-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Circumcision
- Thread starter Jaymes
- Start date
meogi
Well-Known Member
It's not normal, but it is acceptable... mainly because it isn't brutal baby-mutilation. I was circumcised after I was born, I don't seem to remember it - and I'm kinda glad I don't have the extra skin hanging around.
My jewish friend put it this way once: Hey, I was drunk at 7 days old. And I cried all the time then anyway, so it didn't matter much to me.
Why do you think it's such a horrible thing?
My jewish friend put it this way once: Hey, I was drunk at 7 days old. And I cried all the time then anyway, so it didn't matter much to me.
Why do you think it's such a horrible thing?
I have heard the word "mutilation" sometimes defined as any act to alter someone's body for no good reason without their consent. To me, circumcision is mutilation, because I do not believe there's a good reason for it (I am also not Jewish.) I also have a lot of problems with the reasons that non-Jews in the US picked up the trend: The man who invented Corn Flakes, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, said:
Furthermore, most of the people I've known who have watched a circumcision were pretty upset by it and chose not to do it again with a second child. So, I'm not going to do it to my sons, if I have them.
Now clearly, people don't think like this today, but I just don't like the history behind its popularity. This was the common idea in the early 1900s. By the 50s or so, it had become normal, and parents didn't want their children to be different.
Furthermore, most of the people I've known who have watched a circumcision were pretty upset by it and chose not to do it again with a second child. So, I'm not going to do it to my sons, if I have them.
jewscout
Religious Zionist
Male circumcision is not mutilation. I was circumcised and all my parts work fine without any complication. Plus if you choose to not circumcise your son you must teach them how to properly clean themselves because if you don't infection could set in (i'm no medical doctor but i'm pretty sure that could happen and that is a crappy place to have an infection!)
There is nothing mutilating about Male circumcision (in fact it makes it look bigger
)
If you want to put mutilation and circumcision in the same sentence then talk about FEMALE circumcision.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
There is nothing mutilating about Male circumcision (in fact it makes it look bigger
)If you want to put mutilation and circumcision in the same sentence then talk about FEMALE circumcision.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I am circumcised, my son is as well. I don't remember when it was done to me at all, I do remember his. It was a pretty traumatic experience for me, as I saw him bleeding and crying and hurting. He healed up in a couple days and was not affected in any way mentally.
The reason I decided to have my son cirumcised was to make sure that he didn't feel different from me when I potty trained him. Also, I hear that it is much cleaner to be circumcised.
The only downfall to circumcision is less sensitivity (supposedly).
The reason I decided to have my son cirumcised was to make sure that he didn't feel different from me when I potty trained him. Also, I hear that it is much cleaner to be circumcised.
The only downfall to circumcision is less sensitivity (supposedly).
Solly
Fides Quærens Intellectum
I was done as a child, at my mothers instigation. She had it done for hygeine reasons, and later facts back this up, as it seems cervical cancer and other problems can be provoked by the uncircumcised male member. I saw a report that said that jewish women had a lower incidence of cervical cancer.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/
Here's a list of hygiene claims and what other studies have found.
I think it's questionable how useful circumcision is in hygiene.
Also:
Here's a list of hygiene claims and what other studies have found.
I think it's questionable how useful circumcision is in hygiene.
Also:
--Dr. William Sears
jewscout
Religious Zionist
This is true but it doesn't destroy said sensitivity. I can still feel thingsSunstone said:
:162: Once again i think male circumcision isn't the "traumatic mutilation" that many people think it is. It would appear that millions of men have had the procedure w/ few to no side effects.
Like i said earlier if your going to talk about "mutilation" and circumcision then talk about female circumcision.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I had to laugh when I read this. Can you imagine an extra 20% to 40% in stimulation? Hell, my heart wouldn't hold out. I can't even imagine what a teenage male would be like under those circumstances.Sunstone said:
TVOR
Jaymes
The cake is a lie
meogi said:
It is. There is no reason for it at all. It's a quack science of health. If you wash your ding-a-ling more than once a year, it shouldn't get infected. Which is part of why it was common in Europe... they didn't bathe often. Today it is unneeded.
One of the beliefs used to justify circumcision was that the baby didn't feel pain. I think this baby is feeling pain.
If you're feeling especially brave, listen to the sound clip.
jewscout said:
Yea, you have to teach them how to clean it... it's called BATHING...
Which I think is just as horrible. Fortunately, it's outlawed in the US. I don't know why the courts have decided females have rights to their own genitals at birth, but not males.
huajiro said:
Not supposedly. It does. The glans is very sensitive and isn't meant to be exposed to the elements unless it's right about to go into a vagina. The lack of foreskin to protect the glans greatly decreases sensitivity because it adds extra cell layers to protect itself from the pain not being covered by foreskin induces.
If you feel really brave (I literally felt sick and was crying after visiting this site), check out In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child.
jewscout
Religious Zionist
I can't imagine you think that male circumcision and female circumcision are even the same kinda animal.jensa said:
Male circumcision doesn't end your ability to have sexual sensations...
Or your ability to reproduce offspring in a healthy manner...
How many men have been unable to have children due to their circumcision?
How many men are unable to have ANY sexual sensation at all due to their circumcision?
Maybe me and my guy friends are the exception to the rule and we have been able to have a viable working member while the rest of the male population can't.
But female circumsision is disgusting, it endangers the health of the woman, practically ends her ability to enjoy sex at all and can be a major obsticle when the issue of childbirth comes up often costing her's and the child's life.
Female genital mutilation is a horrible, horrible thing, and is worse than male circumcision IMHO because of the gravity of its effect on the woman. But, like Jensa, I believe that neither is necessary, so I see both as mutilation. Mutilation is mutilation. We don't say that a particular instance of genocide is okay because it killed fewer people than another particular genocide, so I don't see how one form of mutilation being less harmful than another making the former okay. (But, you have to keep in mind that this is coming from someone with the perspective that unnecessary, nonconsensual cutting = mutilation, and other people have different definitions.).
Oh, and babies ABSOLUTELY feel pain during circumcision. There are a ton of nerve endings in a penis, and they are active during the process of clamping and cutting.
An uncircumcized male baby's foreskin is firmly attached to the glans. In fact, it takes the course of natural erections over months to make the foreskin retractable. So cutting it off is very invasive and painful. Babies often go into a minor state of shock at the end of the procedure.
Oh, and babies ABSOLUTELY feel pain during circumcision. There are a ton of nerve endings in a penis, and they are active during the process of clamping and cutting.
An uncircumcized male baby's foreskin is firmly attached to the glans. In fact, it takes the course of natural erections over months to make the foreskin retractable. So cutting it off is very invasive and painful. Babies often go into a minor state of shock at the end of the procedure.
Colin_Admin
Member
the process is done to help keep infection down. i dont see anything wrong with it, plus it adds to the female sensation during sex.
Jaymes
The cake is a lie
jewscout said:
Both deprive a child of the right to their own genitals.
It might as well. The amount of pleasure for an uncircumcised man is far greater than that for a circumcised man.
You know the phrase "(bleep)ed her raw"? That's not just a crude phrase, it shows how a circumcised guy has to try to be able to get an erection, sustain it, and ejaculate. This causes serious sex issues, especially if someone is circumcised late in life.
Accident happen during circumcision. It's possible to sever the glans, part of the penis, or even the whole penis. (Warning: this has a picture of a penis. For obvious reasons.)
There's also a case of a boy who got a fever BECAUSE he was circumcised and may have become mentally retarded through that fever. Files of his stay in the hospital during that day have magically disappeared. Read on
And, yes, some do die.
You're confusing female circumcision with female genital mutilation. Female and male circumcision is the same--they both remove what protects a very sensitive organ. In the case of the female, it removes the clitoral hood. Removing the clitoris and sewing the labia shut is female genital mutilation, and something else entirely.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Why not rip off the tip of your tongue as a baby? Sure, it'll hurt for a while, but it won't hurt later. Sure it's completely unnescessary, but so what? Sure, It'll cause reduced tasting abilitiy later on in life, but, what the hell?
The analogy isn't equal, however. Having your foreskin removed is far worse, in my opinion. Of course, female circumsision is worse, but male circumsision is bad as well. Why is it justified that people are allowed to be mutilated (Mutilate: To disfigure by damaging irreparably. Can you regain your foreskin?)?
The analogy isn't equal, however. Having your foreskin removed is far worse, in my opinion. Of course, female circumsision is worse, but male circumsision is bad as well. Why is it justified that people are allowed to be mutilated (Mutilate: To disfigure by damaging irreparably. Can you regain your foreskin?)?
jewscout
Religious Zionist
So i'm just a freak of nature?:jiggy: all my parts seem to operate just fine!
I have to agree w/ TVOR if i had any more sensativity down there i don't think i could function lol
I also thought that female circumcision was a process of actually cutting of the clitoris. This was how it was taught to me in Human Sexuality at my college.
I have to agree w/ TVOR if i had any more sensativity down there i don't think i could function lol
I also thought that female circumcision was a process of actually cutting of the clitoris. This was how it was taught to me in Human Sexuality at my college.