jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (42 posts)

Why is it completely normal for a male to be "circumcized"?

  1. 0
    Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago

    It is cutting off nerves and skin off a man's body. Why is this accepted widely by so many? What is the religious reasoning behind all of this?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is just a habit some cultures have got into. It might relate to the reduction in sensitivity (averaging around 20%) and hence motivation to masturbate?

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is considered to be more sanitary. (less change of infections). But in todays times, if people are washing themselves properly, it would be there own fault. Back in the day, bathing wasn't a daily thing as it is now.

      Just my thoughts.

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because it's the Abrahamic freaking covenant.
      All the chicks dig it.

      1. 0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think "chicks" "dig" the man, not just his third leg.

    4. KeithTax profile image80
      KeithTaxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who said it is normal? Others have referenced medical reasons for chopping the foreskin and some talked the religious end. I have no more to add other than: Ouch!

  2. 60
    ibneahmadposted 5 years ago

    Why is it completely normal for a male to be "circumcized"?

    Does it effect sex in anyway?

    1. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, since it removes nerve endings in the skin, it might. There are studies saying that it is less pleasurable.

  3. kmackey32 profile image83
    kmackey32posted 5 years ago

    There are many men in the nursing home who are not circumcized and they suffer from infections all the time.....

  4. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

    ...i'm not quite sure if it is so normal anymore in NA...folks i know that have had boys haven't...i wouldn't do it

  5. 60
    ibneahmadposted 5 years ago

    The umbilical cord is cut at birth of a child; it does no harm to the child; circumcision likewise is not harmful which is done within a week of the birth of a male baby.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image60
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. Your lack of education is astounding. No wonder you believe such nonsense. LOLOLOL

      This is why your religion causes so many conflict. Ignorance.

      1. 60
        ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        Please add here some fruit of the education you have on the subject that will be appreciated.

        1. I am DB Cooper profile image66
          I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The umbilical cord does not have nerves. The skin on the end of the penis does have nerves. Even newborns can feel when a sensitive piece of skin is cut from them.

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        circumcision was said by God to occur on the 8th day after birth.
        On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. Both are effective in blood clotting and healing.

        You see of course the wisdom of God. Circumcision was to identify Gods people as being different from other nations and as God said.
        Day 8 is the perfect time. Also the child would not remember the pain caused. Sanitation was, of course, also a factor.

        This is why EGs nonreligion causes so much conflict because his mouth is always open and never saying anything at all. Ignorance.

        1. 69
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Geez and all this time I thought we were all God's children.  Hmmm, musta been thinkin of a different God.

          1. earnestshub profile image86
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm chortling at the thought of god doing what the army here calls "Short arm inspections!" so as to identify his followers!
            lol

            1. 69
              logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I guess if he needs to check your penis to see if you are a follower, he may not be as omniscient as some make him out to be.
              Or maybe God is a woman and is just plain kinky! smile

              1. earnestshub profile image86
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol lol just saw this logic. lol

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  is it still logical?  (see below)

                  1. earnestshub profile image86
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You have misunderstood/ smile again. Not talking about logic, talking too logic,commonsense.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            More likely you were thinking of a different way. The OT imputation was according to flesh, everything was dealt with in a physical way. It was very works oriented in that there were lots of rituals and rules applied to it. Sacrifices and the shedding of blood was included numerous times for this and that. Recall the last trial of the Hebrews, in Egypt when they were told to apply blood to their doors posts and lintels (beside and above) so their firstborns would not be killed. Recall the sacrifices that shed blood. Recall now that shed blood occurred to the males in the situation of circumcision. In the OT shed blood identified the person with God the maker.
            In the NT, the shed blood of Christ covers all people to identify them with the maker and that is God.
            So the typology of this shedding of blood that you balk at is a continuing truism appointed of God to gather his own unto himself, in the OT, via the circumcision and the NT, via his Son, jesus.
            So earnest you were actually not far off in your deduction. congratulations.
            And logic, better luck next time you try and apply your commonsense.

        2. 60
          ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I understand it is from the time of Abraham; it is not among the basics of the tuthful religion.

          Are there other ancient nations who did it or do it?

    2. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Um... I disagree. The baby is in pain and sore afterwards. Have you ever seen a baby after they have the procedure done? There is a bandage and SKIN is removed which must heal over. There is pain done, just not pain remembered.

  6. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I feel guilty now.  I had no idea this procedure would lessen sensitivity. Had I known, I would never have had my son circumcised. I'm surprised doctors haven't spoken out against the practice over the years.

    1. ReuVera profile image85
      ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      would you believe anything said? It is absolutely not right that it lessens sensitivity. It does NOT! On the contrary, if you want to know. You did a right thing for your son and he will be glad later.  While it is a strictly personal choice for people out of Jewish nationality (by the way, nowadays it is a free choice for Jews too), circumcision is a right thing to do, as it means more hygienic for a man AND his woman. And don't listen to insinuations like "less sensitivity".
      Besides, it looks SO much better than uncircumcised.

      1. stestifie profile image78
        stestifieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is gross looking un

    2. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't matter about sensitivity, apparently castlepaloma has a statistic that 98% of males are playing with themselves anyway.. so sensitivity is a moot point.

      1. 0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sensitivity is moot? Wow. And here I was thinking that people would like to know that fact before having the procedure done to their child or self. Lolz

  7. RooBee profile image82
    RooBeeposted 5 years ago

    I let my husband make the final decision on this with our sons, and as a circumcised (and pretty well educated on the subject) male, he opted to have it done. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it, either (for us). It's easy to talk about what you would do until you are in the situation with your own family. My husband felt that the benefits were greater than the drawbacks and has no problem with sensitivity. If anything, it could be problematic if he were more sensitive! wink

    Really, though, there are much more troublesome things happening to children to get upset about instead of a personal decision made by loving parents trying to do the best for their child. It is a tough decision, and I understand any parent going either way on it. Not my business to judge them for it.

  8. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Actually circumsision was mandated by the vasoline company.

        Uncircumsised men don't need to buy it.

  9. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 5 years ago

    Has God gone on record with an explanation of why a foreskin is necessary for the first seven days of a baby's life then becomes persona non grata? Or did he just make a design error?

    Or has he explained why foreskins are just fine for all other mammals but no good for humans?

    It's all just primitive nonsense. At least the male practice is less barbaric than the female version, which is abuse, pure and simple.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      as to animals, i suppose protection could be a factor since humans wear clothes. Since sensitivity resides there, perhaps to lessen the sensation when running through forest or dense jungle.
      I do not think this foreskin a design flaw.. it has a purpose according to God, in the OT. but it doesn't matter in the NT.
      Read my post above if you want to know the importance of this foreskin and the role it serves.

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You'll agree then that the human foreskin is quite a convincing argument for evolution. If it is only useful for running naked through the jungle, that suggests that for a few (million) years that was exactly what we did.
        On the other hand, for God to create Adam intact, in the knowledge that within a few weeks he'd eat an apple and immediately feel the urge to dress, we can only assume Adam's foreskin was to protect his sensitivity until the fall wink
        I think you're floundering, somewhat!

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          only if one compares human and animal as one in the same. God created man for a different reason than animals. I believe this is like comparing an apple and orange.
          The fact that the foreskin has both ceremonial and typology use by God indicates nothing of evolution, but that God has purpose in many details as even he does the many details of our lives.
          Your way of thinking... against ward all the time is too one sided. You need to see the other side because in order for your idea to hold ground,  there would have to be no foreskins on anything else and that would prove God, but you see because everything else has foreskins, its evolution.
          And to say that for millions of years man ran through a jungle and this is why he had a foreskin is to me ludicrous because now you say that evolution had keen insight and thought to itself 'man is gonna need something to protect that, so i better make a foreskin'. Evolution has no intelligent foresight  - but God does.

          1. Paraglider profile image89
            Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. You were the one that suggested foreskins were handy when running through the jungle. Maybe God expected newborn babies to spend their first seven days on safari prior to circumcision.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              yep. I supposed they were for protection, i also supposed more... maybe you should read over again what i wrote in all my posts since you seem to have this selective reading ability common to all your kind.

              1. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Explain "your kind" as applied to me?

  10. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    Seeing as one's spouse will wear their husband's genitalia around their neck as jewelery after marriage, shouldn't it be the wife's decision to make?

  11. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    Being a mother of 3 boys, it never-ever occured to me that I have to cut something off from their private parts! Something else I've missed? Speaking about traditions... good or bad they are still alive and hurting us...

  12. 60
    ibneahmadposted 5 years ago

    I think it is more of a cultural thing; does not belong to the core of religion.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why one foolishness any different from other?

 
working