Circumcision, is it a good thing? Is it really mandated by God?

[A Vestigial Mote]

My best guess is that this "mandate" falls in the same category as things like "do not east shellfish" - whereby there was likely some physical detriment to be had when uncircumcised during a particularly youthful period of human history. Perhaps once people started more often wearing heavier garments, or garments of certain types became the fashion (less breathable fabrics for example), there may have been bacterial concerns with having a full foreskin. Perhaps some boys/men had left themselves unclean for some lengths of time and had physical issues (e.g. infection) develop, and once enough of them had, because there was no "germ theory of disease," these early, ignorant people began talking about how "God was trying to tell them something." And so, they decided to take care of it. Not to mention the idea that there was probably no better way to solidify something as common practice than to inform gullible people that God has instructed that it be done.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My best guess is that this "mandate" falls in the same category as things like "do not east shellfish" - whereby there was likely some physical detriment to be had when uncircumcised during a particularly youthful period of human history. Perhaps once people started more often wearing heavier garments, or garments of certain types became the fashion (less breathable fabrics for example), there may have been bacterial concerns with having a full foreskin. Perhaps some boys/men had left themselves unclean for some lengths of time and had physical issues (e.g. infection) develop, and once enough of them had, because there was no "germ theory of disease," these early, ignorant people began talking about how "God was trying to tell them something." And so, they decided to take care of it. Not to mention the idea that there was probably no better way to solidify something as common practice than to inform gullible people that God has instructed that it be done.

The majority of human ethic and religious groups never practiced circumcision. It started with the ancient Egyptians as far as we know. The peoples who live in the frigid far North and have to bundle up all the time never practiced it. So that can't be the reason. It's not hard to find some water to wash yourself. It's the same with females, in terms of the need to clean yourself. I've asked devout Jews about it and they're not sure why God mandated of Jews. It's basically an African tribal, Jewish and Muslim thing. No one else commonly practices it. Infant circumsion is dying out in the US, as well. Most boys born here now are not circumcised anymore.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's compare comparable levels of surgical
alteration, eg, foreskin & labia.
Are you less opposed to MGM than FGM?

You have to remember that I am 73, now, and grew up in a world (North America) were male circumsion was pretty normal -- less so in Canada than the US, but still very common. In Canada it has dropped off a lot over the last few decades.

So I am culturally acclimatized, as it were, to male circumcision, and therefore feel less strongly about it than I do about FGM.

But my logic and reason tells me that I should object equally to both. And so now, overall, I do object equally to both in infants. If an adult wishes to be clipped or snipped, or there is a genuine medical need (phimosis, perhaps), then I have no objections at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By the way, there is a pretty good chance that the Israelites picked up the habit or male circumcision from Egyptians, who were doing it long before the Jews were. And no, I don't mean while they were "slaves in Goshen" because that's just fable. But there was a lot of traffic between all areas of the Levant and Egypt back in the days before Israel mushroomed out of the Canaanites.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, as you see there are two questions in this topic.

1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission. I have also seen some documentary that shows it is not such a good thing.

2. If you take the so called abrahamic theologies, the Bible clearly mandates circumcision. In the New Testament of course there is a dispute, and it is disputed. The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch, but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost mandatory. So considering each theology, is it mandated by God? And why??

What thoughts do you have on this?

Male circumcisions pros and cons...

Circumcision Benefits
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

• Less risk of urinary tract infections
• A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men
• Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners
• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)

Circumcision Risks
Like any other surgical procedure, there are risks in getting circumcision. But this risk is low. Problems linked to circumcision include:

• Pain
• Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
• Irritation of the glans
• Higher chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
• Risk of injury to the penis

Circumcision Basics


The scientific evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, it adds. This is a stronger statement regarding the medical benefits of circumcision than was included in the 1999 statement, reflecting the scientific evidence that has emerged since then.

Female genital cutting is mutilation and is not circumcision. The scientific evidence of female genital cutting indicates only harm and no health benefits.

Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The majority of human ethic and religious groups never practiced circumcision. It started with the ancient Egyptians as far as we know. The peoples who live in the frigid far North and have to bundle up all the time never practiced it. So that can't be the reason. It's not hard to find some water to wash yourself. It's the same with females, in terms of the need to clean yourself. I've asked devout Jews about it and they're not sure why God mandated of Jews. It's basically an African tribal, Jewish and Muslim thing. No one else commonly practices it. Infant circumsion is dying out in the US, as well. Most boys born here now are not circumcised anymore.

