|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Circumcision
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Recently I congratulated a Muslim friend on the birth of his first child, a son.
He told me about the requirements which accompany such an event, such as shaving the child, weighing the hair, and giving the value of the equivalent weight in silver to charity; sacrificing two sheep (he admitted in embarrassment that it was only one for a daughter, but laughed that off as mere “custom”); and circumcision.
Hearing about circumcision in this context, instead of the more familiar Judaeo-Christian context, brought home to me what a bizarre concept it is.
I have no idea why God commanded the Jews to do it as a sign of covenant, and it remains an issue for Christians today even though it is not commanded.
I was circumcised, and had my son circumcised because at the time (forty years ago) it seemed the normal thing to do, but I don’t think I would have it done today.
He and his wife decided not to have my grand-son (now twelve) circumcised.
Its only merit appears to be the opportunity for the old feminist joke:-
What is the useless piece of flesh on the end of a penis?
Answer: A man.
Or the alleged reference by Shakespeare to circumcision by imams, rabbis or priests: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends / Rough-hew them how we will”.
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.
There is no “party line” on circumcision in evangelicalism.
Do other Christian traditions make any sort of a deal about it these days?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I presume you're in the US.
Here in the UK it is very much a non-issue.
Most of us are happily intact.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Not an issue here either. I think the general view among Christians is that if there is no medical necessity then we absolutely should not circumcise. Why it became so popular in the US, I don't know, though I have my theories.
I'm all for a ban on circumcision, even if it restricts religious freedom of some. It is, after all, genital mutilation.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The thing is, I don't think male and female circumcision are equally bad. Male circumcision can, after all, be a very positive thing medically - tight foreskins etc, FGM however, AFIAK, has no medical or hygenic benefits. Millions of men are circumcised - maybe we need to ask them what the merits or otherwise are.
Also, do most men feel they have been mutilated, as I guess women and girls will feel about their FGM?
I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 22. April 2014, 08:12: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
Not much of an issue in Australia either... I used to be a chaplain in the maternity unit.
[ 22. April 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Rowen ]
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And neonatal circumcision used be the norm here also, less so now than until 30 or so years ago, though. I hope that this thread is not going to degenerate into a rerun of one a couple of years ago, when those of us who have been circumcised were described as mutilated or worse.
Mudfrog says that happily he has not been circumcised; I say that happily, I have been. I accept what he says. Does he accept what I say?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I presume you're in the US.
Here in the UK it is very much a non-issue.
Most of us are happily intact.
Australia, actually, but I'm not offended because I am certainly not anti-American.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And neonatal circumcision used be the norm here also, less so now than until 30 or so years ago, though. I hope that this thread is not going to degenerate into a rerun of one a couple of years ago, when those of us who have been circumcised were described as mutilated or worse.
Mudfrog says that happily he has not been circumcised; I say that happily, I have been. I accept what he says. Does he accept what I say?
Indeed I do. I don't hear a clamour for anti-circumcision and I have heard that a lot of people find it aesthetically pleasing.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
FGM is not comparable to male circumcision. FGM often totally prevents sexual intercourse, and force is often necessary for sex and for giving birth. FGM is equivalent to cutting off the whole penis, not just the foreskin. There are still consent issues with male circumcision, and I don't think it should be the norm for that reason (I have no opinion on intact v non-intact penises!). I am happy for it to be for religious reasons only.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
From the theological point of view, I understand it as God wanting the whole nation of Israel to 'sign up' to the covenant at the time of Moses, and this was an indication of that commitment. I've read arguments as to its health benefits within the conditions of the time. Also, fertility and procreation was of paramount importance to the people. This was connected with the belief that all children were God given, as was the flourishing of a nation it was intertwined with: therefore the penis was a very appropriate place to make the commitment.
As Jesus was circumcised, and was the firstborn son, when we partake of his body and blood in the Eucharist we share in the covenant without the necessity to be circumcised, at the same time making our commitment to the new covenant.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Of course it's mutilation and it's done for cultural rather than medical reasons so it's in the same camp as tattoos and ear piercings. It's an aesthetic thing.
FGM on the other hand is not an aesthetic thing, it's a control thing and is different for that reason.
Personally I'm against circumcision on anything other than medical grounds, I don't understand how its acceptable to do this and unacceptable to get your kid tattooed. But it's not my decision to make for other people so I'll stay out of it.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Proud to be a Cavalier rather than a Roundhead here, but can North American shipmates explain why so many men there are the latter?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Or the alleged reference by Shakespeare to circumcision by imams, rabbis or priests: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends / Rough-hew them how we will”.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Proud to be a Cavalier rather than a Roundhead here, but can North American shipmates explain why so many men there are the latter?
It's an extra healthcare cost for parents to pay for, along with giving birth in hospital (pregnancy and childbirth is highly medicalised in the US - doctor-led rather than midwife-led, and homebirths are illegal in many states). It's seen as more hygienic too, but didn't become common until the late 1800s.
