Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[jdp]

I guess I should specify AMERICA christian then. Some of our early colonists were folks so uptight ENGLAND kicked them out...

Except that it wasn't even those uptight puritans that practiced circumcision. In the US, the practice was introduced around the Victorian period by prudes who believed it would help boys stay clean. Clean at this time was a euphemism for preventing masturbation, clean in thought and deed. Of course today we use the same reason but the definition has changed. Though we are no more correct than they were.

 

[pgwenthold]

Except that it wasn't even those uptight puritans that practiced circumcision. In the US, the practice was introduced around the Victorian period by prudes who believed it would help boys stay clean. Clean at this time was a euphemism for preventing masturbation, clean in thought and deed. Of course today we use the same reason but the definition has changed. Though we are no more correct than they were.

And this, in a nutshell, is what probably bothers me the most about circumcision from an ethical standpoint.

It is obvious that circumcision is a cultural phenomenon. Well, religious and cultural, but I will skip talking about religious rituals. So let's consider the cultural aspect. The US, among other countries, is largely circumcised (although that is also becoming very regionalized - there are growing pockets in the US of non-circ, to the point where the majority are actually non-circed overall these days). Then there is Europe, where no one is. Let's not fool ourselves - these tendencies are not driven by any actual health issues. It's culture.

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Now, as time went on, attitudes change. People discovered that it really doesn't stop boys from masturbating, but instead of dropping the practice, it persists, mainly via cultural momentum. Now instead of justifying it on the grounds of stopping masturbation, it is justified, ultimately, on an aesthetic basis, with "it's the way things are done now." Oh sure, over the next century, strong advocates desperately seek to find ways to legitimatize the procedure, and grasp for any possible reason they can, but nothing they come up with are sufficiently to persuade those not already practicing culturally. So it remains pretty much a cultural issue.

And this is where it bothers me. I really have a hard time accepting and participating in a purely cultural practice that originates with an attempt at sexual repression. Maybe it is a result of growing as a boy and facing issues of whether I should feel guilty about my masturbation habits, but I don't, and I don't think anyone else should either. To me, circumcision in the US is a legacy of that movement to stop masturbation, and that's it. It doesn't stop masturbation, and even if it did, I do not support the belief that masturbation needs to be stopped. If it weren't for that very offensive movement, I think the US would never have picked it up as a cultural practice.

I know we all like to think of ourselves as objective, rational beings, but no, we are products of our culture. Think about it - the midwest of the US is overwhelmingly circumcised. Europe is overwhelmingly not. Do you honestly think it is because folks in the midwest are all objective and rational, whereas everyone in Europe is not? Or vice versa? Of course not. They are products of their cultures, and their behaviors reflect the cultural bias. So do yours and mine. And while the correlation won't be perfect, I think you will find that circumcised men are far more likely to be supportive of circumcision, whereas non-circed are more likely to not be supportive (don't waste our time with anecdotes either way). Similarly, women who grow up in a culture of circ'd men tend to find it more attractive, whereas those who grow up around non-circ'd men tend to find that more attractive.

I gave up pretending this was a medical decision long ago. It's not, no matter how much people want to act like it is.

 

[brodski]

I think you will find that circumcised men are far more likely to be supportive of circumcision, whereas non-circed are more likely to not be supportive (don't waste our time with anecdotes either way).

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

 

[zooterkin]

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

Indeed, it's a good example of how we judge what is normal, and how difficult it can be to put aside biases that are so in-built due to, for instance, our culture that we may not even be aware that they exist.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

Well, I think that is true, too, but I also think that personal situation makes a big difference. Consider what about non-circ'd guys in the US? Are they on the whole pro-circ or anti? I argue that they are, on the whole, anti-circ. Granted, they are less likely to be anti-circ than someone who grew up in Europe, but their person situation does influence them (for example, they will be aware of the false claims - do you think they will accept the claim that they should be cut because it is too dirty? No offense, of course ("Are you saying my non-circ'd penis is dirty?")

 

[brodski]

Consider what about non-circ'd guys in the US? Are they on the whole pro-circ or anti? I argue that they are, on the whole, anti-circ.

Part of of the issue here relates to the imbalance of the positions. If a guy who was not circumcised as a child is strongly pro-circumcision then they can have the operation as an adult, they would therefore mostly be counted as cut guys in favour of circumcision. If a guy was circumcised as a child but is strongly anti circumcision, then they have no real option but to put up with it.*

The uncut pro-circ guys tend to select themselves out of existence as it were.


*this brings us back to the original subject of the spam op, so called "foreskin restoration". This is pretty much unmitigated woo and is based on a misunderstanding of what circumcision does. Much of the foreskin is not skin, it is a membrane and much of what is skin is more densely packed with specific types of nerve endings than the rest of the skin of the penis. Stretching the remaining skin so it covers the glans may restore the look of a foreskin, but not the function.

 

[slingblade]

No, it is not clear why this obvious problem was left unsolved (the problem that he did not take care of his personal hygiene, which opens the door to many a health problem and social stinkma) -- and instead you go cut his penis.

