Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol. I'm not an expert, but I still remember what a young lady once said about this subject when she saw one for the first time. Apparently, her nephew had been circumcised and she said he looked cute, but when she saw another male who hadn't been, she said it was "such a shock and the ugliest thing I ever saw!"
The medical studies put it a little more kindly - circumcision is claimed to improve hygiene. This is also believed to be the reason male circumcision reduces risk of cervical cancer in females.
Doesn't this also support the claim that circumcision reduces masturbation, or at least makes it more difficult?
I think this is similar to your first point. Better hygiene leads to better longer-term health.
I'm already pretty sure that it isn't commanded today,.. but what are your thoughts on this? Pros? Cons? I haven't made up my mind yet if I have any future sons. Now unlike my infant baptism thread,.. I'm actually looking for advice about this to try and make up my mind.
My sincere apologies. My computer crashed mid-post, and I clearly mis-attributed the responses. I have now corrected.Just to say that you have somehow quoted these and attributed them to me.
I did not say any of this.
Circumcision for any health benefits is one thing - but it is not commanded in Scripture for Christians who are following Jesus.
I do agree that whatever the health benefits of circumcision (real or imagined), if it does get messed up (and although rare, sometimes, it does get messed up), you have just ruined your kid's life forever. You might as well have killed him.Unfortunately, many Americans are completely deceived on this subject.
"1. Removing that bit of skin will stop your son from having - i need a better term and please forgive me - cheese."
'Cheese'... What they actually mean is dead skin in nether region. dead skin in nether region is a harmless substance made of skin cells and oils. And here is a revelation, us women have far more of it. Only we don't see very much of it because it's high up inside, well hidden. The reason men can smell is what can get into the dead skin in nether region not the dead skin in nether region itself. This is why it should be rubbed away in the shower. Some dead skin in nether region is good for the skin. A boy only starts to produce dead skin in nether region once the foreskin starts to detach.
That 'bit of skin' measures about 6.5 centimetres long when fully grown, and contains large amounts of Meissner's corpuscles, touch-sensitive cells that are also present in our lips and fingertips.
"Your son will appreciate that. My mates have got to do more maintenance down there than i do and risk medical issues if they dont."
Most men don't have any problems touching themselves down there. If they can wash their armpits I am sure they have the brain cells to retract, rinse and replace.
'2. Circumcision makes that area less sensitive. This will make his future wife more satisfied."
You may want to do some research into how circumcision hurts women. It's a little known fact that circumcision causes the glans to dry out over the years and some women experience pain from that and the scar that cut men have. There is a reason lube sells well in the US. The foreskin adds lubrication and gives a gentler sexual experience.
"3. My dad had a reason why he made sure I was circumcised. When the men of ww2 came home, the uncircumcised men had health issues downstairs due to being uncircumcised."
Pretty sure it was lack of showers. Luckily we are not in WW2 trenches with sand and mud.
"These issues resulted from poor hygiene. When some of these men came home, for medical reasons they had to be circumcised."
Finding a shower isn't difficult.
"I would prefer to be circumcised as an infant then as a grown man."
Another one of those 'infants don't feel pain myths" Studies have shown newborn infants, in fact, feel pain more intensely than adults and sets the pain threshold by altering brain chemistry. Even when given as much pain relief as possible, an infant is not guaranteed to be numbed 100% of the area. An adult can be given as much pain relief as needed, be circumcised via laser on an area that is both fully grown and fully detached.
"Now there are ppl out there who are uncircumcised and have no medical issues. There are uncircumcised ppl out there who like What they got."
There are also men out there who are extremely angry that they have deprived of a body part without there consent. I know a couple. But here is a link for NORM The National Organization of Restoring Men. You may never have heard of this because most angry unhappy men are dead silent over this.
Edit: forgot the link NORM - The National Organization of Restoring Men
"I would recommend asking ppl who are circumcised how they feel. There are medical benefits to circumcision and if done properly will not damage or disfirgure your son."
Men who are circumcised as infants have never experienced having one so have no more knowledge of what having a foreskin is like than a women.
You may find your insurance now does not cover this cosmetic procedure, because that is what it is.
My sincere apologies. My computer crashed mid-post, and I clearly mis-attributed the responses. I have now corrected.
I am very much against it.
What God commanded of Abraham is not practised today and hasn't been since 300BC. What people call circumcision today bears little resemblance to the Jewish sacrifice of the Old Testament.
I suggest reading through the history https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/S0968-8080(07)29303-6
The reason God gave circumcision to the Jewish people was to be a blood sacrifice to show they were God's people, set apart. The foreskin was pulled down and the end cut. For sure it was painful but unlike a modern American circumcision, the attached skin was not forcefully torn away from the glans at all. God wants a different kind of sacrifice from us. Now we have Jesus and are to 'circumcise' our hearts and give our lives to him.
God does not want any male to have most of his foreskin removed, that is a perversion of the practice from Satan, but one American's seem to have been deceived over. This was due to Harvey Kellog who promoted it heavily in the US as a way to avoid mental and physical illnesses. Once it became apparent it did not, in fact, have any such effects it was a practice looking for a reason. By this time I guess it was very much ingrained into American culture as its pretty much the only developed country that still views it as normal. Very few places outside of the US practice it at all because we know it has little benefit and may downfalls.
Just so you know, I am one of the moderators on a parenting board dealing with this subject. At birth, the foreskin and glans beneath are one structure and the end is kept closed by a type of sphincter muscle that only opens when the infant pees. The design God made is to keep everything clean. The only thing a parent has to do is wipe down the outside. It can take years for the two structures to fully detach and open and this should not be 'helped' along by adults. God didn't make a mistake, the foreskins main job is the protection of sensitive tissue and it's why all animals and people have one -even women have one BTW.
Some of the cons:
100 infants die each year in the US from complications.
10% will develop metal-stenosis, a condition where the skin thickens and makes the urinary opening smaller up to the point of needing an operation to fix it.
Due to the old high and tight circumcision causing issues, nowadays the trend is to less and lower and while this is a good thing, many boys now get adhesions where the skin tries to stick and grow back together with scar tissue. I see parents posting over this quite often. These parents have had to push back the remnant skin, clean under and cream for over 2 years daily. If this is not successful some have had the doctor rip these apart causing pain and bleeding or at worse be re-circumcised higher.
There are more cons then this and some only occur from puberty onwards, but these are the more immediate concerns of parents.
There is no good reason to risk these and every person deserves to make these type of decisions about their body themselves, as consenting adults.
I suggest looking over Doctors Who oppose Circumcision for more information. Home
Lol. Doctor Who is a Timelord. Doesn't he have two hearts? So who knows how else his anatomy differs from ours? Perhaps circumcision in Timelords has some more serious consequences? Also, wasn't the latest regeneration of the Doctor of the female variety, which could explain his... errr, her... sudden opposition to the age-old practice?Second of all at first I thought that this read that Doctor Who opposes circumcision and I'm like well that settles that then. The Doctor has spoken.
Lol. Doctor Who is a Timelord. Doesn't he have two hearts? So who knows how else his anatomy differs from ours? Perhaps circumcision in Timelords has some more serious consequences? Also, wasn't the latest regeneration of the Doctor of the female variety, which could explain his... errr, her... sudden opposition to the age-old practice?
Ewww. Sorry. There was a passage mentioned about circumcision of the heart, and I was referring to that, as Timelords have two hearts, and perhaps the Doctor was opposed because it could be quite dangerous (if taken literally). But obviously, scripture doesn't mean it literally.Btw,.. it has to do with two of something else....
Oh yeah and I still picture The Doctor as male. For if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck,.. guess what? It's a freaking duck. Meaning if God created it to be a duck then it very well can't be a bald eagle no matter how much it wants to can it?
First of all how can women have it when they don't have a penis? Second of all at first I thought that this read that Doctor Who opposes circumcision and I'm like well that settles that then. The Doctor has spoken.
The female foreskin is the fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoral hood. I know it bears little resemblance but it does have the same fine nerve endings.
Both sexes start off with the same exact parts in utero and then change into what they should be -for most people anyway.
Wow,.. women have a foreskin. Mind blown. (The next thing you know men will be getting pregnant.)
let's hope not, they would never survive the pain. Us women are made of way tougher stuff.
Sure,.. until it's actually time to give birth,.. then it's just time to call the exorcist. I can just picture Mary as she's giving birth to Jesus. "Oh God please help me!!" *Sorry Mommy,.. I'm not here yet you're on your own .*- The thoughts of baby Jesus.
Actually, the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has a rather nifty explanation of the birth of Jesus Christ. In order to preserve her virginity forever, her hymen could not be broken. Therefore, she could not have given birth vaginally. As a result Jesus was born in a sort of proto-Caesarian section, through Mary's side and without the slightest pain on her part.
How in the world did you come up with that twisted logic? There were no C-sections back then and first of all I don't care what Catholics say it was written in the Bible that Mary had other children the normal way with Joseph,.. and second of all what does Jesus coming out of Mary's butt or not (which He did like all babies) have to do with virginity?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?