What is it with circumcision?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

There was a great programme on BBC1 television this week about coming of age in different societies that featured an African boy preparing for his entry into manhood including having his private parts abbreviated.

Why do so many traditional cultures and religions want to harvest foreskins? There are discussions to be had about the medical benefits, but were those societies capable of developing this practice because of supposed medical benefits? If not, then why did they pick on that piece of anatomy?

When this topic comes up I'm always reminded of this joke.

"What is the useless piece of skin at the end of a penis?"

"A man"

Edited for typos, but I see that formatting the thread title doesn't work!

[Z]

I'm reminded of notes in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible to the effect of, "God loves Penises. And he HATES foreskins."

I just think a trimmed John Thomas is more attractive, easier to keep clean, and looks a lot less worm-like.

I wonder if there's not some connection between woodies and snakes that bothers early cultures.

[Iacchus]

And when the serpent sheds its skin, it's a sign of eternal life ... which, is why the serpent is revered in so many cultures.

[Wudang]

That might explain why adolescent males think they're immortal.


A pal of mine had a job circimcising elephants. The pay was pitiful.......



but the tips were enormous

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I just think a trimmed John Thomas is more attractive, easier to keep clean, and looks a lot less worm-like.


But is that enough to make the dangly bit tabu?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
But is that enough to make the dangly bit tabu?

It is interesting that in some cultures a man is not considered naked unless he is circumcised.

[Ribbitalu]

Doesn't it seem a little weird that some patriarchal societies tend to have circumcision rituals? Adult men making rules and rituals about a younger male's thingy....

Some women think it's a male conspiracy to bring attention to their "little friend"....?



:)

[uruk]

Why do so many traditional cultures and religions want to harvest foreskins?
They make exquisitly supple hand gloves and finger cots.

[Z]

In all seriousness, I think Iacchus' snake-skin analogy might be the actual key here - the 'shedding of the skin' as a mark of adulthood. That might well be the key.

[Beerina]

As a man whose sex organs were mutilated at birth, against my will, without my permission, for archaic, ancient, ritualistic reasons, I have an opinion on the subject.

More importantly, I have a question. How sexually sensitive was the part cut off? Was it like the skin along the back of the penis, or near the base, that isn't particularly sexually sensitive, and is more like normal skin elsewhere?

Or is it, or parts of it (which parts?) are sensitive similar to the skin beneath the head on the underside? If so, someone needs to go to jail.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beerina
As a man whose sex organs were mutilated at birth, against my will, without my permission, for archaic, ancient, ritualistic reasons, I have an opinion on the subject.

More importantly, I have a question. How sexually sensitive was the part cut off? Was it like the skin along the back of the penis, or near the base, that isn't particularly sexually sensitive, and is more like normal skin elsewhere?

Or is it, or parts of it (which parts?) are sensitive similar to the skin beneath the head on the underside? If so, someone needs to go to jail.

Best line up the lawyers:

http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm


Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor studied the foreskin tissue at the Department of Pathology, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Canada. They reported their results in the British Journal of Urology in an article titled “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision.� Based on the examination of 22 adult foreskins obtained at autopsy, they found that the outer foreskin’s concentration of nerves is “impressive� and its “sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole.� (1) The foreskin inner surface is different. It is mucous membrane similar to the inner surface of the mouth, also rich in nerves and blood vessels. Between the inner and outer layers of the foreskin is a unique structure they call a “ridged band� that contains “specialized nerve endings.� (2) The researchers conclude that the foreskin has several kinds of nerves and “should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more or less specialized parts. . . . The glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce.� (3)
The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. (4) The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed. (5) Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity. (6) In addition, the loss of a secretion called smegma of the inner foreskin layer removes natural lubrication.

We - or at least many of us - have been screwed, indeed.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beerina

As a man whose sex organs were mutilated at birth, against my will, without my permission, for archaic, ancient, ritualistic reasons, I have an opinion on the subject.

More importantly, I have a question. How sexually sensitive was the part cut off? Was it like the skin along the back of the penis, or near the base, that isn't particularly sexually sensitive, and is more like normal skin elsewhere?

Or is it, or parts of it (which parts?) are sensitive similar to the skin beneath the head on the underside? If so, someone needs to go to jail. Your best bet would be to go ask someone who was "uncircumsized."

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In all seriousness, I think Iacchus' snake-skin analogy might be the actual key here - the 'shedding of the skin' as a mark of adulthood. That might well be the key.

Not really circumcision is just a way to control sexuality. In both males and females. And therefore quite unethical.

The benefits are about equal to the risks, and even this consideration leaves out the reduced sexual preformance of the victim.

[TragicMonkey]

Sheesh. Stop being greedy. Isn't sex good enough already, even without a foreskin?

I'd also point out that in that long excerpt from the foreskin pathologists, where they discuss lubrication and movement, etc, none of that would actually work with a foreskin if you were wearing a condom. It'd be just like being circumsized anyway. For me, at least, that makes the issue moot.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Not really circumcision is just a way to control sexuality. In both males and females. And therefore quite unethical.

I disagree. Circumcision might have that effect in females, but it doesn't make sex unpleasurable for males. (Unless it were done really recently!)

If the issue was really about control, they'd leave it on and pierce it. I'm sure BME has some pics of that...

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I disagree. Circumcision might have that effect in females, but it doesn't make sex unpleasurable for males. (Unless it were done really recently!)
For control they don't need it to make it unpleasurable, only reduce it serverly, as it does with males.

[AWPrime]

CIRP, the best info site about circumcision.

http://www.cirp.org/library/

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by AWPrime
For control they don't need it to make it unpleasurable, only reduce it serverly, as it does with males.

Still doesn't work. Sex is pleasurable enough to seek it out quite frequently, even circumsized.

I haven't noticed the circumsized getting any less than those who weren't. In fact, in the US anyway, it's sometimes easier for the circumsized to get sex, since it's the norm (at the moment, anyway). The prevailing cultural prejudice seems to be pro-circumcision, and the perception that it "looks better".

(I'm well aware of the fact that I'm spelling circumsision with varying numbers of s's and c's. I'm lazy, and can't be bothered to look it up.)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Still doesn't work.

It does work, for its purpose.

from: http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/riner.html



From Biblical times, at least, we have had a taboo, a religious injunction prohibiting sexual pollution in the forms of incest, adultery and masturbation; these three are often treated collectively, as they all are concerned with the control of human reproduction

......

Circumcision was prescribed as one way of preventing a person's fall into these sins of pollution. (Allow that reasoning in Biblical contexts was not scientific - but as we'll see, symbolic, and more precisely metaphorical.)

[jmercer]

Well, everywhere I look, the consensus seems to be the same. Circumcision reduces sexual pleasure for men, and possibly for women, too.

How annoying.

[DarkMagician]

I thought it was to make it easier to clean.

However, they forgot about the feeling of constantly having your nerves rub against your underwear.

<--circumsized.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
I thought it was to make it easier to clean.

However, they forgot about the feeling of constantly having your nerves rub against your underwear.

<--circumsized.

Lol. Thanks for the info. Want to start a poll?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Why do so many traditional cultures and religions want to harvest foreskins? There are discussions to be had about the medical benefits, but were those societies capable of developing this practice because of supposed medical benefits? If not, then why did they pick on that piece of anatomy?
I dont know why that piece of anatomy was chosen, but biblically speaking circumcision was necessary to continue fulling the covenant between the descendants of Abraham and God.

[kuroyume0161]

Personally, I think it's an atrocious practice. There is no utility in it. The myth of 'uncleanliness' is just that, especially in the past four hundred years with hygiene becoming prevalent (or in places where it was always recognized, as in Japan).

I feel that those who are circumcized are victimized. How would you feel if it were a custom to have your lips removed at birth because they are 'unclean'? It is a practice that needs to be stopped in the way it is done currently. Heck, you want your foreskin removed at an age of responsibility (16/18), sure go for it. But 2 week old babies don't have a say or choice in the matter. For the always-hypocritical Christians out there: Abortion is bad, mutilation is okay?

