Just a question: I`ve heard that in the U.S., circumcission is really common. Not only jews get it cut off, but boys in general are circumcised. Is this true?
Circumcision?
by jstalin 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dorayakii
Yeah hellrider, i was shocked when i heard that between 65 and 75% of American males are circumcised... I didn't think that this barbaric practice would be so prevalent in the "western" world. The Greeks rightly viewed it as "a mutilation of a previously perfectly shaped organ."The exposed "head" (glans) on many uncircumcised penises is often very sensitive even to being brushed lightly by the fabric of underwear. Circumcision dramatically cuts down penis sensitivity, the scars are not very pretty when the penis is erect, the shine of the (glans) is taken away and most importantly, the practice must be excruciatingly painful for the infant.
imho, unless circumcision is medically necessary, the choice to go through with the operation, should be left up to the child when he has reached 18, whether he is Jewish or non-Jewish.
Unless the foreskin is unusually tight, cleaning it should not be much of a problem to be honest, as long as the cleaning is done with the penis in a flaccid state. Cleaning it forms part of a normal daily hygiene routine and is no big deal unless you really don't like washing.
-
Scully
Ok Joel, here are the "washing instructions" that come with each male newborn that isn't "cut".
Teach your son to clean his foreskin by:
1.) gently pulling it back from the glans
2.) rinsing the glans and inside fold of the foreskin with soap and warm water
3.) pulling the foreskin back over the head of the penis.What I tell new parents (per Canadian and American Pediatric standards) is that retracting their newborn's foreskin is NOT necessary and can actually result in problems like infection and injury.
The foreskin and glans are attached in the newborn, the same way our fingernails are attached to the finger. Forcibly retracting the foreskin can cause adhesions and is more likely to result in the need for circumcision when the boy is older. As the little boy grows, he will loosen the foreskin of his own doing (use your imagination) without causing himself injury. When the boy can retract his foreskin himself, he can pull it back only as far as it retracts naturally and then use soap and water to wash and rinse well.
Cheers, Scully RN
-
blondie
Circumcision has not been required of Christiians since the Acts 15 account. Of course, there is the Titus versus Timothy accounts in the Bible. The WTS has never officially or unofficially required it of JWs that I'm aware of. It is more cultural thing; what is common in your area. Medically it is argued back and forth.
-
Hellrider
dorayaki:
Wow, that many, I had no idea.
Circumcision dramatically cuts down penis sensitivity
That`s what I thought too. The head of the penis is very sensitive on my UN-circumsised anaconda (ha ha), something which is of great joy to both me and my woman. And the sensitivity would have to be reduced, for a man to even be able to wear underwear, I would assume. So basically, they`re destroying perfectly fine penises. What a strange and stupid practice that is. And the whole "hygiene"-excuse, is just bogus, almost like an "urban" legend, I`d think. There is no problem in keeping a forehead clean. Just pull the foreskin back, and wash with water (someone mentioned soap, but I don`t think you should use soap on your genitals, it disrupts the ...oh whats the english word...."acid balance"? .. you know, the ph-value there, and that could lower the tolerance for bacterias, and cause infection) . A foreheads sensitivity is of great pleasure to a man. It`s a real shame to destroy that.Oh, and by the way: Washing of the gland is NOT necessary on baby boys/ small boys. DO NOT pull the foreskin back on boys, as this could damage the foreskin, and cause irritation and/or infection. The gland is "selfcleaning" on young children. The urine of children is almost just water anyway. Let the kid figure out those things for himself. By the third grade, he`ll be able to pull the foreskin back, and then you can teach him how to wash.
-
dorayakii
My point is that this translates over, in the West (U.S.) at least as probably holding a positive view of circumcision, or at least not holding much of a negative view against it.
My guess is that those born into the faith were circumcised but this is hard to know since in the U.S. the preference has been towards circumcision in the last half of the 20th Century.
I think that the percentage of Witnesses circumcised in the United States must more-or-less equal the percentage for the whole country. The WTS dosn't have a set doctrine on it, being circumcised in the flesh doesn't matter, its the circumcision of the heart which counts... (This coronary circumcision sounds even more dangerous... I wouldn't like to lose any important bits of my heart either)...
Interestingly, the Wikip æ dia says this:
Roman satirists including Horace and Juvenal equated the exposure of the glans that results from circumcision to its exposure during erection, and they caricatured Jewish men as being lustful or lecherous, sometimes in an incestuous or homosexual sense, often implying that Jewish men had unusually large penises and were of great sexual potency.
Techniques for restoring the appeareance of a foreskin were known by the 2nd century B.C. In one such technique, a copper weight (called the Judeum pondum) was hung from the remnants of the circumcised foreskin until, in time, they became sufficiently stretched to cover the glans. The first-century writer Celsus described two surgical techniques for foreskin restoration in his medical treatise De Medicina. [25] In one of these, the skin of the penile shaft was loosened by cutting in around the base of the glans. The skin was then stretched over the glans and allowed to heal, giving the appearance of an uncircumcised penis. Jewish religious writers denounced such practices as abrogating the covenant of Abraham in 1 Maccabees and the Talmud [26]. Because of these attempts, and for other reasons, the Pharisees, ca. 100, added two more steps to the Biblical rite of circumcision:
- Brit Peri'ah, which went beyond the relatively simple and Biblical trimming of excess foreskin, and stripped the mucosal lining of the foreskin back to the coronal sulcus.
- Brit Mezizah, by which the trained circumciser ("mohel") fills his mouth with wine and sucks the wound made by the circumcision; the saliva acts as an anti-bacterial agent, preventing infection. This step is no longer done by mouth, except in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.
-
nicolaou
Circumcision is child abuse - plain & simple.
-
caz
If you believe in circumcision because.......
'Leaving a babie's foreskin intact could produce problems in the future as it has been known to happen to others',
Then may i suggest that you rip from their little gums, the teeth they are going to produce, one by one as they emerge, because I have also heard that some people have to have theirs removed later in life due to problems setting in!
If you look after your foreskin on a daily basis the same way you look after your teeth, ( obviously not with a toothbrush.....Please!!! ) then you too might not have to have it removed later in your life.
CaZ
-
gumby
I figure it adds about a half inch to my length.....so I'm keepin mine.
Gumanteater
-
acuragirl
Incidently i was reading an article from babycenter online and some guy in south africa had conducted a study that showed a 60% reduced rate in HIV among the circumcised men,of course u never know with these studies these days.They are questionable. Me and my hubby debated over the circumcision thing for a while with our 2 month old son before he was born but he won. I was for he was against.