[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by RJK at 31 Jan 2002 23:30:51: Re: Preputioplasty
As an answer to: Re: Preputioplasty written by Paul B. at 09 Oct 2001 14:27:31:
>> Why don't doctors perform this instead of circ.? I want serious answers.
>OK, let me try a few.
>
>- Circumcision is in general, not performed for medical reasons, but for pseudo-cosmesis.
Neither 'cosmesis' nor 'pseudo-cosmesis' are words found in commonly-used dictionaries of the English language.
The intention is to look different, that is the reason Jews perform it.
If that is the reason Jews perform it, they're failing miserably in the USA where, with 90-million males circumcised (including Brad Pitt, Bill Clinton, both George Bushes and even Arnold Schwarzenegger) Jews look just like everyone else. But, you say, they do look different in Europe. True, but they've only been in Europe 2,000 years and they've been circumcising for at least 3,300 years, probably more. Anthropology indicates that circumcision was common among the western Semites, of whom the ancient Hebrews were a branch. Scripture (Joshua 5:2-9) relates that Hebrew men of the generation that left Egypt were circumcised, but after they died the younger men who grew up in the desert were uncircumcised. Accordingly, after Moses died Joshua assembled them all at Gibeath-haaraloth where he had them circumcised and so 'rolled away the reproach [or shame] of Egypt'. So the Jews wanted to look like the Egyptians? Not necessarily. Herodotus (450 BC), a Greek reporting on Egypt, said the Egyptians practiced circumcision because they 'valued cleanliness over seemliness', which may have been accurate; at any rate it was his take on what he saw. A valid point is that circumcision was not unique to the Jews in the Middle East; except for the Philistines (after whom Palestine was named), it was common. The Jews have stuck with circumcision through thick and thin -- along with other traditions -- whatever other people may do or think.
Preputioplasty -- this is a word not in the standard dictionary, neither OED, Webster's nor American Heritage --
is a medical procedure directed at a medical problem; inability to retract the foreskin, but this is rarely the true reason for performing a circumcision (and as you will know when you ask this question, progressive stretching would generally achieve the same end). Preputioplasty does not result is a circumcised appearance, so does not achieve the usually desired end.
>- Circumcision was introduced in the nineteenth century to American and spread to Britain and Australia,
This mis-statement is based on a partial truth. Circumcision was indeed initiated in 19th-century North America, but it most certainly did not spread from there to Britain and Australia. For most of the 19th century Americans were country cousins who for the most part had little influence in Britain, then at the apogee of its empire. There may indeed have been some British influence promoting circumcision in the USA and anglophone Canada. The British medical establishment took up circumcision about the same time the Americans did for the same reasons: to discourage male masturbation and adult sexual activity. (They failed in both efforts.) It is ludicrous to believe that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert would have had their sons circumcised in response to Yankee influence. Once well established in Britain circumcision spread to Australia, New Zealand, anglophone South Africa, and even Hong Kong and Singapore.
as a deliberate punitive measure to attempt sexual repression which was seen as a socially desirable thing. There is a lot more to this and it is well documented, but suffice to say that this still figures prominently in the rationale for circumcision despite an ostensibly more educated populace. In other words, the whole concept for both parents and doctors, of interfering with the sexuality of others, has considerable perverse appeal because there really is a lot of sexual repression and malcontent "out there"! Have I expressed this adequately? It's all very "Freudian" I know.
>- Circumcision is profitable.
Not always: before World War II it was often 'thrown in' at no addition to obstetrical fees; after the war thousands of sons of service personnel were circumcised by doctors in service hospitals at no (or minimal) charge.
Now if one classes competent preputioplasty as a plastic surgical procedure, comparable to eyelid lift (and is it not?), then it should by rights attract a high premium. In practice however, people set a very low value on the sexual organs (again illustrating the universality of the repression to which I refer) and view a circumcision as better "value-for-money" because you really can see a result (whereas the very aim of preputioplasty is that you cannot)! The surgeon would rather perform a technically simple procedure for as much money as possible, than one where some skill is required to ensure optimum function.
>- The "market" is ignorant. The "quick and permanent fix" is a good selling point if you ignore the disadvantages. The argument is simplistic. The foreskin causes problems, so you cut it off. Since people do not habitually think it has an important use, this is attractive. The fact that it is a common procedure in the USA is used to imply that, since men continue to reproduce despite circumcision, there cannot be problems.
This is supportively covered by http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann
Fashion generally overrules commonsense.
>- Jews, who (not unreasonably) have an inherent desire to justify the practice of circumcision,
This contradicts what you said above, since if everybody is circumcised Jews will NOT look 'different'.
are substantially over-represented (purely as a proportion in the population, that is) in the medical profession
Jews have a high representation in most arts and sciences, not medicine alone.
of all countries where circumcision is common (and a few where it is not).
>
> Comment?
Yes, this does pretty well cover the bases on this issue, as Jim said, but by a combination of half-baked fantasy and not-so-subtle anti-Semitism.