|
"There's a divinity that shapes our ends, |
The Shakespeareans
Articles about circumcision in the mass media can be divided into two classes,
The Hamlets are typically called "To Cut Or Not To Cut?" (cf Hamlet III, 1, 56) and often subtitled "The Circumcision Decision". (Originality is not their strong point.) They present circumcision as a decision parents must make, "after weighing all the evidence". They then present all the medical evidence for circumcision. They invariably mention early on how ancient circumcision is, and sometimes quote the text of the command to Abraham (Gen 17 10) in full - as though this has any relevance to present-day gentile parents. If they mention objections, it is dismissively. If they mention foreskin restoration, they stress its outlandishness.
An observer comments:
"The apparently universal assumption that circumcision is quite a reasonable choice seems to me analogous to:
|
In other words, not all decisions that can be expressed as "X or not X?" are evenly divided.
The Caesars are typically called "The Most Unkindest Cut" (Julius Caesar III, 2, 188). They commonly begin with parents agonising over whether to have their son circumcised. (They almost invariably do. If parents who do not circumcise are introduced, their reasons are diffidently expressed: "We just didn't think it was necessary" and the like.) They are much more likely to mention complications, the lack of support for circumcision by professional bodies, and human rights issues - but not to analyse them in any detail.
The July 2001 issue of (Australian) "Men's Health" has an anomalous article, called "The Unkindest Cut?" but in every other way a Hamlet. It draws extensively on physiology professor Brian Morris, who makes the absurd claim that foreskin restoration - not circumcision - is genital mutilation.
Episodes of the TV Sitcoms "The Nanny" and "Off Centre" have been called "The Unkindest Cut". Both were strongly pro-circumcision.
Article in the Oakland Tribune. "The unkindest cut? Many parents disenchanted with circumcision", March 14, 2004 includes quotes from both Marilyn Milos and Edgar Schoen
Few articles condemn circumcision outright, or make central the baby's human right to decide the fate of his own penis. They might be classed as Banquos: "Too cruel any where." (Macbeth II, 3, 95)
(In New Zealand, articles on circumcision also have a theatrical bent: at least six have appeared using the title of Greg McGee's hit play "Foreskin's Lament" and have documented its decline over the last several decades.)
Circumcision in Shakespeare
|
"There's a divinity that shapes our ends, |
This section has been removed to The Stage.
The foreskin/circumcision in other literature:
Balanitis and Diabetes
These pages until recently listed as one of the few legitimate reasons for circumcising,
"As a treatement of last resort for chronic balanitis (inflammation) due to diabetes"
A doctor recommends instead "topical antifungals and better control of the diabetes."
And a diabetic writes "so long as I consume a lot of real yoghourt, I can avoid Monistat Derm if I am careful with my intake of sugar."
Another doctor writes:
It is probably not glucose in the urine of a diabetic which contributes to
the high incidence of balanitis, but rather the high tissue and vascular
glucose levels in the penis itself, like every other tissue in the diabetic.
Remember also that urine is generally sterile (not infectious) whether or not
it contains higher than normal levels of glucose. Therefore, tight control of
diabetes is the answer to preventing balanitis and other infections which are
found so commonly in diabetics. And then the issue of circumcision for
balanoposthitis becomes moot. Truly the only people I have referred for
circumcision (2 in the last 20 years) have been diabetics who have not taken
care of themselves (usually drinking too much alcohol concurrently) and for
whom no topical or anti-microbial therapy has given long-lasting cure of
their penile inflammations and infections.
Inflammation vs Infection
Inflammation: <pathology> A localised protective response elicited by injury or destruction of tissues, which serves to destroy, dilute or wall off (sequester) both the injurious agent and the injured tissue.
It is characterised in the acute form by the classical signs of pain
(dolor), heat (calor), redness (rubor), swelling (tumour) and loss of
function (functio laesa).
Histologically, it involves a complex series of events, including
dilatation of arterioles, capillaries and venules, with increased
permeability and blood flow, exudation of fluids, including plasma
proteins and leucocytic migration into the inflammatory focus.
Origin: L. Inflammatio, inflammare = to set on fire
Infection: 1. <microbiology> Invasion and multiplication of microorganisms in body tissues, which may be clinically unapparent or result in local cellular injury due to competitive metabolism, toxins, intracellular replication or antigen antibody response. The infection may remain localised, subclinical and temporary if the body's defensive mechanisms are effective. A local infection may persist and spread by extension to become an acute, subacute or chronic clinical infection or disease state. A local infection may also become systemic when the microorganisms gain access to the lymphatic or vascular system.
Balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis, etc, are inflammations, not infections. The inflammation may be caused by a localized infection, or may be a reaction to a different irritant without infection.
An infection only exists when an abnormal microorganism has been identified as the cause of the problem, not merely through presence (vast numbers of microorganisms normally live on our bodies). A microorganism must be identified in order for an infection to be declared.
If no microorganism is overabundant in the area, then balanitis, posthitis, or balanoposthitis are all simple inflammations which will go away soon after the removal of the the cause: manipulation, urine, soap, some tap water, lotions and moisturizers, creams (prescribed or over the counter), fabric softeners, detergents, body wash, cologne, etc).
By premature forcible manipulation of the foreskin, tears can be made which in themselves can cause inflammation. By allowing these tears to heal, preventing further manipulation and not introducing other agents, the inflammation will subside on its own.
Inflammation is a defensive action of the body. Infection is an invasion by a microorganism. They are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other.
Permanent retraction
A significant number of intact men have their foreskins permanently retracted. Especially if they began doing it in childhood, the foreskin fails to grow.
Do babies remember being circumcised?
... since infant circumcision occurs well and truly before the onset of language acquisition, and before the cerebral cortex matures sufficiently to have commenced functioning properly, it is obvious that memory traces associated with the trauma of infant circumcision involve more primitive parts of the human brain - eg. brain stem and sub-cortical regions. Classical conditioning of emotions is certainly possible in these more primitive brain regions, so circumcision must certainly have a profound effect on the baby's brain. No question - especially if, like most circumcisions, it is performed "cold" without any anaesthesia. Very traumatic for the child - no question! But non-verbal, emotional memories cannot be retrieved as words, so verbal reports (under hypnosis etc.) of being able to consciously "remember" this trauma must be questionable. People often fantasize, and conscious "memory" is easily distorted by later intrusions - ask any good trial lawyer. Having said all that, there still remains the strong likelihood that infant circumcision trauma adversely affects a person's emotional reactivity throughout his life. - Gregory J. Boyle, Ph.D |
Neuroscience has shown that the major brain structures essential for forming conscious (explicit) memories are not functional during the first two years of life, providing an elegant explanation of what Freud called infantile amnesia. As Freud surmised, it is not that we forget our earliest memories; we simply cannot recall them to consciousness. But this inability does not preclude them from affecting adult feelings and behavior. One would be hard-pressed to find a developmental neurobiologist who does not agree that early experiences, especially between mother and infant, influence the pattern of brain connections in ways that fundamentally shape our future personality and mental health. Yet none of these experiences can be consciously remembered. It is becoming increasingly clear that a good deal of our mental activity is unconsciously motivated. - "Freud Returns," by Mark Solms |
Two other valuable organs once thought useless:
For a long time the human vermiform appendix was thought to be a useless "vestigial" organ. It turns out the appendix contains special "gut-associated lymphoid tissues".
- Scientific American, Nov 2001, p 84
People who have had their appendix removed are more likely to develop the digestive disorder Crohn's disease, results of a new study suggest.
"It's not clear if appendicitis increases the risk of Crohn's disease, or if people at risk for Crohn's disease are more likely to develop appendicitis. However, the findings may help shed light on both conditions," according to the lead author of the study, Dr. Roland E. Andersson.
But of course there's a third possibility: the appendix performs some function that tends to prevent Crohn's disease.
Jacobson's organ (the vomeronasal organ) is a tiny sensory organ inside the nose near the nostrils, distinct from the olfactory bulbs which detect the smells of which we are conscious. In other mammals, Jacobson's organs detect pheromones (sexual attractants). If the organ is removed from mice, guinea pigs or prarie voles, they no longer display courtship or mating behaviour towards the opposite sex, or fail to recognise their own offspring.
Like the appendix and the foreskin, Jacobson's organ has commonly been removed in the belief that it has no function - ironically, often in the course of rhinoplasty (nose-jobs), so an operation intended to make someone more attractive may also make them less attracted.
- from "Jacobson's Organ and the remarkable nature of smell"
by Lyall Watson
Of course, it doesn't follow that every organ once thought to be useless will turn out to have value, but they are other examples of something doctors assumed could be removed with impunity.
Circumcision and royalty
The penile status of royalty seems to have an abiding fascination for both circumcisors and Intactivists, as if they should set some kind of example to us.
It is widely reported that Louis XVI of France could not father children until he was circumcised. Unfortunately for the story, he was already a father well before the alleged operation. Remondino invented this lie in his history of circumcision. It served his need to find historical precedent for circumcision in Europe, to make the ritual seem less alien and more familiar. These were calculated lies without any historical basis. A more scholarly study from France (Le phimosis de Louis XVI (1754-1793) aurait-il été a l'origine de ses difficultés sexuelles et de sa fecundité retardée? [Prog Urol. 2002; 12(1):132-7] by G. Androutsos) thoroughly debunked this myth.
The claim is widespread that Queen Victoria ordered her sons and their descendents circumcised because she was a "British Israelite" who believed she and they were directly descended from King David. It is further claimed that Prince Charles was circumcised by a mohel.
This claim has been spread by anti-Semites, in order to discredit the royal family, by Jews in order to give status to circumcision, and by others in order to make it respectable. What truth there is to it, if any, is shrouded in royal reticence. It is now generally acknowledged that royalty sometimes make mistakes.
There is eyewitness evidence from his babyhood that Prince William is intact. (The unlikely claim has also been made that Prince Charles had Wills and Harry circumcised after their mother's death.)
Sikhs and Intactness
The Sikh faith actively discourages all body modification, even haircutting.
SELF-ACCEPTANCE (kesh, tattoos, body
piercings...)
Self-acceptance is an
integral part of the Sikh faith. Guru Gobind Singh, when confronted
with spineless men and women of Indian society...people who blindly
followed and bowed before manmade laws, no matter how
degrading...introduced the Kesh-Kangha privilege: Kesh (or unshorn
hair) as a symbol of acceptance of the Creator's given form, and
Kangha (or comb) to take care of the Kesh...to keep it healthy and
clean.
In most cultures body modifications such as haircuts (many jobs are off-limits for men with kesh), circumcision, tattoos, etc., are demanded to ensure conformity and order. So much so that in the 1960s when the Hippie Movement started in America, men grew their hair long and kept their beards as a symbol of rebellion. However, the Sikh concepts of kesh-kangha is not a sign of rebellion...it is a sign of acceptance of the Creator's gift and a nurturing of that gift.
Q: Why does Sikhism reject haircuts, circumcision and other
similar rituals that a large fraction of the world's population
practices? Do Sikhs consider these people sinners or bad
people?
A large part of the world's
population does participate in rituals such as shaving of hair,
circumcision, body piercing, etc. In this sense, Sikhs are in the
minority. However, for a Sikh, acceptance of Nature's beautiful body
is an important component of the Sikh value system. Acceptance of one's God-given
physique without "improving" it by razors and scissors is a first
step in accepting other laws, the foremost of which is becoming a
universal being. Sikhs view others who engage in such rituals as
people who carry unnecessary burdens in their lives; not as sinners
or bad people.
Q: What does the Guru Granth Sahib say about body modifications
such as haircuts, circumcision, tattoos, body piercings,
etc.? Q:
I am a twelve
year old boy. When I go to the gym locker room I see that most of
the other boys are circumcised. I feel so different because I am not
circumcised and I keep my hair long. How should I get over these
feelings of being different?
It is common for religion texts
to provide very detailed outlines of do's and don'ts. The Bibles
(old and new) and the Koran provide very detailed guidelines to
their flock on daily living. The Guru Granth Sahib refrains from
doing this. The Guru only provides us basic Universal principles
(One God, Truth brings bliss, oneness of the human race, etc.) and
the path to reach Truth (by minimizing ego and seeing oneself in
everyone). In the Sikh "rahitnama" or code of conduct, kesh is to be
accepted as the Creator's gift and taken care of with a kangha
(comb). Acceptance
of the Creator's given body is a natural outcome of a lifestyle that
is in conformity with the Guru's teaching. Of course, this does not
preclude the use of surgery or other medical interventions when the
body has become ill.
According to Jewish and Islamic
beliefs is the duty of a good Jew or Mulsim to be circumcised. This
practice spread in North America and by the 1970s almost all
American boys were routinely circumcised. This practice is
reversing, and fast. It is expected that in another generation very
few American boys will be circumcised (in European countries, this
practice is rare). In a way, the idea of
self-acceptance is spreading and more people are looking at male
circumcision as a barbaric practice. Respected child psychologists
and the American Association of Pediatrics are raising their concern
against this practice. Even Jewish groups are arguing for the
discontinuation of the practice of circumcision. So it is very likely
that the boys you see in the locker room are envious that your
parents did not circumcise you.
From Akal Sangat (www.akalsangat.com)
The Bahá´í faith was founded by Bahá´u´lláh (Mírzá Husayn-`Alí Núrí) after a series of mystical experiences when he was imprisoned in Iran in 1853 for his involvement with the Bábí faith. Muslims regard both as heretical for believing in prophets after Muhammad. An estimated 4,490,000 people were Bahá´ís in 1988.
Male circumcision is a requirement of Jewish law, and has become a universal Islamic practice. Many Bahá´ís of Jewish or Muslim background continue the practice, but it is neither encouraged nor forbidden in Bahá´í law.
- A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá´í Faith
by Peter Smith (Oneworld, Oxford, 2000)
Circumcision as a meme These items have been merged and moved to their own page.
Related pages:
