Circumcision technique issues

How about this: my genitals are nobody's business but my own?

ViaCrucis said:

How about this: my genitals are nobody's business but my own?

Click to expand...

I agree, which is why parents don't have a right over my genitals - and I think it's pedophilic when they claim to.

Dogheaded said:

I agree, which is why parents don't have a right over my genitals - and I think it's pedophilic when they claim to.

Click to expand...

Is your argument, then, that under the Old Covenant when God gave the commandment to circumcise every Jewish male child, that it was pedophlic?

Or are you simply being a provocateur?

JohnClay said:

BTW I think the most controversial part of the topic was the "oral suction" technique where a man sucks on a baby's parts to remove the blood and how it has sometimes resulted in herpes in the infant. Do you think men who use that technique should get in trouble?

Click to expand...

Obviously, I do. It seems even more pedophilic.

ViaCrucis said:

Is your argument, then, that under the Old Covenant when God gave the commandment to circumcise every Jewish male child, that it was pedophlic?

Or are you simply being a provocateur?

Click to expand...

"Circlist has always permitted, and will continue to permit, circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise."
– Ben Winkie. (2005, June) (International Circumsexual Symposium, Washington, D.C.)

"Interests: Being masturbated whilst circumcision is being discussed. Watching circumcisions with others. Etc."
– Ben Winkie (Weblog)

Ben Winkie has also released materials of him pleasuring himself over infant circumcision restraint devices.

"It is likely also that mutilating the genitals of others has a deep sexual motive. This motive combined with the urge to control people when, in the nineteenth century, doctors first introduced medicalized circumcision in the vain attempt to prevent masturbation... It would seem wholly plausible that inflicting circumcision on a boy provides some circumcisers and onlookers with a sexual thrill. Groups such as the Acorn Society, the Gilgal Society, and the Cutting Club openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. There are those on the Internet who discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life." - Christopher P. Price, Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice., Pages 425-454. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999.

John M. Foley, M.D., in 1966, also wrote, "Circumcision provides a convenient and socially acceptable outlet for the perverted component of the circumciser's libido."... and, " And I say that one of the reasons why circumcision is so common in this country stems from the sadism of the crypto-pervert."

Morris L. Sorrells, M.D. has talked about people who are sexually motivated by circumcision.

So, this is hardly being a provocateur as much as it is revealing the unwanted disturbing truth.

Do you require more sources?

I would also like to point out the studies the AAP uses to very controversially claim the 'potential health benefit' of HIV prevention from circumcision were done by men like Daniel T. Halperin Ph.D., who promotes and is proud of being a member of Circlist - an online group that exists for writing and distributing fetish material (erotica [usually involving minors or infants], images) of circumcision and child pornography. A moderator of Circlist, Vernon Quaintance, was convicted for child pornography and molesting an 11 year old boy - served 40 days in jail. Vernon Quaintance also founded and lead the Gilgal Society - and published a full book of circumcision erotica, as well as distrubited video tapes.

Edgar J. Schoen M.D., who was on the AAP committee about circumcision in 1989 and 1999 was also involved with Circlist and the Gilgal Society (being in a position of being able to approve or disapprove content) prior to his death in 2016. Penn (from Penn & Teller) reported that Schoen said circumcised penises smell and look better. And here is a line from some of his circumcision poetry "It's a great work of art like the statue of Venus if you're wearing a hat on the head of your penis." - Schoen

Thomas E. Wiswell, M.D., published a long series of now discredit studies claiming circumcision prevented urinary tract infections. He coauthors articles with Brian Morris and is associated with the Gilgal Society. Edgar J. Schoen used these discredited and methodologically flawed studies for 1989 AAP Circumcision Policy Statement.
"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time.
– Wiswell (1987-6-22) (The age-old question of circumcision. Boston Globe, p. 43)

Brian Morris, DSc. one of the biggest promotors of circumcision, and who co-authored many scientific articles on the subject was deeply involved in Circlist and the Gilgal Society. He On his website he also recommended websites with the following titles; Erotic Male Circumcision, Circumcised Kids, Circumcision Fetish, SCARandACORN, Teen Circ, Cutting Club, and Beschnittene Gay Boys. He was secretary of Circumcision Academy of Australia - another group dedicated to circumcision erotica and promoting circumcision culturally in Australia.
He has attempted to have critics fired from their positions and has attempted to block research publication that is contrary to his own published work, including the studies of Morten Frisch M.D., Ph.D. (a professor of sexual health epidemiology.) Morris used his mailing list to enact a campaign to write critical letters to the editors of the International Journal of Epidemiology. Brian Morris, along with Jake Waskett and Ronald Gray made extensive, obstructive peer-review comments in a review which included serious insinuations of racism and amateurism. "Breaking unwritten confidentiality and courtesy rules of the peer-review process, Morris distributed his slandering criticism of our study to people working for the same cause." - Morten Frisch
"Circumcision should be made compulsitory." - Brian J. Morris

Jake H. Waskett (no degree), a member of both Circlist and the Gilgal Society, was the #1 editor of circumcision articles on Wikipedia from 2004 - 2012. He is good friends with convicted pedophile Vernon Quaintance. He has coauthored pro-circumcision articles with Daniel Halperin and Thomas E. Wiswell. He also coauthored with Brian Morris who he was/is in regular contact with.

Robert C. Bailey, Ph.D, has published with Brian Morris and has written multiple articles advocated for widespread or universal circumcision. Bailey is an associate of the Gilgal Society."I know foreskin is not pretty, but these slides are pretty." - Bailey

Dr. Stefan A. Bailis, MA, PhysD, LP has published articles with Brian J. Morris, Thomas E. Wiswell, Jake Waskett, Edgar J. Schoen, and Ronald H. Gray.

Guy Cox Ph.D., a member of Circumcision Academy of Australia, writes erotic stories which make reference to the topic of circumcision. One of these stories is called "Airport Encounter." He was/is an active member of Inter-circ, "a global male circumcision appreciation group." He has co-authored parts of a book named, "Surgical Guide to Circumcision,” with Brian Morris. He owned a website boyguard.com, which attempted to sell chastity belts for teenage boys.

Dr. Leslie Schrieber, a member of Circumcision Academy of Australia, and co-author with Brian Morris.

Robin J. Willcourt is an American gynecologist and obstetrician, was a member of the alleged medical organisation Circumcision Academy of Australia. In 1999, Willcourt was found guilty of disorderly conduct, whilst practicing as a Gynecologist/Obstetrician in the USA. The Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subsequently found that the offense constituted ‘a crime involving moral turpitude’ and ordered him to pay $4,055.35 ‘for costs involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case against him’. Willcourt’s explanation of the incident: ‘just imagine you’re there in the bushes and you’re taking a leak and somebody comes up behind you and starts talking dirty and you produce an erect penis. I don’t think I buy that. I think that is inconsistent physiologically. That’s one of the biggest holes I see in this case.’ Another said ‘I have a very difficult time believing this sequence of events and his explanation for it’. Transcript of Deliberations

Would you consider that people who like to jack-off to circumcision erotica (and images) including of minors to be pedophilic or not?

/////+++++/////

The HIV studies these people put together were instantly discredited. European commentators noted instantly the extreme methodological errors and statistically insignificant results. Nevertheless, the AAP used these studies for its 2012 statement. The methodoligical errors included major confounding errors - limiting the study of the time to be barely outside the window of recovery time from the circumcisions, giving the circumcised men condoms and sex ed, but not the control. The absolute rate of infection went down by about 1.3%, however the AAP reported a relative rate of 60% apparently to obfuscate the facts. It should also be noted that the AAP saying 'potential health benefits' is because they cannot claim that there are actual health benefits - saying 'potential' protects them from liability - such as when they've been sued for fraud.

Crossdisciplinary researcher Brian D. Earp revealed very graphically how totally biased authors, like Morris and his co-authors, can place pseudoscientific papers in important journals without their bias being admitted or discovered before publication

Talking about his HIV prevention studies, Bailey stated; "repeated study visits and intensive behavioral counseling" of the circumcised men were needed to reduce risk behaviors. and that the circumcised group had specific instructions to abstain from sex and use condoms that the intact control group did not. These are severe confounding variables purposely introduced.

Morten Frisch & Jacob Simonsen (2021) carried out a large scale empirical population study in Denmark of 855,654 males regarding the alleged value of male circumcision in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in men. They found that circumcised men have a higher rate of STI and HIV infection overall than intact men.

"Because the motivations of the foreskin-phobes are so irrational, these people are hard to combat." - J.M. Foley M.D. (1966)

Dogheaded said:

"Circlist has always permitted, and will continue to permit, circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise."
– Ben Winkie. (2005, June) (International Circumsexual Symposium, Washington, D.C.)

"Interests: Being masturbated whilst circumcision is being discussed. Watching circumcisions with others. Etc."
– Ben Winkie (Weblog)

Ben Winkie has also released materials of him pleasuring himself over infant circumcision restraint devices.

"It is likely also that mutilating the genitals of others has a deep sexual motive. This motive combined with the urge to control people when, in the nineteenth century, doctors first introduced medicalized circumcision in the vain attempt to prevent masturbation... It would seem wholly plausible that inflicting circumcision on a boy provides some circumcisers and onlookers with a sexual thrill. Groups such as the Acorn Society, the Gilgal Society, and the Cutting Club openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. There are those on the Internet who discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life." - Christopher P. Price, Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice., Pages 425-454. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999.

John M. Foley, M.D., in 1966, also wrote, "Circumcision provides a convenient and socially acceptable outlet for the perverted component of the circumciser's libido."... and, " And I say that one of the reasons why circumcision is so common in this country stems from the sadism of the crypto-pervert."

Morris L. Sorrells, M.D. has talked about people who are sexually motivated by circumcision.

So, this is hardly being a provocateur as much as it is revealing the unwanted disturbing truth.

Do you require more sources?

Click to expand...

Red herring. Please answer the question I directed toward you.

ViaCrucis said:

Red herring. Please answer the question I directed toward you.

Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure I already answered that before you asked. I explained specifically the sexual motivation that I hadn't gone into depth with yet.

How does a practice created by Rabbis in the Hellenic period have anything to do with Abraham or God?

Please note Michelangelo's David, which contrary to popular belief, shows an Abrahamic 'milah' circumcision.


And anyway, I think, I've also explained that many Reformed Jews don't believe circumcision was given as part of the covenant, but was rather a carryover from slavery in Egypt.

God is not a pedophile, but many pedophiles will attribute their behavior to God - including Jeffrey Epstein who certainly had enough to say about scripture in the files.

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...

The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

- Maimonides

JohnClay said:

What if we were in Old Testament times and you were Abraham? Is circumcision ok in that situation?

Click to expand...

First of all, let me reiterate that modern circumcision was not practiced by Abraham. Modern Rabbinic circumcision appeared with a standardization of practice in the Second Century A.D. (This means Christ was not circumcized as the practice is known and done today.)

Shabbat 19: 6 "These shreds (of the foreskin) include flesh that covers the greater part of the corona …: if he waxes fat (and the corona is covered anew) … or if one is circumcised without having the inner lining torn, it is as though he had not been circumcised."
To obviate the leaving of excessive preputial tissue, the per'iah was instituted. After the excision of the foreskin the mohel was instructed to seize the inner lining of the prepuce still covering the glans and with thumbnail and index finger of each hand to tear it so the he can roll it fully back over the glans and completely expose the latter.

The difference cannot be overstated. The milah commonly did not destroy major structures or organs of the foreskin - the frenar band, the frenulum, estrogen receptors, apocrine glands, the immunological mucosa, etc. It was inherently not as sexually destructive. The destruction of these parts was never commanded. And it has not been studied because what is studied is per'iah. To be as clear as possible, when we speak of Abraham, we are not speaking in the same realm of category as what is practiced today.

Secondly, I am not a theonomist - I do not believe in trying to willy-nilly implement the bronze age on the modern age. That the bible is a non-trivial text which requires enormous education in tradition to interpret adds to that.

The Law is a paidagogos (pedagogy) leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24.) The types and shadows of the old give way to the reality they always pointed at in Christ It is illegitimate and unlawful to invoke the former and fullfilled oikonomia (economy) to license a practice that we were always meant to outgrow. And worse is the belligerence to after the fulfillment by Christ to double down on the practice in the most extreme ways possible.

Circumcision predates Abraham. It was practiced in Egypt and many tribal groups. Much in the same way it continues to be practiced by African tribal groups with absolutely no connection to Abraham or Judiaism. People were already cutting. God, like a physician indulging a sick patient's craving to redirect it, took up the existing practice and bent it toward Himself.

This is affirmed by the Fathers;
"the circumcision in which they trusted is abolished. For He declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they transgressed because an evil angel deluded them." ... "surely the people have been circumcised as a seal… But every Syrian and Arab and all the priests of the idols are circumcised as well… Even the people of Egypt are circumcised!" -Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 9
"We too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you — namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts." - Justin Martyr; Dialogue with Trypho
"if also in the Old Testament the same God permitted similar indulgences for the benefit of His people… being restrained by Him, should not revert to idolatry, nor apostatize from God." He ties the ceremonial yoke to the golden calf — after they "turned themselves to make a calf," they "were placed for the future in a state of servitude… the yoke of bondage." And on circumcision specifically: "God gave circumcision, not as the completer of righteousness, but as a sign, that the race of Abraham might continue recognisable… the circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit."- Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.15–16

So, once again, pay attention to the scripture; Jeremiah 7:22, Hosea 6:6, Psalm 50/51, Isaiah 1 — and the interiorizing trajectory from Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 through Romans 2:28–29 and Colossians 2:11.

Let me be as clear as possible; the goodness in these practices was not inherent to the practices themselves, but the goodness is in the accommodation itself being the wise and good divine action given the condition of mankind. Not crushing them with an ideal that would have broken them into apostasy, is wholly good. We do not consider animal sacrifice to be acceptable - it is morally wrong. However, for a time, God allowed it and placed structures around it, not only to give it bounds not to exceed, but to create a symbolic language by which to teach. This allowance was for their hardness of heart. It was not a good, in and of itself, at that time despite allowance - but now the standards are so much higher. God says Himself, (Ezekiel 20:25) "I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not have life."

What God desires in itself is the circumcised heart, "mercy and not sacrifice." His consequent will given the fallen condition in front of Him is the fleshly sign and the sacrificial cult - as pedagogy.

The answer; Yes — for Abraham, under direct divine command, as a minimal sign in its appointed economy, it was licit and even holy. That is precisely why it is not licit for you and a moral evil. The time for that accommodation is over.

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."Galations 3:19

JohnClay said:

You seem to be saying that circumcision in the Bible, like in the case of Abraham, less was cut off. So was the amount cut off like 75% less than what is usually done today?

Click to expand...

I believe I've described it at length. I've even provided a picture.

JohnClay said:

You seem to be saying that circumcision in the Bible, like in the case of Abraham, less was cut off. So was the amount cut off like 75% less than what is usually done today?

Click to expand...

This article from a journal (admittedly, from the 1950's) goes a little into it:

(there are some typos in it I notice--I'm not sure if they were in the original journal article, or got made when it was transferred to HTML (e.g. citing 1 Maccabees 1:11 when it's 1 Maccabees 1:15), but the information seems accurate)

It doesn't offer percentage-wise information, but it does note how prior to the second century AD there was generally far less removed, to the point it was actually possible to make oneself appear uncircumcised with the right techniques, which is impossible to do with most modern circumcisions due to a greater amount being removed.