Jump to content

Menu

Another s/o - if you don't really care about male infant circ...


Recommended Posts

:iagree: I completely agree with NASDAQ's points. I do think cultural norms are important.

 

Why do many people think it's disgusting to eat squirrel, but don't mind eating chicken? There is no reason except that it is culturally "normal" to eat chicken, but not to eat squirrel.

 

Squirrels are fluffy. 'Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OP, it's obvious you are vehemently opposed to circumsicion. Good for you. Many, many people are not. It's a parenting decision. You may judge parents for choosing this. That's fine. Those parents may judge your for your parenting decisions. You get to make decisions for your kids and other parents get to make decisions for their kids.

 

 

OT, but I find it amusing that we can go on and on about pen!ses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left the decision up to my Dh. Whatever he had decided was what I was comfortable with, it's just not something I'd ever really thought about.

 

When it comes to comparing male vs. female though, for me, it boils down to intent. With male circumcision, the intent is to promote hygiene. With female circumcision the intent is to repress physical s@xuality. One is an attempt to enhance and improve a life, the other is to oppress them.

 

That's why I'm against female circumcision while I'm ambivalent to male circumcision. Just my two cents.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squirrels are fluffy. 'Nuff said.

 

I know; it's only the ugly animals that deserve to become dinner.

 

Cow: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Horse: Pretty. Don't eat it.

 

Chicken: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Swan: Pretty. Watch it glide.

 

Pig: Ugly. Bacon!

Dog: Awwww!!! Here, boy!

 

:D

 

And don't get me started on fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: I see from the other thread that I was not correct, but I guess it's possible that OP has it on her mind because her dd did debate about it.

Edited by Quill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know; it's only the ugly animals that deserve to become dinner.

 

Cow: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Horse: Pretty. Don't eat it.

 

Chicken: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Swan: Pretty. Watch it glide.

 

Pig: Ugly. Bacon!

Dog: Awwww!!! Here, boy!

 

:D

 

And don't get me started on fish.

No. It is because one can feed a family of 4 with a chicken. But it would take 4 squirrels to get the same amount of meat. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know; it's only the ugly animals that deserve to become dinner.

 

Cow: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Horse: Pretty. Don't eat it.

 

Chicken: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Swan: Pretty. Watch it glide.

 

Pig: Ugly. Bacon!

Dog: Awwww!!! Here, boy!

 

:D

 

And don't get me started on fish.

 

It could boil down to what can fly, swim, or run faster than the other. I'm sure there is also a lot of truth in what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It is because one can feed a family of 4 with a chicken. But it would take 4 squirrels to get the same amount of meat. :D

 

Yeah, but squirrels could be roasted over a fire on a stick, like marshmallows. Wouldn't that be fun?!

 

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm taking this bait. I really try to stay away from this sort of thing. But...

Male circumcision and female circumcision are, IMO, two totally separate things. Male circ has religious roots, important religious roots, and honestly I really don't care much about it either way. Our sons are circumcised because that is what DH's family does. It doesn't matter to me. It is a cultural thing with them, I have never asked why - we don't make a big deal of it, they just are.

Female circ is totally different. It isn't something that people do. It has no religious significance, and is pointless. I had never heard of it until recently.

I think that to compare the two is ignorant and redundant. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Diane W said, it is cleaner for men. Does that mean that a man can't be clean without circumsicion? NO, but it does mean that there are a number of cicumsicions being done on elderly men like Diane W's FIL and my FIL. Whether it is dementia or like in my FIL's case, complications with prostate surgery, it isn't anything one would want to have done. OTOH, my son had zero issues with his circumcision done at birth and doesn't remember it either.

 

But I am simply for telling the complete story. Some in the medical community have unfortunately gone the other way where they lie and say there is no medical reason. It isn't a definite medical reason because the boy may grow up to be celibate and die well before he has either dementia or prostate cancer. He may grow up to be a virgin before marriage and be monogamous and be able to care for all his hygienic needs until his death. But he may also grow up to have a few partners and be more likely to pass on diseases and he may grow up and eventually develop some condition where circumcision may need to be done at that age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know; it's only the ugly animals that deserve to become dinner.

 

Cow: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Horse: Pretty. Don't eat it.

 

Chicken: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Swan: Pretty. Watch it glide.

 

Pig: Ugly. Bacon!

Dog: Awwww!!! Here, boy!

 

:D

 

And don't get me started on fish.

 

You and I can never be friends unless you take back your "pigs are ugly" comment, and I will only forgive you if you come to my house and kiss all four of my pet pigs.:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

 

If we had a four-thousand year tradition of making a small cosmetic change to a girl's genitals, and it was almost always without any complications, and it had small benefits that balanced its small risks, relatively few people have a problem with it. Cultural norms matter; You'll have a much easier time finding someone to pierce your baby's ears than to pierce her nose.

 

The circumcision of my sons was an honourable and joyful welcome into the Jewish community. If it caused them any discomfort they gave no evidence of it; but then, they were slightly drunk.

:iagree:

 

And I said that if it had the religious and cultural history and was harmless on a net basis, more people would accept it. As it happens removal of part of the clitoral hood is not part of any religious tradition of which I am aware, it is not performed endlessly with almost no side effects, and it does not have a long history in Western countries. I.e. it is totally different. Which is why it is rather silly to compare them. Unless you just want to go on about how much you dislike circumcision.

:iagree:

Me, too.

 

But whatever. Anyway, my family is Jewish, too. My husband is circ because he was a Jewish baby and it was a religious and cultural tradition in his family, and his son was going to have that done, too. So he did; I deferred to my husband in that matter. Did I feel a bit bad about it? Yes, but we had it done and there were no complications and minimal discomfort as I observed firsthand, and I took comfort in that. I have yet to personally meet a man (two husbands, two brothers, the partners I've had) who has walked around feeling angry or resentful about the foreskin they've lost and most everyone I know has had the procedure done, although I'm sure some of you will have anecdotal stories to the contrary, and I take comfort in that, too. No we would not do that to a baby girl because there is no cultural, religious or any other reason to do so (not to mention it does a lot more damage to a girl and is often done in other countries to repress her sexuality) and I agree that the question is nothing more than pot-stirring and borders on religion bashing. I'd venture a guess that if circ was mentioned in the NT rather than the OT it would be less of an issue for a lot more people.

:iagree:

:iagree:

 

Everyone makes the decision they feel is right for their family. It is nobody else's business, and it certainly is nobody's place to judge. I seriously doubt men are questioning each other's decisions. I just wish moms could be more accepting and supportive of each other. I'm saying this in general, not just regarding this thread.

:iagree:

certainly where this pertains to Jewish ritual. However, since the majority of people who routinely circ are NOT Jewish, can we just leave that out?

 

As far as cleanliness, that's really a myth. If a boy is taught to clean himself as girls are, there should be no issues. And as I mentioned, when girls get infections and diseases, we aren't rushing to blame their excess skin.

 

And comparing make and female circ, for the purposes of my question, and in the way I worded it, is NOT apples and oranges. I specifically mentioned the removal of the clitoral hood only, as the removal of the foreskin leaves the head of the penis raw and exposed. The reason it doesn't remain in a painful state is because it does heal over and become calloused from exposure to diapers, clothing, air, etc. It also desensitizes that particular area.

 

In the same vein (no pun intended), exposure to similar elements would, over time as it does for boys, do the same thing to the clitoris. Sorry, but just because they ONLY have 4,000 nerve endings there instead of 8,000 doesn't mean it isn't desensitized.

 

So, again, in this situation, and eliminating religious reasons for the purpose of this discussion, why do people consider it morally acceptable for one and morally reprehensible for the other?

I think that question has been answered several times already, and you are just beating a dead horse. (Or a dead cow, if you would rather beat something ugly :D )

:iagree: I completely agree with NASDAQ's points. I do think cultural norms are important.

 

Why do many people think it's disgusting to eat squirrel, but don't mind eating chicken? There is no reason except that it is culturally "normal" to eat chicken, but not to eat squirrel.

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Diane W said, it is cleaner for men. Does that mean that a man can't be clean without circumsicion? NO, but it does mean that there are a number of cicumsicions being done on elderly men like Diane W's FIL and my FIL. Whether it is dementia or like in my FIL's case, complications with prostate surgery, it isn't anything one would want to have done. OTOH, my son had zero issues with his circumcision done at birth and doesn't remember it either.

 

 

This, the bolded, would probably decide if for me. Having it done as a preventative measure (after the 8th day and with an anesthetic) when an infant seems kinder than having to have it done as an elderly dementia patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My FIL just had to have it done at age 79 in a nursing home. It was horrible. Repeated UTIs were the reason because he was not mentally aware enough to keep the area clean (he has Alzheimers). And guess what? The aides they employ at nursing homes DO NOT do that for you...no matter what they might lead you to believe. I spoke to his personal physician who was in charge of his after-care and he said it happens all. the. time. to elderly uncircumcised males. Not if they've been circumcised though. Food for thought. "

 

Thanks for bringing this up. Yes, young healthy men may be able to care for themselves, but as an RN I see a lot of UTI's in non-circ'd elderly men.

 

Also, our first had to be circ'd at 2.5 after repeat infections. He had to go under completely and came out of anesthesia hysterically. Our second son we circ'd at the hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm taking this bait. I really try to stay away from this sort of thing. But...

Male circumcision and female circumcision are, IMO, two totally separate things. Male circ has religious roots, important religious roots, and honestly I really don't care much about it either way. Our sons are circumcised because that is what DH's family does. It doesn't matter to me. It is a cultural thing with them, I have never asked why - we don't make a big deal of it, they just are.

Female circ is totally different. It isn't something that people do. It has no religious significance, and is pointless. I had never heard of it until recently.

I think that to compare the two is ignorant and redundant. :rolleyes:

 

:iagree:

 

I left the decision up to my Dh. Whatever he had decided was what I was comfortable with, it's just not something I'd ever really thought about.

 

When it comes to comparing male vs. female though, for me, it boils down to intent. With male circumcision, the intent is to promote hygiene. With female circumcision the intent is to repress physical s@xuality. One is an attempt to enhance and improve a life, the other is to oppress them.

 

That's why I'm against female circumcision while I'm ambivalent to male circumcision. Just my two cents.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be easier to spit a chicken? Rotisserie! Yum. :D

 

I have a Ronco rotisserie oven. I can set it and forget it either way.

 

 

P.S. I have never eaten squirrel, but I might if an occasion warranted it.

 

You and I can never be friends unless you take back your "pigs are ugly" comment, and I will only forgive you if you come to my house and kiss all four of my pet pigs.:angry:

 

I'm gonna miss you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never started a thread on here in 10+ years of being on these boards that was considered "controversial" and I am not fond of being accused of doing so now. I asked a legitimate question and have been attacked for beating a dead horse every time I post something.

 

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female. It being culturally ACCEPTABLE does not answer the question of why we find it MORALLY acceptable when we would not find the same morally acceptable when done to a female.

 

And have none of the nurses on here ever seen a female with a UTI? An elderly one? Seriously? My mom has had to be hospitalized with them.

 

But it's fine. I'm done beating the horse. This is why, after at least 10 years on TWTM boards, I rarely do anything other than read and marvel at the way most discussions go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never started a thread on here in 10+ years of being on these boards that was considered "controversial" and I am not fond of being accused of doing so now. I asked a legitimate question and have been attacked for beating a dead horse every time I post something.

 

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female. It being culturally ACCEPTABLE does not answer the question of why we find it MORALLY acceptable when we would not find the same morally acceptable when done to a female.

 

And have none of the nurses on here ever seen a female with a UTI? An elderly one? Seriously? My mom has had to be hospitalized with them.

 

But it's fine. I'm done beating the horse. This is why, after at least 10 years on TWTM boards, I rarely do anything other than read and marvel at the way most discussions go.

Well, it is morally acceptable to those of a Judea-Christian background because God commanded it long ago. Then it became a cultural norm in the west because doctors pushed it for anti-masturbation reasons. They also found that in many instances it helped cure male UTIs. It became an ounce of prevention.

 

I don't think women get UTIs from unclean clitoral hoods. The two part (clitoris and urethra) are distinctly separate in women.

 

P.S, There are several papers available online if you want to do a google search for why male circ is culturally acceptable

Edited by Parrothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Wouldn't that be like removing potentially pleasurable experiences? How did it discourage masturbation? By making it more painful?

No. Once the surgery is healed over men don't have pain from circumcision. I wouldn't think that days old infant boys have the coordination to masturbate to climax.

 

I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to stop masturbation. Probably more fear mongering among the medical establishment than anything. Back in the day masturbation was sinful almost to the point of being evil. One did what one could to ensure one's child didn't pick up the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never started a thread on here in 10+ years of being on these boards that was considered "controversial" and I am not fond of being accused of doing so now. I asked a legitimate question and have been attacked for beating a dead horse every time I post something.

 

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female. It being culturally ACCEPTABLE does not answer the question of why we find it MORALLY acceptable when we would not find the same morally acceptable when done to a female.

 

And have none of the nurses on here ever seen a female with a UTI? An elderly one? Seriously? My mom has had to be hospitalized with them.

 

But it's fine. I'm done beating the horse. This is why, after at least 10 years on TWTM boards, I rarely do anything other than read and marvel at the way most discussions go.

 

I guess the thing is, circumcision isn't about morals for us, or a lot of other people. But at the same time, for some it is (like yourself).

Piercing ears isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

Wearing pants isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

There are other things that are moral issues for us that are not for others.

 

I'm ok with that. I'm ok with us believing differently than others, and others believing differently than us. I don't look down on others who don't agree, or consider them anything but parents making their own responsible decisions for their own family. It's not my business - nor is my business any of theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know; it's only the ugly animals that deserve to become dinner.

 

Cow: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Horse: Pretty. Don't eat it.

 

Chicken: Ugly. Let's eat it.

Swan: Pretty. Watch it glide.

 

Pig: Ugly. Bacon!

Dog: Awwww!!! Here, boy!

 

:D

 

And don't get me started on fish.

 

Right.

 

But you cannot eat this cow. Notice the fluffiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the thing is, circumcision isn't about morals for us, or a lot of other people. But at the same time, for some it is (like yourself).

Piercing ears isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

Wearing pants isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

There are other things that are moral issues for us that are not for others.

 

I'm ok with that. I'm ok with us believing differently than others, and others believing differently than us. I don't look down on others who don't agree, or consider them anything but parents making their own responsible decisions for their own family. It's not my business - nor is my business any of theirs.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never started a thread on here in 10+ years of being on these boards that was considered "controversial" and I am not fond of being accused of doing so now. I asked a legitimate question and have been attacked for beating a dead horse every time I post something.

 

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female. It being culturally ACCEPTABLE does not answer the question of why we find it MORALLY acceptable when we would not find the same morally acceptable when done to a female.

 

And have none of the nurses on here ever seen a female with a UTI? An elderly one? Seriously? My mom has had to be hospitalized with them.

 

But it's fine. I'm done beating the horse. This is why, after at least 10 years on TWTM boards, I rarely do anything other than read and marvel at the way most discussions go.

 

Well, what are you after, then? Are you hoping someone is going to say, "Yes, I find male circumcision totally reprehensible, just 100% wrong, but I did circumcise my kids anyway."?

 

To me, it is morally acceptable because it is culturally acceptable. I don't find it to be barbaric or a morally unacceptable intrusion on a male. I don't know anybody who is planning to circumcise their female babies. If I grew up where that was a cultural norm and I had been circumcised as an infant and there were studies showing that it was beneficial, I guess I would not find female circumcision unacceptable.

 

Honestly, I don't understand what you're stormin' around about. All people do not view male infant circumcision as you do, but you don't want to hear the rationale they use in coming to their point-of-view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the thing is, circumcision isn't about morals for us, or a lot of other people. But at the same time, for some it is (like yourself).

Piercing ears isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

Wearing pants isn't a moral issue for our family. But for others it is.

There are other things that are moral issues for us that are not for others.

 

I'm ok with that. I'm ok with us believing differently than others, and others believing differently than us. I don't look down on others who don't agree, or consider them anything but parents making their own responsible decisions for their own family. It's not my business - nor is my business any of theirs.

 

:iagree:Circumcision isn't a moral decision in my book. It's a health based one. I believe it is healthier for males in the long run to be circumcised. Period. You don't. Your decision about it may be based on your personal moral code. Mine is not. My husband wanted our sons circumcised and I agreed. We did not struggle over this. We did not debate it. It was a total non-issue for us, and I see nothing morally reprehensible about it in any way.

 

I've witnessed and assisted in more circumcisions of infants than I can count. Most sleep through the entire procedure. Some are awake, but more than half of them don't make a peep. Some do cry, but honestly, not many....and they usually start crying when their diaper is removed, not during the surgery. The procedure is extremely quick...it takes longer for the anesthetic to be administered than it does to perform the circ.

 

Based on all of that, I had absolutely no problems having both my sons circumcised. And after seeing what my FIL went through....it only confirmed that the decision I made was the right one for our family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what are you after, then? Are you hoping someone is going to say, "Yes, I find male circumcision totally reprehensible, just 100% wrong, but I did circumcise my kids anyway."?

 

Perhaps I'm the closest you're going to get. I believe if you don't have a moral or spiritual imperative to circ, you shouldn't. For the same reason that I wouldn't remove anything from any of my kids without a good reason.

 

In Hebrew, the ceremony where we circumcise our sons at 8 days is called a "bris." The word "bris" or "brit" doesn't mean circumcision, it means "covenant." I believe that if you DO circumcise, for religious reasons, you must give them the covenant that goes along with it.

 

Otherwise, it's just a meaningless skin-flap removal. :lol:

 

(that's why it annoys me when Jewish men marry Christian women but then the husbands insist on circumcision... and why "so he'll look like me" is NOT a good-enough reason)

 

For what it's worth, my 2 sons were circ'd at 8 days and both were peacefully asleep within 10 minutes afterwards. On the other hand, I had my dd6's ears pierced at 4 months and she cried for hours.

 

Here is ds4, about 15 minutes after his bris:

DSCN0235.jpg[/size]

 

I love circ threads!!! Bring 'em on! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't understand what you're stormin' around about. All people do not view male infant circumcision as you do, but you don't want to hear the rationale they use in coming to their point-of-view.

 

:iagree: I can't figure out what answer the OP is looking for, since apparently none of the reasons that have been listed in this thread for why people view circumcision the way they do are valid or answer the question of why people accept male circumcision but not female circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female. It being culturally ACCEPTABLE does not answer the question of why we find it MORALLY acceptable when we would not find the same morally acceptable when done to a female.

 

 

OK, I'll bite. I oppose both types. It is a deal breaker issue for me personally, in my own family, even though my FOO always did it without questioning it, like many Americans. Had I had a boy, I would have left my DH before I let him force this on him. That is how strongly I feel about it. However, I ALSO feel that every single version of female 'circ' is worse than the typical male 'circ' and is completely unacceptable. That's the sum total of my personal views on this. I oppose both, and I don't think that they are equivalent--to the extent that it's almost offensive to me that the female one(s) has the same name attached to it.

 

Also. I recognize the religious dictum in favor of male circ. And I don't know what to think about it. I'm not in one of those faiths, and I don't know where I would come down on this if I was. The Bible says that Jewish men who are uncircumcised are not allowed to participate in the passover celebration, and that is a huge loss in that faith--I don't know whether Reform Judaism gets around it or not, but wow, what a loss. So I don't have a fleshed out, complete, moral opinion on that. But again, it's not my faith.

 

However, I do know that any religious argument for the female version(s) that I have ever heard is lame, unconvincing, and arguably read back erroneously into a faith that didn't originally proclaim it. And even if there were a religious argument for female circ. it would be unacceptable to me morally because it is so drastic. I think that all female circ. is barbaric and should be outlawed around the whole entire world.

 

(I didn't put all this in writing before because I know how these threads go. I'm not usually a firestorm kind of gal. But this is my complete, utter, never before expressed in one place, opinion about the whole matter.)

Edited by Carol in Cal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if the country were clamoring with men and boys raging about their lack of foreskin, maybe this would be worth escalating our blood pressure.

It may not be clamouring with them, men don't like to talk about their bits in public. But they exist, my BIL is one of them, his parents did not circ my DH and BIL is angry and upset (yes,still) that they did that without his consent. He is not the only man who feels that way, not by a long shot.

 

:iagree:My FIL just had to have it done at age 79 in a nursing home. It was horrible. Repeated UTIs were the reason because he was not mentally aware enough to keep the area clean (he has Alzheimers). And guess what? The aidesy they employ at nursing homes DO NOT do that for you...no matter what they might lead you to believe. I spoke to his personal physician who was in charge of his after-care and he said it happens all. the. time. to elderly uncircumcised males. Not if they've been circumcised though. Food for thought.

But they have had the benefit, and pleasure, and their wives have had the pleasure of the foreskin for their whole lives. I asked my DH, he'd rather keep the pleasure even if it means painful surgery in later life. Should we all stop walking to avoid painful hip replacements?

 

Time and culture.

 

Essentially if it were just the "clitoral hood only" the two operations could be compared. But routinely the female version is not simply the clitoral hood only. That is why it is so reprehensible.

:iagree:

 

No. Once the surgery is healed over men don't have pain from circumcision. I wouldn't think that days old infant boys have the coordination to masturbate to climax.

 

I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to stop masturbation. Probably more fear mongering among the medical establishment than anything. Back in the day masturbation was sinful almost to the point of being evil. One did what one could to ensure one's child didn't pick up the practice.

based on what I know of an uncirced penis, I'd say the foreskin would be a handy tool in the procedure and removing it would make everything 1/less sensitive and 2/less "slidy" for want of a better description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO ONE can really answer this question. Everyone has come up with some other reason from saying the two don't compare to it's culturally acceptable to whatever other reasons they may have, but NOBODY really even considers that the intrusion on the male infant is just as awful as a similar intrusion on a female.
I guess you didn't read my comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on what I know of an uncirced penis, I'd say the foreskin would be a handy tool in the procedure and removing it would make everything 1/less sensitive and 2/less "slidy" for want of a better description.

Okay. I'll take your word for it. ;)

I don't think I want to discuss the slidability issue in a mixed company forum. :lol: :blushing: :blush:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sheesh! I'm turning into a prude in my old age. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay3fer: Perhaps I'm the closest you're going to get. I believe if you don't have a moral or spiritual imperative to circ, you shouldn't. For the same reason that I wouldn't remove anything from any of my kids without a good reason.

 

In Hebrew, the ceremony where we circumcise our sons at 8 days is called a "bris." The word "bris" or "brit" doesn't mean circumcision, it means "covenant." I believe that if you DO circumcise, for religious reasons, you must give them the covenant that goes along with it.

 

Otherwise, it's just a meaningless skin-flap removal. :lol:

 

 

Hey, I never thought of it that way, but I think I agree with you!

 

I hope you will accept that from a mere grafted-in branch (as we Christians understand we gentiles are, into the kingdom of God).

 

(that's why it annoys me when Jewish men marry Christian women but then the husbands insist on circumcision... and why "so he'll look like me" is NOT a good-enough reason)

 

Ha. Makes sense to me from your perspective.

 

For what it's worth, my 2 sons were circ'd at 8 days and both were peacefully asleep within 10 minutes afterwards.

 

If we had done it - home birth, so we didn't, not to mention we aren't Jewish - we totally would have wanted a mohel do it, if he would, on the 8th day. There is a good reason God said to do it on the 8th day, as that is when the blood clotting factor is optimal.

 

Here is ds4, about 15 minutes after his bris:

DSCN0235.jpg[/size]

 

I love circ threads!!! Bring 'em on!

 

He's a cutie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I'll take your word for it. ;)

I don't think I want to discuss the slidability issue in a mixed company forum. :lol: :blushing: :blush:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sheesh! I'm turning into a prude in my old age. :D

LOL. The "slidability".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is something I just mentioned in the other thread. Many women on another forum, as well as a few I know in real life, have mentioned how helpful this is during s*x and how it eliminates vaginal dryness. It seems some natural lubricants are stored in that unnecessary foreskin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the WHO:

"Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).

Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area."

 

I don't see how male circumcision is equivalent to female genital mutilation, from a physical or a moral standpoint, as the motive also matters. Only in "very rare cases" does it involve the limited definition the OP asked that the discussion be restricted to. I see it as equivocation to call them both circumcision.

 

:iagree:Exactly. Everything I have heard about FGM is that it is a horrific procedure whose purpose is to take away sexual pleasure and temptation from women by removal of the clitoris in most case:( There is no comparison in my book at all.

As for circumcision, I think it is a personal choice for parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is something I just mentioned in the other thread. Many women on another forum, as well as a few I know in real life, have mentioned how helpful this is during s*x and how it eliminates vaginal dryness. It seems some natural lubricants are stored in that unnecessary foreskin.

 

As I understand it, the inside of the foreskin is mucous membrane and makes it's own lubricant. I guess God made it so that both parties provide lubricants. That seems like a good thing to me considering how many women complain about things being so dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I'll take your word for it. ;)

I don't think I want to discuss the slidability issue in a mixed company forum. :lol: :blushing: :blush:

 

Sheesh! I'm turning into a prude in my old age. :D

:lol: yeah, I was trying to be as discrete as possible, not easy when it's slideability one is discussing!

 

And yes, the slideability is helpful (nice ;) ) for partners too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:Circumcision isn't a moral decision in my book. It's a health based one. I believe it is healthier for males in the long run to be circumcised. Period. You don't. Your decision about it may be based on your personal moral code. Mine is not. My husband wanted our sons circumcised and I agreed. We did not struggle over this. We did not debate it. It was a total non-issue for us, and I see nothing morally reprehensible about it in any way.

 

 

 

 

I don't have (and won't have) any sons, so it truly isn't an issue for us, but if we had had sons, they would have been circumcised. DH wanted any sons of ours to be circumcised and I agreed. There was no drama, just a simple discussion and then we moved on. It is a complete non-issue to me.

 

I have to admit that I am very glad that DH is circumcised. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaks are cute... Do you ever see yak meat in the grocery store? No. Why? They're cute.

 

And so are Scottish cattle like in my video. They have long fluffy hair that falls into their eyes! Hmph.

 

See? Proof that two very good, reasonable and intelligent people can look at the same thing and see it differently. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is something I just mentioned in the other thread. Many women on another forum, as well as a few I know in real life, have mentioned how helpful this is during s*x and how it eliminates vaginal dryness. It seems some natural lubricants are stored in that unnecessary foreskin.

Okay. I'm sorry if I offend anyone one. But .....

 

 

 

 

Ewww...Yuck!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lord, help me. I am a prude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...