Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Circumcision

Recommended Posts

I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation about circumcision, it's history, religious circumcision, and the pros/cons of non-religious circumcision. 

1st, as far as I understand, the law of circumcision started with Abraham as a sign of the Lord's covenant people:

Quote

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty;1 walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram,2 but your name shall be Abraham,3 for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
(Gen 17:1-

Questions I have regarding religious circumcision:

1) Why was this "everlasting covenant" not really everlasting?  Was that mistranslated?

2) Why males only?  Were females not considered the Lord's covenant people?

The Catholic Church has condemned religious circumcision but other Coptic and Orthodoxy religions still observe the practice.  According to the Book of Mormon the law is "done away".

Quote

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

Why was it done away?  What exactly did Christ do to fulfill the law of circumcision?  This seems to contradict the "everlasting covenant" of the Old Testament.

Given this passage in the BoM, why do Latter-day Saints still circumcise their boys?  Why circumcise boys and not girls?  

If I was to make a poll about female genital mutilation, I am sure that probably 100% would be opposed to it, but for some reason that I don't fully understand yet, we are not apposed to male genital mutilation (circumcision).  Any insights there?  If there is no religious reason for it, why is it so commonly practiced in the US when in other Christian nations it has become less popular?  What about you Saints on the Isles of the sea, is Latter-day Saint circumcision common where you are at?

After watching a documentary on circumcision on Netfilx, I am regretting and feeling much remorse for the decision I made to circumcise my son.  I wish I would have studied this topic out more before making the decision. 

The 2 main reasons I decided to circumcise was because 1) I was told it was more hygienic (I now question that assertion), and 2) because I was concerned about bullying in gym class etc. a concern that I now think does not justify such extreme measures.  

I was naive.  I feel terrible about mutilating God's perfect creation ("the whole need no physician") and removing the enhanced potential for sexual pleasure that I did not realize was so associated with the foreskin. 

Any thoughts?

Here is a trailer for American Circumcision, it is worth a watch and consideration if you have Netflix

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

1) Why was this "everlasting covenant" not really everlasting?  Was that mistranslated?

The covenant they made was everlasting for them and it still is for them; but in our latter-days not needed for us.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The covenant they made was everlasting for them and it still is for them; but in our latter-days not needed for us.

Can you clarify what you mean by "them" and "us" ?  Thanks.  Are you talking about the direct descendants of Abraham and suggesting that God still requires it of them today but not for Latter-day Saints?  Or, are you saying that it was only required for them in their day but not for us in our day?  If so, what did you mean by "it still is for them"? 

My understanding of that passage is that it is an everlasting covenant for all of Abraham's offspring after him...that would include us today.

Quote

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you (Gen 17:7)

But as a follow up question, why was it done away do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

But as a follow up question, why was it done away do you think?

'Cuz it hurts like hell?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ttribe said:

'Cuz it hurts like hell?!

And to think that the medical community believed for a very long time that infants don't feel pain and used no anesthesia!  They would perform surgeries, even open heart surgery, on children without any anesthesia!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you clarify what you mean by "them" and "us" ?  Thanks.  Are you talking about the direct descendants of Abraham and suggesting that God still requires it of them today but not for Latter-day Saints?  Or, are you saying that it was only required for them in their day but not for us in our day?  If so, what did you mean by "it still is for them"? 

My understanding of that passage is that it is an everlasting covenant for all of Abraham's offspring after him...that would include us today.

But as a follow up question, why was it done away do you think?

Could it be that you are failing to distinguish between the covenant itself and the ritual associated with that covenant? 

I’ll draw an analogy here. We make covenants in the temple, but the symbolic rites by which those covenants are administered have been changed somewhat over time. 

Also, consider the definition of “everlasting.” We read in the Docrine and Covenants that “Everlasting” is a name for God and therefore, is sometimes applied to something that is associated with Him. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

And to think that the medical community believed for a very long time that infants don't feel pain and used no anesthesia!  They would perform surgeries, even open heart surgery, on children without any anesthesia!!! 

Some have rationalized that it’s OK because an infant will have no memory of it. By that wacky logic it would be OK to operate without anesthesia on a patient with Alzheimer’s. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you clarify what you mean by "them" and "us" ?  Thanks.  Are you talking about the direct descendants of Abraham and suggesting that God still requires it of them today but not for Latter-day Saints?  Or, are you saying that it was only required for them in their day but not for us in our day?  If so, what did you mean by "it still is for them"? 

My understanding of that passage is that it is an everlasting covenant for all of Abraham's offspring after him...that would include us today.

But as a follow up question, why was it done away do you think?

D&C 74 explains it pretty well

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.
Now, in the days of the apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.
And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.
Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

Paul seemed to think it was no longer necessary: 
"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."  (1 Cor 1: 18-19)

From the beginning of the modern Church, the emphasis has been on circumcision of heart instead of a literal physical circumcision
"And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deut 30: 6)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

..............................

The Catholic Church has condemned religious circumcision but other Coptic and Orthodoxy religions still observe the practice.  According to the Book of Mormon the law is "done away".

Why was it done away?  What exactly did Christ do to fulfill the law of circumcision?  This seems to contradict the "everlasting covenant" of the Old Testament.

The covenant of circumcision was not done away, but was shifted by Christ to circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Acts 15:1-41, Romans 2:25-29, 9:24-29, Gal 5:6, 6:15, Col 2:11).  Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Given this passage in the BoM, why do Latter-day Saints still circumcise their boys?  Why circumcise boys and not girls?  

If I was to make a poll about female genital mutilation, I am sure that probably 100% would be opposed to it, but for some reason that I don't fully understand yet, we are not apposed to male genital mutilation (circumcision).  Any insights there?  If there is no religious reason for it, why is it so commonly practiced in the US when in other Christian nations it has become less popular?  What about you Saints on the Isles of the sea, is Latter-day Saint circumcision common where you are at?.................................

There is no "Latter-day Saint circumcision."  People in Western countries, as in Middle Eastern countries (Arabs and Jews both circumcise) circumcise for different reasons.  In the Middle East it is a matter of the Abrahamic covenant as well as tradition.  In the West, it is a matter of 20th century medical popularity.  Mormons do not circumcise any more than other cultural groups in America, and it is not a religious practice.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The 2 main reasons I decided to circumcise was because 1) I was told it was more hygienic (I now question that assertion), and 2) because I was concerned about bullying in gym class etc. a concern that I now think does not justify such extreme measures.  .....................................

It is not necessary to circumcise for hygienic reasons.  I have never seen any bullying for such reasons.  No one even commented on the obvious fact when we were in the Armed Forces showering together, even though the drill instructors did order that all those who were uncircumcised to be sure to wash beneath their foreskins.  So there was some concern.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

And to think that the medical community believed for a very long time that infants don't feel pain and used no anesthesia!  They would perform surgeries, even open heart surgery, on children without any anesthesia!!! 

Jewish circumcision is still done without any anesthesia.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

D&C 74 explains it pretty well

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.
Now, in the days of the apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.
And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.
Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

Thanks for the reference. I did actually read this section before  posting this thread, but was somewhat confused by it was saying.  It seems to be saying that the commandment to do away with circumcision was not a commandment of the Lord, but "of himself", meaning the apostle.  It also states that it was done away so that the traditional belief that children are unholy would be put to rest, which was an interesting - was circumcision performed as a sanctifying/cleansing ceremony in Judaism?

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Paul seemed to think it was no longer necessary: 
"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."  (1 Cor 1: 18-19)

It is interesting how much Paul condemned it, calling it mutilation at one point (Philippians 3:2), but yet he still circumcised Timothy... So it seems he was less against Jewish circumcision (Timothy) and more against gentile circumcision (Titus, whom he refused to circumcise). 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

If I was to make a poll about female genital mutilation, I am sure that probably 100% would be opposed to it, but for some reason that I don't fully understand yet, we are not apposed to male genital mutilation (circumcision).  Any insights there? 

There is no comparison here. Female circumcision is completely barbaric, extremely dangerous and not only reduces sexual pleasure but removes it completely. There are still some hygienic arguments that can be made to support male circumcision. I had my sons circumcised because my husband is and I thought it was the common practice. One of my sons went through a period of time when he was angry with me for it but he's since apologized (interestingly, he never even discussed it with his father). I do agree though that it is something we often do to our children without really asking ourselves why and if it is the right thing to do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The covenant of circumcision was not done away, but was shifted by Christ to circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Acts 15:1-41, Romans 2:25-29, 9:24-29, Gal 5:6, 6:15, Col 2:11).  Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth.

According to Moroni 8 , "the law" of circumcision was done away in Christ.  This is speaking of the physical ritual and token of the covenant - the actual circumcision of the foreskin. 

It seems like all covenants that we make with God today are associated with ordinances and rituals.  If the covenant of circumcision is not done away, but has only been shifted, when/how is this covenant actually performed and made today?  Could baptism be considered the replacement?  But then how do we reconcile that both were practiced by the Jews for different reasons. 

The circumcision of the heart is more the spiritual realization of the physical token/covenant, as far as I understand.  It is mentioned several times in the old testament, so I don't necessarily see it as something introduced by Christ as a replacement for physical circumcision.  The circumcision of the heart seems equivalent to me to the mighty change of heart - which is not necessarily associated with a covenant.  So, if the covenant remains, what is it exactly and when do we enter it?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

According to Moroni 8 , "the law" of circumcision was done away in Christ.  This is speaking of the physical ritual and token of the covenant - the actual circumcision of the foreskin. 

It seems like all covenants that we make with God today are associated with ordinances and rituals.  If the covenant of circumcision is not done away, but has only been shifted, when/how is this covenant actually performed and made today?  Could baptism be considered the replacement?  But then how do we reconcile that both were practiced by the Jews for different reasons. 

The circumcision of the heart is more the spiritual realization of the physical token/covenant, as far as I understand.  It is mentioned several times in the old testament, so I don't necessarily see it as something introduced by Christ as a replacement for physical circumcision.  The circumcision of the heart seems equivalent to me to the mighty change of heart - which is not necessarily associated with a covenant.  So, if the covenant remains, what is it exactly and when do we enter it?

Not sure about the answer to your question, but I do know that the two are doctrinally associated, hence circumcision occurred at 8 days and baptism at 8 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

There is no comparison here. Female circumcision is completely barbaric, extremely dangerous and not only reduces sexual pleasure but removes it completely. There are still some hygienic arguments that can be made to support male circumcision. I had my sons circumcised because my husband is and I thought it was the common practice. One of my sons went through a period of time when he was angry with me for it but he's since apologized (interestingly, he never even discussed it with his father). I do agree though that it is something we often do to our children without really asking ourselves why and if it is the right thing to do.

The only reason we circumcised our sons was for hygienic reasons. It helps prevent infections and some forms of cancer and they don't have to worry about cleaning it. 

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

There is no comparison here. Female circumcision is completely barbaric, extremely dangerous and not only reduces sexual pleasure but removes it completely. There are still some hygienic arguments that can be made to support male circumcision. I had my sons circumcised because my husband is and I thought it was the common practice. One of my sons went through a period of time when he was angry with me for it but he's since apologized (interestingly, he never even discussed it with his father). I do agree though that it is something we often do to our children without really asking ourselves why and if it is the right thing to do.

Female circumcision has many variations and levels of severity, but in most cases, female circumcision (including those which are banned in the US) is actually a much less invasive procedure and less harmful than most prevalent forms of male circumcision.   In both cases, only foreskin (clitoral hood in females - essentially the same thing) is removed, but in the male case, much, much more of it is removed (15 square inches - about 1/2 of the penile skin and almost all of the sensitive portions).  https://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB

It does not completely remove sexual pleasure from females when not taken to extreme forms.  In fact many females are advocates for it because it partly for cultural reasons, but also because it actually improved their sex life - unable to orgasm before procedure because it was too sensitive, but able to orgasm after. 

I don't think there are any hygienic arguments that can be made to justify such an invasive procedure when comparing risk vs. benefit.  There has been a study showing that HIV is reduced with circumcision, but when you analyze the statistics, it is not a significant benefit and condoms should be used either way.  Other than that, there isn't much hygiene benefit except in extreme cases of chronic homelessness and general poor hygiene, but even then the risk is greater than the benefit. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The only reason we circumcised our children was for hygienic reasons. It helps prevent infections and some forms of cancer and they don't have to worry about cleaning it. 

We have antibiotics to treat UTI's, they are relatively minor infections compared to the extreme measure of surgically modifying a males sexual organs which has permanent consequences and a less than satisfying success rate with many, many botched cases on a daily basis .  UTI's are much less common in males than females so I don't see the justification in circumcising males to prevent UTI's and not females. 

As far as cancer goes - penile cancer is extremely rare.  We really only see it in extreme poor hygiene cases like I mentioned earlier, homelessness etc.  Again, risk vs. benefit just doesn't seem to fall on the side of benefit. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The only reason we circumcised our children was for hygienic reasons. It helps prevent infections and some forms of cancer and they don't have to worry about cleaning it. 

The “hygienic reasons” today are more and more regarded as dubious as the practice has become less common in the United States. The risk of cancer and UTIs is minuscule. 

Cleaning is not only unnecessary but contraindicated until the boy grows into adolescence and, by then, fully capable of managing it himself, a simple procedure that takes at most a few seconds in the bath or shower. Brushing one’s teeth is complicated by comparison. 

As for “looking like his father,” I see no good reason why family members need to be fixated on the appearance of one another’s genitals.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It is also ethically problematic, as it amounts to performing elective cosmetic surgery on one incapable of giving informed consent. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some have rationalized that it’s OK because an infant will have no memory of it. By that wacky logic it would be OK to operate without anesthesia on a patient with Alzheimer’s. 

See myth 3 and myth 4...barbaric!

Quote

 

Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin. 

Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.  In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin.  In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds.  Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html

Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.

Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision.  As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia.  The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study.  Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain.  Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure  (Lander 1997).

Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.

Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia.  Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all.  Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.  The most common reasons why they don't?  They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long  (Stang 1998).  A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.

Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.

Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later  (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000).  Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy  (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999).  Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest -  does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?

Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.

Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress.  Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?

Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.

Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later).  Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects.  There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990).  Here is a short list potential complications.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Female circumcision has many variations and levels of severity, but in most cases, female circumcision (including those which are banned in the US) is actually a much less invasive procedure and less harmful than most prevalent forms of male circumcision.   In both cases, only foreskin (clitoral hood in females - essentially the same thing) is removed, but in the male case, much, much more of it is removed.  It does not completely remove sexual pleasure from females when not taken to extreme forms. 

 https://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB

I don't think there are any hygienic arguments that can be made to justify such an invasive procedure when comparing risk vs. benefit.  There has been a study showing that HIV is reduced with circumcision, but when you analyze the statistics, it is not a significant benefit and condoms should be used either way.  Other than that, there isn't much hygiene benefit except in extreme cases of chronic homelessness and general poor hygiene, but even then the risk is greater than the benefit. 

The studies regarding HIV prevalence were done in Africa. I have to wonder why a similar association has not been observed in the nations of Europe, where routine neo-natal circumcision is uncommon and which, developmentally, are far more comparable to the United States than is Africa. 

Share this post


Link to post

It’s a medical procedure that wasn’t covered by our insurance.  

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Rivers said:

It’s a medical procedure that wasn’t covered by our insurance.  

With good reason. I would call it more of a cosmetic procedure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, pogi said:

I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation about circumcision, it's history, religious circumcision, and the pros/cons of non-religious circumcision. 

1st, as far as I understand, the law of circumcision started with Abraham as a sign of the Lord's covenant people:

Questions I have regarding religious circumcision:

1) Why was this "everlasting covenant" not really everlasting?  Was that mistranslated?

2) Why males only?  Were females not considered the Lord's covenant people?

The Catholic Church has condemned religious circumcision but other Coptic and Orthodoxy religions still observe the practice.  According to the Book of Mormon the law is "done away".

Why was it done away?  What exactly did Christ do to fulfill the law of circumcision?  This seems to contradict the "everlasting covenant" of the Old Testament.

Given this passage in the BoM, why do Latter-day Saints still circumcise their boys?  Why circumcise boys and not girls?  

If I was to make a poll about female genital mutilation, I am sure that probably 100% would be opposed to it, but for some reason that I don't fully understand yet, we are not apposed to male genital mutilation (circumcision).  Any insights there?  If there is no religious reason for it, why is it so commonly practiced in the US when in other Christian nations it has become less popular?  What about you Saints on the Isles of the sea, is Latter-day Saint circumcision common where you are at?

After watching a documentary on circumcision on Netfilx, I am regretting and feeling much remorse for the decision I made to circumcise my son.  I wish I would have studied this topic out more before making the decision. 

The 2 main reasons I decided to circumcise was because 1) I was told it was more hygienic (I now question that assertion), and 2) because I was concerned about bullying in gym class etc. a concern that I now think does not justify such extreme measures.  

I was naive.  I feel terrible about mutilating God's perfect creation ("the whole need no physician") and removing the enhanced potential for sexual pleasure that I did not realize was so associated with the foreskin. 

Any thoughts?

Here is a trailer for American Circumcision, it is worth a watch and consideration if you have Netflix

 

Read section 19 if you want to understand how it's an Everlasting covenant

Edited by Avatar4321

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

There is no comparison here. Female circumcision is completely barbaric, extremely dangerous and not only reduces sexual pleasure but removes it completely. There are still some hygienic arguments that can be made to support male circumcision. I had my sons circumcised because my husband is and I thought it was the common practice. One of my sons went through a period of time when he was angry with me for it but he's since apologized (interestingly, he never even discussed it with his father). I do agree though that it is something we often do to our children without really asking ourselves why and if it is the right thing to do.

Been there done that! I feel awful as well. My grandsons were not circumcised, and I can't believe I've been worried that they will feel like they look different than the rest. But now after seeing this thread I feel a whole lot better that they weren't and I had no idea about the female circumcision causing them to lose any sexual pleasure. Don't they do that in some countries? So appalling!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×