|
|
Re: Male Virginity
Michael Nakis (nakis@ix.netcom.com)
13 Oct 1995 19:03:30 GMT
Here is a letter exchanged between me and a person whose anonymity I will
observe.
>
>Well, there are few people on the planet who know LESS about the male
>anatomy and male circumcision than I do, but I find it a very
>interesting theory, indeed. Have you done a lot of research on it?
>
Thank you very much. Besides finding my theory interesting, do you also
find it plausible? My theory has two parts; first, that men have a
hymen, and second, that circumcision was invented in order to do away
with the hymen before anyone notices. How do you find each part?
I have not done any research at all. I have looked up "Virginity" in
encyclopedias, and it is only mentioned in the context of females. I
have looked for books about circumcision in a Cal State University
library, but I have found none. (Their computer showed two books, but
they were both declared lost.) I have read most of what Desmond Morris
has to say about circumcision.
I have only *heard* of incidents confirming the existence of male
virginity, And of course I have, ehm, shall we say, ...made certain
observations of my own.
>Most of the old Jewish prescriptions and proscriptions usually DID have
>some valid (or, at least valid at the time) health/hygiene
>underpinnings. (And strict Seventh-Day Adventists still follow many of
>them, too.) I had thought, at some point, that I had read that the
>original hygienic reason for circumsion was that the foreskin tended to
>trap urine and could thus harbor bacteria and infections. You haven't
>read anything like that?
[snip]
>
I would be very interested to know what those old Jewish prescriptions
and proscriptions say. And I know what the modern "reasons" for
circumcision are. Nevertheless, I insist that all those "reasons" are in
fact only pretences. Do not forget that this is an extremely old ritual,
practiced not only by Jews but also by a large number of other cultures,
("Roots" suggested that it was practiced by black tribes in the heart of
Africa, if anyone can confirm this I would be grateful,) since times when
the concept of hygiene simply did not exist. The danger of infection
immediately after the mutilation would certainly outweigh any concerns of
possible future infections when the man grows.
Desmond Morris nicely refutes all known "reasons" for circumcision, but
he fails to come up with an adequate explanation, so he appears to
suggest that circumcision has simply "happened" and that it can be
attributed to pure cultural stupidity. I am here to suggest that there
exists an actual reason, and the reason seems to point to something even
worse than stupidiy.
Cheers,
Michael Nakis.
|