I have a post up at GMP about circumcision and the Association of American Pediatrics’ switch towards favoring neonatal circumcision. After holding a neutral stance since 1999, the AAP was compelled to move by research coming out of Africa which showed that circumcision cut HIV/AIDS transmission rates by up to 60%.
As a Danish researcher, Dr. Morten Frisch, told me (whose research I came by through Razib Khan’s blog), what applies to Africa does not apply to the West.
From there I briefly explore the origins of circumcision through human history and up through Judaism and then to the Anglo Saxon world. I came across some interesting evolutionary biology research conducted by Christopher Wilson who finds a link between male genital mutilation and polygyny. It’s the same story – mate-guarding due to uncertain paternity. From that basic desire to control “destructive” male behavior and sexuality, the Anglo-Saxon world adopted the practice during the hysteria over masturbation during the 19th century.
Frisch found in his research that circumcised men are more likely to have functionary sexual issues i.e. achieving orgasm, sexual fulfillment. He finds the same for the female partners of circumcised men. Wilson believes that circumcising males screws with sexual mechanics. Though some societies mutilate males by crushing a testicle or incising the base of their penis to limit semen flow, the foreskin circumcision may serve the same purpose of limiting the sexual potency of young novel suitors. We wouldn’t now think of circumcision in this way and we wouldn’t notice it’s effects in society. Wilson doesn’t make any “masculist” judgements on this, but one would think that the systemic snipping of the male penis would have some sort of reverberating social and cultural effects.
Like this:
Like Loading...
White Americans are insecure because uncircumcised Mexicans have sex with their women. This uncircumcision was a present of the Spanish Inquisition.
It’s barbaric, just like female circumcision.
Given a normal healthy human, any destructive modification to his anatomy (as opposed to constructive modifications like Lasic eye surgery) is a handicapping rather than an adaptive procedure.
I am against routine circumcision, but I don’t know if this argument really flies. A higher percentage of young men were circumcised in the 1960s and 70s than in the 1860s and 70s, but who had more sex? Obviously the more modern, more commonly circumcised generation.
male mutilation. no different than clitoridectomy except in number of nerve fibers butchered.
Circumcision opens the possibility of asymmetric warfare: white circumcised Americans using forced circumcision on captured Mexicans.
That there are “people” who advocate for circumcision is beyond the pale. I put “people” in quotes to cast their personhood in doubt. There is guy whose name I will leave off who has been arguing that extended phenotypes are not people. (Extended phenotypes are those work for their competitors.) As i understand it: If a person does not represent for the health and integrity of his children, he does not exist as a person.
An argument that decreased likelihood of HIV or whatever is in a child’s interest is wrong. If a child’s penis is removed, there is decreased likelihood. I suppose it comes down to values. There may be a case for a safer life for some community if males are circumcised (not ceding that argument, but it is beside the point).
I am not smart enough to construct some hierarchy of values wherein the bodily integrity of a baby is one thing and social customs of a community are another and there is everything in between. But it is a sadistic thing to do though. Is there an argument that it is not?
And i like to consider the value of things that are not immediately apparent, such as things considered evil, such as sadism. In terms of evolution and biology those concepts have their place, their value. Something comparable would be torturing enemies caught on the wrong side of the line, which American Indians were well known for. It is a brutal world. I would ask that circumcision be acknowledged for what it is.
It is a way to mark a man. Sadistic to be sure, primitive seems a good descriptor. But as this is no Golden Age, primitive is in its place here and now.
To finish the point on a more editorial slant, let me be clear about the question. If circumcision of an infant or child is not sexual abuse, what on earth does quality?
To my knowledge there is no cut-off line in age before which, due to undeveloped ego-consciousness, abuse has no ill-effects. If there is such a cut off, could we not use infants to test out animal products on, and such.
One wonders what those effects might be. It is a great crime against the children. Kudos to the Medical Establishment, or whoever, for pulling it off. (Ouch, the pun!)
There is a taboo about speaking of circumcision. Who wants to talk about it, it is embarrassing; but that is part of its effectiveness as a weapon of cultural aggression.
The mark on a slave, an owned man. Whether or not the agreed upon historical record reflects this mostly or somewhat i do not know, but it seems clear enough. What better way to mark dominance and the rest.
