Just put your carrot in the guillotine…
June 1st, 2008 by PavelMale infant circumcision is a human rights abuse.
Ever since Abraham hallucinated a conversation with The Almighty, young religious types have been forced to undergo unnecessary mutilation to appease a non-existent God and the religious fanaticism of their community. What started as a desperate attempt to suck up to God (Abraham circumcised himself to prove his faith) has turned into one of the most useless, repulsive and illiberal practices the Western world continues to tolerate.
Talking about circumcision is understandably tricky: it remains an “integral” part of Judaism, some Muslim sects, and several smaller cultural communities. For Jews, this procedure is so “important” to their identity that deceased uncircumcised males will occasionally get the snip even though they’ve already passed away. A significant portion of the West (especially in the U.S.) already have had the procedure done, and the personal ramifications of being trimmed are understandably complex. Men don’t want to think of their manhood as damaged, changed, or scarred, and few are cognizant of the ethical challenges that inherently arise when we allow adults to treat their children as mere property.
While parents have a vested interest in raising their children as they see fit, the state bears a responsibility in insuring that a child’s rights and autonomy are protected. Our society has falsely raised ethno-cultural and religious concerns above the rights of the individual child - this is a shame. As a devout atheist and libertarian, the idea of an 8-day old having healthy genital tissue removed so that Odin or Krishna loves them more is laughable… even if the procedure is purely secular/cultural, there is no evidence that the child will wish to remain within the identified group when they have the capacity to make their own decisions - irreversible damage to persons that lack the ability to protect their own rights is a tragedy, no different than sterilizing the disabled for our convenience, or tearing the clit off our sisters and daughters.
On the subject of women, I’ve recently tried to avoid making sweeping statements along gender lines when assigning blame - in this case, I will make an exception. Women deserve a significant amount of the hate when it comes to keeping this ritual around, and they need to start taking a more active role in seeing its inevitable eradication. Ask any woman about their thoughts on female genital mutilation and you will get a very cliched and automatic cry of sympathy - ask them about circumcision and you’ll get blank stares and medical misinformation. While next to nobody knows the intimate details of either procedure, they automatically assume that one is “bad” and the other is “fine” because of the current public awareness against the former. How many of you have actually seen a male circumcision? Do you have any idea how much flesh is removed?
Male sexuality is in a tricky place these days… while we have the social power to express our sexuality and desires publicly, we continue to be looked down upon for it. Sure, we can get away with a fart or pussy joke, but male sexuality is brushed aside as being in some ways immature or simplistic. Women assume guys are just looking for a warm, wet spot for their dangly thing, and that after a few mechanical thrusts we’ll be sexually satisfied - our orgasms are seen as easy to attain, our sexual advances desperate, and our willingness to fuck anything that breathes has provided sitcom fodder for years. While women sympathetically cringe at the idea of a clit being mangled beyond recognition, the condescending snicker they give at the idea of a man being sexually violated, hindered, or scarred in some way is offensive. Despite the best efforts of every frat boy ever born, male sexuality is not binary… believe it or not we actually enjoy the sex itself, not just the plateau. People that are circumcised are physically incapable of having certain sexual acts done to them (good ones, trust me), have reduced sensitivity, and lack a natural lube. Masturbation is also infinitely easier, and even just having the foreskin pulled back by your partner feels freaking sweet. These are not unimportant, no matter what some dumb bitch tries to tell you. Almost every male that has been forced to get their wang chopped due to medical issues says that sex is significantly worse after getting cut. Almost every male that has their foreskin “regrown” (a painful, invasive and tiresome procedure) sees a marked improvement in their sexual satisfaction.
Men must stop letting the condescending and ignorant eye rolls of our female counterparts keep our sons and brothers from experiencing their full sexuality. The Christian church encouraged circumcision in the West for the very reason of limiting our sexual desires, to treat us as consummating inseminaters rather than happy and healthy autonomous adults. Just like illiberal societies cutting away at women’s clits in an effort to control their sexuality, we too continue to hack away at our sons (without anesthetic, usually) in an effort to disassociate pleasure from function. Maybe some of us don’t want to.
