Circumcision?

seamonster · Jan 19, 2008

First, Circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a virus STD in their lifetime.

Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: Prevalance, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997 Apr 2; 277(13): 1052-7.

The noncircumcising countries of Europe have the LOWEST rates of HIV in the entire world. CLearly, mass circumcision has failed to protect any Americans from AIDS. [...] To prove that circumcision has no effect on HIV infection rates in First World nations such as the United States, a very important study conducted at the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research and at the National Centre in HIV Social Research in Sydney, Australia, determined that the circumcision status of homosexual men infected with HIV by receptive or insertive unprotected anal intercourse was unimportant. Genitally intact and circumcised Australian males who engaged in unprotected anal intercourse had equal rates of HIV infection. The research team also found that men who had seroconverted despite having avoided unprotected anal intercourse were also just as likely to be circumccised as genitally intact. Consequently, the foreskin is innocent of any role in HIV infection in homosexual, Western men. Other, more obvious sites, such as the anus and and distal urethra, are the more likely locations of HIV infections.

-Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., and Frederick M. Hodges, D.Phil, "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision pg. 160-161. AND Grulich AE, Hendry O, Clark E, Kippax S, Kaldo JM. Circumcision and male-to-male sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS 2001 Jun 15;15(9): 1188-9.

clycleader · Jan 19, 2008

My son has been circumsized. Basically becuase when my husband and I talked about it we thought it was best for him. We're the parents and thought a lot about it and needed to do what we thought was right. To us, it's along the same lines of to home school or not. It's just one of those decisions you need to make as a parent. That being said, we have heard about some adults who were not circumsized and did it later in life becuase they wanted it done. It was extremely painful and humiliating to them. The ones we know thought the non-circ look was ugly and it would be more appealing to a future wife to have it done.
My husband and other circ'ed friends we know said they don't remember having it done as a baby, so they say it couldn't have been that bad.
I was there when my son had it done and the only part that I could say he minded was when they gave him the pain killer shot.
I do agree with many of the above posters though, it's got to be your decision. We have to make some decisions for our children and just know in our hearts that it's the right one.

Hadassah · Jan 20, 2008

Just be certain, if you have it done in hospital, do it on the 8th day and INSIST on not having clamps.
I have a very close relative that was small and had it done in hospital before day 8 and now have major complications because the surgeon who did it (OB) used clamping methods and did not cut off only the 'little' that is to be removed during ritual circumcision..

He will have issues maritally for the rest of his life due to this.

It makes all the difference in the world when it is done *correctly* vs. incorrectly.

Hadassah · Jan 20, 2008

Ok, here's what I have to say about that:

AIDS rates, and cervical cancer rates, are lower when men have been circumcised because they are more likely to be religious, and mutually monogamous. When I was growing up we were told Jewish women were less likely to have STDs and cervical cancer and other uterine difficulties because of this.

Sadly though, this only holds true in the religious minority - as the women are often monogamous (as are their partners) and they are also practicing family purity laws (no sexual engagement when the wife is having her menses and a few days after, and depending on if it is a boy or girl 30 - 60 days of no contact sexually after the birth).

You compare the rates of those who are not monogamous with those who are, and the ones who may have gotten an STD (not all come through sex - sometimes there are accidents in hospital) - then follow the sexual lives of both partners and you have better results than to just study one part or the other then give results.

The reason we find mixed results, is that the studies are mixed.

heart of peace · Jan 20, 2008

Heh, can I jump in on the bandwagon here?

I think this is a personal decision to be made in each family. I do side with the camp that is against cosmetic procedures in one's child. I only support circumcision in infants for religious purposes and for medically necessary reasons. I want my child(ren) to honor their bodies and respect it as God's temple and realize that they can say no to certain handlings of their body (from unwanted kisses from grandma to inapporpriate tickling from a school counselor, et cetera). This is a frame of mind that I believe must be instilled in my child(ren) from infancy (which means I must respect his body and decisions that I make in regards to it).

I prefer the appearance of a circ'd penis but that is my preference and I would feel selfish projecting my preference on my son's body. I wholeheartedly plan on educating him about a circ'd penis and will provide him the opportunity to make this decision for himself when he is older.

heart of peace · Jan 20, 2008

Well, I am an Orthodox Christian and it is not customary to circumcise infant sons for religious reasons as the Bible makes it clear that it is not neccessary to take this yoke upon us any longer after Jesus. Jesus was circ'd as He was still under the old covenant laws.

Additionally, isn't our entire body perfectly and wonderfully made by God including a male's foreskin?

For the original poster, here is some biblical passages on it for you to mull over (since this is a Christian forum and not a medical one I figure you want Godly advice on the matter):

The Council at Jerusalem

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c] 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Acts 15

For those that did it for religious reasons, I am curious, have you also taken on the whole yoke of the law since you have chosen to take on one aspect of the law? Doesn't the Bible state that if one chooses to take on any aspect of the laws of the OT, although not required any longer, that you are required to abide by the law in its entirety?

Redguard · Jan 20, 2008

It sounds kinda odd when people introduce the "reduced risk of AIDS" as a reason for circumcising your son.

Honestly, when my babies are born, I'm not thinking about them having promiscuous sex-lives.

In my opinion, if you've landed in bed with somebody that has AIDS, you're already screwed. Circumcised or not.

Leanna · Jan 20, 2008

Redguard said:
It sounds kinda odd when people introduce the "reduced risk of AIDS" as a reason for circumcising your son.

Honestly, when my babies are born, I'm not thinking about them having promiscuous sex-lives.

In my opinion, if you've landed in bed with somebody that has AIDS, you're already screwed. Circumcised or not.

Amen.

Primrose · Jan 20, 2008

Redguard said:
It sounds kinda odd when people introduce the "reduced risk of AIDS" as a reason for circumcising your son.

Honestly, when my babies are born, I'm not thinking about them having promiscuous sex-lives.

In my opinion, if you've landed in bed with somebody that has AIDS, you're already screwed. Circumcised or not.

I also find it odd. I doubt anyone who uses this excuse to circumsize would disagree that monogamy and the use of condoms should still be practiced circed or not. In the end it's really a moot excuse.

Utah Knight · Jan 20, 2008

I am not fond of the circumcism idea. There is no real reason for it to my knowledge except for religios reasons and that was in the old covanant. Circumsision has no health benefits not to mention it is something that cannot be undone. I would not circumsize my son if i have one.Some of the most sensitive spots on a guy is on the foreskin. I would allow him to make the decision later( your son)

Here are some articles to help you decide http://search.healthcentral.com/query?q=circumcision&st=s

and here is another section

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

and another
http://askdrsears.com/html/1/T012000.asp

jgonz · Jan 21, 2008

Well, I am an Orthodox Christian and it is not customary to circumcise infant sons for religious reasons as the Bible makes it clear that it is not neccessary to take this yoke upon us any longer after Jesus. Jesus was circ'd as He was still under the old covenant laws.

Additionally, isn't our entire body perfectly and wonderfully made by God including a male's foreskin?

For the original poster, here is some biblical passages on it for you to mull over (since this is a Christian forum and not a medical one I figure you want Godly advice on the matter):

Quote:
The Council at Jerusalem

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c] 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Acts 15
For those that did it for religious reasons, I am curious, have you also taken on the whole yoke of the law since you have chosen to take on one aspect of the law? Doesn't the Bible state that if one chooses to take on any aspect of the laws of the OT, although not required any longer, that you are required to abide by the law in its entirety?

Once again, the Scripture quoted is talking about the Judaizers, who were telling non-Jews that they HAD to be Jewish FIRST before they could become Believers/Christians. Obviously this is Not correct~ we're saved by Faith not by works or anything we do or don't do to the body.

DH and I circ'd our sons for both personal reasons (which I went in to in an earlier post) and also for "religious" reasons. Flat out, we believed that G-d was leading us to circ our sons. If circ'ing was important enough to make it a sign of the Covenant with Abraham, then it was important to us. I can't explain it any more simply than that... we were Led, by the L-rd, to circ our boys.

No, we don't "take on the whole yoke of the Law"~ because we're Redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb! Not all aspects of the Mosaic law are applicable today, very little of the Oral Law is applicable (or Scriptural), AND, the Covenant with Abraham Preceeds Moses by quite a few hundred years, so IMO, it's a separate issue.

Tea · Jan 22, 2008

From scripture circumcision is asked only of a child of 8 days of age. It also appears that God will also accept a free will offering as done by Abraham. No where in scripture does it support the forcing of adults to be circ'ed.
Also no where can I find that the keeping of one commandment was ever acceptable. If you kept one of God laws, by nature you were expected to keep all. What was the point of keeping only one?
Paul also had Timothy circ'ed and when he was brought before the council, he states that none of the accusations brought against him could be proved.

