Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

[Zack Morris]

Zach, lets sum it all up.
Medically, there are a few benefits. There's some varying evidence as to how big, but at a minimum, some marginal medical benefits.

Marginal benefits that can also easily be realized through less invasive means.

It's a little easier for parents to deal with hygiene in the diaper years.

What? I have never heard this before. Is this going to be the latest rallying cry of Dicktators the world over? Because it's not very catchy...

Aesthetically, most tend to agree it looks better. Chix diggit. Anecdotally, I hear that gay dudes tend to agree.

That's what cut people tell themselves. In my experience, it's untrue, and note that there has been a noticeable increase in uncut penises appearing in American pornography.

If it's done in infancy a few days after birth, it's a minor thing. Some numbing gel, the kid cries a bit, and then they get over it a few hours later.

And they never get their foreskin back.

Circumcision has no real medical harms.

Lots of things have no real medical harms. Like putting in gauge earrings.

The worst that can be claimed is that there is a minor reduction in sensitivity. Enough to prevent sexual enjoyment? No.

Enough to substantially alter the experience. Masturbation (and manual stimulation in general) is especially adversely impacted and uncut penises are more easily lubricated during sex. In fact, curbing masturbation was the primary reason (as far as I know) that circumcision became widely popular in the Anglo-Saxon world during the 19th century in the first place (that and some quack theories about it being a cure-all for all manner of illnesses -- but then again, every quack procedure of the time claimed this). So clearly, it has some adverse impact on sexual enjoyment.

Why is this an issue again?

When you're proposing a permanent and very visible body modification, especially in an area as sensitive (and I mean that psychologically as much as physically) as the penis, I think the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't made the case. I'm sure the procedure is much more convenient to perform on pliant infants who can't protest. It remains a relatively uncomplicated procedure into the teenage years. The fair compromise is to wait a little while.

But you know what will happen then. Almost no one will do it and then a lot of your spurious arguments about diapers and aesthetics will mysteriously vanish.

[Zack Morris]

Save your breath . . you're pissing in the wind here.

But at least some of us are pissing with a complete penis

[anderson]

It says a lot about the level of the conversation here that the most substantial retort seems to be some mumblings about it being harder for a kid to jerk off in the future. Right. Anyway, based on the admittedly anecdotal evidence of the reports of some Jewish roommates from university and the writings of Phillip Roth, I don't get the impression that the trimmed have particular trouble figuring out how to manually stimulate themselves.

[Typhoon]

I agree with Anderson on this one, I don´t see circumcision as some kind of violation; It´s very diferent from female genital mutilation.
It has been proved that it lowers the transmition of HPV, it´s a routine and simple medical procedure, so what?

It seems that Spengler has managed to get not only inside your brains but also inside your ... head!

Typhoon, Milo, ZM,please note that I mentioned the relation between circumcision and HPV ( HPV is the cause of cervical cancer and is transmited sexualy) infection,not HIV infection.

Noted.

US CDC | HPV Vaccine Information For Young Women - Fact Sheet

[noddy]

this is only about one thing, teh battle for respect moi authority between cultural conservatives and progressives.. only one can be king, only one can be the reference point for law.

wouldnt worry about the morality or lack of it, its not relevant... this is the war for the future and anything goes in war, im expecting more legal shaudenfraude and spiteful face chopping as the conversatives get more panicy and the progressives get more cocky.

[Zack Morris]

Noddy, this is about people irreversibly modifying other peoples' bodies. I'm not sure what progressivism and conservatism have to do with this debate. This is well within the bounds of what the law is supposed to address.

[Nastarana]

No discussion on this latest essay over on the Spengler board.

I can't imagine why not.

[noddy]

Noddy, this is about people irreversibly modifying other peoples' bodies. I'm not sure what progressivism and conservatism have to do with this debate. This is well within the bounds of what the law is supposed to address.

is it actually possible that a young man from a culture that cuts the flaps of skin from the end of the penis might actually want to have this done ?
is it actually possible that if they wait till they are legally adult it causes them mental trauma from not being properly part of the tribe until then ?

do scarification and other cultural rites of passage fit in ? is emotional connection to your own mob important ? (hint, its not for an atomised progressive)

where does diet and excercise come into this, more and more studies show these are critical to adult outcomes, is letting a kid get fat and lazy worse or better than trimming knob skin ?

i dont have a horse in this race, im not religious or progressive and i dont consider trimming the flaps to be a the same as female genital mutilation, thats a different level of crazy and they effectively chop the knob off, not trim the flaps.

i think this is largely a non issue, the only people who ever try and sell it to me are progressives who love the concept of challenging religious stupidity and try and link it to cutting off the clitorus, for me its more like piercing ears (oooh, do mums that put ear rings in little girls ears butcher young bodies too ????)

ive not seen one demonstration that involved the alleged millions of men butchered without consent, nor heard lots of horror stories from these men about how their lives have been ruined.

its about the battle for control, trimming nob skin is only important because its a religious thing and as such, from a progressive point of view, it must be challenged.

