And now one for the boys.....

.

Just three or so weeks ago I was reading in a recent issue of The Atlantic and there was a blurbish bit about circumcision. It stuck in my mind as circumcision is one of those pet topics I'm so apt to go on and on about. I thought about posting about it but I'm still not sure the dust has settled over at the Fobcave. But then I heard of a Pressing Circumstance that made a circumcision talk necessary and since the Cicada-hosted one is still awaysaway, I thought maybe it was time to take up the ole banner and wave it about.

To start with, I am opposed to circumcision. Perhaps I should state this more strongly:

I AM OPPOSED TO CIRCUMCISION.

Yes. That's better.

I have a large number of reasons why I feel so, but today I will try to stick with the facts.

[SPOILER ALERT: The following paragraphs do NOT follow thnorm. Instead they discuss human genitalia. Those wishing to avoid such conversations are invited to leave now. That is all.]

Which brings us back to my Atlantickian blurb mentioned above--it seems a good place to start. Unfortunately, the blurbs don't seem to make the online edition so I can't reference you to their source, but here's the deal:

The uncircumcised penis of an adult male has five spots where the nerves are particularly sensitive and which are notably more sensitive than any spots on the circumcised penis. And really there's only one worth mentioning on that poor damaged fellow. The bright side is, that spot's unique to the circumcised penis. The lodestone lining is that's because the sensitive spot is where the damage was dealt. So claiming that as a bright side makes about as much sense as saying it was totally worth losing my right arm to that steamshovel cuz I get the chills when my woman licks my stump.

Crap. I've only touched on my first reason and I'm already getting rude. I apologize. But not sincerely enough to delete it.

Because it's true, isn't it? This notion that the unique pleasures of being circumcised outweigh the more numerous and demonstrably greater pleasures of being un?

Anyway, sexytime is, arguably, a "shallower" reason to pick sides on this issue. After all, isn't is true that uncircumcised men traffic in AIDS?

Um. Moving on.

What about health issues? What about men who lose their foreskins late in life do to health issues?

Fair question. If I'm not mistaken, most of those issues are hygiene-related, so unless you prospective parents are intending to neglect that portion of your child's education, week excuse.

And what if a clean person has this happen to them?

Well, what if the top half of your thumb has to be amputated when you're forty-five? Or your right ear at thirty-five? Or your anterior lobe at fifteen? Or even your tonsils at merely five? Are we going to simply start cutting off everything at birth that might possibly have a health issue later on? You're not going to have much baby left if that's the plan.

Moving on (I really don't want to spend too long on any one point less I offend...more than I would anyway...):

What about religion? I've heard people use this as a reasoning, though I can't follow it. Ignoring what's in the New Testament, I would say I as a Mormon have scripture enough to debunk that silliness.

Now onto the sticky one: aesthetics. This seems to be the one that's gotten me in the most trouble in the past.

I'm not alone in dismissing phalli as inherently lacking aesthetic appeal, but for those who like looking at the occasional wanker, here's what I have to say on the subject.

1. It's a fashion. And an American one at that. And one that seems to be fading at that.

2. The argument that the uncut will only be viewed as merely a fetish object rather than as a person with feelings while traveling with the homosexual community really doesn't do anything for me. Sorry.

3. The argument that the sight of a foreskin will terrify a virgin bride confuses me to no end. If she's a virgin bride, how much difference can it really make?

4. And besides, for virgin brides an uncircumcised penis offers, um, "natural glide." This would count as a plus.

5. And while you have that link open (and still have #3 in mind), note this: "A study (1988) of randomly selected young mothers in Iowa, where most men are circumcised, found that 76% found the circumcised penis looked more exciting. Although 88% of the women surveyed had only had experiences with circumcised penises, a majority of the 24 women with dual experience also felt this way." So there's that.

6. And to wax Mormon once again, how can a clipped private be okay, but not four earrings?

A related topic to aesthetics is the issue of "fitting in." Here are some of the potential concerns I've heard before in this regard:

v. locker-room shower buddies

v. Dad

v. other white kids

v. local kids

v. the rest of the gay community

v. one's own brothers

Now maybe I'm crazy, but most of these I can't even begin to believe could possibly matter. Who goes around swapping penis profiles in the first place? This wasn't part of my upbringing/coming-of-age/weekend-hobby. And even if it was part of yours, anyone who's going to let a tiny piece of skin ruin their life has deeper issues than a decision made their first month of life. Says I without any semblance of understanding or kindness. As I am sometimes wont to do.

