I remember seeing something in a Playboy magazine (which I only read for the pictures of naked women) which stuck in my mind, kind of the way that the pages stuck together. It was a cartoon of Moses standing on the mountaintop, peering up into the clouds with a bemused expression (“bemused” doesn’t mean “amused”, it means “puzzled”) saying “Let me get this straight – you want us to cut off the ends of our dicks.”
Like a lot of funny things, it was funny because it was true. I mean think about it – who first decided that it was a good idea to cut off the end of someone’s dick? (Well, I can think of some people whose dicks I’d happily foreshorten, but that’s another issue.) What’s particularly odd is that circumcision is so widely practised. It’s not confined to the middle east. From Africa to Australia, societies have been lopping off foreskins as a rite of passage for thousands of years so we have to assume that the idea developed independently in each of them. It’s just plain weird.
I’m thankful (well, I’m glad – “thankful” kind if indicates that there’s someone to thank) that female “circumcision” never caught on to the same degree. Where this unspeakably barbaric practise of clitoridectomy takes place its sole purpose is to ensure that women never enjoy sex – providing, of course, that they live through it. Whatever male circumcision is for, I venture it’s not that. If it is, I have some bad news for you, guys. But I digress. (I digress a lot. It’s something I do.)
What’s as odd as the practise itself is that it has survived until now; not just among people who believe that their invisible friend told them to do it, but among just about everyone. Until a few years ago it was something that you just did in (what we laughingly refer to as) the west. Reasons were various, but in many cases it was was “for cleanliness” or “so he’d look like Daddy” (that last, of course, is one of those chicken and egg things). Over the last few decades it’s fallen out of favor, although there was something of a resurgence for a while with some studies indicating lower rates of cervical cancer among women whose partners are circumcised, although more recent discoveries about the role of human papillomavirus have largely buried that one. Don’t take my word for that, by the way – what do I look like? A doctor?
Anyway, I think the arguments against circumcision outweigh the arguments for it. We know that the foreskin is the male clit – loaded with nerve endings specifically designed for fun. (Not that lopping it off leaves one nerveless; the glans (that little double-knob thing on the underside of the head) has its share of nerve endings that, judging by the porn movies, work quite well.) Cleanliness isn’t an issue – we solved that one when we invented soap.
“So,” I hear you say, “wtf is all this disconnected rant about?” (Or, if you’re a Canadian, “wtf is all this disconnected rant about, eh?”
This: if you ever end up being the parent of a boy, let him make the decision himself. Yes, I know it’s a bigger deal when you’re an adult than when you’re a baby (at least we think it is – I don’t remember anyone actually asking the baby), but cutting off the end of your dick is a big deal regardless. If he really thinks it’s the Right Thing To Do, or that it’s necessary, or that one or more gods told him to do it, or simply that it’s easier than buying soap, he’ll put up with it. If you make the decision to have him circumcised it’s just possible that he might, as some circumcised males end up doing, hate you forever for disfiguring him permanently before he was in a position to have any say in the matter.
Miss Moxie
Fetish Faerie
Wise Dick Man
joethefox
cynigal
floopyboo
kookiedoh
Mark Lyndon said,
July 16, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Actually, it’s a bigger deal for a baby than for an adult. If you do it to a baby, it hurts more, it’s more dangerous, the results aren’t cosmetically as good, and there’s more chance of a “revision” (a second operation).
It’s worth remembering that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tubercolosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
Betsy said,
July 17, 2008 @ 3:16 am
Wonderful post! My husband (who has impeccable hygiene, thanks to the aforementioned soap) is extremely thankful that his parents didn’t deprive him of the end of his penis and I I even know a couple of circumcised men who are extremely perturbed that their parents did.
One thing I wanted to mention… is that for those who leave their sons intact (don’t hack off their foreskins), it’s not necessary, or recommended, to mess with the foreskin at all. The only person who should pull back a boy’s foreskin is the boy himself. Not even the doctor should gently pull back on it according to the AAP, though not all doctors are aware of those recommendations. This rule applies until he’s older and in a consensual relationship, of course since the foreskin is an amazing boon to the practice of foreplay
Many infections in the past were caused by overzealous cleaning as well, so watch out for antibacterial soaps which can cause yeast problems in boys as well as girls.
I’m also glad that female circumcision wasn’t popular when I was born in America (it was covered by insurance as late as the 1970s in America though). Had I been born a boy, I would have been circumcised just like my brothers were. So glad I was a girl!
Thank you again for your post! I hope that it helps folks to think twice about cutting any healthy, normal, functional pieces off their children’s bodies!
Hugh7 said,
July 17, 2008 @ 7:13 am
“Until a few years ago it was something that you just did in (what we laughingly refer to as) the west.” Actually, no only the English-speaking world, and really only the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the UK it was a class-based thing and never reached 50%. And it started to fade some 50 years ago in the Commonwealth countries and it’s now residual in New Zealand (except for Polynesians). Fewer than one in 5 babies is cut anywhere in Australia, fewer than one in 20 in several states. The US is now out on its own (with Israel) in cutting more than half of its babies. (Muslims, South Koreans and Filipinos do it later.)
Like writing, it was probably only invented about three times – in Africa, Australia and Polynesia. The African custom spread to the Middle East via Egypt, and then to the UK and the US, changing its cloak on the way from religion to “moral hygiene” as Mark Lyndon says, which then got confused with hygiene as we now understand it.
Someone will probably tell you that circumcision does protect against cervical cancer, citing a study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Castellsaqué et al. That study just merged the results of seven studies in five countries, none of which showed a correlation individually, but because almost all men in the Philippines are circumcised and HPV is rarer there – presto! a correlation appeared. The Castellsagué study only claimed a cervical cancer correlation among a small high-risk subset, but that doesn’t stop the circumcisors. When you boil it down the whole study rested on the circumcision status of six men.
Frank McGinness said,
July 19, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
What has been posted before me, I agree with.
What needs to be said again, no soap is best at cleaning.
The glans have about 15% sexual receptors at the corona.
There is the thought that circumcision started when man noticed women
having a special relationship with the earth and heaven and their
menstrual cycles. Jealously, not wanting to be left out, or because of the
powerful menstrual relationship, man then started to cut himself. From
there he could then declare women unclean and banish them to the rivers.
Total power grab.
And check out James Prescott’s Origins of Violence. A historian’s look at
circumcision and violence. Quite compelling and one that I agree with
given the nations at war now and before.
The foreskin actually protects against HIV and all diseases. It is thought
infection arises when there is an overload of the disease and the person
is deficient in health. At Doctors Opposing Circumcision they cite a study
showing it is not the CD4 cells that transmit the HIV virus contrary to the
African studies researchers opinion.
Wise Dick Man said,
July 20, 2008 @ 5:12 am
Thoughtful and instructive comments, people. Thank you.
WDM