Feminists for all their faults do make some points, one of which is relevant here: The shame that happens upon a victim. It is shameful. An infant or child of course cannot be considered weak or a pussy for not fighting off the doctor, but the shame and disgrace falls upon his family.
How and why this ritual originated in-group and then proceeded to be used against others, might be an interesting question, though in my opinion such questions as, How did this come to be? are wrong.
(By the way, any guy who uses the word “cock”, is gay, or at the very least trending there.)
How is this for sounding like a feminist:
Well then we just must have different ideas about what is funny.
I find it interesting that the AAP now favors it because it lowers risk of transmission with HIV. As if HIV is such a high incidence rate issue with men. It’s what, 22K men each year get HIV out of 310 mil Americans. For christ sake, the AAP could spend the time they wasted on this decision on more anti-obesity programs, methods and research as that has a far bigger impact on the health of boys (and girls). It’s like walking into a pediatrician’s office and seeing 3 posters for autism but no posters for childhood obesity. Misplaced priorities.
Suburban, removing kids’ penises (i know you weren’t advocating it) will do little to stop the spread of AIDS. It is mostly acquired through the openings of the digestive tract.
Also, let’s all welcome anti-racist’s Mexican stepbrother. We needed a little diversity around here.
I would rather comment here than at GMP. I have often argued in medical journals that Jews should have the right to circumcise their sons (a right that is under threat in the most outspoken SWPL places like SF, Berlin and the Netherlands). Otherwise I mostly agree with what you wrote.
A few datapoints:
- My parents barely survived the holocaust, a lot of family did not and they did not circumcise me. As an adult I went back to religion and had myself circumcised under local anesthesia. Sexually this has not made much of a difference, I may be slightly more sensitive than before. Obviously there may be recollection bias
- I had my sons circumcised on the eight day, only analgesic was the traditional sip of wine. Birth is tens of times more traumatic than this.
- the most likely theory of Jewish circumcision of sons is that this was introduced, prehistorically (i.e. prebiblical), as a replacement for the first son sacrifice, which was common in neolithical societies, especially matriarchies, including the ones in the middle east preceding the Jews. Sacrifice of the first sons is a common reference even late, as in the references to child sacrifice to Moloch, the Bible in the Exodus story, where the most horrible thing to happen to the Egyptians was the death of their firstborn sons. Interestingly, there is a trace of this in the Bible in the following passage
“Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband are you to me.”
a) circumcision by stone, i.e. pre-bronze Age, shows how old this fragment is
b) it is a woman doing it.
Thus, historically, replacing the burning of a son by the taking of a small but representative part of his body, is a victory of men over ancient matriarchy.
Traditional Judaism is hardly feminist, and sees circumcision as a win for men. Traces of the struggle are still visible in the Bible. Interesting that for you and commenters, it is a symbol of control of males.
If men think male circumcision is so great they should wait until they are 21 or over to do it. They can distract themselves with sugar water while being cut. Hopefully, by then, most men will have experienced sexual pleasure with their intact appendages and will continue to do so with their foreskins as nature intended them to be. I actually had a violent argument with a loud obnoxious lesbian I work with over male circumcision, which she supports. I demanded to know what stake she had in the issue other than hating men and wanting to maim their penises. I have had a few uncircumcised partners and vastly prefer them, although I do still prefer the look of a circumcised penis because they were the first ones I saw.
The desire for a strong Jewish identity is a legitimate one. But Jewish identity can be strengthened in other ways, like making learning Hebrew mandatory, wearing a beard, etc. Actually, in America, where many men are circumcised we have “The Vanishing Jew”, that is assimilation.
I understood that it was Seventh Day Adventist’s and co. who advocated for circumcision among gentiles to prevent masturbation. Kellogg gave you circumcision and breakfast cereal.
Where I live it’s only White Trash who ask to have their baby circumcised – ‘to match daddy’s penis’. Jews and other groups can do what they like but the original idea was obviously designed to hobble male sexuality for whichever group.
European Americans should leave those Middle Eastern customs in the past. It shouldn’t be part of your culture. It’s a recent perversion. All those Scandinavians having all that sexy Scandinavian sex are having it with uncircumcised sex organs. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Labor Day Weekend | Society of Amateur Gentlemen