Flashskeletal · Jan 24, 2008

I do not want to get into personal details but I have always thought that the extra sensitivity of an uncircumcised penis was better for men it helped them with being in more control during sex (not pounding and then losing control because the sensation is lessened), and thus more sensitive to female needs. However, I once had another man suggest to me that this is a weakness because uncircumcised men can be too sensitive. Being that this was a face to face conversation, we never finished it and I have lost contact with him. But I still wonder what he meant. Any thoughts?

.chrys. · Jan 24, 2008

I think he probably meant that in terms of sensitivity the uncircumsised man may be too sensitive and thus "less" sensitive to the female's "needs".

At any rate, I appreciate the fact that "sensitivity" issues are addressed in this thread. I've heard of men who have been extremely disappointed in having been circumcised as infants--preferring instead to have had the choice as adults. It is their opinion that their sensitivity is lessened and they feel somehow cheated.

progressivegal · Jan 24, 2008

ConstantWitness said:
I think he probably meant that in terms of sensitivity the uncircumsised man may be too sensitive and thus "less" sensitive to the female's "needs".

At any rate, I appreciate the fact that "sensitivity" issues are addressed in this thread. I've heard of men who have been extremely disappointed in having been circumcised as infants--preferring instead to have had the choice as adults. It is their opinion that their sensitivity is lessened and they feel somehow cheated.

My husband feels this way somewhat. I wouldn't say he's "extremely" disappointed, but I think he wonders "what might have been" had he been given the choice.

Redguard · Jan 24, 2008

Sexual gratification is another one of those things that I just don't see crossing my mind when looking into the eyes of my newborn.

And let's all be honest here everyone. Do circumcized men really struggle THAT much with enjoying sex?

.chrys. · Jan 24, 2008

Redguard said:
Sexual gratification is another one of those things that I just don't see crossing my mind when looking into the eyes of my newborn.

When I looked at my newborns, I had hoped to see lots about their future. And yes, even their sexual gratification crossed my mind. Hope you don't find that offensive. It's not meant to be. It's simply the truth.

Redguard said:
And let's all be honest here everyone. Do circumcized men really struggle THAT much with enjoying sex?

Never said they did. Just said that of the reports I've heard, some men argue that they are dissatisfied with the choices their parents made.

heart of peace · Jan 24, 2008

ConstantWitness said:
When I looked at my newborns, I had hoped to see lots about their future. And yes, even their sexual gratification crossed my mind. Hope you don't find that offensive. It's not meant to be. It's simply the truth.

Whew, happy to know that I'm not alone in this thinking. I even pray for my son's future wife already believe it or not. Human beings are sexual beings and this is not something that happens at 13 years old but begins from day one. Examples: the act of bf is an extremely intimate and sensual one at that and changing diapers and having to interact on such a close level with your newborn's genitals is another intimate act. It is not a far-fetched idea to consider your child's future sexuality and Godliness in it. After all, we are in a society that bombards us with sexual images, of course we are going to think about raising our children to live sexually gratifying lives that are pleasing to God.

Redguard · Jan 24, 2008

But you do realize that circumsizing won't completely eliminate their ability to enjoy sex, right? It's not akin to the brutal practice of female circumcision in any way shape or form.

The only difference that I can imagine is that it would reduce a man's lasting ability during sex, much to the chagrin of his wife.

.chrys. · Jan 24, 2008

Redguard said:
But you do realize that circumsizing won't completely eliminate their ability to enjoy sex, right? It's not akin to the brutal practice of female circumcision in any way shape or form.

Of course it won't completely eliminate their ability to enjoy sex. It might, however, hinder a fuller enjoyment.

Redguard said:
The only difference that I can imagine is that it would reduce a man's lasting ability during sex, much to the chagrin of his wife.

Without getting to graphic, I think there is a certain callousedness a circumcised man must endure that a non-circumcised man need not.

At this point, I choose to withdraw from this conversation--better left for a less-public, more mature* setting, IMO.

*Not to say that the people participating in this thread, nor the people have read thus-far are immature. I only have in mind the younger audiences who, perhaps, are not ready for this discussion.

Circumcision?

happy goth

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Make It So, Number One!

Just me

Innocent Bystander

A friend to all

What G-d calls you to do, He equips you to do.

Regular Member

Regular Member

.chrys.

Guest

Well-Known Member

Make It So, Number One!

.chrys.

Guest

Well-Known Member

Make It So, Number One!

.chrys.

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency