[net.religion] "sexist" surgery

ellis@flairvax.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (01/03/84)

Talking about barbaric sexist practices (such as clitoridectomies), think
about the most common bodily mutilation performed by our society -- on
infant *males* -- circumcision! Too bad most `concerned' mothers (who are
equally responsible for forcing this decision on their male children)
aren't required to undergo the equivalent disfiguration!

In case you did not know, the foreskin is a sensitive region of the male
anatomy capable of highly pleasurable sensations that are totally
unattainable once a penis has been so deformed.

Some support this sad practice as `hygienic' -- even though a natural man
with reasonably modern personal habits can expect far fewer hygiene
problems than ANY woman.

Maybe it makes sense as a `trade' for some kind of `spiritual bonus' --
provided, of course, you're Jewish or Islamic.  But why does America's
male-dominated, largely Christian-derived society mutilate the majority of
its own male offspring with this `sexist surgery'?

-michael

saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/05/84)

Well, I do not agree with you that clitoridectomies are "equivalent" to
circumcision, I think a more correct equivalence would be complete removal
of the penis; If you look at anatomical charts of the nerves around both
the clitoris and the penis, you will find that they are quite similar; so
as far as sensation is concerned, a woman without a clitoris would be very
close to a man without a penis except that she would of course be better off
because she would still have her vagina (and uretha).

Yes, I am aware that the foreskin is a very sensitive skin, I do have some
friends who are not circumcised, and managed to find out from them about this
sensitivity.  The only written reference I've ever found to this was from
pseudo-medical books advocating circumcision to prevent premature ejaculation
caused by "over-sensitivity".  I think this is not only a horrible way to "cure"
the problem, but a useless one too; this comment is only based on my own 
experience of circumcised premature ejaculators and uncircumcised "patient" men,
(a sample group too small to be able to draw "scientific conclusions from)
and I've never seem any litterature questioning the usefulness of such surgery
to deal with premature ejaculation.

The anatomical charts I was refering to above, interestingly enough, showed
the genitals of a circumcised man vs the genitals of a woman with everything
intact; therefore, I do not know for sure how the nerves run in the foreskin,
but judging from the descriptions I've heard, I would say that the penis in
general is a very sensitive organ with a concentration of nerves on the base of
the foreskin and on the tip of the penis.  In the woman, the vagina is in
general sensitive although not as much as the penis, and the core of the nerves
is situated in the clitoris.  The bulk of the nerves seem to be more spread out
in the male than in the female so removing the foreskin would be similar to
removing say a third of the clitoris.  Most circumcised men can enjoy sex quite
well, although I doubt whether many women can enjoy sex as easily without a
clitoris.

This does not mean that I advocate circumcision.  On the contrary, I think it
is an outdated, harmful and useless practise.  I can understand how it can
be useful for people living in extremely unhygienic conditions, but I don't
think it is for people in the north america, and europe. I don't buy any of the
other arguments I've seen on circumcision either, especially those directed at
women (wives of circumcised men not getting cervical cancer, and the premature
ejaculation ones).  In general, I don't believe in preventive surgery, and I
don't really believe in surgery except for extreme cases.  If I have one, I will
not get my son circumsised, and I've been urging my friends to do the same for
theirs.

I just think that your comparison of circumcision to clitoridectomy is unfair,
and that your suggested treatment of mothers of circumcised boys is very harsh
(anyway, as far as I know, the fathers have a say in this decision too). The
motivation between the uses of circumcision and clitoridectomies are quite
different too, on is for hygienic reasons and the other is to stop women from
enjoying sex, so I don't think that a parent asking for his/her son to be
circumcised is doing it for the same reason that the parents who want their
daughters' clitoris removed.
Like you, I have this very strong suspicion that even though most advocates
of circumcision believe in the hygienic arguments, the idea behind circumcision,
which is (as far as I know) a judeaic-christian practise, is very related to the
judeo-christian belief that there is something wrong with sex.  I am not a
theologian, so I will not continue for fear of saying something wrong. 
Our culture definitely does not want us to enjoy sex; it has tried to reduce
female sexuality to reproduction; male sexuality is made a big fuss off, but I
think it is actually only tolerated and for the good reason that it can be
exploited commercially.  I have the impression that women have been able to
rediscover their sexuality because society was trying to obliterate it.  On
the other hand, men's sexuality was never as overtly threatened, so men have
had less of a reason to reclaim it, and therefore are not as successful at
doing so.  Many times I've had the impression that men don't enjoy sex as
much as the women who do (they do enjoy it more than the women who don't). I
wonder if this is just an impression; Does anybody agree with me?

stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) (01/05/84)

****************************** QUOTING *****************************************
Talking about barbaric sexist practices (such as clitoridectomies), think
about the most common bodily mutilation performed by our society -- on
infant *males* -- circumcision! Too bad most `concerned' mothers (who are
equally responsible for forcing this decision on their male children)
aren't required to undergo the equivalent disfiguration!

In case you did not know, the foreskin is a sensitive region of the male
anatomy capable of highly pleasurable sensations that are totally
unattainable once a penis has been so deformed.
***************************** END QUOTE ****************************************

Oh, really?  Every book and article I have read suggests that there is no
difference in the sensations realizable by a circumsized male than those
realizable by an uncircumsized male.  What is your source of information?
Your imagination?

****************************** QUOTING *****************************************
Some support this sad practice as `hygienic' -- even though a natural man
with reasonably modern personal habits can expect far fewer hygiene
problems than ANY woman.
***************************** END QUOTE ****************************************

Yes, many do justify it on hygenic grounds.  Studies done many times over the
years have suggested that wives/lovers of circumsized men have a lower
incidence of cervical cancer than wives/lovers of uncircumsized men.  No,
it is not the man's health that is the worry, it is the health of the one he
loves that caused many to undergo such surgery.  

NOTE***  Studies done in the last decade suggest that with most modern
hygeine practices here in the US/Canada  (i.e. daily showers) there
is no longer any difference.  But circumcision is a practice that goes back
many years to when daily showers and the like were not available.

My source of information is the cytotechnology department head at Fong
Diagnostic laboratories, Sacromento, CA.  I have not seen the studies myself.

****************************** QUOTING *****************************************
Maybe it makes sense as a `trade' for some kind of `spiritual bonus' --
provided, of course, you're Jewish or Islamic.  But why does America's
male-dominated, largely Christian-derived society mutilate the majority of
its own male offspring with this `sexist surgery'?
***************************** END QUOTE ****************************************

Regardless of what some people have been saying about the US not being
a Judeo-Christian culture - YES, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN, we do in fact have
such a background.  Christianity came out of Judism.  Many of the
traditions of Christianity came out of historically Jewish practices.
Paul, in his letters, addressed the issue of circumcision of adult males,
which many in the early church were seeking to require of Gentile
believers.  Many Christians refer to the "church" (the group of all
Christians) as the New Israel, and seek to remind themselves of the
Abrahamic Covenent through such means as circumcision.

Additionally, as our pediatrician said to us when we were debating whether
to have our newborn son circumsized or not - some psychiatrists believe
there is less trama for a boy who "looks like his daddy" that for one
who is different.  Sure, they will eventually see both kinds, but at the
age of two or three when many such things are first noticed by kids, it
seems to be easier for those who are like daddy than for those who are
unlike daddy.

Anyway - have it as you like for you and yours - 

-- 
 ________
 (      )					Don Stanwyck
@( o  o )@					312-979-3062
 (  ||  )					Cornet-367-3062
 ( \__/ )					ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck
 (______)					Bell Labs @ Naperville, IL

brahms@trwspp.UUCP (01/10/84)

Time out!  This reply is more suited to net.religion, but since 
the article also appeard in net.women.only so does this reply along
with the added trivia about a husbands obligation to his wife.

From: saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)

> Like you, I have this very strong suspicion that even though most
> advocates of circumcision believe in the hygienic arguments, the idea
> behind circumcision, which is (as far as I know) a judaeic-christian
> practise, is very related to the judeo-christian belief that there is
> something wrong with sex.  I am not a theologian, so I will not
> continue for fear of saying something wrong. 

I'm glad your not a theologian because neither am I.  Judaism does
NOT believe that sex is bad.  On the contrary, sex is a very natural
and loving act.  Christians, on the other hand, believe that your are
born in sin and must be saved.  Does this mean that sex is bad?  How
can one be born in sin for something that is natural act?  But since
neither of us are theologians i will go no further.

For the women out there you may be interested to note this:  In
Judaism, it is the mans obligations to first please (sexually) his
wife before he gets his pleasure.  Depending on the type of work the
man does, this can be from once a day (for the rich who don't work),
twice a week (the average worker), once a week (the traveling
salesman), or once a month (a seaman, etc).

Also note that twice a week is very close to the U.S. national
average.

Please, no flames on the latter part on the mans obligations.  With
both men and women working outside the home and depending on the
individual case, the frequency can and does vary.

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trw-unix!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

stephen@alberta.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (01/11/84)

....	Maybe it makes sense as a `trade' for some kind of `spiritual
	bonus' -- provided, of course, you're Jewish or Islamic.  But
	why does America's male-dominated, largely Christian-derived
	society mutilate the majority of its own male offspring with
	this `sexist surgery'?

	-michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why is that Christianity was, in the beginning, a sect
of the jewish religion which believed (unlike other jews) that the
"messiah" had come.  
  It is for that reason that the christian faith also holds onto
many other jewish customs (eg: The sabath and the old testament).

	Stephen Samuel
	 (alberta!stephen)

aeq@pucc-h (Sargent) (01/16/84)

From Brad Brahms:

> I'm glad your not a theologian because neither am I.  Judaism does
> NOT believe that sex is bad.  On the contrary, sex is a very natural
> and loving act.  Christians, on the other hand, believe that your are
> born in sin and must be saved.  Does this mean that sex is bad?  How
> can one be born in sin for something that is natural act?  But since
> neither of us are theologians i will go no further.

It appears that many under the Christian nameplate believe that sex is bad.
I'm also no theologian, but (as I think has been remarked in net.religion not
long ago) the idea that sex is no good is largely due to Thomas Aquinas, who
acquired it from beliefs he held before he converted to Catholicism.
Apparently Aquinas missed the significance of the fact that the first recorded
miracle of Jesus was performed at a wedding reception; surely his presence at
the wedding and the reception indicated his approval of marriage, including
the sexual aspect (or did he think that that particular couple was just going
to shake hands? :-) ).

-- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq