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]

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]

interesting

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]

Re: interesting

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]

Re: Re: interesting

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.