Cutting out the puns
Yes, in case you didn’t know, this week is the one week of the year when all journalists are officially allowed to bring out their worst penis and circumcision-related puns and double entendres.
This week, we are marking Genital Integrity Awareness Week, i.e. “Don’t cut my penis, Bro” week. Technically, female genital mutilation is also on the agenda for the week, but as usual, male anxiety concerning their pee-pees has overshadowed the much worse practice of female circumcision.
The Washington Post has an article about the protest against male circumcision taking place here in D.C., and of course, the writer has to make the obligatory play on words—something I would never, never do, as a writer with my integrity still intact: Rallying In the Name of the Unkindest Cut.
I’ve seen these protesters, or ones like them in other years. They aren’t the throng of people one sees annually on the day that Roe v. Wade was enacted, for example. But they are passionate. I always wonder the same thing about them, though: don’t they have anything better to do? Aren’t there worthier causes out there?
I wonder, too, about their motivations. For example, the two twenty-somethings who are on a hunger strike, seem inordinately preoccupied with the effect of circumcision on their sex life.
Leading the pack are two 21-year-olds, Jason Siegel and Zachary Levi Balakoff, who are on Day 3 of a hunger strike. They say they won’t eat until genital mutilation is exposed. Go ahead, ask them why. They’ll tell you, for many minutes, about the “entire realms of exquisite feeling” they are missing by not having foreskins and the corresponding nerves. The “giant monstrosity” of circumcision “envelops” their entire lives.
Let me pose this question to them: if you have been circumcised since birth, how do you know that when you have sex, you aren’t feeling what an uncircumcised man feels when he has sex? Hm? The only possible way anyone could make this argument is if they had sexual relations after being circumcised as an adult.
That’s the only way one could compare the two state s of being, and I’d venture to say that the results of that experiment would not exactly be scientific since, from what I’ve read, being circumcised as an adult is more traumatic to the penis than being circumcised as a child.
Anyway, I don’t think “Intactivists” really have much science to back up their argument. Much of their argument is based on emotion and what they “feel” is right. They could probably say the same of people on the opposite side of the issue. Ultimately, a circumcised man has a huge…er, um, stake in defending his position. No one wants to feel like, because of an operation they had no say in, they are somehow less of a man.
The odd thing about the anti-circumcision men is that they seem to be in the opposite category–arguing not in defense of their ego and self-esteem, but arguing that they are actually less of a man because of circumcision, and thus the practice is harmful to the male psyche.
There are so many other issues of importance though. To me, these kinds of protests are just sign and symbol of the affluent and childish people we have become as Americans. Only a wealthy society with plenty of leisure could actually find time to go to the nation’s capital and protest an issue as inconsequential as this.
The fact that much of the argument against circumcision comes down to how it blunts the male sexual experience only reinforces the silliness of the issue. It’s as if a group of men came to Washington to make citizens aware of the “scourge” of erectile dysfunction.
If people are that foolish that they blame the poor quality of their sexual experiences on circumcision, they’ve got bigger problems than a missing foreskin. There are some missing priorities as well.
