why (male) circumcision?

[bryan]

Read some post somewhere that circumcision causes psyche issues. Link to paper (which talks about more than that): http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman2/

But it at least made me think.. why do we do it? when did it start?

To save you a wikipedia click (though reading the whole article suggests more reasons that are interesting):

The origin of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of reducing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing "excess" pleasure, as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader,[5][6] a way to repel demonesses,[7] and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin. Removing the foreskin can prevent or treat a medical condition known as phimosis. It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread.[8][9][10]

Pretty interesting.. I feel like there is some lost reasoning (or not known side-effects) under the surface of the numerous theories. Why did it start, spread, seemingly appear independently, and why has it lasted so long?

Interesting that it has had revivals throughout history..

I wonder if there is some modern argument for/against male circumcision?

[C40]

I'm curious about this, but I don't have much to add. I think the psyche issue thing is fucking ridiculous. I believe the basic facts now are:
- Supposedly its easier to keep a circumsised penis clean. (though now for people taking daily showers, this may not be relevant)
- Natural foreskin works better for masturbating and either feels better during sex, or feels better during sex when the woman is not all that wet
- Current ideals of what a penis looks like tend towards circumcision. (but this is only because it is so common so society continuing circumcisions for this reason alone would be stupid.

Sex At Dawn is a good book with theories on many things like these, but I can't remember if it had much about circumcision.

[bryan]

I'm curious about this, but I don't have much to add. I think the psyche issue thing is fucking ridiculous.

Psyche sounds crazy. Granted, seems plausible that circumcision at birth causes brain to adapt. This stands to reason that circumcision would have more of an (psyche) effect later in life.

The things we could do with a bunch of identical twins.

[BRUTE]

- Natural foreskin works better for masturbating and either feels better during sex, or feels better during sex when the woman is not all that wet

so foreskinned men are actually masturbating within the woman? mind. blown.

[C40]

Ha, well. I wouldn't say that. It's the same thing that causes both advantages, but the good sex-feelings would be related to sex with a partner more than masturbation. (IE -- at the risk of getting potentially offensive - and something that if a public figure ever said would be twisted horribly: there may be some advantages in ability to propagate the human species when sex works just fine (or closer to it) while only the man is into it.)

[jennypenny]

I've never understood why male circumcision is culturally accepted/encouraged and female circumcision is equated with genital mutilation. The severity of the two procedures varies and the intentions are supposedly differently, but it's still kinda the same thing, right? IIRC, WHO's definition of female genital mutilation is the deliberate altering for non-medical reasons with no clear medical benefit, which sounds just like male circumcision. I'm not arguing for female circumcision, only pointing out how strange the different viewpoints are, especially in the west.

[jacob]

Fun fact: There's a strong correlation between circumcision and the answer to "how important is religion in your life".
More serious fact: There are big differences by country. It's mainly a Muslim, Jewish, and English-speaking thing; so the latent variable here is "cultural tradition", so the answer to "why" is "because everybody else".

[Papers of Indenture]

I've never understood why male circumcision is culturally accepted/encouraged and female circumcision is equated with genital mutilation. The severity of the two procedures varies and the intentions are supposedly differently, but it's still kinda the same thing, right? IIRC, WHO's definition of female genital mutilation is the deliberate altering for non-medical reasons with no clear medical benefit, which sounds just like male circumcision. I'm not arguing for female circumcision, only pointing out how strange the different viewpoints are, especially in the west.

I think it's fear of laziness. Proponents seem to believe that your average Joe cannot be trusted to clean his own penis or teach his child to clean theirs. Maybe they're right. Not my experience. Circumcision proponents tend to act like keeping your weener clean is some sort of impossible task. God forbid someone be trusted to spend 3 seconds washing off their genitals.

I guess perhaps it can help in third world locations where hygiene is poor and AIDS is an issue. The problem is that the pro-circumcision people I have encountered use the same arguments for western subjects. I think telling an American that they will get AIDS if they don't chop off part of willy is a bit insane.

If someone wants to get cut when they are an adult then go for it. Your choice. I just don't see why it is necessary for babies in the modern world.

[wood]

There's a purely medical aspect to it as well. Some children have tight foreskin (male) and trouble cleaning it. I did, it literally hurt trying to pull the foreskin back, so I got circumcised and it fixed the problem. Many men have had this problem, but like posters above said, the number of "cultural" circumcisions far outnumber them.

[Dragline]

"Sometimes a foreskin is just a foreskin." -- S. Foreud

[bryan]

I've never understood why male circumcision is culturally accepted/encouraged and female circumcision is equated with genital mutilation. The severity of the two procedures varies and the intentions are supposedly differently.

so the answer to "why" is "because everybody else".

In regards to female circumcision, I suspect it just never got bootstrapped like male circumcision did. It's useful to compare the supposed origins (from wikipedia) of either and to speculate why they are not swapped around. The anatomical difference is to blame as well, in that the penis is just more handy, and that foreskin bit seems a bit vestigial.

[C40]

I've never understood why male circumcision is culturally accepted/encouraged and female circumcision is equated with genital mutilation. The severity of the two procedures varies and the intentions are supposedly differently, but it's still kinda the same thing, right? IIRC, WHO's definition of female genital mutilation is the deliberate altering for non-medical reasons with no clear medical benefit, which sounds just like male circumcision. I'm not arguing for female circumcision, only pointing out how strange the different viewpoints are, especially in the west.

I think it's very far from "kinda the same thing". Female circumcision/genital mutilation is often MUCH worse than male circumcision.

For males: I don't know the exact difference in how pleasurable sex is being circumcised vs. not, given that I've only had it one way, but I believe the difference is small. I'd guess it's a 10% or so difference.

For females: See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FGC_Types.svg

Genital mutilation practices include removal of the clitoris, removal of the inner and outer labia, and basically sewing the whole damn thing closed. This is WAY worse than men get it. I was recently talking about female genital mutilation (FGM) with a woman who seemed to know about it in detail. I believe clitoris removal is the most common type of FGM - but what does that actually mean? People commonly think of the clit as just the one little round part that's under the hood (this is the Clitoral Glans). But that is just one part of the entire clitoral nerve structure, which contains many many more important nerves for sexual pleasure, including the nerves in what is commonly called the "G-spot".See here,here, and here (Jenny, I assume it's likely you know this, but others, including most men, probably don't) I asked this woman what Clitoral removal meant - was it just the little glans, or everything? She said everything. If she meant "everything" as including all those Clitoral nerves, that is really a horrible fate. How much does this ruin sex (sex including both fucking and masturbation)? I'd say 70-100%.

The equivalent on a male would be cutting most of the penis off. AFAIK, that is much much less common than FMG. The only occurrences I can recall right now are men doing it to themselves intentionally - just some very small groups of poeple like some Sadhu (Hindu holy men) and one former member of the Wu-Tang Clan rap group.

[jennypenny]

@C40--Sorry I wasn't clear before. Female circumcision can be much worse physically and emotionally. My point is that circumcision of both males and females involves physically altering the genitalia for non-medical reasons that are mostly based on tradition. It can't even be argued that it's a rite of passage anymore because in most cultures it's performed on infants and young children. The cultures with the harshest forms of female circumcision are also the cultures with the harshest forms of male circumcision. Yes, it's physically worse for women (as are most things in those cultures), but in principle it's the same thing, yet we call one 'circumcision' and the other 'mutilation'. To be clear, I'm arguing against both and would call both mutilation. I don't see any reason to cut or surgically change the genitalia of either sex without a compelling reason, and there doesn't seem to be one. What I find curious is that people who are outraged at the idea of female circumcision to the point of calling all forms 'mutilation' have no problem circumcising their own boys, usually under the guise of religion or so the boys will be like everyone else -- the main reasons women in other cultures give for allowing their daughters to be circumcised.

The severity matters, but degree doesn't alter the faulty logic behind the justification of circumcision for both sexes.

[C40]

Oh, yeah, I agree with you and find that curious as well.

[jennypenny]

@C40--Sorry if my response sounded a little intense. I just got nervous that my first post wasn't coming across as intended.

[JamesR]

There's a purely medical aspect to it as well. Some children have tight foreskin (male) and trouble cleaning it. I did, it literally hurt trying to pull the foreskin back, so I got circumcised and it fixed the problem. Many men have had this problem, but like posters above said, the number of "cultural" circumcisions far outnumber them.

I think that's what masturbation is for, to loosen up tight foreskins. Seriously though, I wouldn't be surprised that lots of guys have a bit of phimosis growing up but it seems to disappear right around 12-13 years old