Print
Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars
by New Scientist
Thanks to Crispin Cooper for the link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14069
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 older men have also gone through the ritual, and seen their own reproductive effectiveness reduced. But if a man with, say, four wives wants to ensure that any children his wives produce are his, there is pressure to make sure other men can't successfully impregnate them.
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.
The mutilation would also probably be carried out in a public setting, witnessed mostly by other men, and performed by a non-relative. Men who refused would face social sanctions.
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.
Journal reference: Evolution and Human Behavior (vol 29 p 149)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14069
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 older men have also gone through the ritual, and seen their own reproductive effectiveness reduced. But if a man with, say, four wives wants to ensure that any children his wives produce are his, there is pressure to make sure other men can't successfully impregnate them.
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.
The mutilation would also probably be carried out in a public setting, witnessed mostly by other men, and performed by a non-relative. Men who refused would face social sanctions.
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.
Journal reference: Evolution and Human Behavior (vol 29 p 149)
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, June 6, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 70 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #189457 by Geodesic17 on June 6, 2008 at 10:07 am
Ouch!Other Comments by Geodesic17
3. Comment #189459 by Crystal on June 6, 2008 at 10:10 am
How would ancient people know about sperm wars to put this together. The crushed testicle would seem odvious to anyone who knows the male part in reproduction but I am not so sure regular circumcision reduces fertility at all.Other Comments by Crystal
4. Comment #189466 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 10:14 am
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.
Ah, but the *non-illicit* sex... :-)
3. Comment #189459 by Crystal on June 6, 2008 at 10:10 am
How would ancient people know about sperm wars to put this together. The crushed testicle would seem odvious to anyone who knows the male part in reproduction...
Those ancient people, what did they know? Crushing testicles when every fool knows sperm comes from the spine!
Ste5e
Other Comments by steveroot
5. Comment #189473 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 10:23 am
Why do I find myself sat here with my legs crossed tight and a grimace of pain on my face when I read this article? Other Comments by Cartomancer
6. Comment #189476 by chauvinj on June 6, 2008 at 10:33 am
"In some African and Micronesian cultures, young men have one of their testicles crushed. "Holy shit.... :|
Other Comments by chauvinj
7. Comment #189482 by History_Junky on June 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
crushed testicle...crushed testicle...crushed testicle... Other Comments by History_Junky
8. Comment #189483 by m-man on June 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
It doesn't seem to me that male circumcision is equivalent to female circumcision, because it seems like from an anatomy point of view, that the foreskin is just an evolutionary leftover, and that its equal to the leftover of the hymen on females, i think that the male equivalent of the female mutilation, where everything is cut out and sewn up, would be to say, cut off the testicles,in developed countries, like everything else, circumcision is safe and non-risky. i also thought that i have read that every case of penile cancer has only occurred in uncircumcised men
what is it about "crushed testicle" , that just makes you wince, and get that feeling...eeh
Other Comments by m-man
9. Comment #189485 by bentleyd on June 6, 2008 at 10:50 am
Thankfully, we're more civilized...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPFUYUUdQ&feature=related
Other Comments by bentleyd
10. Comment #189486 by Geodesic17 on June 6, 2008 at 10:53 am
oooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ouch!Other Comments by Geodesic17
11. Comment #189494 by virtual_void on June 6, 2008 at 11:06 am
Comment #189483 by m-man on June 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
It doesn't seem to me that male circumcision is equivalent to female circumcision, because it seems like from an anatomy point of view, that the foreskin is just an evolutionary leftover
No it has important functions like:
Keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or to enhance sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors
The reason many people think that foreskin is useless is because they were deprived of it due to religious reasons at a very young age and have no understanding of its importance.
As usual religious people try to find reasons for why it is beneficial (circumcision)
Something similar to finding reasons for why wine or chocolate is good for you; you are going to eat/drink/cut it anyway, so as well feel good about it.
Other Comments by virtual_void
12. Comment #189497 by Friend Giskard on June 6, 2008 at 11:13 am
Destroying one of the testicles reduces the likelihood of getting testicular cancer by 50%. Let's all get it done! Other Comments by Friend Giskard
13. Comment #189501 by irvine.intervention on June 6, 2008 at 11:19 am
This sounds like a Cock and Ball story.Other Comments by irvine.intervention
14. Comment #189502 by al-rawandi on June 6, 2008 at 11:20 am
One tribe in Australia takes a sharpened needle like stick and shoves through the base of the penis making a hole through all the important stuff.
That way semen comes out of the hole, and he will only impregnate a woman when he covers the holes with a finger during sex.
