Circumcision - Miscellaneous

(When items in this section gather enough detail, they will be moved to their own pages.)

The Shakespeareans
Many articles about circumcision in the mass media fall into two classes,

• the Hamlets and
• the Caesars.

The Hamlets are typically called "To Cut Or Not To Cut?" (cf Hamlet III, 1, 56) and often subtitled "The Circumcision Decision". (Originality is not their strong point.) They present circumcision as a decision parents must make, "after weighing all the evidence". They then present all the medical evidence for circumcision. They invariably mention early on how ancient circumcision is, and sometimes quote the text of the command to Abraham (Gen 17 10) in full - as though this has any relevance to present-day gentile parents. If they mention objections, it is dismissively. If they mention foreskin restoration, they stress its outlandishness.

An observer comments:

In other words, not all decisions that can be expressed as "X or not X?" are evenly divided.

The Caesars are typically called "The Most Unkindest Cut" (Julius Caesar III, 2, 188). They commonly begin with parents agonising over whether to have their son circumcised. (They almost invariably do. If parents who do not circumcise are introduced, their reasons are diffidently expressed: "We just didn't think it was necessary" and the like.) They are much more likely to mention complications, the lack of support for circumcision by professional bodies, and human rights issues - but not to analyse them in any detail.

An article in Mother Jones, March-April 2010, is called "Much Ado About Cutting". (Since "Cutting" stands in for "Nothing", this might trivialise the issue, but the article is quite balanced.)

Few articles condemn circumcision outright, or make central the baby's human right to decide the fate of his own penis. They might be classed as Banquos: "Too cruel any where." (Macbeth II, 3, 95)

See also "How to write about circumcision"

(In New Zealand, articles on circumcision also have a theatrical bent: at least six have appeared using the title of Greg McGee's hit play "Foreskin's Lament" and have documented its decline over the last several decades.)

Circumcision in Shakespeare

This section has been removed to The Stage.

The foreskin and circumcision in other literature.

Balanitis and Diabetes

These pages until recently listed as one of the few legitimate reasons for circumcising,

A doctor recommends instead "topical antifungals and better control of the diabetes."

And a diabetic writes "so long as I consume a lot of real yoghourt, I can avoid Monistat Derm if I am careful with my intake of sugar."

Another doctor writes:
It is probably not glucose in the urine of a diabetic which contributes to the high incidence of balanitis, but rather the high tissue and vascular glucose levels in the penis itself, like every other tissue in the diabetic. Remember also that urine is generally sterile (not infectious) whether or not it contains higher than normal levels of glucose. Therefore, tight control of diabetes is the answer to preventing balanitis and other infections which are found so commonly in diabetics. And then the issue of circumcision for balanoposthitis becomes moot. Truly the only people I have referred for circumcision (2 in the last 20 years) have been diabetics who have not taken care of themselves (usually drinking too much alcohol concurrently) and for whom no topical or anti-microbial therapy has given long-lasting cure of their penile inflammations and infections.

Inflammation vs Infection

Balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis, etc, are inflammations, not infections. The inflammation may be caused by a localized infection, or may be a reaction to a different irritant without infection.

An infection only exists when an abnormal microorganism has been identified as the cause of the problem, not merely through presence (vast numbers of microorganisms normally live on our bodies). A microorganism must be identified in order for an infection to be declared.

If no microorganism is overabundant in the area, then balanitis, posthitis, or balanoposthitis are all simple inflammations which will go away soon after the removal of the the cause: manipulation, urine, soap, some tap water, lotions and moisturizers, creams (prescribed or over the counter), fabric softeners, detergents, body wash, cologne, etc).

By premature forcible manipulation of the foreskin, tears can be made which in themselves can cause inflammation. By allowing these tears to heal, preventing further manipulation and not introducing other agents, the inflammation will subside on its own.

Inflammation is a defensive action of the body. Infection is an invasion by a microorganism. They are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other.

Permanent retraction

A significant number of intact men have their foreskins permanently retracted. Especially if they began doing it in childhood, the foreskin fails to grow.

• A New Zealand man was told by his mother that he must keep it retracted at all times "or it might have to be cut off". (This is apparently a misunderstanding of the instructions issued to the nurses of the Plunket Society during the period 1917-1949 to ensure that foreskins were fully retractable by a week after birth.) Faced with such a threat, he naturally obeyed (and the psychological effect of such a near-castration threat is unknown).
• This behaviour appears to be common in parts of Japan, unknown in others.
• At least one Indonesian man used this means as a boy to conceal his foreskin and escape circumcision. He was very pleased by the effect of foreskin restoration, which is even more pronounced here, where all the nerves of the ridged band are retained, than where the foreskin has been surgically removed.

Do babies remember being circumcised?

Sickle-cell trait and magical mutilation

Sickle-cell trait is genetic, carried on the HbS gene. Those with two of the genes (homozygous) suffer from sickle-cell anaemia and only half survive to adulthood. Those with only one (heterozygous) gain some protection from malaria. As a result, the gene is common where malaria is prevalent. Among the Igbo tribes of Nigeria, 25% are carriers. The gene also also alters the shape of the skull and may shorten fingers.

Two other valuable organs once thought useless:

• The appendix

  For a long time the human vermiform appendix was thought to be a useless "vestigial" organ. It turns out the appendix contains special "gut-associated lymphoid tissues".

