Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Howard Stern's Producer Won't Be Circumcising His Newborn

Will Murray won't cut his boy.
By REBECCA WALD

It looks like Howard Stern's denouncement of infant circumcision on his radio show over the years has left a big impression on the show's researcher and segment producer, Will Murray. 

Yesterday, Murray spoke on Howard 100 News about the birth of his son, Owen. Murray was proud to say his boy is "au natural" and will not be circumcised. Howard 100 News broadcasts an hourly summary of stories related to Howard Stern on Sirius Satellite Radio. 

Part of Murray's responsibilities as segment producer are to preinterview all of the guests and compile research notes for Stern to use during interviews. No doubt pre-interviewing Ron Low, who is an advocate of foreskin restoration and has appeared more than once on Stern's show, gave Murray something to think about. It's been widely reported that Murray won the Howard Stern staff I.Q. test with a score of 130. Yesterday's announcement is further proof that he's one smart cookie. 

8 comments:

  1. You know it's funny. I was just reading online about Chicago DJ Steve Dahl, who I can remember talking about circumcision on the air way back maybe 30 years ago. Steve has always been the kind of guy to break down every on-the-air taboo. I suppose he'd be considered one of the pioneers of the "Morning Zoo" type format. Anyway, I read that Howard Stern spent a lot of time listening to recordings of Steve Dahl's broadcasts.

    I guess it just goes to show that once you start the conversation about genital mutilation, once you break down that barrier, it's broken for good. Much as our opponents would like to stuff the topic back into the Things We Don't Talk About Box, they can't. Nobody can. The conversation will keep going, and smart people like Will Murray are going to listen. And then they're going to speak out too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am familiar with the Bible story of Abraham being told by God to circumcise his son Isaac. I know that this "covenant" is the reason why many Christian and Jewish couples choose to circumcise their sons.

    Times have changed, though. The reasons why it may have been wise to do this in the past are no longer pertinent, at least in most areas of the world. Just think of how hygiene and healthcare are different. It's time to stop this needless maiming. With modern bathing, infant circumcision becomes an unnecessary torture.

    And if anyone chooses to circumcise for cosmetic reasons, I tell them that it's equal to plastic surgery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another person who can think outside the box. good for him for not making his son " look like daddy" and actually using his head when it came to the decision and not following blindly like sheep just b/c a doctor told you to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have come to see mass circumcision as a show of solidarity for our Jewish brothers and sisters who perished under the Holocaust. At one time, your foreskin could bring a judgement of life or death upon you. Many people believe that there is a divine power that is concerned with the existence of lack of a foreskin, and so they choose to have their male children "cut" or left "uncut" for "religious reasons."
    It really sounds like a fad that has gotten out of control. What's next, eyebrow tattoos for infants?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just how radical was Murray's decision? Is he Jewish? What does the baby's mother think? Am I correct in believing that circumcision is now uncommon among the Manhattan intelligentsia?

    Kurt, the reason there's no turning back is that the internet and broadband has made it possible for high school and college students to inform themselves. College women can now go online and study images of cut and uncut. Young women can even look at gay porn, which is often foreskin-centric. And more often than not, curiosity will get the best of the young ladies.

    Re Steve Dahl:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Dahl

    This pillar of the contemporary Chicago lifestyle actually hails from southern California.

    In 1979, the science writer for the Chicago Tribune told his readers that the AAP had not endorsed routine circ in 1971 and 1975, and that the ACOG had endorsed the AAP's stance in 1979. I bet that column primed Dahl's pump. At that time, Wallerstein's book wasn't out, and Rosemary Romberg had written one article in an obscure magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ^^ Steve Dahl, who I can remember talking about circumcision on the air way back maybe 30 years ago ^^

    As recently as 2006 I had dialog with Steve and his wife. They were not intactivists ever while he had a daily Chicago show. The intactivsm discussion on his show in the early 1990s was instigated by traffic reporter Leslie Keiling (aka Lane Closure) who went on to lesser and worser things at WGN-AM (no other vocal intactivism).

    ^^ Just how radical was Murray's decision? Is he Jewish? What does the baby's mother think? ^^

    On March 29th after I concluded my interview with Howard Stern, Will Murray came into the studio during the break and Howard asked: "Are you going circumcise that baby you're expecting?" and Will answered emphatically yes. Even the intact staffers commented at how odd they found my restoration advocacy to be, but something got though to Will.

    -Ron Low

    ReplyDelete
  7. aimflame: "With modern bathing, infant circumcision becomes an unnecessary torture."

    This notion that circumcision was at one point beneficial for reasons of hygiene is complete nonsense!

    Anatomically similar ancestors existed AT LEAST around 2 million years ago, and modern humans existed AT LEAST 200 thousand years ago; that means our ancestors lived just fine with complete penises for a very long time. Why was it somehow so necessary just a few thousand years ago?

    Moreover, if you want to consider the desert-dwelling nature of the ancient Hebrews, there were plenty of other tribes at the same time that did NOT practice routine circumcision, and most peoples around the world have NEVER practiced routine circumcision.

    The hygiene argument is bunk from top to bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The hygiene argument was invented almost out of whole cloth by California lung-doctor Peter Remondino in the late 19th century. (He also advocated circumcising black men to stop them from raping white women.)

    The bible (Joshua 5:2-4) says the Israelites did not circumcise for 40 years in the wilderness - with no mention of health issues.

    ReplyDelete