All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISION or ERECTION?
Americans seem to be grossly underestimating the importance of Jordan Chandler’s big mistake - he described Michael as circumcised while in reality he was NOT. I racked my brains about “Why they don’t understand the crucial importance of it?” until I came across a medical site which explained that the overwhelming majority of American men were circumcised.
So this is the answer… Males (and females) in the US have practically never seen what non-circumcision is like and don’t know the difference. And probably think that the matter is as minor as the eyelashes just being longer than usual. No, dear me, it is much more than that… Let me explain.
- Is it possible to mistake someone with a scarf on the head for a person whose head is bare?
- Will you be able to still see the difference if the scarf is the same color as the hair?
- Well, if you can’t see it – will you still feel it if your hand touches it?
See what I mean?
The medical site I visited explains the difference in the following way (I know it is no pleasure to read it, but just imagine that Michael had to go through this for some 15 years of his life and it will make things easier for you):
“The fold of skin (the ‘foreskin’) covers the head (glans) of the penis. The amount of it may be so considerable that it may droop down from the end of an un-erect penis. Thus in some men, during erection, the head of the penis peeks out from the loose foreskin that surrounds it. But in men with a lot of foreskin the head of the penis remains covered, either partially or completely.
A questionnaire-based survey conducted in Sydney, Australia found that among men with a foreskin, in 67% the extra foreskin was hanging off the end, in 15% it just covered the glans, in another 15% it half covered the gland and in 4% of the glans was bare.
In the erect sate these numbers were 15% extra skin, 22% still covered, 32% half covered and 41% glans bare.
Racial differences exist. For example, in Malaysia, New Guinea, Sri Lanka and southern India the foreskin is very long and ends in a narrow extension that acts like a muzzle. A shorter foreskin is seen in Whites of the northern Mediterranean and many Asians (Chinese and Japanese).
In uncircumcised males the head of the penis is pink. This becomes more apparent when the head of the penis emerges during an erection, giving the overall penis a “two-toned” look”. http://www.circinfo.net/what_is_circumcision.html
Further detail is provided by a professional in medicine:
- “In Black males the color of the glans penis is lighter but more of a brown, not pink color. [With both White and Black males] the glans becomes darker following circumcision due to the keratization of the skin. The glans penis loses its natural lubrication and the skin becomes “toughened” because of this. When erect the foreskin does slide back to make the glans penis more visible. The foreskin slides back unwrinkled to approximately midshaft so it moves during intercourse to help stimulate the male and the female”.
Yes, the foreskin remains loose during erection and moves back and forth even in the erect state.
So non-circumcision is something totally different in color and texture, and in movement of the skin too? Impressive picture, isn’t it? Something which is impossible NOT to notice once you see it? Something to be NEVER forgotten after you see it? Especially by a boy who is probably circumcised himself and who is not used to seeing things like that, as his father is Jewish and is circumcised too?
Well, a woman who saw the non-circumcised man for the first time described her impressions this way:
- “The first time I ever touched an uncircumcised man I nearly jumped out of my skin. The only possible way you can mistake an uncircumcised erect penis for a circumcised one would be if you never saw it and never touched it… In other words if you’re lying!”
Yes, Jordan Chandler was LYING. He never saw the ‘real thing’ and made a GUESS about Michael Jackson’s private parts and his guess turned out to be WRONG.
This settles the matter once and for all, making all those Jordan’s horror stories about Michael an invention of someone’s perverse mind or the result of the schooling the boy got from his father, ‘adult’ books, magazines or films.
‘Wait, but can erection be taken for circumcision?’, some haters still doubt.
The answer is NO, unless the man has an erection 24 hours a day, has virtually no foreskin, it does not move (which is hard to imagine) and the color of his glans isn’t lighter and surface isn’t more tender than the rest of the skin. All of the above is simply impossible, so there may be only one answer to that – erection can never be taken for circumcision.