Yes, I was a victim of this insulting practice. (That's two in the poll, right?) ;)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'd also point out that in that long excerpt from the foreskin pathologists, where they discuss lubrication and movement, etc, none of that would actually work with a foreskin if you were wearing a condom.

Exactly!

Cavalier, and proud of it: BSM may be badly shaved, but has not been trimmed in any other way.

[Fidelio]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
...<--circumsized.

Umm...yes bud we remember the paltalk streaking episode a couple years ago.

[arthwollipot]

I was circumsised as a child (three in the poll) and I've no idea why. My parents were, if anything, anglican. I think it was just the done thing at that time and in that place.

I've never felt victimised, insulted or deprived because I have no foreskin. I can't remember it happening, so I don't know if it hurt or not. And having nothing to compare it to, I can't say that I get any less sexual pleasure than a man with a foreskin.

The sum of my opinion therefore is "meh". My children are not circumcised, as I don't see any point in it.

I'd like to quote Robin Williams:

"We're going into the desert, folks. You don't want sand in there!"

[aofl]

sniff:(

I miss my foreskin.

A

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Fidelio
Umm...yes bud we remember the paltalk streaking episode a couple years ago. Yeah, maybe I should stop doing that. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/NikeYoung/Emoticons/embarrassed.gif

[c4ts]

No streaking! Bad magician!

Anyway, I thought it was for hygenic purposes. The forskin attracts infection or something.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by jmercer
Best line up the lawyers:

http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm



We - or at least many of us - have been screwed, indeed.

One would have to wonder how many more of us would be premature ejaculators without circumcision. It is not implausible that one aspect of the initial inclination in some societies was, in fact, to decrease sensitivity (pleasure, if you like), but with an eye toward making sex a more equal experience for both men and women.

[AWPrime]

http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm


In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice.

....

When a custom persists after its original functions have died, it may be accorded the status of ritual. American parents and physicians no longer cite masturbatory insanity as a reason to circumcise children, but they have found other justifications for the ritual that they believe in as firmly. When the same operation is variously reputed to accomplish antithetical goals - in the case of circumcision, to repress sexuality and to liberate it, to make the penis or clitoris less sensitive and more sensitive - we can be sure we are dealing with ritual, not rational thinking. It is astonishing that such a little bit of skin carries such a great load of power.

[Hamhawk714]

As I was sitting here reading this my dog was rolling around on the floor and boom what do I see?His red]RED ROCKET.Maybe ancient cultures were trying to be less animal like in the appearance of their sexual organs.Just a thought.Make that four in your pole.Pun intended.Does anyone really think that thousands of years ago some guy decided to cut off his foreskin to increase his wives pleasure?Iseriously doubt that.

[Kiless]

I don't support female infibulation, therefore I don't support circumcision. I was under the impression that it was a religious notion all bundled up with some claim of health benefits.

[Fidelio]

I was cut as an infant and I have no memory of the event. Heck I didn't even know I was missing a part till around 16. So what is it with cultures that wait till 10-12 years of age?

Do they figure each little boy needs a bit of physical and psychological trauma involving his weiner?

"Step out of line and it'll be the whole thing next time kiddo."

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Hamhawk714
As I was sitting here reading this my dog was rolling around on the floor and boom what do I see?His red]RED ROCKET.Maybe ancient cultures were trying to be less animal like in the appearance of their sexual organs.Just a thought.Make that four in your pole.Pun intended.

Hey, great minds think alike. I was wondering about this the other day after I had started this thread and you are right. Although prepuces are present in our domestic species, when their todgers up and ready for action they are extruded fully. Given early man's proximity to animals and the metaphorical and magical importance of male animals to human sexuality, perhaps there is an element of mimcry involved.

Mind you, I'm glad we didn't try to engineer anything quite as baroque as the ram's male implement (http://137.222.110.150/restricted/gallery/album245/Pot_34_Penis_to_show_urethral_process_tuberculum_s pongiosum_ram_left_lateral_aspect_fixed_photo).

