Well that's surprising to me. The only men I've ever known who were NOT circumscribed ended up having the procedure done later in life because of the constantly recurring infections that kept on hanging in there, because all of the flakes of dead skin, yeast, fungus, bactera, etc - since that area is usually warm & damp & all other kinds of materials get underneath that skin and just constantly cause no end of problems for them. As far as my experience, circumcision had absolultely ZERO effect on my deceased,exhusband's sperm or sperm vitality.Heaven knows, I had 3 kids in just 6 years. So I had to go on the pill or I'd have ended up having 10 or more. Definetely not a big part of MY plans.
I think it might be easier to discuss this hypothesis if we maybe left off typical western circumcision as one of the qualifying mutilations.
I do think it's interesting. I have a sort of knee jerk reaction to the whole sperm wars thing. I read a book lent to me once by a coworker -- I think it was actually called sperm wars or some such -- about this whole general concept. While it seemed like there were some valid points in it it also came across as, I don't know, kind of bullshit. But still interesting.
FreeDuck wrote:I think it might be easier to discuss this hypothesis if we maybe left off typical western circumcision as one of the qualifying mutilations.
I do think it's interesting. I have a sort of knee jerk reaction to the whole sperm wars thing. I read a book lent to me once by a coworker -- I think it was actually called sperm wars or some such -- about this whole general concept. While it seemed like there were some valid points in it it also came across as, I don't know, kind of bullshit. But still interesting.
What did you think was perhaps valid?
The knee-jerk reaction. Obviously.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake?
dlowan wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I think it might be easier to discuss this hypothesis if we maybe left off typical western circumcision as one of the qualifying mutilations.
I do think it's interesting. I have a sort of knee jerk reaction to the whole sperm wars thing. I read a book lent to me once by a coworker -- I think it was actually called sperm wars or some such -- about this whole general concept. While it seemed like there were some valid points in it it also came across as, I don't know, kind of bullshit. But still interesting.
What did you think was perhaps valid?
I'll try to put it in words with the caveat that I'm obviously not schooled in the subject and I'm speaking from memory. I read this book roughly 10 years ago.
Mostly I think it was the women's behavior that they were right about. The book I read went on about how women will sleep around in order to have biologically diverse children while lying about it in order to keep support from the primary male. I think there is something to the first part, that it's more or less on target. But the person who lent me the book, I think, had an ulterior motive. I think he was trying to bolster his existing opinion that women are basically sluts.
It's probably time for me to re-read up on the subject.
Re: Is male circumcision a weapon in the sperm wars?
dlowan wrote: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.
I don't see how this works as an evolutionary explanation. If Jack's penis is intact, and Joe's penis is mutilated, then it's easier for Jack's sperm than Joe's to impregnate eggs and pass their dispenser's genes into the next generation. End of story.
How can any of this
possibly lead to an evolutionary advantage for Joe, which is what an evolutionary explanation is supposed to describe? I don't see it.
I didn't read the article you posted but only because I'm virtually certain I know the study you are talking about.
If it's the one I read about I didn't think the theory had a lot of validity. Like Thomas notes I'm not sure what the proposed evolutionary connection is and humans have show such a long history of willingness to such practices that I'm not sure such a complex explanation is even necessary.
It may be as simple as: "someone started doing it and we all thought it was a great idea at the time". After that it was obviously carried on by culture and a lot of people keep doing it now because your penis would stand out if otherwise (in their culture).
Every time I've read a truly controlled study on outcomes regarding circumcision, it's always the same results. Lower levels of STD infections, lower levels of urinary tract infections, lower levels of HIV infection, and lower levels of infections in sexual partners. Still planning on having more children ourselves, after researching the subject, if we have a son, he'll be circumcised.
So, what is, if any, the evolutionary advantage? And how did humans, I don't think any other species does it, begin to practice the practice?
Joe(Hey, I know" said one of the elders."At this year's boys-to-men celebration we'll cut off some of it from all of them.")Nation
The theory, as I understand it, isn't really saying there is an advantage for the young men (until they get to be older).
I agree it likely doesn't work for the male circumcision practiced in the west.
So.....if you look at the more extreme versions of male genital mutilation, they do, presumably (in practices like Australian Aboriginal traditional pubertal male penis mutilating) have an effect upon fertility, such that casual sex is less likely to result in impregnation.
Thus, the older, married, man who presumably has sex more often with his wife/wives has an advantage against younger, more virile men.
If you look at what is showing up in studies of female mating strategies in what appear to be numerous mammalian and other species, even where she appears to be in an exclusive relationship with one male, she is also likely to mate, when opportunity arises, with a "bachelor".
These bachelors tend to be roaming the edges of the established mating pairs/harems looking for just such opportunities.
Thus...the female is literally not putting all her eggs in one basket....
So...the male genital mutilation is posited not as affecting evolution (which would, I suppose, suggest men developing inefficient penii?) ...but the BEHAVIOUR is posited as continuing because it gives an advantage to the older fellas...who, in turn, determine what the adolescent rites of passage are gonna be.
In this theory, the younger fellas submit because
a. They have to get to be a full part of the group, or they are stuffed in a whole lot of ways
b. It will make them happy when they get older.
As I said earlier, female genital mutilation, which seems to be focussed (or at least has the effect of) inhibiting pleasure, would even more easily be seen as a means of cutting down the likelihood of a woman having sex outside marriage.
I am not particularly proposing this...I was just interested, and the discussion has been interesting.
If I paid the money to see the full article it might make more sense than the truncated summary....where the commentary seems to be implying more validity than i can see.
Robert Gentel wrote:I didn't read the article you posted but only because I'm virtually certain I know the study you are talking about.
If it's the one I read about I didn't think the theory had a lot of validity. Like Thomas notes I'm not sure what the proposed evolutionary connection is and humans have show such a long history of willingness to such practices that I'm not sure such a complex explanation is even necessary.
It may be as simple as: "someone started doing it and we all thought it was a great idea at the time". After that it was obviously carried on by culture and a lot of people keep doing it now because your penis would stand out if otherwise (in their culture).
Well, that is indeed true....one has only to look at high heels.
But...yes, the "I want my son's penis to look like mine/I want my penis to look the same as everyone else's" thing does, indeed, seem to be a powerful force....just look at the sturm und drang of the circumcision debates we have had here!
Yes...how the more extreme forms got started is indeed a conundrum.
But I think that is a bit of a conundrum for ANY explanation of how humans came to start cutting into their most sensitive bits......
FreeDuck wrote:Mostly I think it was the women's behavior that they were right about. The book I read went on about how women will sleep around in order to have biologically diverse children while lying about it in order to keep support from the primary male. I think there is something to the first part, that it's more or less on target. But the person who lent me the book, I think, had an ulterior motive. I think he was trying to bolster his existing opinion that women are basically sluts.
"He"? I would have guessed the ulterior motive was to, er, help you increase the genetic diversity among your children.
dlowan wrote:So...the male genital mutilation is posited not as affecting evolution (which would, I suppose, suggest men developing inefficient penii?) ...but the BEHAVIOUR is posited as continuing because it gives an advantage to the older fellas...who, in turn, determine what the adolescent rites of passage are gonna be.
Okay ... that way the explanation works. I still don't understand why the
New Scientist would call it an evolutionary explanation when it isn't.
dlowan wrote: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?
Did the practice of making gay sex a hanging crime ever make any sense? Some social norms are really just absurd, especially around sex.
Evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY, perhaps, rather than evolution per se.
As to the sex stuff be weird....you speak sooth.
A lot of punch and drama to sexual taboos.
Why indeed?
I have never got the anti-gay thing.....
By the way, WTF are the "sperm wars" supposed to be? Is this some feminist lunatic fringe proposition which alleges to describe a significant factor of the social fabric?
dlowan wrote: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.
My post was not intended to argue a preference, but just to state, I don't see a thing to the whole subject. In the scheme of things, what does it matter if a tiny bit of skin is in place? How does that figure in some sort of war? As for infections, if you wash the damned thing, that shouldn't be a problem.
I don't know, Setanta, but to me it doesn't really sound feminist. It sounds like yet another Star Wars allusion by some evolutionary biology nerd.
Setanta wrote:By the way, WTF are the "sperm wars" supposed to be? Is this some feminist lunatic fringe proposition which alleges to describe a significant factor of the social fabric?
Snort...no dear.
It is a shorthand for describing aspects of male strategies for trumping other males in impregnating females.
Examples in insects include the male honey-bee leaving a significant portion of his person behind to block (or to try to block) other males' access, as well as a variety of sperm-scoopers and such evolved by some species to dispose of the evidence left by fella before one...hopefully before the li'l swimmers get anywhere.
Look, i'm tryin' to pick a fight here . . . don't go all rational and reasonable on me, goddamnit ! ! !
Setanta wrote:Look, i'm tryin' to pick a fight here . . . don't go all rational and reasonable on me, goddamnit ! ! !
You want a fight, fight...but pick your causes more carefully.
:wink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars
This is a kind of funny review of the spermin..er I mean GERMINAL book which popularised the name...if not the concept.
http://www.ikanlundu.com/Sperm_Wars.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition
http://www.ikanlundu.com/Sperm_Wars.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition
There's no doubt about the scoops and blocks and such...the rest is intriguing.
so is me being circumcised a bad thing?
i didnt see an uncircumcised one until late in highschool..
i hear stories about it "smelling"
doesnt sound very attractive to me... and plus it looks sorta ugly.
what do women prefer?