As for the supposed benefits of circumcision, they’re almost entirely overblown, and more commonly based in guesswork than science. There is some very recent evidence that attests to the fact that the rate of HIV transmission may be lower for circumcised hetero-relations. Still, most of this seems to be culturally based - a religious practitioner generally has a lower-risk lifestyle than their heathen counterparts… less partners, hard drug use, buttsex, etc. While there may be marginal improvements in the actual empirical data, we’re literally talking about thousandths of percentage points. The odds of a Western heterosexual male catching HIV through vaginal sex is next to nil, and the rate of transmission even with HIV-positive coochies is tiny… getting “cut” may reduce this tiny number an infinitesimal amount, but nowhere to the point where it would require a nearly systemic mutilation of all males. Unfortunately, many women now have the idea that an uncut male is in some way “dirty”.. as if we’re unable to keep those areas clean and that’s why doctors have “decided” to cut those bits away… this is plain ignorance. While some parents may get their kid cut so that “more women will like them”, one has to wonder whether the child would make a similar choice if given the opportunity. Any slut dumb enough to comment unilaterally about the relative ease with which uncircumcised males remain hygienic proves their own ignorance and stupidity, and I wonder whether you’d want someone like that bangin’ your son, anyways. This isn’t the desert.
Considering how easy it is to keep a wang clean, the relative ease of STI testing, and the liberal access to good latex, even high-risk lifestyles can lead responsible and fulfilling sex lives without this paternalistic crap. If you’re going to permanently mutilate your child, admit it is because of your own religious fanaticism or desperation for community acceptance; Don’t pretend you care about your baby’s wellbeing. You don’t.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
although i found your rant to be more than just a little crass and rude, (which i assume is the style you were going for.)
…i think you brought up a lot of good points. for one, every person should have their OWN religious freedom, as well as control over what body parts of their own that they would like to keep. that counts for noses, teeth, fingers, toes, and genitals.
you are right about the ignorance in American culture regarding the natural variation of the male genitals, and especially about how it is actually easy to clean a penis.
i do believe that we are right on the brink of exposing circumcision, male and female, for what it really is, and then it will no longer be forced onto infants again. if someone wants to be circumcised for their religion, or culture, or some other reason, they can do so when they are old enough to decide for themselves that that is what they want.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I agree completely with almost everything you say. But, you’re wrong about one thing. You refer to foreskin restoration as “painful, invasive and tiresome.”
I have been restoring my foreskin for almost a year, and it has never once caused me any pain. In fact, my penis feel much better in every way. Skin on the penis can gradually be stretched, and unless you pull way too hard (which isn’t productive anyway) it’s completely painless.
Invasive? No. No surgical instrument or medicine has invaded my body at all. All I do is stretch the skin (which, being on the penis, is very flexible) and tape it forward over the glans so that it stays there and stretches while I walk around. I would add, however, that getting part of my penis cut off when I was a baby certainly was invasive.
Tiresome? Strike three. It takes me 30 seconds to put the tape on when I get up in the morning, and 30 more seconds to put it back on each time I use the toilet. Other than that, I don’t even notice that it’s there, (except that my penis is much more comfortable now than ever before.) It certainly doesn’t tire me out.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I’m glad the regrowth has been a positive experience for you, David. I’ll admit my knowledge about that area is fairly limited (I’ve only read first hand accounts, never having gone through the procedure myself). Looking more extensively into the material on the internet, it does seem that many people found the process to be significantly simpler (like you).
It’s obviously going to be a mixed bag for people (you seem to be rather open and comfortable with your story, which is awesome, but some people may even find seeking help embarrassing/painful). Sorry for the mistake - do you think I should edit the rant or would this comment suffice?
As for the style question, Joel, this is really just me being myself. Here on pulltheskydown we’ve sort of agreed that swear words have a time and a place - Hopefully the language serves to further my point, not detract from it, but I’ll admit I have a knack for being a bit blunt.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I recall reading on the BBC (and hearing elsewhere) about studies done regarding the increased risk of uncircumcised males passing on HIV to women, particularly in AIDS-ravaged African countries. Probably most of this has to do with issues of hygiene, which you’ve already covered well, but is that all there is?
The story I read involved a lot of grown men going under the knife to help reduce the risk of HIV transmission. Condoms are a little harder to get (though not much), and would make up a larger chunk of income, in that part of the world. I’m all about encouraging condom use, but if it comes down to a condom or a bigger meal, I can’t guarantee that people will always choose the former.
At any rate, I didn’t bother to do a lot of research into it after reading that article, so, um, did these poor men fall victim to the hype? (I’m aware that this is outside the original issue you’re talking about, since I’m not talking about child circumcision.)
June 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
That is a very different issue, like you said.
The problem with the BBC is one that plagues most news agencies trying to use empirical data: they overhype the results. The way they pick up scholarly research as it pertains to sexuality seems random, at best, and selective or prejudiced at worst. Lets say the average rate of transmission for vaginal sex was 5%… something like circumcision, in the worst circumstances, might reduce that by 1%. Significant? Maybe. This is in circumstances of horrible sanitation, little access to showers, etc.
I just question the inherent assumption that amputation would be the first solution to this dilemma (maybe even ever?). For a hundred years men have been told that they should get circumcised because the loss of sexual pleasure is not “that bad”. I refuse to believe that the best way to solve the AIDS crisis in Africa is through marginal transmission rate improvements by circumcision - shifts in social and economic policies pertaining to Sex Ed. would prove far more productive, as would eliminating the irresponsible and criminal promulgation of anti-condom Christian nonsense.
Either way, these are adults with the capacity to make their own choices, blah blah blah blah.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I totally agree with you re: social policy. Circumcision is little more than a bandaid solution, and a crappy one at that. The stories and myths that are propogated about AIDS on that continent… (and everywhere else - I just have more experience with Africa.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Oh please don’t lump me in with the vast majority of ignorant women in this country. I advocate every chance I get about the evils of male circumcision. It drives me crazy when I bring up the subject with other girls, and they look at me like I’M the one with issues because I actually prefer an intact male. I seriously want to start smacking people when they say that mutilation is necessary and more desirable because it’s “cleaner”. Most American women have zero basis for comparison, so I just can’t take them seriously when they express a strong preference for cut men.
For myself personally, I do have a basis for comparison, and I definitely prefer intact men. Penises are just like any other body part - if it starts to smell, you should wash it. How difficult a concept is that? You can even take 10 seconds a day in the shower to do it. (And btw - the couple of intact guys I’ve been with were not in any way less clean than the cut ones.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’m hoping it came across I’m neither blaming “all” men or women, nor any one gender specifically. Considering the status of men in our happy world I’d obviously never go as far as to accuse women of “making” us do anything, and we should bear a responsibility over what happens to ourselves. I hate ideas not people.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
90% of girls find uncut penii disgusting.
Sucks for you Pavel.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Yeah, but 76% of statistics are pulled out of someone’s ass.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
90% of what girls? In the U.S.? Or worldwide? And did your scientifically-sound study include girls that have experienced both equally, or just 30-something American women who have most likely never been with an intact male? Cite your source.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Most American women say natural penises are ugly because they’ve never experienced one. I didn’t even know what one looked like until I started researching all this. Nor did I know there was any sexual advantage to a natural penis (for men AND WOMEN), until I read “Sex as Nature Intended It.” According to that book (which is well-researched), 9 out of 10 women prefer NATURAL, NOT circumcised, men. Many, many women experience discomfort with circ’ed men: sex simply isn’t as good in MOST cases.
My boyfriend is restoring, and it is neither painful nor invasive nor tiring. He does it while we watch a movie, just stretching the skin with his hands. However, it’s true he cannot get back all the nerves or the ridged band lost at circumcision, and never get back the trust in his parents that was lost when they handed him to the mutilator.
