At one point in Ulysses, Leopold Bloom masturbates surreptitiously inside his pants while watching a young girl flashing him. After he comes, he settles his “cold and clammy” penis, detaches it from his clothes with a little tinge of pain, and then says a sentence or two later: “at least the foreskin’s not back.”
Joyce scholars go apeshit over this line because, they say, it “proves” that Bloom is circumcised.
But not having had a foreskin since I was eight days old, I don’t even know if that statement makes sense. Can someone parse out the meanings for me?
If he had a foreskin, it would protect the sensitive glans from the twinge of pain from detaching it from his pants. Since he feels the slight pain, he knows he doesn’t have a foreskin.
Could it refer to the position of the foreskin after he’s finished masturbating? Would it hurt more if it stayed retracted/folded back once he’s done and after the 'tinge of pain" he observes that at least it’s not pulled back, which might be more painful as he proceeds to do whatever he does next (walk, change seated positions, whatever…I haven’t read the book)?
In the book, Leopold Bloom is Jewish. He would be expected to be circumsized. The sentence would seem to imply that he’s thinking that “at least my foreskin hasn’t grown back,” not that it might be pulled back.
This is my take also, but I’m still perplexed. Bloom’s “Jewishness” is a determining thread in the book–he has observed some customs in the past, and, more to the point, no-one else in the book lets him forget it (despite his having been baptized no less than three times, and having an Irish --presumably Catholic–mother.
But “grown back”? Obviously Joyce does not give us all the depths of reasoning behind every internal thought of his characters–hence one aspect of fun analysis coupled with awe–but this one still has me stumped.
Maybe I’m just contrarian, but when there’s universal agreement on such an important line I get suspicious.
But I am interested in those who take the mainstream view how they interpret this sentence in terms of their own foreskin experiences.
That last sentence sounds weird, but this is SD and the voluminous Ulysses commentaries that I’ve read would never address in detail this simple and important point. Of course, once you start getting into tertiary cites as “facts,” you get into religion.
Or he didn’t have his entire foreskin removed? Some Jewish boys don’t if it’s done outside of a hospital with a mohel. My son some has foreskin [remaining].
But I don’t have a penis so I’m not sure what protocol is for ejaculating in your pants or what that all entails.
Too late too ask on previous post:
Which way is “back”? Towards the base or towards the tip of the penis? (Who knew I had so many questions about foreskins… )
My first thought was that he was saying something like “Well, I just did this non-Jewish thing, but at least I’m not so non-Jewish that I have a foreskin.”
This is a pretty good theory. Does he have other moments in the book where he is conflicted about acting Jewish/not Jewish?
I feel like I should know more about this book. Like, it might come up on Jeopardy one day and I’d feel bad that I couldn’t identify the character based on the book title and his foreskin issues. :dubious:
And Leo Bloom, your level of interest in foreskins is still at a moderate level. Do a search for a poster named Jack Dean Tyler. Now that guy had foreskin issues!
I don’t think I’ve EVER had a thread perplex me as much, about so many different things!
(While simultaneously causing me to grin, like the cat that ate the canary!)
Colibri
Could you please provide me with the title/author of this book? (And your opinion of it, if I may? Also, is it fiction, nonfiction, historical?)
jsgoddess
Um, WHAT non-Jewish ‘thing’ are you referring to? Masturbating?
I was truly unaware that masturbation was considered to be a ‘non-Jewish’ activity. :dubious:
If there’s a hell, I’m probably gonna end up there for all of the heretical and blasphemous things, coursing thru my mind at the moment! :rolleyes:
Hmmm… Think I could squeeze another smilie face in this post?
Havent read the book, but it just sounds like a ironic remark. The “at least it’s not/at least I ain’t” is often used as starter for this kind of jokes.
Guy does something with his glans and cracks a joke about missing foreskin. I dont really see the mystery there.
I should read (Or, more likely, attempt to read. I’ve heard that Joyce is a tough read, and I’m no lit major.) that book someday. But I’ll throw out a theory anyhow.
Perhaps it’s a joke based on his being baptized Catholic. Like perhaps the baptism would undo his bris. Did one of his baptisms happen shortly before this scene?
The statement in the book is ambiguous - it could mean either of the following:
At least the foreskin hasn’t grown back
At least the foreskin isn’t in the retracted position (because if you’re going to glue part of your penis to your clothes, doing this to the glans would hurt more than the foreskin)
I have no familiarity whatesoever with the book or the characters within byond that provided in the OP. And as the proud owner of a foreskin, that would be the obvious inference.
Under normal circumstances the foreskin covers the glans and prevents friction against clothing, As a result an uncircumcised glans is far more sensitive than a circumcised one. It’s easily as sensitive as a clitoris in terms of the unpleasantness of the response to direct abrasion.
If the foreskin becomes rolled back while clothed it is unpleasant to say the least. For the ladies out their, imagine having your clitoris rolling around in your pocket, rubbing up against the dry cloth. For circumcised guys, it’s harder to find an analogy. It’s probably best compared to having your eyeball, sans eyelids, rolling around in your pocket, though that’s not a perfect analogy. Needless to say, it’s not at all pleasant.
Relevant to the apparent context of the passage, the foreskin automatically becomes retracted during an erection for many men. If the foreskin does remain retracted after an erection, especially when the glans is dry, it’s often not all that easy to pull it back. It often requires both hands, one to hold the shaft and the other to pull the foreskin over the glans. Given that this guy is in a public place and can only use surreptitious movements to rearrange himself, that could be difficult.
Given the context of the passage the meaning seems quite clear to me. The guy’s dick is stuck to his clothing with dried cum. Removing it is painful, but nothing compared with how uncomfortable it is going to be if he has to walk to a private place with his exposed foreskin rubbing against his clothing.
Hence the expression: I’ve masturbated in public it hurts like hell when I unstick myself, but at least the foreskin’s not back, so I don’t have to shuffle awkwardly to the nearest toilet block in order to put things right and nobody is going to suspect anything. At least the foreskin’s not back, so I got away with it and I’m not in for any more discomfort.
I’m happy to confirm I have never “masturbated surreptitiously inside [my] pants while watching a young girl flashing”. However, experiences (very long ago!) of having unwanted erections in public places etc would cause me to read the quoted passage without the slightest doubt that the protagonist’s thoughts are those of an uncircumcised guy thinking about the location of his foreskin.
I think to interpret “at least the foreskin’s not back” as some reference to the possibility that the protagonist’s foreskin may have returned to his circumcised penis is a monumental and unlikely non-sequitur, which would probably only ever occur to someone who is and essentialy always has been circumcised and thus just doesn’t know about foreskin positioning.
Obviously Joyce does not give us all the depths of reasoning behind every internal thought of his characters–hence one aspect of fun analysis coupled with awe–but this one still has me stumped.
)