It generally does not improve hygiene in healthy people, however it does significantly reduce female-to-male HIV transmission and so is recommended by the WHO in countries with high endemic rates of HIV.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Circumcision significantly reduces the passing on of ALL infections/viruses/general nasties.
One of the things that put researchers onto the track of the HPV as a factor in cervical cancer was the incredibly low incidence of cervical cancer in orthodox Jewish women...
There is NO 'female circumcision': its mutilation and it can, and does, kill.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I believe some African Christians still practice circumcision so it isn't just Jews and muslims.
I once saw a television programme where a child psychologist commented on a circumcision and identified pain and trauma in the baby's eyes.
I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.
The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Circumcision was recommended for all boys by doctor's associations in the US for a long time. It was said to reduce rates of penile cancer and a host of other diseases. Even when the evidence of the health benefits began to be questioned, many "experts" said it should be continued so that uncircumcised boys would not be made fun of in locker rooms.
In a way, near-universal circumcision (until recently) was one of many things that made Jews feel fully integrated into society and led to the attitude that made academics and politicians talk of society being based on "Judeo-Christian" values rather than just "Christian" values.
In the US, doctor's associations changed their recommendations to say that circumcision should be up to the discretion of the parents a few decades ago, but some of them have gone back to recommending it recently based on new evidence of health benefits.
As for Islamic circumcision, in some societies it is not done until boys are older and is a "coming of age" ritual of sorts. It's a bit more of an "intense" experience at an older age.
I think banning male circumcision does much more harm than good. The decrease in sexual sensation for men is a loss but it also has benefits such as delaying orgasm and allowing intercourse to last longer. It's not even in the same ballpark as female genital mutilation, which unlike male circumcision, has no religious basis. Given the relatively low level of harm, I would strongly against banning traditional Jews from observing this most fundamental of their religious laws in countries where they were long the discriminated minority.
As for aesthetics, I can't speak for women, but among gay men there are three camps - those who don't care (the largest), those who love whatever is "exotic" in their society (which would be being uncut in the US, being cut in Europe), and those who think that whatever looks different from their own body is "weird." Some people prefer cut penises because they think they are more hygienic - to which this uncut guy says that there is a thing called a shower that is not that difficult to use. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Knob-jockey!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Takes one to know one!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Circumcision significantly reduces the passing on of ALL infections/viruses/general nasties.
One of the things that put researchers onto the track of the HPV as a factor in cervical cancer was the incredibly low incidence of cervical cancer in orthodox Jewish women...
There is NO 'female circumcision': its mutilation and it can, and does, kill.
Female-to-male infection of HIV is the only case where the benefit of circumcision is higher than the negative effects, and so is the only case of circumcision being specifically recommended by a major health body. It also seems to have little impact on infection rates of STIs in general between MSM (men who have sex with men) except for perhaps syphilis.
As for HPV, it is in fact present in most women and causes no problems. Circumcision does not have an impact on new infections, but rather helps to remove the virus from the body. Orthodox Jews are also a small minority of circumcised men - 70% are Muslim. It may be that Orthodox Jewish women are just less prone to HPV (I'm wondering if the monthly mikveh makes a difference), especially since female-to-male infections are the ones usually reduced by circumcision, and the oral type of HPV (that causes genital warts) is the kind more common in men - and genital wart infections do not appear to be affected by circumcision. Circumcision is not recommended by the WHO or other major health bodies as a prevention for HPV infection.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Is there anything you don't know about Jade?
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
It's common in America because the AAP supports it
" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics
AAP follow up
[ 22. April 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?
Toss it in with third molars and the appendix.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It seems females need to circumcision about as much as males need gynecologists. As for male circumcision, what has been said here before about hygiene and health reasons seems to cover it.
As for other Christians making a deal out of it, we have been in the same congregation since 1981 and, while we may talk about Peter, we've never talked about peters.
I read a book by a preacher a few years ago and he recalled many years earlier the time he was walking through the classroom area and noticed a big penis drawn on a chalkboard. He asked the Sunday school teacher what the heck was going on and it turns out that they had read a portion of scripture that mentioned circumcision. Some of the kids didn't know what that was so she drew them a picture.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?
Innit! Thank gawd I've still got mine and that it was never the norm here, just as God intended.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The medical benefits of circumcision are overexaggerated. This is proven by that fact that where circumcision is not the norm, such as here, there has been no outbreak of willy infections and the like. It makes one wonder then if there is another reason, a more sinister one, why it remains popular in some countries, even Christian ones.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
It's common in America because the AAP supports it
" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics
AAP follow up
No, it's common because it's culturally accepted, for reasons which remain mysterious. Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease. IIRC it offers at best a 30% improvement for HPV, which is far, far less than vaccination.
It gained traction in North America as a quasi-medical cure-all in the 1880's-1930's in the era before antibiotics. Cultural taboos against masturbation also helped. The AAP recommended against it starting in the late 1970's and just changed it stance in the last few years.
Canada followed the US lead but it was deemed "not medically necessary" by Provincial public health insurance plans in the 1980's. The rates have since fallen, in some places off a cliff.
In some places in Canada, circumcision rates were never that high at any time, like Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
As Inspector Parker once said, there are many difficulties inherent in a teleological view of creation. If you want real inefficiencies of design, consider your knees. Or your retinas. Or your appendix.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems females need to circumcision about as much as males need gynecologists.
A tad off topic but gynecologists do treat men.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
It's common in America because the AAP supports it
" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics
AAP follow up
No, it's common because it's culturally accepted, for reasons which remain mysterious. Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease. IIRC it offers at best a 30% improvement for HPV, which is far, far less than vaccination.
It gained traction in North America as a quasi-medical cure-all in the 1880's-1930's in the era before antibiotics. Cultural taboos against masturbation also helped. The AAP recommended against it starting in the late 1970's and just changed it stance in the last few years.
Canada followed the US lead but it was deemed "not medically necessary" by Provincial public health insurance plans in the 1980's. The rates have since fallen, in some places off a cliff.
In some places in Canada, circumcision rates were never that high at any time, like Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure.
I think you underestimate the influence pediatricians and the AAP have with new parents. Many people find the AAP claims that it guards health and that the benefits outweigh the risks compelling.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.
Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?
The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?
Just asking - it doesn't really matter to me. It's no skin off my nose... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Sorry, it had to be said.
[ 22. April 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there anything you don't know about Jade?
There is a lot I don't know about Jade, but I can live with that.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?
The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?
That seems eminently sensible to me. Though I have no idea whether circumcision actually was already an accepted cultural sign in that way.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure
I totally agree. Unless a male is born with a foreskin too tight to allow normal urination, there's no reason on earth to mutilate his for social reasons. Its origins most likely lie in fertility rituals common in the ancient Middle East and other cultures worldwide. Its place in the story of Abraham is probably sacrificial, in that it represents a sealing of the covenant with a personal sacrifice, in response to God's pledge of fidelity to his descendents. But just as we no longer sacrifice animals in Christianity, there's no further need to sacrifice foreskins!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
there's no reason on earth to mutilate his for social reasons.
Um, yeah, mutilate is the best word to use.
I agree that it is most probably an unnecessary modification, but it hardly fits in the same category as FGM or hacking off ears, noses or limbs.
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A tad off topic but gynecologists do treat men.
Hope they decontaminate between to eliminate the transfer of cooties.
[ 22. April 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.
The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.
I have been circumcised in adulthood - twice - and I can confirm it leads to significant desensitisation.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
To be fair, it is likely that the effect is in influenced by at what developmental stage the procedure is carried out.
Also, forgive my curiosity, but how is it possible to be circumcised twice ? Isn't that like having you appendix out twice ?
[ 22. April 2014, 19:12: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.
The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.
I have been circumcised in adulthood - twice - and I can confirm it leads to significant desensitisation.
One, as mentioned, there is likely a significant difference between circumcision as an adult and an infant.
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I don't know of any of our clients performing circumcisions. If they do, then they must not be reporting tip income.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.
Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?
The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?
Just asking - it doesn't really matter to me. It's no skin off my nose...
Sorry, it had to be said.
.
I think it really depends on how you see the relationship between human religion and holy scriptures on the one hand, and the God sho created all things seen snd unseen on the other. I'm not sure there is any right or wrong answer in this particular case. I don't think cultural phenomena and theism or religious truth are mutually exclusive. I'm cut BTW and have never felt my orgasmic sensation was lacking. I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians. Obviously it was decided at Jerusalem that it isn't necessary. I do believe that it should not be legally proscribed for Jews and Muslims, and therefore I don't see how it can be legally prohibited at all. Finally I should say my spouse is uncut and I don't care one way or the other -- I like his dick just the way it is. If I had a son, i likely would not have him circumcised, but ig is rather a moot point.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Sorry about tne typos above -- edit window passed before I could correct. Typing on the iphone.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I believe some African Christians still practice circumcision so it isn't just Jews and muslims.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, as mentioned, there is likely a significant difference between circumcision as an adult and an infant.
fwiw, when teaching in central Africa last summer, I was surprised when one of my students (from a different tribe than the students I usually teach) shared some of their still current "coming of age" rituals, which included circumcision of 12 year old boys.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.
I would argue tha
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.
I would argue that not only should Christians not circumcise but that it is also sinful, except in cases of medical necessity. The Apostle makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not circumcise in his epistle to the Galatians.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.
I would argue that not only should Christians not circumcise but that it is also sinful, except in cases of medical necessity. The Apostle makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not circumcise in his epistle to the Galatians.
Given that Paul circumcised Timothy, it would seem more accurate to say that Galatians argues that we should require circumcision.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Then what does the Apostle mean when he says "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then what does the Apostle mean when he says "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"?
Whoops-- I left out a "not" in my post above. Paul is arguing that we should not require circumcision, or see it as a guaranteed entrance to the Kingdom-- because that would be a false hope. We are to put our trust in Christ.
[ 22. April 2014, 22:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification.
I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.
[ 22. April 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Neither appropriate nor inappropriate.
quote:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
