Is circumcision mutilation?

[whatistrue]

Uncircumcised penis gets yeast infection. Circumcised does not. It’s that simple.

No, it isn’t. If you wash properly, you don’t get any of those sorts of infections whether circumcised or not.

There is no difference in any testimony I’ve ever heard from uncircumcised males who get a circumcision as an adult as pertaining to sensitivity.

They exist, whether you have personally heard them or not.

Do you actually think that men would continue to circumcise males if there weren’t a benefit?

Yes, I do. And history bears me out.

And lastly, an uncircumcised penis is a vestige of caveman

Ah, so we now know better than nature? Good to know. Maybe we should make a list of every body part that is “a vestige” and has a risk of becoming infected and routinely remove them.

Short version is that I personally don’t care if you prefer circumcision or not, but to claim that there are extensive advantages to it is incorrect. Any benefits are circumstantial and minor, and there are real documented risks associated with the procedure itself, especially if done on infants.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

and it is in fact mutilation –

No it’s not. Jesus was circumcised. Do people here even realize that?

 

[MrsAngelala]

Do you know the Church’s definition of mutilation?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

but to claim that there are extensive advantages to it is incorrect.

Again, no. There are advantages that outweigh any risk.

Maybe we should make a list of every body part that is “a vestige” and has a risk of becoming infected and routinely remove them.

People do this. Again, weighing the risks first.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Are you asserting that the Church thinks that Jesus was mutilated by his circumcision? That’s totally inappropriate. Not to mention that it makes no sense. You also seem to be asserting that priests today are standing idly by while parents mutilate their children. If that’s the case then I think I’ll quit responding to you.

 

[whatistrue]

There are advantages that outweigh any risk.

No, there really aren’t. Again, I don’t care if you want to do it to yourself or your children, but to make a blanket claim that it is best overall or that not doing it is a failure of parenting is simply incorrect. I have nothing more to say on this.

 

[Inquiry]

EmilyAlexandra:

For example, not having a foreskin is only more hygienic if somebody is incapable of washing underneath his foreskin.

Uncircumcised penis gets yeast infection. Circumcised does not. It’s that simple.

Urine gets under foreskin. Urine not a problem for circumcised. How many times a day do people urinate?

I know I’d have preferred easily treatable medical conditions and basic hygiene to amputation. Unfortunately I did not get that choice.

There is no difference in any testimony I’ve ever heard from uncircumcised males who get a circumcision as an adult as pertaining to sensitivity.

Desensitized penis is a myth and lie. There is no “tough skin” on the circumcised penis. Do you actually think that men would continue to circumcise males if there weren’t a benefit?

I don’t know why you posted this because this is demonstrably untrue. I can personally attest that keratinization is a thing and I’ve talked with urologists who verified it is common. I’d spend more time on this but…

And lastly, an uncircumcised penis is a vestige of caveman who couldn’t rely on the female to be lubricated on her own during intercourse. Circumcised man have an awfully hard time penetrating an unwilling female.

This, though… this is about the most shameful piece of poisoning the well I’ve seen in quite some time. Intimating that the only purpose of the foreskin is rape is both baseless and crude.

 

[MrsAngelala]

No. The OP’s question was about what people think. I said what I think. I gave my reasons why. One of those reasons was the actual definition of mutilation. At the time my husband and I made this decision, we were responsible for making a determination about a medical procedure to which we would or would not subject a baby boy. We were not, and never have been, responsible for making deep or sweeping theological judgments about the history of circumcision.

I know there are people who like to bicker. I’m not one. I will say no more, and I wish you peace.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

but to make a blanket claim that it is best overall or that not doing it is a failure of parenting is simply incorrect.

I’m refuting the blanket claims of the anti circumcision people here. That much should be obvious from the context.

And you are the one mentioning a failure of parenting, not me. I find the accusations uncharitable.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Intimating that the only purpose of the foreskin is rape is both baseless and crude.

You have just said so here. I said no such thing.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The OP’s question was about what people think. I said what I think.

You said “in fact” twice. And then acted as if the Church thought that circumcision was mutilation. That is what you posted.

 

[whatistrue]

I’m refuting the blanket claims

You are making opposing claims, which is not the same as refuting, just as I do not said I have refuted your position, only denied it. And I made no accusations. Perhaps you inferred something that I did not imply?

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Intimating that the only purpose of the foreskin is rape is both baseless and crude.

You have just said so here. I said no such thing.

I literally quoted you saying it. Here it is again.

And lastly, an uncircumcised penis is a vestige of caveman who couldn’t rely on the female to be lubricated on her own during intercourse. Circumcised man have an awfully hard time penetrating an unwilling female.

This is what I mean by poisoning the well by the way. You admitted that it had a lubricative purpose, you just poisoned the idea by linking it with rape.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

And where do I write “the only purpose of foreskin is rape”?

You thought that. And then you projected it on me.

 

[whatistrue]

And lastly, an uncircumcised penis is a vestige of caveman who couldn’t rely on the female to be lubricated on her own during intercourse. Circumcised man have an awfully hard time penetrating an unwilling female.

You have just said so here. I said no such thing.

You didn’t?

 

[Riman643]

Not only are you flat out wrong, but this very offensive.

 

[whatistrue]

What is offensive to you about a couple making a decision that is different than the one you would make, after they did their own research and thought about it?

 

[Inquiry]

And where do I write “the only purpose of foreskin is rape”?

You thought that. And then you projected it on me.

I’ve quoted it twice now precisely because I wanted it to be clear that it was in your words.

 

[Riman643]

Calling it mutilation when it is not.

 

[whatistrue]

Calling it mutilation when it is not.

I wouldn’t personally use that word for that particular action, but it does in fact meet one of the definitions, even if not the most common one.