Circumcision
May 20, 2005 5:47 AM   Subscribe

We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. "The prepuce of the male infant should be left in its natural state". Not everyone would agree with that. Ritual circumcision is found amongst many African peoples, but also elsewhere and is of considerable antiquity. Ashley Montagu wanted you to sign a petition against it. But what is it all about? A form of phallic worship? Or a snake divinity? Or just another form of body art? What discoveries did Ishmael make when Queequeg jumped into his bed?
posted by TimothyMason (129 comments total)
 
In another thread, in another time, I was told that if I wanted to talk about male genital mutilation, I should start my own thread. So here it is. Oh, and actually, that's not Queequeg. It's his son. Here's Queequeg himself.
posted by TimothyMason at 5:52 AM on May 20, 2005


Simple solution

1. it's a mutilation
2. done for religious purposes
3. scientific-grade proof of the benefit of the procedure is slim to none
4. negative effects are rarely even took in consideration
5. nobody asked the baby
6. not doing the procedure is not life threatening

So just stop the practice on the grounds that one can also choose to have circumcision later in his adult life and it's sometimes practiced as a medical solution to some medical problem whose name escapes me.

On a tangent: I'd be scared to death to be circumcised, something could start name-calling me a Jew, with predictable consequences in the not unlikely case some fascist government manages to go to power.
posted by elpapacito at 5:55 AM on May 20, 2005


And you have better sex, too. It's hard to compare though because usually there is usually no sex before they cut off the foreskin. My best friend had a circumcision at age 25 and complained that he really had to learn how to masturbate again. Masturbating without foreskin is no fun, according to him.
posted by kika at 5:58 AM on May 20, 2005


We recognize the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts. Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia.

comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation seems like a bit of a stretch...
posted by three blind mice at 5:58 AM on May 20, 2005


comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation seems like a bit of a stretch...

That's because we think of circumcision as a neat little surgical procedure carried out on a baby boy. T'aint always so; check out some of the other links.
posted by TimothyMason at 6:14 AM on May 20, 2005


i agree that circumcision is not always a neat, clean surgical procedure.

but to compare FGM to a bris seems absurd.
posted by three blind mice at 6:26 AM on May 20, 2005


I'd say the comparison is valid, it's simply a matter of degree. FGM is just much more frequently crippling (a non-trivial difference, certainly). Both involve the mutilation of genitals. How could you not compare them?
posted by mek at 6:41 AM on May 20, 2005


In *all* societies that practice FGM, male circumcision is also practiced. In such societies, the mode of operation is usually far more drastic than it is in the Jewish ceremony. It is carried out on adolescents, the skin is sometimes stripped back to the scrotum, and it may be accompanied by such ritual practices as head biting. At the same time, loud and frightening sounds are made with raucous trumpets or the bull-roarer, and the initiate is lead to believe that this is the voice of God, and that he will be destroyed if he is flinches or disobeys in any way.
posted by TimothyMason at 6:41 AM on May 20, 2005


Or emulation of psilocybe mushrooms?

"Perhaps the answer is that the circumcised penis bears a remarkable resemblance to psilocybe mushroom just be- fore the partial veil has broken away from the mushroom caps and they are at their greatest potency. If the Ark of the Covenant was specifically built to store manna it is logical was also tied to manna through the ritual act of circumcision, which gave each Jewish male his own mushroom-like penis."

When I was looking for that I also came across this interesting article on circumcision in Hungary. There it's generally only done when medically required so it was interesting to see their take on it. I thought it was especially interesting that most of the full-grown adults didn't really find it painful. It's on a pro-circumcision site, so keep in mind there's obviously some bias.
posted by nTeleKy at 6:45 AM on May 20, 2005


We found out our kid is a boy (if the tech was right) and decided we're not doing it. As I told my husband, if my son thinks it is ruining his life because he gets mocked in the locker room, I would certainly consider letting him get the surgery at that point. But it would be his choice. This seems an unlikely event to me, but I'm a girl, and I never had to shower with other people at school, so there you go. (really, you guys should do something about that whole showering thing instead of just mutiliating yourselves to get along...but I digress).

The mockery-in-the-locker-room argument, by the way, is the only argument I consistently hear from pro-circumcision men. Oh, and worry that the kid will somehow be scarred for not looking exactly like his dad in that respect. But not even doctors make much of a medical argument for it anymore. Why put a baby through unnecessary pain?
posted by emjaybee at 6:58 AM on May 20, 2005


Or emulation of psilocybe mushrooms?

Which iincites me to mull over the relationship between snakes, mushrooms, penises and rats.
posted by TimothyMason at 7:05 AM on May 20, 2005


Oops - only one 'i' there. BTW, although some of the sites I linked to are very much anti, I personally am neutral over circumcision on baby boys. But I do enjoy having a foreskin.
posted by TimothyMason at 7:09 AM on May 20, 2005


Standard boring male circumcision is well within that range of things that societies let people choose for their children as basic tribal/ethnic/whatever markers. Parents can get their kids ears pierced, get their kids tattooed in some relevant way, have decorative scarification performed on their children, bring their children up to be Catholics or NASCAR fans, or circumsize their boys. I imagine that if you look hard enough, you will find children who have died or suffered great harm from any of these things. I might not like most of those things, but the line at which we say that the state should step in and forcibly prevent them ought to be beyond things that make me a little uncomfortable, or things that I wouldn't do with my own kid.

Female genital mutilation is unlike those in that -- among other reasons -- it is not a simple tribal or ethnic marker. It is an important part of a larger system of the oppression of women and so deserves to be stamped out as any systematic oppression so deserves.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:13 AM on May 20, 2005


I don't disagree that it's debatable whether or not you should have the docs circumsize your offspring.

However, one point speaking generally, if you're going to suspend religious indoctrination until the child reaches an age of moral reason, you are going to end most religion as we have it.
posted by nervousfritz at 7:18 AM on May 20, 2005


Here's an intresting trends: urologists with a sideline as mohels. It's the rage in LA and there's at least one on Long Island, too.
posted by MattD at 7:23 AM on May 20, 2005


comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation seems like a bit of a stretch...

Were they being compared or were they being categorised together. Co-categorisation seems valid to me, they're all to do with genital mutilation. For example you could categorise the amputation of a finger with the loss of an arm even though one is clearly more severe and debilitating than the other.
posted by biffa at 7:24 AM on May 20, 2005


I was circumcized as a baby and nobody asked me.
Now I am emotionally scarred for life and I harbor a hatred towards Jews, doctors, my parents and society for changing my penis.
/sarcasm

You people are too sensitive. Get over yourselves.
posted by Tlahtolli at 7:42 AM on May 20, 2005


as a neat little surgical procedure carried out on a baby boy.
Wrong, no knife involved today.
This subject has been axed out many times on the site.
I can't believe the labeling this thread’s is giving.
So a Jew is bad?
How ever you like your dick, keep in your pants please.
Also can I ask the women to keep their comment to themselves since it does not involve them?
posted by thomcatspike at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2005


You don't need a knife to do surgery. And what is your problem with people talking about things that don't concern them? Could be a definition of MeFi.
posted by TimothyMason at 7:57 AM on May 20, 2005


I have never heard the "locker-room argument" for or against circumcision. Based on my own experience, teenage boys resolutely try to avoid looking at each others' penises, lest they be accused of the gay.
posted by adamrice at 8:00 AM on May 20, 2005


kind of a compromise with the eunuchs: keep your genitals but don't enjoy them too much
posted by foraneagle2 at 8:04 AM on May 20, 2005


thomcatspike, that entry was an exercise in incoherence. So excuse me if I don't take your advice to not discuss it because I'm a woman. By that standard, no guy here gets to talk about FGM either.

And if it concerns a medical procedure performed on my kid, it concerns me. So stuff it.
posted by emjaybee at 8:05 AM on May 20, 2005


Can anyone provide a scientifically valid reason for slicing off perfectly healthy flesh?

No?

Good. End of bloody discussion, outlaw the practice, move on.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:07 AM on May 20, 2005


outlaw dirtynumbangelboy!
posted by foraneagle2 at 8:20 AM on May 20, 2005


Metafilter: End of bloody discussion
posted by Tlahtolli at 8:29 AM on May 20, 2005


comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation seems like a bit of a stretch..

To be honest, in some cultures female circumcision is not very invasive at all. Just a bit of the clitoral hood is taken away.

I think uncercumsized wangs look wierd, but certanly an adult can chose to have the opperation done whenevery they like.
posted by delmoi at 8:35 AM on May 20, 2005


Female genital mutilation is unlike those in that -- among other reasons -- it is not a simple tribal or ethnic marker. It is an important part of a larger system of the oppression of women and so deserves to be stamped out as any systematic oppression so deserves.

shazam, ROU_ Xenophobe. that's what i was driving at, but could not quite find the words.

if the roles were reversed, you can bet that a lot more than just the foreskin would get cut off.
posted by three blind mice at 8:39 AM on May 20, 2005


It's mutilation. What these idiots who can't get by wthout their imaginery friend in the sky forget is that the glans is an internal organ.

How long do you think your tongue would function properly if you removed your lips?

If it's mutilation for girls, then it is for boys. Once you reach the age of maturity, then cut off whatever the hell you like but to do this to children on any grounds other than medical is quite simply fucking barbaric.
posted by jackiemcghee at 8:55 AM on May 20, 2005


I had to get it done two years ago to correct a condition called phimosis. Not a lot of fun, but medically necessary. It was shocking the number of people who shook their heads in disbelief, even after I explained that it was a necessary procedure. The stigma against it is that strong. I even had an ex phone me multiple times to try to convince me not to do it, completely ignoring what I said about the painful condition the procedure was correcting.

Dirtynumbangelboy, sweeping generalizations are usually a bad idea.
posted by jon_kill at 8:56 AM on May 20, 2005


I think that the issue of male circumcision is one that women have a need to be educated about and a discussion that needs to happen with women present. It is not only the father's decision whether or not circumcise a male child - the mother is involved as well.

Any woman who plans on having children faces a good chance of having a boy. In that case the choice of circumcision is presented. It's not a choice that should be made blindly and I imagine that most women without prior knowledge of the subject would just go along with what their doctor says. To say that women shouldn't be involved in a discussion and thereby implying that should make less informed decisions about their children's wellbeing is absurd.

I've had the circumcision discussion with my husband several times - here in Iceland, it's the norm to leave the penis alone. He's very adamant that he would not want his child undergoing an unnecessary procedure to alter his genital appearance and I respect his wishes as I figure he knows more about the penis than I do. On the other hand, I'm of Jewish ancestry and may want to bring my children up in the Jewish faith. On that front, I feel like it would be easier if a son of mine were circumcised, but I feel like that should be a choice he makes for himself. Not all Jewish communities require it these days, though it is definitely still the norm.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:57 AM on May 20, 2005


Never said, women can't comment; only asked, as I've had to read it here too. talking about things that don't concern them.
Also, I believe in equal opportunity; equal at making you feel like me. Again, the subject been talked on.

If I was asked; after childbirth, where on an infant boy’s body can your touch cause pain or discomfort? I'd answer, the tummy area where the umbilical chord’s scab is located. The time line would be up until it falls off and reveals the child’s “belly button.”
My answer is from me changing my brothers’ diapers while infants in 78 & 81. They also were not fully circumcised as the plastic ring, which surrounds the foreskin and slowly cuts the skin off, was still capped on their penis.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:00 AM on May 20, 2005


Personally, I feel that the people blaming their current state of unhappiness or failure to succeed on the fact that mom and pop removed their foreskin as a kid would probably be blaming their failure to be happy and successful on something else, if they currently had foreskin. Harboring deep-seated hatred towards Dad for getting the kid cut makes me think the kid has deeper issues with Dad that he is unwilling to acknowledge.

I don't have mine, I don't remember having it, and consequently I don't miss it. My wife certainly is happy that it isn't there; she thinks wangs look weird enough as it is without the turtleneck. We have sex just fine. If you've had a foreskin removed after you've been sexually active, hey, I can see how that would make things different. If we have a boy, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't get him circumcised as well. If you don't want to do that to your kid, fine. Your choice. As a parent, you make lots of choices on behalf of your kid.

Nobody's going to be able to outlaw male circumcision as long as there are Jews though. It's a big deal. (see above links.) You tell them no bris, they'll go ahead and have a secret bris, just because they are going to do it no matter what. It would be like telling Catholics they couldn't eat the little Jesus wafer at mass. That pact with God is going to be kept, it's a part of the religion.

FGM on the other hand, you can outlaw that shit right now. The only direct comparison between FGM and circumcision of a boy would be if circumcision meant removing the penis and scrotum entirely, somehow leaving only the physical ability to ejaculate but no capacity to enjoy the act of doing so. That's what removing the clitoris and labia does. There's no way anyone can argue for a practice like that.
posted by caution live frogs at 9:04 AM on May 20, 2005


tbm, you are being extremely obtuse for someone whose tails have been amputated by a woman. So I'll lay it out as clearly as I can. If you will look at the links, you will discover that FGM and MGM are the same kind of thingie, that they complement one another. If we sound off about the one, we need to sound off about the other, for they are closely linked. If you want to abolish FGM, then the most efficacious way of doing so would be find ways of prising marriage markets out of the hands of the elders. And that is a large-scale and risky undertaking, for it may put the totality of their social arrangements at risk. How do you do it?
posted by TimothyMason at 9:09 AM on May 20, 2005


The entire idea of performing irreversible elective procedures on infants is distasteful to me. Perhaps it's because I am entirely uninterested in reproducing, but I can't fathom the mindset that parents have where they think it's their place to make these decisions for their children. Whether or not the loss of sexual sensation is significant, etc., aren't terribly relevant to me; my body is nobody's business but mine, period. It's as though a parent had decided to give his kid a nose job.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:09 AM on May 20, 2005


My first sentence above was replying back to the poster.
Funny, it's ok to pierce but not ok to cut. Is this because cut brings to mind "lose, shorting, ect."
posted by thomcatspike at 9:09 AM on May 20, 2005


This site makes sound arguments not to make the choice for your kids, but I'm not convinced that the state should clamp down on a low-risk religious practice (akin to tatooing, thanks ROU_X).

emjaybee : that entry was an exercise in incoherence. So excuse me if I don't take your advice to not discuss it because I'm a woman. By that standard, no guy here gets to talk about FGM either.

Thomcatspike's comment sounds like a bitterness from past episodes of this. In any case, I personally welcome comments from the XX crowd on this subject. I'll bet a lot of adult men are uncomfortable with uncircumsized penii because of what the ladies might think of them.

emjaybee: What do women at public gyms / swimming pools do if not shower together? Do you change and wash in individual cubicles? < /offtopic>
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:13 AM on May 20, 2005


Your link pancakes your post.
Though early circumcision will prevent penile cancer, there is reason to suppose that keeping the prepuce clean would have a like effect in preventing this disease.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:14 AM on May 20, 2005


Thomcatspike's comment sounds like a bitterness from past episodes of this.
No all the racial comments this thread trolled; I'm better in bed, you are a Jew...
This thread is trying to bridge equality, like I said above; I believe you should feel like me when you comment.
No, I'm not a Jew, nor are you me while having sex.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:21 AM on May 20, 2005


Yeah, that was WAY more clear.
posted by agregoli at 9:35 AM on May 20, 2005


< i had to get it done two years ago to correct a condition called phimosis. not a lot of fun, but medically necessary.>>

Actually, your doctor misinformed you. Unless your case is incredibly severe, the gold standard of phimosis treatment involves cortisone and stretching, not circumcision.


< dirtynumbangelboy, sweeping generalizations are usually a bad idea.>>

Notice that I said healthy flesh.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:37 AM on May 20, 2005


Is thomcatspike actually Zippy?
posted by Scoo at 9:39 AM on May 20, 2005


"You people are too sensitive. Get over yourselves."

Maybe this is the point of circumcision. It desensitizes people. There's a tendency at some level, perhaps even subconsciously, to think, hey, I had my foreskin chopped off - what are these whinging torture victims snivelling about?

It seems likely that the reason so many militaristic societies practice circumcision has something to do with this. It probably produces more brutal troops.

In Europe, men are circumsised far more rarely than in the US. Could this explain the political sensitivity gap, as wide as the Atlantic and as personal as a foreskin?

I'm a lefty, liberal, peace-loving, sensitive, non-circumcised kind of guy, myself. I wonder if there's any correlation between circumcision and voting for Bush?

And in terms of female circumcision, hell, have you seen those women who've had it done and want it done to their daughters too? Sensitive they surely ain't!
posted by cleardawn at 9:41 AM on May 20, 2005


So as I'm reading, I'm thinking penises? Penii? Peni? What is the plural of penis? I was not expecting a multi-page answer. (Penises or Penes is preferred)
posted by nTeleKy at 9:41 AM on May 20, 2005


1) Not all forms of FGC are the same. The practices range from symbolic cutting or light scarification to the most severe forms that include infibulation. There are clearly forms which are a) less severe, b) very similar, or c) exactly analagous to male circumcision. Making claims that FGC is always worse risks undermining the credibility of activists trying to change FGC in places where it is actually similar to circumcision.

2) Not all forms of male genital cutting are the same. I am not entirely clear on how taking a teenage boy and cutting his penis with a stone tool / pair of scissors / rusty blade etc. is of significantly less of concern than cutting a teenage girl's genitals with one of these implements. Many of the same health concerns apply, particularly about shock from the pain, and about the transmission of blood diseases. The context after the ritual may be different, but that doesn't make the cutting uncomparable.

3) Many African's (men and women) have the same reaction to claims that FGC is bad that caution live frogs has to the idea that American-style male circumcision is bad. Recognizing that the procedures are linked is an opportunity to understand something about how such procedures can come to be seen as "normal." Rather than freak out at comparing male and female circumcision, we can use it as an opportunity to examine what kind of arguments against it make sense and what kind don't. What kind of discussion about male circumcision is offensive and what isn't? From this we can start to learn about ways to approach positive change for all genital surgeries that will actually work.
posted by carmen at 9:44 AM on May 20, 2005


Both male and female genital mutilation is of course a concern. I think that female genital mutilation is often a deeper concern for people because of the oppression and sexist problems that the practice comes from.

