Male Circumcision

Molzahn

Molzahn

Legacy Member
Should male circumcision be allowed? Why or why not?


Discuss.
 
My understanding is that circumcision provides some sanitary benefits and decreases the likelihood of infection. That said, I am admittedly of the Christian persuasion, so the practice of circumcision is a historical tradition. Honestly, I have not given the idea much thought. What raised the question in your mind?
 
circumcision only happens and happened because 'the sales people' of judasm (mnay centuries ago) had to prove the amount of people they had converted, thus taking back the foreskin to for proof. This is what I understand, I am not 100% sure that this is correct but certainly interesting if it is true.

Peace
 
It originated with the Jews, but it did not have to do with the sale of people. Jews believe that circumcision is required by God, as is written in the Torah. All Jewish males are circumcised, as a result. If foreigners were brought into the fold of the Jews, they were also required to be circumcised.

This practice sort of continued with Christians, but only as a tradition. The Torah is also a part of the Christian scriptures, but non-jewish Christians do not typically view circumcision as a requirement. I certainly don't think it is.
 
Personally i dont care if the person has the foreskin, or not, normally I dont find out being a hetrosexual man! lol :) There are many walks of life and some will scar. stereotyping people will stop you from learning what they are all about and as for the history it seems like i was talkin my mates bullshit lol! this is the wikipedia definition.

The origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of enhancing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing "excess" pleasure, as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader, and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin. It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread. Darby describes these theories as "conflicting", and states that "the only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it." Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practising circumcision, leading to its spread. Wilson suggests that circumcision reduces insemination efficiency, reducing a man's capacity for extra-pair fertilizations by impairing sperm competition. Thus, men who display this signal of sexual obedience, may gain social benefits, if married men are selected to offer social trust and investment preferentially to peers who are less threatening to their paternity.

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples. In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.

Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.

Peace
 
Janus said:
My understanding is that circumcision provides some sanitary benefits and decreases the likelihood of infection.
Click to expand...
The same sanitary benefits can be realised through washing your penis. Circumcision is unnecessary, brutal, and should be illegal.
 
The odd thing is that I agree with NoeL's sentiment when it comes to female circumcision: unnecessary, brutal, and illegal. Isn't it interested how cultural norms can affect what we believe to be rational judgements?
 
Janus said:
The odd thing is that I agree with NoeL's sentiment when it comes to female circumcision: unnecessary, brutal, and illegal.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you disagree that male circumcision is these things (or "should be", with regards to legality)?
 
I don't think that I've made up my mind. My sense is that there is probably a medical reason why female circumcision is illegal in the U.S., whereas male circumcision is still commonplace.
 
I suspect it's got much more to do with religious tradition than medical benefit, though there was a bit of a resurgence in the 70s-80s (maybe even before that, I'm not sure) where the medical benefits of circumcision were exaggerated. Given that studies have shown the foreskin to be the most sensitive part of the penis and that proper hygiene is equally as effective as circumcision when it comes to preventing nasties, I can only assume the opposition is religious tradition. Similar to why alcohol and tobacco are legal when less harmful drugs are not - they're just culturally ingrained in society.
 
I believe that every one has the say in their own circumcision. They should be able to decide for themselves if they want to have one, or if they choose not to. Most people base their own reasons for their circumcision as religious, while there is truth in that there is sanitary benefits and reduces the chances of infection, majority doesn't even know this or base their own reasons for circumcision on this fact.
 
It is meant to be done for health reasons. That is why most decide to have their male children circumcised when they are still babies.

Imagine if you got circumcised just recently. It would cause you to have tons of pain, it would be hard to keep infections away while it was healing, and you wouldnt be able to work or do things while it is healing.
 
Joshua Farrell said:
Imagine if you got circumcised just recently. It would cause you to have tons of pain, it would be hard to keep infections away while it was healing, and you wouldnt be able to work or do things while it is healing.
Click to expand...
Two out of three of those things are common no matter when you get it done.

As for the "health reasons" you mentioned, as I said earlier in the thread it's a myth. The argument that circumcision has health benefits is equivalent to advocating a foot amputation to prevent a gangrenous foot from occurring. Sure, you'll never get gangrene on your foot if we cut it off, but there are simple methods of preventing gangrene without having to cut off your foot. Simply washing under the foreskin has all the benefits of circumcision, without the unnecessary genital mutilation.
 
With male circumcision it's fine, but with female I think that's very brutal. For male theres some benefits out of it, but not really a lot. Female is just crazy!
 
God made Man, why do Men have to change Man? I really don't get all this. Let's start eating genetically modified products, cut ourselves and drink all sorts of stuff. Where would we end, really?
 
I think the right question should have been: Should circumcision be compulsory? I believe that it should be a choice and the boy should be given to pick that choice when he is already capable of making a decision. Whether circumcised or not, the value of a man will never diminished. Being a real man has nothing to do with how his dick is managed.
 
I know that circumcision is advised by doctors and has been a tradition for many years now. I agree that it has something to do with sanitation for men. I am for it and I don't think it is illegal as long as it's done in a proper way.
 
There are benefits with circumcision. However, there are now growing number of men who are uncircumcised because it is not mandatory in their culture to undergo the ritual. In Europe, a lot of men still have their foreskin intact and these men find that sexual activity is more intense and achieving orgasm is much better and more explosive. I have no problem actually whether a man is circumcised or not. It is just a matter of preference.
 
A very serious issue I want to bring to light is the fact that the person in question does not have a choice as to whether he becomes circumcised or not. Should parents have the right to alter their sons' bodies in such a way?

Let's consider Cecil's comment for a moment. Circumcision slightly decreases the need for cleaning the area and sanitation in general, while significantly decreasing sensitivity. Female circumcision is known to decrease female sex drive (in most cases), thus leading to less infidelity and lower divorce rates. This is a beneficial effect of female circumcision, but does that alone make it right to do unto someone?
 
Back
Top