A post title you probably weren't expecting, but nonetheless, onward with conscience-raising! A question I pose to others when I'm feeling saucy, particularly those yet childless, is the following: Will you circumcise your children?
It's almost as off-putting as asking someone if you are a registered organ donor. There probably is not a single good reason why wouldn't donate organs, and yet, some won't do it. I've heard rather interesting explanations for this, none that made a lick of sense, and most involve some sort of zombie after-life I cannot comprehend.
And so it goes for circumcision, which is, in effect, legalized, involuntary mutilation which provides not a speck of scientific or otherwise social relevance. It's not something we talk about in casual conversation, and yet the vast majority of us American males have had the privilege of entering this world of ours to a steel blade, to have a piece of our otherwise "perfectly" designed body removed--for what reasoning?
The science is in: there is no justifiable health benefit. Simply google "Doctors Against Circumcision" and read away if you aren't convinced. I won't comment further on this point, other than say that the "inconveniences" of a foreskin, as some claim, are no more off-putting than the need to wash your underarm. And it's certainly true that we might avoid a lot of maintenance if we simply removed the hair from our bodies. Fortunately for us, our hair can grow back if we've had enough.
What other reason, perhaps? It may come as a surprise that a good deal of our sacred texts (Galatians, etc.) are devoted to the principle and execution of circumcision in accordance with our celestial dictator who would like nothing more than to create your foreskin, and then symbolically (and physically) command it removed in order to create a psychological state of submission and perverted perspective of sexuality. I can't say this is something that might be useful to a god who considered your body his creation and wanted his creation to be fruitful. It might, however, be very useful to the men who really made it up. (...but why these men, and some Jews today, wish to take their newly circumcised sons into their mouth, I will never have a good answer.)
And some, including the great faith of Islam, have pondered, why leave the fun for just men? Let's just slice off all of the female genitalia we can get to, tie it up with string and call it a day.
Perhaps George Carlin is correct in saying that "symbols" are for the "simple" minded. But a circumcised penis is in fact, a symbol. But not for great scientific advancements or social enlightenment. It is, in fact, a physical casualty of the total ignorance of a culture riddled with obscene faith-based philosophy.
12 comments:
I will start by saying that, as you know, I completely agree with you. But, to play devil's advocate, or at least to further the conversation, let me suggest that there are some reasons to perform the stated procedure that have nothing to do with religion.
The argument I am mainly referring to is one that many people will fall back on when the “medical benefits” argument has been put to rest, which is: "It's looks 'better'”.
The reason this holds some water is that all cultures have their norms, and in our society a circumcised piece of man-hood looks normal. It is normal. Evolution might have given us skin on our helmets, but it also gave hair on women’s legs and under their arms, but I don’t see a post about how women should not shave because evolution has chosen that trait. It is normal in our society for women to shave their legs and under their arms. The minority that do not are deemed weird and dirty. The same is true for the uncircumcised penis.
Of course, this brings up the fact that males do not choose to cut the skin off their cocks, but you could argue that woman don’t really have a choice not to shave either. Not if you want to be seen as normal and clean.
Societal pressures play a big role in this debate, which ultimately stems from a religious source, but while I agree that a male should choose whether he wants to be circumcised or not, I don’t think I want a bunch of hairy females running around either.
Ultimately, I’m torn.
well-shaving your hair is one thing, hell, combing your hair...but removing a piece of your body that you'll never get back for mere social conventions that ultimately source from religion is above and beyond our concepts of beauty.
So much for the body being conceived and executed perfectly by a divine creator.
I guess another element to my argument is that I believe most people choose to have the procedure performed on their newborn, innocent babies because of societal pressures, or that they “think” it should be done. I wonder how many actually even know why they are doing it. I understand that is your whole point: Raising awareness. But, I guess some loose point of mine is that the reason, although stemming from religion, has changed. If you tell some people that religion is the root of such a procedure they will still do it because of societal pressures. Shaving or combing your hair is one thing, but think of all the countless men and women who undergo excruciatingly painful operations (changes that cannot be ‘put back’) to alter their looks in an attempt to be closer to “perfect”. Of course those same people will still circumcise their sons because they think it looks better. Religion, at that point, has nothing to do with it. It’s that same reason why the late Anna Nicole has been quoted as saying she kept her baby underfed because he looks “sexy” or better then a fat baby. Unfortunately, we are dealing with people of such low intellect when it comes to these matters, and enlightening them with the fact that circumcision stems from religion will not be enough to change their minds.
The science is there, to contradict the practice and provide real benefits of a natural penis, which I did not cover, but anyone can look up on their own.
Any kind of surgery made to make the body conform with society's standards of beauty has real consequences.