Here are a couple of early quotes showing that people used to understand the fact that the foreskin is the primary pleasure-factor in sex:
“[A beautiful woman] will court a man who is uncircumcised in the flesh and lie against his breast with great passion, for he thrusts inside her for a long time because of the foreskin, which is a barrier against ejaculation in intercourse. Thus she feels pleasure and reaches orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding on to his genitals, and says to him, “Come back, make love to me.” This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles – sinew of iron – and from his ejaculation – that of a horse – which he shoots like an arrow into her womb. They are united without separating and he makes love twice and three times in one night. The sexual activity emaciates him of his bodily fat and afflicts his flesh, and he devotes his time entirely to women, an evil thing …
“But when a circumcised man desires the beauty of a woman, and cleaves to his wife, or to another woman comely in appearance, he will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown …. He has an orgasm first; he does not hold back his strength. As soon as he begins intercourse with her, he immediately comes to a climax. She has no pleasure from him when she lies down or when she arises, and it would be better for her if he had not known her … for he arouses her passion to no avail and she remains in a state of desire for her husband, ashamed and confounded, while the seed is still in her reservoir. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions, because of the great heat and the fire burning within her. Thus he who says, “I am the Lord’s” will not empty his brain because of his wife or the wife of his friend. He will find grace and favour; his heart will be strong to seek out God.”
-Isaac ben Yediah, 13th Century
“The Skin [of the penis] is by itself, has no scarf-skin, and is terminated at the Root of the Nut, being Loose; it is there doubled in manner of an Head-stall, that it may infold the Nut or Head of the Yard and make the Fore-skin, which the Jews and Mahommedans do cut off, out of a Religious Ceremony. Such Circumcised Persons cannot give that delight to Women in their carnal Embraces, as those can who have the Fore-skin entire. And therefore their Women are better pleased with the carnal society of Christians.”
-Jean de Riolan, 17th century
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
To all the women and men mutilating their boys: STOP!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Katherine-
It doesn’t matter if a girl has been with both types of penis. Do you know why? A girl that finds it disgusting isn’t going to please it. That’s an obvious fact.
Don’t get so upset just because your husband’s anteater is angry.
Andrew-
I find that hard to believe, as I’ve seen numerous people claim the percentage is anywhere from 23-92%.
Pavel-
I thought this was pulltheskydown, not pulltheforeskindown. Unfortunately, more girls are willing to pull the skin of a cut penis down.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I worked at a high-end baby store in a very Jewish neighbourhood in North York, and I found that there were a number of progressive parents who would hold a Briss for the party without circumcision. It was a fellow employee and mother of 3 boys (all whom are circumcised)who informed me of how brutal it really is. She said know that she is more informed she highly regrets her decision to have her boys ‘mutilated’ that way. Although your argument is blunt, and you generalize the female population, it is true that from my personal experience, this is not talked about much. Maybe when I’m at the age when my friends start having children, I will be able to enlighten them.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“What started as a desperate attempt to suck up to God (Abraham circumcised himself to prove his faith) has turned into one of the most useless, repulsive and illiberal practices the Western world continues to tolerate.” indeed. Who’s body is it anyway?
I’m glad to see that things in Canada have been changing on this. Won’t be doing this to my kids that’s for sure(and it was done to me). Apparently doctors here are turning away from it for the most part but IMO they should really be obligated to respect an individuals choice and not do it until someones old enough to consent.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I have to at least try to bring up the cultural problem we’ve got here in the U.S. (at least from what I’m told, it’s fairly US-Centric.)
As somebody mentioned, even though the numbers are in debate and we can pass some of it off (most? all?) to ignorance, the massive cultural preference here among women would be toward choppy choppy. To put it in perspective here, I had a close friend of mine who, when a bunch of us were drunk in high school and sharing our ‘deepest darkest secrets,’ involving all sorts of idiocy and debauchery on our parts, his was (and he was probably the most reluctant to share) that he hadn’t had the snippy-snip done.
There could be obvious comparisons here to the apparent preference toward 0% body-fat with EE cups that men have toward women here, which causes a lot of headaches and health problems in its own right. Much much much moreso than circumcision, really. But what we run into is a very obvious slippery slope: despite the fact that we’re taking sharp objects to a child’s genitals before he’s old enough to know what’s going on, a somewhat convincing argument could be made that to NOT do so in this cultural climate could actually be something of a disservice. Even if it’s based out of ignorance and the pervasion of a destructive practice in society, ‘icky’ is still ‘icky,’ and ’strange’ is still ’strange.’
As you said though, the biggest problem is probably the combination of belittling male sexuality or just plain not talking about it, combined with the fact that given the fact that it’s become so widely practiced in certain cultures leading to acceptance as a ‘norm,’ we end up with a situation where there’s a reasonable argument as to whether it’s worthwhile or not, and a whole lot probably won’t change very quickly.
