Reddit Reddit reviews A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain

We found 1 Reddit comments about A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
European History
Great Britain History
A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain
Check price on Amazon

1 Reddit comment about A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain:

u/jdp-redit · 6 pointsr/MensLib

> you sound well intentioned, but a bit naive,

How so exactly?

> It's almost like you're coming from a social justice warrior perspective. My vantage is from the medical industry.

I am defiantly not a SJW, unless you consider anyone who saw an obvious problem with their society and advocated change a SJW.

> Male circumcision had it's place. It helped to avoid a variety of medical and hygienic concerns.

[Routine] Male circumcision never had a place in competently practiced medicine especially concerning "hygiene". It's true that those were excuses to justify the practice but that's all they were, excuses based on shoddy research and myths. To be sure, there are some cases where a circumcision can be categorized as a necessary medical procedure but those are few and far between and almost never occur in infancy or childhood.

> I wouldn't call our society enlightened by any means, but we definitely posses the awareness and technology, across all socioeconomic classes to see that male circumcision is no longer needed and comes with it's own risks.

Part of the reason why I said allegedly. I agree in part, we poses the awareness now that male circumcision is not only no longer needed, it never was needed. Further, those few reasons where it may have been needed in the past have been further reduced. Yet it's still being performed on roughly 50% of new born boys in North America, a clearly unnecessary surgery being imposed on more than a quarter the population, does that not seem wrong to you?

> Now it's a matter of educating the general public, making it known that snipping the tip off baby boy is not A) needed B) devoid of risk, and actually has risk and complications of it's own. This should be done by your OB, or PCP, not by protestors.

There is a role for everybody. And I'd agree that this would be the ideal way, in fact that's how the practice got turned around in England (early 50s), New Zealand (60s), Australia (70-80s), and Canada (80s-Present). The problem here is that OBs and PCP (particularly in the US) are not willing to handle this situation. I have spoken with more than I can count and very few actively dissuade parents from the practice, even when they know it's unnecessary and harmful; even when they themselves would not do it to their children.

> Further the talk about these practices being done are because parents want to control their kids sexuality, is complete bullshit.

Not in the current day, but this was the primary reason the practice gained popularity in the English speaking world. I think you should check out

  • Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain (Chicago University Press, 2005)

  • Leonard Glick, Marked in your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America (Oxford University Press, 2005).

    Both authors, with well documented research, show beyond any reasonable doubt that one of the primary motivation for circumcision through the early part of the 20th century was to curb and discourage masturbation in boys and young men. The reasons have clearly shifted since then and continue to shift even to this day.

    > Male babies are circumcised by health care providers, not Rabbis; Christian faith based hospitals don't refuse the procedure - it's just an out dated medical procedure.

    No, religious personnel certainly perform circumcisions, typically a mohel. In some cases, like in NYC, they're even having problems with these mohels spreading oral herpes by the practice of metzitzah b’peh. Interestingly, in some places some Christians have even sought out these men instead of having it done in a hospital.

    > Now, female GM is a whole different story, different ball park, even. I've heard lots of horror stories of cultures doing these type of practices to control sexual behavior and desires of wives and children.

    Those who perform FGM believe that it make women cleaner, more hygienic, they'll get fewer diseases, more pleasing to their spouse, ect, ect. The bottom line is they believe that it's is an important and necessary procedure. Not unlike those who support MGM.

    > I would say the level of intervention here should again be done by doctors (if present in that culture or social circle), or with governmental oversight, regulation, and enforcement. That shit should be illegal.

    I agree, I just think boys should be given equal protection. I think both practices are fucked up and all that shit should be illegal. What I don't get (and I know you don't support MGM) is why you don't think boys deserve the same protection as girls.

    > The cosmetic stuff, well thats on the individual. If a chick thinks her outter labia are "gross" and wants them removed, or if a dude want's his cock to be sans turtle neck, they have the right, at least in developed nations, to go and pay for that elective procedure.

    I agree, I don't care what an adult does to themselves.

    > None of these things, save for my last example of the cosmetic stuff have a thing to do with equality[.]

    I disagree.

    > they are all vastly different,

    Which type of FGM? Is a pin prick drawing a drop of blood more invasive than a typical MGM? It's not but it's illegal. So why should we prevent parents from doing something to their girls that is objectively less harmful and not protect boys? Please explain that to me because you seemed to be overlooking the question. You would get no argument from me that some forms of FGM are worse than MGM but that isn't universally true.

    > and done for different reasons,

    I'd disagree, the two practices are done for very similar reasons, the parents, within the constructs of the society that they live in, feel that it's best for their child. In both cases they're nearly always wrong.

    > with different results.

    I think that depends, I've seen plenty of example and spoken with plenty of men whose circumcision cause more damage than was expected. The circumcision season in South Africa has claimed at least 40 lives so far and we're no where near done. A month or two ago news from Canada leaked out about an infant who died during the procedure. Also from Canada one doctor was fined a paltry 20K for botching 31 procedures.

    I am sorry, I just can't look at stuff like that and say "it's different."

    > Thinking everything needs to be equal counter productive. Because equality and fairness is just a concept, it's not a reality.

    Total equality may not be reality but we should at least strive for that.