridged band! Think of a foreskin packed with tens of
thousands of nerves and pleasure receptors! Think of an intact, exquisitely
sensitive triangular frenulum harnessed to the dimpled ridge on the underside
of your cock head. Think of the cock, think of the wedding night, that you
might have had, and weep!” And I grinned, slyly and lasciviously, with a
fierce, spiteful joy. “Chop!” I thought, “Gotcha!
Take that, you randy, horny, lascivious bastard!”
Yes, that was a sexy little
scene on Hawaii, and the memory of it continues to moisten and stir my vulva. I
was recently also stimulated by another big, beefy US stud on a television
programme entitled "The Perfect Penis." The lad, very unwisely, had
opted for some expensive, drastic and invasive surgery on his cock to make it a
little bit larger. The viewer was given the privilege of witnessing the
surgeon's pre-operation inspection, and wow, but that young man had a big tool!
The most noticeable thing about it to me, however, was not its impressive size,
but the thick brown ring that had been stamped on it by the Gomco
clamp during a particularly drastic neonatal circumcision that had, yet again,
excavated the whole of the frenulum. Ouch! The victim was sublimely unaware of
the savage mutilation that had been inflicted on him, and the programme made no
mention of it; but, like a deflowered virgin, our stud will never get back what
he lost that day, no matter how many other painful and embarrassing operations
he endures. Teehee! Take that one big boy! Wallop! That's cut you down to size
and how!
However, having said that, the Gomco clamp is
still not for me. One disadvantage is that it makes a neat and accurate
cut. Sometimes, it is true, as in the cases of our over-excited bridegroom and
of our well tooled US stud, that a Gomco circumcision excises the entire foreskin, including every
square millimetre of frenulum. But all too often there is a little cuff of
spare foreskin, and a small patch of frenulum, that survives. It is not much,
but it is more than enough to irritate the dedicated cock chopper. I was
therefore gratified to read an article against circumcision clamps in the
medical press. It was entitled, “Circumcision
clamps may cause injury, FDA warns,” and the Urology Times published it
from Cleveland in October 2000. Here is the report:
Doctors should carefully examine two popular surgical clamps used for
circumcising newborns, the FDA warned after receiving
reports that worn-out or misassembled clamps have injured more than 105 infants
since 1996. The use of Gomcor- and Mogenr-type clamps that have been reassembled with parts
from different manufacturers has led to clamps breaking, slipping, falling off during use, tearing tissue, or failing to make a
tight seal. The agency recommends that concerned physicians either contact the
device manufacturer to obtain correct replacement parts or discard the device
completely.
Good. That settles that then.
Throw those clamps away. Because there is only one way to cut
a cock to perfection. You must cut it quick, tight and messy, in a
carefree, cavalier, insouciant and arbitrary fashion that indicates that you do
not care a fig about the victim, his cock, or his sexual pleasure. And you must
cut it dictatorially, with meanness and spite. And the only way to do that to
perfection is with the beautiful, sharp, bare-naked knife. Believe me, if you
wield it right, it can make a big, big difference!
Another joy
of a hand cut cock is the unique nature of the mutilation. No two cocks chopped
freehand style are exactly alike. No two
hand cut men in the history of the world will have had identical cuts, and nor
will they ever do so in the future. Each
individual chopping is an original one-off. The scar, the stitch tunnels, the
skin tags and the rest of the mutilation are specific to that particular cock.
See, for example, how, with one particular cock, the shaft skin and the median rafe has been twisted anticlockwise by about thirty
degrees, whereas, with another cock, it has been turned clockwise by at least
forty-five degrees. Then look how, in this case, a lot more has been lopped off
the right hand side of the cock than the left, whereas, for this other victim,
it is the other way round. And so it goes on, in its fascinating and infinite
variety. Instead of passport photographs of the face, the authorities could
just as well demand pictures of the cocks of all circumcised guys since the
identification would be just as accurate; indeed, in the case of identical
twins it would be much more so!
If you cut the cock of a neonate really
tightly, you may be lucky enough to create the hilarious "turkey
neck" effect in adulthood. This is where a dewlap of skin from the scrotum
is tugged halfway or more down the penis shaft; the effect, especially when the
cock is erect, is most amusing. A cock mutilated in this way is so ugly and
unsightly, and looks so ridiculous, that some people think that it is deformed.
Well, I suppose that it is, really, but the deformation is not a natural one;
it is the effect of the circumciser's knife. It occurs when, to cut off enough
skin for a really tight circumcision, the surgeon pulls the shaft skin
forwards, and, in doing so, tugs the scrotal sack forwards too, so that the
balls are in effect hanging from half-mast, with a stretch of skin from the
underside of the shaft to the scrotum. Oh, wow! That is just wicked! What a
turn on for perverts like me! It seems amazing that, for example, a vindictive
female circumciser like me should have it in her power to do something that
mean and spiteful to her victim purely on a personal whim.
So
be warned by me, gentlemen of the USA. When it comes to inflicting tight circumcisions
we ladies are worse offenders than you men. The USA has been rightly
categorised as a matriarchal society, and there is many a kinky US lady who
sees circumcision as a very effective way of keeping men in their place.
So,
for example, beware of the female mohel or "mohelet" among reformed Jews. I note with interest
that at least one lady is so eager for the work that she advertises her
services on the internet.
But
by far the biggest single threat to US foreskins comes from female
obstetricians/gynaecologists, or OB-GYNs as they are known. According to my
information by April 2018 82 percent of doctors enrolled on OB-GYN residency
programs in the USA were women, and, with most US ladies showing a clear
preference for another lady to deliver their babies, that percentage is likely
to rise. And wow! Those lady OB-GYNs just love to cut off the foreskins of baby
boys and pocket the fat juicy chopping fees! Imagine, for example, that you are
a lesbian. You love ladies and you hate men. Well, OB-GYN is a surgical
specialism that brings you into intimate contact with young, fecund, attractive
ladies and, as a bonus, presents to you numerous young, new-born baby men with cocks
that you are free to butcher in whatever way you see fit. No wonder US OB-GYN bodies
resolutely refuse to declare against neo-natal circumcision, no wonder so many
US cocks are chopped tightly, and no wonder so many US frenulums
are completely stripped out. Take that, you bastards! We’ll keep you in your
place! We’ll cool your courage! We’ll curb your fun for you! Long live girl power! Long live Femdom! Long live The Matriarchy!
Thus, US OB-GYNs, who are largely, and increasingly, female in gender,
do exactly as they like. They perform circumcisions in whatever way they see
fit, and have a wide discretion over which skin, and how much skin, they cut
off; they thus constitute a sizeable constituency of arbitrary, dictatorial,
non-accountable power-wielders. To make it worse, for much of the time the
surgeons who chop are not even the ones who deal with any post-operative
problems. The OB-GYN is usually the first surgeon to get a claim on the fat
juicy fee to be gained from every circumcision performed. Now the OB-GYN
specialises not in cocks and foreskins but in ladies’ rude bits and in their
baby-making equipment. Yet it is the OB-GYNs who seize the chance of easy extra
income; in short, they “chop and go.” They pocket the cash, and leave the
paediatricians to pick up any debris. It might be my imagination, but I do not
think that the paediatricians are happy to be deprived of the chopping fees, or
to be lumbered with the work of sorting out problems caused by their
slash-happy colleagues. I sense a certain pique in the sceptical statements
concerning circumcision issued by paediatric bodies; in contrast, the OB-GYNs are
more reticent on the subject as, with silent glee, they bank the easy cash.
The dictatorial, arbitrary, undemocratic aspect of
circumcision I find a kinky hoot. On this I agree with a correspondent to an
anti-circumcision forum who recently posted the following opinion:
The most inalienable and sacred right of man is
certainly not the right of property upon things acknowledged by the authors of
the declaration of the rights of man of 1789. These middle class persons were
greedy for appropriating the goods seized from the people by the nobility,
through the extermination of the latter. By this very fact, they were unable to
word the very first right of man: the right to the property of the body, which
of course forbids collective crime: the death penalty, ritual mutilation, and
very particularly sexual mutilation that assaults life in the best and most
intimate pleasures.
Wow! “Sexual mutilation that assaults life in the best and most
intimate pleasures”! Oh yes! How true! I like that! Eat your heart out Tom
Paine! Eat your heart out John Stuart Mill! Because where the male member is
concerned I do not give a fig for the Rights of Man. And neither, it seems, do US legislators in
the Land of the Free. For the USA, the world’s greatest democracy,
is where the practice of enforced non-consensual routine infant circumcision is
most widespread. Now at governmental level the USA is heavily into transparency
and accountability, and its citizens go to great lengths to build these
qualities into their institutions and processes. In sharp contrast, they allow
their medics to take whatever liberties they like with the foreskins of their
male population. Mutilation is widespread, casual, unregulated, uncontrolled,
and practised in complete or semi-secrecy. There is no transparency,
and no democratic accountability for the surgeons. It is not even known with
any accuracy how many US males are cut; and the victims usually have no
effective legal redress against the wrongs inflicted upon them.
I remember reading the details
once of a family with 5 sons. One had not been circumcised at all, and the
other four had all been cut by four different surgeons in radically different
ways; for example, one victim had received a fairly light trimming so that his
frenulum was more or less intact whereas another had been viciously and very
messily chopped back to his scrotum. So wake up, Uncle Sam, and protect your
nephews; or, on second thoughts, do not, or sexual perverts like me (and, I
suspect, a sizeable number of the surgeons) will have to look elsewhere for our
kicks. Certainly, some very interesting and high-powered political debates
could be organised around the theme “Is neonatal circumcision compatible with
liberal democracy?” But, hey, on the other hand, on this one, sensible,
reasoned, transparent and accountable democracy is far more boring than the
exercise of outrageous, secretive, arbitrary power!
Anyway, slack circumcision or
tight circumcision, after the cock has been chopped there is always an ugly
penile scar perfectly positioned for meticulous feminine observation and saucy
sniggering. And as for that big, bare glans or cock head, well! Instead of the
rich purple-coloured helmet of the uncut man, the circumcised prick tip callouses
over into a thick rubbery bell end. This exposed glans loses much of its
sensitivity, and the skin on it is only slightly pinker than the skin on the
rest of the body. Wow! What a giggle for the amused female observer!
I find America, therefore, an
intensely sexy country. Some of the most beautiful women in the world live
there, ladies who are big, well developed and lusty. Just think of some of
those film stars: Kim Bassinger, Demi Moore, Kirsty
Alley and so on. It also has some very handsome hunks of men. But do these men
fully enjoy their womenfolk as nature intended? Do they
hell! Virtually all of those big beefy studs have been routinely circumcised at
birth. I was stunned to read the figures on this in the report by Masters and
Johnson. They had a few foreskins on their volunteers, but always on the older
men who had not been born in a hospital. As I recall, just about every single
one of the younger men had a chopped chopper.
In this respect it is
enlightening to contrast the USA with another great democracy, France, where
circumcision is rare. Relations between these two countries are currently
prickly, partly as a result of policy differences in the Middle East.
Furthermore, these current spats are part of a long tradition of tension
between the two countries, as, for example, when the French Republic withdrew
from NATO and developed its own independent “force de frappe” or (nuclear)
“strike force.” Now historians and current affairs experts have extensively
analysed the bickering between the two great democracies; in contrast, I will
give you my much simpler explanation. The French seem to the Americans to be so
stroppy, supercilious, arrogant, smug and complacent because, well because they
are! Every informed Frenchman knows that he has a little bit between his legs
that most Americans lack. This is why he is so self-confident and “cocky”; it
is also, incidentally, one reason why Frenchmen are convinced that they are
great lovers. Oh dear! I would just love to exact revenge for Uncle Sam by
cutting our Gallic friends to size, but that, I fear, is not on the cards!
I love leering at circumcised
cocks in "Playgirl" and similar American magazines. The studs pose
around looking macho and very proud of themselves. But
when you gaze at their cocks you almost invariably find, protruding from their
hairy crotches, a beat up shaft with a naked glans at
the end of it, and an ugly, pock marked and pitted scar all around it. Wow!
Take that big boy! Wallop! What a sexy way to cut men to size! What a
ridiculous and amusing little operation! Except I don't suppose that they see
the joke!
By the way, are you, dear
reader, a follower of the Arts? One currently
fashionable cultural and intellectual movement that I find particularly
apposite to circumcision is Minimalism. After all, men do not really _need_ a
foreskin, and they do not _need_ a frenulum. They are superfluous appendages, unnecessary
luxuries, and their cocks can function perfectly well, if considerably less
pleasurably, without them. Thus, when I am performing a circumcision I always
strive to do away with as much of this surplus fold of skin, and its attached
frenulum, as possible. I aim for a minimalist cock. This is a cock that has
been circumcised up to and including the last possible scrap and sliver of
foreskin, shaft skin and frenulum. It is a cock that has been stripped to its
absolute bare essentials, and that is kept on the tightest of tight reins. It
is essential for the continuation of the human race that men fuck women. And we
women enjoy it! But men
do not need to enjoy it overmuch while they are pleasuring us. No. That is superfluous to requirements, and we do not want to
spoil them. They must get enough pleasure to keep them interested, and to keep
them bonking. They should also not experience so much pain and discomfort that
it makes them stop. But that is it. Anything more than that should be strictly
denied them. Men should get the minimum possible amount of pleasure out of a shag, and they should pay for this with the greatest
possible amount of simultaneous pain and discomfort. At the end of a screw they
should be grinning with pleasure, and wincing in pain and discomfort, in more
or less equal measure. So I always do my best to deliver minimal cock skin,
minimal pleasure, and never to give my victims as much as an extra millimetre
of surplus skin.
