Circumcision

[wabrams]

jess7396:

Actually, my links were ANTI circ. not pro . Your argument that they are invalid b/c of that reminds me of those who argue against the teachings of the Church and are upset when I link to EWTN or here- :LOL.

Direct question- if circumcision were truly healthier, why is there not ONE major medical organization that recommends it? A few articles about it on web MD is not the same as a recommendation.

The same question could be asked as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder: it’s not very pc to call it a disorder today, which apparently goes for circumcision as well.

 

[Princess_Abby]

jess7396:

I wonder why you refuse to think that the foreskin serves a purpose, is it because then circumcised men might just be missing something?

Hi Jess.

I’m just wondering if you can explain in non-graphic terms what is missing sexually? I’ve noticed you keep hinting about this, but for the life of me I can’t imagine what a foreskin would add to unity or procreation. A very good friend of mine has an uncircumscised husband and she finds it both offensive and a detriment to their marital intimacy. They are frequently discussing him getting a circumscision now as an adult, and he very much wishes it was simply done as a baby. Her husband, as I mentioned, washes his penis 2-4 times a day and it has what she calls a “very foul odor.” She claims that all the wives of her husband’s brothers agree that it’s not desirable between a husband and wife whatsoever. By the way, two of them are in the health care field and I don’t think it’s simply a matter of poor hygeine. I think they all make a sincere effort to be both clean and healthy, but the environment the foreskin creates leads to difficulty.

As for what you said about elderly men… I do have a hard time believing that a man who is older in age and probably suffering from other physical ailments, terminal or otherwise, would go through a circumscison late in life. Skin loses it’s suppleness and that in and of itself seems to be why cleaning becomes a serious issue as men age and retraction doesn’t happen so easily. Meanwhile, bodily fluids are being trapped, odor and bacteria are a major problem.

 

[wabrams]

Princess_Abby:

Hi Jess.

I’m just wondering if you can explain in non-graphic terms what is missing sexually? I’ve noticed you keep hinting about this, but for the life of me I can’t imagine what a foreskin would add to unity or procreation. A very good friend of mine has an uncircumscised husband and she finds it both offensive and a detriment to their marital intimacy. They are frequently discussing him getting a circumscision now as an adult, and he very much wishes it was simply done as a baby. Her husband, as I mentioned, washes his penis 2-4 times a day and it has what she calls a “very foul odor.” She claims that all the wives of her husband’s brothers agree that it’s not desirable between a husband and wife whatsoever. By the way, two of them are in the health care field and I don’t think it’s simply a matter of poor hygeine. I think they all make a sincere effort to be both clean and healthy, but the environment the foreskin creates leads to difficulty.

As for what you said about elderly men… I do have a hard time believing that a man who is older in age and probably suffering from other physical ailments, terminal or otherwise, would go through a circumscison late in life. Skin loses it’s suppleness and that in and of itself seems to be why cleaning becomes a serious issue as men age and retraction doesn’t happen so easily. Meanwhile, bodily fluids are being trapped, odor and bacteria are a major problem.

From what I’ve read, it just makes things more sensitive.

 

[mr_trident]

here’s something interesting … a recent study just completed on 3000 men - here’s the link from the msnbc health website

msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/

Male circumcision reduces the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women by about 70 percent, according to a study reported in The Wall Street Journal.

After discovering the dramatic results, French and South African researchers halted the study about nine months in order to offer the uncircumcised men the opportunity to undergo the procedure, the newspaper reported.

The results of the study have not been published in a medical journal, although the French researcher who headed the team is expected to present them at an International AIDS Society conference in Brazil later this month.

There you go - once again …proof that God knew what He was doing…because it was healthier to be circumcised 4000 years ago and it still is today. So much so that they are offering adults circumcisions in these countries.

 

[jess7396]

Princess Abby, I could PM you sites with info if you like, frankly some of it is “graphic”, one point is the lack of need for lubricants which many couples seem to need., it is also a sensitivity issue for the man. The foreskin does not have to “add to unity or procreation” to be a functioning part of the penis, the clitoris is not a necessary for unity or procreation part, but I am glad no one cut mine off.

