Save the foreskin!

THE LITTLE FLAP that covers the tip of men’s peckers is back in the news again.

Babies of the male persuasion are born with the little flap because it has a purpose — like eyelids, outer ears and fingernails. Protection.

Centuries ago, when folks were less than strenuous regarding most elements of sanitation, primarily because sanitation was an unknown concept, it was decided in some neighborhoods that cutting off the little flap was wise. It got grubby down there.

Women likely mentioned this first. You want to put that where?!

Somehow or other, cutting the little flap got caught up in religion, especially the Jewish and the Mohammedan. But even folks who were neither Jewish nor Mohammedan, over the centuries, here and there, picked up the habit of cutting off the little flap too.

chainsawFlash forward many centuries. Now we know a lot about sanitation. But we still cut off that little flap. At least, many of us do even though there is not one iota of reason to do it.

Apart from religion. And pure habit.

Organized religions do lots of good things, but this detail ain’t one of them.

I managed to save my favorite nephew from losing his flap a decade ago. I wish someone had saved me. This brutality should be outlawed everywhere.

33 thoughts on “Save the foreskin!”

  1. It will be interesting to see the comments on this topic. Funny that the reasons for, when brought up by women, then when bringing up female circumcision will have a totally different viewpoint.

    Kind of a no-win situation. More studies show that this is becoming more and more considered male organ mutilation, videos of screaming babies with the counter comment that babies have no feelings, etc.
    Then you start bucking the religious aspect, which will guarantee you being pulled into another conflict of emotions.

    Like

    1. Tancho: There is no excuse for circumcision, none, apart from religious dogma. Not for women, not for men. It’s brutality against baby boys or, as the Mohammedans sometimes do it, against adult women.

      Like

  2. My grandson wasn’t circumcised because he was born in Berlin. The hospital never mentioned the option to my daughter. The little fella will need some instruction about hygiene as he ages.

    Like

    1. Carole: From what I have read, it’s not much different than pulling your toes apart to wash between them, or scrubbing behind your ears, etc. Just gotta keep your folds tidy.

      Like

  3. Men and women are not equal. Circumcision is not genital mutilation; it’s Abraham’s covenant with God. Don’t believe in God? That’s okay, because there are plenty of other reasons for performing what is probably the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the world: rite of passage, health, cleanliness, appearance, and well, just because it’s the right thing to do. It’s up there tying off the umbilical cord. It’s just done. It’s the right thing to do.

    Hippies, lefties, and Europeans, what do any of them know? These infants who’re going uncircumcised at birth are going to find themselves lining up later to get trimmed when it’s a more difficult and more painful procedure.

    Like

    1. You live in a country where the vast majority of men are intact. While it’s possible that some of them elect circumcision as adults, I can assure you that that would be a tiny, tiny minority.

      Like

      1. Actually, two hands. But it’s not something I ask most men.

        But I will say this. It’s a touchy issue, and opinions are firmly entrenched. No one’s going to change my opinion, nor will I theirs. IMHO, it’s something that should most certainly not be left to the wisdom of legislatures. I’m not going to quit reading your blog, call you names, or refer to you in snide terms elsewhere over this issue — or any other.

        Like

  4. I’m all for circumcision as a procedure which is requested by an adult who can give informed consent. But practicing it on babies seems quite barbaric. The fact is that in places where it’s not done at birth, few elect it as adults. So given the choice, very few men would have the operation done.

    And the only rational justification I’ve heard doesn’t make much sense either. Supposedly, it can reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. So, in a free society we are cutting off parts of babies’ bodies to possibly protect some unknown third party far off into the future? What if the boy grows up gay? Or celibate? If women are so concerned about this, let them be the ones to suggest the surgery to their adult, male partners.

    Saludos,

    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we think every man should have the right to make this choice for himself.

    Like

    1. CUtting the umbilcal cord and deciding whether the child will have an innie or an outie is done without the child’s informed consent. So, too, are naming ceremonies, baptisms, vaccinations, pierced ears, and compulsory education.

      Your argument about gay and celibate men and cervical cancer strikes me as a real slap in the face. Why should straight couples support gay’s right to marriage then? Why should childfree couplesl pay for public education of others’ children? Gays and celibates are still the minority.

      You’re trying to craft a fashionable argument, but your logic fails.

      Like

      1. Ms. Red Shoes: Cutting the umbilical cord is no analogy at all. It must be cut. The innie or outie is part of that same deal. Naming ceremony?! Baptisms?! Compulsory education?! You are grasping at straws. No analogies at all. Vaccinations are a true health issue, not a religious tradition from ancient times. Pierced ears, when done to babies, also is bad, but not nearly so brutal as circumcision.

        You and Kim: I’d leave the gay issue out of this. Not really relevant. True, he started it.

        Like

      2. How does informed consent fail as an argument? There’s no medical argument for circumcision at birth at all. Any supposed benefit (and those are controversial at best) doesn’t derive until YEARS after the surgery. So why force this on men at birth? What’s your argument for not waiting? You seem to be confident (in contradiction of the facts in Mexico and most of Europe) that men will line up to have this done later if it isn’t done at birth. I think your thesis is somewhat self-contradictory. And I’d note that the umbilical cord doesn’t serve any function outside of the womb, unlike a foreskin. As for “innies” or “outies” is that a decision? Or is it driven by individual anatomy and circumstance?

        Like

        1. P.S. Jen, what’s your position on mandatory Gardasil vaccinations? Shouldn’t that obviate the only medical reason for circumcisions? With such a vaccine available, shouldn’t the debate shift toward it and away from circumcision?

          Like

  5. Fortunately I escaped this unnecessary procedure, aka male genital mutilation. There is no medical justification. The need for circumcision is a medical myth. It is based on pure superstition.

    Like

  6. We spared our son from the procedure, and would do the same should any other boys welcome our family. My husband has never once expressed interest in being circumcised and I doubt our son will either. One day, he may even thank us.

    Like

    1. Rosalind: He will thank you. Until then, I thank you for him. Consider yourself thanked. And I can promise you without a shred of doubt that your son, like your husband, will not one day think cutting off the end of his rocket is a good idea.

      Like

    1. Good one, Ray. By the way, did you notice some of the options of other related videos that appear at the end? Especially the one with the black youngster facing a safety razor? I did not click on any of them. Just the one shot was sufficient. Lordy.

      Like

Comments are closed.