There is another good reason to
aim for a minimalist cock. Recently I downloaded from the Internet, a Windows
audio/video file posted by "Doctors Opposed to Circumcision." It is
entitled "The Prepuce" and it describes in long and boring detail the
anatomy of the foreskin. On and on it goes, itemizing with scholarly precision
all of the various features and functions of the foreskin, such as its
sensitive nerves and pleasure receptors and the important role that these play
in male sexual ecstasy. But hang on a minute!
We cannot have this! Just think of having to learn all of that stuff in anatomy
classes at medical school! Sod that! It is far better to cut our medical
students some slack by chopping off all foreskins nice and tight! Why make the
human body any more complicated than absolutely necessary? Chop! Chop! Chop!
There you go! Keep it simple! Shorten textbooks on anatomy and save trainee
doctors and surgeons several hours of hard, laborious study!
An added bonus of circumcision is that it can help to make us ladies
more beautiful! No, I kid you not. Consider this UK internet post from 2008:
_Is Baby Penis Skin the New Botox?_
Unless you have young sons, you might not be
aware that circumcision is on a downward trend, and that the anti-circumcision
lobby is gaining ground. Not your problem? Well, it turns out that this issue
is suddenly of relevance to everyone: Foreskins are the latest tool in the
fight against aging, and we're going to need a constant fresh supply!
Developed by a biomedical company, "Vavelta" is a clear liquid, made from millions of
microscopic new skin cells cultured from babies' foreskins, which is then
injected into the skin to treat wrinkles, sun damage, and scars. The clinical
trials, which took place in London using "material" from a US
hospital, have just been completed and reportedly show the technique to be
"astonishingly effective." So there's a minor "ick" factor.
But what's that compared to injecting your face with deadly poison or cow skin,
or indeed to (gulp) actually aging?
Well that seems crystal clear then! What is the sexual pleasure of men
when compared to the beauty and convenience of ladies? Like a candle to the
sun, surely? But hey! It’s not all bad news for the guys. They may not feel
very much as they fuck those ladies with their tightly circumcised cocks. But
at least the ladies are looking younger, fitter and more appealing as eye
candy!
Circumcision also calls to mind the Christian sacraments. In the Church
of England there are three of these; Baptism, Confirmation and Communion. In
the Catholic Church there are a number of extra sacraments including holy
matrimony and ordination to the priesthood. Every sacrament, argue theologians,
imparts a permanent and everlasting character to the soul. Well, circumcision certainly
does nothing as spiritually profound as that; but, at a more vulgar, cruder,
corporeal level it certainly imparts a permanent and everlasting character to
the cock! I remember the comment of one closely cropped victim ruefully
explaining on an internet discussion group how he had avoided AIDS: "I
only have sex with my wife of 31 years. Wish I could feel it." Ouch! I bet
he does! In your dreams, sucker!
This brings me to the concept of “cock
control.” This is derived from the idea of “mind control,” as featured in a
large number of stories posted on the Internet. Now mind control is not for me.
I do not want to curtail a man’s freedom of thought. If, for example, he reads
Shakespeare plays and reaches his own independent conclusions about their image
patterns, I have no objection at all. I do not even mind what views he has on
politics, or which party he votes for. All of that is far too ethereal and
vacuous for me to worry about. But his cock, and what he does with it, is
another matter; that I do want to control. I want to take from him as many
sexual preferences and options as I can. I want to deny him all of those little
choices, alternatives and variations that a long, full, luxuriant foreskin
provides. During sexual intercourse I want a tight, stiff, denuded shaft that
goes in, out, in, out, and can do little else. Likewise when a cut man
masturbates he may try a wide variety of techniques. But he would be well
advised to eschew these and confine himself to going up down, up down. This is
because any experimentation will almost certainly be not only painful but also
ineffective since the exquisite sensations for which he is seeking are just not
there. Look, buster, this ain’t Burger King. After a short, sharp acquaintance with
my trusty chopping knife you no longer get it your way; you get it my way or
you don’t damn get it!
Another sexy phenomenon is the
widespread use of male circumcision on blacks, in both the USA and Africa. I am
not by nature a racist, but like a lot of white women I am ambivalent about
black guys, and about all the stories and hype concerning the size of their
choppers. The thought of a big black man with an enormous cock excites but also
unnerves me. In my view, cocks that big deserve to be cut to size,
and the bigger the cock the funnier and sexier it is when it takes the chop.
The black cocks that are regularly on display in “Playgirl” seriously turn me
on. They must turn other readers on too, or fewer of them would get published.
Some of those dusky studs have got enormous tools. But, like their white
brothers, they have nearly all taken the knife. You will see a big black
stallion, his tool more than half way down to his knees, with an enormous prick
tip that seems to be about the size of a black billiard ball. Then all around
the big, thick shaft is an ugly scar, blacker than the skin that it cuts
through. White men, as I say, usually have about 15 square inches of foreskin
missing, and their circumcision scars are normally about 5 inches long. For
black guys I reckon the average figures must be a few more square inches of
prepuce and perhaps another half an inch of scar tissue. All this is as true of
African blacks as it is of blacks in the USA; and, like their US brothers, a
very large number of African males are circumcised, often very comprehensively,
inexpertly and messily, leaving their cocks beautifully beat up and disfigured.
Again, wow, oh wow! Come here, black boy! Take down your trousers and hold out
your prick. How dare you lust after white missy! Now cop this - you deserve it!
Snip, snip, snip, throb, yell! Now bend over! You are
also getting 6 cuts of the cane across your bare black bottom! Swish, crack, swish, crack, etc. Wow! How I would love to
inflict a punishment like that! Except that, being tender hearted, I might
condescend to use a local anaesthetic for the surgery.
(Note: I got the idea for this
fantasy from a news report from South Africa in the days of apartheid. A black
man on a railway station had commented to a white lady standing nearby,
"Missy, you got nice legs!" You may think that this was a trivial and
harmless peccadillo, but the beak took a different view. Just for that the
offender was sentenced to 12 cuts of the cane. The judge (obviously a bigoted,
atavistic racist) commented that he thought that, in this case, the punishment
was particularly appropriate for the offence. Wow! It was well unjust, but,
even so, what a strict and sharp comeuppance for a saucy but completely
innocuous compliment! I bet the lady (who, like the judge, was almost certainly
a racist, or she would not have complained to the authorities in the first
place) was well flattered and well turned on by the penalty inflicted upon her
admirer! I can imagine her smugly gloating to her female friends about it in
her exclusive white suburb: "The insolent kaffir! I had him caned for it,
you know! Yes, thanks to me he got twelve of the best across his bare black
bottom! And I would do it again, too!”)
Actually, proposals for the
widespread circumcision of blacks in Africa are currently in the news. As you
may have heard, medical research has unearthed the interesting fact that black
males on the Dark Continent who have been circumcised are at least four times
less likely than uncircumcised blacks to contract Aids, even when their
lifestyles are indistinguishable. The research further indicates that for
uncircumcised Africans it is the foreskin that is the problem. It is not that
the glans, when covered by a foreskin, remains unkeratinised
and hence prone to infection. It is that the foreskin itself contains cells
that let the Aids virus pass through them. The solution is quick, cheap and
simple: the universal circumcision of every man in Africa, black, white, Cape
Coloured or whatever, until there is not a single foreskin on an adult male
throughout the entire continent. We need to chop off every foreskin in Africa,
and we need to chop it off very, very thoroughly. Indeed, to make absolutely
sure of effective protection against Aids, we need to chop off a good thick
swathe of shaft skin, and the entire frenulum, together with the foreskin. This
may seem harsh, but we have to be cruel to be kind. Yes, line up all the
uncircumcised men in Africa and chop them; and chop them very hard and very
tight. Not a vestige of loose skin should be left on their cocks, even when
they are flaccid. When their cocks are erect the cock skin should be pulled so
tight over their stiffened shafts that it makes their faces wince, and their
eyes water. After all, we do not want to leave any little flaps and folds of
skin for the virus to nestle in, do we? It would all be a big job, of course.
But I for one would happily volunteer to help! Perhaps the World Heath Organisation could organise teams of volunteer cock
choppers to do the work in their holidays. Wow! What a splendid way to spend
the Summer Vacation! If I had three weeks, say, to do it in, I reckon that I
could make several thousand foreskins bite the dust. Oh yes! “Chop ’til you
drop” would be my motto, and there would be some bare cock heads, some sore
cocks, and a lot of guys feeling very, very chastened and very, very sorry for themselves by the time I had finished with them. Oh, yes! I
would make sure that they winced and shuddered at the memory of little missy
with the knife for the rest of their lives! Not, of course, that I would be
prejudiced in my surgery. I would scrupulously chop the cocks of blacks, Cape
Coloureds, white South Africans of Dutch and British descent, etc., etc., with
equal strictness and severity!
But enough of fantasies. What is not fantasy but fact is
that I regularly circumcise men in my capacity as a surgeon. Oh, yes! I am a
right little cock botherer, prick punisher, willie worrier and knob robber, I can tell you! I am small,
but I am deadly! I am of slight build and I stand a mere 5 feet 3 inches, or a
total of 63 inches, in my stockinged feet. And I cut off, on average, a length
of foreskin of between 5 and 6 inches at every circumcision. So for every dozen
or so cocks that I chop I cut off my own height and more in foreskin. Or, to
put it another way, I chop off the best part of 10 per cent of my own body
height from each cock that I butcher. Oh wow! I can tell you that if you get
circumcised by me you know you've been cut! After all, what is the point of any
surgery unless it makes a difference? If I circumcised someone and it had no
effect I would have failed. I would have expended valuable effort to no
purpose. In short, I would have wasted my time. So I always ensure that I _do_
make a difference, and a very significant difference at that! After he has felt
my knife a man is never the same again, and he never forgets what I have done
to him! I picture him as he wistfully remembers what it was like before he lost
his prepuce. I imagine him as he recalls the old days, before he was cut, when
his stiff, moist, excited cock would glide up and down a lady's sticky,
aroused, receptive pussy. Perhaps he calls to mind the exquisite sensations as
tens of thousands of nerves and sensitive receptors on his foreskin pleasured
his cock and sent his entire central nervous system into Nirvana and seventh
heaven. Then, perchance, he winces that his dry, denuded, desensitised cockhead
is no longer delivering the same quality of service, and he ponders on whether
or not it was a good idea to let me loose on him with my knife. Well, sorry
sucker! You were a chump to let me do what I did to you, but it is too late
now; there is no going back!
Let me
explain how I get to circumcise my victims. After my experience with Maggie's
husband, I decided to specialise in urino-genital
surgery. This, as I hoped it would, has opened up (so to speak!) a number of
possibilities (not to say, of cocks!). For example, the standard surgical
treatment for conditions such as phimosis is removal of the foreskin. Other men
(suckers!) proffer their pricks from choice, or because they have a Jewish or
Muslim wife or girlfriend that they want to please, or because they misguidedly
think that the circumcised cock looks better, or because they are masochists,
or because - _I_ don't know!
I have to be careful how I play
it, of course. But I think it is fair to say that a very large number of
patients suspected of suffering from phimosis and similar conditions, boys and
men, have had their cocks chopped by me in circumstances where, let us say, a
less interventionist surgeon might have abstained from surgery and recommended
more conservative medical treatments! If there is the least excuse for it, or
even if there is no excuse at all and I can get away with it, I _always_
chop. And I _always_
chop very hard! On every
single occasion that I have circumcised a cock I have invariably taken off more
skin than is recommended in the medical text-books, and have done my very best
to remove all vestiges of the deliciously sensitive frenulum. Yes, sir! To repeat:
I take off all of the frenulum and as much of the other cock skin as I dare to
without facing the risk of a successful claim for damages from the victim. Wowee! As my husband John puts it, I sure pack a mean
blade! And he should know! (See below.) Yet so far I have been lucky. Many are
the cocks I have butchered, and every single cock owner has taken the chop like
a lamb to the slaughter. Thankfully, no post-operative difficulties have ever
been blamed on the fact that I am more than a little slash happy and
over-enthusiastic with my knife!
I am determined to keep on
chopping cocks for as long and as hard as I can. I solemnly swear to you, that
if ever I get the chance
to cut a cock and I let it pass, or do not cut it as hard as I can get away
with, I will let my husband administer 6 hard cuts of the cane across my bare bottom - and serve me
right too. The only exceptions are my own sons (see below), whose cocks, as a
loving mother, I condescended to spare from the knife.
There has fairly recently been
set up in Britain a branch of the US pressure group CAC (Campaign Against Circumcision). Its members are mostly men who have a
hang up over being chopped. CAC members go around squawking like a bevy of
deflowered virgins, outraged at their loss and stridently demanding back their
maidenhoods. But when once the cock is chopped, and the flesh is off, to
paraphrase the folk song: "A foreskin on the cock there will never more
be, Until apples grow on an orange tree." Some of
these men, resentful and/or angry, join support groups to bleat about having
been snipped. Others attempt so-called "foreskin restoration" by
hanging weights on their willies and other ridiculous, hilarious, painful and
usually completely ineffective practices. For no matter how many weights a cut
man hangs on his willie it is as vain and useless for
him to strive for the return of his prepuce as for a deflowered virgin to
attempt the restitution of her hymen. What is lost is lost forever, and the
victim will never get it back.
This
point is well made on the CAC website, which contains some hilarious clips (so
to speak) or sound bites (cuts?) from history. Here is a sample.
1.
Source: *Our London Letter,* _Medical World_ 1900, vol.77:pp.707-8.
Circumcision probably tends to
increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which
the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a
condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It
may increase the pleasure of intercourse and the impulse to it: but these are
advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in
their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful.
2.
Source: E. Harding Freeland, _The Lancet_, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900), pp.1869-1871.
It has been urged as an argument
against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the
protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that
exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the
pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that,
whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs
neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious
use of curb and bearing-rein.
3.
Source: L.W. Wuesthoff, MD, “Benefits of
Circumcision,” _Medical World_ (1915) Vol.33, p.434.
Circumcision … reduces … the
so-called passion of which so many married men are so extremely proud, to the
detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be
prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage
improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision.
4.
Source: R.W. Cockshut (No! Really!),
_British Medical Journal_, Vol.2 (1935), p.764.
All male children should be
circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason
why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate
as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive
glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the
contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a
leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his
attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation
is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it
does not seem apt to argue that God knows best how to make little boys.
The correct response to CAC members, and, indeed, to all men who resent
their circumcisions, is to laugh at them, to tease them, and to belittle them.
They may think that what has been done to them is outrageous, but we should not
agree. On the contrary, we should say
that it is no big deal. They should stop being babies. They should grow up and
quit whingeing. At first, they should be told, their complaints were amusing;
but they are now becoming boring, annoying even. So they have had their cocks
chopped! So what! What's the big deal? After all, it was only a little snip.
They are seriously self-obsessed, and they need to pull themselves together, to
forget it, and to get on with their lives. The point was well put by a lady
called Amanda in an internet posting that I read recently:
Why does it matter if men have optimal sexual
pleasure? They're obviously getting enough that it's a driving force in most of
their lives. If they were any more into it, would that really be a good thing?
To me, worrying that a lack of foreskin has diminished sexual pleasure is like
worrying that having burned my tongue as a child has diminished my sense of
taste. Even if it's true, which it may well be, I still love food almost to
excess, so what's the real damage?
That is not how the members of
CAC see it, of course. I have prevailed upon my husband to subscribe to the CAC
Newsletter, and it is a very sexy and amusing read. I quote from one edition.
As a result of circumcision, the writer states, "the raw glans becomes
totally exposed, which, with the remaining inner foreskin, becomes dried
membrane and leaves the shaft skin taut and immobile. This ‘little snip’
removes up to 36% of the shaft skin. A permanent, visible penile scar
remains." (Thirty-six per cent? And the rest if I
am performing the surgery!) Later, the author bewails the loss of pleasure
which circumcision causes: "The foreskin is a unique organ, richly
supplied with sensory nerves and blood vessels. Without doubt the foreskin
enhances sexual pleasure." (Whereas cutting it off, of course, ends it!)
Then, in a later edition, another writes: “During heavy petting, my
fiancée, a nurse receptionist, ran a finger over my glans and around the scar
explaining, ‘We have a circumcision tomorrow.’ My face must have glowed in the
dark.” Ouch! I bet it did! The same correspondent goes on to give numerous
other details about how carefully he conceals his operation, and about how
embarrassing he finds it all. Wow! I just love it when they get all coy,
secretive and embarrassed!
(Note, by the way, that this members face “must have glowed in the
dark” because of his humiliation and embarrassment at his own mutilation; I
doubt that he was overly concerned about the poor sucker who was about to take
the chop the next day. A lot of CAC members have a similar attitude. To their
credit some enlightened campaigners attempt to pressure politicians against
RIC; but many members are not interested and see that as a diversion. What they
want is support and guidance on foreskin restoration and they exhibit the
utmost indifference to whether or not others take the chop. Indeed, I suspect
that some of them would like it if RIC were more common in the UK. They resent
their own chopping but display a grim satisfaction and determination that the
same fate should be inflicted upon others.)
Then, in the same edition of the Newsletter, there is another article
entitled “NOT ‘just a little piece of skin!’” In this another member writes: “I
have been studying details of a very interesting visual aid from the USA that
illustrates just how much skin is lost by circumcision. Cut out a card 3” x 5”.
Bring the two ends of the card together and hold the card together with your
finger so the card forms a ring. Hold the ring up to your audience and say.
“This ring represents an average male foreskin. Like this ring, the
circumference of the average man’s erect penis is 5 inches around and the
average foreskin length in 1.5 inches on the outer foreskin and another 1.5
inches in the inner foreskin. The total area of the foreskin then on an adult
male is equal to this 3” x 5” card (open up the card). This is how much skin an
adult male loses from being circumcised as an infant. That is almost 36% of his
penile shaft skin!” Continue by saying “The area of skin the size of a 10p
piece contains more than 12 feet of nerves and over 50 nerve endings. As you
can see, fifteen 10p pieces fit easily on this card with room to spare. Infant
circumcision robs men of 240 ft. of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings meant
to enhance… sexual pleasure.” In an accompanying illustration, an area of the
page 3” x 5” is marked off, and 15 circles with the same circumference as a 10p
piece are drawn within it in three rows and five columns. Wow! That rectangle
looks huge! What a clit-stiffener!
Well, I cannot really argue
with all that, except to say that while these writers consider that this is
outrageous, I just think that it is all very, very sexy and very, very funny. A
favourite word of these bleaters is "keratinisation." Keratin is
hard, horny tissue, and they claim that circumcision makes them hard and horny
in the glans department by thickening and desensitising the skin. I can also
tell you that it makes me hard and horny in the clitoris department by really
turning me on! At the moment these whingers are an irritant rather than a
threat. In England, CAC is very small, and, thankfully, likely to remain so for
the foreseeable future. And in the US a large majority of boy babies are still
chopped because, according to the latest figures that I am aware of, the
doctors pocket about $200 million a year by charging for the surgery.
Note: I do not know what the
current figures are, but, a short time ago, surgeons in the USA usually charged
about $100 for a circumcision. Therefore, with a total of about $200 million
netted every year, about 2 million US babies a year got chopped. Calculating an
adult prepuce at 15 sq. inches, this amounts to 30 million sq. inches of cock
skin cut off every year. This amounts to 20,833 square feet or 145 square
yards. At the same rate of chopping, over the last 70 years, there is a total
of about 10,150 square yards of foreskin missing from the cocks of US males.
This represents a square area of 100.75 yards wide and 100.75 yards long. That
amounts to more than 2 football (or, to US readers,
soccer) pitches! Alternatively, an acre is 4,840 sq. yards, so the total amount
of missing cock skin adds up to 2.1 acres. Wow! More than _two_ acres! And, for
each victim, two _achers_, that is _balls achers_,
aching balls, a pain in both testicles, as well! (Figuratively
and metaphorically, that is, the pain is in the balls. In reality and in
practice it is on the cock!) Makes you think, does it not? The sheer scale of
the chopping really turns me on! The USA currently has the biggest number of
circumcised males at one time and place ever, in recorded history. Great! Long
live circumcision! Long may the chopping continue!
Indeed, it is probably even better than that! Two football pitches! And
the rest probably! This is because US circumcision figures almost certainly
underestimate the number of men who have been cut, probably by about 5 percent
or more. You see, quite a number of American males are ignorant about the snip
and completely unaware that they have been circumcised at all. When they are
asked about their circumcision status they reply that they are uncut even
though they have taken the chop. I know that this sounds ridiculous. Indeed, it
is ridiculous. But it is, nevertheless, perfectly true, and it means that
estimates of the prevalence of circumcision in the US that are based on
self-assessment are now largely discredited. Let me cite you an amusing
example. Here is a snippet (so to speak) posted onto the Internet by a lady
called Harriet Hall:
(Snippet starts.)
When I was working in an Air Force hospital emergency room one night, a
young airman came in requesting a circumcision. I asked him why he wanted one.
He said a couple of his friends had had it done, and he’d heard it was a good
idea, and he was going to be getting out of the Air Force pretty soon and
wanted to have it done while Uncle Sam would still foot the bill. I examined
him: he had a neatly circumcised penis without so much
as a hint of any foreskin remnant. I’ve always wondered what he thought we were
going to cut off.
(Snippet ends.)
Now Harriet herself seems to be in favour of circumcision and she has
an appropriately robust and dismissive attitude towards its victims: “If some
men are psychologically damaged by circumcision and mourn their lost foreskin,
their mental
health must be pathologically fragile. Get over it, guys!” Oh yes! Harriet is
a fan of the snip. So why then, if this young airman wanted to be cut again,
did she not cut him again? Oh, wow! Given the chance I would have done just
that! He had already taken a single chop that had stripped his cock and left
his cockhead naked. I would have given him a double chop that cut off an extra
strip of inner mucosa. Incorporated into that chop I would also have inflicted
a triple chop that cut off an extra strip of shaft skin. Strip! Strip! Strip!
Three strips of cock skin cut off! Oh yes! I would have stripped his cock even
more naked that it already was! He may have been an airman flying through the
skies but I would have brought his sexual pleasure down to earth with a bump!
I wonder, dear reader, have you, since early 2015, been following the
press reports about a company called Foregen? Here
are some excerpts from an article posted onto the corporate website at
http://www.foregen.org/ :
How One Company Aims to Help Circumcised Men Grow
Their Foreskin Back
Written by Arikia
Millikan, February 17, 2015
In the United States … a growing number of men
known as "intactivists" are expressing
outrage about being circumcised—which they call an “unnecessary
amputation”—before they were old enough to understand the implications of the
procedure and consider providing consent.
…Now, a company called Foregen
purports to soon be able to help these men answer that question by using
regenerative medicine to regrow their foreskins—much like a salamander can
regrow a severed appendage.
“The premise behind Foregen
is that if we are regenerating entire body parts from more complex body parts,
why not apply this to the only body part that hundreds of millions of boys are
missing,” says Foregen spokesperson Eric Clopper.
Thus far the most hilarious story from the company’s website concerns
the so-called “USD1,000 hyper-realistic sculpture of a
human foreskin,” which has already
attracted purchasers:
The
artwork - called HUFO (Human Foreskin) has been created by Vincenzo Aiello, who
believes that circumcision is an unnecessary mutilation that diminishes sexual
pleasure later in life.
…HUFO is being sold through crowdfunding platform Kickstarter to raise money for Foregen research. And so far, 11 people have forked out for the silicone sculpture.
…The foreskin sculptures themselves have been
designed after extensive research by Aiello.
He scoured text books, urology videos and
anatomical drawings, and he was shocked by the amount of tissue that is
affected by circumcision. "I never considered the fact that it’s a
bi-layer piece of skin," he said.
Aiello made a clay penis and started to cover it
with early prototypes of HUFO.
Once the shape was finalised, he created a relief
sculpture - a mould that could be filled with silicone and resin.
“Then I started to work with silicone and resin
and painted the blood vessels nerve endings, frenulum… all the different
details.”
The money raised through the project will go
towards an experiment to build a biological scaffold onto which stem cells can
be transplanted in order to build a new foreskin.
Oh wow! That is beautiful. The victims cough up a grand each and what
do they get? An artefact that is a constant reminder to them, in accurate and
meticulous detail, of exactly what has been cut off the end of their cocks, and
of precisely what it is that they are missing—something to goad them into
continual anger, resentment, frustration and self-pity. And will any of these
suckers ever be able to “regrow their foreskins”? Dream on, you misguided fools! What planet
are you on, you stupid men? You are clutching at straws. Your cocks are chopped
and chopped they will stay. Your misguided hopes and your false dreams will
drive you to disappointment, fury and despair while those of us
who find your gullibility sexy and amusing will mock, jeer and laugh at you.
Incidentally, these days, if you would like to see exactly what, and
how much, skin has been lopped, hacked and chopped off the cocks of American
males it is easy to do so. As well as numerous websites with illustrations of
cut dick, there are some very sexy and amusing discussion groups. My two
favourites are "Cock Shots" and "Cut Cocks." "Cock
Shots" is useful for comparative purposes, since it features men (for
example, from England, France, Germany and Scandinavia) with intact tackle as
well as guys (mainly from the US) who have taken the knife. From Europe, there
are bulky foreskins, purple helmets and intact frenulums
aplenty. This is both irritating and instructive. It is irritating because I
would just love to take a good, sharp, carbon steel surgical scapular to those
complete, entire European males and rob them of a small but significant piece
of themselves. But hey! On the other hand it does clearly show just how
viciously many circumcised cocks in the USA have been pruned.
The "Cut Cocks" group is
unbelievable. Many of the guys have been chopped back so hard that when they
are erect it has just got to hurt. The skin is pulled so tightly up their
stiffened shafts that there is no leeway at all for movement up or down, and
frequently skin from the scrotum is tugged more than half way up towards the
glans. There is one stunning movie clip called "Tight Cut Hand Job"
in which a woman is tugging a young man's cock up and down, trying to bring him
to orgasm. Well, she is very brisk and firm with him, and she shows him no
mercy as she yanks and pulls at his excited member. But the surgeon has been so
very, very strict with him, and has chopped his cock with such deft, expert,
wicked spite that the lady's best and most enthusiastic efforts are in vain. The
skin up the young man's shaft is pulled so tight by his erection that it gleams
and glistens; and all of the young lady's violent ministrations barely move it
more than a centimetre or two. Meanwhile, the lady's violent assault must be
leaving the recipient with a very raw, sore and tender dick!
Then, posted to the "Cut
Cocks" group, there are the dicks with missing and denuded frenulums. Many of the guys are photographed facing the
camera, with their cocks erect and their tightened frenulums
(or, more usually, their tightened skin where their frenulums
should be), displayed clearly and visibly to the amused and excited observer.
Whenever I get an email attachment with a frenulum free cock exhibited
unambiguously and unequivocally I always copy it to file. Over the past few
years I have amassed several thousand, such jpegs. And oh wow! The way those
cocks have been butchered is wicked! As well as the ugly, jagged scars, the
thick brown rings from the gomco clamps, the skin
flaps, the stitch tunnels and the vicious chopping away, not only of the
foreskin, but also of the shaft skin lying between it and the base of the
scrotum, there is, worst of all for the victim, the hacking off of the
frenulum. In many cases, where there should be a generous triangle of stringy,
twangy membrane, all you can see is a completely smooth, bare skin patch
between the underneath of the cockhead and the circumcision scar. In addition,
sometimes there is a wicked little pit or hollow in the cleft underneath the
glans; in these cases the tip of the frenulum that should be attached to the
cockhead has been rudely and crudely hacked out and excavated.
At present, for example, as I write this, I am toggling onto and off
the screen a couple of jpegs. One of them is of a big hulking stud with
"Tracy" tattooed in very large letters across his lower tummy, and
with his big, fat cock flopped across his tattoo and displaying its underside.
Oh wow! That is gorgeous. The cut taken by the cock was inflicted freehand
style. There is no sign of a "brown ring of justice" stamped onto it
by a gomco clamp. It is, indeed, difficult to discern
the scar at all, but if you look closely you can just about make it out. The
cut is low and tight, and, on the underside, it slopes towards the cock head in
a wicked V shape. The result is that most of the frenulum has been hacked away
and replaced by less sensitive outer skin from lower down the cockshaft. Then, as if to mock the victim even more cruelly
for the barbaric outrage inflicted upon him, there is a tiny, thin cord of
skin, all that is left of the tip of the frenulum. This is not much thicker
than sewing thread and it stretches a very short distance from just left of the
dimpled ridge underneath the cock head to the point of the V-shaped scar. Oh
wow! Ouch!!! Has that guy's big, fat, juicy sausage been well skinned! Such a
handsome boy, too! I bet that all of the girls are after him. I bet that his
Tracy is a right little stunner. I bet that when he gets her into bed with him
he enjoys her. But hey! We do not want our stud to get _too_ overexcited do we?
And thanks to his humbling little snip there is, thank goodness, no danger
whatsoever of that.
The other jpeg is of one of the handsomest men that I have ever seen,
slim and dark with rugged good looks and come-to-bed eyes. This man looks far
too classy to be featured on a porn shoot; but no, there he is, gazing
wistfully out at us ladies, his face melting our hearts, and his long, stiff
tool moistening our pussies. But hey! Take a look at that tool! I have never
seen anyone cut lower and tighter. Virtually the whole of the inner foreskin,
and every last vestige of the frenulum, has been hacked away so that the
insensitive outer shaft skin stretches right up to the glans. There is only the
thinnest strip of pink inner foreskin between the outer shaft skin and the
thick, desensitised, keratinised skin of the cockhead. Wow! Take that big boy!
Serves you right for driving us ladies to lusting distraction and for provoking
within us shameful, guilty fantasies and indecent, sinful thoughts!
So oh, wow, ladies! If you want a good laugh and a sexy turn-on here is
what to do. Create a folder on your computer and save to it as many jpegs as
you can find that feature stiff, circumcised, frenulum-free cocks. Then run a
slide show of these cocks. Note how smooth and tight they all are on their
undersides just below the glans or cock head. Yes, go on! Gasp, wince and
giggle at the deft, stunning butchery that has been inflicted on those cocks,
and think how many millions of other US males have suffered the same
mutilation. Wow! Chop! Chop! Chop! Got y'all! Soon
your clitorises will stiffen and you will be all hard and horny. Then, when you
have run through the slideshow a few times pause it and contemplate each
mutilated member at your leisure and in detail. Take your time and study every
image thoroughly. In a very short time your clitorises will be as stiff as
nails, your vulvas as moist and sticky as honey pots, and you will be tickling
and rubbing your love tunnels to violent, explosive orgasm.
But it is not only the images of
butchered cocks that are of interest.
There are also the reports of how the victims of circumcision feel about
the butchery inflicted upon them. The
best way to brief study this is to read their Internet blogs. Oh yes!
Circumcision certainly gives those who have taken it something to think
about, something to analyse, and something to ponder on for the rest of their lives.
Some men are distressed to the point of obsession and paranoia by what has been
inflicted upon them. The snip dominates
their entire lives and they can think of little else. They pour out venomous hatred against the
surgeons who cut them. And they lament
the loss of their foreskins with loud howls of outrage and self-pity. They will
analyse their mutilation with great care and precision, illustrating their
analysis with photographs of their butchered cocks. They will describe the effects of the
butchery on the love lives. They will
describe in graphic detail the tight tugging pain when their cocks are erect,
and the soreness of their denuded cock skin. By way of contrast, there is one
blogger whose contributions to the debate I also find very interesting. As can be seen from the photographs that he
has posted, he has been very messily circumcised. However, the surgeon has left
him a small patch of frenulum. Sometimes therefore, he expresses his grateful
thanks for the remission that has been granted to him, whereas at other times
he attacks his persecutor fiercely for robbing him of his birthright.
Other victims lament the loss of their own foreskins; but they laugh and
rejoice that other victims have been chopped more severely than them. This demonstrates yet again that circumcision
is like spanking and parking fines; it is outrageous, it is not funny at all,
when you are the victim; but it is all very amusing when someone else is on the
receiving end.
On the "Cut Cocks"
website there are published a number of polls. One of these invites group
members to answer the question "Do you have a frenulum?" Well, when I
last looked there were a total of 88 votes cast. Of these 28 (32 percent) said
"yes," 14 (16 percent) said "partial" and 46 (52 percent)
said "no." Wow! A clear majority who, on their own admission, have
been completely robbed of the male body's most sensitive, erogenous, erotic and
pleasurable zone! As the Scottish comedian, Billy Connelly,
might put it: "Outrageous! Disturbing! Tragic! But
_very, very funny_!"
If, as I strongly suspect, most
of the surgeons performed their mutilations knowingly and intentionally, with
malice aforethought, they will have a lot to answer for on the day of
judgement. They have spitefully and vindictively robbed their victims of an
enormous, an incalculable, amount of sexual pleasure and, if there is any
justice, they will be made to pay for it. (Whoops! On second thoughts I hope
not! I myself am one of the worst offenders!) The appalling thing is that the
guys who have suffered this outrageous injustice are pouting and smiling into
the cameras, seemingly without an inkling of the rape and pillage that have
been inflicted upon their cocks, or of the enormous amount of sexual pleasure
from which they have been so cruelly cut off.
Other sexy internet turn-ons
are provided by the various pro-circumcision websites. Of course, you also get
websites that are frenetically opposed to the practice, and these make all of
the boring if perfectly true points about the calamitous effects that
circumcision has on sexual performance and enjoyment. But, in addition, there
is a small, vociferous minority who are in favour of the chop, and who post
their eulogies to it, together with some very sexy photographs. Some of the
posters claim to be ladies. There is, for example, a character called "Wife
with a Knife." She says that she is a surgeon, that she prefers cut cocks,
and that she has circumcised her husband very "low and tight" and
chopped off all of his frenulum. Her claim is supported by an illustrative
photograph of a man's cock that has been mutilated in this precise fashion,
with zero frenulum and no more than a few millimetres of inner foreskin between
the scar around the shaft skin and the corona of the glans. Then a man
purporting to be the victim of this butchery claims that it was inflicted as a
punishment; his wife had caught him leering at scantily clad ladies on the
beach and had slapped him down with a sexy and amusing punishment. Other,
similar, internet characters include "Lady Chopemard,
the Frenulum Remover," "Circe the Circumciser," and "Nikki
the Knifegirl." I suspect that at least some of
these posters are males engaged in masochistic fantasies. Certainly, there are
a number of men who claim that they have got themselves very tightly
circumcised because it turns them on. I take some of these claims with a pinch
of salt, but there is sometimes a supporting photograph that illustrates very
clearly that someone, somewhere has definitely taken a
very hard, very tight chop. Oh wow! Masochistic men proffering their pricks
from choice and telling the surgeon to cut off their frenulums
and to chop their cocks hard and tight! I would just love to get a piece of
that action! By the time I had finished with them they would need to be very,
very masochistic not to rue and resent what I had done to them!
Mention of my husband a while
ago, and of the "Wife with a Knife" in the previous paragraph, brings
me to the next part of my tale. At the time when I circumcised Maggie's
husband, I had a boy friend called John. I had known him a long time. Since I
had been 15 he had idolised me and had been importuning me to go out with him.
But I was a veritable bitch and I really made him sweat. It had taken many
years before I had condescended to grant him any favours at all. It was a lot
longer than that before I agreed to go out with him fairly regularly, and even
then I stressed that it was only on a casual basis. As for getting me into bed
with him, he was still a million miles away from that.
John had been asking me to
marry him for ages, but I had always refused using the excuse that I wanted to
put my career first. I liked having him around, and I suppose that I was taking
for granted the fact that I could have him whenever I wanted him. If he had
acted the bastard and played the field a bit I think that he could have made me
very jealous, but he was too besotted and too nice for that.
My attitude towards John,
however, was changing now that I was coming up to my mid- to late twenties. No
handsome, dashing prince had come to sweep me off my feet. Indeed, I did not
even remotely fancy any other man, even though I often went out with them, to
John's great distress. John was very kind, very nice, very considerate and very
much in love with me. I also had to admit that he was very good company. Moreover,
I wanted children, and the biological time scale was getting shorter. Yet I
still had this caricature of John as being Mr. Nice, Mr. Safe and Mr. Boring.
As I was to learn well later on, I was quite wrong. But that was how I felt at
the time. Anyhow, that was the way things stood at the time when I circumcised
Jim.
Jim's little operation, and
Maggie's accounts of how she subsequently tormented and punished him, had
sexually excited me more fiercely than anything else I had ever known. I became
obsessed with circumcision to the extent, as I say,
that I chose a surgical specialism that would enable me to pursue my interest
for the rest of my professional life. From then on, the mere thought of
circumcising a man has always sent a sharp sexual frisson down my spine. I
suppose that, like Maggie, I am a bit kinky really. I like the thought of
dominating men and of putting my mark on them permanently, and I can think of
no funnier or sexier place to mark them than all around their cocks. Oh yes,
most men are so macho and so proud of their willies that a little snip in the
appropriate place is the perfect comeuppance for their inflated sexual egos!
But I digress. You know all this already because I told you earlier.
A month after I had circumcised
Jim, John asked me to marry him again. He had done this dozens of times before.
But this time he got a shock. I said yes. Well, not quite yes. What I actually
said was yes but... The marriage would only take place, I added, if John was
prepared to let me circumcise him, to my satisfaction, first. John, of course,
had heard all about how I had circumcised Jim, and he knew how circumcision
turned me on. Nevertheless, and to my surprise, he immediately agreed to my
kinky, not to say preposterous, proposal, even though, unlike Maggie's Jim, he
had done absolutely nothing to deserve such a painful, embarrassing and
humiliating mutilation. As with Jim, John was booked to be chopped at 8 a.m. on
a Saturday morning.
My build up to the operation
was similar to Maggie's. The night before the operation I invited John round to
my flat and cooked him a sumptuous candlelit meal with all the trimmings
(including, later, I teased, a trimming for his cock!). Then we sat on the
settee and, for the first time ever, I allowed John the privilege of a spot of
heavy petting. I will not give a full account. Suffice to say that soon John
was stripped to his shirt and underpants, and me to my bra and knickers and we
were writhing around helplessly. Then we undressed each other completely and
lay there naked with our two bodies ecstatically entwined together. John
fingered me to two orgasms, working on my breasts, vulva and other erogenous
zones with a skill that took me completely by surprise. In return I worked my
fiancée to a total of four orgasms, using my hands, the insides of my thighs
and, finally, my mouth and tongue. When he tried to shag me
though I was very strict with him. I told him that he would only enjoy
_that_ privilege after he had been cut. "Your foreskin" I confirmed,
"will never enter my pussy. You will never enjoy me perfectly. You do not
deserve that much pleasure!" Wow! What a bitch I was to him! John,
however, was distinctly over-excited by what he _was_ getting. He had waited for
this for more than 12 years, and now that he was getting it he was so ecstatic
and excited that I found it distinctly unnerving. As his orgasms approached I
had him threshing around in the wildest abandon with his arms and legs flying
everywhere, his body writhing helplessly, and his mouth uttering involuntary
grunts and helpless little screams. "Oh, my God!" he screamed as I
brought him off for the third time with some delicious little darting flicks
from my moist tongue. "You're so skilful. You're so damned skilful."
"Of course I am" I replied pertly through my mouthful of glans,
frenulum, shaft and foreskin. "I'm no naive virgin like some I could name.
Practice makes perfect. Yours isn't the first cock I've had in my mouth, young man,
and it won't be the first to get up my pussy. With me, youthful sir, you are
acquiring a very experienced and accomplished lady." Now in retrospect I
realise that this was a cruel gibe, and well out of order. It was way out of
line to tease John about his long maintained virginity, concerning which he was
very sensitive and embarrassed. And it was unforgivable to boast in such a bold
and triumphalist way about my past sexual exploits to a jealous and as yet
unrequited lover. In the short term, however, my mockery had the intended
effect. It jolted John over the edge. "Oh, you bitch!" he groaned in
ecstasy. "You randy, horny, spiteful, venomous bitch!
How dare you tease and torment me because I have been faithful while you have
been opening your legs for the dick of any Tom or Harry who took your fancy.
Oh, God. You deserve a bloody good thrashing for that, my girl, and no mistake.
Oh! Oooh!! _Oooooh_!!!" I did not fancy
swallowing on that occasion, and I just managed to get John's cock out of my
mouth before he ejaculated. When he did, despite his previous two emissions, he
scattered spunk all over the ceiling--a tribute, as John has since admitted, to
the effectiveness of my spiteful, kinky verbals.
Not that that was the end of
said spiteful and kinky verbals, since I then began
to tease John about his forthcoming operation, whispering seductively into his
ear. "Look at this foreskin", I said, bursting into verse:
"It's lengthy and loose
Like a long necked goose.
It's baggy and saggy, limp and
slack
But watch out boys I'll chop it
back
Your penis I will rip and snip
I'll tear you off a big thick
strip
Your prepuce I will make you
doff
I'll bacon slice your foreskin
off.
I'll cut your cock and trim it
sprightly
I'll circumcise it very tightly
I'll trap it firm and when it's
caught
I'll strip and skin it nice and
taut."
I had composed these ditties in advance to
turn me on and to wind John up, and they achieved both of these objectives
beautifully! Nor did John's torment end with his operation. He has continued to
be the butt of my saucy wit and ribald mickey taking now that he has taken the
chop. For example, I will quip and give him lip and jip that I was the girl to
clip, nip, snip, rip and strip his tip, hassle his tassel, dock his cock, rob
his knob and make it throb, snip his prick, trim his wick, nail his stale,
flail his tail and make him wail and rail, nick his pullover and give him a
chilly willie. I perform these verses in a rhythmic and declamatory style,
after the fashion of Eminem and similar pop stars, and I give them the generic
title of "The Cock Rap." Then I will start to tease my husband about
his prick tip or glans. Before I cut the foreskin from off it a thin, delicate
membrane of exquisitely sensitive, purple coloured skin covered it. Now,
however, his bell end has calloused over and cornified
into a thick, hardened, desensitised knob. During our lovemaking I will flick
up and down across the tip of this knob with my fingers and knuckles.
"Wow!" I will say admiringly. "You've gone all thick and
leathery down there, young man, like well tanned
pigskin or cowhide. Yes, my boy! I've given your cock head a good tanning and
no mistake!" To which John will reply (see below for reference):
"Yes, my girl, and I have whipped your hip and tanned you too!" Then,
sometimes, if I am lucky, I can goad John into genuine raw resentment. “My cock, he will say, “is red,
hard and very, very angry at what you have done to him. He will make you and
your womb pay for the crime, the sin of your right hand. How would you feel if
someone had skinned you alive?” John then goes on to fuck me, violently and
very, very hard!
Now, dear reader, before I give
an account of how I circumcised John, I think that I need to tell you about my
two main styles of circumcision, the messy and the neat.
First, let me expound upon the messy style. This is my favourite
method, and it is the one that, as I have told you elsewhere, I inflicted upon
the husband of my best friend to pay him back for committing adultery against
her. Messy circumcisions are performed briskly, smartly, carelessly,
insouciantly, and at speed. Cosmetic considerations are of the utmost
unimportance and indifference to the surgeon, whose sole concern is that the
absolute minimum amount of valuable and expensive time should be wasted upon a
procedure that is minor, trivial and routine. The surgeon aims for a
comprehensive chop, but, acting in haste, may cut off either slightly less, or
considerably more, skin than usual. When the chopping is over, the stitching up
of the wound is also performed with the utmost pace, carelessness and gay
abandon. The result is a battered, beat up cock sporting an ugly, livid scar
and, most probably, a number of skin flaps and stitch tunnels to boot. When the
wound is healed the result is usually similar to the cock of an adult
circumcised as a neonate. In the latter case, however, the same effect was
obtained because of the difficulty of cutting a very small cock with any
precision. Any small error made by a surgeon circumcising a baby, such, for
example, as the creation of a small skin flap or stitch tunnel, is magnified as
the cock grows bigger. (See above.) Also, many people who circumcise babies are
amateurs rather than trained consultants, and they are often not very precise
in the first place. This, perhaps, is why they refer to the circumcision of a
Jewish baby at 8 days old as a “brisk.” The mohel
“briskly” chops off the offending foreskin!
Of course, the ultimate extension of this line of thinking is for the
surgeon to delegate all neonatal cock cutting to a nurse. I have seen this
advocated by at least one writer. The argument, as stated above, is that
circumcision is a trite and trivial operation, and that surgeons have much more
important things to do than to perform it. It is something that a nurse can
easily be trained up to do, and that should therefore be “deskilled.” Actually,
I quite like the idea. “Circumcise those six baby boys, will you nurse. I am
going now.” Circumcision is a mutilation that many victims curse, fret and fume
about. What a wind up for them to discover that the surgeon was so heedless and
insensitive to their fate that she delegated the work to a minion and went home
early! And yet, I do not think that I could ever agree to let someone else
perform one of my circumcisions, even of a neonate, for me. I like to make
sure, each and every time, that I perform a thorough
job, and, who knows, perhaps the nurse might just be a little bit too cautious
and conservative in her chopping!
The alternative to the messy
circumcision is the neat one. This is the method that I usually employ, since
most of my victims are adults who would notice and resent a messy cut. This is
a pity, since I prefer the messy method. But, on the other hand, there is
something kinky about performing such a barbarous operation with finesse and
precision. I remember a news story, from Saudi Arabia I think. It claimed that
the authorities were still amputating hands as a punishment for robbery but
that, instead of just cutting them off they were removing them neatly in
hospital, with anaesthetics and qualified surgeons. Now that really _is_ sick! But when I do exactly the
same thing with foreskins I think that it is a kinky hoot. Then, if I stitch up
the underside of the cock neatly the victim assumes that the removal of the
frenulum is normal practice (or, at least, all of my victims have so far, touch
wood). In short, it is easier to get away with a tight cut if it is also a neat
one.
But I digress. I seem to
remember that I left John and me engaged in a spot of
heavy petting. Well, in order to have John’s cock to hand for a prompt 8 a.m.
chop, I let him sleep with me that night. Wow! Did he try to cash in and take
liberties! However, I let him go so far but no further. As soon as his
stiffened cock got anywhere near my pussy I warned him off, and I told him
that, unless he was very careful, he would pay for his indiscretions in the
morning.
That morning I lay awake from
about 6 a.m. with John asleep in my arms, and I had a good long think about
what I was about to do. I seriously considered letting the victim off the hook
and cancelling the operation. I certainly did not want to give him an
uncomfortably tight, messy cut. After all, his cock would soon belong to me and
I did not want to make it unusable or ugly. Then I remembered what Maggie had
done to Jim. She had asked me to preserve his foreskin in a jar of
formaldehyde; it was now on the dresser by her bedside, and she constantly used
it to tease and torment her husband. Well, there was enough of the dominatrix
in me to want to exercise that sort of authority over John. I was sexually
stimulated by the kinkiness of circumcision and I knew that, whatever its
physiological consequences, it would, from a psychological point of view, spice
up our sex life. So I decided to go for it.
At 7 a.m. I woke John up, and
told him to take a shower. When he returned, he got into bed with me, and I
affectionately snuggled up to him until it was 8 o’clock. By now I was filled
with misgivings, and I was having second thoughts. “Come on, love.” I whispered
affectionately. “Strip off and lie across the bed. Let’s get this over with.”
Then, screwing my courage to the sticking point, I did it. For the first (and,
I am firmly resolved, the last) time in my life I did not go for a tight,
savage cut. I trimmed John by the book and followed the instructions in the
surgeon’s manual to the letter, so that the victim emerged with his frenulum
more or less intact, and a small cuff of skin that, I surmised, should be just
enough to pull over his engorged corona when his cock was stiff and excited. I
also carved that cock as if it were a gift fit for the gods; my surgery was
painstaking, neat and precise. I could not, however, resist a few kinky verbals during and after the surgery, especially when I
clamped the stretched out foreskin between two glass plates and plopped it into
the large jar of formaldehyde.
I was really quite moved at the
way that John submitted to his circumcision. He did not like being cut, and he
did not like being wound up and teased about it by me. But he took it like a
man, freely, cheerfully and with no second thoughts or regrets. He referred to
it as "paying the bride price", adding gallantly that the bride was
very lovely, and worth every square millimetre of foreskin. Even in the few
days after his operation, when he was exquisitely raw, sore and tender, he took
the pain and the humiliation bravely, stoically, and without rancour, waiting
patiently for me to pronounce his wound well healed, and to tell him that he
could claim his prize.
Now, a brief
digression, dear reader. By now, especially if you are male, my
narrative may well appal you. Who do I think I am, you may be asking, to go
around insouciantly mutilating and disfiguring my innocent and unsuspecting
victims? I bet you are itching for me to get my comeuppance, are you not? Well,
as you will now find out, I _did_
get what was coming to me, and I got it in spades.
Several years earlier I had
been holidaying with John and some other friends in France. One day, John and I
were shopping in a supermarket when, in the section devoted to pets, he noticed
that there were some martinets for sale. I had never seen a martinet before,
and I asked John to explain about it. The martinet, John replied, is a small
whip, popular in France. It has a round wooden handle about 10.5 inches long.
Securely nailed around the end of this handle are about 12 leather thongs, each
roughly 13 inches long, half a centimetre broad and half a centimetre thick. He
added that the martinet had been invented in the eighteenth century by a French
general of that name who was employed at the French army's top officer training
camp at St. Cyr, the French equivalent of Sandhurst (UK) and West Point (USA).
According to John, General Martinet spent his entire life developing an
implement that was suitable for the corporal punishment of young trainee
officers. It was applied, said John, across their bare buttocks. "Wow, oh
wow!" he mused wistfully. "A pound to a pinch of shit that the old
chap was a homosexual. I bet he just loved to get nice young men into his
office. `Take down your trousers and bend over the desk, you naughty boy.' Then
crack, crack, crack! The dirty old pervert! I bet he really enjoyed
himself!"
Next, John carefully selected
one of these martinets, inspected it, and counted the twelve thongs. "What
on earth would it be used for these days?" I
asked. "They have put it in the pet section as though it is for whipping
recalcitrant dogs and similar" answered John. "But I don't believe
for one moment that that is the main use." And he paused. "Go on
then!" I urged. "Well", said John, "I think that today most
of these are used by Frenchmen to smack their wives' bottoms." My first
response to this answer was to giggle saucily. But then I began to inspect the
martinet more closely. It was, I concluded, an inhumane and vicious little
whip, and far too cruel to use on animals, let alone on ladies. I imagined it
whistling through the air and landing across those ladies' bare bottoms. I
could almost hear the loud swish as the thongs cut through the atmosphere. Then
there would be the sharp crack, as so graphically described by John, when the
whip hit home. I imagined the lashing thongs cutting into unprotected skin and
raising livid red stripes and angry weals on the bare
flesh. Soon my initial amusement had turned into disbelief, horror and outrage.
John then went on to
hypothesise about why French husbands should impose such strict discipline on
their wives. He explained that French ladies were very beautiful and very sexy.
They could also be very randy, he added. Wifely adultery and infidelity were a
constant threat for many Frenchmen and, when they _were_ cuckolded, they feared the public
ridicule almost as much as the loss of their wife's affections. They thus
needed something to keep these lively and vivacious ladies in line, and for
this purpose the martinet was the preferred implement. The hope, frequently
frustrated, was that married ladies would be in sufficient awe of its lashing
thongs across their bare bottoms that they would not run amok and bed too many
lovers.
This was the first indication
that I had ever had that John was turned on by spanking and flagellation. He
was clearly indulging in a sexual fantasy, and at first I took his
interpretation with a pinch of salt. However, having observed many of these
French ladies on the beach sporting the most daring and provocative swimwear I
was at length forced to concur that his analysis sounded reasonable. Any
gentleman lucky enough to marry one on those beauties, I affirmed jocularly,
had come into the possession of a very valuable and desirable piece of real
estate, and it was understandable that he should wish to defend his property
rights over it and to discourage unauthorised trespassers. However, I protested
vehemently that in this day and age it was well out of order for a man to whip
his wife's bare bottom with such a cruel and barbaric implement. John, however,
was clearly turned on by the thought. He grinned lasciviously and quietly
dropped the martinet he had been inspecting into our shopping trolley.
"You never know", he concluded slyly. "Someday I may marry a
French lady, and, if I ever do, I may need it."
Anyway, let me return to my
main narrative. It took John’s cock more than eight weeks before it had healed
up and was fucking good again. Then, one day when I inspected it, it seemed to
be fully mended. “O.K.” I said, “I’ll be at your place
at 8 a.m. sharp on Saturday morning for a final official inspection, and, with
luck, a complete health clearance.”
When I arrived I let myself in.
(John had given me a key to his house shortly after I had agreed to marry him.
He had tried unsuccessfully to do this before, but this time I accepted it.) I
discovered my fiancé asleep and in bed. I woke him gently and when he was fully
_compos mentis_ I asked him to
strip off and present himself for inspection. “Yes,” I said. “This cock is now
fully healed and I pronounce it ready for use.” Then I paused. “There is one
thing, though.” And something in the tone of my voice made John (as I had
intended) uneasy. “What’s up,” he asked in a concerned voice. “Well,” I said
pertly. “Now that I have seen your circumcised cock I don’t think that I like
it.” I paused. “No,” I said insouciantly, “I’m afraid that the wedding is off.”
There was then a pregnant pause while this sunk in.
Then came
John’s first reaction. To my deep mortification and chagrin, he began to sob
helplessly, like a small child that had fallen over and hurt itself. “You
mean,” he wept fiercely, “That it was all a joke? A jape? To circumcise me and then to just walk away after
you had had the kinky pleasure of cutting me? And now you will laugh at me and
mock me about it for the duration? Oh, Jill, you know how much I love you. That
is cruel, that is so cruel.” If John had been looking at me he might have
grasped the truth and not gone off at half cock; but instead he completely
bought the line that I was selling him. He collapsed, face down, onto the bed
and blubbered helplessly in resentment and frustration.
Well, that did it. I am a kinky
bitch I admit, and I fancied a bit of the dominatrix in our relationship; but I
am not that kinky, and my lover’s outburst moved me deeply. I grabbed him by
the shoulders and hauled him up into a sitting position. Then I threw my arms
around him and comforted him. “It’s all right, love. It’s all right. Come on.
Don’t cry. Do you know what day it is?” “No.” sobbed John helplessly. “It’s the
1st of the 4th,” I said. “Gotcha! You, young man, are an
_April fool_!” But there was no triumph in my voice. Just a tone that indicated
that I wanted to make everything all right again, and that I deeply regretted
my misplaced joke.
Soon, however, I was to regret
it a lot more than that. In all the years that I had known John up to that
moment I had never, ever, seen him lose his temper. He did now, though, and big
time. The revelation of my merry little jape nonplussed him, but only for about
2 seconds. Then he gave an enormous howl of relief, frustration, and, most of
all, blind rage. He stretched and reached down onto the floor between the bed
and the wall and picked something up from underneath the table where he kept
his Teasmade. Then he sat on the side of the bed,
grabbed me by the arm, and tossed me across his knee. As for me, at first I was
shocked but pleased. I had been trying to goad John into anger for years, and
it looked like at last I had succeeded.
“You scheming temptress,” he
yelled. “For years you have been acting the bitch and keeping me at arms’
length. You have been shagging around with other men, and treating me with
contempt. And I have been stupid enough to play your little power games. But no
more, this is the end of it. Now it’s payback time. As far as I am concerned,
you can fuck off. You can stuff your fucking wedding up your arsehole.” Then up
came my skirt, down came my knickers, and before I had time to work it all out,
there was a swish, followed by a loud, sharp crack.
Then I felt it, a sharp and
excruciating sting right slap across the middle of my two bared buttocks. It
was as if a solid phalanx of bees had hit them and were now all stinging the
naked flesh in unison. Then, after a few seconds a fierce tingling and
throbbing supplemented the initial sharp stinging. “Oh, no!”
I thought to myself. “That was the martinet that John picked up from the floor;
and I bet that by the time he has finished I will be all too well acquainted with
it.” Then, a few seconds later, there came a second loud swish and crack. “Aaaagh!” I yelled helplessly.
This second fierce lash was laid directly onto the same part of my bum that had
taken the first one, and it hurt like hell. I screamed and howled plenty, but I
was of slight build, a mere 5’ 3” tall, and I was no physical match for John.
He held me firmly over his knee as he counted out the lashes. “Two,” he
declared after the second swipe had hit home.
And so it went on. John gave me
twenty lashes, each just as fierce as the one before it, with a pause between
each one to give me plenty of time to feel it. After the first dozen he had
broken me; I was sobbing helplessly and screaming for forgiveness, pity, and
mercy. But I did not get it. Instead, John continued his merciless trip
hammering with the 12-thonged martinet. Then John lifted me roughly and threw
me the other way over his knees. Then he took a brief time out to explain his
game plan.
Now I am not myself Jewish, but
my mother’s father was, and John now used this fact to determine my punishment.
In honour of my granddad, he told me, he was giving me a flogging that accorded
with Hebrew Old Testament Law and with the Pentateuch, namely 39 lashes. Then
he passed the whip into his left hand and gave me lash number 21.
Now, dear reader, for every
single one of those first 20 lashes, the martinet had fairly whistled through
the air, and had struck home with a series of sharp, high-pitched cracks. The
sting was terrific, especially from the fast flying ends of the thongs. My
right buttock had taken these stinging ends of the thongs for those first 20
lashes, and it hurt like hell. Then, when John turned me around, for the next
19 swats my left buttock caught the brunt of the stinging. Worse still,
although these latter hits were inflicted with the left hand, John seemed to be
ambidextrous, and his left arm came down with just as much punitive force as
his right one.
By now, I was completely out of
control. My arms and legs were flailing about helplessly, and I was howling and
sobbing plenty. “Please, please, no more!” I shrieked helplessly. “I’m sorry.
I’m so sorry. I won’t do that again, I promise. Please, please stop!”
But, for the last dozen lashes
or so, I began to be overtaken by another wave of emotion. To my distinct
surprise, my crotch began to throb and my pussy started to tingle. I felt the
heat between my legs as my bottom started to ride up and down in unison with
the slashes, rising in eager anticipation of the cruel but arousing kiss of the
whip. For the last 6 cuts I was no longer begging for mercy; I was groaning
ecstatically. By now my pussy was dripping wet and the sticky liquid was
dribbling down onto John’s naked thighs. Meanwhile, as lust started to take
over from pain I became aware of John’s hard, erect manhood pressing into my
crotch.
The final slap, number 39, was
a beauty. It cracked onto skin that by then was red, raw and broken, with tiny
drops of blood oozing from the lacerations. “Aaaagh!” I yelled, far louder than any of my
previous cries, and in that yell was unbearable pain and exquisite pleasure
mixed together into a heady concoction that left me hovering right on the brink
of orgasm.
Then it was over and John threw
me roughly onto the bed. By now I was completely out of control. I pulled off
my shoes and ripped my clothes from my body so that I was completely naked.
Then I jumped on John, hugging and kissing him passionately. Then I grabbed his
stiff, circumcised cock and rammed it unceremoniously into my dripping wet
pussy slot. Immediately, both John and I erupted into a violent and explosive
mutual orgasm. Then John, still very excited, just kept on pumping. Within the
next 15 minutes John had climaxed again, and I had come another 3 times.
Later that morning, John and I
were relaxing together in his bed. He had turned on the Teasmade
and brewed some oolong tea. I left off sipping it, however, to go over to the
wardrobe mirror to inspect my bottom. It was covered in ugly weals, bruises and lacerations that would probably take at
least 2 or 3 weeks to go away. “Oh, wow, love!” exclaimed John sympathetically,
as I ruefully examined the damage, “What have I done to you?” “Well you’ve well
striped my arse for me,” I said admiringly. “But not to
worry. You were right. I’ve been a kinky bitch to you for years. I was
well out of order to sleep around and to torment you with my lovers. And I was
well wrong to insist on circumcising you. You had done nothing to deserve it.
And the April fool joke, what was _that_
about? Definitely out of order! Well, now I’ve got my comeuppance. You have
taught me a painful lesson. You are a man, not a mouse, and now that I belong
to you I had better treat you better.” As I made this profession, it suddenly
hit me, the blindingly obvious truth that I should have known all along. For
years I had been deliberately treating John as if he were dog shit in an
attempt (until now vain) to goad him into a reaction. Well, I had had to sink
pretty low to get it, but now his reaction had come. John had balls after all,
even if, as of now, he had no foreskin. Oh, yes! I would continue to tease John
about his circumcision, and I would try it on to boss him around and keep him
under my thumb. But in future I had better beware. There were limits that I
would cross at my peril. Yes, I thought, now that we had got that out of the
way, my marriage to John might turn out to be very interesting!
This, however, was all for the
future. At that moment I had far more pressing and urgent problems to attend
to. I slept on my tummy that night, wincing and cursing, with my bottom bare to
the air. Meanwhile, John, now once more the considerate lover, sympathetically
rubbed plenty of soothing camomile lotion into my cuts and lacerations. Four
times that night, however, I had something else rubbed into me. John’s
circumcised cock took me twice from behind, and twice from the front.
Concerning these last two bonks there was good news and bad news. The good news
was that John took me in the missionary position, woman on top variation to
ease the pain in my rump. The bad news is that, as I approached orgasm he
started to give me sharp, wicked little flicks from the martinet, synchronised with the thrusts of his pelvis and cock shaft.
OK! So it brought me off. But on flesh already freshly whipped the thongs of
that martinet stung like hell, and my bottom felt like it was on fire!
That summer John and I were
married, and I thus became Mrs. Jillian Philpott. Since then, John and I have
had 4 children, 2 girls and 2 (uncircumcised) boys, and we are hoping for more.
I still keep John’s severed foreskin in a jar on my side of the bed, and I
constantly tease him about it. Usually he takes it in good part; he realises
that circumcision is my kink, and he still loves me. If I go too far, however,
I am likely to end up across his knee, although now the preferred implements of
chastisement are the flat of his hand and/or a thin, floppy rubber spatula
purchased from an Internet sex shop. (Ouch, that spatula stings like hell! But
on the other hand, a few sharp slaps from it across the plump buttock meat
adjacent to the cunt slot as I am approaching orgasm is guaranteed to push me
over the edge!) John has, of course, carefully retained his martinet, but he
tells me that I will only ever get it again if I am _very_ naughty. Oh well! Some day, when
I can work up the bottle for it, I must contrive to be a really bad girl again!
As for my attitude to
circumcision, it is still the same. I still circumcise every man I can as tightly
as I can, despite John’s protestations that I am a cruel, kinky bitch, and
despite the swats from the spatula that I get if I am too boastful. I am sorry,
I tell him, but I cannot help myself.
For me, circumcision is a
delightful sport, and it has all sorts of interesting little aspects to
explore. I do not think I will ever exhaust its never-ending charm. Let me give
you a couple of examples of what I mean. John, as I say, has more or less accepted
his cut state. Indeed, he even makes rueful jokes about it. And, I can affirm,
it has _not_
affected his ability to do the necessary to me in bed. Indeed, my husband has
made up a number of little verses about this. Here is one of them entitled
"John's Circumcised Cock", which he sometimes regales me with in moments of intimacy:
"Gnarled and pitted, chopped and scarred,
But up your cunt and fuck you
hard."
Now, dear reader, as I have
explained above, one of the effects of circumcision-- infuriating to those who
have taken it and sexy and amusing to those who have not-- is
that it pulls and stretches the skin taut along the length of the erect penis.
It thereby, to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot apropos of something else, "tightens its lusts and
luxuries." Stemming from this, one of my favourite tricks is to strip John
naked and to get him to stand with his legs slightly apart. I then kneel down
in front of him. With my right hand I grasp his cock. I place my thumb
underneath the shaft, just below the point where the circumcision scar cuts
across it. My forefinger and my middle finger I place on the upper side of the
shaft, again just below the scar. Then I tickle and scratch John's balls with
the fingers and, in particular, with the fingernails, of my left hand, while
tugging at his cock with my right. Soon John's cock is rock hard and ready for
the punch line.
For this, I stop tickling
John's scrotum. I remove my left hand and let his bollocks hang free. Then,
firmly and rhythmically, I start to tug John's shaft skin forward, up and down
the shaft, wanking him off. As I am kneeling with my
eyes a couple of inches from his crotch I get an excellent view of what is
happening. Two things I find particularly sexy. Firstly, no matter how hard I
tug John's shaft skin up and down his cock (and I am pretty firm with him!), it
never comes anywhere near to covering his cock head. The glans, now that the
foreskin has been snipped off it, remains exposed throughout. It has no hiding
place to conceal its embarrassing nakedness. Secondly, as I yank John's shaft
skin forward, it pulls after it the skin of the scrotum from the point where
this is joined to the base of the cock. The result is that my saucy tugs cause
my lover's balls to dance a merry and vigorous jig. Yes, if I do it right I can
really make his bollocks fly!
John finds being circumcised
very embarrassing. I found this out when, just after we got married, we went on
holiday to the south Atlantic coast of France.
On that coast there are a lot
of nude beaches, usually just beyond the family
beaches away from the access roads. Knowing that John is a great admirer of
feminine nubility I suggested to him that we might
pay one of these beaches a visit. To my surprise, however, he did not seem too
keen on the idea. "Come on," I said encouragingly. "You have
taken your circumcision; you have paid the sex tax. I won't mind if you lust
after a few naked young ladies. I'll just give willie a few rough disciplinary
tweaks around his circumcision scar when I get him into bed tonight."
Well, after a little cajoling of this sort I could see that John was stimulated
by my plan. He eventually agreed to go along with it, but I could see that he
still had misgivings.
When we arrived at the beach it
was full of beautiful young people, and a few older punters. For some reason a
lot more young ladies than young men were besporting
themselves, and every single one of them was butt naked. There were, among
others, petite, dark French girls, well-built English belles and, John's
favourites, tall, strapping, buxom blonde beauties from Germany and
Scandinavia. There was a group of three particularly fetching German Rhine
maidens just in front of us, all standing up with their pneumatic boobs, big
bums, long, meaty thighs and blonde haired pussies perfectly positioned for
close and meticulous scrutiny. I could see that John was stunned.
"Careful, big boy" I warned saucily. "Three pussies admired
already. That's three snakebite twists around his scar that stiff willie has earned for himself so far. Just you wait until
to-night!" John grinned lasciviously. "Wow! Oh wow!" he said
lecherously. "I'll take them right on the scar tissue, and as hard as you
like. Those lovelies are well worth it!"
John was rather less
enthusiastic, however, when I removed my bikini top, pertly pulled off my pants
and exposed my naked charms to the admiring gaze of other males. "Well!
Come on then!" I cajoled, pointing at John's swimming trunks. "Get 'em off!" At this point my spouse began to look
uncomfortable, but eventually he removed his swimming trunks and stood there
naked.
Now that was when it got
interesting. Circumcision, I have now learnt, is quite rare in Germany and
Scandinavia, and John was the only circumcised man on the beach. I watched the
reactions, and I could tell that his cut cock was exciting considerable
interest, discreet but definite. The Rhine maidens grinned, giggled and
whispered things to each other. I caught some comment that I was just about
able to translate with the help of my GCSE German. It was to the effect that
the man in front of them must be an American. Meanwhile, similar interest was
generated in a young French couple lying in front of us as they looked back up
the beach. The problem was that all this did not go on for long, because
although John was embarrassed he was also turned on. His circumcised cock began
to grow to tumescence, and he was forced to lie on his front to hide its
embarrassing state from its interested spectators.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EPILOGUE
In conclusion, dear reader,
pray allow me to return to the topic of my best friend, Maggie Phillips. Where,
you might ask, did her brilliant and appropriate idea to have her husband
circumcised for his adultery come from? (See ASSTR 08.) Well, I can tell you
the answer to that one. Maggie has a brother, Billie, who is 5 years older than
her. Just before his seventeenth birthday Billie suffered a bad attack of
phimosis. As a result he was the unwilling victim of a circumcision; and ever
since he has protested loudly and vigorously about his mutilation. One must
presume that, before he was rudely cut short, Billie, like almost all male
teenagers, had been enjoying a series of illicit but deliciously pleasurable
sexual encounters with Mrs. Hand and her five beautiful daughters. How he must
have enjoyed pulling his long, sensitive inner foreskin up and over his
deliciously tender and delicate purple cock head! But alas! After the short,
sharp, sudden shock of an embarrassing and painful operation, Billie’s foreskin
was no longer there and his cock head soon calloused over into a thick, rubbery
bell-end. Unlike men who have been circumcised neonatally,
Billie knew just exactly what it was that he was missing. He did not like it
one little bit, and, to Maggie’s considerable amusement, he howled plenty! Is
it any wonder, therefore, that, having seen its effect upon her outraged
brother, a shrewd, saucy and intelligent girl like Maggie should decide to
enforce circumcision upon her adulterous spouse? Wow! What a comeuppance!
Wallop! Bull’s eye!
But that is not the end of the
anecdote. When he was 25 Billie got involved with a girl who was ten years
younger than him. Even worse, he got her pregnant. Well, from Billie’s point of
view, all turned out well. He married his young lover, Jasmine, soon after her
sixteenth birthday. Then, a few months later, Jasmine had her first child. In
the next few years Jasmine bore Billie a total of four children, three girls and
a boy. Jasmine and the children were well looked after. By the time he was into
his mid-twenties Billie had finished at university and had a good and well-paid
job.
But Jasmine paid a price for
her security and her material comforts. She is a beautiful and intelligent girl
of South Asian ethnic origin. She was enrolled at the same top girls grammar school that Maggie and I went to, and she was
hoping to go on to medical school. However, the antics of Billie’s overactive
cock rudely cut short Jasmine’s education and her medical career, and for this
I hated him and it. In my view, Billie should have been prosecuted for seducing
an underage girl who was a decade his junior.
The worst of that little
incident is now over. On the positive side Billie and Jasmine are still, 8
years after their initial bonk, besotted with each other. Britain needs
doctors, and these days the medical schools encourage mature applicants. I am
hoping that Jasmine will allow me to guide and advise her, and that she will
one day resume her studies. With two supportive grannies to help look after the
kids, I am keeping my fingers crossed that, by her mid-thirties, Jasmine will
have made it into medicine.
That is not to say, however,
that I personally had forgiven Billie for taking advantage of Jasmine while she
was a beautiful, naïve, and under-aged virgin. Billie’s cock had already been
circumcised once, but I could think of a few more things that I would have
liked to have done to it to pay it back for its selfishness, and its
irresponsible indulgence in illicit, sybaritic pleasures. “Give me my trusty
knife,” I would fantasize to myself, “And bring me Billie’s cock; I will give
it something that it will wish that it had not taken!” And then, amazingly, I
got my chance to do just that. Let me explain to you how this came about.
Maggie, Jasmine, our three
husbands and I maintain a close social life, and we frequently dine together.
At a dinner party a short time ago the discussion got around to circumcision,
of which all three of the men folk are now victims. As he has done before,
Billie complained vigorously that his circumcision should never have been
inflicted, and, even if it was, it should not have been so messy or so severe.
Well, jokingly, I offered to inspect it for him and give him my professional
opinion. At first, everyone, including me, thought that I was joking. But then
Jasmine piped up. “You know, Billie, that really is a
good idea. Everything seems fine to me, but you have got a real hang-up about
it. Why don’t you let Jill put your mind at rest once and for all?”
Anyway, at that point we let
the matter drop from our conversation. A few days later, however, I got a phone
call from Jasmine. Had I meant what I had said at the dinner party last
Saturday night? The upshot was that a few days later Billie called around to my
surgery for a willie assessment. I asked him to strip
from the waist down, and to stand upon a table that presented his cock to me at
eye level. Then I started to inspect it. I held the shaft between my thumb and
forefinger, just below the annular scar. Then I inspected the scar. It was,
indeed, a messy job. The circumcising surgeon had paid little heed or consideration
to cosmetic questions. “Hum,” I remarked. “The wound has healed up all ugly and
pockmarked. And look. Here. There is a large stitch tunnel cutting under the
scar on the underside of shaft.”
Meanwhile, something was
happening that fascinated me, but that also made me very angry. Billie’s cock
started to go hard and engorged in my hand! I took this as a sign that he was
inappropriately stimulated that a young lady 5 years his junior was embracing
his manhood. Soon the offending weapon was as stiff as a poker. I looked
upwards, straight into Billie’s eyes, and, to be fair to him, he was not
leering at me in a predatory fashion. No, he looked very, very ashamed and
extremely embarrassed at what his willie was up to.
So, while pretending to get on with my impassive and impartial analysis of the
weapon in question, I decided to do a little prick teasing, and to have a bit
of fun with Billie. I gently tugged Billie’s shaft skin towards his cockhead.
“Yes,” I commented. “You circumcision is rather slack. See. A little flap of
foreskin has been left here, and if I tug hard I can just pull it over the rim
of your glans.” As I did this, I watched Billie’s face closely. He winced with
pleasure and embarrassment, but I could detect no sign of inappropriate
interest in me, or that he was regarding me as anything other than a
professional surgeon. Then I gently scratched underneath Billie’s cock shaft,
just above the stitch tunnel on his circumcision scar. In response, I felt
Billie’s cock stiffen still further, and I heard a helpless, ecstatic groan.
“What do you feel,” I asked. “Not as much as I used to,” sighed my victim
ruefully. “Yes, I remarked. “There is no vestige of frenulum underneath the
penile shaft, at the point where it joins the base of the glans. That has been
completely excavated by the surgery. So, on the plus side you have a small flap
of foreskin, but on the minus side you have an ugly scar with stitch tunnel and
skin flap, and no frenulum. But count yourself lucky, young man. In many cases
that I inspect both foreskin and frenulum have been completely cut off. Anyway,
the good news is that, if you want me to, I could tidy you up down there. On
the plus side, I can remove your skin flap and the ugly scar caused by careless
surgery. On the minus side, if I do that, it will mean removing a little more
of your vestigial foreskin.
Well, that was the end of our
consultation. I told Billie to get dressed and, to save him from further
embarrassment, I left the room. I heard nothing from Billie or Jasmine for
several weeks, and I assumed that the matter was now closed. Then, to my
amazement, I had a phone call from Jasmine. Did I mean what I said, she asked,
about tidying up Billie’s cock? Wow! As soon as I clocked the question the
blood rushed to my cheeks and my heart started to pound fiercely against my
ribcage. “Of course,” I said, doing my best to sound calm, professional and
matter of fact.
The rest, as they say, is
history. Billie and Jasmine were worried about the cost of the surgery, and
whether they could get it on the National Health. But I generously (!) offered
to do it for nothing for my best friend’s brother. And do it I did. In fact, I
had not been completely honest with Billie. His frenulum had not been
completely excised. There was a small patch of it left, until I got to work on
it, anyway. Like there was a small patch of surplus shaft skin, before I took
to it my trusty knife. Oh, yes! I made Billie pay all right for what he had
done to Jasmine. Off came his vestigial frenulum, and off came his small cuff
of surplus shaft skin. I chopped very tight and the flesh on his stiffened
shaft is now pulled as tight as a drum skin. And then, an added bonus, I
advised Billie to avoid nooky with his beautiful wife
for more than 2 months. Not that he was in a position to ignore my counsel. For
the 7 or 8 weeks after his little operation he was far too shocked, sore and
traumatised to get up to anything approaching serious hanky-panky.
But the appalling thing is
that, now his cock is bonking good again, Billie is actually grateful for what
I did to him. You see, my surgery was, indeed, skilful; the stitching could
have won a Women’s Institute embroidery contest. Cosmetically, therefore, what
is left of Billie’s cock looks a snip (so to speak!). It is very neat and tidy,
and, for this, Billie is effusive in his thanks.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
American Association of Paediatricians now supports circumcision.
Always stresses alleged health benefits not sexual pleasure.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Africa and condescending attitude of western nations towards black
Africans—and Africans appear to have been taken in.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Jillie: court case when
Chinese doctor cut off too much skin at an adult male circumcision. £5000
compensation won; TV quip that it “would not stand up in court.”
UK and European porn cannot be a
“celebration of the purple helmet” if it is aimed at the US market. Thick and rubbery. Private Eye: letters on circumcision
“These letters have been cut without permission.” Cf. spanking is sexier when
it is nc.
Older man/younger woman – mutual
gains, but he deserved to be taxed/ saddled with the brown ring of justice, and
dangerous if over-excited.
Circlist members think it
is manly but it is just ridiculous. Suffering from Marxist
false consciousness. Do not even have the dignity of the truly maimed,
of the “mutilees de la guerre”, Paraplegic Olympics”,
Proud to be Different, etc.
Amanda: Bob Douglas has no courage
in him.
Destiny’s Child: “If his status ain’t hood I ain’t checkin’ for him ..I need a
soldier.”
Incisive comments.
Cathy: knife hovers over frenulum.
Cut? Judy: Oh yes!
Aghast! Shock, horror,
flabbergasted. Then laugh or cry. Fierce joy or pity. Fierce sorrow. Ridicule.
"Wow!” is typical exclamation, as in “Oh, wow! That is beautiful!”
www.infocirc.org (also in French) See problems page. Tie in with hairy shaft, etc.
