Here’s a not-hypothetical situation. Last week, on April 26th, an artist circumcised himself in public as art. I have no idea what he aimed at. He’s an adult, and other than the obnoxiousness that pushing such a “performance” on an unsuspecting audience implies, he’s free to cut off his entire penis. I don’t care.
Still, I can’t help thinking about this. I was repulsed by this when I first read about it, as I suspect most people would be. Why would he do that? That reaction can be instructive, I think. For anyone who finds this artist’s action mind-boggling, as I do, is it consistent to believe that infant circumcision is reasonable? The response should be the opposite. Both operations have the same level of medical necessity, which is to say none. Yet we allow what is little more than the same kind of performance art, but on a societal scale, more than one million times every year in America. That can’t be right.
The artist, Adrian Parsons, posted pictures here. They’re very graphic and most definitely not safe for work viewing.
5 thoughts on “I use the terms “artist” and “art” loosely.”
We have three sons. They are uncircumcised because I never believed that sharp things and penises should not mix.
Or something. Please excuse the double negative.
Thanks for sharing. That reminds me that some people have some sense. Bravo to you. I’m sure your sons will thank you.
(And if not, they can always choose what they want to do to themselves.)
Hey, it’s Tris (the TARfly) Just wanted to say-that’s GROSS. Have a kitten!
Hey, Tris. Yes, it’s disgusting. To each his own? I’d definitely take a kitten instead.
Comments are closed.