FIND in
<--prev V205 next-->
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:05:02 -0500
Subject: Re: (urth) uncut dogs
From: Adam Stephanides 

on 5/21/02 10:46 AM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson@clara.co.uk wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Andre-Driussi" 
>> No, hartshorn/Quartet are right (agreeing with Scribners hc), Ace is in
>> error (add that one to the "Many Pink Butterflies" instead of "Mary Pink
>> Butterflies" error).
>> "they would tie, the two of them" (227)
> Well, back where we were then.
> Why "tie"?  And how/why is this specifically linked to being uncircumcised?

The OED gives as one meaning of "tie" for a dog and a bitch to be linked
during copulation.  But it's still strange.  Marsch is an anthropologist;
you'd expect him to have read about uncircumcised peoples, and to be aware
that "tying" doesn't happen.  And why does he anticipate being especially
enraged by seeing Victor and his girl "tied," as opposed to just having sex?

As for the significance of Victor's non-circumcision in itself, here's one
theory.  In anthropology, the Australian aborigines are known for rigorous
male initiation rites at puberty, which generally involve circumcision.  If
the same is true of the Free People, then Victor's non-circumcision might be
one reason he thinks of himself as a child.



<--prev V205 next-->