In these kinds of cultures that practice primitive male genital mutilation, do most of them render the male's genitals useless or painful in sexual experiences afterwards? Because most female genital mutilation does exactly that. I'm not refuting it could happen, I'm genuinely asking.
posted by agregoli at 9:50 AM on May 20, 2005


Metafilter: No, I'm not a Jew, nor are you me while having sex.
posted by billybunny at 9:55 AM on May 20, 2005


So, cleardawn has provided the kind of argument against male circumcision that is probably pretty offensive to most. He's made several sweeping generalizations about Americans as individuals who condone torture, are overly militaristic, and are insensitive to the needs of their fellow citizens and children. These are the kinds of offensive stereotypes that do not help people feel like there is something wrong with their traditions. Plenty of circumcisized men on this forum are going to feel that they do not fit into any of these generalizations and that even if they did circumcision would have nothing to do with it. This is the kind of argument that could potentially galvanize support for circumcision as something which is "our American right."

These are the same problems the "that's barbaric, how can African parents abuse their children like that, all FGC is about oppressing women" stereotypes and arguments have for Africans.
posted by carmen at 9:57 AM on May 20, 2005


Can anyone provide a scientifically valid reason for slicing off perfectly healthy flesh? No? Good. End of bloody discussion, outlaw the practice, move on.

Outlaw tattoos and piercings while you're at it.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:59 AM on May 20, 2005


At first I thought it said, "We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an insect body."

I was like, no way! Gross! Although pincers would be kind of cool.
posted by jenovus at 10:02 AM on May 20, 2005


There's an enormous difference, pentafish, between removal of healthy flesh without consent, and that which we choose to do ourselves.

Further, piercing doesn't remove flesh nor damage sexual function (except in misplaced clitoral piercings, I'll grant). In fact, genital piercing often enhances the sexual experience for all concerned.

Point being, not a good comparison. Tattooing isn't even in the same ballpark as circumcision.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:12 AM on May 20, 2005


This procedure will become way less common when insurance companies stop covering it.

When my son was born I was opposed to circumcision on the grounds that that's no way to start off a relationship with somebody. My husband was more swayed by the "he'll get made fun of in the locker rm" argument, so we investigated our options when my son was 3 days old.

Three hundred bucks!!!

That's what it would have cost us to do, since we'd already left the hospital. But insurance would have covered it had we done it there.

I just have to wonder why this procedure is covered at all, considering what cheapskate bastards most insurance companies are when determining "medical necessity" for other things. Maybe there's a discount for doing it right after the birth... but considering the $20 ibuprofen that showed up on the bill, I kinda doubt it.
posted by selfmedicating at 10:18 AM on May 20, 2005


If baby boys were meant to have foreskins, they'd be born with them.


We decided not to circumcise our baby last year when we found out:
* In America the practice was driven by those who wanted to stop boys from masturbating (wtf?)
* The foreskin contains 80% of the penis' skin system, therefore many of its nerves for feeling pleasure/pain
* At birth, the foreskin isn't loose, but is attached to the glans in the same way your fingernail is attached


quote:
the line at which we say that the state should step in and forcibly prevent them ought to be beyond things that make me a little uncomfortable, or things that I wouldn't do with my own kid.

I don't classify the barbarism of male circumcision as something that "makes me a little uncomfortable". I respect a baby's right to be treated humanely, and circumcision does not fit that bill.
posted by iwearredsocks at 10:21 AM on May 20, 2005



the line at which we say that the state should step in and forcibly prevent them ought to be beyond things that make me a little uncomfortable, or things that I wouldn't do with my own kid.

We need a law to end what is not enforced?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:36 AM on May 20, 2005


cleardawn, really, now. Your comparison, hypothesis, and argument makes very little sense at all. The lack of logic in it offends me.

Look, I consider myself a lefty as well. Additionally, I am totally against male and female circumcision. For boys in the United States (where I am from) I think it is a foul, unneccesary, distasteful, and ignorant practice. How I feel about Jews/others, and female genital mutilation is for another argument (i'm against those, too, btw).

But for you to speculate that us Americans are evil and that Europeans are enlightened because we generally circumsize and they generally do not is why people on the right can so easily make our side look like idiots and ridiculous airy-fairy fools. I'm on the left and I'm telling you that it's your kind that make us look stupid. I'm telling you in the same way that I would tell a friend of mine at a bar or night out or whatever that his fly was down or that he smells horrible.

I will do my best to not make a particular chatroom law appear, but did you ever consider that soldiers of a particularly brutal European army in the late 1930's and early 1940's weren't circumsized? Have you ever watched a movie called "Europa Europa"?

I think we can easily establish that circumsision has little to do with the potential for brutality of a group of men. Men have the same potential for savagery or kindness regardless of how their dick is served. Of course, size issues are probably another matter.

Your final comment about mothers being the ones who are in charge of mutilating the genitals of their daughters is so correct. It's something I wanted to point out to caution live frogs. Thanks for mentioning it.

As far as politics go, look, man, are you happy that you're American? Do you protest what the other side does because you like to destructively complain or do you do it because you believe that this country can be made better than it currently is? Keep the circumcision and contemporary American politics apart. It weakens the argument against circumcision and it makes us Progressives look crazy.
posted by redteam at 10:41 AM on May 20, 2005


I think where much of the anti-circumcision sentiment comes from is resentment over the "getting made fun of in the locker room" thing. Why is it that people think the normal penis is weird-looking?
posted by jimmy76 at 10:48 AM on May 20, 2005


Your final comment about mothers being the ones who are in charge of mutilating the genitals of their daughters is so correct. It's something I wanted to point out to caution live frogs. Thanks for mentioning it.

Sure, and that's important, inasmuch as the mothers are in charge and perform these horrible actions because their mothers did, and so did their mothers, ad infinitum.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:48 AM on May 20, 2005


thomcatspike: Also can I ask the women to keep their comment to themselves since it does not involve them?

Yep...when men stop talking about boobs.

Until then...not so much. For you see, women give birth. About half the time, we give birth to boys...thus, it's an issue that we (being women) get to try to understand, view and consider. (Also, who doesn't like to just take a minute now and then to consider the penis?)

That said, we didn't circumcise my son. I'm more than willing to pay for it if he wants it done as an adult, or even as a late teenager...but I didn't feel like I had the right to modify another human, especially since the only reason for gentiles (for lack of a better term for non-jewish, non-muslim) to do it would be for aesthetics.

I wouldn't have a baby tattooed green because it might be pretty, so why would I cut off bits of his weenie because some people think it's prettier that way? Bleh.

Which brings me to the points raised about other body modifications like piercings and tattoos. It's an absurd argument to compare them, unless you can show me some study that shows the vast amount of American parents are taking their newborns in for tattoos or genital piercings.

Granted, I've seen some babies with pierced ears...and I find it problematic. But I've never seen a tattooed Western baby. I've seen lots and lots of circumcised babies.

The issue here, as I see it, is consent. My ethics/beliefs are such that I cannot imagine thinking that I had the right to permanently physically alter another being without their permission, unless it were a life or death situation. Locker room comparisons of Johnsons are hardly life and death...no matter how traumatic your teen phys-ed class was.
posted by dejah420 at 10:53 AM on May 20, 2005


Circumcising males is usually unnecessary but seldom fatal, nor does it often lead to marked disability. The "solution" would be to require it to be performed only on consenting adults unless doctors determine it's medically necessary, such as in cases of cancer or where phimosis is extreme and not otherwise correctable.

Mutilating females' genitals, on the other hand, is just WRONG, and I think it should never be done except where necessary to save her life. Nevertheless, women being as weird as men, I don't think a grown adult mentally competent woman should be forbidden the operation if she can persuade a team of doctors (including probably headshrinkers) that she really really really knows what's involved and what the result of the procedure would be.

And genital piercing is silly.

As far as what "we" should DO about all this, I don't know.
posted by davy at 10:56 AM on May 20, 2005


Popular Ethics: In any case, I personally welcome comments from the XX crowd on this subject. I'll bet a lot of adult men are uncomfortable with uncircumsized penii because of what the ladies might think of them.

As a lady, I think uncircumcized penises are awesome. I mean, all penises look weird and that little bit of skin doesn't change that. Also (TMI alert), the foreskin makes it easier to play with the penis because it's easier to rub it over the glans and it makes more comfortable friction than your hand directly on the glans or shaft.

What do women at public gyms / swimming pools do if not shower together? Do you change and wash in individual cubicles? < /offtopic>

Some pools have individual showers for women even when they don't for men. Weird, but there you have it. Sometimes they have changing cubes too. Also, at my gym, lots of women do the get dressed under the towel thing. I find that really weird, but I don't really have nakedness issues.
posted by dame at 10:59 AM on May 20, 2005


What dejah said.

The get dressed under the towel thing is so weird. And the pool thing reminded me: dame, how's the shoudler?
posted by Specklet at 11:03 AM on May 20, 2005


Granted, I've seen some babies with pierced ears...and I find it problematic.