I mean, can someone send them some condoms?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
15. Comment #189519 by skyhook87 on June 6, 2008 at 12:02 pm
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.
What is up with people named "Wilson" and group selection?
In reading Dawkins before encountering the arguments for group selection, I seem to be unable to understand how group selection offers a greater explanatory power.
Other Comments by skyhook87
16. Comment #189520 by glenister_m on June 6, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Unless circumcision is known to reduce fertility, it is unlikely to be the reason for the practice. After all, the shieks were smart enough to know that they had to castrate any male slaves they had looking after their harems. This didn't prevent them from having sex (they could, and they could last longer), but it did prevent pregnancies.It's could be the "us" versus "them" model in which "outsiders" are visibly different, and the females are taught that 'not being that way' is dirty or vulgar or whatever. It's a similar reason for why different cultures will or won't eat certain types of food - "they" are "bad" because they eat ____.
Other Comments by glenister_m
17. Comment #189523 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 12:11 pm
ahem..
"Sperm competition theory" (????!?!!!)
Reeeeaally?
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
18. Comment #189530 by SimUser on June 6, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I remember reading/watching somewhere that the foreskin serves another evolutionary/mating purpose.Not quoted verbatim, but I think that it was something like this:
If a mans sexual partner has been recently with another man, then his (the primary partner) foreskin and the head of the penis will act as a sort of trow and bucket (very crude and barely accurate way of putting it) to scrape out the semen of the previous man, thus making it more likely that his sperm will be the ones with the greater chance to impregnate her.
Other Comments by SimUser
19. Comment #189533 by al-rawandi on June 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm
whitepearl,
What is your theory?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
20. Comment #189539 by eofor on June 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The Australian practice, called subincision in western societies, can be pretty hardcore, sometimes extending up the penis shaft to create a slit.I once made a 12mm thick stainless steel ring (approx. 60mm internal diameter)for a guy who had a hole through the base of his penis that emerged from behind his scrotum. Apparently this modernised version was based on an old pygmy contraceptive method/rite of passage. He wore it at parties.
Other Comments by eofor
21. Comment #189540 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm
al-rawandi,
Well as a stork theorist I don't see the need for sperm to compete.. :)
Naaaaaaah it was just a new phrase for me. It struck me as odd that's all. Has a nice ring to it. "Sperm competition theory"
"Hey what are you doing?"
"Oh just studying up on sperm competion theory"
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
22. Comment #189542 by Jiten on June 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm
This is bollocks!"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?"Why do men submit...? Circumcision is done on young boys who don't have a say in the matter and if they did I'd bet they'd say no.
Other Comments by Jiten
23. Comment #189544 by al-rawandi on June 6, 2008 at 12:50 pm
whitepearl,
I was happy to learn you are not one of these astorkists. I too am a firm believer in the power of the stork.
Also, I was a little weary of the term "sperm competition". I certainly don't want my sperm competing head to head with someone else's. The idea kind of perturbs me.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
24. Comment #189548 by glenister_m on June 6, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Comment #189530 by SimUserIf a mans sexual partner has been recently with another man, then his (the primary partner) foreskin and the head of the penis will act as a sort of trow and bucket (very crude and barely accurate way of putting it) to scrape out the semen of the previous man, thus making it more likely that his sperm will be the ones with the greater chance to impregnate her.
You are correct. There are a couple of penis designs in nature. The human version which doesn't contain a bone, can act like a piston which sucks a competing males sperm out to give the male a better chance of fertilizing the female. The other version contains a bone, eg. mice, which is present because the sperm forms a hard plug to prevent foreign sperm from entering. The hard bony penis is used by competing males to separate the plug from the vaginal walls so that it falls out and the competing males sperm can enter.
Other Comments by glenister_m
25. Comment #189550 by Border Collie on June 6, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Or maybe it's just a bunch of insane crap perpetrated by ignorant people ...Other Comments by Border Collie
26. Comment #189568 by mordacious1 on June 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Sperm WarsAn accurate description, since mine are shot out of a cannon (sorry, couldn't resist)
Other Comments by mordacious1
27. Comment #189578 by Steven Mading on June 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I was doing fine until the line about the crushed testicle made me double-up in an empathic wince.Oh ,and by the way, why did the article refer to young men being circumcized willingly when it's done to newborn babies - that's hardly willing.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
28. Comment #189582 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm
This "Sperm Competition Theory" business reminds me of a cartoon I saw a while ago:
Two sperms are shown; they have faces (don't they all?). One says to the other, "I'm beat; how far is it to the ovaries?"
The other replies, "Quite a distance; we've only just passed the tonsils!"
:-)
Ste5e
Other Comments by steveroot
29. Comment #189585 by Abyst on June 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ugh... crushed testicle... can't get out of my mind... so not right! :(Anyway, I thought circumcision was done for cosmetic improvement! Alright, maybe that's just a side effect, then. Though I am curious what the trends of circumcision have been throughout the years, particularly in more secular areas. As much as I conceptually loathe the idea of genital mutilation... well, foreskin isn't exactly something I find pleasant, either. :s
Other Comments by Abyst
30. Comment #189588 by njwong on June 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I find the whole circumcision thing extremely gross. I truly cannot fathom why people will allow such a sensitive part of their body to be cut, or to have such a procedure performed on their children. Truly, religion makes people do silly things.
And if you think it is painful to read text describing circumcision, it is a million times more painful seeing an actual operation performed:
(WARNING: the video is EXTREMELY DISTURBING - please do not watch it if you don't want to have nightmares. I personally found it horrific - I was truly grossed out when I first watched it. Personally, I would never recommend such a video to others to spare them any mental anguish. But I think RD.NET readers here deserve to know such videos are available, and to make a decision themselves whether they want to watch a circumcision surgical procedure or not. Besides, many here could be doctors/medical personnel, so this is probably nothing to them. As a layman, I found this video to be very discomforting...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze6DA1X5UIc
From the size of the penis, I think the patient must be a young boy.
Other Comments by njwong
31. Comment #189589 by dyak on June 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm
As Mango, #1, pointed out, this is not an "evolutionary explanation".No wonder their is so much confusion about what evolution is and how it operates when a theory like this (regardless of its merits) is presented as an "evolutionary explanation" of a behaviour.
The behaviours are clearly cultural rather than inherited or genetically influenced.
--Or have I misunderstood something?
Other Comments by dyak
32. Comment #189598 by aqua on June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This is ridiculous -- it's obviously not an evolutionary explanation. As a passionate supporter of Darwinian evolution and as an atheist, it pains me considerably to read such rubbish. Why do evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists continue to fish for ridiculous evolutionary explanations to complex cultural phenomena? There are so many ways in which the data presented in this article can be interpreted.Other Comments by aqua
33. Comment #189603 by Steelman on June 6, 2008 at 3:55 pm
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.
I wonder what the breakdown is for the percentage of modern males who suffer from premature ejaculation, with or without foreskins. And exactly how long does it take for a premodern quickie?
It seems to me that equal helpings of danger and arousal, with a bit of saliva, and, foreskin or no, a fella is bound to end up a two pump chump.
More actual science, please...
Other Comments by Steelman
34. Comment #189606 by happinessiseasy on June 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm
m-man: There is definitely more of a reason for foreskin than an evolutionary holdover. In addition to the things virtual_void pointed out, it allows for less lubrication because it provides a natural sleeve. Other Comments by happinessiseasy
35. Comment #189608 by Geodesic17 on June 6, 2008 at 4:39 pm
This is proof that God does not exist. OOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!Other Comments by Geodesic17
36. Comment #189612 by notsobad on June 6, 2008 at 5:07 pm
SeeThe 5 Most Terrifying Rites of Manhood from Around the World
.
People sure are imaginative.
Other Comments by notsobad
37. Comment #189616 by dawgdoc2000 on June 6, 2008 at 5:27 pm
In some African and Micronesian cultures, young men have one of their testicles crushed. My nuts just crawled back up into my abdomen...ouch.
Other Comments by dawgdoc2000
38. Comment #189617 by Vinelectric on June 6, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I wonder who funds that type of research.
There may be an evolutionary explanation, according to Christopher Wilson, of Cornell University in New York, US.
With all due respect, it all sounds like good science, but I can't help but laugh at such projects. Evolutionary explanation for circumcision? Does it really matter if there is? What matters is that it's demonstrably useless in the times we live in.
Just tell people to cut it out..I mean.. to not cut it out.. then go do some prcatical life saving research.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
39. Comment #189623 by MAVERICKMAN on June 6, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Here's some comic relief: http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/second_circumcision/jos05_02.html Other Comments by MAVERICKMAN
40. Comment #189631 by Shuggy on June 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Christopher Wilson's database seems to come from the school of anthropology that ignores anyone who doesn't wear a grass skirt. MGC is widely practised in the US, Israel, the Philippines, South Korea and used to be prevalent throughout the English-speaking world, none of them societies noted for polygyny. Wilson's theories might help explain why the custom was instituted, millennia ago in Africa, Polynesiaa and Australia, but I have published an discussion of circumcision as a memeplex, that goes some way to explaining why it continues.
al-rawandi:
One tribe in Australia takes a sharpened needle like stick and shoves through the base of the penis making a hole through all the important stuff.Reminds me of a joke about an accident involving a shotgun.
That way semen comes out of the hole, and he will only impregnate a woman when he covers the holes with a finger during sex.
Punchline: "No," said the surgeon apologetically, "a flautist. He'll teach you the fingering."
Other Comments by Shuggy
41. Comment #189637 by 8teist on June 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Surely having your nuts crushed would stop you impregnating any female ? If every male has his goolies squashed how does the tribe reproduce ? do they not object to males from competing tribes impregnating their wimmin ? defeats the purpose does it not? Bet a bloke did`nt dream this up. More like wishful thinking on the womens part. Other Comments by 8teist
42. Comment #189638 by mordacious1 on June 6, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Who crushes the nuts? The vise squad?Other Comments by mordacious1
43. Comment #189639 by 8teist on June 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I`ll bring the hammer Other Comments by 8teist
44. Comment #189640 by qomak on June 6, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Completely agree with Mango.Yet another evolutionary biology nonsense. This is mostly interesting though, but I just can't get the evolutionary connection, unless they want to prove circumcision has been practiced for hundreds of thousands of years and has created selection pressure.
Other Comments by qomak
45. Comment #189641 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm
43. Comment #189639 by 8teist on June 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I`ll bring the hammer
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a ... er, nut.
:-)
Ste5e
Other Comments by steveroot
46. Comment #189678 by Steve19 on June 7, 2008 at 1:04 am
Yeah I don't think it's really an evolutionary phenomenon in the biological sense, although it does have some biological connection. It's definitely more of a cultural evolutionary phenomenon.It makes sense to me though - the powerful men who demanded that the boys in their tribe be circumcised would father more children than those powerful men who didn't make such a demand. It was then in the interests of the lesser fathers to have their boys circumcised so that they could potentially gain more powerful positions in the tribe.
It doesn't need to involve any real understanding of fertility by anyone, if you have enough tribes and enough time, effective strategies that may initially develop randomly can become widespread.
I guess there could be a bit of a genetic aspect though - a gene that makes parents to want their child to conform to the desires of the high-status members of their tribe/society???
Other Comments by Steve19
47. Comment #189680 by Greyman on June 7, 2008 at 1:10 am
41. Comment #189637 by 8teist on June 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Surely having your nuts crushed would stop you impregnating any female ? If every male has his goolies squashed how does the tribe reproduce ? do they not object to males from competing tribes impregnating their wimmin ? defeats the purpose does it not? Bet a bloke did`nt dream this up. More like wishful thinking on the womens part.
It's one testical only, 8teist. Most males start with a pair.
27. Comment #189578 by Steven Mading on June 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oh ,and by the way, why did the article refer to young men being circumcized willingly when it's done to newborn babies - that's hardly willing.
It is, and was, not always done at this early age. In most tribal societies it seems to be a manhood ceremony. Infant circumcission appears to have been developed only by one particular culture.
Other Comments by Greyman
48. Comment #189684 by Corylus on June 7, 2008 at 1:24 am
ShuggyI have published an discussion of circumcision as a memeplex, that goes some way to explaining why it continues.Very interesting, also extremely clear with a great layout. Must have taken a huge amount of work to produce.
Other Comments by Corylus
49. Comment #189692 by King of NH on June 7, 2008 at 1:55 am
Glad I'm a Pastafarian. For the Flying Spaghetti Monster commanded "...and thou shall not mutilate any noodly appendages..." Other Comments by King of NH
50. Comment #189696 by Shuggy on June 7, 2008 at 2:20 am
48. Comment #189684 by Corylus on June 7, 2008 Shuggy:Many thanks. Graphics like the cartoon and whack-a-mole were things I'd done years before, that just fitted in.I have published an discussion of circumcision as a memeplex, that goes some way to explaining why it continues.Very interesting, also extremely clear with a great layout. Must have taken a huge amount of work to produce.
Greyman:
Infant circumcission appears to have been developed only by one particular culture.Two. The UK and US did not directly adopt Jewish infant circumcision, but had an interim stage in the late 19th century of circumcising boys to punish them for masturbating, or to prevent masturbating. That can explain why the meme "a boy should look like his father" never protected baby sons of intact fathers. The intact fathers had intact sons, who were circumcised later and became circumcised fathers who had their sons circumcised to look like them. (Something similar may have happened in ancient Israel.)
Other Comments by Shuggy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinists right arm."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #189452 by Mango on June 6, 2008 at 10:01 am
Obviously this isn't a practice that represents *evolution* but rather just cultural practices that have an effect on procreation.
Other Comments by Mango