92 Comments

Gentiles can do what they want with their penises. I wouldn’t suggest circumcision to them. However, it is a cultural imperative to circumcise Jewish boys at 8 days. It doesn’t have to be rational, medical, or ethical. It’s just what Jews do. Mind your own penis, Hanania.

Expand full comment

As a circumcised man who has had a very satisfactory life, I agree that circumcision is a bad idea and parents should stop doing it to their infants, but I am not going to hyperventilate about it. A slow trend away seems like the right response. Calling it "barbaric" and comparing it to FGM strikes me as just trolling, not truth seeking. My understanding is that FGM ranges from a symbolic cut, which is comparable to circumcision, to far more extreme practices, which definitely are not.

Expand full comment

Circumcision has never negatively impacted my sex life. LOL. It also reduces the risk of transmission of STDs of all kinds.

Next, I was present in the room when my son was circumcised by his physician. It took less than a minute, and caused him very little discomfort.

Those claiming it's barbaric, or in any way negatively impacts a man's life are absolutely clueless.

Expand full comment

https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/7/2/145/6956488

"In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis."

That seems like kind of a big deal. Now you might object "that should be discussed between a man and his partner, the decision should not be made for them by the man's parents" but realistically only an infinitesimal fraction of men regret having been circumcised, and only an infinitesimal fraction of men would get circumcised as adults if their partners asked them to do so. Getting rid of infant circumcision seems like a major loss in welfare for no gain in welfare.

Expand full comment

FGM is performed to prevent sexual pleasure and women's vaginas are additionally sewn up (often more than once) to obstruct penetration. The procedure results in urinary incontinence - many women are house bound because of it - and prevents the evacuation of menstrual blood which leads to serious uterine infections, so I don't think it is reasonable to compare the practice to male circumcision.

Expand full comment

People generally don’t understand how foreskin works. So, they think that it’s inherently unhygienic. But, like, it’s retractable. You pull it back, exposing the whole of the glans and the interior skin, and rinse those structures. Of course, if you never clean it, it stinks, just like your armpits or you ass hole would.

Intact men are often confused on this point. So, intact unfortunately gets a reputation as smelly, displeasing or unaesthetic. Some even have a condition where they fail to retract their foreskin for so long that it bonds to the surface of the glans. Frankly, that condition is pretty gross. But it is treatable! People are ignorant though and it’s hard to tell someone, “fix your dick.”

For sexual pleasure, my understanding is that an intact foreskin is a bigger deal for oral, anal or manual sex. Basically, vaginas have labias and other structures that (sort of) make up for the lack of foreskin on a circumcised penis. So, women who only have vaginal sex might not be aware of the difference.

Also, a tight circumcision is so much worse. Like, it’s horrible for a guy to have so little skin that, when he’s erect, his penis looks like it’s about to tear open. There’s just not a lot of give to it, it’s more like a rock when erect. Once, I met a guys whose remaining skin had torn, and his penis was deformed because of it. But most circumcised guys fortunately have enough skin left to be OK.

Lastly, women generally don’t have enough sex partners to know what makes a good penis. (Gays know.) Penises are all different, like faces, so you need a pretty big sample to conclude whether intact or circumscized is better, especially given all the other ways penises vary.

Expand full comment

I was circumcised as an adult, so I am a much better source on this than someone circumcised as a baby because I have a control. It didn't reduce my sensation and I am happy with it. A recent meta analysis finds a lot of the anti-circumcision claims are questionable: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jebm.12361

Expand full comment

This is antisemitic, sorry.

Expand full comment

The most damning statistic of circumcision discourse is that the dad’s penis status is one of the most, or the most, predictive variables for the son. Normal health decisions don’t work that way, though they’ll always claim it’s a health decision.

Not being Jewish or Muslim myself, I don’t particularly care either way for those populations. We do lots of strange traditions for cultural reasons. But specifically the white Christian populations of the US have been fooled into thinking it’s a cultural, even religious, rite when it’s demonstrably not. The Puritan background of the country continues to have weird side effects.

Expand full comment

I was told it was much cleaner when my boys were young because the flap can carry bacteria like yeast. I guess I shouldn't have an opinion on this as a woman, but I'm pro-circumcision, just for aesthetics, which I've been told is no better than fat shaming, so theres that.

Expand full comment

As a woman, I have no skin in the game (hah) but I'm in full agreement, and I don't think religion is a good enough justification to remove the foreskin of a boy not even old enough to see all the colors yet, let alone consent to such a procedure. Nothing is, other than a legitimate medical need.

Expand full comment

Well, a weak post - not one actual reason against circumcision. A circumcised German boomer here. At that time maybe because our doctors copied the US. I was too small to remember. My younger brothers stayed un-cut. One of them had a bad case of phimosis later when 10 and hated the experience. My son, I paid to have him cut as a baby, zero trouble then. The later you do it the worse it gets. And treating phimosis in alternative ways - oh I wish you lots of fun working with your son's penis or checking his compliance. - That said, an early circumcision is about as "big an issue" as putting a hole in your kids earlobe. No downside, really. - The ups: 1. no risk for a later treatment that might get traumatic 2. More sex, because a) girls like them clean (and how you know, if he is not cut) AND b) we last longer! My wife's best friend still is very, very sensitive, if I would feel even more ... nope, not a good thing. In modern times, the one-eyed snakes is resting all day safe in soft cotton - not hanging out in the fresh air. Check a mimosa pudica growing in the living room and another in the garden: VERY different sensitivities. The best theory (by a Jewish surgeon) I read: tribes-women noticed that the guys who had it cut (for some reason, phimose or accident) 'worked' better when grown-up. And then they urged to do it with all the boys. - As for masturbating, mating-desire et al: I doubt there is any difference. The biggest sexual organ is the brain. I can only wonder as to why this mainstream hate of circumcision: some gays may prefer their partner to come sooner?

Expand full comment

So. How did we start doing it in the first place? Was it really just anti masturbation ideologues?

Expand full comment

wow so many MGM advocates coping and seething in the replies

Expand full comment

God ordained circumcision for the Jews. As far as I (as a Christian) am aware, He has never rescinded that command for Jews, though it is in no way required of Christians (including Jewish converts to Christ).

Please bear in mind that the Lord Christ, incarnated as a Jewish male, as He was, was properly circumcised the eighth day. Respectfully, if it was good enough for the Son of God, then I believe terming circumcision "mutilating" to be inaccurate.

To add a bit of humor, please also keep in mind that -- in order to win Saul's daughter's hand in marriage -- David was required to bring the king "an hundred foreskins of the Philistines" (1 Sam 18:27). David did more than the minimum, and -- with help from his men -- was able to return to Saul with no less than two hundred foreskins of Philistines they had slain (1 Samuel 18:27). (Note: The Philistines obviously did not practice circumcision.) Please note: The Tanakh casts no aspersion on this entire transaction as being overly brutal, "gay", or "icky". It was simply a business transaction during a time when men were men.

Full disclosure: I was circumcised as an infant, as were most of my Gentile playmates, and it was truly a compete nonissue growing up.

Expand full comment

This is super obviously correct and has no real counter-arguments, but I wonder if the reason no one can be made to care about it is the Jewish issue. After all, if we actually changed our cultural norms to where everyone accepted circumcision as a barbaric mutilation and thus a form of horrific child abuse (which is in fact what it is, in my opinion), well, what do we do about the Jews then? There is an actual Jewish Question there. And all those same Jewish billionaires who got very peeved at Harvard just the other day are going to have certain feelings about this as well.

Expand full comment