A botched circumcision and its aftermath
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
When it was done to me i was 7 and it was in my grandmother's living room surrounded by family and it was performed by the neighborhood Barber(it was the 90's)...he cauterized it with electricity. It destroyed my sense of family, i no longer felt loved by those around me.
25 years later I had my own son and was offered neonatal circumcision for him, my wife was for it, my inlaws who are american were pushing hard and of course my parents too.
I had a near nervous breakdown over it, but i stood my ground. We need to Break this culty traumatic cycle.
I'm very curious why you chose to take this tack. Are you in not-Toroko now and are concerned about being tracked?
More genital mutilation of babies happens in America than any other country on earth. Think about that for a moment.
It is about marking you as subservient. If you read anything about Evangelical Christian culture the single worst sin you can ever commit is demanding your autonomy. This grievous violation of our bodies is used to induce us into servitude. I reject the marks this wicked culture has given me.
That entire line is garbage and meant to support the subservience, exactly as you've said. A mother's strongest instinct is to protect her children, so the tribe taking a child and cutting his body marks him as belonging to the tribe rather than to the family. It proves, in plain view, that the familial bond is secondary, and individual autonomy serves at the pleasure of the group, not the other way around.
Circumcision is explicitly not a Christian practice, though. It's done by many Americans (who happen to be evangelical) for cultural reasons, but the Christian Bible literally is explicitly against circumcision being done by Christians for spiritual or religious reasons.
What really shocks me is the amount of justification that circumcised men give for the practice. Instead of accepting that a terrible thing was done to them, they convince themselves it's a good thing, and further the practice by in turn mutilating their children. This just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum.
That said, I'm not that surprised that men feel that way, considering that having been with many women, an absurdly large percentage of them were shocked to be with an uncircumcised man, and some even said they thought it was less hygienic. The entire society is conditioned to think this way, perpetuating the practice. It's entirely absurd.
The facts are clear cut: circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), it can be dangerous, and it is proven to lessen sexual feeling. It's an absurd practice that is damaging and serves no purpose, beyond religious practices aimed at decreasing sexual enjoyment (with the mistaken idea that it'll make sins like adultery less likely…).
How about don't throw names around like that?
Said with all respect - you don't know that.
The foreskin has a very high density of fine touch and pressure receptors that are directly involved in the pleasing sensations.
You've been amputated of your ability to experience sexual pleasure to its full extent.
I also don't agree that it's flame bait. Political correctness is the language of cowards. And cowards get their and their kids' genitals mutilated. There's a real issue, and not calling it what it is is just letting it keep rolling forever without anyone having courage to do anything about it.
Of course it's a real issue, and a provocative one. You (i.e. all of us) are responsible not for setting threads on fire when that is the case. This applies regardless of how right you are, or feel you are. Indeed, the more right you are, the more important this becomes—otherwise you end up discrediting the truth, which hurts everybody (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
We don't care about political correctness—we care about discussion quality. When you post the way you did upthread, and also in this reply, it leads to predictably poorer-quality discussion. Your comment is responsible for that (if you or anyone want more explanation of why I say that, there's lots at these links.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28932445
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953253
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.
You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part.
Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.
Men's pain should be recognized and not minimized.
> circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise),
that while this may be true for wherever hn crowd resides, there are parts of the world where the risk/benefit isn't the same.
These studies shouldn't exists. They were highly unethical.
There are effective ways to lower the risk of HIV transmission. Circumcision is not one of them.
I remember an episode of Sex and the City where one of the character was put off by an uncircumcised penis.
That being said, as a European uncircumcised man living in NYC, I haven't received any bad comment about my penis (but new york is a diverse place, so that may be why). In any case, I can't imagine it can't be a deal breaker. But at the same time, I can see why some would find an uncircumcised penis prettier .
Threads like these always make mountains out of molehills when it comes to male circumcision. You'll always find the words "mutilate", "brutal", "savage", "barbarian" in people's comments. And yet 99%+ of the billions of circumcised males in the world just don't really care that much. If they did, they would feel more strongly about not doing it to their own kids.
