Marriage and Circumcision

  • Thread starter Thread starter larry0226
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

larry0226

Guest
The Catholic Church takes a nuetral position on infant male circumcision.

In previous threads on this site, parents debate circumcision and consider such things as “cleanliness” as a justification for having their sons altered for life.

One can see that too many people are not sufficiently informed about the purpose of the male foreskin. Before I go on, let me point out some salient facts. The USA is the only industrial country in the world that routinely circumcises its male infants. The USA is the only country in the world to circumcise its boys for non-religious reasons. All the myths alleging health benefits from infant (or adult) circumcision have been debunked.

Okay, so circumcision is the exception worldwide with about 80 percent of the men being natural. Why is this relevant to your marriage and to your family life?

If we are ever, as Catholics, going to give more than passing lip service to the worth of the unitive function of the marital or conjugal act, we ought to at least understand it more fully. Circumcision abnormalizes the conjugal act for both the woman and the man. (It is not my purpose here to give an education on the mechanics of coitus, so I will avoid graphic specifics that would likely offend some forum participants. I do encourage those of you with an open mind to avail yourselves of the resources available on the Internet and in books published in the past 20 years to become better informed on this issue.)

As circumcision greatly impairs the pleasure both wife and husband derive from marital lovemaking, the subsequent bonding between the spouses is also qualitatively impaired as well (and to a larger degree than most people suspect).

Okay, here is a question or two to ponder: Do parents have a “right” to permit doctors or interns to mutilate their infant sons when there is no benefit and a major downside to this bizarre practice? As parents, do you want to deprive your son and future daughter-in-law of the ability to bond as fully as possible in their marriage? (And, with one of the highest divorce rates in the world, I think we would want to do things that strengthen marriages, and not weaken them.)

I cannot answer for others, but for my wife and myself, we answer no to both questions.

Personally, I do not think this is a morally nuetral issue. Also, girls’ genital integrity is now protected by a federal law passed in 1996. We ought to protect baby boys, too.

I have found women to be much more open to learning about this issue than many men are. But, we need to educate people in this country if we are ever going to stop this damaging practice. The rest of the world laughs at us on this issue and cannot understand why we Americans mindlessly persist in such a needless and destructive practice.

And, I dare say, that circumcision is the principal reason America behaves as a sexually frustrated nation.
 
This was a bold first post. Why would you post something so controversial as your intro to CAF?

FWIW, I tend to agree with you. I do not judge parents for circumsizing their sons, but for me - I just don’t understand what the purpose of circumcision is. We chose not to, my humble opinion on the matter is God made men that way for a reason, who am I to tell Him it wasn’t perfect?
 
The fact that these views are controversial at all speaks volumes about our culture. :rolleyes:
 
I think they banned this topic on the parenting forum because it got too heated 🤷.

For the record, I totally agree with you … though I question that it’s the only reason Americans are sexually dysfunctional/frustrated.
 
In response, bold views for a first post, perhaps. That is a subjective observation. I do feel strongly on this issue because I have seen the marriages that might have been saved if the bonding had been stronger. This is not just some philosophical, ivory tower issue that could be debated for centuries. Real lives are impacted negatively every day in this advanced nation of ours. At at a time when marriages are constantly under assault because of all the pressures husbands and wives face daily, I think we need to strengthen marriages.

Would the elimination of circumcision solve all of society’s ills? Of course not. But, it would help reduce the severity of many of the ills we currently endure every day. One could make a case that circumcision even contributes to promiscuity and we know what promiscuity gives rise to - a whole host of moral and social evils.

And, yes, the fact that this issue is soooooo very tabu, does speak volumes about our society’s state of denial and ignorance.
 
pentecostbaby said:
I think they banned this topic on the parenting forum because it got too heated 🤷.

For the record, I totally agree with you … though I question that it’s the only reason Americans are sexually dysfunctional/frustrated.
Click to expand...
i expect the thread will be closed and banned within a day or two. And, yet, upon rereading my initial post, I do not see that it could be very offensive.

To correct, I did not assert that circumcision is the “only” reason America behaves as if it is sexually frustrated. I merely suggested that circ is the principal reason. 😉
 
larry0226 said:
I do feel strongly on this issue because I have seen the marriages that might have been saved if the bonding had been stronger…
…At at a time when marriages are constantly under assault because of all the pressures husbands and wives face daily, I think we need to strengthen marriages.

One could make a case that circumcision even contributes to promiscuity and we know what promiscuity gives rise to - a whole host of moral and social evils.
Click to expand...
So you think that increased pleasure from marital relations (which I would have to see the data on this before accepting) could be the saving difference in a lot of marriages and the reason is the divorce rate is so high? I am not trying to downplay the role of sex in marriage, but if added pleasure would sustain an otherwise incompatible marriage, I would think that marriage wouldn’t have a chance without circumcision. Also, I doubt it could even affect marital relations unless the wife had been with another man who was not circumcised. If not, she would have no basis for comparison.

Additionally, I would love for you to be the ‘one’ that makes the case connecting circumcision and promiscuity. I’ve never heard anyone make that connection before, so if you could explain it and maybe provide some stats or facts, that would be helpful.

The fact is that circumcision is from God. That was the sacrifice the Israelites made to identify themselves as His Chosen People. The sacrifice is even more powerful since it was claimed that God put His Perfection into all creation.
 
To Mumbles 140 above:

I have found that when people do their own research, they attach more value to what they find than when someone else gives them something for nothing. Just a fact about human nature. People tend to place more value on what they themselves have put effort into obtaining than when something is simply given to them.

Earlier, I stated it was not my purpose to go into details that might offend some forum participants. But, you are on to something when you mention comparative experiences. Think on that. Also, think on why circumcision may contribute to promiscuity. I am not asserting that it is the major or only cause of promiscuity.

Sadly, pleasure is not synonymous with bonding although pleasure is a part of bonding. Bonding is more.

And that last about God establishing circumcision demands clarification for the benefit of other readers here. The circumcision practiced by the Jews in the centuries before Christ was nothing like the extreme circumcision we have here in America. The ancient Jews just snipped a very small part of the tip of the foreskin away and left intact most of the foreskin and all of the frenulum and ridged band. This is analogous to losing a finger versus losing the entire arm below the elbow.
 
I agree that there is no need for circumcision in the modern world.
 
larry0226 said:
To Mumbles 140 above:

I have found that when people do their own research, they attach more value to what they find than when someone else gives them something for nothing. Just a fact about human nature. People tend to place more value on what they themselves have put effort into obtaining than when something is simply given to them.

Earlier, I stated it was not my purpose to go into details that might offend some forum participants. But, you are on to something when you mention comparative experiences. Think on that. Also, think on why circumcision may contribute to promiscuity. I am not asserting that it is the major or only cause of promiscuity.

Sadly, pleasure is not synonymous with bonding although pleasure is a part of bonding. Bonding is more.

And that last about God establishing circumcision demands clarification for the benefit of other readers here. The circumcision practiced by the Jews in the centuries before Christ was nothing like the extreme circumcision we have here in America. The ancient Jews just snipped a very small part of the tip of the foreskin away and left intact most of the foreskin and all of the frenulum and ridged band. This is analogous to losing a finger versus losing the entire arm below the elbow.
Click to expand...
So my understanding of your arguments above:

–There is no study, because you find that you talking to people is better than any hard data, yet you come up with these claims that you present as universal realities

–In response to my question about promiscuity, you mention the ‘comparative nature’ but then tell me to draw my own conclusions. I was hoping you would defend the point you made, not offering it back to me

-Obviously, pleasure is important enough to bonding, that is why God created sexuality. My statement was that if the difference between ‘circumcised’ relations and ‘uncircumcised’ relations was the only thing that could have held the marriage together (again, dependent on the ‘comparative measure’ which has yet to be defended), then it is doubtful that the bonds would last. Pleasure complements bonding, but it cannot sustain it

-Lastly, your example is a bit extreme. It was like comparing the ancient circumcision to making yourself a eunuch. Either way, both practices removed skin and nothing more
 
So, circumsion causes divorce and promiscuity? Gee, learn something new every day. :rolleyes:
 
larry0226 said:
In response, bold views for a first post, perhaps. That is a subjective observation. I do feel strongly on this issue because I have seen the marriages that might have been saved if the bonding had been stronger. This is not just some philosophical, ivory tower issue that could be debated for centuries. Real lives are impacted negatively every day in this advanced nation of ours. At at a time when marriages are constantly under assault because of all the pressures husbands and wives face daily, I think we need to strengthen marriages.

Would the elimination of circumcision solve all of society’s ills? Of course not. But, it would help reduce the severity of many of the ills we currently endure every day. One could make a case that circumcision even contributes to promiscuity and we know what promiscuity gives rise to - a whole host of moral and social evils.

And, yes, the fact that this issue is soooooo very tabu, does speak volumes about our society’s state of denial and ignorance.
Click to expand...
LOL… Proof Larry you provide nothing but subjectivity and then tell everyone to go look on the Internet. I can tell you I have “proof” of marriages that didn’t work and claim it was because the man was the opposite.

Here is another idea… don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. 👍
 
Good morning Mumbles 140.

I am going to breakfast soon, but, I will address one or two of your points briefly.

At the top of this short thread, in the initial post I encourage readers to use the Internet and the books published over the past 15 to 20 years on this subject. These resources are out there. Why is this subject making you uncomfortable? There have been studies of women’s comparative experiences with natural partners and with circumcised partners. Women, who have the comparative experiences, show a very strong preference for natural sex, and not for circumcised sex.

But enough of that for now. Consider this. In the 1960s, there was much concern in the US over women being “frigid” as regards sexual response in the marital bedroom. Funny, though, this question never crossed the minds of the French, Italians, Germans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilians, Mexicans, etc. as they do not cut their boys at birth or even later in life. So what is the deal with American women? Or, is it the American men?

As for Old Testament circumcision, Abraham wandered down into Egypt and there is some evidence that the elites of Egypt were practicing circumcision as far back as 3.000 B.C. It may just be that the Jews picked up the practice from the Egyptians. It is not clear why the Egyptians were doing it. Not many other folks were practicing this.
 
I am not my foreskin; I am not defined by the presence or abscence of a small fold of flesh.

I also believe that the number one asset in the romance department is not near my abdomen, but rather in my head; second to that is the heart. The “tool of the trade” is quite a ways down the list, actually.
 
larry0226 said:
At the top of this short thread, in the initial post I encourage readers to use the Internet and the books published over the past 15 to 20 years on this subject. These resources are out there. Why is this subject making you uncomfortable? There have been studies of women’s comparative experiences with natural partners and with circumcised partners. Women, who have the comparative experiences, show a very strong preference for natural sex, and not for circumcised sex.

But enough of that for now. Consider this. In the 1960s, there was much concern in the US over women being “frigid” as regards sexual response in the marital bedroom. Funny, though, this question never crossed the minds of the French, Italians, Germans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilians, Mexicans, etc. as they do not cut their boys at birth or even later in life. So what is the deal with American women? Or, is it the American men?

As for Old Testament circumcision, Abraham wandered down into Egypt and there is some evidence that the elites of Egypt were practicing circumcision as far back as 3.000 B.C. It may just be that the Jews picked up the practice from the Egyptians. It is not clear why the Egyptians were doing it. Not many other folks were practicing this.
Click to expand...
Larry, you say you’ll address my points, but you answer questions with vague descriptions of ‘studies and research’ but do not list a single source. Point us in the right direction if you have this plethora of information.

Obviously, I’m not uncomfortable discussing the matter, so let’s have another crack at it. Again, assuming your claims without any factual basis, a woman should NOT know the difference in pleasure because she should only be pleased by one man-her husband. Thus the ‘comparative’ measure argument is immoral to begin with.

Again, you talk about the concern of frigidity in the 1960s, but have no proof. Based on my understanding of American society, the 1960s and early 1970s was the era where youth were moving away from the strict confines of the 1950s in post-war America and became very liberal towards sexuality, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc.

And concerning the ancient Egyptian circumcision, please show the Bible quote where this occurs, because God specifically uses this to mark His chosen people. And let’s be serious–if Jesus was circumcised to offer the sacrifice up to the Father, then why shouldn’t we all?

Even if we assume everything you say is correct without any sort of proof, look at it this way–if you believe marital relations to still be pleasurable with circumcision, then why not withhold that extra pleasure as a sacrifice to God.

And one last crack at the promiscuity argument since you avoided it–if it is more pleasurable uncircumcised, it will increase the urge to attain that greater pleasure, which if this pleasure is experienced before marriage, then the driving urge will be to continue doing it outside the confines of Holy Matrimony.

PLEASE provide some sort of data, not general references to ‘all cultures’ or ‘records’
 
Mumbles140 said:
Larry, you say you’ll address my points, but you answer questions with vague descriptions of ‘studies and research’ but do not list a single source. Point us in the right direction if you have this plethora of information.

I guess i am sounding like a politician…I will give a general reference below as a starting point for those who are willing to put some effort into becoming informed.

Obviously, I’m not uncomfortable discussing the matter, so let’s have another crack at it. Again, assuming your claims without any factual basis, a woman should NOT know the difference in pleasure because she should only be pleased by one man-her husband. Thus the ‘comparative’ measure argument is immoral to begin with.

The fact that some sources of information have derived from immoral activities here is not relevant to the point I am trying to make. btw, i do not condone marital infidelity, fornication nor adultery.

Again, you talk about the concern of frigidity in the 1960s, but have no proof. Based on my understanding of American society, the 1960s and early 1970s was the era where youth were moving away from the strict confines of the 1950s in post-war America and became very liberal towards sexuality, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc.

And concerning the ancient Egyptian circumcision, please show the Bible quote where this occurs, because God specifically uses this to mark His chosen people. And let’s be serious–if Jesus was circumcised to offer the sacrifice up to the Father, then why shouldn’t we all?

This last phrase is not really on point. Read the New Testament where St.Paul rebukes St. Peter such that gentiles do not need to become Jews first before becoming Christians. I dare say the New Covenant initiated by Christ supercedes the Old Covenant. Baptism replaced circumcision.

Also, the archeaological and historical evidence of Egyptian circumcision is not in the Bible - I never claimed that it was.

Even if we assume everything you say is correct without any sort of proof, look at it this way–if you believe marital relations to still be pleasurable with circumcision, then why not withhold that extra pleasure as a sacrifice to God.

Re: sacrificing away extra pleasure to God…Has it ever crossed your mind that joy in our marriages does not in any way innoculate us from all the sufferings we have to endure throughout our lives? btw, i have always wondered at the Church’s rather negative view of marriage and its promotion of celibacy as somehow being more favorable in God’s eyes. Just read what the Council of Trent had to say on the relative worth of marriage in God’s eyes vis-a-vis the celibate state. No,I do not agree that we ought to sacrifice away marital pleasure to God. I guess if you obsess on and glorify suffering too much you may arrive at the view that joy and pleasure are a bad thing. But, I, and many others, do not share that view. A more joyous marriage does not mean we somehow escape or get away with less suffering.

And one last crack at the promiscuity argument since you avoided it–if it is more pleasurable uncircumcised, it will increase the urge to attain that greater pleasure, which if this pleasure is experienced before marriage, then the driving urge will be to continue doing it outside the confines of Holy Matrimony.

Promiscuity is caused by a number of factors (I alluded to this earlier). If the normal (I am assuming we can dispense with defining “normal” in this context) sex act is not very gratifying to men and women there is a tendency in some people’s thinking to suspect that something may not be quite right with their partner. Of course, since we still without any rational reason continue to circumcise, most people are experiencing circumcised sex. They do not have the comparative experiences to recognize that it is the abnormalized male sexual organ that is the cause. But they feel something is not quite right and this leads some men and women to keep thinking they just need to find the “right” partner. Yes, this seems farfetched to you and remember i am not asserting this is the main cause of promiscuity just another contributing factor. Women bond more fully emotionally to a natural man and then they are not as likely to keep seeking for the “right” partner and for sexual novelty. This is not my assertion - consult the reference below to read the comments from experienced women.

PLEASE provide some sort of data, not general references to ‘all cultures’ or ‘records’
Click to expand...
Okay this is the second to the last post I will make on this website, so please read my next post carefully and then it will be good-bye and best wishes time.

Here is a reference that is a good starting point to learning much more about various aspects of this issue. Yes, it includes many comments from women, but does a balanced job of taking account of a man’s perspective as well. It is not the only book on this issue and it was not the earliest written, but, keep in mind, you are all able to do some internet querries to obtain more sources. (There are websites that address the issue of routine infant male circumcision and there are organizations that are currently working to stop this unnecessary practice in the US - the only country on Earth that routinely circumcises for non-religious reasons.)

Sex as Nature Intended It, by Kristen O’Hara, Turning Point Publications, 2002.
 
Okay, last post for me as I am no longer going to visit this forum or this website.
  1. The constraints of this forum are such that i could not be very specific or explicit in my posts to fully make my points. That is why I encourage those readers who are interested to seek out more information for themselves. The Internet and even your local library are great resources if you are willing to make the effort.
  2. My wife did warn me that Catholics would not likely be receptive to thinking about this issue. However, many people did view this thread and it is likely that some will give serious thought to the subject matter.
  3. I would really have liked the Catholic Church in the US to have played a role in ending this needless and bizarre practice in this country. No Catholic nations do this to their boys. True, the US is not a predominatnly Catholic country, but, the Church routinely condemns other practices here. However, the bind that the Church is in is one of its own making as it did not see fit to condemn this practice from the start back when it was first being promoted on a large scale in the very late 1800s and early 1900s.
  4. There are other organizations (non-Catholic) that are currently working to end routine infant circumcision here in the US.
  5. A caution to parents who have had their son(s) mutilated: down the road, your son(s) are going to ask you why this was done to them. Simply saying that the decision came down to a concern over “cleanliness” is not going to satisfy your son(s). The medical community knows this is unnecessary surgery, yet continues to recommend it to parents because the practice is big money to them year in and year out.
 
Well it’s a shame that you have to leave us Larry, especially with so many things left unanswered. You defended some of your points on the basis that certain facts were true, and I guess you technically provided some literary backing (although an anti-circumcision book probably isn’t unbiased, scientific fact), but there are other things that you failed to explain or just skipped right over.

You say that Egyptian circumcision isn’t in the bible but it is in historical records. Well you were the one who talk about when Abraham went into Egypt that it was being done there, so that’s what led me to that conclusion.

Also, the fact that ‘some sources are derived from immoral acts’ is extremely relevant. That’s the same logic that people use to promote ESCR. Unless the intentions, the methods, and the results are good, the act cannot be good. If we all followed the will of God concerning marital relations, no woman would ever know the difference, never feel the supposed ‘lack of closeness’ compared to an uncircumcised man because it would only be with her husband. To say “Well let me assert my moral argument by assuming all women have premarital relations with someone they aren’t going to marry” smacks sexual morality in the face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top