There is actually a good reason to do that early: the holes are more likely to stay open. The ones I got when I was a baby will be there whenever I want to stick earrings in, even if it's only every five years. The ones I got when I was an adult closed up after a few months of standing empty. Since the worst result of that is small holes you might not like, I don't really see the problem.
posted by dame at 11:05 AM on May 20, 2005


When do we ban earrings for children? Can anybody give me a legitimate reason to poke holes in a child's earlobes?
Should we ban this practice? I personally don't think its anybody place to ban this kind of thing. If you don't like the way peoples culture has them behaving take over the country and force them to stop. The government doesn't think you should be unnecessarily mutilated and the ministry of personal modification will decide when these things are allowed.
posted by Megafly at 11:05 AM on May 20, 2005


There are slightly increased risks for UTIs in uncut infants, and HPV and other STD infections in uncircumcised men, and also a slightly increased risk of a partner getting cervical cancer if her uncircumcised lover has multiple sex partners. A big study was done in 2002. The AAP stopped recommending it in 1999. (lots of links here to back this stuff up)

and what carmen said about cleardawn's comments--way over the line and baseless.

And comparing it to mutilation of a clitoris is just not true. Cutting off skin that covers something is not the same as cutting off the thing itself. You'd have to compare it to a labia operation.

It is tribal and barbaric--and that's why fewer American parents are automatically opting for it (unless it's for religious or health reasons). I know a 2-year-old whose parents didn't do it when he was an infant, and he's had repeated UTIs since and so now they're having it done.

Being a good Jewish boy, it was done to me--and since i don't know what i'm missing, sensitivity-wise, i don't care. I've seen 2 of my nephews have it done--all us guys in the room instinctively covered ourselves.
posted by amberglow at 11:06 AM on May 20, 2005


Also, jimmy76, I don't understand what kind of situation people are afraid of. Do you ever remember guys comparing dicks in a school locker room ... EVER?

Like adamrice said, no guy in a locker room would ever admit they ever saw a guy's dick in a locker room lest they be accused of being a gay.

Hell, even if you had a huge dick, and that's generally considered a good quality among males, no one in a locker room would ever go "Duuuuude, your dick is huge, that's cool! Hey guys, look! doesn't Steve have a huge dick?" "Oh wooooow!"

Also, let me put in my personal experience. I am an uncircumsized Argentine-American. No one ever said anything about my dick in a locker room. Whatever observations that might have been made in a locker room were never shared among others. Even when I was a puny braces-having dorky glasses sweat pants-wearing nerd and people made fun of me daily no one took the opportunity to make fun of my cock.

If you're circumsized, you likely don't feel bad about it. You've never known any different. That's fine. If I were to tell you that I'm sorry that it happened to you, your first thought would probably be "fuck you, don't feel sorry for me you asshole". But why would you let it be done to your kids? Just because it was done to you? Without your consent? Because long ago some prominent quack (Kellogg) thought it would iradicate masturbation among boys? Maybe you justify it because you think it's cleaner or that having a foreskin causes cancer? The cancer claim is disproven. The claims I know of were either proved to be false because of faulty research (in the case where chlamydia was the actual cause of higher cancer rates) or because the guys studied had nasty, dirty cocks. Think about it, would we have foreskins at birth if they were bad for us? Do you think that they're like the safety seal on a new bottle of medicine ... something to be torn off and thrown in the trash?

selfmedicating is right, it's a bad way to begin a relationship with your child. It's a bad thing to do without a very, very good reason period.
posted by redteam at 11:08 AM on May 20, 2005


amberglow, the cervical cancer/circumcision link has been disproven. I spoke to a professor at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) at length about this and he said that the link was based on flawed research. HPV (not Chlamydia, like I mistakenly said in my last post) is the culprit.

For example:
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Dec/vol49-dec-letters-4.asp

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2755

The only research currently accepted that supports your argument is that apparently people with foreskin are slightly more likely to get HPV (which most people get in one way or another anyway). Still, hardly a reason to mutilate a child's genitals. The child will probably grow up eating beef and smoking anyway, might as well cut off his head at birth. Forgive me, folks, for the previous sentence's little outburst, but I couldn't resist.
posted by redteam at 11:20 AM on May 20, 2005


I don't classify the barbarism of male circumcision as something that "makes me a little uncomfortable". I respect a baby's right to be treated humanely, and circumcision does not fit that bill.

It doesn't seem obviously worse to me than decorative scarification, which seems to be pretty common in some cultures -- it's a very minor surgical procedure with minimal but nonzero risk of complications if done aseptically, for basically cultural-identity reasons. If someone wanted to put minor decorative scars on their kid in the US out of cultural allegiance to the old country, I'd think that was weird, and I wouldn't really like it, but I wouldn't think it should be illegal.

If pushed, I suppose I'd draw a line at things done to a child out of some manner of malice.

I cannot imagine thinking that I had the right to permanently physically alter another being without their permission, unless it were a life or death situation.

Really, I think circumcision pales in comparison to all of the other decisions you're going to consent to for your child. Consenting to your child being circumsized is small potatoes compared to the consent you give for your child to be inculturated into a particular faith, or lack thereof, or the consent you give for your child to a particular program of education, or inculturating your child into some set of worldviews that are likely to harm the kid's prospects for happiness in life, or other similar stuff. Compared to your power to psychically or psychologically permanently alter your child and his/her developmental trajectory, cutting off a small flap of skin just doesn't register.

Not that there's any great reason to do it, but it's minor enough that it really does seem an odd thing for people to get so up-in-arms about.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:23 AM on May 20, 2005


I love my foreskin.

This issue is a contentious one for my gf and I. Despite being a mostly secular jew she insists on circumcision. This issue might even be a dealbreaker...as i would decide to not have children, rather than chance that we would have a boy.
posted by schyler523 at 11:26 AM on May 20, 2005


Wow. In middle school, we all had a pretty good idea of who was hangin' what, and who had pubes and etc. Maybe we didn't talk about it directly in front of them, but it was generally known and none of us felt "gay" about it. Just lookin' at another dude's cock doesn't make me gay. Wanting to have it in me would.
And Jesus fuck, so far we've had circumcision called "barbarism" and held as a cause of prisoner torture? Can you fucking hear yourselfs? The reason you get this done as a kid is because it heals really quickly (compared to doing it as an adult). Same reason that if you're getting your tonsils out, they come out when you're young. There are health benefits, there are aesthetic benefits, but it's pretty much the call of any parent involved to try to do what they think is best for their kid. If this is all you have to crusade over, you need to read the news more often. You know, where real crimes are happening.
And the comparison to female genital mutilation? Jesus Christ. My letter opener looks like a sword, but one's for killing and one's for avoiding paper cuts. If boys getting circumcized truly gets your knickers in a twist, you might want to remember that not everything in life has to do with your dick. And folks, I can jerk off pretty damned well without a foreskin (and from discussions with more than a couple of women who have sucked my dick, that's more likely to happen without a foreskin. Handjobs may be better with one, but I'll take oral over manual any day.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:40 AM on May 20, 2005


Hmm, it doesn't take much work to turn up studies supporting the claim that circumcision does have health benefits. Furthermore, the claim that circumcision damages sensation doesn't appear to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
posted by Goedel at 11:47 AM on May 20, 2005


klangklang, mutilating and removing perfectly healthy flesh is pretty much the definition of barbaric.

The so-called health benefits are negligible. The link to cervical cancer has already been disproven. And normal showering takes care of hygiene. There's the penile cancer argument, but if one wants to go by statistics, it makes more sense to remove the tongue to prevent tongue cancer.

As to aesthetic benefits... those are entirely subjective. And the aesthetic appeal of circumcision is largely due to the prevalence of circumcision. Circular argument.

The issue, klangklang, is that of consent. A baby cannot consent to having an integral part of his anatomy removed. And I don't think, unless there are severe and pressing medical concerns for which there are no other treatments available, that anyone can or should be able to consent on the child's behalf.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:48 AM on May 20, 2005


I'm Jewish. If I ever have a son, I'm not having him circumcised. If it turns out to be important enough to him, he can make that decision for himself, as an adult.

And, to whomever said -

"However, one point speaking generally, if you're going to suspend religious indoctrination until the child reaches an age of moral reason, you are going to end most religion as we have it."

Well ... good.
posted by kyrademon at 11:53 AM on May 20, 2005


Handjobs may be better with one, but I'll take oral over manual any day.

Uhh, you use your hands during oral sex too. Or at least I do. And some girls may prefer it one way, but to help out Popular Ethics, I'd like to point out that the reverse is also true. It's more fun when there's more to play with, says I.

Just a tricep strain, Specklet. Take it easy, ice it, get a massage. Hooray!
posted by dame at 11:54 AM on May 20, 2005


ROU_Xenophobe -

In theory, when a child grows up, they can choose to go against or add to their schooling, culture, or faith.

It is considerably more difficult to grow your foreskin back.
posted by kyrademon at 12:06 PM on May 20, 2005


I don't understand what kind of situation people are afraid of. Do you ever remember guys comparing dicks in a school locker room ... EVER?

No, you're right, but I remember being confused why so many kids walked around with their dicks unsheathed (put that thing away already!) before I realized they had had their sheath removed at birth.

I think the fear is simply that of being different. To which I respond by suggesting that if anyone should worry about being different, it is the circumcised guys. After all, they're the ones who are "unnatural".
posted by jimmy76 at 12:14 PM on May 20, 2005


It has been a question of mine for a while -- as I have never noticed any sensation issues, and haven't been called out for being premature nor excessively delayed (until a lowerback injury cut off a lot of sensitivity, but that's neither here nor there) -- it is known that children up until the age of two are growing neurons and nerve pathways, and signficant neural damage is often reversed during this time.

If the foreskin has all these nerve endings, does the body compensate if an infant is circumcised? I can state without question that the scar line I have is incredibly sensitive...

Oh, and to anyone who claims this is irreversable -- there are tons of sites about a rather simple use of weights and stretching to recreate the foreskin. I presume that the sensitivity issues gets addressed in there somewhere, but I'm at work and don't want to trigger any content alerts....
posted by dwivian at 12:18 PM on May 20, 2005


Except that it doesn't actually recreate the foreskin. The foreskin has a different makeup than the rest of the skin on the shaft of the penis, which is what gets stretched.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:42 PM on May 20, 2005


Dirtynumb: Except that it's your subjective call that it's mutilation. And children don't have to consent to everything the parents want done. In fact, that's kind of why they're not, you know, given full rights of consent. (Children also get sixth fingers and vestigial tails removed. I assume that you regard that as barbaric mutilation as well, correct?)
And frankly, despite your bloviated protestations, I still call bullshit on the "integral" point. My cock works just fine without a foreskin. If yours doesn't, perhaps you just never learned how to use it correctly.
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on May 20, 2005


Dirtynumbangelboy: What makes it different? The nerve endings? If that's it, then the potential recovery of those by infants dismisses your point. Are there other qualities of the foreskin beyond it being ... well... .skin?
posted by dwivian at 1:03 PM on May 20, 2005


The way I see it, many parents in the U.S. do not even give the decision on whether to circumcise or not much thought, if they give it any at all. I'm sure that was the case when my parents had it done to me.

I'm not bitter about it, but I felt it was time to break the cycle when my son came along. redteam hit the nail on the head (as it were) when he pointed out that the comparison of penises in the locker room just isn't an issue. As for "looking like Daddy", well he is a different person. We are not going to look exactly alike anyway. And when he did finally notice this particular difference, he did not have any problem understanding the explanation. (Although he did cringe a bit when I explained what had been done to me.)
posted by mach at 1:15 PM on May 20, 2005


mu·ti·late P Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Courtesy of dictionary.com.


You do have a point, klangklang, that children don't have to consent. I would hazard, however, that there's a difference between 'eat your vegetables now' and 'I'm going to cut off a perfectly normal and healthy and functional part of your body'.

Your cock may work fine without a foreskin. I still, thank God, have mine... and I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that your cock does not work the way it was supposed to.


dwivian, as I understand it, the surface of the inside of the foreskin is closer in structure to the skin on the inside of the mouth.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:17 PM on May 20, 2005


It produces the sebum that moistens the glans, dwivian. That was my point above about the glans being essentially an internal organ like the tongue.
posted by jackiemcghee at 1:20 PM on May 20, 2005


(Children also get sixth fingers and vestigial tails removed. I assume that you regard that as barbaric mutilation as well, correct?)

Some people even say that the foreskin itself is vestigal, given that we wear clothes now. Having body hair all over was useful too, back then, but now isn't at all, and some forms of it are very socially frowned upon. Having a foreskin was useful when we were naked all the time. God knows what the appendix was for.

And i'm not sure just one letter from a doctor associated with an anti-circumcision group (i.e., biased) is proof that the cervical cancer thing isn't true. Has the official study been officially disproven?
posted by amberglow at 1:23 PM on May 20, 2005


Given that the foreskin still serves a useful purpose, amberglow, it would be difficult in the extreme to argue that it's vestigial.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:30 PM on May 20, 2005


In fact, upon reflection, this is en even better definition, not least because it comes from a medical dictionary:

mu·ti·la·tion (mytl-shn)
n.

Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.
muti·late v.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:39 PM on May 20, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy: my foreskin wasn't particularly conspicuous when I was an infant (and, considering cultural mores now, being conspicuous would be illegal). That leaves the 'essential' part of the definition to fulfil, and I have two wonderful children so I don't see the foreskin as being essential at all.

jackiemcghee: that makes me wonder how those that recover their foreskin using the stretching methods gain that functionality. Or, is sebum a natural excretion of the penile skin in general? I have no idea, but I do know that my body excretes oils regularly from all skin surfaces, so any that fold in on themselves are just going to retain it easier....
posted by dwivian at 1:47 PM on May 20, 2005


If you will look at the links, you will discover that FGM and MGM are the same kind of thingie, that they complement one another. If we sound off about the one, we need to sound off about the other, for they are closely linked.

TimothyMason, chill out. no one is suggesting that you shorten the little man.

but c'mon dude. i think you are the one not getting it. something done to male children as a symbol of religious belief and something done to female infants by backwards tribes who are ONLY concerned with the oppression their women ain't the "same kind of thingie" - ain't even the same motherfucking ballpark.

male circumcision isn't done to make sure boys aren't driven to promiscuity and infidelity by sexual passion. cutting off the clitoris and labia are done for no other reason.
posted by three blind mice at 1:54 PM on May 20, 2005


In these kinds of cultures that practice primitive male genital mutilation, do most of them render the male's genitals useless or painful in sexual experiences afterwards? Because most female genital mutilation does exactly that.

Male initiation sometimes kills, so that would render the lad's genitals pretty useless. There are societies where males are cut and females are not. There are others where the cutting is less drastic for the females than for the males (Central Australia, for example).

Have a look at this article, which argues that male genital mutilation is a feminist issue. Among other things, it indicates that one of the functions of circumcision is to imitate the female genitalia, and to simulate menstruation. Circumcision is a birthing ritual in which a male replaces the mother - although often enough the boy is then provisionally returned to her.
posted by TimothyMason at 1:54 PM on May 20, 2005


I think being absolutist about the integrity of our bodies in an age of pacemakers, artificial organs, artificial skin grafts, and all sorts of other surgical fixes/changes is too weird, and not a good argument.
posted by amberglow at 2:00 PM on May 20, 2005


All of you people arguing in favor of circumcision. Are you circumcised? My guess is yes.

Ask yourself, if you had foreskin now, would you opt to have it removed?
posted by redteam at 2:01 PM on May 20, 2005


What do you call a circumcision using pinking shears?
Here's a bottom line statement: What fuckin' business is it of yours whether I have my boy circumcised or not?

It just is not that big a deal. It isn't a big health issue one way or the other, it isn't a big social issue one way or the other, it isn't even a big enjoyment of life issue. Damn near everything else I decide for my kid will be of far, far greater importance to his health, mental function, and happiness.

Furthermore, the trend is to not circumcise, so the problem is going away all by itself. There's no need to get the government involved. That's the last bloody thing we need in the west: yet more government interference. Sheesh.
A Frilly Dilly! sorry
posted by five fresh fish at 2:13 PM on May 20, 2005


Ask yourself, if you had foreskin now, would you opt to have it removed?
If we grew up with foreskin, we'd want to keep it--unless it was too tight and painful or caused other problems. We grew up without it, and don't miss what we never knew.
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on May 20, 2005


On the locker room issue and the suggestion that boys won't look at each other's penises:

At age 11 I vividly remember the one Jewish boy in the class being dubbed "toadstool willy" and being hounded mercilessly by the bullies. For my part I was utterly baffled as to what had been done to him, and why.

I should point out that I'm British, and circumcision is the exception, not the norm here.
posted by arc at 2:57 PM on May 20, 2005


I am uncut. I'd give up a pinky before I'd give up my foreskin. Or an eye.

I never had a problem in the locker room growing up. It ain't dirty--see, you wash your dick anyway, right? Me too.

I never need lube when yankin' it--lube actually makes the act less pleasurable for me--so that's a money saver there.

The women I've been with love it. There's no need for additional lubrication, entry is easier (uncut guys can simulate cut entry simply by retracting the skin), and HJs are a breeze--no chafing by and unskilled and/or unlubed hand. If a particular woman hasn't seen an uncut cock before, they are usually very eager to check it out.

It's a great icebreaker! Let's say I'm with a lady friend, the talk turns sexy, maybe my cut status comes up somehow, then I can say, "You want to see it? Check out how it works?" The answer, my friends, is always yes, and then once I show how it works, they always want to play with it themselves. Thanks Mom and Dad!

The damn thing is there for a reason. It's silly to remove it.

I say make it illegal with religious exceptions. Easy enough.
posted by thebatmanager at 3:30 PM on May 20, 2005


Yep...when men stop talking about boobs.
Nooooooooo way.

dejah420, My comment was birthed from racially made comments several posters trolled. They were insulting than helping the discussion. Sorry it was taken as who should be silenced.

Maybe you justify it because you think it's cleaner or that having a foreskin causes cancer? The cancer claim is disproven. The claims I know of were either proved to be false because of faulty research (in the case where chlamydia was the actual cause of higher cancer rates) or because the guys studied had nasty, dirty cocks.

Just to be clear about my comment quoting the cancer above, not that you are singling me out in your comment. I was singling out the thread’s poster whose link quoted it. Since this was his base for an, I'm right see the proof type of discussion.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:31 PM on May 20, 2005


a personally am neutral over circumcision on baby boys.
Sorry TimothyMason, I missed the above earlier.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:38 PM on May 20, 2005


I understand if your cut you tend to sustain an erection longer. Just what I've heard.
I'm cut & happy. My dad got it done (for medical reasons) when he was 50 and said as a result he had longer staying power (father-son time, it's great).