I'm circumcised. Do I believe I was terribly wronged? Not at all. Do I believe circumcised men are so much luckier than me? Nope. If I could travel back in time to restore my foreskin, would I? Sure, why not? But if time travel is a thing, preventing myself from being circumcised is a pretty low priority compared to other things I could do in the past.
I personally won't circumcise my future sons (if I have any) but I also won't condemn parents who choose to do so because IMO it's about as big a deal as piercing your baby's ears at birth. There are far worse things parents can do to mess up their kids without ever laying a finger on them.
Agreed that condemnation is not the right approach. Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.
As a male circumcised from birth, am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not? I dislike people telling me "you were wronged and what happened to you was terrible and you aren't allowed to disagree because you don't know what it's like to not have been wronged. Only me and my enlightened colleagues, who are either uncircumcised or were circumcised much later in life are allowed to hold an opinion on this."
> Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.
Most parents, I suspect, are not strongly in favor of circumcision. What happens in American hospitals is this:
- baby is born
- doctor: "would you like me to circumcise this boy? Now is the time"
- parents: "do most parents circumcise their boys?"
- doctor: "yes"
- parents: "uhh... sure then"
You're absolutely allowed an opinion, and everyone else is allowed to view it in context. Women in cultures that practice FGM (both the milder and the extreme forms) are often its most ardent advocates, that doesn't make the practice okay. And while it may have worked out fine for you, it doesn't for everyone, as this story shows.
If you read my comment, you'll note nothing about opinions being invalid. Rather, the correct reading is purely positive, not normative, and solely observational: males circumcised at birth have no basis of comparison since the event is outside their memory.
In no way does it invalidate anyone's opinion.
You are, but you have done more than that, namely to minimize the experiences of others. When someone says, "I, for one don't mind", they typically want to use that to determine what the actions of others or accepted social mores ought to be. There's no problem with saying you don't mind (and merely that), but that doesn't mean you weren't grievously harmed, whether you realize it or not. Moreover, such an observation carries such exceedingly little weight wrt the broader issue, that it hardly seems worth mentioning.
The female one is clearly to assert dominance over women, ideally in a painful and traumatical way. Also preventing them from getting pleasure from intercourse, because this is a men's thing.
For boys it is a barbaric ritual attached to some religions. The difference is that it is usually done on babies and is not particularly impacting later on.
Both are in my opionions felonies, done in the name of retarded ideas. The consequences are however very different.
About 1 percent of uncircumcised boys will get a UTI during childhood. For circumcised boys, the estimate is just 0.13 percent. Uncircumcised men have a small risk of phimosis. There's also evidence that there's lower risk of HIV/STI transmission in circumcized men. There don't seem to be any very good studies that show difference in sensitivity. The AAP says that the benefits probably outweigh the costs, but they admit that both the benefits and costs are very small.
Note: I personally think it's cruel to do that to a newborn and am against it. But you mentioned having clear facts.
The evidence for HIV is at best questionable. Comparing men that can't have sex because part of their penis got cut off and is healing with men that have sex normaly will massively skew the results.
Also the studies where highly unethical. I can't understand how encouraging HIV positive people to have unprotected sex got past an ethics board.
It depends where. In Europe or was never a thing except for Jews and now Muslims. It never went mainstream like in the US.
I can say from personal experience, I'm in the midwest and in my entire dating career, I've only encountered two women with prior knowledge of natural men, and both of them had spent time in Europe.
So if the rate is indeed dropping here, it's happening in a younger segment of the population. (Good for them!)
Then I talked with his kindergarten teacher and "warned" her about his penis so she'll be "ready". She looked at me dead in the eye and said: "This is Tel Aviv, half the boys here aren't circumcised". Lol. I guess I'm not too special.
I think it was Norway planned to outlaw all mutilations of minors and ended up with all middle eastern religions crying foul in unison which was scary. (All they seemed to disagree on was which child to harm) needles to say the law that was eventually passed was so watered down as to be (again imo) ineffective...
The view that this practice is the norm and that it's somehow so untouchable is imo scary.
Hence the litany of "health studies" supporting the practice, so it's not just a religious issue, it's a health issue! Muddy the waters with just enough doubt to keep the debate alive instead of letting it be an obviously-settled issue like FGM.
The result is that, if you look at all the papers published on the topic, and sort them into two piles depending on who funded the research, and then look again and sort them into two piles depending on their conclusion, you'll find that you've performed the same sort twice.
It's only by making this a matter of religious autonomy that MGM isn't banned outright yet, because politicians are always really careful around matters that might anger religious groups. Especially right-leaning politicians or those who belong to a Christianity-based political party.
If you read anything about modern evangelical thought the single worst thing a child could demand is their autonomy, and well, anyway, every time I look in the mirror right-wing America gets to kick me in the face again.
Wicked culture, all of it.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
The most annoying thing was both the doctor I saw for the referral, and the clinic itself tried to insist I get a circumcision instead. I still don’t know why.
It healed perfectly and aside from having to adjust some habits (the foreskin no longer rolls up on its own), it’s identical in function to before with no loss of feeling.
I felt weird at the surgery, surrounded by parents taking their babies and toddlers to be circumcised. Weird day.
Even then, it was still confusing why I was being pushed toward circumcision when a frenulectomy is a far less invasive, easily tolerated procedure with decades of practice, but is apparently not that common as a solution for similar medical problems as mine.
If a doctor is unsure how successful a frenuloplasty or frenulectomy will be, and knows that you might need a circumcision anyway, then they might suggest the latter option. One procedure is better than two.
Getting circumcised allowed me to have sex again, but there's no way in hell I'd agree to it otherwise, knowing what the consequences for me have been.
After a small cut on the glans had healed up, it would still sometimes get irritated.
This doctor, a woman and a GP, told me I HAD to get circumcized!
I did not return to see that doctor again...
IIRC it fixed itself with a little bit of help from an antibacterial ointment.
I'd like to reassure folks who might feel that criticizing circumcision is a form of antisemitism.
I recognize that antisemitism is real and terrible and more common than it should be.
That said, my genitals were brutally mutilated when I was an infant and I find it shocking that any person would do this to a baby.
My family is not Jewish and I truly love the Jewish people I know.
Some in my family are born again Christians. I dislike some of their beliefs, yet still love them very much.
Is it so impossible to despise an archaic and despicable practice while still loving the people who engage in it?
The cultural claims seem to last longer. You also have young girls growing up in a culture where an intact penis is asserted to be weird, while a mutilated penis is seen as normal.
Circumcised men are often defensive when they learn what was done to them as infants.
Mothers are also tricked into having this done to their children. Imagine trying to break the news to a mother (or father) that when they did what they thought was best for their son they were actually complicit in harming him.
If it has religious significance to you, that’s fine, just let the child decide when they are old enough to consent.
If your religion stipulates infant circumcision, then your religion denies the religious freedom of others (in this case the child), and thus religious freedom is an inherently moot argument, and not a justification.
But for some reason it's totally fine to perform circumcision on a baby.
Something's wrong here and we should ban also this practice. It's torture.
That means that your arguments regarding whether you think your circumcision is cool irrelevant, or whether you think it's hygienic, or whether you think people prefer how it looks. Nobody has a problem with individuals choosing to get circumcised.
Sure, in a perfect world, parents wouldn't circumcise their boys or pierce the ears of their girls as infants and let them choose for themselves. But those are pretty minor compared to all the other major ways parents can really mess up a kid.
What I most admire about Brian’s work is his relentless scholarship and his calm and kind demeanor in discussing this sad topic.
This talk [1] of his is a good example.
[1] https://circumcisionandhiv.com/2021/09/16/brian-earp-circumc...
Savage.