A strange, overall negative practice, I’ll tend to agree, but I assure you there is are myriad other practices based on religion and idiocy that are a much larger detriment to the common good.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That’s an interesting argument, Jake - one that would never have occurred to me, as I think the climate is a little bit different up in Canada. If anything, I would say that being circumcised is more likely to put you on the fringe, at least among those who I grew up with.
Statistics seem to back that up, as the rate of neonatal circumcision in Canada has tumbled like a rock in the past 40 years. In 1973, almost 50% of Canadians were cut.
As of 2005, the number has apparently dropped to 9.2%! It’s a pretty dramatic trend. The vast majority of males in this generation will be intact.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/
As an aside, it seems to me that if you’re at the point where your wang is out and circumcision is actually an issue, you’re probably doing something wrong.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
@ Jake:
Lets say Brad Pitt gets in to a car wreck tomorrow and loses his right ear. Within weeks, ear amputations line the red carpet and trendiest nightclubs. It’s all the rage! Within years, only 1-eared wonders get acting jobs or modeling contracts, further solidifying its status.
Should parents be allowed to lop off their baby’s ear once enough women say it’s sexually appealing? Is this within their rights? What else will your parents find icky and strange? Or inconvenient? Scoliosis? Certain genders? How about breast implants for 12 year old daughters? Once you allow for a vulnerable person’s liberty to be taken away, you open the door for whatever fashionable justification the latest batch of idiots, “specialists” and “people that have your best interests in mind, honest” can come up with.
There’s no splitting hairs about this - me and you have the capacity to fight off someone that may try to hurt us. Babies do not. That means we have a responsibility to protect them.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
..and ensuring they have a nice penis = protecting them.
I don’t want my kid to be crying to a bunch of his male friends about being uncut.
There’s also a big difference between taking off an ear and cutting some foreskin. You’re bad at arguing imo
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Except that you have literally no evidence to support your assertion that being uncircumcised causes social hardship.
You’re arguing for mutilation solely on the basis of precedent.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 am
You should look up the word mutilate. Cutting the foreskin makes you perfect, not imperfect.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Those are pretty strong words, again based on literally nothing. If not having a foreskin had any tangible health benefits for our ancestors, you don’t think there would be evolutionary selective pressure to minimize its presence?
And if a massive decrease in sexual pleasure is perfection….
June 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Massive decrease in sexual pleasure?
Maybe I’m wrong, but having sex >>> masturbating. If you are cut, you get sex. If you are uncut, you are left in a dark corner, crying & wanking.
Not everything is about health benefits. If you have a unibrow, are you just going to leave it alone? If so, it really doesn’t matter if you are cut or not, do you see why?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
This argument is just going in circles.
Until you can offer even a shred of evidence that being circumcised improves your chances of getting laid, your points have zero validity, and it’s not even worth it for me to respond to. All the girls who have responded to this thread have claimed the opposite.
As I said earlier, if you’re at the point where your penis is out, you’re doing something seriously wrong if a girl turns you down because you’re uncut - you can’t blame it on your foreskin.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
You’re right, two girls with uncut husbands represent the entire US. I will just assume you didn’t get your degree in mathematics/statistics.
I also failed to see where you presented any piece of evidence to disprove what I said! OMG LOGIC 101~~
June 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
No, they don’t represent the entire US - but unless you are intimately acquainted with the sexual preferences of all US women, you currently represent no one. And contrary to popular belief, the US does not constitute the entire world, nor do its backwards customs arbitrate moral superiority.
When you make an absurd claim, the onus is on you to prove it. I know this, because the king of mole people told me so when I visited their stronghold at the center of the Earth.
As for applying basic logic to the problem - the percentage of circumcised males in the US is around 60%. Think about that for a second. Do you honestly believe that nearly half the male population is being rejected solely on the basis of their foreskin?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I was never referring to the whole world. It would be quite silly to care about Ethiopian sex when they can’t expend any spare energy anyways…. or do they even get circumcised there? If not, it’s a moot point. It’s pretty much a moot point anywhere where circumcision is performed on a very small minority.
It’s all about America.
Also, why do you keep bringing up pulling out an uncut penis? Are you trying to pull a fast one on the girls by holding your foreskin back or something?