Circumcision… Why, God? Why?
With respect to The Brick Testament, the Bible in Lego at http://www.thebricktestament.com
Even though, I am circumcised and on the advice of our pediatrician, our son has also been snipped, I just don’t understand the entirety of circumcision. Although, Medical opinion still seems validate the practice, it still puzzles me.
My questions is this: who actually figured this out 4000 years ago? Were penile infections so rampant — I mean puss-tipped penises dropping off like flies in the uncircumcised — that it became absolutely necessary? Did some idea of sacred purity get involved? And what in the hell was going through that first man’s mind when he reached down with two sharp rocks and nipped the foreskin off. Even more important what was going through his victim/patients mind. I can only surmise that alcohol was involved with both parties. Ever been so drunk you cut off the tip of your dick? Why no…
The penis would have been easier to keep clean and may have even appeared cleaner. But wow! What a step to take.
And please don’t try to put this down to some ancient biblical medial advice. Like God gave us a gift or something. A real gift would have been not having the goddamn foreskin at all. If God wanted to do us a health favor, I believe a brief mention of the germ theory of disease would have driven us a lot farther down that road than “Hey, if you cut off the tip of Mister Happy and I’ll love you a bit more.”
I mean really!
I mean really!
A circumcized penis may actually be harder to keep clean due to the possible formation of skin bridges, or the fusion of the glans to the shaft. This is entirely common, and a massive issue that goes almost completely under the radar because of societal taboos.
Also, the purpose of smegma is to help moisturize clean and lubricate the genitalia. There is no significant research to the affirmative of such medical claims to the benefits of circumcision, as well as the information presented is contradictory to reason. Without a foreskin, a man is more likely to dry, chafe, and rub raw skin on the genitals, as well as expose the urethral opening to harmful bacteria. For these reasons, circumcision increases the risk of infection, decreases sexual function, and can potentially make cleaning the genitalia more difficult, as one only has to pull back the foreskin to clean the entire area. Regularly, circumcision will leave a fused skin bridge that requires much more effort to clean, such as using q-tips in the tunnels formed by the fused skin, which again irritate and chafe the skin. Not to mention the fact that cutting your child’s flesh during childbirth further exposes them to infection, particularly in a time before antiseptics.
Second, prior to the year 1675, microbes were unknown, and science made no connection to germs and disease until almost two full centuries later. In other words, the practice originated as a purely religious ritual, and remains so today, masquerading as a medically beneficial process.
That Lego picture made me chuckle. God shoulda put down in his damned book “Thou shalt pull back the foreskin of thy penis, ever so gently, and clean it thoroughly, lest thy penis should incur the wrath of infection.”
Here in Australia the practice of circumcision has been very uncommon since the 70′s. The Australian Pediatric Association released a statement in 1971 stating: “The Australian Pediatric Association recommends that newborn male infants should not, as a routine, be circumcised.”[1]. Other medical authorities have also released statements over the years discouraging the practice[2].
It is widely accepted that most circumcision procedures in Australia, especially on boys under the age of ten years, are not clinically necessary and are performed either because the parents prefer the boy to have a circumcised penis (“social circumcision”), or because there has been an incorrect, fraudulent or premature diagnosis of phimosis or other foreskin-related problem, and conservative measures have not been given a fair trial. [3]
Because of that public hospitals in most Australian states have removed circumcision from their schedule of free services and most doctors (except for unscrupulous ones who ignore the recommendations made by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians) won’t perform one unless there is a genuine medical need (which is a pretty rare event).
Anthony, a very interesting (and rather sickening) history on the ritual of genital mutilation (otherwise known as circumcision) can be found here: http://www.circinfo.org/myth.html (the essay comes with a complete list of references at the end of it) – essentially there are a number of conflicting theories about how the practice originated, but the common point of agreement among the theorists was that hygiene had nothing to do with it.
—————-
Sources:
[1] Medical Journal of Australia, 22 May 1971, p. 1148
[2] Circumcision Information Australia (http://www.circinfo.org/previous_statements.html)
[3] Circumcision Information Australia (http://www.circinfo.org/controversy.html) – page has original sources of information listed.
And here’s a pretty in depth article by Brian:
http://www.atheistconnect.org/2011/07/17/the-hidden-problem-of-male-genital-mutilation/
I’ve read that the roots of circumcision lie with the Egyptians, who’s mysticism compared it with the moulting of the snake. It seems reasonable think it has roots in mysticism and unconscious psychosexual motivations.
In regards to circumcision, I have mixed feelings… on one hand I know for a fact you can go along quite fine without, but on the other hand I personally know a 7-yr old who pulled his skin back, got it stuck, penis swelled to 2.5x the size and he literally almost lost it. Even with medical intervention.
On a similar topic -
Hymens… WHY, people, why??? Of all the things to get removed by your doctor – pick this one!!!! Or just keep doing the way we have for millions of years – use an extremely blunt instrument in the middle of what should be a pleasurable act to rip the skin of your vagina open. Sounds great.
“Advocates of circumcision cite studies indicating that circumcised men have a lower incidence of AIDS, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases than uncircumcised men. In addition, their female partners have a lower risk of cervical cancer. In 2007 the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed several studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in men living in Africa and found that male circumcision reduced their risk of heterosexually acquired infection by significant amounts (ranging from 48 to more than 60 percent). The resulting WHO report recommended that circumcision become a standard tool within comprehensive programs for the prevention of HIV…”
“circumcision.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. .