textfiles/sex/circbook.txt

89 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

CIRCUMCISION: What It Does, by Billy Ray Boyd; $6.95, Taterhill
Press.
About a year ago, just before becoming an uncle I complained
to my mother that the pamphlets I'd sent my sister had failed to
convince her. "If it's a boy, they're going to circumcize him.
If it's a girl they're going to name her Tina Tindall." Mother
shared the horror of having either a mutilated grandson or else a
granddaugher with an alliterative monicker suggesting a John Waters
anti-hera. We plotted to snatch the child before damage could be
done and give it to properly sensible Lesbians. I then went into
mild shock realizing that my mother had had a proper education far
too late for my benefit.
Well, Dear Reader, I have good news. My lovely niece was
named Melissa, and a new book provides compelling arguments against
the generally dying and sometimes deadly practice of circumcision.
The author of "Circumcision" makes no pretense of neutrality.
As the intellectual traditions of our culture respect neutrality
over commitment this dedication may work against him.
The book is an excellent resource for those of us who are
opposed to infant circumcision (and what connoisseur of male
genitalia isn't?) Whether we are planning parenthood or wish to
lobby our reproductive friends and relatives in favor of leaving
their sons intact this book is a must. On the other hand it may
be a bit heavy handed to send directly to friends considering the
question from a more "neutral" position. Read it for yourself.
Consider whether you'd rather send it to the parents to be or
simply to offer the arguments and references most relevant to
their specific issues. Quite a few sensitive points are covered
here, perhaps some are too sensitive for direct exposure.
Can one truly be neutral on the subject? On what basis does
one accept routine circumcision? If one views it as a form of
mutilation, obviously there is no neutrality. If one accepts
circumcision unquestioningly "neutrality" is a cover for ignorance.
There have been studies that support circumcision as a form of
prophylaxis, but in this book they are demonstrated as having
flawed bases. Other studies, critical of routine circumcision,
have been misrepresented in the press. In any event, the very real
damages from a slip of the snip far outnumber the statistical
linkages to diseases that some doctors cite off-the-cuff. (It is
also noteworthy that circumcision is a money maker. Doctors
annually make hundreds of millions at a fast clip!)
There is an entire chapter dealing with circumcision among
Jews. Boyd goes to great effort to condemn any anti-Semitism, and
to expose skinhead tendencies which indeed exist in the
"preservationist" movement. I personally find it exhausting to
wade through <20>goyische <20>protestations of sympathy to Jews, just as
it gets tedious to hear straights insist at length that they are
pro-Gay, but considering the subject matter he is indeed better off
erring on the side of caution.
Fortunately Boyd has done his homework and provides enough
information to head off the next bris in my family! The author
reports on variations of circumcision techniques at various times
in Jewish history. For example, at the birth of the Reform
Movement circumcision was rejected and later re-adopted. At many
times the mohel would only remove the tip of the skin -- not peel
it off the glans as is commonly done now. In Europe many Jews
today do not practice circumcision, and regard it as barbarous.
Even in America -- the only secular nation where circumcision is
considered routine -- a growing number of Jews are practing the
"Bris Shalom," an infant naming ceremony that allows boys to remain
uncut. A number of Jewish leaders in the preservationist movement
are also listed --including local video health maven, Dean Edell.
There are also quotes from pro-circumcisionists, both Talmudic
and Victorian, showing the eratophobic roots of the practice.
Starkly revealed, the point is to diminish sexual pleasure. Europe
has drawn the shade on this puritanical practice, and such
roundheaded nonsense is in the decline even in America. The
principle rationale for circumcision today is conformity, but even
here the proportions of uncut organs are growing and parents who
wish their boys to fit in should leave well enough alone.
While the book concentrates on male circumcision there is also
some discussion of female circumcision -- practiced in certain
African and Arab cultures. This may include a clitoridectomy
and/or various mutilations of the labia. The details are
horrifying. Anyone concerned with the most basic of human rights
should be up in arms against involuntary genital mutilation -- but
then why do we commonly accept the damage done to baby boys? Even
if a successful circumcision is not considered damaging one in five
hundred is not successful, leading to further mutilation,
impotence, and sometimes death.
The appendices include resources for information and action,
including Jewish support groups and foreskin restoration
techniques. Altoghether this is an invaluable text for anyone who
would spare the rod, and not spoil the child.