Circumcision's Purpose

[karl61]

I had the same problem. I came to the conclusion that he must be responding regardin female circumcision that was brought up earlier. But maybe your request, will bring understanding.

-SlackTime

exactly: if you circumcized your daughter at birth then you would end up in court; why not the male - because it's tradition. what about circumcizion at home after a home birth.

[krose]

I had my son circumcised for social/cosmetic reasons (it's a sensitive area and if you are the only boy in the highschool locker room with foreskin it could be a self-esteem issue). In general, I don't think it's a big deal (I watched my son get his circumcision and I'm skeptical of the trauma it induced compared to being yanked out of his mother's womb with forceps.)

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the recent promotion of circumcision in Africa as an AIDS prevention measure.

I always hear the "locker room" argument, as well as the "look like dad" argument, and I'm skeptical of both. I don't know what kind of school you went to, but at mine I don't recall ever comparing. I couldn't tell you who did and who did not have foreskins. All the talk at that time was about size, and there's not much you can do about that self-esteem issue. What's more, with the current rate right around 50%, a kid is not likely to be the only one. Oh, and do they still do communal showering in high schools? They don't at my kids' schools. As for the other one, "like dad," I doubt that many kids have ever had a chance to examine their dad's equipment.

The African study only applies to areas where conditions are far from clean, where good hygiene is just a dream.

[karl61]

I had my son circumcised for social/cosmetic reasons (it's a sensitive area and if you are the only boy in the highschool locker room with foreskin it could be a self-esteem issue). In general, I don't think it's a big deal (I watched my son get his circumcision and I'm skeptical of the trauma it induced compared to being yanked out of his mother's womb with forceps.)

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the recent promotion of circumcision in Africa as an AIDS prevention measure.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/2007032...on-against-AIDS

if a baby is crying and there is blood then some may say it is wrong.

[SlackTime]

if a baby is crying and there is blood then some may say it is wrong.

Yes, it's terrible the way God forced the mutilation of babies for more than 2000 years. Simply awful!

-SlackTime

[Calm]

Female circumcision has significant long term effects including ongoing pain that male circumcision does not, IIRC.

I'm not procircumcision, just saying it's not a straight across the board comparison in most cases.

[LDSBruin]

I always hear the "locker room" argument, as well as the "look like dad" argument, and I'm skeptical of both. I don't know what kind of school you went to, but at mine I don't recall ever comparing. I couldn't tell you who did and who did not have foreskins. All the talk at that time was about size, and there's not much you can do about that self-esteem issue. What's more, with the current rate right around 50%, a kid is not likely to be the only one. Oh, and do they still do communal showering in high schools? They don't at my kids' schools. As for the other one, "like dad," I doubt that many kids have ever had a chance to examine their dad's equipment.

While I agree the "locker room" argument is losing credibility (which I think is a good thing), I think your trivialization of the circumstances is unfounded. Obviously I have no scientific research on the matter either, but I can definitely say that it was an issue in my high school. I do think being different in such a sensitive area is a self-esteem issue. I am certainly not defending the idea that we should continue the practice on any sort of moral grounds, as I don't believe there are any. Also, we most certainly had communal showers as does the public pool, the university pool and pretty much every male locker room I've ever been in.

My point was to mostly say that there actually are social reasons to do it, however weak they may be, and that the trauma associated with circumcision is debatable.

The African study only applies to areas where conditions are far from clean, where good hygiene is just a dream.

That's all I presented it as.

[LDSBruin]

Female circumcision has significant long term effects including ongoing pain that male circumcision does not, IIRC.

I'm not procircumcision, just saying it's not a straight across the board comparison in most cases.

If by "circumcision" you mean female genital mutilation as it is commonly called, you are right. There is no comparison. Cutting off a loose piece of skin that serves no purpose and arguably causes detriment has no comparison with removing areas of the body necessary for sexual pleasure.

[krose]

Yes, it's terrible the way God forced the mutilation of babies for more than 2000 years. Simply awful!

True, it's pretty minor compared to the ruthless genocide he demanded of Joshua.

[karl61]

If by "circumcision" you mean female genital mutilation as it is commonly called, you are right. There is no comparison. Cutting off a loose piece of skin that serves no purpose and arguably causes detriment has no comparison with removing areas of the body necessary for sexual pleasure.

if you believe in evolution then it has a purpose.

[LDSBruin]

if you believe in evolution then it has a purpose.

If it has a purpose that I am denying my children, please tell me what it is so this can be a discussion instead of just taking jabs.

[Calm]

From the Jewish POV: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

The link in this article gives more reasons: http://aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/bris_mi...baric$.asp

[krose]

If by "circumcision" you mean female genital mutilation as it is commonly called, you are right. There is no comparison. Cutting off a loose piece of skin that serves no purpose and arguably causes detriment has no comparison with removing areas of the body necessary for sexual pleasure.

If you discount the protection of a very sensitive area as a legitimate purpose, then perhaps you are right. The clitoral hood is directly analogous to the foreskin, and serves the same purpose. Cutting that off is very similar to the male operation (but in females, they often take it beyond that, to a clitorectomy or worse). One person's removal of an "unnecessary" piece of skin is another person's mutilation.

[karl61]

(lightbulb) one could also ask whether those who are cicumcized are more likely to be sexually aroused easily since the area that is suppose to be covered is not and it's always bouncing around in boxers.

edit: I forgot about garments.