Shame on me.

Anyway, I could go on. Especially about the issues connecting circumcision to sex. I could say things like "But the snipped can only wonder what it would be like with all their nerves intact" or accusing the some snipped of jealousy leading to another generation cut off from their----

Or I could talk about the original purpose of the modern style of circumcision which arose out of attempts to curtail masterba----

But I won't. I'm tired. I've said enough. I've probably said too much. I don't think I'll even read what I've already written. But I'll post it anyway.

Because if I manage to save one little boy from mutila--a needless medical procedure,--then it'll make me feel as though my hard work ain't been in vain for nothin'.

So to sing.

A free post for abortion advocates in which I court controversy by kinda sorta equating abortion and female circumcision

.

I am well on record as being against genital mutilation (as you can tell by my use of the word mutilation). Generally I've spoken out against circumcising boys as that procedure still has some cultural cachet in America (here's an example of my railing). But as female circumcision has never been very popular here, I haven't felt much need to talk about it.

Now the American Academy of Pediatrics has decided we should allow "pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm." Now, I'm opposed to this, but they make a good point: If you can draw a drop of blood and satisfy people who otherwise might go to Africa and cut off the labia and sew the vagina shut, then yes --- a nick is the better choice. Still wrong, in my opinion, but better than genuine mutilation. And so this proposed change to federal law is worthy of consideration.

Now. To relate this to abortion.

(Unfortunately, I can't the link I want at the moment, but please believe that I am not making this next paragraph up.)

I read, about a year ago, an essay by a prominent American feminist suggesting that abortion advocates were doomed to philosophical failure until they admitted that, yes, abortion is killing something human. The prolife people are not wrong about that, she said, and we need to be honest with ourselves and them and just admit that simple fact. And, having done so, we can then start looking for robust philosophical arguments that prove abortion can be necessary and a net good even though it involves killing a potential human being.

I agree with this. I believe that abortion is nearly always wrong. When it is right, it is only because the right is greater than the still existant wrong.

This is much like the argument the AAP makes. Not that female circumcision is a "good" thing, but that,0 in certain cases, the wrongness of an AAP member doing it is much more right than letting a family take care of it themselves. Which is where I see abortion: a wrong that might, sometimes, be more right than other wrongs.

And if the abortion cabal wants to make inroads with those who disagree with them, they should start by admitting what is plain to any child: Abortion is a wrong. Then prove that it's necessary anyway.

It's like tug-of-war --- giving an inch is good strategy.

Free advice. Take it or leave it.

The Svithe With a Warning Attached

.

WARNING: If, after reading the real titles and the epigram attached to this svithe, you think it may not be for you, it probably isn't and I suggest you steer away. For instance, in this past week, you may have missed the Eighth Books (comments now working!), my comments on Tolkien Boy and Earth Sign Mama, a nice bit of domesticity, or a funny little story about my eyeballs. If you prefer a svithe, last week's had some straight talk, or you could always visit one of my old favorites--Success & Jealousy perhaps, the one based on Everyman, or the ever-popular-in-Sunday-School Parable of the Drunk Driver. But if you are worried about disgusting bodily fluids (other than the canonized blood, of course) being used as religious metaphor, this week's entry may not be for you.
***sincerely***
---------------theric

The Circumcised of Heart
-or-
A Svithe on Semen

It is impossible for any man to forget his penis, his own personal life force.
------Thomas Cahill

.

This svithe comes from a number of things which have been on my mind lately that are all related and spiritualish in nature. It's a weird combination of things resulting in me in discussion about things I usually don't think much about. Such as semen.

I'm not much of a bodily-fluids guy and honestly, as I set out writing this I'm really not sure where I'm heading, but let's just start with those things I mentioned.

1. Levitical Lesbianism

When I was looking for information for the Sharing Time I did a couple weeks ago, I ran across a ... let's call him a Jewish Apologist. I'm not going to spend half an hour looking for his site again, but essentially, the gist of his post was this: In Mosaic Law, all sorts of sexual activities are forbidden: homosexuality, fornication, bestiality, et cetera. One thing conspicuously absent is lesbianism. As I thought about this, I thought back on our recent rereading of the books of Moses and thought that perhaps the issue here was the proper (not wasteful) use of semen. Even nocturnal emissions make a man unclean, after all. Then I thought of women and remembered the laws regarding--practically regulating--menstrual blood. I've returned to these thoughts in idle moments over the last couple weeks, never caring to reach conclusions, but the questions are interesting.

