Most poorly performed circumcisions stem from two misjudgments on the part of the circumciser: either too much or too little foreskin is removed. In my case, it was too little (and, one might add, given that I was seven years old instead of the eight days prescribed by the Torah, too late). After the infection had subsided, the shaft of my penis was crowded by a skyline of redundant foreskin that included, on the underside, a thick attachment of skin stretching from the head to the shaft of the genital, a result of improper healing that is called a skin bridge. A small gap could be seen between this skin bridge and the penis proper. In texture and appearance, the bridge reminded me of the Polly-O mozzarella string cheese that got packed in the lunchboxes of my generation. It produced no pain on its own after the infection had died down and the two years of difficult urination were over, but the strangeness of my penile appearance—and the manner in which it was brought about—became lodged in my consciousness....
October 4, 2021
Too little, too late.
I'm reading "A Botched Circumcision and Its Aftermath/The constant discomfort of a genital injury creates a covenant of pain. It is impossible to think about anything else" by Gary Shteyngart (The New Yorker):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
Owwwwww. Can’t even *imagine* this.
Why is this a topic? Will it be followed by graphic testimony from victims of FGM?
It is a kind of anti-porn.
This might be the first time I wished I could unread one of Ann's blog posts.
Pics or it didn't happen.
This must be the guy
Good writer (I recommend Super Sad True Love Story). Like all (US?) Mormons I was cut at birth; my son is not. It's a ridiculous anti-functional elective intervention that's as morally suspect as trans/puberty-delaying elective hormones, with the difference being that an 11 year old even under bizarre school/peer/parent pressure can much more meaningfully consent than an infant.
Is this guy related to Anthony Weiner ? Pretty dramatic example of penis politics.
TMI times a thousand!!!!
Of the two problems, removal of too little seems like the better one to have, since presumably it can be corrected. The improper healing and difficult urination should have been noticed by his parents and treated by his doctor. It sounds like he was poorly served by the adults in his life. Is there a reason why he can't get it corrected now?
I really don't care about the anecdotes for male circumcision. I'd prefer some stats on total harmed and total benefited (ie, reduced penile cancer, etc.), or something there-abouts.
This guy was circumcised so he and his family could immigrate to the USA (I'm assuming. He was 7 when he was circumcised, and 7 when his family immigrated. There were laws during that time that allowed Jews to leave the USSR for the USA/Israel). He could complain about this, but at the end of the day, his parents did it to get away from communism.
The Ballad of Hog Johnson…
String Cheese Incident
Hooo boy!!!!!
I wonder if this guy's penis was the friend that Frances Haugen "lost" due to internet conspiracy theories?
.
Horrifying story from the 60s of a botched circumcision which totally destroyed the penis and led to "experts" suggesting he be raised as a girl.
https://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561
String Cheese Incident
Side One:
1. Cheesedick
2. Keep Yo Ronson Away From the Johnson
3. Nasty Rash
4. They Call It Art
5. Turtle Beat the Hair
Side Two:
6. Mozzarella Fella
7. Ballz Deep in the Fondue
8. Foreskin And Eight Years
9. Main Boy With the Misshapen Toy
It produced no pain on its own after the infection had died down and the two years of difficult urination were over, but the strangeness of my penile appearance — and the manner in which it was brought about — became lodged in my consciousness....
Yes, quite unfortunate. But "became lodged in my consciousness"? That's a bizarre formulation, is it not? Lodged, like a foreign body? Is Shteyngart's missing foreskin jammed somewhere in his brain, atop the corpus callosum, or in one of the lateral ventricles, perhaps?
Why not be a bit more direct and a bit less histrionic? More manly and circumspect and less passive and whinging? For example, my disfigured penis became a recurring source of disquiet and sometimes humiliation. More manly? Harumph! Of course not -- why, the text would be so toxic that it might leap off the page and throttle some transgendered passerby with a ligature made of dangling participles.
God knows I'm no Tolstoy, but The New Yorker's editorial standards have sunk pretty low. The keel's in the mud and the promenade deck is reserved for herrings. My god, there are high school literary fanzines that read better. Hell, S.J.Perelman could belch better English prose than much of the tripe published today. Maybe The New Yorker is playing to a duller caliber of readership these days and thus the more plebeian style. Eustace Tully's lorgnette gaze it ain't no more. Imagine the Charles Addams cartoons suited to today's TNY. Instead of slyly macabre his family would just be a tribe of drooling zombies out for lunch.
Rant over. I feel much better, thank you.
There was a time (and Michael K or other doctors who comment on this site may know) when adult male circumcision was sometimes used as treatment for acute gonorrhea or other penile infections.
jg writes, "Good writer..."
No, needs work. Something done with a stump chipper, I would suggest.
What consciousness is observing Chris Shteyngart's consciousness? His other consciousness? Or perhaps his other other consciousness?
Consciousness is a difficult concept which is unfortunately easy to spell.
Owning a mangled pee-pee is quite probably a few ants short of a picnic. Shteyngart should tell us about his experience in as direct a manner as he can relate and spare us the consciousness spelunking. Okay, he's not some inked-up porn star swinging his tool hither and yon to the delight of figure models. No, he's a victim of ritual malpractice, which is not that common since heathenism went out of style. He has had physical pain, infections, urine spraying everywhere but in the toilet. Maybe he was ashamed of it, afraid women would flee in terror of his apparently diseased sexual appurtenance. P.T. Barnum is hiring anymore, so what is he to do with the Schlong of Notre Dame?
Okay, so he wants a little compensation. Maybe he could stand on a street corner with a hand-lettered cardboard sign reading Will Expose Myself for Empathy.
either too much or too little foreskin is removed. In my case, it was too little
Measure twice, cut once.
Since we're dealing with anecdotes, there are cases of male babies who did not get circumcised and had painful complications. Google "paraphimosis." There are also statistics regarding transmission of HIV, HPV etc. for circumcised vs. non-circumcised.
Just so you know where I stand, Quaestor is also circumcised. I don't know who did it, or when, or why. My parents never explained and I never asked. Eventually, I did mull over these obvious questions, but never gave them voice because what was the point? All I know is my dad was likewise trimmed, and I don't know why, when, or how. Most likely it was for putative hygienic reasons. Or maybe Dad figured it was like father like son. What's inside those Dad 'n Lad Farah slacks, Why clipped cocks, naturally! It wasn't ritualistic that's for durn tootin'. We aren't Jewish, not since the 14th century, at least. Nor are any of us passionately religious, not enough to face the knife for no other reason. I'm Nordic/Celtic and whiter than rice in a blizzard.
I just accepted that look was natural for years. But there comes a time when every wannabe he-man wants to play and romp long into the summer gloaming, when the fireflies flicker and the stars come out. And when Nature inevitably calls you just whip it out and baptize the friendly trees. Ah...., nitrogen. Can't make pecans without it. Thanks, lads. Pay ya back come December. Well, that was about the time I noticed the difference. Mine looks like a hotdog. Yours looks like the business end of a whoopie cushion. Does it go BLAAAT! No? Tough. Oh, well.
P.T Barnum ISN'T hiring anymore... ISN'T, ISN'T. Goddamnit, ruined my own joke.
A day with multiple yang stories... Got a tag for that, professor?
It's my penis, my choice.
Wait a minute. It wasn't my choice.
Oh well. Things turned out OK.
Why is this not called male genital mutilation? And is still acceptable procedure!!
Which is why the wife and I insisted that our sons not even circunsized, despite the efforts of.doctors and muses to tell us that they would regret being “different” when they started having gym class in school. It never caused them any social problems that I am aware of, thsough we did have to teach them how to wash it properly.
A lawyer friend of mine also insisted that his son not be circumcised at birth, but the doctor who delivered the boy did it anyway. My friend protested afterwards, but the doctor just shrugged. “So sue me.” Doctors shouldn’t say that to lawyers, but some have to learn that the hard way.
My friend passed a couple decades ago; I miss him still.
Quaestor said...Just so you know where I stand, Quaestor is also circumcised. I don't know who did it, or when, or why. My parents never explained and I never asked
Same. I don't know how old I was when I learned that I was circumcised. At some point I became aware of it. Nobody told me, I never asked, it's just the way I was. And that fact brings me up short in discussions about FGM, which horrifies me and makes me want to visit medieval punishments on the practitioners (including, maybe even especially, the parents; maybe even especially the mother).
I want to say FGM is much worse than circumcision, but I can't articulate why and can't confidently deny that I think circumcision is no big deal simply because it's all I've ever known.
This guy needs to grow up. And become a lot less racist (“Gentile region”)? To compare an irritating but non-fatal skin condition to cancer is sickening. Imagine the New Yorker allowing a Christian writer to refer to his penis as his “Jewish region.” Yeah, me neither.
Other people have real medical problems. Virtually all American men, not just Jews, are circumcised, so his editor is a racist ignoramus too. Male circumcision promotes health by preventing infection.
Female circumcision is not identical to male circumcision: it is complete mutilation and amputation of external female sex and sexual pleasure organs. So to repeatedly ask why women aren’t circumcised too is to both be ignorant and to demand that women be mutilated and denied all sexual pleasure. How does that get past the editors, too, I wonder.
I’ve acquired healthcare for several victims of FGM. Their labia and clitoris are carved off, and the remaining skin is crudely stitched together, bellybutton to anus, leaving them with scar tissue that causes lifelong and often deadly urinary, menstrual, and birthing emergencies. In America, we have to (quietly) remove the bits of string and bone embedded in the scars when we bring in refugees from certain barbaric countries. It is a life-long sentence of physical torture. Again: how does this stuff get past the New Yorker’s editors? Mutilating women is that irrelevant to them?
The very rare death rate from male circumcision he claims arises almost exclusively from circumcisions performed in non-medical settings. They should be banned. But he isn’t honest enough to admit that this is a problem specific to Ultra-Orthodox Jews and a few other religious minority groups.
He never discusses this part of his body, but I’m certain he has an enormous asshole too.
The poor bastard. I'm still cringing in sympathy for his misadventures (scabs! Dear Lord!). Fwiw, I take Gabapentin (for an entirely different ailment, I feel compelled to note) and hate the stuff, but his troubles with that drug are the least of his worries.
Post a Comment