Good points all. Perhaps then, it had something to do with being able to "recognize your own?" Though by the time a woman might find herself in the position to identify this particular trait in a man, she might find herself in a somewhat awkward position.

And the strangest thing of all being why God would create man with a foreskin just to command him to lop it off immediately.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have to remember that I am 73, now, and grew up in a world (North America) were male circumsion was pretty normal -- less so in Canada than the US, but still very common. In Canada it has dropped off a lot over the last few decades.

So I am culturally acclimatized, as it were, to male circumcision, and therefore feel less strongly about it than I do about FGM.

But my logic and reason tells me that I should object equally to both. And so now, overall, I do object equally to both in infants. If an adult wishes to be clipped or snipped, or there is a genuine medical need (phimosis, perhaps), then I have no objections at all.

Dang....why are you so reasonable today?
It's no fun.

 

[Marcion]

There is a logical spiritual reason for circumcision.
When trying to ideate in a spiritual way, when practising yoga, you want to keep your thoughts pure and elevated (directed towards the spiritual goal).

This aim can be realised by controlling the mind, by controlling the senses, by keeping body and surroundings clean and by avoiding crude food or drink.

In the case of males, the mind is more easily controlled when there are less sexual stimuli.
The penis and especially the foreskin are very sensitive to touch even when moving about in loose underwear.

So in yoga practice, the penis is kept in a steady position in special tightly worn underwear (loin cloth, lungota or kaopina) and the foreskin is kept withdrawn within the underwear.

Circumcision merely makes it unnecessary to keep having to withdraw the foreskin.
I think it should be an adult choice, just like choosing cremation or burial should also be a free individual choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My best guess is that this "mandate" falls in the same category as things like "do not east shellfish" - whereby there was likely some physical detriment to be had when uncircumcised during a particularly youthful period of human history. Perhaps once people started more often wearing heavier garments, or garments of certain types became the fashion (less breathable fabrics for example), there may have been bacterial concerns with having a full foreskin. Perhaps some boys/men had left themselves unclean for some lengths of time and had physical issues (e.g. infection) develop, and once enough of them had, because there was no "germ theory of disease," these early, ignorant people began talking about how "God was trying to tell them something." And so, they decided to take care of it. Not to mention the idea that there was probably no better way to solidify something as common practice than to inform gullible people that God has instructed that it be done.

So... you think a reasonable response to unsanitary conditions that often lead to infections is unnecessary cosmetic surgery?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a logical spiritual reason for circumcision.
When trying to ideate in a spiritual way, when practising yoga, you want to keep your thoughts pure and elevated (directed towards the spiritual goal).

This aim can be realised by controlling the mind, by controlling the senses, by keeping body and surroundings clean and by avoiding crude food or drink.

In the case of males, the mind is more easily controlled when there are less sexual stimuli.
The penis and especially the foreskin are very sensitive to touch even when moving about in loose underwear.

So in yoga practice, the penis is kept in a steady position in special tightly worn underwear (loin cloth, lungota or kaopina) and the foreskin is kept withdrawn within the underwear.

Circumcision merely makes it unnecessary to keep having to withdraw the foreskin.
I think it should be an adult choice, just like choosing cremation or burial should also be a free individual choice.

It appears to me that you just made an
argument against circumcision.
(Foreskin covers the most sensitive part.)

 

[Marcion]

It appears to me that you just made an
argument against circumcision.
(Foreskin covers the most sensitive part.)

Sensitive indeed, so without wearing any clothes a foreskin is useful.
However when wearing clothes, the penis and foreskin move about touching the cloth.
So that is why in yoga you fix the penis in a tight position (pointing upwards) with the foreskin fixed in the withdrawn position.
Circumcision just makes things easier.
But the tight underwear is still needed for this prevention of sexual stimuli.

So the origins of circumcision are not religious but tantric.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because female circumcision is worse.

Anatomically, the male rough equivalent of female circumcision would be chopping the head off the penis.

There are different types of FGM, some of which could be equivalent but is still illegal. Especially ones which only effect the clitotal hood or vulva.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sensitive indeed, so without wearing any clothes a foreskin is useful.
However when wearing clothes, the penis and foreskin move about touching the cloth.
So that is why in yoga you fix the penis in a tight position (pointing upwards) with the foreskin fixed in the withdrawn position.
Circumcision just makes things easier.
But the tight underwear is still needed for this prevention of sexual stimuli.

Yoga sounds like something to avoid.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Male circumcisions pros and cons...

Circumcision Benefits
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

• Less risk of urinary tract infections
• A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men
• Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners
• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)

Circumcision Risks
Like any other surgical procedure, there are risks in getting circumcision. But this risk is low. Problems linked to circumcision include:

• Pain
• Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
• Irritation of the glans
• Higher chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
• Risk of injury to the penis

Circumcision Basics


The scientific evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, it adds. This is a stronger statement regarding the medical benefits of circumcision than was included in the 1999 statement, reflecting the scientific evidence that has emerged since then.

Female genital cutting is mutilation and is not circumcision. The scientific evidence of female genital cutting indicates only harm and no health benefits.

Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision

The 'benefits' are minimal and better curbed by good hygiene practices than circumcision. Which didn't arise out of health reasons but to deliberately control the sexual experience of men, same as female genital mutilation. Even if you made the argument that removal of part of the clitoral hood reduced urinary tract infections, it wouldn't excuse the purpose of doing so.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

Well, as you see there are two questions in this topic.

1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission. I have also seen some documentary that shows it is not such a good thing.

2. If you take the so called abrahamic theologies, the Bible clearly mandates circumcision. In the New Testament of course there is a dispute, and it is disputed. The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch, but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost mandatory. So considering each theology, is it mandated by God? And why??

What thoughts do you have on this?

It seems male circumcision is not as contested as female circumcision. But both suffer considerable sexual loss due to nerve damage: no orgasm at the climax of sex, but still able to procreate.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So... you think a reasonable response to unsanitary conditions that often lead to infections is unnecessary cosmetic surgery?

No. Not sure how it might be skewed to infer that I said that. I was only trying to come up with some logical path, or some type of reasoning that may have led to the thinking on circumcision as "necessary" by anyone in the first place. The idea I presented in that post was where I netted out. The early people I was speaking of wouldn't have fully understood "unsanitary conditions" or how to most easily prevent/avoid them. Plus, I posited that these people may have thought that "God was trying to tell them something." THAT is an unreasonable thought from the get-go.

 

[Vinayaka]

If a rational adult wants to modify their body, fair enough.
If there is a medical reason circumcision is needed, fair enough
For circumcision to be imposed an infant in the name of "that's the way it is" is barbaric

Operative word being 'barbaric'.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. Not sure how it might be skewed to infer that I said that. I was only trying to come up with some logical path, or some type of reasoning that may have led to the thinking on circumcision as "necessary" by anyone in the first place. The idea I presented in that post was where I netted out. The early people I was speaking of wouldn't have fully understood "unsanitary conditions" or how to most easily prevent/avoid them. Plus, I posited that these people may have thought that "God was trying to tell them something." THAT is an unreasonable thought from the get-go.

It appears that the health benefits accrue to early iron age
goatherds & contemporary 3rd world countries. Modern
countries have better hygiene, so the only "need" is either
cultural or religious. So let's eliminate the barbaric ritual.
Besides, boys & girls can elect to have cosmetic/religious
genital surgery when they reach an appropriate age.
18 years old sounds reasonable.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It appears that the health benefits accrue to early iron age
goatherds & contemporary 3rd world countries. Modern
countries have better hygiene, so the only "need" is either
cultural or religious. So let's eliminate the barbaric ritual.
Besides, boys & girls can elect to have cosmetic/religious
genital surgery when they reach an appropriate age.
18 years old sounds reasonable.

Believe me - I don't promote the idea of circumcision. It was asked "why" it would be mandated - that was the question I was answering. Apparently people took my meandering to be my answering the question of "is it a good thing?" I didn't even touch on that question, I don't think. At least... I certainly wasn't trying to.

 

[Teritos]

I view circumcision as genital mutilation, so I certainly don't think God demands it.

Do you deny the Old Testament?