It is obvious, however, that religion, by itself, caused this social standard of beauty (circumcision) and even then, this standard is breaking down as circumcision rates fall.
Simply put, religion puts insane and crazy ideas into people's heads that might not have otherwise been had under secular influence. And most of us have real scars to show for it.
Amen
Good and interesting post in general, although I think one's understanding of God ("celestial dictator" vs. "benevolent deity") has a significant impact on how that Galatians passage is taken. I for one, find it to be a courageous statement given when and where it was written, as well as a beautiful development in our moral and religious understanding and consciousness, but that's just me.
What you really should have added was a note on the peculiar common practice of circumcision in the United States. After all, Christianity had quite strongly abandoned the practice as a necessity, and considering most new members weren't Jewish, it pretty much fell to the wayside, remaining that way up to the present in Europe, where only Jews and Muslims tend to be circumcised. The article "Circumcision in America" goes into some motivations behind what happened historically in the U.S., beginning in the late 1800s (remember good old Dr. Kellogg?). The Wiki article goes into some others, although not having read about this stuff in several years, I was surprised to find a citation further down of the "disease protection" claim having resurfaced recently, seemingly in legitimate scientific and medical journals (but I'm no professional, so who am I to say!): "More Evidence of Protection: Circumcision reduces STD risk in men".
And since we're talking about taboos, people reading this post might be interested in a new show that will be premiering on the National Geographic Channel on Sunday, August 5th: Taboo.
Also, while the subject is circumcision, has anyone ever heard of the devotion to the sacred foreskin of Christ? It was quite popular at times in the past, especially during the Middle Ages. Fascinating stuff, eh?
I'd only briefly note that circumcision as a defense against STD's isn't really the kind of justifications the religious-minded should be making.
"No premarital sex, no contraception...but sexual mutilation--now that's something Christianity can get behind!"
Well, perhaps I wasn't clear (or perhaps you're not talking about me in your reply), but I was not trying to defend circumcision for religious reasons. Personally, I wouldn't circumcise my children -- I'll felt that way for quite some time now and still feel that way.
The point of that caveat was simply to show that, contrary to what both you and I thought, there actually is seemingly legitimate research and discussion still going on concerning the benefits of circumcision, at least in some respects. So, the science is not entirely "in" yet.
The STD studies are pretty significant too. As the website Male Circumcision and HIV shows, in response to the recent scientific studies, various world leaders are already considering new public policies promoting male circumcision in African countries in hopes of preventing the further spread of HIV/AIDS. However, the authors of the site themselves are very skeptical of these newer findings and are doing all they can to show the errors in the research, as well as the pro-circumcision prejudices of many of the scientists involved. Depending on the outcome of these discussions though (if there are any), the ramifications could be huge for the male citizens of some African nations.
That's fine, and I appreciate your insight, but I have sort of a devil's advocate kind of response...
Why is circumcision acceptable in the prevention of STDs, but condoms are not? Does the Church condone circumcision?
Well, I didn't even know if the Church had a "teaching" on circumcision, but sure enough, there is one, although its an implicit one (though this statement deals with more than just circumcision):
"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law." (Catechism, No. 2297)
Following the logic of this passage then, assuming there are no health benefits to circumcision, then circumcision of a child (who is obviously considered innocent) would be amputation (perhaps some might call it mutilation) for a non-therapeutic reason, and therefore "against moral law".
As for what the leaders of the Church would say about why circumcision would be allowed and condoms wouldn't, I think they'd suggest that circumcision doesn't put an artificial barrier between physical union of the two lovers. However, two points are worth mentioning here: (1) It took them about 40 years longer than it should have, but as you know, leaders in the Church are increasingly considering the contraception teaching in relation to STD problems. Personally, I have a feeling the Church will soon be developing it's teaching on contraception to better meet the problems with STDs in our world today, at least in respect to AIDS in Africa where the consequence is almost certainly death. (2) As far as I know (though I'm certain some Catholics would disagree with me), the Church teaching on contraception is actually not something that one must necessarily assent to in order to be a Catholic.
That's all I've got for yah...
well i'm glad the church is catching up with what is considered common sense and moral. too bad it has so much red tape to get through.
In response to the HIV/AIDS scare:
Safe sexual practices are not only essential, but they are the only reliable and effective means for controlling and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases; even though the UN's recent (U.S.-led) studies suggest that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV infection, the UN still acknowledges that only sex-education and sexually responsible behavior (such as using condoms) are effective and reliable solutions.
In fact, one meta-study of those UN studies suggests that 72 circumcisions are necessary in order to prevent one case of HIV infection. In conclusion, the researchers make a half-hearted endorsement of the procedure:
Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections. Its impact on a population level will require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.
Consider that last sentence again: "consistently safe sexual practices" are necessary to be protected from HIV.
More to the point, the circumcised men in the UN studies are Muslim. No doubt does this cultural affiliation have an effect on their sexual behavior and would explain why these circumcised men are at a reduced risk of HIV.
Also, consider this article that says circumcision does not decrease the risk of contracting HIV for gay men. Then consider the following study that shows many gay men engage in unsafe sexual practices.
Therefore, it is obvious that the UN studies are hindered by confounding variables and that the real solution to the spread of HIV (and other STDs) is not circumcision, but sexually responsible behavior.
Moreover, the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision among industrialized nations (not considering, say, Israel), and yet the U.S. HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation. It doesn't seem like circumcision has helped much...
Therefore, it is disingenuous for you to suggest that circumcision is actually helpful for reducing HIV infection.
-----------------
Furthermore, an endorsement of circumcision as prophylaxis is not only wrongheaded, but dangerous, because it can be misconstrued as an endorsement of neonatal circumcision.
70%-75% of the Earth's men are intact (not circumcised). Medically unnecessary circumcision is rare outside of the United States, South Korea (influenced by the U.S.), Israel, the Muslim world (68% of circumcised men), and the older generations of Canada and Australia (both influenced by the U.S.). Outside of these countries/cultures, 'routine'/ritual circumcision is considered bizarre--even backward and cruel.
Through science and medicine, the foreskin is known to contain specialized structures, muscle, a complex vascular system, and tens of thousands of highly concentrated, specialized, erogenous nerve cells and fine touch receptors. These specialized structures include the preputial sphincter, the frenulum, and the ridged band. In particular, the frenulum is a very erogenous region that is either ablated during circumcision or is underdeveloped on the circumcised penis. The ridged band's fine touch receptors complement the coarse sensory receptors of the glans (head of the penis) and it is always removed during circumcision.
Besides providing a specialized combination of nerves, the foreskin acts as an erogenous sheath in which the shaft and glans glide and with which the frenulum and ridged band are stimulated.
These structures and nerves are essential to the complete experience and functioning of the sex act, so that their amputation results in a clear sensory and mechanical deficiency. Consider the British Journal of Urology (1999):
The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function [8]. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis [42] and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce [45] is required for normal copulatory behaviour. The increased frequency of masturbation, anal intercourse and fellatio reported by circumcised men in the USA [81] may possibly be due to the sensory imbalance caused by circumcision. Clearly, amputation of the prepuce causes changes in sexual behaviour in human males [81] and females [82].
As for increased masturbation, it seems likely that the constant (unwanted) stimulation of the exposed glans and remaining foreskin is likely to blame.
As for empirical data, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the foreskin is highly erogenous and greatly enhances the sexual experience by providing another 'layer' of stimulation and function. For instance, the frenulum is colloquially known as the "sex nerve" in France and perhaps throughout Europe. By destroying or reducing this stretching action, circumcision removes or alters this fundamental means of sexual pleasure in the human male.
Moreover, one study shows that 6/7 women prefer partners with an intact penis, so circumcision also deprives women of some extra level of satisfaction.
The foreskin provides not just more sensitivity, but enhanced sensitivity.
Consider this:
Some colorblind men may never know they are deficient or may only find out much later in life after failing the colorblindness tests; they never knew before (or may never know) that they can't enjoy various colors and their combinations; so it is with circumcised men.
In actuality, we don't even need silly visual tests. We could examine DNA or the eye's cone cells and determine that a person is colorblind; these are physical facts.
Likewise, there is no debate that circumcision destroys sexual 'perception'. The only question is whether the REMAINING tissue (glans and what's left of the inner foreskin) is desensitized due to the conditions engendered by the amputation of the foreskin. While there is conflicting evidence as to the degree of further desensitizing, it is certainly the case that the glans and remaining inner foreskin are transformed into fully external structures---something that is unnatural for these mucosal tissues. They suffer from drying-out, subtle lifelong abrasion (simple contact with clothes), and keratinization (a response that reduces the irritation of drying-out and abrasion, but also results in a reduction of nerve stimulation).
Indeed, intact men, who find themselves to be too sensitive are often instructed to retract their foreskins temporarily in order to dull their senses.
Worse, circumcision can result in complications that exact even more physical and psychological tolls.
In short, circumcision provides no reliable or effective protection against HIV and many men enjoy their foreskins sexually, so that to remove the foreskin is to deprive a male of a unique form of sexual stimulation (and protection). It is a slight against the human rights, dignity, respect, and personal liberty of men to amputate forcibly what is healthy and valuable tissue.
Post a Comment