Badly Shaved Monkey wishes to make it clear that his detailed knowledge of animal penises is derived from his professional training and is not merely an unpleasant hobby.

Edited for typos, but not for decency or taste!

[jambo372]

Here's a joke on the subject ;

Q What happened to the blind circumciser ?
A He got the sack.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm reminded of notes in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible to the effect of, "God loves Penises. And he HATES foreskins."

I just think a trimmed John Thomas is more attractive, easier to keep clean, and looks a lot less worm-like.
It's true that from an aesthetic POV, circumcised penises look better, but the idea of being easier to keep clean is a nonsense. I'm uncircumcised (as is Richard Dawkins, BTW), because in Britain it really is down to the whim of the doctor in the delivery room. At Dawkins's school, boys used to divide themselves into Cavaliers and Roundheads for sports like Rugby.
Oh, and foreskins act as increased protection against contracting STDs, which explains why they were naturally selected in the first place.
But those without may consider themselves a cut above the rest... :p

[AWPrime]

What about the scare tissue then?

That can't look good.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by AWPrime
What about the scare tissue then?

That can't look good.
Are you saying that circumcised penises look scary? :p

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
[B]Not really circumcision is just a way to control sexuality. In both males and females. And therefore quite unethical.

Why "therefore"? I don't know if I'm convinced that circumcision, and male such in particular, was about controlling sexuality, but assuming that to be the case, why would that automatically make it unethical?

Remember that cheap and reliable birth control is a modern phenomena, and still not common everywhere on the globe. Add to that how dangerous to the mother it was to give birth prior to modern medicine, and it's clear that pre-modern cultures had very good reasons to control sexuality.

The institution of marriage, for example, is also a method for controlling sexuality; so would you say that it too is "therefore quite unethical"?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The institution of marriage, for example, is also a method for controlling sexuality; so would you say that it too is "therefore quite unethical"?
Yes, if that's what marriage really is, rather than a public display of love between two people.

[AWPrime]

Leif,

There is a difference between controlling ones own sexuality (pil, marriage) and having it controlled by someone else.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Are you saying that circumcised penises look scary? :p

I am not going that far, but some look like this:

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/comp.gif

[Kimpatsu]

Why not post pics of Bush, etc., instead? They're all dickheads either way...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Yes, if that's what marriage really is, rather than a public display of love between two people.

While the act of marriage today might, for the two parties engaging in it, be primarily a matter of publically annoucing their love; the legal and social (and religious, if we separate that from the social) institution of marriage is not. It is also just in modern times that love typically plays a major part in deciding who marries -- historically speaking, love was usually less important than pragmatism in choosing one's partner.

While the institution of marriage is not just a way to control sexuality (it is, for instance, also a way to regulate the inheritance of property,) it has also clearly been that -- which we can see from the fact that much of the legal and religious laws concerning sexuality has prohibited adultery.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
There is a difference between controlling ones own sexuality (pil, marriage) and having it controlled by someone else.

Marriage was not a way of controlling one's own sexuality -- which we can see simply from the fact that adultery was historically mainly illegal and was punished to various degrees. To take the argument to an extreme -- stoning someone to death for having committed adultery is clearly a case of controlling someone else's sexuality.

[Kimpatsu]

Leif, what the hell do you think marriage is?
It's a legal contract. nothing more. From your posts, one would almost think you bought into the lie that marriage has a religious dimension...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Leif, what the hell do you think marriage is?
It's a legal contract. nothing more. From your posts, one would almost think you bought into the lie that marriage has a religious dimension...

Marriage is not just a legal contract -- it is also a social institution. It is not just your legal status that change when you get married -- you also take on a different social role. In most, if not practically all, religions, marriage is also a religious institution. It is possible to aknwoledge this for a fact without making any judgements whatsoever on the truth of the religions themselves.