Anyway, I like the streamlining. Allows me to run faster.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:04 PM on May 20, 2005


The women I've been with love it. There's no need for additional lubrication, entry is easier (uncut guys can simulate cut entry simply by retracting the skin), and HJs are a breeze--no chafing by and unskilled and/or unlubed hand. If a particular woman hasn't seen an uncut cock before, they are usually very eager to check it out.

You should always be using a condom, entrywise, and you can buy those lubricated. You're risking a lot for some natural lube.
posted by amberglow at 4:13 PM on May 20, 2005


Ain't got one. Don't miss it. Don't need it.

I might be the only person on this board who has actually received two circumcisions. The first was at the hospital, where my foreskin was removed. My mother was Catholic and my father Jewish, so I was born (technically) non-Jewish. I did not have a bris.

When I was ten, my mother, my siblings and I converted to Judaism. At that point, I had a ritual circumcision that involved no actual skin removal, only a razor cut that drew blood.

The first circumcision was not my choice. I am fine with that. Believe it or not, I trust my parents. Maybe many of you don't, or don't trust other parents to make choices for their children.

Ask yourself, if you had foreskin now, would you opt to have it removed?

The second circumcision was, in fact, my choice. I remember it very clearly. And had I converted to Judaism with my foreskin still in place, yes, I would have been willing to have it removed.

Simply put, it goes with the territory. It's a symbol of faith and trust, and whether you view it as horrible or barbaric or mutilative, it's part of a personal covenant with God and family. And therefore, it's none of your business.

Bask in atheism if you like, but for some of us, these ancient (barbaric, mutilative, whatever) symbols still mean something.
posted by sellout at 4:21 PM on May 20, 2005


Think about it, would we have foreskins at birth if they were bad for us?

Appendix

Can anyone provide a scientifically valid reason for slicing off perfectly healthy flesh?

Tonsils
They're supposed to catch germs. Sometimes they get in the way of breathing (and yet they are perfectly health tissue) or they do their job too well and hang onto the germs long enough to cause infection.

Anyway, a foreskin would get in the way of crackin' walnuts with my dick.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:22 PM on May 20, 2005


I am simply astounded there are people who appear to sincerely wish for more government interference in people's lives.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:31 PM on May 20, 2005


... but for some of us, these ancient (barbaric, mutilative, whatever) symbols still mean something.
They do.

*looks down, sees my tribal marking, realizes "Who needs tatoos?"* : >
posted by amberglow at 4:48 PM on May 20, 2005


The thing that I don't get is that people can actually say "It's OK because it hardly ever kills the kid". It still does sometimes, so the procedure is reckless endangerment of a child's life.

How can anyone deny this? I just don't get it. If preventing unecessary death via this procedure takes govt. interference - I can deal. That's it's job.

Even the Talmud notices this occurs, saying that if three kids have died of circumcision, the fourth is allowed to skip it. Thanks for that, Talmud. You're a peach.
posted by Sparx at 4:49 PM on May 20, 2005


But Smedleyman (et.al.), the foreskin isn't vestigial like the appendix or tonsils (although some say we don't know what tonsils are for), it's there to protect the glans of the penis.

Should circumsicion be made illegal? No. But I don't repect people who permanently alter someone's body without their consent.


You should always be using a condom, entrywise, and you can buy those lubricated. You're risking a lot for some natural lube.
Amberglow, how do you know he's not in a committed monogamous relationship? /derail

posted by Specklet at 4:57 PM on May 20, 2005


Whenever I see an argument by North Americans on this subject I get rather flabbergasted.

First of all, circumcision is not a normal thing, except North of the Rio Grande and among Jews and Muslims.

Secondly, it's completely unnecessary if you are just minimally hygienic.

Thirdly, right now, I wouldn't want my foreskin cut. It's a pretty sensitive bit of skin, so I guess I wouldn't have liked to have it cut when I was a baby either.

Fourthly, for those who find uncircumcised penises "gross", I'd answer that it's mutilated body parts which are really gross.

All this said, I nevertheless find that putting it at the same level as FGM is idiotic and insensitive.
posted by Skeptic at 5:01 PM on May 20, 2005


You should always be using a condom, entrywise, and you can buy those lubricated. You're risking a lot for some natural lube.
Amberglow, how do you know he's not in a committed monogamous relationship? /derail

From the pickup talk

posted by amberglow at 5:07 PM on May 20, 2005


the foreskin (is) there to protect the glans of the penis
The appendix is vestigial, but we have it at birth and it is often bad for us (referring to the first quote)
As to the second, tonsils aren't vestigial. The analogy to the tonsils refers to the arguments previously presented that the foreskin may cause more problems than it's worth. I can't personally attest to it's validity, but the evidence exists. Anecdotally, if the staying power thing is true, that'd be where my preference lies. I'd go strip it off today if I had one.


Should circumcision be made illegal? No. But I don't respect people who permanently alter someone's body without their consent.

Conceded. It's a fair point. I can't argue against 'dislike of yet tolerance for' .
posted by Smedleyman at 5:16 PM on May 20, 2005


"You should always be using a condom, entrywise, and you can buy those lubricated. You're risking a lot for some natural lube."

You should stay out of my bedroom. Who are you, George Bush?

I'm not talking about lube from my dick, I'm talking about preserving the woman's natural lubrication. Use of a condom does not deminish the function of the foreskin's natural easy entry feature.

Plus, I'm married. My wife would kick my ass if I tried to use a rubber with her.

Smedlyman, maintain an erection longer that what? Past the point of orgasm? Please enlighten us with some statistics.
posted by thebatmanager at 5:23 PM on May 20, 2005


The thing that I don't get is that people can actually say "It's OK because it hardly ever kills the kid". It still does sometimes, so the procedure is reckless endangerment of a child's life.

We are talking about playground equipment, right? Or is it vaccinations? No, wait, it must be soccer games!

tbm: yours, or hers?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 PM on May 20, 2005


My friend Harold used to tie a bit of silk thread on his foreskin sealing it off, then he would urinate, and his foreskin would fill to almost spherical dimension.Claimed it made his girlfriend very happy, and functioned as a condom. How is" that" as a purpose for this bit of skin being discussed?
posted by hortense at 11:32 PM on May 20, 2005


That the foreskin is natures condom.
posted by hortense at 11:35 PM on May 20, 2005


Why would you want to make it any smaller?
posted by BadSeamus at 11:42 PM on May 20, 2005


It was a no-brainer when our son was born. Statistics show that choosing not to elect circumcision is becoming progressively more common, so I'm not worried about the "locker room" effect (which seems overblown to me anyway, although probably one in ten or less of my highschool cohorts were uncircumcised, nobody gave a rat's ass that I recall...). Of course it was even simpler with a child born 10 weeks prematurely - yeah, I'm going to add an unnecessary operation to this poor little guy's problems. I think modern, pluralistic societies, anyway, are outgrowing it. On the other hand, I don't have any resentment for my parents for having me circumcised, things were quite a bit different 30+ years ago... And it's hard to miss what you can't remember having. Still, it seems a pretty idiotic thing to do in this day and age.
posted by nanojath at 12:19 AM on May 21, 2005


I was singling out the thread’s poster whose link quoted it. Since this was his base for an, I'm right see the proof type of discussion.

thomcatspike, I'm afraid I don't understand this. FWIW, there are many things in the links that I don't agree with and others I don't know about or don't feel I either need or should have an opinion about.

My main points here would be
a - that male initiation rituals involving genital mutilation can far more drastic in their execution and consequences than most of you imagine them to be, and that it is sometimes more drastic than is the mutilation of girls in the same cultures.
b - that in those cultures where girls are so mutilated, the boys are invariably also mutilated, and that the two forms are complementary
c - that such rites are closely linked to other social practices involving not only gender roles but also age-specific roles

All this leads me to the conclusion that you cannot realistically consider one without considering the other, and that if you want one of them to be banned, then you will unavoidably have to deal in some way its complement.

But to be honest, the 'should they' or 'should they not' aspect is not, to me, the most interesting. Should bits be chopped off people without their consent, unless there is a good medical reason? In a perfect world, no. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be dropping bombs on people, or shutting them up in prisons and torturing them - nor would our streets be full of down-and-outs, street hustlers of either sex and so and so forth. Solving each of these problems is a delicate matter, that necessarily goes beyond slogans and flags.

