Circumcision; to be or not to be?

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Krumple wrote:

I don't agree with this at all. You usually have some well thought out things to say, so don't take this as an attack but i disagree completely here. i can speak for myself, and im a pretty analytical person, from my experience it seems that a majority of the time, sex is probably 80% psychological and the rest being physical. sensitivity is (for me) not a problem, but then again maybe i am an exception to the rule?

but maybe i should put it this way since i am circumcised, that had i not been, i think walking around would be a problem. 8)

It seems that you've only experienced one side of the coin. So have I, but there are many studies and anecdotal reports that support the fact that foreskin is more than just about aesthetics. Though the studies do conflict as to whether or not sensitivity is increased or decreased, or as to whether or not the patient was satisfied with the outcome...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481425

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11956453

Quote:
"Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."

It seems that it's just kind of the luck of the draw...maybe some of these guys are getting better surgeons?

This sounds much more reasonable to me. but can i also shift gears a little bit. i think the most absurd aspect to circumcision is the religious part of it. why would an all powerful being care about a meaningless piece of skin? it just sounds so pathetically petty and insignificant. to put it in another way so you can see where im going with this. it would be like us scrutinizing some bacteria. why would we care about the activity of bacteria?

it just sounds so lopsided and more about the humanistic perspective rather than a massive intellect. the only way i can make sense of it, is to place it into superstition and leave it at that. and to put it another way again, if there was a supreme intelligence who was the designer behind everything, who had a thing for skin, i wouldn't want anything to do with such a being because it is so trivial that if it was concerned about skin, it is nothing but insanity. the universe is huge, and full of amazing things and the interconnection of everything that it would get so hung up on a piece of flesh. it is ridiculous.

1 Reply

I am guess it was a cultural more having to do with 'uncleanness' written into the book by the authors of that time.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I am guess it was a cultural more having to do with 'uncleanness' written into the book by the authors of that time.

Yes. And then Israel and Judaism's influence in the United States...I would think is a large part of why the custom is much more popular here than anywhere else. Also there are claims about disease or infection prevention, but I don't think this is rooted in facts. They seem to be getting along fine in Europe without the procedure...

Also, I thought there was some part of the bible where Jesus told a disciple or somebody that circumcision was no longer necessary. Circumcision represented the "old covenant" with the God of the Torah, but then this changed with Jesus' arrival. In which case, why is this practice still so widespread in Christian America?

1 Reply

This seems so petty... personally being a man not circumcised, I think its cruel for a man to have his foreskin removed just because of a reason of aesthetics, its incredibly shallow. I must admit, I have seen some ugly vagina's, though I would never ask a woman to change her appearance at the basis of my own interests. So I'd tell him not to, and to leave you and find someone else.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

The original context of circumcision was where men had multiple wives and without the ability to wash thoroughly every day, it is possible to transmit some very nasty infections from one women's vagina to another. Although these germs might be quite harmles to the original host, they can cause painful and debilitating infections that may affect fertility.

By removing the foreskin, the germs would perish before the next wife could get infected. The custom comes not from the Jewish hillbillies but from the Egyptians who had rather good gynaecological practices. It seems to have moved to the hillbillies before the time of Abraham.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Circumcision in the modern world makes as much sense as cutting ears off of people who dont wash behind them.

Quote:

I thought there was some part of the bible where Jesus told a disciple or somebody that circumcision was no longer necessary

That is correct. There was a deliberate attempt by Jesus to distinguish between his new brand of Judaism and the old. To this end, and to promote foriegn converts, many of whom would be reluctant to undergo the painful process later in life, circumcision was not required by Christians.

Surveys have shown most women who approve of circumcision do so for reasons such as they want the boy to look like their dad, or it looks better....these are hardly adequate reasons unless women want to have sex with their own sons.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Surveys have shown most women who approve of circumcision do so for reasons such as they want the boy to look like their dad, or it looks better....these are hardly adequate reasons unless women want to have sex with their own sons.

I can't believe this is the conclusion you stopped on. you can't see the fact that perhaps if it were true that these mothers are wanting their sons to be circumcised, it would because of their own point of view? Think about it.

The mother preferred a circumcised penis over one that was not, then she would project that belief onto society thinking that a potential mate for her son would also be more accepting if the son were circumcised.

I highly doubt that the mother is motivated by wanting to have sex with her own son. I think someone has been reading too much Freud.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I can't believe this is the conclusion you stopped on. you can't see the fact that perhaps if it were true that these mothers are wanting their sons to be circumcised, it would because of their own point of view? Think about it.

The mother preferred a circumcised penis over one that was not, then she would project that belief onto society thinking that a potential mate for her son would also be more accepting if the son were circumcised.

I highly doubt that the mother is motivated by wanting to have sex with her own son. I think someone has been reading too much Freud.

Yea, I think you've got it here Krumple. It's just ingrained into our society, and people don't want themselves (or their sons) to stick out and be "weird". Also, there's the highly influential American porn industry, which might have an effect on our collective subconscious...always featuring that organ CUT and VERY LARGE, which could also explain the fascination with growth-inducing pills and pumps, etc. The fashion industry ushered in the anorexic look for women, so the porn industry could at least perpetuate the ideal male shape...

0 Replies

@Paperheartstrings,

Paperheartstrings, if your man does decide to to have himself circumcised I would like to offer my services (with a free internet consultation). If you manage to convince him before the end of the month it would be great as I am currently running a fantastic, internet-only promotion. TILL JUNE 30th. CIRCUMCISIONS, HALF OFF!

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

I highly doubt that the mother is motivated by wanting to have sex with her own son.

As do I. I do not see how a woman can justify circumcising her son so his penis will look better or look like his father. No woman is that worried about the sex life of her baby that all other considerations are not as important. Not every woman in societies that have circumcision also have multiple partners before marriage. No woman is that worried about her son's penis looking like dad's. There has to be some Oedipus/Freudian connection at a deeper level than the physical. Why arent they worried about cutting off bits of their daughters ? Anyway my whole point was the reason is inadequate.

0 Replies

@Mildly Inappropriate,

What if he wants it ALL OFF?

1 Reply

@Paperheartstrings,

Paperheartstrings wrote:

And don't call me darling or sweetie as if I'm your child. That's just creepy.

Wait. You don't like being minimized, insulted, and condescended to? Gee... maybe you shouldn't act that way to other people, then. See the point?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

. i think the most absurd aspect to circumcision is the religious part of it. why would an all powerful being care about a meaningless piece of skin? it just sounds so pathetically petty and insignificant.

Indeed...it's odd, though, as quite a large number of peoples seem to see cutting bits off, or putting holes in, or both, the penis as an important part of religious life, or as a really nice way of ushering males into adulthood.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

It's a way of distinguishing your tribe from the neighboring tribe.

Scarification, tattoos, secret handshakes, circumcision, silly haircuts: all designed to make you belong to a certain subset of humanity.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It's a way of distinguishing your tribe from the neighboring tribe.

Scarification, tattoos, secret handshakes, circumcision, silly haircuts: all designed to make you belong to a certain subset of humanity.

Not sure, really.

It was/is (in people with a strong traditional component in their lives) pretty universal in Australian Aborigines, I think, across the whole continent. Muslims and Jews do it...that's a large tribe.

I did a thread on a kind of social evolutionary explanation that I'd read about a while back.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Have you tried reading the last page or two? I'm on your side, relax!

0 Replies

@cassavetes,

There was a lot more to my feelings than simply aesthetics. If you read previously, there were past reasons. I will admit it's rather shallow, but regardless of how shallow it may be, I'm not asking him to do anything. Like I've said before, he put himself in the line of judgment when he offered it (so obviously, it's not a large deal to him as it is to many of you). I've decided against it, so no, I'm not so shallow. I wouldn't make a man leave over something like a piece of skin.

1 Reply

@Mildly Inappropriate,

Very funny, but I'm not changing my mind, lol.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

What if he wants it ALL OFF?

Then he'd be eunuch. I mean, "unique."

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad, I was completely polite with you. Your "get over it or get over him" remark was offensive, in my opinion, and I told you it was. You continued with the "wambulance" comment. I did nothing to you and you attempted to get under my skin. My reaction was justified as I waited for you to insult me twice before I said anything even slightly rude. Whether you found them offensive or not isn't the point, because I did. Talking about leaving my man is a big deal to me and I don't take it lightly. You have no idea about what I've been through to even keep him.

You should take your own advice about acting that way to other people, then. See my point?

1 Reply

Circumcision; to be or not to be?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know