since the title of your thread is “something I need to know before marriage” it is topical to add that you need to know the truth of what you were told (which is basically bunkum). why not discuss this with your gynecologists, because your friends are off the wall on this.
Good heavens, my man is circumcised and our sex life has always been great. In the beginning since this was all new to me there was definitely a time of learning what worked best for us but it was never bad and never a chore.
Think of foreplay this made me go ewww. (Yes not very mature but I still feel like ewww thinking about it.) I’ll take my dry guy thank you very much.
Can we try to stay on topic, Biblical verses non Biblical circumcision should really be another thread.I don’t think you proved anything. I do have the same Bible you have.
In Biblical times, the foreskin was considered to be only the bit of skin that hung past the glans - thus “fore” skin. (It hung before the rest of the penis skin).
**Peron, James E. Circumcision: Then and Now. Many Blessings 2000;III:41-42. **cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
“The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham’s time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed.”
medicalnewstoday.com/your…pinionid=10172
“Showing Jesus intact in nude paintings is consistent with the Jewish Law of circumcision at the time Jesus was circumcised. The same is true of Michaelangelo’s David that shows a nick on the dorsal of his foreskin. In Biblical times the foreskin was only that part of the prepuce extending beyond the glans penis. The Jewish circumcision at the time of Jesus did not expose the glans.”
cirp.org/library/history/
“Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised. A radical new procedure called peri’ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant”
**Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: a historical review of preputial restoration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;101(7): 1990-1998. **healthboard.com/websites/Detailed/66675.html
“…about 140 AD, they introduced radical circumcision to the Jewish community, the so-called periah. It left the glans totally uncovered…”
**The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford 1997. **cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/
“…the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri’ah (laying bare the glans)…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
“The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, hypothesizes that the present form of circumcision, involving periah (peeling back the foreskin), was commenced during the Second Temple period. According to this hypothesis, Jewish hellenists, wanting to assimilate into Greek society, obliterated the sign of their circumcisions by finding ways to lengthen them, to make it look as if they had not been circumcised at all.[27] This practice was unacceptable to the Jewish community at large, and led to the complete removal of the foreskin to expose the glans. The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called frenectomy.[28]”
This post pretty much says it all.
Yes, I agree and I am not at all certain the post is real either - or just another try at getting us to debate circumcision.
sanctareparata;3394531That’s why circ’ed men have a dry grey glans - the body tries to protect itself so it builds up a tough skin over it when in fact said:
When did I ever say what I was attracted to physically?
Hope this helps, Gisella. I know it was never your intention to post anything inappropriate. Truth be told, there are any number of inappropriate topics being discussed here at a given time. The moderators are kept quite busy, though, and don’t always get around to them all. I posted what I thought was a worthwhile and salient thread a couple of months ago, only to have it vanish within a couple of days. But I don’t question them on these matters. It’s a privilege to be able to use the forums.
I wasn’t the one who brought it up.Can we try to stay on topic, Biblical verses non Biblical circumcision should really be another thread.
Most certainly, it is. The glans is naturally pink/red and moist. It’s meant to be an internal organ.
Why is this thread inappropriate? There is nothing here being said that is disgusting at all.
I agree this has been discussed on the parenting forum when expectant mothers are considering whether to circumcise or not. It’s a decision that will effect our sons for their entire lives.
Discussing circumcision as a medical procedure is one thing. But I would not wish to have my 13-year-old reading a discussion of the pros and cons of it as it pertains to the marital act. Discussion of sexual problems, in my opinion, ought to be private, for grown-up eyes only.
There have been lots of threads in Family Life on marital intimacy, orgasm, foreplay, how to help excite a spouse. This is not nearly as explicit as some of those have gotten.
I have seen those as well, and even participated in a few before reading Karl Keating’s rule on the subject (see my earlier post). Many of those threads were quite inappropriate given the age of some of the members here. Do you have young teens? Would you want them reading about such subjects on a Catholic website, or any website at all?There have been lots of threads in Family Life on marital intimacy, orgasm, foreplay, how to help excite a spouse. This is not nearly as explicit as some of those have gotten.
And in Parenting the pros and cons in the marital act are also discussed on occasion…I guess I think this has been pretty a calm (though informative) thread.
No, I wouldn’t. But I also wouldn’t allow them on the computer without supervision (as in, a parent in the same room with them).