+2022.03.09 update: I am watching an Israeli news network on the television, and had a thought anent circumcision: Yahveh was a real creep to tell the jews to cut their penises for Him. He should have thought up something kind and gentle for them to do for Him. [Mostly] good sheep stuck with a bad Shepherd. The jews deserve[d] a better Deity!
"Maimonides, Hebrew scholar and physician in the Middle Ages, wrote that circumcision exercised a civilizing effect by weakening the penis, thus counteracting excessive lust." (Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, "Prisoners of ritual", p. 185)
I have been studying this subject at least since the early 1980's, if not the 1970's -- I can't remember that far back. I read about the Australian "Aborigines" primitives using stones to rip open the underside of pubesent males' penises ("subincision") as initiation ritual, initiation into what? I read about women in Africa and the middle east being desexualized (but they could still function as foetus factories, of course), by having their clitorises ripped out and their labia sewn almost completely shut to "perfect nature" and give the males in their so-called societies fun ripping them open with their pricks, and being sewn back up again after "delivery" (not the rescue kind). I didn't think much about male genital mulilation over here until later. Why? Because I had been socially conditioned by the childrearers I was stuck with and had to put up with, to never see invisible elephants in the small room of my imaginatively impoverished social surround of origin. Let's call blood suckers blood suckers, even if they play the part of being self-righteous holier-than-thou rebbes leading two-legged sheep to slaughter (rebbes? rabblerousers.). Cui bono? ☠
For for the male, the foreskin is apparently mostly useful for enhancing self-pleasuring ("masturbation"). No foreskin, less pleasure in spilling you seed on the ground. In every tribalism, what is important is not the pleasure any individual person may have in living their fragile mortal life, but the production of the group's immortality; as John F. Kennedy famously said:
However: Individuated persons can seek joy for themselves in their own lives, while Darwinean evolution would still constellate all instances of the species as just reproducers of species life, like bees in a hive only with more "manpower" (higher I.Q's., etc.); the supercharging of the instance for the better enhancement of the group has not in all instances worked out the way it should have, just making better bees to make better hives -- evolution has goofed.
It is socially useful if males can only get pleasure by depositing their sperm in foetus factories, to produce more of God's chosen people (be they Jews, Muslims, Yanks, Krauts or whatevers), to serve Him. Because every God is a product of Its believing group's PR, the more believers, the more surplus value for the group's leaders to have fun spending on their selfishly selfless service to their PR. Less pleasure in spilling your seed on the ground, all the more reason to get some pleasure out of depositing it in a foetus factory to help keep the group populated. Haredim reproduce like rabbits. Even more discouraging is that the "little people" often really care about one another, which means they try harder to help one anther, which yields as a side-effect more surplus value for the leaders to skim off, as a result of their [the powerless's] innocent concern for each other. The selflessness of the powerless enriches the selfless selfishness of the powerful. More rabbits for the rebbes. Q.E.F.
All play and no babies makes for very unhappy rebbes. Hop! Hop!
Circumcised penises are socially useful to route male hormonal energy that is not discharged into economic competition ("free enterprise") and competitive "sports", and combat, into foetus factories to produce more "food for powder" and also more foetus factories, and, as a side benefit, also to provide new raw material for
molehills mohels to earn their keep by practicing their job skill.
As far as women are concerned, it is probably either irrelevant whether men get circumcised or else: Maybe they prefer circumcised males because may men are Minotaurs who, unlike house cats, are incapable of or uninterested in cleaning themselves, either outside or in, and Who would want a scummy prick that never got washed up their birth canal? But then aren't such male monsters disgusting whether circumcised or not? Hannah Arendt apparently copulated with that "das Man", Martin Heidegger; I, as an effeminate but not "gay" male, cannot understand how she could have endured that unless she was fantasizing she as with somebody else.
As for the ladies themselves, let's stand Sigmund Prig on his head and see if any coins fall out of his uncouth bourgeois pockets. In all fairness, I have read that he did not have his sons circumcised. Good dog, Siggy! But he did try to stop his daughter Anna from masturbating because that was not a fitting thing for a female to do. I would ask: Since apparently the clitoris is the main source of sexual pleasure for women, why to they want to have vaginas? They need ovaries for the hormones. But who wants to be a foetus factory, and the road to pregnancy is lined with squiggling aggressive spermatozoa, yes? Without birth canals, xenophobic nation states and other tribalisms would be "up a crick without a paddle", wouldn't they? Because then the Mrs. Falstaff could not recruit any more food for the powder room, could she?
Women should demand that men wash themselves, not just don chemical deodorant armor to go off to do chivalric battle with the Dow Jones dragon. If, as I have argued elsewhere here in APtS, women's hymens are the seal on internationally recognized instruments of high finance in all patriarchical societies, then let's teach the girls how very carefully to pleasure themselves without risking a stock market crash.
Erotic pleasure and foetusization are different dimensions of the vector space of human living. One can correlate any value on either the pleasure or the foetusization axis with any value on the the other axis. Some women assign a very high value in the plus direction to foetusization, but perhaps zero or maybe even a minus value to erotic pleasure: They inseminate themselves with turkey basters. A circumcised man's penis can perform the same function as a turkey baster, yes? Q.E.F. (Hey, rebbe! Have you basted your turkey today?)
I hypothesize that my personal genital mutilation was worse than a jew or muslim: It's done to them by small-time Adolf Eichmanns, like Abraham in the Bible who just follow their Fuhrer's (aka: Yahweh or Allah) orders. I think mine was done by Christian or areligious physicians why did not FIRST DO NO HARM, or mindlessly ideated they were doing good to reproduce a barbaric social custom of making boys look like their fathers. Clue: I never did nor do I now nor ever will I want to look like my paternal biological progenitor who was in the 180+ pound at 6 feet 0 inches class, in other words, too thick in the body even had he not also -- thanks to his unconsciouable childrearing -- also been thick is the head. My maternal grandfather as best I can recall from lost childhood, looked like the old cliche of a "Neanderthal" (like Pablo Picasso, e.g. -- no wonder that brute painted self portraits of Minotaurs).
Teach the boys how to have gentle love with themselves and when they are old enough, with the girls without "penetrating them" (anal intercoure is, I think, a bit epidemiologically and proctologically dubious, so be careful there). Let the girls have all the fun they can get, even if they are sentenced to day nunneries, i.e., single grnder prep schools. I have been told that women can bring themselves to orgasm just by squeezing their muscles "down there", so if the teach's lecture is a big bore don't let him
gbore you, girls.
As said, male circumcision is probably no big deal for women and they probably prefer a circumcised slob to one with accumulated unwashed smegma and who knows what other bad stuff festering under his foreskin, but then why does the woman want to have sex with a slob anyway? But for males, apparently rebbes think masturbation is selfish: it certainly can reduce opportunities to initiate the production process in a foetus factory. But isn't it grossly arrogant and selfish for people to deny others opportunity for pleasure that does not hurt any living creature just because they ideate it is, as the title of the Alice Miller book says: "For your own good"?
What gross arrogance for some dolt whose greatest achievement in living may be that he has defecated many times, to ideate that what he believes is good for himself would be good for a child who might turn out to be very much different from him, and his better! My goods are things my parents and teaches almost certainly had no clue about, and their goods are things that almost never provided me any value. An old Sesame Street song says:
Reference material: here.
The big question
Many jewish Americans are financially well-to-do educated, assimilated members of secular civil society, not benighted haredim in a neo-Shtetl. They are generally as rational (or irrational) as any other liberal middle-class persons. They are not MAGAs or members of QAnon, etc. But when it comes to the savage, entirely irrational ritual of infantile male genital mutilation (aka: "circumcision") which the boy cannot reverse when he reaches "the age of reason", what goes through their heads? They don't go around cutting off their infant sons' ears or their fingers. What makes an important part of the child's sexual organ different? Also: Why don't they condemn patriarch Abraham in the Bible for "just obeying orders" to murder his son Isaac? What's wrong with them that they don't see these invisible elephants in the room?
I have read that Sigmund Freud did not circumcise his sons; but he was not a crusader against ritual circumcision in the larger community, was he? Did he think he'd better keep it to himself so that he would not be shunned by his peers? I'll protect my own and I don't care about anybody else? What was his problem?
Anent: Anti-semitism and so forth
Isn't the Israeli persecution and ghettoization of the Palestineans reminiscent of how the jews were mis-treated in Germany in the 1930's? Aren't the Palestineans Semites? (Note that I am not saying they are anything "good", just their ethnicity.) Therefore: Isn't Israel an anti-Semitic state? At the other end of the ethnographic spectrum, why do secularized Israelis tolerate the shenanigans of the ultra-Conservatives / Hassids, who don't want to be citizens of civil society but do want welfare payments from it, and who repress their women although maybe not as badly as the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Why cannot the Isrealis renounce Zionism which was cooked up to thwart what in the late 19th century was becoming the solution of "the jewish problem": assimilation. All religions which hold metaphysical beliefs such as an Ominpotent supra-personal Deity, are mythological, including and perhaps paradigmatically the three Abrahamic ones: Judiasm, Christianity and Islam. If you have not seen a burning bush or similar materialization of the God of Abraham and Judas Iscariot, how can you know anything about Yawveh and/or whether that Dude-in-chief exists or not? And if you have seen a burning bush or had a similar sensory experience, maybe you are psychotic?
The living cannot do anything about he past. If you don't like what some people did to other people in the past and the malefactors are already dead and not causing you trouble, learn the lesson of Lot's wife. As people say but don't really fully mean: Get on with living! Of course if you can use the persecution of your putative ancestors to get differential benefits for yourself like "reparations" in a present day society, why not try it, like black people in America today? But, in the end and in any rational judgment of you, what your ancestors did, for good of for ill, has no relation to who you are today. If I was a direct descentant of probably the most evil person who ever kived, King Vlad the Impaler, that would not reflect badly on me; if I was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ or Muhammad that would not reflect positively on me. What did I do to help or hurt people? How do I live? "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) I undertand "your father" here not as your own personal Jamie Spears' prick, but as the unknowable source of all semiosis.
Peace, prosperity and light may reign on earth when there are no more anythings -- no more Jews, no more Christians, no more Musilms, no more any human things to squabble with one another about their petty prejudices -- but each person becomes an irreplaceable unique individual: not a what that, but rather: I am who am (Exodus 3:14).
It should be obvious that infant circumcision is assault and battery and that those who do it are unindicted felons. Obviously ther are exceptions. Phimosis may be analogous to like when firemen saw off a leg of an unconscious person trapped under rubble to get them out of a burning building so they will not die. A person can live with only one leg.
Here's something else: Foreskin shields part of a person's body from unwanted intrusions. Exposure desensitizes. It's sort of like fingernails I want mine long to protect my fingertips from becoming insensitive with calluses. I don't want people I don't trust even looking at me, much less having any bodily contact with them ("Ouch, you scratched me with our fingernail!" "No! You put your hand where it didn't belong!"). I want to have sensitivity, not to develop an exoskeleton to be "tough" like a cock[-]roach. I want to feel the slightest nuances of things and flesh that can give me pleasure. Nothing else should get near me and gloves are good, too. I keep thinking of a really "cool" parade through a Hassidic neo-ghetto: All the rebbes naked from the waist down proudly showing off their fashionable Yahveh conformant turkey basters (which, while insensitive, are effective for inseminating females to produce more believers in your True Faith du jour).
Don't all you mohels want to hide your faces in shame? Or even better: commit seppuku? If you would find such a thought insensitive, you mean you not yet desensitized yourself?
Isn't haircutting and beard shaving a kind of circumcision-Lite? Both cut off a natural part of the body. Both are social customs with no rational justification. And both are cases where men want their sons to "look like them". Both are passum sub iugums: proof that the male kowtowsd to his society's irrational social customs. Of course haircutting and beard shaving are far less worse, beause hair grows back after you cut it off.
Here's the absurdity to which haircutting goes: When a 13 story condominium complex in Surfside Floriada catastrophically collapsed 24 June 2021 killing over 150 souls, many persons and small businesses volunteered their services to help the large army of rescue workers. Among these were: barbers! CNN was collecting money for the income foregone by these businesses to volunteer to support the relief workers. Who the hell needed a haircut in the frenzied week of trying to find survivors in the massive rubble of a catastrophically collaped apartment building, even if under normal circumstances, like Sigmund Freud, going to the barber each day was the high point of their earthly existence? Or is that the point: that maybe without a haircut they would be too depressed and ashamed of themselves to be able to work or even to get out of bed each new day? Keep America beautiful: get circumcised, and then get a haircut, "stat"!