We have a 2 month old baby. We were watching a DVD about how to care for babies. It showed a circumcised boy. My wife was shocked. She was asking me whether the boy had had some terrible accident or had some bizarre medical condition.
My wife is Cambodian and speaks some English. I speak some Khmer. I could not explain the concept of ‘circumcision’ to her. I showed her the word in the Khmer-English dictionary, but she had never encountered that Khmer word before. She did confirm with her friends and families that none of them had even heard of circumcision.
She asked me why would any parents want to have that done to their baby. I could give no explanation as to why a parent would wish a gruesome painful mutilation such as circumcision upon their son. I know many people would answer ‘religious reasons’. But that does not explain. Many people have done things in the past for ‘religious reasons’ but they are not performed today.
Most of these threads about circumcision appear in ‘Great debates’. That is why I am putting this here.
Ha. My best friend was married to an uncircumcised man for two years without knowing it. While she was pregnant with their son, she made some sort of “But they just so so gross and unhygenic with foreskins!” argument for circumcision, and he, rather shocked, went, “Uh, you know I have one, right?” She didn’t. Hadn’t noticed, somehow! :eek:
In her defense, she said she was only interested in it when it was standing at attention, and (apparently) the foreskin retracts so you can’t tell the difference. I wouldn’t actually know, as the only uncircumcised males I’ve seen are infant and toddler boys.
Mind you, I’m not speaking out for or against circumcision. However, there are some who believe that it is a good thing to do because it is easier to keep a circumcised penis clean than it is to keep an uncircumcised one clean. Who knows, in ancient times before there was easy access to running water, maybe that had something to do with it.
There are also studies that suggest that AIDS transmission rates are lower in populations that tend to be circumcised, although I supposed that’s not an answer to your question inasmuch as it is unlikely that when people started circumcision rituals hundreds or thousands of years ago that this is what they had in mind.
Once circumcision got started, though, it is easier to see how it would keep on going. If you are accustomed to seeing circumcised penes, the other kind look wierd. (Don’t take offense, anyone, please – the reverse is surely true as well, as evidenced by the reaction of the OP’s wife.)
I dunno. Why do people put so many collars around their necks that the necks become peculiarly elongated? Why do some people wear such heavy earrings that the earlobes droop? Why did the Chinese bind women’s feet?
Just a little surprised here, but you don’t have any common language that you both can communicate easily in? Or are those "some"s stronger than I’m taking them to be, and it’s just the inherent weirdness of circumcision that’s making your task difficult?
Okay, but do you have a debate? As best I can figure from your OP, the topic you’re proposing is “Please explain the reason(s) for the custom of neonatal male circumcision, without falling back on the authority of religious decree.” I’m not sure that you’re really going to get very far with that setup.
And many people have done things in the past for religious reasons that still are performed today, including circumcision.
IME this is true as far as the general configuration of the equipment goes, but there is generally quite a bit of difference in the texture of the skin on the glans. It’s keratinized (sort of toughened and smooth) on a circumcised penis, but not on an uncircumcised one where the mucous membrane of the glans is usually enclosed and protected by the foreskin.
I don’t really understand how anybody could have a full-blown (ahem) sexual relationship with an uncircumcised man and not realize that he had a foreskin, but then I don’t know your friend’s husband. At least I don’t think I do.
Is she unaware of the concept of cosmetic surgery? I’m not saying that’s the only reason to get circumcised but surely people have done far stranger things to their bodies.
So they’re…uh…pink and glisteney and mucusy, like the inner labia? Ick. Um…I don’t mean that as offensively as it sounds, it’s just that I’m used to the (quite pleasant) velvety babysoft texture of a circumcised glans, and I’d be a little shocked by what you describe.
I don’t by any means have a large number of notches on my bedpost, but I have encountered fellows with both sorts of appendages. They weren’t all that different, really.
Come on, mutilation? A lot of times it is done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off. I’m circumsized and I don’t feel it to be a horrendous tragedy. I don’t really know if I’ll have it done to my son or not. I don’t really care one way or another.
Leaving out the fact that I disagree that it’s mutilation, is she not familiar with customs of other people? What about people that have those gigantic plates in their lips, or stretch their necks? What about foot binding? It’s a custom and it was started in America for some puritanical reason, I’m sure, or maybe on perceived health benefits. But to answer your question as to why people in America do it still? One is the fact that everyone does it. There is pressure for the parents not to want their kid to be ridiculed in life for being different. And with that organ, people can be sensitive. It’s a routine procedure that would save a lot of possible stress in the teenage years. Secondly, there is also the idea that parents don’t want their kids to be confused when seeing their father’s penis.
These are just a couple of reasons. It’s not barbaric like the female kind which is very painful and meant to oppress women. The proof for this would be the men that go around after being cut as adults. You don’t really see them complaining. Of course we have the foreskin restoration crowd. I would possibly do this if it didn’t take so long, but only out of curiosity. I don’t think it really matters either way, personally.
Circumcision wasn’t started in America…and to my knowledge the reason circumcision happens in the United States is because the people who settled it (Europeans) practiced circumcision at the time–due to longstanding religious tradition.
It’s a matter of religion, culture and of medicine. Ancient Egyptians, like many people, practiced male circumcision at puberty, to mark the entrance to manhood, at the same time the sidelock of a boy was shaven off. The Jews practice(d) infant circumcision - 8 days after birth, as a mark of the agreement between Abraham and his god - Abraham’s god demanded he sacrifice the life of his son, Isaac. When Abraham went to slit Isaac’s throat, his god sent an Angel to stop him and left a sheep there behind a bush for him to sacrifice instead. Abraham’s god then instructed Abraham in how to perform circumcision, and told him to do it to his son and any of his line to mark them as one people. Abraham’s god said to do it, so he did it, and his son to his sons and on down the line.When the Christians split off from the Jews, many of them continued to do it, not to mark their children as Jews, but either because they see themselves as still bound by Abraham’s promise or because they thought it hygienically superior. This spread with the European settlers to the US, and continues today. During the Victorian era, circumcision was recommended by doctors to help prevent masturbation - the idea was that without this fun flap of skin to play with, boys wouldn’t touch their penises. Or something. I don’t quite follow that one, myself.
A huge social reason given about 10-50 years ago for infant circumcision was so that the baby boy grows up “looking like” Daddy, or like the other boys in his gym class. There was an idea that a boy whose penis looked different would be embarrassed or humiliated because of it. That argument is no longer so in fashion, but there are still people who choose to circumcise for medical reasons - there is some controversial evidence that circumcised men have a lower chance of getting HIV, or HPV, and not-controversial evidence that they have lower rates of penile cancer (although the rates of penile cancer are so low anyway that it’s questionable whether or not it’s worth it.)
There are individual cases where circumcision is medically the best treatment, for things like frequent bladder infections or certain deformities of the urethra, but that’s not really the same topic, IMHO.
So those are some reasons why we do it. Whether or not it’s “mutilation” or a good thing or bad thing are the areas of debate.
Minor nitpick – Abraham was commanded to circumcise himself and his household before Isaac was even born. Abraham circumcised himself at 99, Isaac was born when he was 100. The Binding of Isaac didn’t occur until much later on.
Huh? I know that Jews, of course, have practiced circumcision for millennia, but Jews were only a small fraction of the early European settlers in North America. Was there really a significant tradition of circumcision among Christian Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when North America was being settled? Could I see a cite for it?