Oh, you don’t know what the surface of the glans looks like? Same as the inside of your mouth – this is what it’s like. Is the feel of the tender inner surface of it the same as on the outside of your cheek? NOW you see?
‘But could Michael have an operation to restore his foreskin when he was treated in Europe sometime between November 11 and December 20, 1993?’ the haters insist. Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, also thought along these lines and confiscated Michael’s medical records soon after Jordan spoke to the police. This is how Lisa D.Campbell describes it in her book “Michael Jackson: The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, 1994:
“On November 26, the Los Angeles Police Department raided the offices of Michael Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Klein, and his plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin. They hoped to compare information, or photos, contained in the files with the description of Michael’s body Jordan had given to police. They confiscated Michael’s medical records but did not reveal what they contained. But apparently they did not contain the information they were looking for as a warrant for a body search was obtained for Michael Jackson” (which took place on Dec.20, 1993).
In March 1994 (2 months after the financial settlement was reached) the criminal investigation was still going on.
“Katherine Jackson having been subpoenaed two days earlier, testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17. She was reportedly questioned about Michael’s appearance in an attempt to determine if Michael had altered his appearance so it wouldn’t match the description his accuser had given to police”.
Tom Sneddon evidently suspected that Michael had undergone cosmetic surgery while he was out of the country for four weeks in late November-December 1993 and that is why he later raised the question again by filing a motion in court to obtain Michael’s medical records – evidently the very latest ones. This was denied following the request of Michael’s lawyers who wanted to save him from further humiliation.
Well, today we can pass the final judgment on this issue – the Coroner’s report not only confirmed that Michael Jackson was not circumcised, but it said that the 13 various scars found on his body did not include any scar on his foreskin or whatever… He was just the way mother nature made him and that’s it.
Oh, and one more point.
District Attorney Tom Sneddon knew that the there was NO match – otherwise he wouldn’t have looked into the medical records to check whether Michael had undergone any surgical or bleaching changes, wouldn’t he?
* * *
UPDATED August 18, 2011
Almost a year and a half has passed since this post was written but some people are still thinking of various ways to explain why Jordan got the description so terribly wrong. Now they say that a non-circumcised man may retract his foreskin and will look like a circumcised one – and this is why Jordan made a mistake and took one for the other.
No way, guys.
First, it is next to impossible to keep the foreskin retracted all the time – it keeps sliding back due to the frenulum (frenulum is “elastic tissue under the glans that connects to the foreskin and helps to contract the foreskin over the glans”). In circumcised men the frenulum is usually cut.
Second, the frenulum per se is such a sight that those who have seen it once will never forget it. The faint-hearted are requested not to look at the photo provided by Wiki, however if you see it just once you’ll remember it forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis
Third, Jordan alleged that “he masturbated” MJ – but if this was the case he should have noticed the frenulum, the much tender texture of the penis head, the foreskin and the fact that on a non-circumcised penis the foreskin moves, even during erection.
The most decent illustration of the described process I have found is a medical animation provided below (over here you see screen shots from that medical site).
It explains that the only difference in the movement of foreskin between the usual and erect states is that the foreskin will not collect in wrinkles when penis is erect – but this is all there is to it.
Otherwise it looks and moves the same in either state.
For those who didn’t get it let me repeat – even in the erect state the foreskin will move anyway as nature has made males that way!
If you do not believe me please check up the animation on this medical site: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html
* * *
Now that you have seen the animation, please answer my question – could Jordan have overlooked all those details if he had really seen what he said he did?
And he alleged that he masturbated MJ (see the transcript of his interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6, 1993:
- But he had me masturbate him.”
- On how many occasions?”
- About ten.
And during those “ten times” he didn’t notice the foreskin and didn’t see it moving back and forth? As well as the extremely tender texture of the glans typical for all non-circumcised men? And even the frenulum didn’t make him wonder what it was and why he, a circumcised boy, was missing it?
Let us not be ridiculous, guys.
ALL THIS NONSENSE NEVER HAPPENED and this is why Jordan made such a terrible fool of himself.