Religion is an important social force, and it would be just stupid and inane to ignore the religious aspects of a phenomena just because I myself happen to be areligious.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Marriage is not just a legal contract -- it is also a social institution. It is not just your legal status that change when you get married -- you also take on a different social role. In most, if not practically all, religions, marriage is also a religious institution. It is possible to aknwoledge this for a fact without making any judgements whatsoever on the truth of the religions themselves.

Religion is an important social force, and it would be just stupid and inane to ignore the religious aspects of a phenomena just because I myself happen to be areligious.
If you believe that crap, Leif, then you've bought into the lies of the religious right without knowing it.
Marriage is an irreligious social institution. Legally, its only role is to provide tax brakes (which should be abolished) to people who happen to take advantage of it. It has nothing to do with religion. If it did, which religion has the monopoly on marriage: Xpianity? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? After all, only one of them can be right (at most) and, according to your argument, all others are not legal marriages. (Which is what a fundie acquaintance of main claims, but that's a debate for another day...)
Any which way you slice it, marriage is a social, not a religiuous institution.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Any which way you slice it, marriage is a social, not a religiuous institution.

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
If you believe that crap, Leif, then you've bought into the lies of the religious right without knowing it.
Marriage is an irreligious social institution. Legally, its only role is to provide tax brakes (which should be abolished) to people who happen to take advantage of it. It has nothing to do with religion. If it did, which religion has the monopoly on marriage: Xpianity? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? After all, only one of them can be right (at most) and, according to your argument, all others are not legal marriages. (Which is what a fundie acquaintance of main claims, but that's a debate for another day...)
Any which way you slice it, marriage is a social, not a religiuous institution.

As far as I'm aware there is no tax break for being married. In fact, if my wife and I were not married and we paid our taxes separately I am pretty sure we would be paying considerably less.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by billydkid
As far as I'm aware there is no tax break for being married. In fact, if my wife and I were not married and we paid our taxes separately I am pretty sure we would be paying considerably less.
I can't speak for where you are, but there certainly is in the UK; it's called the Married Man's Allowance.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I can't speak for where you are, but there certainly is in the UK; it's called the Married Man's Allowance.

Didn't that disappear with the advent of "independent taxation" a few years ago?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Didn't that disappear with the advent of "independent taxation" a few years ago?
Ah, you may be right; I've been an expat for 13 years now. I'm no longer au courant.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'm no longer au courant.

Hey, those Japanese lessons have been a damn waste of money. I think Linguaphone sent you the wrong tapes. :)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Hey, those Japanese lessons have been a damn waste of money. I think Linguaphone sent you the wrong tapes. :)
OK:
イギリス��状��れ��る
Better? :p

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
OK:
イギリス��状��れ��る
Better? :p

Could you make that two fried rice, please?


More seriously, what do you make of this? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53303)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Could you make that two fried rice, please?
Sure, but at treble the cost... :p :D

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The cultural practice of circumcision spreads for the same reason similar practices - such as subincision - tend to spread. They're relatively easy to begin, and once they've become accepted, they're incredibly difficult to get rid of.

It's rather like making new doctors work ridiculously long hours without sleep. The available data and common sense indicate that the practice is very harmful, but the tradition has a great deal of cultural inertia - particularly since it's so hard to get doctors as a group to recognize that they're doing harm in the first place.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Leif, what the hell do you think marriage is?
It's a legal contract. nothing more.

Actually, there are two halves.

1. The religious half (for those that believe.) This half is the important half (in their eyes) and the half that counts (in their eyes)

2. The legal, governmental-recognition half. This is meaningless (in their eyes).

Hmmmm...I guess there is no reason for a religious person to object to gay marriage since the state's half is the meaningless half.


Oops, sorry, was thinking there.

[Lucky]

From Kimpatsu:
I can't speak for where you are, but there certainly is in the UK; it's called the Married Man's Allowance.The Married Couples Allowance ended in 2000. To imagine that there could still be such a thing now in the UK as the Married Man's Allowance is not just ignorant but positively stupid.

Some free advice: If you don’t know what you’re blathering about, stop blathering.

Simple, but effective.