• 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?

"The Royal Dutch Medical Association is coming up with a suggestion to ban circumcision -- something we Jews have been doing for the last 3,500 years," [Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis] said.

"They come and say you're not only inhuman towards animals, you're inhumane towards your own children. So basically it robs us of our religious and human dignity," he said.
Click to expand...

You know I think it's very ego centric of these Rabbis to decide it's all about their religion and not about the protection of children. Do we really have to chose between religion and protecting children, or is it just a false dichotomy? If we do, then protecting children wins hands down in my opinion.

Many biblical practices have been outlawed, and we have no problem separating them from their religions. Why is this practice so sacred that it can't be too? I see none of these rabbis fighting to bring back slavery, public stonings, the suppression of women, or the killing disobedient children. Society has recognized that these practices are wrong and immoral and outlawed them while not condemning the religions that held them. So what makes circumcision such a sacred cow that society can't do this again? Is this practice really the pillar on which the whole religion stands that outlawing the practice will destroying the religion itself? I think not. If religion holds us and our society back and advocates wrong for right we have no choice but to cut it free unless it changes. Change is human nature. Adapt or die. Sorry religion, social evolution is coming for you: time for you to adapt or wither on the vine.
 
Leumas said:
Sometimes it is a lot easier than all that foreplay stuff and cuddling afterwards. Sometimes all a man wants is just a "wham bam thank you ma’am" despite how much he loves his wife.... and Palma can be quite understanding, accommodating and not very demanding (no drinks flowers, diamond rings or nth honeymoon).
Click to expand...

Sometimes that's all a woman wants. Five minutes with Literotica, then back to the game, vs. 3 hours of roleplaying and having to wash the sheets and accoutrements after? I like a man who has his own needs well in hand ;)
 
catsmate1 said:
Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity.
Based on the Sorrells study (British Journal of Urology International, Volume 99 Issue 4 Page 864 - April 2007)
Click to expand...

That actually has some interesting cultural implications.

Assuming a circumsized penis is less sensitive, does it then follow that it takes longer to achieve orgasm?

Assuming that a woman needs more time than a man to achieve orgasm..

Does it then suggest that if, in the Jewish religion, a man should please his wife, is he 'helped' in this by having a circimsized penis?

Sorry, I know that's a lot of assumptions. I'm not Jewish, but my (secular, militant atheist) husband is.
 
DangerMouth said:
That actually has some interesting cultural implications.

Assuming a circumsized penis is less sensitive, does it then follow that it takes longer to achieve orgasm?

Assuming that a woman needs more time than a man to achieve orgasm..

Does it then suggest that if, in the Jewish religion, a man should please his wife, is he 'helped' in this by having a circimsized penis?

Sorry, I know that's a lot of assumptions. I'm not Jewish, but my (secular, militant atheist) husband is.
Click to expand...
It would appear, from the Frisch, Lindholm and Grønbæk study I referenced earlier in this thread, not.
That study (of ~5,000 men) suggests strongly that (male) circumcision is bad for women's sexual satisfaction also.
picture.php
 
Yeah, we've seen the graph. I question it, though.

*wrote a post with way more personal info than I really want to give*

So I'll just stick with "I question the findings." ;)
 
slingblade said:
Yeah, we've seen the graph. I question it, though.

*wrote a post with way more personal info than I really want to give*

So I'll just stick with "I question the findings." ;)
Click to expand...
Why? I haven't examined the study, and its cites, in great depth but my perusal doesn't show any significant problems, biases, major methodological flaws et cetera, and the sample size is reasonable. It passed IJE peer-review and was presented at the World Congress for Sexual Health.
 
Last edited:
catsmate1 said:
Why? I haven't examined the study, and its cites, in great depth but my perusal doesn't show any significant problems, biases, major methodological flaws et cetera, and the sample size is reasonable. It passed IJE peer-review and was presented at the World Congress for Sexual Health.
Click to expand...

Not the entire study. Just a couple of questions I have about that graph.

Like "painful sex." Aside from a lubrication issue, I can't think why women would find a cut penis makes sex more painful than an uncut one. And if it is a lubrication issue, and the woman's is also insufficient, then that's why god made KY.
 
slingblade said:
Not the entire study. Just a couple of questions I have about that graph.

Like "painful sex." Aside from a lubrication issue, I can't think why women would find a cut penis makes sex more painful than an uncut one. And if it is a lubrication issue, and the woman's is also insufficient, then that's why god made KY.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded more often than I'd expect that women with lubrication trouble are a minority. People don't seem to know anything about them, such as the part where they often find added lubricants irritating. And that many lubricants dry into unhelpful sticky messes in short order anyway, until you're adding more every few minutes like you're trying to finish a really big waffle. And then there's the mess. And the taste. And the fumble in the dark on a winter night for an ice cold bottle in the nightstand. And just generally... bleah. Such penetrative problems are significantly reduced in the presence of a prepuce.
 
You mean of the sort that drools on you, gets sticky strings of whatever that stuff is all over your legs and belly and the sheets and you can't turn the darned thing off and the stuff is everywhere and it's just...gross? You mean like that?
 
AvalonXQ said:
I wasn't addressing a question. I was addressing this statement:



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?
Click to expand...

Sorry. Your answer came immediately after my question, and the quote portion was not displaying right, so it appeared to be addressing me instead of the person you were quoting.
 
Alright I have a new argument. This one goes to the those women/men who believe religion trumps a males rights over his own body. Now this argument has been rolling around in my head for awhile, but I find it personally offensive that I would have to go so far, to equate these things, just to make my point. Also, I know others may find the argument offensive so I skipped it earlier, but I feel since it hasn't been said it needs to be. So, here goes: why are only women afforded the sanctity of their bodies, the right to choose, and men are not.

A woman is told that it's her body, her temple so to speak, and no amount of religion has the right to poke its head into her body -- it belongs to her. While men have no rights to their own sanctity, the temple doors are open, and any religion, hell even social norms or customs, have the right to jump in and make decisions for him -- his consent means nothing. Now how can I equate the right to choose with the rights of men? It's all about the importance religion places on a piece of meat and how religion feels it has the right to choose for people. In both cases, religion holds that, that pound of flesh holds religious significance. Religion holds that by disobeying its tenants, by choosing otherwise, you forfeit your connection with god. In both cases religion holds itself sacrosanct in the decision and that the person has no rights before god.

One might claim that the piece of flesh on a man is so much less important than that which grows in a woman. That an unimportant piece of flesh lopped off doesn't even need consent. But, that argument holds little water when the whole right to choose argument hinges not on the importance of the flesh but on the womans rights over her own body. Inarguably the flesh growing in a woman during pregnancy is much more important than the prepuce of man. So, by the same token, shouldn't religion have a much greater right to decide since the flesh in question is of so much greater significance.

So, in a world where we aim for equal rights, why do men have less rights over their own bodies than women. Why does religion trump in this case and not in the other? Why do life long decisions for males mean nothing before religion but religion has no rights when women are concerned? Now, I know there are some flaws in this argument. I'm still working through them, so feel free to take it apart. It will help me make a stronger, more robust, argument later on.
 
Naive1000 said:
So, in a world where we aim for equal rights...
Click to expand...

This is the world of collective punishment of current white males, for crimes they did not commit, and for the benefit of people who had no crimes perpetrated upon them.

So that answers your question about why circumcision of males, and most especially white males, raises little concern. You see the hue and cry about women in Africa, but not for the white males right here in this country.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
This is the world of collective punishment of current white males, for crimes they did not commit, and for the benefit of people who had no crimes perpetrated upon them.

So that answers your question about why circumcision of males, and most especially white males, raises little concern. You see the hue and cry about women in Africa, but not for the white males right here in this country.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned race. It happens to all of them. I'm against female mutilation and applaud those who standing up against it. Also, I don't believe that women are never wronged or that parts of society aren't biased against them, because in some cases they are. Bias is very common for both genders: it's just currently more socially acceptable to point out female problems, while ignoring the male ones.

I don't believe that circumcision is a sexism issue in general but a cultural one. Not that sexism has nothing to do with it. Obviously, gender bias does play a role but I think its more of a male on male problem. If you complain -- your unmanly or a sissy. If you have the nerve claim you're neither then you're a whiner or religious bigot. What it comes down to is defining it and making people accept that definition: child mutilation. Once the definition is accepted or at least runs through the minds of most people it will get the debate and recognition it really needs.
 
jdp said:
That's always what they say when I've discussed the matter with them but I disagree. On the matter of proxy consent the AAP committee on bio-ethics noted in 1995 that,

I posit that where the circumcision being performed on a minor is non-therapeutic and non-consensual that the doctors are not meeting their ethical obligations as outlined above.

ETA: I think a more appropriate analogy for you (as a pharmacist) would be if a customer came to your pharmacy without a prescription but asked you for a drug based on what they felt they wanted.
Click to expand...

The problem is differing interpretations of what it means to provide service.

You are apt in your analogy, except for one little bit. I would have to dispense that drug assuming it is not a controlled substance ( i must clarify i am in school to become a pharmacist, don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.) or otherwise regulated.

For example if someone had a life threatening condition and wanted to use a homeopathic remedy for it, i have all rights to say " I am not going to give that medication to you. " but i also have to give them the contact information of a pharmacist who would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom