A Tale of Circumcision – UPDATED

I don’t even remember how Forbes.com’s Richard Hyfler and I came to be correspondents but his email friendship is one of those joyful fringe benefits of being a blogger. He’s a very smart fellow with a good heart, a free mind and terrific sense of humor. A while back, having stumbled over one of my old posts wherein I ranted unto madness about The Vagina Monologues (I rarely write like that anymore; I told you prayer has slowly changed my blogging!). Wondering whether it would amuse of horrify Hyfler, I sent his way. That our correspondence continued suggesting to me that he was either unafraid or thick-skinned.

And today he sent a note my way noting, “you’re not the only one who writes about sexual organs” and including a link to this hoot of a piece from his blog: Circumcision: You Can’t Have It Both Ways:

The motion to ban circumcision in San Francisco, which voters there will have an opportunity to vote on in November, has been noted at Forbes and on hundreds of other sites. Sources ancient and modern have been brought to bear on the subject, pro and con, but what most surprised me was learning that many circumcised men felt that by being subject to circumcision in infancy they were denied their full measure of sexual enjoyment as adults. They feel that they’re missing something other than a flap of skin. Prior to reading that, I hadn’t heard of foreskin envy.

To claim they’re missing something, circumcised males must rely on testimony by the uncircumcised and those who study them. We don’t know of any circumcised males who have reverted to their natural, uncircumcised state, thus having it both ways (and preferring the latter). Having it both ways, of course, brings to mind the mythical Tiresias, whom the gods turned into a woman as punishment for striking two snakes while they were mating.

Hyfler notes that the Jewish God, “has a sense of humor,” and after all this time, “a capricious one, too!” You’ll want to read the whole thing

Over on FB, William Cook added this old Dave Barry piece to the mix; as it was written in 1991, it seems this San Francisco move has been a long time coming:

This is a common medical procedure that involves – and here, in the interest of tastefulness, I am going to use code names – taking hold of a guy’s Oregonian and snipping his Post-Dispatch right off. This is usually done to tiny guy babies who don’t have a clue as to what is about to happen. One minute a baby is lying happily in his little bed, looking at the world and thinking what babies think (basically, ”Huh?”), and suddenly along comes a large person and SNIP WAAAAHHH the baby is dramatically introduced to the concept that powerful strangers can fill his life with pain for no apparent reason.

This is excellent training for dealing with the Internal Revenue Service, but it’s no fun at the time.

Most of us guys deal with this unpleasant experience by eventually erasing it from our conscious minds, the way we do with algebra.

But some guys never get over it.

I base this statement on a San Jose Mercury News article, written by Michael Oricchio and mailed to me by many alert readers, concerning a group of men in California who are very upset about having been circumcised as babies.

Humor aside, the Feast of the Presentation is one of my favorites.

UPDATED I: No, there are no intended double entendres in this post. If you think there are, go to confession, because they’re originating with you! :-)

UPDATE II:
Some more serious thoughts on circumcision, men, women, etc