Circumcision is Messed Up

[Tetra]

It really isn't that bad. People who aren't circumcised make it out to be equivalent to female genital mutilation. It's not. Stimulation is still possible. Sex is, obviously, still pleasurable. If anything a circumcised penis is merely "different" than an uncircumcised one. the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in women is more analogous to the glans of the penis (the head) than the foreskin. Since the glans is obviously not removed in circumcision, while in women the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is removed, the latter is much worse than the former. This is why the latter is illegal and discouraged by the WHO and the former is treated neutrally.

What we are talking about here is degrees of body mutilation. The reason circumcision is referred to as mutilation is simply because it is defined as such. It fits the actual definition.

Definition of MUTILATE
transitive verb
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors.
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

The foreskin is essential for various functions:
Foreskin - Wikipedia

Decreases in sexual pleasure and sensitivity have been well documented in the British Journal of Urology.

Sensitivity tests:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Effect on sex life:
The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

The reason its "okay" is because it's socially acceptable to remove a part of a child's body without consent... but no matter how socially acceptable it is, many of us maintain it's unethical.

 

[grandvizier1006]

What we are talking about here is degrees of body mutilation. The reason circumcision is referred to as mutilation is simply because it is defined as such. It fits the actual definition.

Definition of MUTILATE
transitive verb
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors.
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

The foreskin is essential for various functions:
Foreskin - Wikipedia

Decreases in sexual pleasure and sensitivity have been well documented in the British Journal of Urology.

Sensitivity tests:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Effect on sex life:
The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

The reason its "okay" is because it's socially acceptable to remove a part of a child's body without consent... but no matter how socially acceptable it is, many of us maintain it's unethical.

Were you circumcised as an infant? If so I can understand the resentment, but there is no need to encourage the mentality that circumcised men have "damaged" and "ruined" penises. To me the people that vehemently oppose circumcision have some deep-seated issue with their own, or they have some sexual frustration and want society to alter itself for a sense of security.

 

[blackribbon]

If that was the case (which I think there is very limited research), wouldn't it be just as effective to teach their children about proper hygiene?

I fail to see how hygiene justifies permanently altering someones body without their consent.

I do agree though, some justify it using this as their basis.

I believe in the hygiene portion because male children...and teens aren't always great at hygiene (wet toothbrush that never makes it into the mouth and begging guy to shower daily). Then on the opposite side of life, people often get reduced to being dependent on caregivers and I suspect that most are still uncomfortable pulling back another man's foreskin to clean it properly. I will never say anything about people who choose not to do it but it is easiest done on infants...both because they are smaller, have no memory, and really appear to tolerate the pain best...and no anesthesia is needed.

We do all sorts of medical procedures on children before they are able to "consent". I had my daughter's birth marks removed before she was two so that it wouldn't harm her self-esteem (actually, her father made the final decision because I was willing to teach her to be proud of them. Doctor recommended it at this time for a number of reasons...one being that insurance wouldn't have paid for it after her second birthday).

 

[Jacob Deng]

I don't get circumcision at all... and to be honest, to me it seems messed up that Christians still practice it.

No matter how you justify it, it's the genital mutilation of an un-consenting child. If you have proof that it's not, love to hear it.

Also, if it's so important, why aren't people simply allowing their child to make that decision when they're older?

Does anyone know why Christian's are still practicing this? I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

Well i can remember looking up circumcision because i myself wasn't, and there were health benefits and all that from a Science/Hospital website (some months ago), anyway that didn't move me the slightest,
I started reading the bible later and was born again/had some spiritual experiences that propelled my progress to grow forth in my faith/understanding, then i came across circumcision in the bible, and i was like oh no... then further on my learning i discovered this.

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

unlike the old testimony, we are a new creation, one that doesn't need Circumcision, because we are born of God.
John 1:13 "children born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but born of God."
I don't see any reason why you had to generalise Christians on that one :/.

Also sorry but unbelievers or non Christians do it as of our time now, for example when i shew my father that circumcision come from the teachings of the old testimony so that i could give the reason why then it's no longer needed, he responded with saying this already took place without any knowledge of why behind it.

 

[-ttebayo]

I also don't understand why Christians still practice this. It seems to mostly be for cosmetic reasons, or so they can "look like dad." I'm not looking down on the parents who make the choice, I just feel like there's never a good reason for why they did it. But we're all trying to do what's best for our kids. I understand why in places like Middle Eastern countries they continue to do it, but I think it's just become the norm in America now and ppl are too desensitized to think of it as mutilation.

My husband and I decided to have our son kept intact, because it seemed like the best decision to us.

 

[ken777]

Our God, who created the human body, would not command his chosen to people to carry out a harmful practice as a sign of his love and favor.

Christians do not need to practice circumcision as a means to earn salvation because Jesus Christ provided a full and complete atonement.

 

[BeachBabe87]

It was due to health reasons back in Biblical times, in the modern world of medicine and particularly in the developed world it's not needed anymore. But go to a third world country and boy howdy it's a necessity to prevent infection and disease.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It was due to health reasons back in Biblical times, in the modern world of medicine and particularly in the developed world it's not needed anymore. But go to a third world country and boy howdy it's a necessity to prevent infection and disease.

lt's still a distinguishing characteristic of Jews; something that makes them different from Gentiles. Any attempts to ban it would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

 

[BeachBabe87]

lt's still a distinguishing characteristic of Jews; something that makes them different from Gentiles. Any attempts to ban it would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

It was also that but a lot of Jewish law was to preserve the line of the Jewish people for health reasons.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It was also that but a lot of Jewish law was to preserve the line of the Jewish people for health reasons.

Yes, there is truth there.

It's also not adequate for some ppl today today to say, Don't circumcise; but use condoms. (As if one thing is the sanitary equivalent of the other.)

 

[faroukfarouk]

This I suppose this is where we differ... I don't belive it should be the right of a parent to chose that.

It distinguishes Jews from Gentiles. Any attempt to ban it would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

 

[HondaMan]

Christians don't "practice" circumcision. Circumcision is done by many people for health reasons. I had to get mine at 24 for a health reason too.

 

[HondaMan]

Decreases in sexual pleasure and sensitivity have been well documented in the British Journal of Urology.

Sensitivity tests:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Effect on sex life:
The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

I'd say I passed those tests...

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'd say I passed those tests...

Oh okay...

 

[PloverWing]

I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

I'm a Christian mother. My husband and I decided not to circumcise our son, exactly because of the concerns Tetra expressed in the original post.

 

[SeventyOne]

I don't get circumcision at all... and to be honest, to me it seems messed up that Christians still practice it.

No matter how you justify it, it's the genital mutilation of an un-consenting child. If you have proof that it's not, love to hear it.

Also, if it's so important, why aren't people simply allowing their child to make that decision when they're older?

Does anyone know why Christian's are still practicing this? I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

Christians practice this as all other types of people practice it, because for most it is a medical procedure, not a religious procedure.

As far as consent is concerned, a parent doesn't have to get the consent of the child, any more than they need the child's consent for any other medical or dental procedure.

If you don't like it, don't do it. But don't think anyone else is obligated to do the same or to feel compelled to explain themselves to you in any way.

 

[Tetra]

Christians practice this as all other types of people practice it, because for most it is a medical procedure

They do practice it, still doesn't make it right...

As far as consent is concerned, a parent doesn't have to get the consent of the child, any more than they need the child's consent for any other medical or dental procedure.

I don't think parents should have the right to cut off a piece of their child's body, for mostly aesthetic reasons, with very few "benefits" which are debated by the medical community itself. I think it's unethical.

But don't think anyone else is obligated to do the same or to feel compelled to explain themselves to you in any way.

When did I ever say someone is obligated to feel or do anything, or explain themselves to me? I said I think it's unethical.

 

[Hetta]

I don't get circumcision at all... and to be honest, to me it seems messed up that Christians still practice it.

No matter how you justify it, it's the genital mutilation of an un-consenting child. If you have proof that it's not, love to hear it.

Also, if it's so important, why aren't people simply allowing their child to make that decision when they're older?

Does anyone know why Christian's are still practicing this? I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

Male circumcision is not the norm for Christian males in my own culture, but it is in American culture, and so I let my husband make that decision, and he desired to have them circumcised as he was. In retrospect, I wish I had held out for them to make their own choice, but it is too late now. When my sons have their own children, I will tell them to think about it more than once before making that decision.

In retrospect now, I cannot see much difference between circumcising a boy or a girl. It is a barbaric practice and should not be done to any baby.

 

[dqhall]

In the 1960's I had my tonsils surgically removed. Years later doctors decided this was likely unnecessary surgery and reduced the number of these surgeries performed. There were no public outcries about tonsillectomies being mutilation, but a concern this was expensive unnecessary surgery.

I was reading about HPV - human papillomavirus. This STD is thought by some to be more easily spread by uncircumcised males. I did not find studies to prove the theory.

Circumcision was first practiced by the ancient Egyptians before the Bible was written. It is practiced by Jews and Muslims. Circumcision is a not a major concern one way or the other. It is not mutilation, nor essential for most men's health. I do not read of men mourning the loss of their foreskins, nor are many men eager to pay thousands of dollars to have the procedure done.

 

[Cimorene]

I was told that thousands of yrs ago it was healthier bc it helped to prevent infections & stuff, but now with modern hygiene it's not at all. I don't think it should be done anymore.