Perfection and the Penis (page 2)

Mulan

I told you I would get statistics with the other viewpoint.

When I said it doesn't affect sexual stuff, I meant that it doesn't do what female circumcision does. That eliminates it for a woman, forever. Okay?

You asked if I had ever had an erection? Dumb question!!! I told you I have sons, and grandsons. My husband is circumcised. Believe me there is no problem there. I am very close to my daughters in law. My sons have NO problems. Quite the opposite.

I realize this is an emotional subject, and I let people have their views, and I have mine. I simply stated mine. I am done on this subject.

Seeker

It's a cleanliness issue.

Only if the husband is too stupid or too lazy to keep his penis clean. It ain't hard.

There are lots of statistics out there, but one I can tell you is that women whose partners are uncircumcised have a higher incidence of cervical cancer. Gee. I wonder why??

No doubt the foreskin causes cervical cancer...(end of sarcasm)

I have three sons, and several grandsons. No one is complaining about being circumcised.

As if they would know the difference. It's too late for them. Besides, why on earth would you approach your mother or grandmother with complaints about your penis?

I just fail to see what the big deal is.

It's an operation that is performed on a person who is not able to decide what they want for themselves, for dubious reasons that rarely apply to modern humanity.

Circumcision doesn't limit sexual feeling

Yes, it does.

, so again, I have to say the comparison to what is done to some women does not apply.

It is quite clearly not even close to as severe a thing as female circumcision, which is truly barbaric. But it does change the sensitivity of the head of the penis, reducing the feeling a man can have. He can still orgasm, obviously, but it has made a change.

Mulan

Okay, one more comment. I am a doctor's daughter and my family is more open about this stuff than others might be. Also, as I said before, I am close to my daughters in law, and they tell me more than I need to know, but they still tell me. I concede that if a man is circumcised he doesn't know the difference. I CAN tell you that my father was circumcised while he was in the Navy, after he was married. He said there was no difference. I asked. He is still alive, and lives with us.

Marilyn (a.k.a. Mulan)

jayhawk1

Great, now I know more about the penis than I ever wanted to know. One post today talks about a man's testicle being bitten off, and now a forum about the fore skin. Yeehaw! Now I'm educated!

"Hand me that whiskey, I need to consult the spirit."-J.F. Rutherford

Seeker

I certainly can't argue with your father's experience, but I have read other anecdotes of men who have done the same and they claim a distinct difference. I have read of cases where men sought to have the foreskin surgically reattached as a result. Clearly it must make a difference to some men, even if it may not be universal.

My point is that I can see no reason to do it now to a baby. If they want to get it done later in life, that's their choice. But to take that choice from them before they have any say seems odd. And it's hardly universal. Other than Jewish and Moslem peoples, it's pretty much America (Canada too?) where you find men routinely circumcised. Certainly throughout Europe men are almost universally uncircumcised, and the women view that as the norm, and think a circumcised man looks odd.

It's just a custom, nothing more. Take away the custom, and nobdoy, and I mean nobody would think to do such a thing to a baby. It's very counterintuitive. And as I said, it's no problem at all to keep yourself clean, so if an uncircumcised man isn't keeping his penis clean, he just isn't trying.

patio34

I just want to reiterate and elaborate a bit on Seeker's point that female 'circumcision' is different.

Actually, I believe the correct term is 'female genital mutilation' (FMG). In order to be comparable, the male's entire penis would have to be cut off. The female has no equivalent of a foreskin.

If evolution is true, then the theory, as I understand it, wouldn't necessarily mean the foreskin is important or not. If one believes in creation, it would be 'perfect' as brought out. But in evolution, whatever doesn't hamper reproduction stays--whether good or bad.

It's like the saying 'he with the most toys wins,' only in evolution, it's 'he that lives and reproduces wins.'

Pat

Princess

I used to subscribe to a magazine that was very opposed to circumcision. They had men writing letters about being sexually mutilated as an infant. I found it all quite ridiculous and canceled my subscription. My husband laughed at circumcision being referred to as mutilation. It is simply a custom in this country. We had our son circumcised so he would look like his dad, his grandfather, uncles and cousins. I interviewed many doctors until I found one that performed circumcisions using anesthetic. Oddly enough, most don't. All of my son's friends are circumcised, they frequently strip to play in the pool!

This debate could go on for pages. It is simply personal preference and custom.

Princess

AGuest

Excuse the 'intrusion'... may you all have peace... but may I interject, here? Thank you!

First, let me say that the ONLY thing perfection and penis have in common is that they both start with 'p'. Moving on...

Second, may I say that my Lord indeed was circumcised in the flesh... on the 8th day... as he was a Jew and required by the Law Covenant to be so.

Third, may I say that circumcision for Hebrews and Israelites was NEVER a matter of cleanliness, but a matter of IDENTIFICATION. Any man could SAY he was an Israelite, or to take it a step farther, SAY that JAH was his God, but you only had to disrobe him to know for sure. As they say, the 'proof'... was in the peni... uh, 'pudding'.

Fourth, may I say that those since 30CE who claim to belong to my Father by means of my Lord must ALSO be circumcised? However, such 'circumcision' is NOT of the physical flesh... but 'of the heart'. Just as my forefathers were required to 'cut away' the flesh from around the point of the origin of PHYSICAL life, so, too, my brothers and I are required to 'cut away' the 'flesh' from around the point of origin of SPIRITUAL life... the heart.

What does 'cutting away' of the flesh in this manner mean? It means IMPALING the flesh... putting it to death... by means of the spirit. It means walking BY spirit... and not by flesh. It means leading the flesh WITH the spirit into LIFE... rather than letting the flesh lead the spirit into death.

Does this mean that we will ALWAYS be able to do what is 'right'? Nope. For we were sold 'into sin'. However, for those who 'belong' to my Father today, by means of being in a NEW Covenant with Him, which covenant is 'ratified' by means of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ and thereby coming into 'union' with that One, there is a 'propitiatory' sacrifice.

This 'propitiatory' sacrifice, however, is NOT simply an equitable sacrifice for Adam's sin, as you may have been erroneously taught by the WTBTS. It is a COVERING over of sins. For that is what the 'propitiatory' WAS... a cover... or LID... on the Ark of Covenant... covering all that was INSIDE that Ark. Today, for those who are in the 'Ark' of the NEW Covenant, such sacrifice 'covers' our sins, when we make them due to weakness of the flesh or being deceived into such sin. There is NO 'covering' for deliberate sin, sin which we CHOOSE to commit... with no remorse and no regret.

If a parent or parents wish to circumcise their male child today for the sake of cleanliness, that is their choice as parents... and right under the law of some countries. In truth, for males, it is no more a mutilation than cutting the umbilical cord... flesh must be severed.

Circumcising females, however, is done for an entirely different purpose. Rather than cleanliness as a reason, it is done to suppress sensation... under the guise of suppressing desire. It does not suppress desire, any more than circumcision suppresses either sensation OR desire in males. Since relations between a man and woman are SUPPOSED to be sensational and desirable, attempting to remove such is both unloving... and malicious. It is a selfish act by ignorant people who think it will do what it will not.

Removing a foreskin for the purpose of health or hygiene, however, is not a selfish act. While it may not be the child's first choice, it is usually done out of concern (foregoing later maladies, etc.)... and not selfish malice. It does not change anything for the child or restrict his right to find sex pleasurable.

The point is, dear ones... as always... motive and intent. Always.

Circumcising a female is an act conceived by men of tribes, etc., that didn't want their females to 'desire' other men, or if forced into relations with another man, wouldn't enjoy it. It's purpose was to removed sensation, desire and enjoyment... and in most cases it does just that. Removing pleasure was not something my Father EVER perceived for earthling, and in fact, made several means for man to HAVE pleasure. That is why female circumcision was not required by my Father.

I bid you all peace!

A slave of Christ,

SJ

crossroads

Thanks for all that responded.
PERFECTION---PENIS---nobody focused on the
Perfection part. AGUEST and some others there is a lot
in common between the two or nothing at all. The thread
is about PERFECTION and I believe with our human
imperfections we right now are PERFECT HUMANS.
We always have been. What does perfect mean exactly if the creator who designed you perfectly designed you with a flaw. See the creator gave his people this command to follow. I'm not saying theres something wrong with you one way or the other. But the creator saw a FLAW and wanted to correct it.
So really I was asking if men were really perfect or not?
Maybe just the last creation came out perfect god didn't
say they needed any changes.

ladonna

Hi Crossroads,

I believe that like all things, a person has the right to make a decision regarding their own body.
This includes Circumcision. If my son wishes to be circumsised he can do it when he is 18. I don't think he is planning on it.

I have told him about maintaining cleanliness.

As for perfection, I do not see circumsision as a pre-requisite for a male being "perfect".

What is perfect anyway????

Ana

Perfection and the Penis

Share this