RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Who's Cut?

Ok, since this is Rob's board and we can be a bit...punky and irreverent, I pose a question: Pick your favorite male comic character and answer this question--is he circumsised?

Discussion welcome.

--Jim

Wolverine probably regrew his if he was...

Given that Logan is Canadian and that it seems that most Canadian men are not cut, I'm guessing Logan was never cut as an infant (especially since there's no reason to believe that Logan is Jewish and would have had a bris).

--Jim

Barring medical necessity John Constantine probably wouldn't be.

I apologize if I miscategorized Canadian men as generally uncut. Perhaps we should take a poll of our Brethren Up North...?

Regarding Supes, one person I chatted with this about before said that as a baby, Kal-El was not invulnerable, and so would have been "circumsizable" after the Kents found him. The key in all of this is whether or not the Kents would have circumcised him....

--Jim

Anybody want some hang-low cheese?

Cut, and I'm fine with it. Can't miss what I never really had...

Jim

i am cut, and its fine by me, but i wonder about my boy tim drake-robin...i wonder if he is...damn i would like to find out...as i have always had a thing for him

would not mine checking out dick grayson either

I suppose the comparable question for females would be "implants or not"? Except for most comic book heroines, it's definitely implants.

i hope catwoman aint got implants cause i would be very disapointed

Been a while since anyone commented on this thread!

I was speculating on the original JSA one sleepless night,and came to the conclusion that probably the only one of them who was "cut" was Wes Dodds (Jewish mother, at least per "Sandman Mystery Theater"). Carter Hall and Kent Nelson are possibilities, if they were born in hospital instead of at home (it was becoming faddy to do so among the well-to-do earlier in the century).

The rest were probably homeboys. And "uncut".

Maven

Note: that only took me through the original eight founders. Here's the rundown:

Wes Dodds (Sandman): Almost certainly cut. Jewish mother, per "Sandman Mystery Theater".
Jim Corrigan (Spectre): Not. Working-class Irish and older than everyone but maybe Wes - probably a homebirth.
Rex Tyler (Hourman): Not. No money in the family until he was nearly grown. Probable homebirth.
Alan Scott (Green Lantern): Not. Self-made, possibly farmboy, probable homebirth.
Carter Hall (Hawkman): Maybe cut. Family had money, may have been a hospital birth.
Jay Garrick (Flash): Not. Farmboy. Homebirth.
Kent Nelson (Dr. Fate): Maybe cut. See Carter.
Al Pratt (Atom): Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether home or hospital birth.
Johnny Thunder: Not. No money in family. Homebirth.
Ted Knight (Starman): See Carter.
Charles McNider (Dr. Mid-Nite): Second most likely All-Star to be cut, especially if a doctor's son.
Terry Sloane (Mr. Terrific): See Carter.
Ted Grant (Wildcat): See Al Pratt.
Red Tornado II: Artificial construct. May not have the "implements".
Sylvester Pemberton (Star-Spangled Kid, Skyman): Probably cut. Probably hospital birth.
Sanderson Hawkins (Sand(y)): Probably not. Raised poor, IIRC - probable homebirth.
Hector Hall (Silver Scarab, Sandman II, Dr. Fate IV): See Sly.
Norda Cantrell (Northwind): Unknown if Feitheran physiology allows "cutting".
Al Rothstein (Nuklon, Atom-Smasher): Cut for sure. Jewish.
Todd Rice (Obsidian): Almost certainly cut. Hospital birth.
Henry King, Jr. (Brainwave jr.): See Al Pratt.
Rick Tyler (Hourman II): See Sly.
Jack Knight (Starman VII): See Sly.
Tyler (Hourman III): See Reddy.
Michael Holt (Mr. Terrific II): See Sly.
Pieter Cross (Dr.Mid-Nite II): See McNider - I believe Pieter IS a doctor's son.
Theo (Black) Adam: Teth is cut for sure - the Egyptians did that too. Theo probably.
Billy Batson (Captain Marvel): See Sly.

I think that's about everybody with close JSA connections....

You'll notice that most of the older generation were uncut, and most of the newer ones are cut. Progress? Or not?

Maven

I've many debates/discussions with other guys about the degree to which secular circumcision is mutiliation (since no loss of appreciable function or sensation occurs, I don't see how you can define it as anymore mutiliation than getting your ear pierced).

Is it progress? I don't know. I have no objections either way, though frankly I am more used to seeing cut cocks.

The question I still have though, is why the move toward secular circumcision in this country in the last century. For example, what did my parents think about it when they had it done to me? My sister and her husband simply did it to their boys with no thought...I asked her, did you have them circumcised and she said, without hesitation, "Of course." But I didn't press for why fearing being looked at as some of sort of perv.

Thoughts?

--Jim

Speaking for myself, I wound up having it done because I was dripping on my shoes. That's probably worth a minor operation to deal with...
Not that I'm a comics character, or course.

For about fifty years or so it was considered a hygienic measure. There were studies that showed that the wives of cut men were less likely to develop cervical cancer, and things like that. So it became a routine procedure performed on newborn male infants in hospitals in the US, and practically the only way to escape it was for the parent(s) to veto it or the kid to be born at home.

It's only in the last couple of decades that it's started to fall out of favor with the US medical establishment.

Maven

Bevis - thank you for that datum. I was unaware of the cultural differences involved.

Another question of interest is, which would have been more likely to be cut - the Golden Age Batman, or the modern one? They're both US doctor's sons (same doctor, different times, possibly different mind-sets).

As far as, um, personal statistics go, I've "had" five men all told - and four of the five were cut.

Maven

Finally picked an avatar,and just curious to see what it looks like....

Maven

That's crazy!

Thanks Barbara

I live in a rural area where most of the men my age and older (40-plus) are uncut; most of the parents say "no" to circumcision as a routine. Works for me; love those uncut schlongs!

One of my friends' wives was very insistent that both their boys be cut. So I recently asked him why...he said that she was adamant about it because, get this, "she wanted the boys to look like me."

Now, I don't know about the rest of you with kids, but how often do you show your cock to your kids? I know that kids might get a quick glimpse now and then as you're moving from the shower to the bedroom, but I'm gonna bet the kids don't get a chance to scrutinize your cock and do a mental comparison with their own to take note if they match up.

I mean, seriously, if you're teaching your little boys how to pee, you don't need to show them yours while helping them learn how to use theirs.

So, the "so they look like their dad" logic isn't really logical.

There are some data to suggest that men who are circumcised may be at less risk for penile cancer, but that may be more due to keeping the foreskin clean (no cheese, please). And I have also heard the argument that Maven introduced, that women whose husbands are cut may be at less risk for cervical cancer. But this again could be due to basic penile hygiene.

I'm just wondering if there's some social or cosmetic thing at work...do people who just routinely circumcise their boys do so because they think a cut cock looks better? I have talked to both men and women who are very upfront about it: They prefer cut cocks because they find them more appealing.

Thoughts?

--Jim

Addendum: I do not wish to generalize that all men or all women, or even most of either gender, find cut cocks more visually appealing. My point was that I have talked to some who were adamantly against uncut cocks.

I have also talked to those who find foreskin appealing, and to those who have no preference one way or the other (count me in the last in the grouping).

Jim

I think a lot of it is whatever you're used to. If you've never seen an uncut member - and a lot of people haven't, because from about 1950 to 1970 or so it was almost universal in the US - then you may think the cut version is "normal" and even "natural" (although it is as violently UNnatural as a Doberman's clipped ears and tail).

Maven

I don't know about "violently." While I apologize for TMI, I'm a cut guy. I never missed it and I don't recall the pain. It's not a big deal. Guys who bitch about it probably are guys who other deeper issues with their parents.

Jim

If not "violently" unnatural, then "severely" so - though since both operations involve blood and pain and chopping off bits to fit a preconceived image, I'm not convinced that violence doesn't enter into it.

Dobermans aren't the only breed that requires plastic surgery to fit the breed standard - they're just the first ones I thought of. (Any breed standard that requires surgery to fit it is by definition unnatural.)

Maven

"Violent" makes it sound as though a circumcision was done with the intent to cause pain. Pain is a byproduct.

Is it a procedure to force a boy into some preconceived image? I can't ever get a straight answer. Certaily, for those who are Jewish, it's part of their heritage...

Jim

This discussion has certainly gotten personal - and a long way from the question of which male superheroes had the procedure.

Maven

Venturing far afield in a thread often happens...

Heh heh.

Jim