the Scott Stein

Photo credit: Mrs. the Scott Stein
If this picture makes you hungry, that's because it should. I don't mess around.

At my nephew's bris a couple of weeks ago, my son asked me to hold him up so he could see what the doctor/mohel was doing. I tried to explain. "Why do they cut his penis?" my son asked. It was a good question. I wasn't going to get into the whole covenant with God thing, especially given my religious views. My son was circumcised, but did not have a bris. I kept my answer appropriate for a four-year-old: "Because it helps to keep the baby healthy." I don't know if it's true, and male circumcision does have some passionate opponents. But according to the headline in today's Independent Online (via Drudge), "Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'." We'll see whether this increases the procedure's popularity, and whether the study stands up to scrutiny.

In any case, some will continue to oppose male circumcision. One of the arguments I've heard is that it decreases sensitivity and sexual enjoyment for the man. If this is at all true, I have trouble believing that there is a major difference. As a circumcised man myself, I can't imagine sex being much more enjoyable than it already is. But if it is true, it leads me to a conspiracy theory, which I had fun making up today after reading the Independent Online piece and Michael Medved's column, "Why the world hates the Jews," (whatever you might make of it), in succession.

Some people argue that the Jews have a genetic intelligence advantage, which accounts for their disproportionate representation in medicine and law and their achievements in business. Some argue that they have a culture shaped by history that emphasizes success and education, which accounts for their disproportionate representation in medicine and law and their achievements in business. And of course, there are all sorts of sinister conspiracy theories that try to account for their disproportionate representation in medicine and law and their achievements in business.

I would like to propose the Circumcision Jewish Conspiracy Theory to account for their disproportionate representation in medicine and law and their achievements in business. It's simple, really. Circumcision leads to decreased enjoyment of sex, though not decreased enough to prevent the propagation of the genetic lines of those circumcised. But it does decrease sexual pleasure just enough to allow men to focus on something other than getting laid, at least part of the time. Its effect is probably most pronounced in the hormone-saturated teen years, which explains why Jews excel in school in comparison to their circumcision-deprived peers, and why so many end up going to medical school. Achievement during these years has lifelong ramifications. Over the generations this slight edge in ability to think of something other than sex has been the cause of the Jewish cultural valuing of education and the achievements of the Jews as a people, a slow, cumulative consequence of thousands of years of cut penises and slightly decreased sexual pleasure.

If the theory is correct, then we should see increased rates of achievement from nations and ethnic groups that reflects their percentage of circumcised men and the percentage of male circumcision for past generations.

One objection could be that male circumcision leaves out half the population--women. But it doesn't. For one, less voracious sexual appetites among men would also leave women with more time and energy to focus on concerns other than sex. Also, to the extent that patriarchal societies were guided in intellectual and economic achievement by men, because women were excluded from these activities, we would expect male circumcision to have a disproportionate overall impact on the group's achievement levels as a whole. Even in societies where women are no longer excluded, the cultural pattern would have been established long ago, when women were excluded. Thus, we see that the effects of male circumcision reaches down through the centuries. This poses challenges for other groups, who might wish to emulate the Jewish success that was caused by male circumcision. Even if these groups begin to approach the near 100% circumcision rate of Jews, it would be many generations before the groups reaped the circumcision windfall.

If you think it's a stupid theory, you're right. I don't know that it's much stupider than some of the stuff people say on the subject. Anyway, if you'd like to add to the silliness, feel free to post a comment to rebut or support the Circumcision Jewish Conspiracy Theory.

(Note: Whether this attempt at humor is in good taste or not, and whether there is anything funny here or not, is for the reader to determine, but I won't provide a forum for bigotry, and will remove comments as needed. I don't want real conspiracy theories. Just the mock ones.)

Thanks to Frank Wilson, I read this story in the Guardian Unlimited about people judging in a romantic way and even flirting with people based on the books they are reading in bookstores and elsewhere. I'm sure lots of us judge people by the books on display in their homes (or the lack thereof), by the books they tell us they're currently reading, or even by the music they listen to or movies they like. Maybe judge isn't the right word. It could just be curiosity. If you're like me, when you see someone reading a book, you want to know what it is. Maybe the curiosity has an element of judgment in it, or for some is a pathetic sort of self-esteem boosting, or is just a search for kindred souls. The Guardian Unlimited article focused on the flirting aspect. That I don't do. I am not trying to find a date based on reading preferences. There was a time, though...

I was going on a first date with a woman who lived near Philadelphia. I lived in Manhattan, and we shared a couple of phone calls before the date, though we had briefly met in person, so it wasn't blind. We knew little about each other. The person who gave me her number had told this woman that I was a writer (at the time I had a couple of published stories, an unpublished novel, and an MFA degree). During our first phone conversation, she asked me, innocently enough, if I'd read any Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I liked Marquez (still do), but what mattered was that she didn't ask me if I'd read any James Patterson. I was more militant about my literature back then--if she'd wanted to know if I shared her appreciation for a hack, I would have looked forward to the first date with less enthusiasm. I don't know if I would have canceled it, but that she enjoyed a good book was definitely a plus. I wasn't that big a literary snob--if she wasn't kind, didn't look good or have a sense of humor, or couldn't hold up her end of a witty conversation, we wouldn't be approaching our seventh wedding anniversary, no matter what she liked to read.

I’m less a literary snob now, have been cured to some extent of the MFA affliction. That someone enjoys a fluffy book here and there doesn’t mean anything to me. Some of the people I’m closest to in the world wouldn’t know a good book if it fell on them. Some of them have a better chance of having a book--any book--fall on them than actually reading one. Plenty of people read nothing but good books and are miserable ignoramuses. And plenty of books that are anointed good, by people in a position to be anointing things, suck. Anyway, I don’t object to a good thriller or a beach read. My wife enjoys a diversionary novel as much as anyone. Still, as a writer, I’m glad that I married someone who read The Life of Pi and, despite really liking it, was concerned about the ending enough to make me read it to see if I would have the same problem she did. (I did.) She isn’t a writer (she’s a teacher), but delights in finding the one false note, a skill I have come to value. Not that I was hoping to marry an editor, but when so much of your life is devoted to writing novels, it’s nice to share that life with someone who knows when one is good.