I'm trying to explain the origins of certain misconceptions I had. If you cannot understand that I recognize them as being misconceptions, and am only explaining how I came by them, then we've nothing else to talk about.

Don't persist in being deliberately obtuse to score points. It's childish in the extreme.


(And you conflated a couple of the "he's" in your ridiculous rant: I was talking about my father. I never cut his anything.)

 

[pgwenthold]

Part of of the issue here relates to the imbalance of the positions. If a guy who was not circumcised as a child is strongly pro-circumcision then they can have the operation as an adult, they would therefore mostly be counted as cut guys in favour of circumcision.

Yeah, but if that is your indicator, then it remains that non-circ'd guys are overwhelmingly going to be anti-circ, because the number that actually get circ'd as adults is pretty small.

Do you really think that adding "circ'd as adults" into the results for "non-circ'd but pro-circ" will swing the balance, even in a culture of circumcision? I mean, how common is it? 1%?

That's why I agree that you are right, BUT I don't think it has a significant effect.

 

[epepke]

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Absolutely right. A few minor points. 1) The Road to Wellville is a funny movie loosely based on Kellogg. 2) It continued for quite some time; the Reverend Graham, who also gave us the Graham cracker, was big on it. 3) Physical health arguments date from about WWI. 4) The US had considerably stronger Victorianism than did actual Victorian England.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

No what?

 

[jdp]

I'm trying to explain the origins of certain misconceptions I had. If you cannot understand that I recognize them as being misconceptions, and am only explaining how I came by them, then we've nothing else to talk about.

Don't persist in being deliberately obtuse to score points. It's childish in the extreme.


(And you conflated a couple of the "he's" in your ridiculous rant: I was talking about my father. I never cut his anything.)

I think your situation is probably pretty understandable. It comes down to doctors not providing accurate information to parents and parents acting on that. Before about say 10 years ago, it was difficult to find comprehensive information on circumcision. For example, most Americans wouldn't have known, or it would have been difficult to learn, that circumcision (secularly) was rarely practiced outside North America. Many may still not know that but it's easy to learn that now.

What I can't understand is why it still persists.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Since the topic is in the thread title, I have to ask why you even bothered to open the thread.

Well, there was a lot of cock in it ... now and again, one just has to have a peek, right?



@ GlennB

So, you read my posts in response? We agree.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

This is actually a topic near and dear to my heart, for certain values of heart that extend below the waist. I was not circumcised at birth, but due to an accident that left a scar and some tearing to my foreskin, I had to get it taken off. I wish there had been a different option. Sex was better with a foreskin. Sensation was very different, and better than what I have now. There were no hygeine issues (I'm a big sweaty guy, I bathe daily lest I become a big sweaty stinky guy, and even then the stink is not somehow localized to the genitals) Count me firmly in the circumcised but anti-circ camp. I haven't pursued foreskin restoration because it doesn't restore feeling, and it wasn't the appearance that I liked, but rather the feeling.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Oh sure, over the next century, strong advocates desperately seek to find ways to legitimatize the procedure, and grasp for any possible reason they can, but nothing they come up with are sufficiently to persuade those not already practicing culturally. So it remains pretty much a cultural issue.

...snip...

It's often said it is a procedure looking for a reason. And it is a shame to see how people who are for MGM have grasped onto the "helps prevent AIDS infections". At long last there is a reason if you live in a society that doesn't have good hygiene, poor healthcare, large endemic AIDS infection rates amongst heterosexuals, poor distribution of all forms of contraception and with little to no education about sexually transmitted diseases that a circumcision can very slightly reduce the rate of infection. How that can be considered a reason to have a male child in the USA circumcised is beyond me.

Interestingly in some of these threads when asked if we found the same slight reduction in infection rates in females as a result of FGM would they have their female children circumcised they say they wouldn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Indeed.

It's over a century later and we're engaged in a practice that is best not necessary (and that's putting it lightly in my opinion) because the religious nutcase that invented Cornflakes thought it would keep boys from jerking off.

*Sighs* I love this country.

 

[pgwenthold]

Indeed.

It's over a century later and we're engaged in a practice that is best not necessary (and that's putting it lightly in my opinion) because the religious nutcase that invented Cornflakes thought it would keep boys from jerking off.

Correction: his brother invented cornflakes

But otherwise, that is a fair and succinct description, yes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

And yet, the thread does not end, indicating that we are not bound to consider your pronouncement the final word on this matter.

Dave

 

[Daald]

As the follow up poster noted, it's nothing that has to be 'taught'.

I would disagree. I didn't know how to properly clean it when I was younger. So I needed to be taught. If everyone else knows instinctively then good for them. I guess I'll be the idiot.

 

[Ryokan]

And yet, the thread does not end, indicating that we are not bound to consider your pronouncement the final word on this matter.

But he knows a guy who did it, and he says it's awesomesauce! From Avalon's glee at cutting of bits of penises, I'm considering doing it myself!

Or not. It's so easy to masturbate.. I'll never give it up! Neveeer!