0
   

Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 06:15 pm
Interesting report in New Scientist New Scientist Article in full here of an article in "Evolution and Human Behaviour":

Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Circumcision and other forms of male genital mutilation have always been a puzzle. The ritual mutilations can leave the man vulnerable to infection and even death. So why do some societies insist on such a risky ritual for their men?

There may be an evolutionary explanation, according to Christopher Wilson, of Cornell University in New York, US. It could function to reduce a young man's potential to father a child with an older man's wife, he says.

Sperm competition theory predicts that males will evolve ways to ensure that their sperm, and not another male's, fertilises a female's eggs. Genital mutilation, in this view, is just another way to win the sperm war.

In some forms of mutilation, the handicap to sperm competition is obvious. There is subincision, for example, where cuts are made to the base of the penis. This causes sperm to be ejaculated from the base rather than the end, and is performed in several Aboriginal Australian societies, says Wilson.

In some African and Micronesian cultures, young men have one of their testicles crushed.

Male genital mutilation makes it less likely that a male will manage to father a child with another man's wife, Wilson says.

Home advantage
Circumcision is one of the less painful forms of mutilation, but it is also less effective at reducing sperm competition. Wilson suggests, however, that the lack of a foreskin could make insertion or ejaculation slower, meaning brief, illicit sex is less likely to come to fruition and lead to a pregnancy.

Younger men, he says, willingly submit to having their reproductive ability reduced because they benefit socially from the older men, by forming alliances, and by gaining access to weapons or tribal lore.........

....The husband's own reproductive ability is impaired, but continuous and repeated access to his wives makes up for it, while any genital mutilation is a greater handicap to an interloper trying to sneak brief occasional sex with his wives.

Price of alliance
"An older married man must form alliances, or associate with younger or unmarried men at some point, and it would be better to associate with and invest preferentially in those who are least likely to threaten his paternity, especially in societies where cuckoldry is rife," says Wilson.

"Men who demand genital mutilations as part of the price for alliance and investment would be less vulnerable to exploitation of such relationships and loss of paternity to peers."

Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband......

........Who's the daddy?
Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.

Only 14% of the monogamous societies in the database practice male genital mutilation.

It might also be the case that selection works at a group level, so that societies that enforce mutilation are more stable because of less conflict over paternity, Wilson says.

David Barash, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, says that the paper makes a convincing case.

"Wilson has tackled a perplexing question and come up with a persuasive preliminary answer to an evolutionary enigma: why do men submit to procedures that seem to reduce their fitness?" he says.




What do you think?


This also makes sense to me re mutilation of female genitals, which seems generally designed to make sex not pleasurable, or painful and difficult, for women...presumable discouraging sex and making it less likely a woman will have sex with a man not her husband
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,685 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 06:52 pm
I dunno. I'm circumcised and I don't seem to have any trouble impregnating other mens wives...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:00 pm
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
Quote:
Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband......

........Who's the daddy?
Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.



Well, he has correlation here. That doesn't prove correlation though.

Personally, I think that people that conduct these sort of research studies put waaaay more thought into things than the people/societies they are studying.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:02 pm
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
fishin wrote:
Quote:
Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband......

........Who's the daddy?
Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.



Well, he has correlation here. That doesn't prove correlation though.

Personally, I think that people that conduct these sort of research studies put waaaay more thought into things than the people/societies they are studying.


Yet....it's a bizarre, painful and dangerous practice.....the way it's done on the west is the least of it...so you'd think it would have SOME meaning somewhere back in time, no?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:52 pm
I don't know for sure the underlying reason for circumcision. I have not been and it has never been any sort of problem. Those of my brothers who were circumcised also reported no problems. When my son was born, he was not circumcised. My sister in law sought to move heaven and earth to make me get it done. Why is it so important? In the end, there's not a thing to it.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:54 pm
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
dlowan wrote:
fishin wrote:
Quote:
Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband......

........Who's the daddy?
Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.



Well, he has correlation here. That doesn't prove correlation though.

Personally, I think that people that conduct these sort of research studies put waaaay more thought into things than the people/societies they are studying.


Yet....it's a bizarre, painful and dangerous practice.....the way it's done on the west is the least of it...so you'd think it would have SOME meaning somewhere back in time, no?


all things considered, when you look back in history, personal hygine wasn't anywhere near what it is today and that could easily lead to a host of complications that male circumcision could alleviate too.

I'd think the same sort of thing resulted in religious prohibitions oin things like eating pork and such. It wasn't because pork is high in calories or fat. Pigs carried dieseases. Don't eat pork = don't die.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 08:17 pm
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
fishin wrote:
dlowan wrote:
fishin wrote:
Quote:
Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband......

........Who's the daddy?
Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.



Well, he has correlation here. That doesn't prove correlation though.

Personally, I think that people that conduct these sort of research studies put waaaay more thought into things than the people/societies they are studying.


Yet....it's a bizarre, painful and dangerous practice.....the way it's done on the west is the least of it...so you'd think it would have SOME meaning somewhere back in time, no?


all things considered, when you look back in history, personal hygine wasn't anywhere near what it is today and that could easily lead to a host of complications that male circumcision could alleviate too.

I'd think the same sort of thing resulted in religious prohibitions oin things like eating pork and such. It wasn't because pork is high in calories or fat. Pigs carried dieseases. Don't eat pork = don't die.



You're thinking of just cutting the foreskin......there is far more damaging stuff that gets done...also, in the age of no antibiotics, death from infection after cutting babies and adolescent boys and girls must have been terrible. Female genital mutilation often is done in a way that encourages terrible infections for the rest of the girls' life.


I really don't buy the hygiene argument...I think that's a post fact rationalisation from the modern west, used to make people who have been/want to circumcise their kids for non-rational reasons (usually tradition and wanting the willy to look like dad's sort of stuff) feel okay. The whole intact penis/higher risk of female cervical cancer is so recently known (and mootish) that there is no way it can have been a factor.


Of course I am aware that there is no proof this theory is correct, but, IF you accept evolutionary psychology, it makes the best sense I have heard so far.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 08:21 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't know for sure the underlying reason for circumcision. I have not been and it has never been any sort of problem. Those of my brothers who were circumcised also reported no problems. When my son was born, he was not circumcised. My sister in law sought to move heaven and earth to make me get it done. Why is it so important? In the end, there's not a thing to it.



I really hope this thread doesn't become a place to argue the rights and wrongs of getting foreskins cut off.....there's lots of angst and sturm und drung about it around in some quarters, and I'd hate to see this thread take that direction.

I am just interested in seeing if a discussion about the explanation put forward in the article can happen.

I know it's all just theory, but I do find the aetiology of seemingly bizarre but very common rituals interesting to discuss.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 08:31 pm
Most of Europe's male population is not circumcised and I was surprised
that it's customary in the United States. The Jews do it for religious
reason, and the Americans (supposedly) for hygienic reason.

If I had a son I never would allow him being circumcised, especially
after I've been present at a jewish bris and heard the baby boy screaming
in agony, despite the topical analgesic. Worse, the circumcision is done
by a non-medical person - a Rabbi. As a mother I could not go through
with it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 08:36 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
Most of Europe's male population is not circumcised and I was surprised
that it's customary in the United States. The Jews do it for religious
reason, and the Americans (supposedly) for hygienic reason.

If I had a son I never would allow him being circumcised, especially
after I've been present at a jewish bris and heard the baby boy screaming
in agony, despite the topical analgesic. Worse, the circumcision is done
by a non-medical person - a Rabbi. As a mother I could not go through
with it.


Once again, can I beg that people just wanting to discuss their feelings about circumcision NOT do it on this thread? Especially if it gets into the "my country is better because we do/do not circumcise stuff? That will attract an immediate flood of posts about "you hate America" etc. etc.



I would love to hear your comments on the article posted, though.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:21 pm
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
dlowan wrote:

You're thinking of just cutting the foreskin......there is far more damaging stuff that gets done...also, in the age of no antibiotics, death from infection after cutting babies and adolescent boys and girls must have been terrible. Female genital mutilation often is done in a way that encourages terrible infections for the rest of the girls' life.


You are correct that I am talking about just cutting the foreskin. I don't know enough about many of the other rituals that occur to speak to them and I'm leaving female circumcision out of it entirely - I don't see how it can possibly be applied to "sperm wars". The array of rituals (on men) is diverse enough that I would think that there would have to be multiple reasons for them. I don't see a single "sperm wars" scenario answer to cover all of them.


Quote:
I really don't buy the hygiene argument...I think that's a post fact rationalisation from the modern west, used to make people who have been/want to circumcise their kids for non-rational reasons (usually tradition and wanting the willy to look like dad's sort of stuff) feel okay. The whole intact penis/higher risk of female cervical cancer is so recently known (and mootish) that there is no way it can have been a factor.


Whether you buy it or not there is a host of medical evidence that say it's true. As far as cervical cancer and such - of course it couldn't have been a factor. I wasn't speaking to that at all. No one would have known what cervical cancer was a few thousand years ago to even have attempted to make any link to male circumcision.

In modern western societies uncircumcised men are 3 times more likely to get skin inflamation and 10 times more likely to get urinary tract infections. I don't see how those numbers could have been any lower centuries ago. Those are direct effects that the men themselves would have been aware of and the source would be fairly apparent without having the need for any medical expertise.

Quote:
Of course I am aware that there is no proof this theory is correct, but, IF you accept evolutionary psychology, it makes the best sense I have heard so far.


One of the reasons I often dismiss evolutionary physcology theories is that they tend to devise very complex theories and ignore much simpler ones that result in the same conclusions. It is very hard to determine when one of these researcher's is actually doing something useful or just looking for ways to obtain more grants. Yes, his theory is a possible answer. It is a much more complex answer than necessary IMO.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:23 pm
Oh, I am sorry.

To the article: yes it is possible that cultures that are more inclined towards
tribal rituals, can see every male as sperm competition and therefore
mutilate their reproductive organs to a certain extend. The assumption that
societies that enforce mutilation are more stable because of less conflict over paternity is probably true for most of the more primitive nations,
yet doesn't add up to comparisons in our western world.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:59 am
I have entered this thread to save Cal any further embarrassment.

It must be awful for her to see her name up there associated with male circumcision and sperm on a permanent basis so I am stepping forward like the gallant gent I am so that any impression inadvertently given because no-one has contributed after her that she is obsessed by male circumcision and sperm is put to bed and I will suffer the indignity in her place as nothing could make my reputation any worse than it already is.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 11:08 am
I for one will be happy when the world begins to leave mens penis 's alone.

there is no need to cut it back, cut it OFF or otherwise destroy it.
Not hygiene, not religion, not physical necessity

Speak of a woman being " circumcised"...it is the end of the world and barbaric... yet people expect a mens penis to be cut up before he has any say so.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 11:42 am
I wonder, in what other ways are the societies that practice polygyny and circumcision related? These hardly seem like they would be independent variables even if circumcision has no effect whatsoever on relative likelihood of impregnation...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 05:27 pm
But it does you see.

A circumcised chap has his glans penis chafing on his trousers all day long and this renders it insensitive. It gets segs. Imagine driving cattle from Texas to Abilene circumcised. You would need Mae West to deal with that.

The effect of this is to make it so difficult for the vinegar stroke to arrive that he gets fed up and gives it up as a bad job.

Hence fewer impregnations unless extraordinary and unusual mental states are brought to bear.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 07:16 pm
circumcised looks better,hygenic, more manageable...
is what ive heard.

i never heard anything from a woman about good sides to not bein circumcised though.

are there any?


does it feel better maybe?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 08:46 pm
If I recall correctly, the ribbing on condoms is an attempt to duplicate the feel of an uncircumcised penis.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:06 pm
OGIONIK wrote:
circumcised looks better,hygenic, more manageable...
is what ive heard.

i never heard anything from a woman about good sides to not bein circumcised though.

are there any?


does it feel better maybe?



I really don't think wonen's aesthetic tastes or pleasure are likely to have had much effect on what men did with their willies!

Also...we tend to like what we are used to. If you've only ever had turtlenecks any other penis would look odd, and vice versa.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:58 am
Are we meant to think that you do it with the lights on?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 04:42:02