[SquarePeg48]

If you discount the protection of a very sensitive area as a legitimate purpose, then perhaps you are right. The clitoral hood is directly analogous to the foreskin, and serves the same purpose. Cutting that off is very similar to the male operation (but in females, they often take it beyond that, to a clitorectomy or worse). One person's removal of an "unnecessary" piece of skin is another person's mutilation.

Thank you krose for your strong stand on this unnecessary surgical abuse. I have 5 sons; the oldest is 30. The first was circumcised in the hospital without my seeing or knowing--I just thought it was "normal" and said yes. My second son was born at home; we took him to a pediatrician to be circumcised after. The pediatrician had me hold my son while they did the procedure (which at that time was a ring that cut the foreskin off in a matter of a week or so). My other 3 sons, needless to say, were not circumcised because I determined never to put a child of mine through that kind of pain again. My sons' father agreed completely--he also participated in the second son's circumcision and said it made him cringe just watching. None of my sons who are not circumcised have had any hygiene problems, infections, cancer, etc. that are threatened by those who insist this child abuse is "not harmful" and "probably helpful".

[USU78]

if you believe in evolution then it has a purpose.

Like nipples on boars?

[USU78]

I have heard the <presentist?> argument that the sacrifice of flesh and the shedding of blood by the initiate at circumcision is in similitude of the Master's sacrifice of flesh and shedding of blood.

USU "Ain't nobody's business how my son looks dishabile" 78

[Uncle Dale]

If by "circumcision" you mean female genital mutilation as it is commonly called, you are right. There is no comparison. Cutting off a loose piece of skin that serves no purpose and arguably causes detriment has no comparison with removing areas of the body necessary for sexual pleasure.

Something more than just "pleasure" -- clitoral tissue is very extensive within the pelvis and is

interconnected with various organs, whose proper functioning is necessary to physical and emotional

health. This seems to be a largely ignored field of medicine -- and human ignorance on the matter

has left many hundreds of thousands of girls and women in East Africa and Arabia not only permanently

scarred in a physical way, but is also part and parcel of a cruel and oppressive patriarchal bondage.

As the CofJCofLDS expands its membership into places such as Sudan, Yeman and Somalia, these

sorts of social/medical issues will no longer be "somebody else's problem."

UD

[captain-jack]

I understand the various reasons that this barbaric act was practiced by primitive people, but what I don't understand is why it is still done today in such high numbers in the US, and in even higher numbers by LDS parents (Utah, at least). The reasons I usually hear are purely cosmetic. I guess, in the eyes of many, God made a mistake creating this body part. (But perhaps most are comforted with the idea that they'll get it back in the resurrection.)

What is barbaric about it? And couldn't it support evolution? We no longer need it to protect that area, so why not cut it off? It's chosen evolution.

If you would not choose it as an adult, why are you glad you had it done as an infant? I don't get it.

Just as SlackTime has been stating, I know those who haven't had this procedure. They say it really doesn't matter and I believe them, but I know the extra work involved in cleaning, something I'd care not to do.

[Uncle Dale]

I have heard the <presentist?> argument that the sacrifice of flesh and the shedding of blood by the initiate at circumcision is in similitude of the Master's sacrifice of flesh and shedding of blood.

USU "Ain't nobody's business how my son looks dishabile" 78

Do a word-study on the Hebrew term "to cut a covenant" --- there are some fascinating linguistic

inter-connection here, with animal sacrifice, the sacrificial meal taken by both sides when an ANE

covenant was made, with the killing of the firstborn child, with passover, and with the crucifixion

of "The Firstborn."

Uncle "3 churches in Spain claim to have Jesus' foreskin in their reliquaries -- somebody's fibbing" Dale

[captain-jack]

Speaking of evolution and unneeded parts, why do men have nipples? What purpose do they serve?

[selek]

What is barbaric about it? And couldn't it support evolution? We no longer need it to protect that area, so why not cut it off? It's chosen evolution.

Technically, it's not evolution or even selective breeding since the new condition or "trait" is not genetic and therefore is not passed on as such to succeeding generations.

Just as SlackTime has been stating, I know those who haven't had this procedure. They say it really doesn't matter and I believe them, but I know the extra work involved in cleaning, something I'd care not to do.

I believe it still falls under the original commandment given as part of the sign and covenant.

I would like to see something authoritative, however to the idea that it's no longer commanded or required.

[LDSBruin]

"California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an 'effective public health measure.'"

That's an interesting point made in Calmoriah's link.

[Uncle Dale]

Speaking of evolution and unneeded parts, why do men have nipples? What purpose do they serve?

When I lived in South Asia I heard of a case where a man was lactating. His wife had given birth

and had died -- and the man himself supplied the necessary infant's milk for several weeks.

It may sound impossible, but an Indian scientist reported in the newpaper that such things now

and then occur --- the human fetus having developed from an initial stage where its male/female

attributes are undifferentiated (and preserved in vestigal form into adulthood).

Perhaps all male nipples were preserved for that single Indian widower, too poor to buy cow's milk.

UD

.

[karl61]

"California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an 'effective public health measure.'"

That's an interesting point made in Calmoriah's link.

they likely endorse abortion too.

edit: there you go - http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.ami.cma.pdf

notice that california medical association is supporting planned parenthood

[karl61]

Speaking of evolution and unneeded parts, why do men have nipples? What purpose do they serve?

eliminate your source of testosterone and you will likely be in for a surprise.