As to the smell issue, honestly, I didn’t touch that when you mentioned it before, b/c I found it so sad that the woman would want her dh to have a cosmetic surgery for her own “issues” over his “smell”. Women used to use all kinds of “cleaners” on their vulvas and vaginas in the past for the complaints of men of “fishy smells”, this was not healthy (using douches, etc.) for the women.

What if a man was SOOO turned off by his wife’s saggy/milky breasts after she had children, should she have a breast surgery for him? Women could also have implants put in when they have their “real” breasts removed and consider that “preventative medicine” since 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer, but no one advocates these things.

 

[jess7396]

mr trident:

here’s something interesting … a recent study just completed on 3000 men - here’s the link from the msnbc health website

msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/

Male circumcision reduces the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women by about 70 percent, according to a study reported in The Wall Street Journal.

After discovering the dramatic results, French and South African researchers halted the study about nine months in order to offer the uncircumcised men the opportunity to undergo the procedure, the newspaper reported.

The results of the study have not been published in a medical journal, although the French researcher who headed the team is expected to present them at an International AIDS Society conference in Brazil later this month.

There you go - once again …proof that God knew what He was doing…because it was healthier to be circumcised 4000 years ago and it still is today. So much so that they are offering adults circumcisions in these countries.

\

I was waiting (but am still somewhat suprised, this being a Catholic site) for the AIDS argument to be brought up. I do believe it is true that circumcision does lessen the chance of a man contracting AIDS, so do condoms, however, I’ll stick with the Church and advocate abstinence instead. For the rare man who finds himself in a healthy Catholic marriage with a woman with AIDS, I would recommend he be circumcised, I just don’t see this as any argument for routine infant circumcision.

 

[Princess_Abby]

jess7396:

Princess Abby, I could PM you sites with info if you like, frankly some of it is “graphic”, one point is the lack of need for lubricants which many couples seem to need., it is also a sensitivity issue for the man. The foreskin does not have to “add to unity or procreation” to be a functioning part of the penis, the clitoris is not a necessary for unity or procreation part, but I am glad no one cut mine off.

As to the smell issue, honestly, I didn’t touch that when you mentioned it before, b/c I found it so sad that the woman would want her dh to have a cosmetic surgery for her own “issues” over his “smell”. Women used to use all kinds of “cleaners” on their vulvas and vaginas in the past for the complaints of men of “fishy smells”, this was not healthy (using douches, etc.) for the women.

What if a man was SOOO turned off by his wife’s saggy/milky breasts after she had children, should she have a breast surgery for him? Women could also have implants put in when they have their “real” breasts removed and consider that “preventative medicine” since 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer, but no one advocates these things.

Milky breasts are a temporary inconvenience, and as far as I know, they don’t have a foul odor. Breasts also have a genuine purpose and so far the only purpose of foreskin seems to be possibly increasing a man’s sensitivity.

I don’t think it’s so much sad as simply a personal preference of my friend. I don’t think any wife should have to feel turned off during marital intimacy because her husband’s penis is giving off a foul odor. She is obviously disturbed enough about it to advise me to please circumscise my son as she would not want another wife to have to deal with these possible issues. She has frequent yeast infections since marriage and both she and her husband AND her doctor attribute it to the extra bacteria on her husband’s penis.

Anyway, I’m done with this thread, but thanks anyway.

 

[Golf_Nut]

Princess_Abby:

Hi Jess.

I’m just wondering if you can explain in non-graphic terms what is missing sexually? I’ve noticed you keep hinting about this, but for the life of me I can’t imagine what a foreskin would add to unity or procreation. A very good friend of mine has an uncircumscised husband and she finds it both offensive and a detriment to their marital intimacy. They are frequently discussing him getting a circumscision now as an adult, and he very much wishes it was simply done as a baby. Her husband, as I mentioned, washes his penis 2-4 times a day and it has what she calls a “very foul odor.” She claims that all the wives of her husband’s brothers agree that it’s not desirable between a husband and wife whatsoever. By the way, two of them are in the health care field and I don’t think it’s simply a matter of poor hygeine. I think they all make a sincere effort to be both clean and healthy, but the environment the foreskin creates leads to difficulty.

As for what you said about elderly men… I do have a hard time believing that a man who is older in age and probably suffering from other physical ailments, terminal or otherwise, would go through a circumscison late in life. Skin loses it’s suppleness and that in and of itself seems to be why cleaning becomes a serious issue as men age and retraction doesn’t happen so easily. Meanwhile, bodily fluids are being trapped, odor and bacteria are a major problem.

What is missing sexually is sensitivity. Removal of the foreskin will result in reduced sensitivity in the penis. In some cases there is none or minimal while in others it is so significant that some men have complained of an inability to climax during intercourse.

 

[Golf_Nut]

mr trident:

ok - first of all… your links are invalid because they are all pro- circumcision. There are no balanced views expressed on these sites. And second of all… the foreskin is NOT a functioning part of the body… it serves no purpose whatsoever. And there is no difference between how it was done 4000 years ago verses how its done today… its simply cut off. Its not difficult. Its not vanity… it is healthier… there is plenty of medical evidence. Look on web MD or any reputable medical website.

Anyone can find evidence for whatever they want to believe…but most men are circumcised and they are better off becasue of it. Any man who has several circumcised sons and then changes his mind with the last 1 or 2 has given in and surrendered his family’s leadership and authority to his wife. That how I see it.

Mr. Trident, you are very rude and should consider apologizing for that unbelievable last comment. People are politely debating this issue while you label and hurl insults.

 

[Golf_Nut]

jess7396, I just want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this subject. I think some people are not willing to look at their views in a critical light.

In any event, I am pleased that you participate on this site as i am disturbed by some of the postings.

take care,

 

[jess7396]

Golf_Nut:

jess7396, I just want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this subject. I think some people are not willing to look at their views in a critical light.

In any event, I am pleased that you participate on this site as i am disturbed by some of the postings.

take care,

Thanks Golf Nut, I was glad to have you posting as well, it’s always nice to have a balanced discussion. I too often find myself as the only person posting on one side of a hot-button issue (usually abortion on another site I visit).

I am feeling badly about my part in taking this thread to a less-than friendly discussion, I am sorry to those I have offended.

I do feel strongly on this issue, partly because I have been on the other side. I wish I had known before I did this to my first son, all that I know now. I my real life (as opposed to my online life-lol) I am a pro-life activist and have always felt that education was the answer, and lots and lots of talking and showing pictures, etc. I try to do the same on issues like this one.

Circumcision is a very culturally tied issue, and cultural “norms” like this often take a lot of time to change, and people are resistant.

As I take the time to think on this thread, I realize that most likely, the mothers and fathers posting on both sides are truly trying to do what is best for their children, wether it be medically “best” or emotionally “best”, etc. The driving forces, I hope, are always to love our children and care for them in the way God wants us to.

I know some people think just about everything is “morally neutral” especially when it comes to raising children, I tend to be on the side that thinks most things do have a morally/ethically “right” way, and so- I argue for it

It was clear that the OP was taking this decision VERY seriously and I applaud her for that. A fully-researched and informed choice on surgery for our newborn sons is certainly what God would expect of us.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Golf_Nut:

Mr. Trident, you are very rude and should consider apologizing for that unbelievable last comment. People are politely debating this issue while you label and hurl insults.

Pot calling the kettle black now are we??

 

[Ivornotion]

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage.

5:2 Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing

5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.

6:12 For as many as desire to please in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ.

6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised, keep the law; but they will have you to be circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

6:16 And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.​

From what I take out of the above is, it doesn’t matter if your circumcised or not.
Some do it on health grounds and others have their own reasons, but it seemed that the people in Pauls time had a hard time adjusting to the new.
They seemed to have a hard time accepting justification through Jesus Christ (Spirit) and were confused thinking they had to be justified by the old law (circumcision)

It doesn’t matter if your circuncised or not, we are justified by Jesus and not by the flesh, circumcison.

 

[mr_trident]

hmmmm I guess I thought it was more a matter of the circumcision of the heart that Paul was addresing… in other words it didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or Greek, circumcised or not… God looks at the heart. In the OT, God’s people wer circumcised which represented a cutting away of the flesh ( earthy things) and devotion to God. In the NT, with the giving of the Holy Spirit, it wasn’t as much the external cutting away as the internal cutting away - ie attitude of the heart. but thats how I interpreted that passage.

 

[Steph700]

mr trident:

hmmmm I guess I thought it was more a matter of the circumcision of the heart that Paul was addresing… in other words it didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or Greek, circumcised or not… God looks at the heart. In the OT, God’s people wer circumcised which represented a cutting away of the flesh ( earthy things) and devotion to God. In the NT, with the giving of the Holy Spirit, it wasn’t as much the external cutting away as the internal cutting away - ie attitude of the heart. but thats how I interpreted that passage.

No, my understanding is that Paul was emphasizing the fact that being circumsized or not being circumsized no longer symbolized that one was part of God’s people- and neither did being Jew or Gentile. The new action/sacrament that Christ instituted was baptism, and this is how we are to show that we are part of the body of believers.

 

[m134e5]

I believe circumcision to be a barbaric practice. The circumcision required by God is not required anymore, and still- the foreskin was not cut completely off like it is today- just back. People can learn to clean themselves. Circumcision does not prevent cancer- it only makes it more readily visible (which if the guy examines himself- which he should do while cleaning anyway, he’ll be able to see if something is wrong- furthermore- penile cancer is extremely rare). Why remove what isn’t causing any harm?

 

[mr_trident]

Steph700:

No, my understanding is that Paul was emphasizing the fact that being circumsized or not being circumsized no longer symbolized that one was part of God’s people- and neither did being Jew or Gentile. The new action/sacrament that Christ instituted was baptism, and this is how we are to show that we are part of the body of believers.

I agree with you…external circumcision isn’t what God wants … its internal… God wants the heart of His people to follow His commands willing thru obedience.

 

[mr_trident]

m134e5:

I believe circumcision to be a barbaric practice. The circumcision required by God is not required anymore, and still- the foreskin was not cut completely off like it is today- just back. People can learn to clean themselves. Circumcision does not prevent cancer- it only makes it more readily visible (which if the guy examines himself- which he should do while cleaning anyway, he’ll be able to see if something is wrong- furthermore- penile cancer is extremely rare). Why remove what isn’t causing any harm?

Its true … God does not require circumcision but I would hardly call it barbaric. Abortion I would call barbaric…
Men can learn to clean themselves .that’s true, but do they ?? Only God knows the answer to that question…
why remove it … well its a choice … I chose to have my son circumcised and I know I made the right choice. Thats my position and I will never change it.

 

[Ivornotion]

mr trident:

hmmmm I guess I thought it was more a matter of the circumcision of the heart that Paul was addresing… in other words it didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or Greek, circumcised or not… God looks at the heart. In the OT, God’s people wer circumcised which represented a cutting away of the flesh ( earthy things) and devotion to God. In the NT, with the giving of the Holy Spirit, it wasn’t as much the external cutting away as the internal cutting away - ie attitude of the heart. but thats how I interpreted that passage.

I don’t agree with you sorry, apart from a change of heart concerning circumcision in order to be justified would have been desirable.

Ok off the cuff here but a baby just recently died here in Ireland after a back street botched circumcision, the baby bled profusely, and the dad refused to get it seen to until it was too late, so it bled to death. some justification, when Baptism would have sufficed. cirp.org/news/irishexaminer08-21-03b/

munster-express.ie/030822/news1.htm

 

[Ivornotion]

Steph700:

No, my understanding is that Paul was emphasizing the fact that being circumsized or not being circumsized no longer symbolized that one was part of God’s people- and neither did being Jew or Gentile. The new action/sacrament that Christ instituted was baptism, and this is how we are to show that we are part of the body of believers.

Correct