-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Male Question
- Thread starter Caedmon
- Start date
- Status
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
I don't see why it would be immoral. Circumcism isn't required for Christians, so going back and forth should be morally neutral. Of course, there could be an angle that I'm missing.
Upvote
0
ZooMom
Thanks for the memories...
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,387
- 1,010
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't think it's immoral. But why do it? As far as I know, that would fall under 'cosmetic surgery', the same as having breast implants or a nose job. Once the foreskin is gone, there's no getting it back. Grafting a 'replacement' will never have the same sensitivity (which I assume is the goal here) of the original, if there is any feeling at all in the graft (which I am inclined to doubt). Of course, IANAD, and am not very familiar with this procedure, but my knowledge of similar procedures makes me doubt there is any benefit to circ reversal other than aesthetics. And there are the same drawbacks as with any non-circed male. Increased possibility of UTI and yeast infections. And there's always the possibility that the graft won't take. Yuck.
So, while I don't think that the procedure itself is inherently immoral, one's reasons for having it done may be (ie. vanity).
HTH.
So, while I don't think that the procedure itself is inherently immoral, one's reasons for having it done may be (ie. vanity).
HTH.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
(Please warn me if I'm crossing any lines.)
The foreskin isn't particularly sensitive, but when it's there, the stuff *under* it is typically more sensitive.
To the best of my knowledge, the risks of non-circumcision are very high in men who don't know how to wash themselves carefully, and otherwise the same as they would be without. Medical research changes this number every so often, but the risks are so small as to be hard to measure.
The foreskin isn't particularly sensitive, but when it's there, the stuff *under* it is typically more sensitive.
To the best of my knowledge, the risks of non-circumcision are very high in men who don't know how to wash themselves carefully, and otherwise the same as they would be without. Medical research changes this number every so often, but the risks are so small as to be hard to measure.
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 73
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
To seebs:
Medical research also shows that the WIVES of circumcized men experience fewer incidents of cervical cancer than those of uncircumcized men.
I like ZooMom's comparison to plastic surgery. I can understand why someone with facial scarring, big ears, crooked nose, or any other cosmetic problem that radically effects self-esteem would want plastic surgery. Breast REDUCTION surgery is often performed for health reasons. Breast augmentation, IMHO, needs careful consideration.
These above-mentioned items, though, are noticeable to everyone. Granted, any breast surgery is hidden underneath clothing, but the effects are observable.
Circumcision reversal, though, is only observable by a very select few.
I think there is some other factors here which would have to be considered.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Medical research also shows that the WIVES of circumcized men experience fewer incidents of cervical cancer than those of uncircumcized men.
I like ZooMom's comparison to plastic surgery. I can understand why someone with facial scarring, big ears, crooked nose, or any other cosmetic problem that radically effects self-esteem would want plastic surgery. Breast REDUCTION surgery is often performed for health reasons. Breast augmentation, IMHO, needs careful consideration.
These above-mentioned items, though, are noticeable to everyone. Granted, any breast surgery is hidden underneath clothing, but the effects are observable.
Circumcision reversal, though, is only observable by a very select few.
I think there is some other factors here which would have to be considered.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, but my understanding is that the cervical cancer thing is also, probably, a function of some men never learning to keep themselves clean. I'm afraid this may be another little black spot on the record of sexual puritanism; some parents are unwilling to tell their kids anything that involves touching Mr. Weewee, even "basic cleanliness". *sigh*.
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 73
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
/me picks herself up off the floor, wipes away the tears of laughter and tries to put on a serious face
All thngs considered, though, I still feel there is some other factor behind a man who would want this type of surgery. In the United States today, the circumcision of a male infant is considered to be more for cosmetic reasons than health factors. However, it's also important for the parents to understand that conformity is important, especially for a very young child. This boils down to "if Daddy has it, Baby should too."
When our son was born, my husband was adamant that he be circumcised. No discussion, period. It would be done. At that time, military hospitals were encouraging parents AWAY from this procedure. The nurses had their little classes for the new mommies on how to care for the baby, and one of the topics discussed was circumcision. We would not only have to sign a consent form for the actual operation, we would also have to sign forms saying we had been informed of the risks and complications, and that we understood the surgery was NOT recommended. The whole impression given was, "You BETTER think about this!" Very itimidating tactics!
I showed the papers to my husband, told him all I had been taught. He stil was firm: this is something we do.
Then he made ME sign the papers.
My take on the whole thing is this: you are talking about a very DELICATE part of the male anatomy. Even as young children, boys are very protective of that part of their body. The idea that you willingly will allow someone to come near you with a sharp knife is quite frightening, actually. If circumcision is something that you are opposed to, maybe a better way would be to merely insure that your SONS never have it done in the first place.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
All thngs considered, though, I still feel there is some other factor behind a man who would want this type of surgery. In the United States today, the circumcision of a male infant is considered to be more for cosmetic reasons than health factors. However, it's also important for the parents to understand that conformity is important, especially for a very young child. This boils down to "if Daddy has it, Baby should too."
When our son was born, my husband was adamant that he be circumcised. No discussion, period. It would be done. At that time, military hospitals were encouraging parents AWAY from this procedure. The nurses had their little classes for the new mommies on how to care for the baby, and one of the topics discussed was circumcision. We would not only have to sign a consent form for the actual operation, we would also have to sign forms saying we had been informed of the risks and complications, and that we understood the surgery was NOT recommended. The whole impression given was, "You BETTER think about this!" Very itimidating tactics!
I showed the papers to my husband, told him all I had been taught. He stil was firm: this is something we do.
Then he made ME sign the papers.
My take on the whole thing is this: you are talking about a very DELICATE part of the male anatomy. Even as young children, boys are very protective of that part of their body. The idea that you willingly will allow someone to come near you with a sharp knife is quite frightening, actually. If circumcision is something that you are opposed to, maybe a better way would be to merely insure that your SONS never have it done in the first place.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Hey, if they could use the proper word, they wouldn't object to teaching kids to clean it. 
The problem is, if you have aggregate statistics, you don't necessarily know the breakdown. If one guy in ten who isn't cut never learns how to clean himself properly, and this doubles his chance of some harmful condition ("doubles" is a VERY low estimate, here, I'd guess), then it looks like "5% increase in uncut men", which is significant - but which doesn't actually mean much.
The problem is, if you have aggregate statistics, you don't necessarily know the breakdown. If one guy in ten who isn't cut never learns how to clean himself properly, and this doubles his chance of some harmful condition ("doubles" is a VERY low estimate, here, I'd guess), then it looks like "5% increase in uncut men", which is significant - but which doesn't actually mean much.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I know a guy who got circumcised fairly late in life, and said it didn't change things that much. (The things he said it changed, I can't repeat here, but they weren't big deals.) Some men report reduced sensitivity.
I tend to think it's probably not worth trying to undo, but I guess I don't get a vote, huh.
I tend to think it's probably not worth trying to undo, but I guess I don't get a vote, huh.
Upvote
0
I can eat 50 eggs
what we have here is a failure to communicate
not to throw this thing completely off track, but when you said "non surgical" methods, it reminded me of an episode of Friends where joey has to fake a foreskin for an acting job, uses a piece of bologna, i think.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