[Milo]

It's worth saying here at that earlier today a friend of mine made the 'abortion argument' in favor of allowing circumcision on infants.

IOW, if we don't have legitimate circumcision offered on infants in hospitals, there will be back alley circumcisions.

I think he's got a point.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.

Well...... throughout history we've had people raise scars all over their bodies through the subdermal insertion of foreign matter, drive objects through their septums and earlobes and really radical attempts at circumcision. Historically, people don't seem quite so concerned about body integrity, they seemed more concerned about belonging and being recognised in a tribe - apart from others.......

[Zack Morris]

is it actually possible that a young man from a culture that cuts the flaps of skin from the end of the penis might actually want to have this done ?

It is very possible. Which is why there should be no harm in postponing this. If the decision had to be made with the consent of the boy being circumcised, you would see the procedure become dramatically less popular in the US, where it is most commonly not practiced for religious reasons. You would also, I suspect, see a precipitous fall in circumcision rates among secular Jews and Muslims. This is the reason, I suspect, some people are so up in arms about restrictions on the procedure.

is it actually possible that if they wait till they are legally adult it causes them mental trauma from not being properly part of the tribe until then ?

No, I don't think this is possible actually. And note that I never said the age of consent had to be as high as 18. Whether a boy feels part of the tribe or not is actually something controlled by the other members of the tribe.

do scarification and other cultural rites of passage fit in ? is emotional connection to your own mob important ? (hint, its not for an atomised progressive)

Scarification rituals should be prohibited as well until an age of consent has been reached. An emotional connection to one's mob is one's own business (and not the mob's). Do you believe the predominant culture of the land has a right to establish boundaries for itself?

where does diet and excercise come into this, more and more studies show these are critical to adult outcomes, is letting a kid get fat and lazy worse or better than trimming knob skin ?

Good question but I think that banning non-consensual body mutilation need not establish any strict precedents here. This is a rather separate issue to grapple with. Specifics are important. I would view 'knob trimming' as something more akin to fattening a child up due to some weird mob preference for extreme obesity. I don't think that's right.

i dont have a horse in this race, im not religious or progressive and i dont consider trimming the flaps to be a the same as female genital mutilation, thats a different level of crazy and they effectively chop the knob off, not trim the flaps.

If I'm not mistaken, there are different forms of female genital mutilation. And interestingly enough, many that have undergone the procedure seem to want their own daughters to undergo it as well. Makes me think there's some sort of Circum-Stockholm Syndrome phenomenon going on here when people become impassioned defenders of their right to lop off their boy's foreskin,

i think this is largely a non issue, the only people who ever try and sell it to me are progressives who love the concept of challenging religious stupidity and try and link it to cutting off the clitorus, for me its more like piercing ears (oooh, do mums that put ear rings in little girls ears butcher young bodies too ????)

Nope. Earrings are less invasive and the reasonable age of consent for pierced ears could be a bit lower than for circumcision. What about parents who may want their child to look like a reptile, with forked tongue and studs implanted under the scalp skin? Is that okay in your book? What about C-cup breast implants for a 10 year old? Where do you draw the line and why doesn't cutting off a part of the penis fit in there?

its about the battle for control, trimming nob skin is only important because its a religious thing and as such, from a progressive point of view, it must be challenged.

Anything that marginalizes religion is a great and heroic thing but at least here in the States, circumcision is not primarily practiced for religious reasons. And men who were spared do not want to give up their foreskins, generally. Seems to me that the procedure is unnecessary. It's not even recommended anymore and, thankfully, the procedure's population is dropping.

[Zack Morris]

It's worth saying here at that earlier today a friend of mine made the 'abortion argument' in favor of allowing circumcision on infants.

IOW, if we don't have legitimate circumcision offered on infants in hospitals, there will be back alley circumcisions.

I think he's got a point.

I love it. Only religious nuts would do it and this would further give my side ammunition to use against them.

[Mr. Perfect]

I think jews are generally pro choice, even the religious ones. Could be wrong.

I think this is a legitimate debate, but boils down to "sticking" it to jews bottom line. Leave the jews alone. It ain't FGM.

[Endovelico]

I am with Zack on most of his arguments. But the religious aspect is also important. The fact that intelligent adults may even consider that God could be moved by your chopping off your foreskin is incredible. If foreskin is so objectionable why create Man with it, in the first place? The idea that God would be favourably impressed by the "sacrifice" of your foreskin, would place that God among the chief morons of the universe. I'm not religious and I very much doubt there is a God. But if I would think a bit about what kind of entity could a God be, I would have a lot of trouble accepting a God who would act in an irrational, capricious manner, just to show who the boss is. Forcing people to do stupid things is a well known control technique, a way to subject people. And God has nothing to do with it. It's a strategy used by the clergy of any known religion in order to dominate a community. Communists do it too, by the way.

[Typhoon]

Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.

Well...... throughout history we've had people raise scars all over their bodies through the subdermal insertion of foreign matter, drive objects through their septums and earlobes and really radical attempts at circumcision. Historically, people don't seem quite so concerned about body integrity, they seemed more concerned about belonging and being recognised in a tribe - apart from others.......

Both a good and valid point.

I recall watching a documentary about a tribe wherein the young men have a custom of having their teeth chipped and filed down to triangles . . . without the benefit of local anesthetic.

I suppose the practice may be rationalized as demonstrating one's ability as a young warrior and provider to endure very high levels of pain.
Still, many other cultures have not only survived, but thrived, without requiring this particular rite of passage.

My view is that gratuitous body mod to identify with and belong to a tribe is simply an unfortunate legacy of our poo-flinging evolutionary history.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Don't necessarily disagree, thought it was worth mentioning.....;>.....

I think a discussion should clarify what it is when we talk about 'evolution'. Are we including human psycho-cultural development in historical context in the definition, or not? I'm okay if we do, don't know if everyone read the same memo. I'm more skeery what we use 'science' and 'scientific' for, as people tend to borrow from those concepts to justify whatever cultural or political prejudice is running through their heads at the moment.......

[Nonc Hilaire]

My view is that gratuitous body mod to identify with and belong to a tribe is simply an unfortunate legacy of our poo-flinging evolutionary history.

More akin to the use of lawn gnomes and stick-figure families on cars as a means of self-expression and trying to circumvent alienation.

[Typhoon]

My view is that gratuitous body mod to identify with and belong to a tribe is simply an unfortunate legacy of our poo-flinging evolutionary history.

More akin to the use of lawn gnomes and stick-figure families on cars as a means of self-expression and trying to circumvent alienation.

Well, I've yet to see anyone hanging their shrunken and preserved foreskin off their auto rear view mirror right beside their fuzzy dice.

Although I have seen shrunken heads hanging over the entrance to a longhouse.

[Typhoon]

Don't necessarily disagree, thought it was worth mentioning.....;>.....

I think a discussion should clarify what it is when we talk about 'evolution'. Are we including human psycho-cultural development in historical context in the definition, or not? I'm okay if we do, don't know if everyone read the same memo.

Yes. Like most, if not all, primates, we are a social - tribal species.
However, as species we maintain tribal identification through creating symbols rather than, say, sniffing each others butts when we meet
[although watching two academics meet and establish pecking order reminds me of nothing but . . . ]

Those symbols may be flags, tattoos, coat of arms, piercings, dress, circumcision, or whatever else we can come up with.
Some of these practices are less benign than others.

I'm more skeery what we use 'science' and 'scientific' for, as people tend to borrow from those concepts to justify whatever cultural or political prejudice is running through their heads at the moment.......

Absolutely. Plenty of "just so" stories that may sound plausible, but are not backed up by evidence. Especially in psychology, sociobiology, and related fields.

[Azrael]

My view is that gratuitous body mod to identify with and belong to a tribe is simply an unfortunate legacy of our poo-flinging evolutionary history.

More akin to the use of lawn gnomes and stick-figure families on cars as a means of self-expression and trying to circumvent alienation.

Well, I've yet to see anyone hanging their shrunken and preserved foreskin off their auto rear view mirror right beside their fuzzy dice.

Neither have I; but I've never been to Israel or Brighton Beach.

Although I have seen shrunken heads hanging over the entrance to a longhouse.

When guys over there say "don't mess with me", it's good advice.

[monster_gardener]

My view is that gratuitous body mod to identify with and belong to a tribe is simply an unfortunate legacy of our poo-flinging evolutionary history.

More akin to the use of lawn gnomes and stick-figure families on cars as a means of self-expression and trying to circumvent alienation.

Well, I've yet to see anyone hanging their shrunken and preserved foreskin off their auto review mirror right beside their fuzzy dice.

Neither have I; but I've never been to Israel or Brighton Beach.

Although I have seen shrunken heads hanging over the entrance to a longhouse.

When guys over there say "don't mess with me", it's good advice.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Typhoon and Azrael.

Old memories.......If these are the same Bad Boyz, I remember reading that the heads were often old and female.....Easier to get a/head by ambushing an old woman at a waterhole than by taking on a strong young buck..........

All men/women are more or less equal.......... Sam Colt made them that way......

[Typhoon]

. . .

Although I have seen shrunken heads hanging over the entrance to a longhouse.

When guys over there say "don't mess with me", it's good advice.

Indeed.

However, it's no longer a rite of manhood. The custom is only resurrected in dealing with what they perceives as squatters on their land.

[Demon of Undoing]

I have a ten inch wide brand of Audrey Hepburn on my back. Breakfast at Tiffany's, biotch.

Jews are wimps.

[Hoosiernorm]

I have a ten inch wide brand of Audrey Hepburn on my back. Breakfast at Tiffany's, biotch.

Jews are wimps.

Wow that must have been really painful, can you tell them about the pain

[Demon of Undoing]

I have a ten inch wide brand of Audrey Hepburn on my back. Breakfast at Tiffany's, biotch.

Jews are wimps.

Wow that must have been really painful, can you tell them about the pain

In fairness, I did it by choice.