Develop
schadenfreude: Dave – even circed men find it funny he
is circed so tight. Dave envies young men, their access to young ladies, their potency, and
the long time they have left to enjoy themselves; he thinks it is sexy and
funny when these young men have been circumcised very tightly.
Enforce copulation style.
Death of cutter does not end
resentment, since “a circumcision is for life.”
J.G. Reeder: In his soul there was a
fierce malignant joy.
Dave Henderson: Sally trim and
petite, but also likes big strapping ladies with broad hips, vulvas with folds
of flesh, etc. Circed cock inadequate for so much woman. She needs all the man she can get, but some of
his manhood is missing, and the uncirced provide
stiffer competition for girls' affections.
Dave Henderson: Jews/Muslims
punishment/ Also RC for priestly celibacy. Dave an Anglican.
Drastic Jewish circ only after
Christ.
My circ cf Julie’s GBP10 ticket
(punishment) Lucky/unlucky – my antibiotics for dentist to cure something else
– lucky.
No horny handed son of toil, but
roving hands well horny.
From alt.circumcision:
Saskatchewan drs urged not
to cut. EG, having established that 5% of men self-classified their
circumcision status wrongly, they went ahead and used that data, ignoring the
measured error. ...
http://www.slate.com/id/2136062/sidebar/2136148/
Of the 16 gay men
who wrote in about sex with circumcised and intact partners, 11 prefer intact,
three prefer circumcised, and two are ambivalent. Of the 87 women who wrote in,
43 preferred intact, 36 preferred circumcised, and eight were ambivalent. Here
are a few readers' comments:
From a gay man:
I have to say, as a gay man I have not met a single
man who has been circumcised who does not in some way feel "cheated."
From another gay
man:
People's sensitivity, it seems, varies widely, whether
they're cut or not, so it's very hard to say what effect circumcision would
ultimately have on one's sensitivity. Of course, any problems of aesthetics or
function of the foreskin would be impossible to foresee at birth, so I'm pretty
undecided on the issue, but tend to lean toward thinking that it's probably
better not to make unnecessary, irreversible actions. I certainly feel a little
resentful at what I've never known.
From a woman:
Having had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised
men I prefer the former. They are cleaner and smell better. … Have you
EVER seen a hygiene ad for men?
From Lori:
I have had over thirty lovers, of whom only four were
"natural." They, however, stand out in my memories like supernova
against a backdrop of ordinary stars.
Jot – slot
Descends – amends
Slice – price
Think pink
Purple plum
New circ story. Man is engaged to a woman and cheats on her. She has him circumcised
very tightly then, while he is still sore from the surgery, returns his
engagement ring, slaps his face, and biffs off. She has him circumcised with
the knife right up into the little crack or crevice that divides the glans
immediately under the wee hole and excavates and scrapes out all of the root of
the frenulum (For a man so chopped see Untitled 22 from Jan 07)
Note the stiff
protuberant rod-like muscle stretched like a strip of semi-circular beading
down the underside of some erect cocks, and how this helps display the
circumcision scar.
The
V scar is usually because a forceps was used to clamp the foreskin before a
scalpel was used to cut off the foreskin.
The dark ring depends on pigmentation. Olive guys get darker scars but
sometimes blonds get them too. Usually that is from a Gomco
clamp.
Quick/flick. Scandinavian skin
flicks, but circumcised cannot flick skin.
Jillie: stringiest, twangiest frenulums are black.
Assail/tail/flail/rail/stale
Cathy:
check skin in bottle.
Corona
Circ: something to think about for
rest of life, something to analyse, something to
concentrate the mind.
Gouge out frenulum
tip
Foreskin: don’t
miss it most of the time. But you do miss it just when you need it, immediately
before the cock enters the pussy. Cf an umbrella only
miss it when it rains.
Shocked and
surprised/keratinized shock/cock gouge/arouse
Sutured/butchered
Circbonk: Lady nice and
squelchy down there. Shaved pussy lips ripple, quiver, twitch, squeeze
delightfully as cock goes in, out, in, out. Probably quite pleasant for man but
should be better and his diffident, unenthusiastic strokes indicate that it
probably is not.
Mention GIF loop of
tight wanking that needs lots of lubrication. “Lube” is a US idea and is needed
for cut cocks.
Jillie: write in South Korea and
“whale” experience.
Cathy: his cock is
not for his pleasure but for mine.
Hunk/chunk/dunk/junk
Analyse the tight, lubed
circumcised cock and use of lubrication (KY Jelly, etc.).
Men who are circed themselves laugh at men who are circed
more severely. Some men can see the funny sidSutured/butchered
Foreskin: don’t
miss it most of the time. But you do miss it just when you need it, immediately
before the cock enters the pussy. Cf an umbrella only
miss it when it rains.
Shocked and
surprised/keratinized shock/cock gouge/arouse
Jillie: write in South Korea and
“whale” experience.
Cathy: his cock is
not for his pleasure but for mine.
Circbonk: Lady nice and
squelchy down there. Shaved pussy lips ripple, quiver, twitch, squeeze
delightfully as cock goes in, out, in, out. Probably quite pleasant for man but
should be better and his diffident, unenthusiastic strokes indicate that it
probably is not.
Mention GIF loop of
tight wanking that needs lots of lubrication. “Lube” is a US idea and is needed
for cut cocks.
Analyse the tight, lubed
circumcised cock and use of lubrication (KY Jelly, etc.).
Some circumcised
men can smile and laugh at themselves. (cf. ladies with parking fines who laugh and boast about them.)
Picture of 5 boys,
all naked and circed: chop, chop, chop, chop…wait for
it…chop!
Skinned/binned skin
it/bin it
Swingeing/whingeing/bingeing/singeing
Snip his
stalk/can’t pop his cork
Sally and Dave:
pentatonic tune has its simple beauty but notes are missing so no florid
Baroque embellishments.
Half circ could tolerate but full circ
is too drastic a chop to be enforced upon us. Abramic circ
far less severe.
Morn/horn
Issue/scar tissue
LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV
SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED
FACTORS: EVIDENCE FROM NATIONAL
HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS
FEBRUARY 2009
This publication was produced for review by the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by
Vinod Mishra, Rathavuth Hong, and Yuan Gu of Macro International Inc.,
and Amy Medley and Bryant Robey of Johns Hopkins University.
p. 135 There appears to be
no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence.
In 8 of 18 countries with data, as expected, HIV prevalence is lower among
circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher
among circumcised men.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Our Mission
Foregen is a non-profit organization
founded to research and implement regenerative medical therapies for
circumcised males.
Our Foundation
Foregen™ was created in 2010 thanks to donor funds. Foregen operates in the United States and Europe. Its head office is in Rome, Italy, where it is a registered charity (Reg. No. 6482, Serie 1T, 2010). See original founding documents here. Foregen is also tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code and is headed by a board of charitable directors with participants and donors across both continents and beyond.
Our People
Foregen is led by the Board of Directors with help from dedicated members and volunteers. In 2010, Mr. Vincenzo Aiello became Foregen’s President. He is assisted by a Vice-President and an Administrative Council.
Our Mission
Foregen’s goal is to heal the physical detriment that that is inherent to circumcision. Research undeniably demonstrates the functional and sensory losses to the penis when circumcised, as well as the potential for psychological damage for those on whom such surgery was performed. Fortunately, regenerative medical techniques now offer a greater possibility than ever to regrow human tissue, especially dermal tissue, lost in prior trauma. However, those techniques have not yet been applied to those who have been circumcised and no longer wish to be.
Foregen was founded to promote and arrange a
clinical trial that would use regenerative techniques to regrow the tissue
removed at circumcision. After dismissing many unsatisfactory proposals from
research institutions, we have decided to conduct our own research and clinical
trials. With the help of dedicated scientists, we will apply known regenerative
techniques to the foreskin in order to restore normal penile function and
sensitivity.
Foregen is not an activist organization; we
have no legislative or political agenda, nor any desire to engage in the
conversation that surrounds the topic of circumcision. Foregen
is a pioneering research organization dedicated to creating options for
circumcised men. We have applied regenerative techniques to animal foreskins
and will continue our research on adult human foreskins. Foregen
is the organization that regenerative medicine was made for,
as it applies to roughly one billion people circumcised males and their
partners! Since Foregen’s foundation, countless men
have expressed great delight that an organization such as this finally exists,
something for which they have been searching for years.
Our Work
Foregen’s tasks are:
§ To experiment with animal tissue to obtain a viable
method of foreskin regeneration
§ To apply what we have learned from our animal
experiments to regenerate human foreskins
§ To advance onto clinical trials once Foregen proves that regenerating human foreskin is possible
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Prepex
After these preliminaries
Mary then acquainted me with the gist of her proposition. There had recently been
developed by a company (based in Israel, as she recalled) a product,
trade-named PrePex, that could be used to perform
quick, hygienic, bloodless circumcisions. The device had four components, a
grooved plastic inner ring, a plastic placement ring, an elastic ring made of
rubber and, inserted through and around the elastic ring, a plastic
verification thread.
“Here,” said Mary, “Let's
go and sit on the sofa in the living room. My laptop has Wi-Fi. I will get PrePex up on the Internet and show you how it works.”
And that was exactly what
my boss did. You can check it out online for yourself if you wish,
dear reader. Particularly enlightening are some of the more explicit of the
clips on YouTube that show the actual surgical operation in great detail.
But for those of you who
cannot be arsed, here is a summary of the procedure:
1. The girth of the penis is measured with a sizing tool,
and a circumcision line is drawn around the stretched, doubled over foreskin
just below the glans with a surgical marking pen;
2. The cock is inserted through the placement ring and
the rubber ring so that they are positioned at its base;
3. The grooved inner ring is inserted under the foreskin
and around the cock shaft;
4. The elastic ring and the placement ring are aligned
over the grooved inner ring and around the circumcision line; then, when once
the necessary adjustments have been made to align the rubber ring with the
circumcision line, the verification thread is cut off and the placement ring is
taken off the rubber ring and removed from around the penis;
5. The skin is thus firmly clamped by the rubber ring
into the groove of the inner ring; this presses the inner and outer flesh of
the foreskin very tightly together to effect a circumcision by crushing;
6. A week later the flesh of the foreskin is dead and is
cut off without bloodshed by surgical shears;
7. The elastic ring is teased off with a scalpel and the
inner ring is pulled away with fingers or forceps. The result, claim the
manufacturers, is a neat, bloodless and hygienic circumcision.
Well, for your information
and convenience, dear reader, I have composed that verbal summary; but Mary did
not bother with all that. She went straight to the videos, which she watched
with great relish. As for me I viewed the footage with her and it made my face
wince and my eyes water.
“Ouch!” I exclaimed. “That
has just got to hurt. I bet those guys knew all about it. Afterwards they must
have been exquisitely raw and sore.”
“You bet,” replied Mary.
“I'll wager that none of them was up to any sexual hanky-panky for a few
weeks.” And she grinned, slyly and lasciviously.
Mary then went on to tell
me that the PrePex device had now been adopted by the
big international agencies that were engaged in the fight against Aids in
sub-Saharan Africa and that advertisements had appeared in the medical press
calling for volunteer doctors and nurses who were prepared to enter the dark
continent in order to train up the local nurses in the correct use of the
device.
“The beauty of it is,” she
added, “that it eliminates the need for qualified surgeons. Any
one can use it with a little training. The contracts are for limited 6
month periods and the pay is not very good. But I find the prospect of such
work interesting and I am thinking of applying. If we were to apply together
and express a strong preference to work together I think that we could both get
leave of absence from the practice and be sent out as a two girl team. What do
you say?”
It was then that the sheer
preposterousness of my
boss's proposal hit me.
“But Mary,” I cried. “What
you are suggesting is that we go out to Africa and chop off a lot of foreskins
from men's cocks. It all sounds a bit kinky to me.” And, in my semi-inebriated
state, I giggled again at the prospect.
“Yes. You are right. It is
kinky. And even kinkier is the fact that I would enjoy it. Annie, my father was
a bastard to me and when I was eighteen my fiancée deserted me a month before
our wedding day. I have had nothing but bad experiences from men. I hate them,
the lot of them. I would just love to take every uncircumcised man in the world
and cut off the end of his cock for him. It would serve the bastards right.”
Well, I was stunned by this
diatribe and I sat there for what seemed like several minutes, but was probably
a lot less, pondering over it. Then I burst into a broad grin.
“Hey, this may be painful,
but it's for their own good isn't it?”
“Oh yes! We will be
prolonging life and improving health. The proposal is fully in accord with the
Hippocratic oath. And, as a bonus, we will be hitting
the bastards right where it hurts. I am convinced by
the evidence that I have read up on this that the cutting off of around fifteen
square inches of foreskin, which is the amount routinely removed in most adult
circumcisions, deprives the cock of loads and loads of sensitive,
nerve-enriched tissue and takes away a very significant amount of sexual
pleasure.”
“Wow! I bet it does!” I
replied, and I burst out laughing at what, in my tipsy stupor, seemed to me to
be a sexy and amusing outcome for the victim.