2. Bathtime

Last Thursday's visit to the midwife included some suggestions regarding how we can encourage the baby to hurry things up. For instance, visiting the ocean. Something about the waves, apparently.

She also suggested---

Midwife: At this point I would suggest you start bathing your cervix in sperm every night.

Me (interrupting): Do you have ANY IDEA how long it will take me to fill the tub? And you want me to do this every night?!?!

Actually, I did not say this. Alas. But she's right of course--semen contains the same chemicals that are used in the artificial induction of labor. And there are plenty of anecdotes demonstrating the usefulness in whoopie in not only starting the pregnancy process, but also in ending it. Ask around.

3. See above

The Thomas Cahill quote comes from a book of his I am back to reading after a near-decade hiatus. I'm zipping through it now, so expect it to appear in my next five books when they post.

The topic under discussion is circumcision, and why it was a powerful symbol. Considering the stats I run across every year or so about how many men would rather lose a leg--or their prime hand--than their penis, a symbol engraven right upon it should indeed be memorable. And blood was always the method of making a proper covenant. Even today, the idea of a blood oath or a blood pact is powerful, even if we've never actually pushed a bloody thumbprint into a parchment bearing the arms of our liege.

But the covenant God made with Abraham didn't mean nothing when it was blood alone--even if that blood was drawn from Abraham's penis. The covenant was a mere intellectual exercise until Isaac was conceived of the semen from Abraham's bloodied member.


In ancient, polytheistic societies, one wouldn't have to travel far to find a temple where one's semen (or the semen of the presiding priest, if it was a temple for girls) was put to ritualistic use. The Judeo-Christian tradition has removed that particular fluid from the temple to the bedroom, but, speaking particularly as a Mormon with our emphasis on family, semen (and other fluids from that neck of the woods) are still heavy with religious importance. If we are to emulate God by becoming parents, we must spend seed.

Although the Song of Songs was not accepted by Joseph Smith as "inspired" scripture, I think its presence in the Bible is still appropriate--and, in particular, that it fills a need. There is very little discussion of the importance of romantic love in the Canon, yet without it, wherefore multiplying and replenishing the earth? wherefore the concern about failure in the home?

It is an easy thing to forget in a clean, almost hermetic, world like ours that humanity is composed of things like blood and semen and other unpleasant humours and ichors. Little by little we lose track of mortality's brutality and why we need a Greater Hope.

The outrage over the bloody cover on a new translation of the New Testament a decade ago missed the point I think. Though I, like any Mormon, prefer a Resurrected Christ to a Crucified Jesus dripping blood on the altar, choosing to completely cut ourselves off from the blood-soaked Son of Man is not doing us any favors. Blood represents life; lost blood, lost life; in this case, the greatest gift of all.

And the other fluid under discussion today is much the same: With it, life continues. Without it, the line ends. Adios humanity.

I have no grand conclusion to all this, as I stated plainly up front, but if nothing else, we do well to remember that everything in life is metaphor, nothing in life is grounded solely in the present. But while we as a species were made for something better than this, yet also the joys and goodnesses of mortality--no matter how messy or finally tragic--were also made for us. And while looking to the future, we should also live firmly in the present.

This is no paradox or mistake or error in reasoning. And it is not hedonism, though it could be easily construed as such.

Our Heavenly Father, after all, did not have to make the planet beautiful with trees and mountains and oceans. He did not have to plant thyme and cinnamon and rosemary and chives. A plain barren rock with nutritious ooze seeping forth would have been enough to set the stage for Choice and Sin and Redemption. Every bit of glory on this planet is a gift from He who loves us.

This is what we need to remember. And why the circumcision of the heart is so important. The heart pumps the blood we require to live, always!, so no matter how much a body may dwell on its genitals, without its heart, they mean nothing.

When we engrave our gratitude on the very machine powering our continued existence, then we are truly the Sons and Daughters of God--every pump of lifeblood reminding us of our faith and covenant--beholden to him--while still appreciating that blood which gives us the chance to live the life that is ours today.

Both Now and Eternity, brought to you by nothing more than fluid.



crap; i really should have just reread last week's svithe

Off with—————!!!!

.

I just wanted to announce that, with this post, the circumcision issue gets bumped off the front page.

So all those of you who have been waiting for things to blow over are welcome to come back now.