DESMOND MORRIS
Best Sellers
Bodywatching page 218 - 220
Babywatching page156 - 158
Previously I held Desmond Morris in great respect. His anthropological
views always appeared balanced and intelligent. However in the best
sellers Bodywatching and especially in Babywatching we can review an
amazingly illogical argument about circumcision. While we may sympathise
with his opinion, we must be amazed at his illogical thinking.
Morris offers no discussion of phimosis, but in the best seller Bodywatching: he writes "In fact circumcision
has no medical advantages, ..."
His opinions over circumcision reach their high point in Babywatching.
Whereas the encyclopedias say that they do not know the origins of
traditional routine male circumcision, Morris claims "It started as
an ancient Egyptian custom ... It seems to have its origin in snake
worship" He describes the thought association between snakes and
foreskins and then in developing his subject "Apart from the original
superstitious reasons".... He writes that "The ritual mutilation
spread and spread" -- As Hastings pointed out in 1936, this custom did not spread, this is "proved
beyond all doubt by the existence of circumcision in America and Australia
where no sane person would allege African influence."
His method of proving that "There is not a single valid argument
in favour of mutilating baby boys ... "is to present a list of
laughable reasons for Circumcision (with no mention of phimosis and no references!) then subsequently he has no difficulty in showing how irrational each
idea is
"(1) It limits intercourse. ... (3) It makes men holy because the
prophet Mohammed was born without a foreskin. (4) It is unclean to
have a foreskin. (5) It prevents masturbation. (6) It provides an offering
to the gods in the form of a symbol of male virility. (7) It removes
a physical defect fro the male body. (8) The Devil hides beneath the
foreskin, and therefore to remove this skin is to remove his hiding
place and expose him. (9) It caused many medical conditions such as
hysteria, epilepsy and nocturnal incontinence. (10) It caused mental
illness. ... (12) Its removal makes a boy grow up to 'feel regular'."
As Morris freely admits: "All these reasons are complete nonsense." This is correct . Morris says nothing of any of the significant ideas of initiation,
fertility, sacrifice.
Nos. (2) and (11) are the only vaguely pertinent ideas
"(2) It provides a badge of tribal or social allegiance." His answer
to this is "It no longer provides a mark of allegiance because
it has been carried out on sch a wide range of males from so many cultures
and societies in different parts of the world." This is simply untrue ... as shown by
the Muslims and Jews where circumcision is still a mark of allegiance.
"(11) It caused cancer of the penis in males and cancer of the cervix
in their wives." ... he answers without any proof
or references "Claims that it causes cancer have now been revealed
as completely false." I have not researched the area in depth, however a brief look
at the MEDLINE studies on penis cancer show that all studies suggest a connection between phimosis
and cancer
The one thing Morris does is to demonstrate
vividly the irrational thinking which surrounds this subject.
|