[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 07 Sep 2002 22:02:44: Interesting fallacy (phallacy?) about Circumcision
As an answer to: Re: Interesting fact about Religious Circumcision written by i know at 07 Sep 2002 17:44:18:
> The reason for this is ... because their wasn't a lot of water and they were not able to be as clean as people who had access to water sources.
Interesting argument.
Popular argument.
Oft-cited argument.
Problem! The argument doesn't wash(!). Doesn't make sense, and there is no evidence for it.
> if they couldn't wash, their foreskin got infected,
Name one other part of the body that gets infected because you can't wash. Do you cut that part off because of this? What about women? Do they get infections if they can't wash their genitals?
Why not? Hint - because the urine itself (which is of course, sterile) cleans off the area. Washing water not needed - provided automatically. It's a "no-brainer".
> so they found it easier to just cut it off and not worry about it.
No. It's not easy because a proportion of candidates die from it. Often from infection. You have to be so keen on doing it that you are happy to take that risk, which in fact indicates a society which has some tacit acceptance of infanticide.
As it turns out, the reason for MGM is the same as for FGM, and arose or exists mostly in the same societies, and it's not cleanliness at all - it's social control over sexuality - cutting things off to "prevent" people playing around. This is a feature of societies with sufficient prosperity that overpopulation is a perceived risk, or at least, a very high value is placed on the social structure such that illicit relationships and the resulting blurring of inheritance are seen as a major threat.