Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:38 AM
Thu Dec 3
50 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
As if those kids didn't have it rough enough already.
07/29/09
But still, Chabon phrases the question in an interesting way and it's worth pondering.
07/29/09
Mutilation is the only term which can accurately describe an act done against an unwilling participant. People get to decide if they want to have their ears (or anything else) pierced. The babies undergoing routine infant circumcision aren't really provided that choice.
I'd be willing to change my admittedly strong opinions on this subject if anyone is able to provide me with any proof that the procedure is somehow safer than washing your dick and wearing a condom.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I suggest that the real issue isn't about the child's choice, but about whether the parents are properly prepared to make that choice by weighing the benefits and risks -- similar to vaccination, if you don't like the ear-piercing comparison. Calling the act "mutilation" is kind of drawing your conclusion before analyzing the actual issue involved.
Now, one of the risks is that a cut adult will wish he hadn't been knifed. I offer my own experience with that risk, which I would describe as negligible. Being cut is just fine for me. As long as one's unit possesses other desirable and generally common qualities, I suggest one can be pretty happy with it whether cut or uncut.
I will seek out the Penn & Teller episode you suggest. I'll bet I would find it interesting.
07/29/09
As a female (and I'd love to know if any other penis-preferring people feel differently) - the whole experience either orally or - uh - more - is better without the mudflap.
07/29/09
Exactly what I was thinking, though for a different reason. Though I don't agree with the arguments against circumcision, I certainly understand them. However, the bris is a huge part of Judaism, and one I know I would not be able to forgo for my own sons. As much as we Jews--and all other religious groups, really--"pick and choose," circumcision is pretty non-negotiable. Lecturing the rest of us on its evils and decrying it as unacceptable after you've put not one but two sons through it is incredibly unfair. His boys aren't twins; he had six years after the birth of his first son to take a stand and say that if he had another boy, he would not circumcise him. But there's no way in hell he would ever do that, so he gets to come off as enlightened while the rest of us who will continue to do it become inhumane assholes.
07/29/09
Yes, it is an accepted fact that circumcision decreases the risk of AIDS infection by approximately 50%. Do you like those odds? Personally, I think parents deciding to teach their children to practice safe sex is a much better alternative. This isn't the third-world, condoms are free and plentiful.
Regarding the washing, this is most likely a social issue. Circumcised fathers are not properly teaching their uncut sons how to wash themselves, and people just aren't forcing their partners to clean themselves. It shouldn't be this hard to ask a guy to play with his dick in the shower.
As a female, though, how would you react if a man said he preferred having sex with women who had their clitoral hoods removed? I can already hear the angry throng of Jezebelites.
Women in every other developed, western nation have somehow been able to cope with the horrors of a real penis. This is America. Your women can survive.
07/29/09
I recommend the Penn & Teller episode as it explores the social pressures behind circumcision which, when you actually decontextualize them, are truly inane.
Its widespread adoption in English-speaking countries for non-religious reasons was to "cure" such problems as asthma, epilepsy, bedwetting, and hernias. After being shown to be slightly less effective than a good old-fashioned blood-letting, the inventor of Corn Flakes at the turn of the 20th century decided it would be a great way to prevent masturbation.
Now, it basically persists as routine surgery because American mothers think it looks pretty, and American fathers don't want their sons to be laughed at in the locker room.
In other modern, western countries, it only took one generation of uncircumcised children for the entire stigmas and social pressures to die out, although these decreased rates of circumcision were generally due to public health care systems no longer covering the cost of the procedure. In America, the change will take longer.
07/29/09
Barn door. Horse. You know.
07/30/09
Let me suggest that your understanding of the reasons why people get cut is absurdly narrow and undermines a lot of the good arguments you're making.
Nevertheless I think we can both agree that what matters here is ensuring that parents have enough good information to judge the risks and benefits of the procedure rationally. Doubtless some parents could benefit from having some of the insights about the procedure that you've described.
But included among those risks is the one I mentioned above: What if the parents opt for the knife and the son later resents it? Certainly that's a different situation than a son who resents not being cut -- since he can always opt for the procedure himself.
My only offering here is that this risk is probably pretty low: In my view, being cut seems quite easy to accept and is actually pretty swell -- much easier to adjust to than a hundred other more permanent conditions, like being short or nearsighted or having flat feet or an overactive blush response. I suggest that calling it a "mutilation" just drains meaning out of that very powerful and useful word.
And the fact that the health benefits of circumcision can be reproduced by the use of condoms doesn't mean those benefits don't still have value. For instance, I consider developing a vaccine for AIDS to be a similarly worthwhile endeavor, even alongside promoting the use of condoms.
You make good arguments, but when you describe as "mutilation" a procedure I'm thankful to have had and glad I didn't have to face at age 12 or whenever, you're describing something other than the very real and common effects of circumcision that I'm familiar with.
07/30/09
Your point about barn doors and horses stands. I suggest only that having two kids go through the procedure (for whatever reasons) still doesn't disqualify one from raising useful questions about it. In fact it's not that inconceivable to me that it might make you more qualified, at least regarding personal experience.
07/30/09
Circumcised men can still have orgasms, a woman whose clitoris has been removed cannot; therefore, your analogy is grossly wrong.
07/30/09
Comparing condom use to AIDS vaccine development is an unfair comparison, as a condom protects against many more STIs than simply AIDS, and supporting the development of a vaccine is quite different than the actual administration of a vaccine.
The health benefits of circumcision are inconclusive, as are the sexual benefits of foreskin (an intactivist argument that I find wholly silly, as in my experience uncut and cut men tend to enjoy sex). I believe neither argument presents a compelling case to either defend or attack the practice.
And this is essentially the crux of my argument, which brings me back to my first comment on the subject. I consider the practice unnecessary, and see no compelling or valid reason why routine infant circumcision should be practiced.
Stating that there is, in your opinion, limited risk following the procedure is different than providing a compelling case for why the procedure should be carried out. My understanding of the reasons is absurdly narrow because I know no reason.
The Penn & Teller episode is available here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584
07/30/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
As much as I would love to believe that Bradley Cooper and Ryan Reynolds were/are both part of sham marriages that fell apart, they are most likely just straight guys who are total douche bags and fucked around.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Hmmm... well "Raphael" is "God-healed," which is like "well-healed," in the sense of "heels well-rounded," so, yes, maybe since alcohol and round heels go well together.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09