  "Thus ... a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have significant function as part of the body's immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest state of development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of gut-associated lymphoid tissue as the Peyer's patches in the small intestine. The immune response mediated by the appendix may also relate to ulcerative colitis and other inflammatory conditions."

  - Scientific American, Nov 2001, p 84

  People who have had their appendix removed are more likely to develop the digestive disorder Crohn's disease, results of a new study suggest.

  "It's not clear if appendicitis increases the risk of Crohn's disease, or if people at risk for Crohn's disease are more likely to develop appendicitis. However, the findings may help shed light on both conditions," according to the lead author of the study, Dr. Roland E. Andersson.

  - Reuters Health

  But of course there's a third possibility: the appendix performs some function that tends to prevent Crohn's disease.

  For example:

  Discover January 15, 2008 And Here's Why You Have an Appendix: When you're sick, it re-boots your gut with good bacteria. by Josie Glausiusz In September, a team of surgeons and immunologists at Duke University proposed a reason for the appendix, declaring it a “safe house” for beneficial bacteria. Attached like a little wiggly worm at the beginning of the large intestine, the 2- to 4-inch-long blind-ended tube seems to have no effect on digestion, so biologists have long been stumped about its purpose. That is, until biochemist and immunologist William Parker became interested in biofilms, closely bound communities of bacteria. In the gut, biofilms aid digestion, make vital nutrients, and crowd out harmful invaders. Upon investigation, Parker and his colleagues found that in humans, the greatest concentration of biofilms was in the appendix; in rats and baboons, biofilms are concentrated in the cecum, a pouch that sits at the same location. The shape of the appendix is perfectly suited as a sanctuary for bacteria: Its narrow opening prevents an influx of the intestinal contents, and it’s situated inaccessibly outside the main flow of the fecal stream. Parker suspects that it acts as a reservoir of healthy, protective bacteria that can replenish the intestine after a bacteria-depleting diarrheal illness like cholera. Where such diseases are rampant, Parker says, “if you don’t have something like the appendix to harbor safe bacteria, you have less of a survival advantage.”

   

  A useful appendix Once thought of as a vestigial organ, the appendix is filled with filmy life, consisting of billions or even trillions of microbial cells. Bill Parker at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, thinks he has figured out what it does - or did, if you happen to have had yours removed. He sees the appendix as an old-growth forest, containing all the species needed to reseed the rest of the gut with beneficial microbes should the need arise (Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol 249, p 826). lt is most crucial when the natural flora in the rest of the gut is laid waste by infections such as cholera - or, in the modern world, following overuse of antibiotics. - New Scientist, December 3, 2011, p 53

• Jacobson's Organ

  Jacobson's organ (the vomeronasal organ) is a tiny sensory organ inside the nose near the nostrils, distinct from the olfactory bulbs which detect the smells of which we are conscious. In other mammals, Jacobson's organs detect pheromones (sexual attractants). If the organ is removed from mice, guinea pigs or prarie voles, they no longer display courtship or mating behaviour towards the opposite sex, or fail to recognise their own offspring.

  Like the appendix and the foreskin, Jacobson's organ has commonly been removed in the belief that it has no function - ironically, often in the course of rhinoplasty (nose-jobs), so an operation intended to make someone more attractive may also make them less attracted.

  - from "Jacobson's Organ and the remarkable nature of smell"
  by Lyall Watson

Of course, it doesn't follow that every organ once thought to be useless will turn out to have value, but they are other examples of something doctors assumed could be removed with impunity.

Circumcision and royalty

The penile status of royalty seems to have an abiding fascination for both circumcisors and Intactivists, as if they should set some kind of example to us.

It is widely reported that Louis XVI of France could not father children until he was circumcised. Unfortunately for the story, he was already a father well before the alleged operation. Remondino invented this lie in his history of circumcision. It served his need to find historical precedent for circumcision in Europe, to make the ritual seem less alien and more familiar. These were calculated lies without any historical basis. A more scholarly study from France (Le phimosis de Louis XVI (1754-1793) aurait-il été a l'origine de ses difficultés sexuelles et de sa fecundité retardée? [Prog Urol. 2002; 12(1):132-7] by G. Androutsos) thoroughly debunked this myth.

It has recently (2013) become part of popular wisdom that George I began Royal circumcision in England and even that he "brought the custom from Hanover". There is no shadow of evidence that it was ever the custom in Hanover. This seems to be a complete fabrication by circumcision fetishists.

The claim is widespread that Queen Victoria ordered her sons and their descendents circumcised because she was a "British Israelite" who believed she and they were directly descended from King David. It is further claimed that Prince Charles was circumcised by a mohel.

This claim has been spread by anti-Semites, in order to discredit the royal family, by Jews in order to give status to circumcision, and by others in order to make it respectable. What truth there is to it, if any, is shrouded in royal reticence. It is now generally acknowledged that royalty sometimes make mistakes.

There is eyewitness evidence from his babyhood that Prince William is intact. (The unlikely claim has also been made that Prince Charles had Wills and Harry circumcised after their mother's death.)

There was widespread discussion around the time of the birth of Prince George, about whether he would be circumcised, based on the above stories, but this seems highly unlikely.

Robert Darby and John Cosijn have written a historical paper, making the same points, The British Royal Family’s Circumcision Tradition, in Sage Open journals, October 16, 2013

Sikhs and Intactness

The Sikh faith actively discourages all body modification, even haircutting.