Denmark: Proposal to ban child circumcision

manonthestreet

You know this is something I just don't understand. How did any one come up with the idea of slicing off a bit of foreskin? I just don't see it. Did someone come into the cave and say hey guys I got the great idea we will mutilate baby boys penises. I am not circumcised so could some one who is tell me what's the deal.

It isn't clear where this weirdness came from or why. We know the Egyptians did it and it was practiced in certain parts of Africa before it was adopted categorically by religious authorities that arose in the middle east. Why it would be seen as a token of religious affiliation is beyond me, but a lot of weird things get done in the name of religion and creating a sense of shared identity, even if the cost is simply not justified. For example, there are tribes of people in the Amazon whose "manhood initiation" can last years and requires a great deal of pain and suffering on the part of the initiate. How much of a man he is considered is based on how much of this abuse he can take. But the same psychology seems to be at work here as it is in the justification of hazing of military cadets (as distinct from training, even hard training, done responsibly by training officers, vs. hazing done off-record by fellow trainees or renegade trainers or their subordinates)-- "it happened to me, so it's going to happen to you," is the rationalization. The desire to exact punishment against one's abusers is shifted to propagating it to others, thereby venting the anger and creating a relief by justification. It goes like this: I let this happen to me (only in the case of most circumcision, the man never had any input), and could not stop it, or was not allowed to, so rather than accept my powerlessness, I will abuse the next man/boy with the same kind of thing. That way instead of getting too close to my anger (which is scary for a lot of men, esp. if that anger is very serious), I can rationalize what was done to me by insisting it was 1) morally justifiable and 2) beneficial, for whatever reasons-- and God help whoever disagrees, dammit!

To justify ritualized abuse, it is easy to turn to religion. Making it a religious ceremony covers the moral piece and makes it a "divine function", making it irreproachable and justifying hostility and accusations of religious bigotry if the practice is challenged. Second, as for saying it is beneficial, all sorts of things can be concocted. In this case, it's "hygiene". Decades ago, it was a discouragement to masturbation (as if that were a bad thing), which was considered so terribly sinful. Military hazing is also defended by its propagators by saying it is beneficial to the unit, helps "harden" the victim, etc. (ever see "A Few Good Men"?).

Consider this: Why doesn't anyone make tooth-brushing a fiercely-defended religious practice, one that causes men to turn red and scream at strangers (as I have seen) whenever its utility or relevance has been challenged? Answer: It isn't abusive. However when the practice is abusive, the anger that is being suppressed by the victim comes out when the rationalizations he has been carrying inside him are challenged. Anger is a sign that something is being defended. There are few ways to get a circumcised man angrier, and as fast, as when you say to him, "What was done to you was wrong; there was no justification for the assault on your genitalia done for any reason when you were an infant, and you were victimized. Also, sorry to say, there is little you can do about it. You just have to live with it." Assuming you get that far into your statement, 99% of the time, that man will lose it on you, even if you point out that even his own religion (in the case of Judaism) allows for men *not* to be circumcised and still be considered Jews (see http://jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm - Wow, that really gets him mad, because the unnecessariness of what happened to him is doubly-pointed and the moral justification part of the rationalization is stripped away.) That doesn't happen when you say to someone "You were abused when your parents made you brush your teeth." Try saying that to the same man and he will just laugh at you.

Personally, when I think about it (I am circumcised), I get very angry, but quickly shut down. But like a child who lost a limb during a war someplace, I was a victim, and that is all there is to it. There is nothing to be done about me. But others? If you must do something constructive with your anger, work to stop the bad things from happening anymore.

The Egyptians engaged in the practice of circumsizing the Jewish babies as a means of identifying them for life... as slaves.
I may be in err, this is merely what my personal research reveals.
Gunner Retired

manonthestreet

Thanks Matt and Gunner. Reading Matt's explanation just further reminded me just how strange people are. It is not so much of being irrational as being almost insane. I think this has a lesson for us in the MM. We often think that by marshalling the evidence and making some sort of reasonable case then things can be corrected. But change seems more likely produced by lurching from one insanity into another. People say men eventually realise what is happening to them. Well may be but when they do how they respond is not really predictable. It could be just be another insane lurch.

It's an interesting point that Gunner makes. The point is that something that was done to the Jews to make them slaves and mutilated them was turned into their system of believe and then perpetuated for thousands of years. Do you see the parallel with feminism? The mutation they they practice on men and the male entity may just become a part of what men might be in the future.

It may be no accident that the major two religions which practice ritual male circumcision both originate in hot desert climates. It may well have made sense for simple hygiene reasons, but, to get the population to comply, it had to be given a religious justification. The hygiene reason has long since outlived its purpose, but the religious reason lives on.

Similarly, kosher law made sense in the context that it grew up, but it is now simply a way of demonstrating your Jewishness.

Here's a link to an article on the history of circumcision. One of the things it claims is that Greeks and Romans were against circumcision and some scholars seem to believe that Jews were circumcised to be able to tell them apart from the Greeks. Also claims that Moses had outlawed circumcision during the 40 years in the desert and Joshua had reinstated the practice after Moses' death. Interesting stuff.

Another paper online is here. This one claims that the Jews adapted the procedure from the Egyptians.

there are clear, incredibly mild hygenic benefits (namely...it makes it slightly easier to keep down there clean), and i think that was the main reason for the practice in the past (considering poor hygenic condition were).

However, in the modern day, the incredibly incredibly mild benefit it might bring is surely outweighed by the possible trauma that can be caused, and the possible dangers if something goes wrong.

Now, i'm circumcised myself, but....even on a basic level, it seems unnecessary to have a superfluous surgery on a child.

Circumcision may have served a purpose at one point; That being to allow a man to be able to clean himself more easily. I mean, in the days of the Bible, the Israelites were mainly in the desert, and it probably was more hygienic for them to be circumcised (I'd hate to have a foreskin and get sand stuck underneat it. *shudder*). However, today, it's not necessary. It isn't worth the risks or complications that are possible, nor does it have any benefits. We live in a very clean environment these days and have access to running water, and are able to clean ourselves. It even says in the new Testament of the Bible that the uncircumcised are welcome to be Christians too (which proves that it does not go against Christianity to not be circumcised).

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!