But the symbolism of both male and female genital mutiliation is deeply interesting. And I don't think that functional explanations - it's to keep women repressed by shutting up their sexes, or it's to keep boys' penises clean, or whatever - get us very far. (Look at what Mary Douglas has to say about this kind of thing in 'Purity and Danger'). But I guess this isn't really the place to talk about this. Who'd listen?
posted by TimothyMason at 5:21 AM on May 21, 2005


Dirtynumb- I've knocked up a woman. I've orgasmed plenty of times. How many times have you knocked up a woman? I mean, as long as we're holding an absolutist biological view of function.
Further, you didn't mention the vestigial tails or fingers. I assume that you'd be willing to decry the amputation of such as barbaric, as they don't pose many health risks, correct? Just getting your vitriol all sorted.
Timothy- Right, but your points are tossed out by a Anthro 101 text.
A- Yes, there are a minority of cultures that have brutal initiation rituals for males as well as females. There was a Polynesian culture that fed preteens hallucinogens and made them fellate older members of the tribe, and then brutally beat them. But these are a vast minority when compared to the prevalence of female genital mutilation, and those cultures in which males are treated more brutally is a drop in the bucket. You're misplacing your priorities.
B- Bullshit. In, say, Animist Sudan, there is no congruent ritual for males when females have their genitals mutilated. To pretend otherwise is to seriously compromise any credibility you might have had. Though, that said, this is obviously your Time Cube, so whatever.
C- Yes, but that's irrelevant. Sweet Sixteen parties (especially in Mexico) are age and gender linked. While you can argue that they contribute to enforcing gender roles and the oppression of women, it's a hell of a stretch.
So, we've got a misrepresentation, bullshit and bit of meaningless twaddle.
"Who'd listen?" Maybe if you weren't playing the crank, more people would listen. But instead, you've got the zealot's pension for overstating your case and trying to use rhetorical dodges to bolster weak claims.
posted by klangklangston at 7:45 AM on May 21, 2005


TimothyMason:

I think you might enjoy Fuambai Ahmadu "Rites and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision" (I have it in Female "Circumcision" in Africa, Culture Controversy and Change, eds Bettina Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund). She has a very different interpretation for the male/female link between genital cutting than the imitation menstruation that some have suggested. In fact, I've found her explanation almost identical to the reason that intersex infants have large portions of their genitals removed and altered: to distinguish between boys and girls.

In the ceremonies, the partial and undeveloped sexual organs of the other sex are removed from the initiates. Thus the external clitoris, which is seen as an undeveloped male organ is removed from girls and the forskin, which is seen as an undeveloped female organ, is removed from the male. The cutting is part of the initiation ritual in which boys and girls are redefined as men and women. Women are initiated into a secret women's society and taught certain ancient medicines and knowledge that help define their political and social power in the group. Likewise men.

In this case, it is only outsiders that see male and female genital cutting as unrelated. They are, in fact, somewhat meaningless without each other. Suggesting that men are experiencing a religious rite and women are not would, I imagine, be deeply offensive to Kono women. Suggesting that somehow the female rite is wrong but the male rite is fine is both bizzare and inherently sexist. The reason why people who want to make positive change for women with reguards to FGC should consider MGC as related (note, as someone mentioned earlier: not necessarily identical) is because the people who perform these operations often do.

It's worth noting that among the Kono, women's (and men's) sexual pleasure is valued and pre-initiate sex is not taboo. Ahmadu reports that women, including herself, continue to experience orgasm and sexual pleasure after the initiation. She does not regret her own initiation any more than many of the men on this forum regret their circumcision.

klangklangston, it's time to move beyond your anthropology 101 text. There are a lot of anthropologists, other scholars, activists, feminists, and Africans talking about these issues. TimothyMason, while given to some generalizations, has obviously spent some time learning about what these people have to say. You, on the other hand, are relying on a couple of paragraphs of third-source data written for teenagers.


The comment on the importance of age is a particularly good example of the fact that TM has actually researched the subject: it is Africans who have experienced and studied FGC that have suggested that age hierarchy is in some cases a more important aspect of genital cutting than gender hierarchy. Ignoring this kind of information is fine if one's goal is to feel morally righteous and superior. However, if one hopes to help, or at the very least not to harm, women (and potentially men) who undergo genital cutting against their will, then careful attention to details, specific cases, and internal as well as external claims about genital cutting is absolutely key.
posted by carmen at 9:15 AM on May 21, 2005


Carmen, my interest has mainly been centred on Australian peoples, particularly on the Arrernte practices as described by Spencer and Gillen and subsequently, rather than on the African examples. In this group, female initiation is less drastic than male initiation.

Thanks for the reference; I'll certainly have a look. BTW, in the earlier thread on this question, I did mention that one of the ideas was to make the two genders resemble each other. I didn't come back to that here, but it's clearly part of it. However among the Australian groups, it seems that the men themselves stress the fact that circumcision and sub-incision are intended to allow the males to take over the female functions of menstruation and birthing.

I'd guess that the meanings are complex and multiple. It's clear, for one thing, that different groups do not attach the same meanings to the rites and practices; the Australian men say that they have 'stolen' the women's business, and that the women have only a partial understanding of what is going on. The ceremonies are held in secret, and although the women do have a role to play, they are not allowed to attend the full sequence - the penalties were very high indeed. At least some African societies that I've looked at are similarly restrictive. There are also, obviously, restrictions according to age. It's unlikely that the 'internal' claims that you mention will ever be put upon the table for everyone to see. And if they were, we would find a multiplicity of interpretations.

Which is another reason why the flag waving is unlikely to lead to healthy change.
posted by TimothyMason at 11:54 AM on May 21, 2005


I'd just like to point out that if Queequeeg was based on a Maori, then there would have been no special discoveries, because Maori did not circumcise (in fact as far as I know, outside the Waikato district, they still don't). Come to that, the father of the man pictured is Te Pehi Kupe aka Tupai Cupa. Melville may have liked the picture, but Te Pehi never shipped as a whaler.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:32 PM on May 21, 2005


I wouldn't cut the lips off my (theoretical) baby boy, even if it meant he was much less likely to get gingivitis. And lips only cover your teeth.
posted by anildash at 6:55 PM on May 21, 2005


Fool! He will be laughed at!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:59 PM on May 21, 2005


Originally posted by Goedel:

"Hmm, it doesn't take much work to turn up studies supporting the claim that circumcision does have health benefits. Furthermore, the claim that circumcision damages sensation doesn't appear to hold up to scientific scrutiny."


Goedel, the study you posted is similar to the 1966 Masters & Johnson study, which was similarly flawed. For a couple of critical dissection of this study, see:
this and this.

Notice that the 2005 study by Bleustein et al., assesses the sensitivity of the dorsal glans, which is one of the least sensitive areas of the penis. The dorsal glans is the region of the "mushroom head" that would be facing the sky, if your penis were to be extended outward, "viagra style", perpendicular to your body.

That circumcision may affect the sexual experience for the male is not a radically underground idea, but it is veiled with the mild notion that it may merely reduce sensitivity of the glans. What is not acknowledged, or even brought to attention, is the notion that reduced sensitivity is the least important and significant way in which functioning is changed. In addition to the mechanical aspect of sexual functioning of the foreskin, there is the fact that the quality of the sensations, in addition to quantity, is reduced. Circumcision permanently removes erogenous tissue that contain a dense array of highly organized nerve endings. Embryologically, this tissue is equivalent to that of the female labia (minora and majora). (See Taylor's study: - abstract here full text here (this is a peer reviewed study in the British Journal of Urology, btw). Also, see an interview with the author of the study here

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia recently issued a statement on male circumcision:

Of note:

"Medical Perspectives

Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."


These missing nerve endings mean that the brain receives signals from only a fraction of what it is designed for. Because of this discrepancy, neural plasticity probably allows each nerve to stimulate more brain regions, but despite this possible adaptation, the richness and complexity of the sexual sensation is diminished, since sexual pleasure, including orgasm, is derived from fewer modulators (which is the essential function of a neural signal). It is like chopping off a few fingers, wearing a plastic glove, and claiming that sensitivity of the hand is reduced. It is conceivable that the remaining fingers would be able to stimulate all brain regions that were once stimulated by the original intact hand, but to claim that the experience of running this hand across silk, or through water, is essentially unchanged after amputation, is to hold a very naive view of sensuality.

Many religions can be fruitfully understood as a transmission of wisdom. Some are focused more explicitly and directly on spiritual development, whereby dogma recedes in favour of prayer/meditation; but the ones that are more dogmatically embodied serve an important purpose in the development of people and their societies. Many lessons from scriptural and prophetic sources do indeed serve good purposes, though the reasons for these purposes are anointed spiritual import. Sometimes things serve purposes within a certain context, but not others. In these other cases, we can appreciate the lesson but should not feel bound by it. Many kosher laws were likely lifesavers in certain circumstances. However they are not all as necessary in others.

If one examines the literature carefully, one can find statements that support the idea that circumcision's primary function is to weaken the male's sexual experience.

Advocating Circumcision Today, a Jewish pro-circumcision group, states:

"When the foreskin is properly removed on the eighth day, all negative energy is annihilated and will never be able to have control over the person. On a metaphysical level, we cut off the ability for the potential of negative energy to become actualized in the child, thus giving him the extra strength necessary to overcome any problems he will experience throughout his life.

Kabbalah explains, that in this world there are many obstacles which conceal G-dliness. It is our job to remove these blocks, thus revealing the G-dly light. Circumcision is an act of removing unholiness. By physically removing the foreskin, we are spiritually removing and eliminating undesirable character traits, depressive tendencies and so on. We eliminate from the body of the child, forces which might try to cultivate overindulgence in physical pleasures, etc. In short, we give the child a boost and head start in fighting life’s battles; it can be compared to the concept of immunization.”

(emphases added)

Here are some historical examples:

Philo Judaeus, 1st Century:

“To these [reasons for circumcision] I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things necessary to our well being. One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure, but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.”

Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 12th Century:

“With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”


Some may interpret this as making sex less addictive, thus having a prophylactic effect on promiscuity, however it is also possible that the reduced experience has other effects, such as reducing allegiance to woman, and allowing the allegiance to males to thrive. There is anthropological evidence that may be relevant here (see tables in http://montagunocircpetition.org/genitalpain.pg ). There seems to a deep seated fear of women that some cultures have had on a culturally subconscious level. Surely reducing attachment to women, be it sexual or other, favours patriarchal functioning (this does not mean that attachment to women cannot be fulfilled through other more spiritual means). Perhaps if females were running the planet, female genital mutilation wouldn't be such an internationally recognized evil. Of course it wouldn't be a pharaonic affair, with full labial and clitoral excision and infibulation, but done in sterile conditions by trained physicians. Perhaps only the labia majora would be removed, a relatively useless flap of skin to those who don't know any better.

An example of such wisdom may be found in this 13th century statement by Isaac ben Yediah:

“With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions.

[This is good for her husband: freed from lascivious desires] he will not empty his brain because of his wife [and] his heart will be strong to seek out God."





The historical references are extensive, but it is interesting to note that explicit mention of the sexual rationale has withered almost completely in current discourse among medical professionals. This is reflected in the training that doctors undergo for circumcision, as well as a dearth of preputial education in medical textbooks, as well as a lack of histological and sexological research on the prepuce.

Now oppressing male sexuality may indeed be useful wisdom - i personally feel it's not a very enlightened idea - but what I can assert unequivocally is that this wisdom is not being transmitted honestly. There is something of a noble lie at play here, where palatable lies (i.e. extent of medical prophylaxis), or obscure spiritual references (the foreskin is a source of spiritual evil), are employed in favour of hard truths (circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, which is important for a healthy and godly society). There has been a radical break from the tradition of circumcision: where it was once understood by scholars, religious authorities, and physicians to be a form of control over male sexuality, we are now in an era of hypocrisy.

I do not believe in noble lies, as I believe they ultimately stunt intellectual and spiritual growth, if not overcome. It is spiritually dishonest, not to mention immoral, to use religious duty, or faith, as a justification for a procedure that is proved to be harmful, without any reflection on the wisdom. Reflection on the "command to circumcise" would involve the same sort of reflection on why recreational drug use is considered spiritually dangerous. Reflection does not stop at the thought that drugs are simply spiritually evil. Reflection requires the question of the mechanism of this evil. A deeper understanding is thus acquired. We have no problem reflecting on issues such as drugs, sex, murder, etc., but with circumcision very few are willing to take that step.

For a lucid and engaging account of the modern history of circumcision, particularly in North America, see David Gollaher's:

From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America

Journal of Social History
Volume 28 Number 1, p. 5 - 36,
Fall 1994.


Remember, circumcision was explicitly recommended by leading medical authorities as a cure for masturbation, which in turn was supposed to be a terrible thing thing.

The link between FGM and MGM (male genital mutilation) is not as absurd as many would prefer to think. For a disturbing view of the similarities, see
this chart

(by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, a pioneer in the fight against FGM)

Originally posted by Three Blind Mice:
"male circumcision isn't done to make sure boys aren't driven to promiscuity and infidelity by sexual passion. cutting off the clitoris and labia are done for no other reason."


Absolutely false - not only has MGM historically functioned to reduce the male sexual experience, but FGM is done, in many cases willingly by the "victims", for reasons equally bizarre as those employed in the advocacy of MGM, such as hygiene, conformity, spiritual cleanliness, attractiveness, etc.

Girls who aren't circumcised in communities that practice the ritual experience shunning not only by the males, but by their female sisters, who will refuse to play with them since they're dirty and spiritually unclean.
posted by spacediver at 9:40 PM on May 21, 2005


I_am_Joe's_spleen ; Queequeg isn't a Maori, but comes from somewhere in the Pacific, (Melville coyly states that it isn't on any map as 'true places never are') so we don't know whether he would have been circumscribed or not. Which is why I left the question open in the post.

Melville didn't just like the picture; he used Te Pehi Kupe in his construction of Queequeg. One of the incidents in 'Moby Dick' is almost lifted directly from Te Pehi Kupe's story as told by George Lillie Craik. But he birthed him elsewhere and set him on a whaler.

I brought Queequeg up because there is a very close relationship between tattooing and circumcision. They don't always go together, but they do occur in similar ritual circumstances.
posted by TimothyMason at 10:19 PM on May 21, 2005


In your link, for "Polynesian" you should read "Pacific Island". Maori do not circumcise. On that very same page, you will read "The New Zealand Maori have traditionally left the foreskins on their sons, and it was being tehe - with glans showing - that was a source of shame." The page is kind of suss though. The carvings don't show erections because they are more tapu, but because the ancestors are by definition potent and fertile. Tapu does not enter into it.

I understand that Melville was conflating a bunch of Pacific peoples into one generic Polynesian, but that's no reason to perpetuate the confusion. It bugs me that on the one hand you're talking about real people's practice, and on the other citing a literary and unrealistic "other" figure to personify it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:13 AM on May 22, 2005


I get your point. I think I brought it in for several reasons, one of which is that much of what is said about these matters can be seen as 'othering', and that Melville's Queequeg seems to me as good an example of an attempt to go beyond 'othering' as you can find. I've just been rereading the book, and found the author's treatment of his Savage to be both subtle and the converse of stereotypical - although he certainly plays with stereotype.

Melville was something of an anthropologist - indeed, he had done about as much in the way of fieldwork as many an Anthro professor today. So although he presents Queequeg at some level of reading as a 'type', conflating 'a bunch of Pacific peoples', he also gives his character a greater degree of specificity than that.

So I guess I would say that if Queequeg is, in some sense, unrealistic (he's "not really" a Maori), he is very, very real.
posted by TimothyMason at 3:44 AM on May 22, 2005


I believe that spacediver has just rather conclusively won this argument.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:40 PM on May 22, 2005


wish I could've posted sooner - had to sort out my account, etc...

kinda frustrating reading all the comments and not being able to chime in :p
posted by spacediver at 2:50 PM on May 22, 2005


I just want to apologize to any American, or indeed anyone of any nationality, whether of the left or the right-hanging variety, who was offended by my earlier question (intended as incisive wit, though perhaps I should have made that more clear) as to whether circumcision might encourage brutality and miltarism.

Seems I hit a soft spot there.

Sorry.

:-))

More seriously, for those suffering from phimosis, circumcision is no longer regarded as the best treatment option. A painless and effective treatment is hydrocortisone or betamethasone cream, applied every day for a month.
posted by cleardawn at 3:02 PM on May 22, 2005


redteam, having re-read your comment, it's untrue and offensive (to me). You said:

But for you to speculate that us Americans are evil and that Europeans are enlightened

which I didn't; the nearest I came was to say this, which I intended as satire:

In Europe, men are circumcised far more rarely than in the US. Could this explain the political sensitivity gap, as wide as the Atlantic and as personal as a foreskin?

You add that, in your view:
"people on the right can so easily make our side look like idiots and ridiculous airy-fairy fools."

Ah, can they? They don't have to, do they, if you do it for them?

You claim:
"I'm on the left and I'm telling you that it's your kind that make us look stupid. I'm telling you in the same way that [blah, insult, blah]"

Well, maybe you're on the left, maybe you're not. My guess would be not. "Your kind" is not a particularly left-wing description of another human being. In fact, I'd say it flags you as something distinctly other than leftwing.

And I don't see that either my politics, or yours, makes any difference to your uncalled-for personal attack!

Obviously though, this is a touchy subject, and I'll try to avoid comments about circumcision as a potentially emotionally brutalizing factor in future. Not popular. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 3:34 PM on May 22, 2005


thomcatspike, I'm afraid I don't understand this. FWIW
I posted a following comment after it containing my apology that explains more.
W/o reading it, I’ll explain here. I missed your earlier comment stating your position here in the thread, neutral. What had happen, I read one of your comments along with another member’s comment and mixing the author as you. this lead my thinking about the post being done for grandstanding than open for the discussion’s pros & cons. Also, the comment made me think because you had links your opinion was the right side to take. Again, at this time I had not read your comment stating the side you took. Then when reading through the links, I found some information for a possible benefit for having the cut done. I posted it to defuse the one sided thinking I had perceived which I was wrong about.

Again, sorry I missed your comment regarding your stance here. Because it clearly gave a better reasoning for the thread’s purpose and made it a balanced discussion.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:09 PM on May 23, 2005


An example of such wisdom may be found in this 13th century statement by Isaac ben Yediah:

“With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions.

[This is good for her husband: freed from lascivious desires] he will not empty his brain because of his wife [and] his heart will be strong to seek out God."

The historical references are extensive, but it is interesting to note that explicit mention of the sexual rationale has withered almost completely in current discourse among medical professionals. This is reflected in the training that doctors undergo for circumcision, as well as a dearth of preputial education in medical textbooks, as well as a lack of histological and sexological research on the prepuce.


You honestly find this wisdom as fact? Which unless you've been cut cannot truly be known, as a human is an individual in all aspects of life. It really sounds like he is boasting to offset his own felt inadequacies during sex; as mojo needs no platform.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:49 PM on May 23, 2005


« Older Bow to your MeFi   |   Kitten War! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments