• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

Circumcision - Possible Problems in Psychosexual Development?

This article might suggest that circumcision, like infant sexual abuse, has a more profound impact on development than many people are aware of:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/abuse.htm

"If the original experiences of the infant... involve fear, unpredictability, pain, and abnormal genital sensations; neural organisation; in many key areas will be significantly, and detrimentally, altered. Perry cites as an example, that abnormal associations may be created between genital touch and fear, thereby laying the future foundation for problems in psychosexual development."
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
It's clearly a plot by the manufacturers of hand lotion and other lubricants to increase sales...
Click to expand...

Oddly, there's a bottle of hand lotion here at my house. You know, where I live with my uncut husband? It's not my lotion. That's all I'll say about that.
 
rocketdodger said:
I'm not convinced that had much to do with the adoption of the practice in the U.S.

As far as I remember from back when I did research on this topic, it was not widespread at all prior to WWI or thereabouts. Were people as obsessed with "abnormal" child behavior after the turn of the century? I seem to remember most of that nonsense happening in the latter half of the 19th century.

That being said, I always find it funny that cut men can proclaim with such confidence "they aren't missing anything" when male circumcision was specifically used to curb masturbation.
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be an expert on this area but there seems to me to have been an increase in popular condemnation of male masturbation in nineteenth century USA after Graham started lecturing and publishing tracts on the subject around 1825 (up to 1834 Lecture to Young Men was published). He linked pretty much every medical problem to masturbation.:rolleyes:

Before this there doesn't seem to have been much attention paid to the subject outside some medical literature, e.g. Bekker's Ononia: Or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution, and all its Frightful Consequences [1716] and Tissot's Treatise on the Diseases Produced by Onanism [1760].:eek:

Then there's Kellogg1 and his obsession with the subject.......; he actively encouraged circumcision as a preventative (and excision of the clitoris in women) along with various chastity devices, restraining children, sewing the foreskin and chemical and electric shock "treatments".:mad:

I really should get around to finishing Laqueur's Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation, which I have around somewhere.:)


1 Yes that Kellogg. And Graham was the cracker man.
 
slingblade said:
Oddly, there's a bottle of hand lotion here at my house. You know, where I live with my uncut husband? It's not my lotion. That's all I'll say about that.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you have now debunked what I thought was a profound truth ... guess I'll live :p.
 
slingblade said:
Oddly, there's a bottle of hand lotion here at my house. You know, where I live with my uncut husband? It's not my lotion. That's all I'll say about that.
Click to expand...

But I'm guessing he doesn't use it for the same reason, and as often, as cut men do - especially single men. When you're uncut, all you need to do is grab it and you're good to go.. :)
 
rocketdodger said:
I'm not convinced that had much to do with the adoption of the practice in the U.S.

As far as I remember from back when I did research on this topic, it was not widespread at all prior to WWI or thereabouts. Were people as obsessed with "abnormal" child behavior after the turn of the century? I seem to remember most of that nonsense happening in the latter half of the 19th century.

That being said, I always find it funny that cut men can proclaim with such confidence "they aren't missing anything" when male circumcision was specifically used to curb masturbation.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I'd say controlling that behavior contributed to it quite a bit, medical literature in the late 19th and very early 20th century certainly says as much. At the time not, indulging in such activities would help a man stay clean or hygienic and I suspect the notion of being 'hygienic' transcended its original euphemism once we know the claim wasn't true. Hygienic then went on to mean actually physically clean instead. By WWI though I think the prevalence in the US had reached at least 25% but the big jump came after WWII.

What was the ultimate driver I'd say is a real mystery though. It's just difficult to understand how anyone could think that it was a good idea, even then. But we do have to remember medical ethics were much less stringent, good medical science was much less prevalent, people didn't ask a lot of questions, and informed consent never occurred the conditions were really good for circumcision to take root.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Increased risks of urinary tract infection, as well as transmission of diseases including both HPV and HIV.
Click to expand...

Not only modern myth, but look how utterly incompetent this "answer" is at addressing the question.

I asked for the Religions reasons, established thousands of years ago, and a modern myth about medical reasons is given instead.

The amazing thing is seeing how people think these are answers. If I can form a sentence in response to your question, well that's an answer! I will make up any old answer, as long as an authority figure told me to whack the pecker.


The first five books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch by Christians and Torah by the Jews. It's completely fabricated of course, and represents different traditions merged into one as a political settlement, as can be seen in two very different creation stories, two completely different sets of ten commandments, etc. Those are called "doublets" and represent the northern and southern kingdom traditions, ultimately one being forgotten even though it stands right next to its counterpart.

Although totally fabricated, it stands as the oldest Jewish written record commanding the cutting of the wee-wee - and it is clear the command is to cut as a SIGN. There is no medical reason. It is the sign of the people chosen by God to pre-eminence on earth. Wow, what a great thing to cheer on - the master race. A little ironic, isn't it?

I don't favor banning it on account of the sanctity of the family, even when demonstrably stupid, and even dangerous. The state is the worst parent of all, so what choice do you have. But I don't have to listen to people completely ignorant in their own history and traditions make apologetic stuff up off the tops of their heads, being good little obedient servants of fantasy authority figures.
 
Naive1000 said:
AlaskaBushPilot, since you asked here is a link -- Circumcision in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Well, yes thanks - it was a rhetorical question for me since I already knew, but I am trying to force those who SAY they understand what the Biblical tradition is to actually READ it.

Because this is about the laziest kind of thinking - or rather it doesn't even qualify as thinking: if it is "in the Bible" it is automatically beautiful and we can make up any reason with gusto. We are backed by the authority of myth, although we don't even know what the myth is. We just have to know there is myth that exists. That's good enough for us.
 
jdp said:
What was the ultimate driver I'd say is a real mystery though. It's just difficult to understand how anyone could think that it was a good idea, even then. But we do have to remember medical ethics were much less stringent, good medical science was much less prevalent, people didn't ask a lot of questions, and informed consent never occurred the conditions were really good for circumcision to take root.
Click to expand...
I'm cynical enough to think 'money'.

Coincidentally, I've been re-reading Piper's Lord Kalvan Of Otherwhen and there's a somewhat relevant reference there.
When some of the locals are expressing doubt about Kalvan's origin (he's a cop who accidentally got dumped on a different Earth);
"When Kalvan came among us, I tended his wounds. He is not circumcised, as all priests of Styphon are."
Then he sat down. That knocked that on the head. It was a good thing the Rev. Morrison had refused to let the doctor load the bill with what he'd considered non-essentials when his son had been born.
Click to expand...
So at least some people back in '65 considered the practice a money maker.:)
 
catsmate1 said:
I don't claim to be an expert on this area but there seems to me to have been an increase in popular condemnation of male masturbation in nineteenth century USA after Graham started lecturing and publishing tracts on the subject around 1825 (up to 1834 Lecture to Young Men was published). He linked pretty much every medical problem to masturbation.:rolleyes:

Before this there doesn't seem to have been much attention paid to the subject outside some medical literature, e.g. Bekker's Ononia: Or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution, and all its Frightful Consequences [1716] and Tissot's Treatise on the Diseases Produced by Onanism [1760].:eek:

Then there's Kellogg1 and his obsession with the subject.......; he actively encouraged circumcision as a preventative (and excision of the clitoris in women) along with various chastity devices, restraining children, sewing the foreskin and chemical and electric shock "treatments".:mad:

I really should get around to finishing Laqueur's Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation, which I have around somewhere.:)


1 Yes that Kellogg. And Graham was the cracker man.
Click to expand...

So basically you're saying that this idea is not only a bit flakey, it's totally crackers!:duck:
 
Brainache said:
So basically you're saying that this idea is not only a bit flakey, it's totally crackers!:duck:
Click to expand...
........................................................
I've just spent at least a minute staring at the screen attempting to come up with a response to this.

Aaaaaaargh............
 
catsmate1 said:
I'm cynical enough to think 'money'.

Coincidentally, I've been re-reading Piper's Lord Kalvan Of Otherwhen and there's a somewhat relevant reference there.
When some of the locals are expressing doubt about Kalvan's origin (he's a cop who accidentally got dumped on a different Earth);
So at least some people back in '65 considered the practice a money maker.:)
Click to expand...

I am skeptical about the money maker excuse. I think there are a lot of reasons but I don't think money was primary. I am currently reading an excellent book on the subject: Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America By Lenord Glick. Glick's review of the history of circumcision is excellent and so far appears really well researched.

Updated with link to book.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Not only modern myth, but look how utterly incompetent this "answer" is at addressing the question.
Click to expand...

I wasn't addressing a question. I was addressing this statement:

AmandaM said:
No circumcision = no potential risks.
Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't addressing your point, because I consider it irrelevant. We didn't circumcise our son for religious reasons; even the cultural reasons underlying the prevalence of circumcision don't trace back to those religious reasons.

Why exactly do you consider it hypocritical or intellectually dishonest for me to ignore your question when it doesn't even pertain to me, my culture, or my reasons?
 
Dawkins never said teaching children religion is child abuse. He said he considers raising a child through indoctrinating them without any choice in the matter is tantamount to abuse. You've got to completely ignore the context of his statement to turn it into such a black and white issue.
 
slingblade said:
Oddly, there's a bottle of hand lotion here at my house. You know, where I live with my uncut husband? It's not my lotion. That's all I'll say about that.
Click to expand...

There's no particular reason for circumcision, but in American society it's come to be regarded as normal so everybody just does it without thinking. Why should this not also be true about certain uses for hand lotion?

Dave
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
I wasn't addressing a question. I was addressing this statement:
Click to expand...

No circumcision = no risks

That was my original quote, but it has been taken out of context. I was talking about the risks of elective surgery.

Having elective surgery involves risks related to that surgery.
Not having elective surgery involves no risks related to that surgery.

I've read everything I could on the supposed medical benefits of circumcision, and I don't agree that there are benefits to 99.9999% of the population. Because of the extreme rarity of the conditions circumcision is thought to "prevent" anyway, I don't think the risks of the surgery balance out the miniscule possibility that my child might be one of those in so many million kids who would benefit from this surgery -- unless his pediatrician told us otherwise. At which point I would reconsider my position on circumcision for MY SON, and not for children in general.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom