Wet Dream Forum

I'm not clear on this. Besides the jewish law/tradition/commandment of circumcision, why do we still circumcise?

On the left panel, you'll see I'm "cut". It was against my will, technically, but that's okay. I was BORN against my will for crying out loud (which I also did at the time). But I don't think I'll have my sons cut when I marry and raise a family. One of the worst reasons I've seen for circumcising is "so the son will be like his father." What...? If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad.

Unless it's for religious reasons, which I will not argue against.

_________________
We cannot do good except to someone else. Evil we can do alone.

There is no rational reason to mutilate the genitals of children without their content for religious or social reasons. It's a barbaric practice that has no place in an advanced society - a form of child abuse. Why does it happen? Because people are stupid.

_________________
Can't conceal what I feel
What I know is real
No mistaking the faking
I care
With a prayer in the air
I will leave it there
On a note full of hope
Not despair

Yeah, to quote my earlier response to 302's "Christina Moral Principle Paper" here (check it out if you want to read more about my religious thoughts on the issue--coming from an Evangelical Protestant position), I think many people still circumcise because of

"the American medical community's feeling at the time [mid-1900s] that it was medically beneficial for boys to be circumcised. As you pointed out, the tide is turning on that with at least a significant part of the medical community... (as you know, I am a circumcised product of that generation, born in the mid-1970s, and I wish they thought differently then!), but they were simply following the medical consensus at the time."

Today, the medical literature (in the U.S.) isn't overwelmingly in support of "routine infant circumcision"--thank God!--but I think many still practice it, not knowing any better, and figuring--"If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my son"--without actually looking into it for themself. Unfortunately, many people spend their entire lives thinking like that...

(Of course, people can go to the opposite extreme of "if it's different, it must be better...")

Expectations

I didn't expect that both responses would be heavily on the "infant/child circumcision is bad" side of things.

It is a topic easy to be harshly on one side. At face value, circumcision can look grossly random. Or barbarically unnecessary. Or an unjust tradition rooted in some disillusioned concept.

I desire to be a Christian. And I must admit that the children of Israel in the times of Moses were the people of God, receiving his guidance. No matter what Israel did later, or how or when or even how often they fell away from what God was trying to teach them, God did command them to circumcise.

I can't say circumcision is ridicules or wrong in any form. Self-mutilation or mutilation of innocent infants can be acceptable. (I know, get the stones ready to throw at me.) But you know what I'm talking about.

I would kill if God commanded me to. Mind you, I'd make sure it was God first, and I would expect God to expect me to make sure first. And (this is important) I would expect that the society would judge me for what I did in their own eyes and take the actions they felt are appropriate. Say I were executed for the murder I performed. I would have no cause to protest. Getting executed was just as much part of the deal as my murdering the victim.

In this same vane, I expect people to be absolutely turned off and disgusted by circumcision (I am too. I do not see myself circumcising my children unless there's strong medical evidence between then and now) and I expect people to voice their opinions against it, but in my mind of minds, I have to let this one slide and not say anything too negative about circumcision. It was once the law of God.

I expect not a lot of people to get what I say. That's partly my fault--I'm sure I could have written it better. But, I also expect the occasional person to really change their own selves with what they read.

_________________
We cannot do good except to someone else. Evil we can do alone.

Hey, ExternalMidnight, I appreciate what you have to say and I agree with your very Kierkegaardian base argument that it is God who dictates what is just and unjust (and that's why it was "OK" for him to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac--a test, though, we must also remember that He finally intervened in and that even Abraham had believed that God would either provide a substitute or raise Isaac from the dead--not that that made it any easier!, but that's beyond the point), and I must have come across as criticising the Lord's command for the Israelites to circumcise their male babies, which I am not.

Did you read 302's "Chrystina Moral Principle Paper" post here in the Religious Topics forum, with his and my theological comments on the issue? If not, please go and read it, it is recent and on the same topic--maybe the ambiguous title made it seem like it was about something else?

My basic point there was as a Christian--one primarily under the New Covenant--I am against any spiritual attachment to circumcision because the Apostle Paul (a circumcised Jew) was STRONGLY against it, and I quote several places in that thread with his opinion on it.

In even another place, Philippians 3:2-4, he writes,

"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh--though I myself have reasons for such confidence."

In Galatians 5:11, 12 he almost mocks the practice by saying,

"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Wow!)

Now, in context, he is talking about those Christian leaders who were saying that the Gentiles (and baby Jewish Christians) needed to obey the law of Moses, including circumcision. Paul was strongly opposed to that idea because of the doctrine of grace and the completed work of Christ on the cross.

In the other thread I went on about how, since for Christians it is now no longer a spiritual issue (and "restoring" a foreskin isn't *spiritual* either--I dealt w/that also), the choice to circumcise a baby or not is now simply a medical issue, and on the basis of our current understanding, I feel--medically--the cost of infant circumcision outweighs the benefits of it, which I think you also agree with.

Now, to your new comment about the Old Testament's teaching on circumcision, yes, it was clearly given as a covenantal rite between God and Abraham and Abraham's descendants. In the ancient Near East, a covenant was "cut," it involved the shedding of some blood in one form or another to make it valid, usually the sacrifice of an animal, followed by a shared "covenantal meal" of the cooked animal. In this case, it was a man's foreskin that was cut. (But not cooked, ha ha) To your point about it being "OK" to mutilate babies, I disagree here because the Jews, in that context, wouldn't have seen it as mutilation, and I also suggest that the way Jews do it is more humane than the harsh, medical procedure of today.

Also, beyond the spiritual significance under that covenant, it, medically speaking, would have most likely been a good thing--the benefits outweighing the cost. Their lifestyle wasn't even a fraction as hygenic as ours w/our daily showers, paved roads, good sanitation, anti-bacterial this-and-that, frequently washed clothes, etc. I imagine that a man's foreskin in that climate was indeed a very "dirty" place, easily harboring dirt, infection and disease. The gentiles were frequently mocked and disparaged for being "uncircumcised" (though there were some cultures who practiced it), and in their living conditions, to be uncircumcised would indeed have probably been undesirable. Most of the "kosher" laws pertaining to food and physical cleanliness make a lot of hygenic sence, given their environment. Remember, even the OT Law, which we often see today as "harsh" was given to bless the Israelites, to make their lives better and more just.

But with our new covenant with God through Christ, He chose to do away with circumcision as a spiritual rite/covenant: the spiritual "cleanliness" we need is now received by baptism; the blood shed to "cut" this new covenant--His blood, remembered in communion. I am not criticising the Lord's earlier choice of circumcision, but the new covenant, with its "spiritual circumcision," is indeed the "better" one. (see Hebrews 8:6)

And in our modern, more hygenic world, it seems to me circumcision is now more akin to (as Paul called it) an unnecessary "mutilation of the flesh." Not that I'm equating it with so-called "female circumcision" or somthing like that that is downright cruel and harmful, but it seems to me to now be medically uncecessary in most cases, and like the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"!
(I hope that clarifies my position a bit!)

Be blessed, my brother!

What would your opinion (directed at anyone) be if I was to tattoo the face of my newly born child for religious reasons? I know some societies have ritual tattooing - I'm not sure at what age this is done.

_________________
Can't conceal what I feel
What I know is real
No mistaking the faking
I care
With a prayer in the air
I will leave it there
On a note full of hope
Not despair

I am circumcised, and It is totally unfair!!! It was the typical "Newborn" deal, and I didn't have ANY say in it whatsoever, apart from "Goo {SNIP} AHHHHH" Their is only one benefit, if you can call it that, is that it is easier to clean and therefore is more hygienic. I personally disagree. It isn't that hard to retract your foreskin and was (From what I've heard.) And, in my religion (Baptist) there is NO spiritual reason to circumcise. I think I've made my point.

This is a question that has been in my mind for a long time. I learned about the different Religions when I was in school, but never fully understood as to why some had to circumsize.

Nice topic! Will come back with interest in hearing some of ther replies.

I am cut and I am neither for nor against the practice. . Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and has continued for both Jews and Christians since then, which was a long time before Jesus Christ.

I don't mean to argue, TexanFMB, but what Christian tradition are you referring to when you say that "Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and has continued for both Jews and Christians since then"? I don't know of any relatively "mainstream" Christian group: Protestant; Catholic; Orthodox; Evangelical; Pentecostal, etc., that believes that circumcision is a sign for Christians of God's covenant with Abraham to be practiced by us TODAY for that reason, especially considering all of the verses in the New Testament contrary to that idea. Now, I don't see it forbidden by Scripture if it is done for medical or other "non-spiritual" reasons, but giving a "spiritual" reason for its continued practice is a whole other idea!

I am really curious what group/church or Christian author/pastor/speaker you are thinking of that promotes that idea! This is new to me! The only group I can think of would be Messianic Jews.

Yes, it's true that circumcision predates Jesus Christ, but so do many other practices, commandments, and offerings that are either fulfilled in Christ or no longer practiced or commanded under the New Covenant (being simply the "shadow" of what was to come in Christ--see text below), so that logic alone does not justify applying the same O.T. spiritual principles to the practice today, for those of us "in Christ."

-------------------

Colossians 2:8-17

"8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

External

Great, Squeeze.
I can tell we agree much, much more than we disagree.

To reply to Thursday and his post about hypothetically tattooing an infants face, I would say it would be detestable to me, but I would keep those feelings very tactfully to myself. Externally, I would try my best to be accepting, and "hear it out", and judge it on its merits, if I judge it at all.
You also include the clause "for religious reasons". Religion has to draw the line at law. (I'm sorry, rather, law acts to draw the "maximum boundaries" of religion. I had it backwards.) It seems not to be child abuse, and I couldn't think of any other reasonable law that comes close to applying, so it seems like a fine and dandy thing to do, as far as my duty of citizenship is concerned.

To reply to macperson84 and his complaint about being circumcised, you have as much right to complain about being circumcised as you do about having your mouth washed out with soap for "saying a swear" when you were age seven, or having to share a room with your brother until you turned 14. Children just don't get a say in a lot of things, sorry. Looking back, the choices your parents made for you will never have been "perfect" across the board, but in exercising your right to complain about it, you end up looking silly. (You were subject to your parents--what did you expect? lol!)

You've got good points, Squeeze. Circumcision was like a symbol of what was to come, a better law where instead of an external showing of devotion (hopefully accompanyed by a non-external devotion; I think that was the idea), we're expected to be "circumcised of heart" and truly live the law. You reinforce my determination to not have my sons circumcised (in lieu of medical discoveries of course.)

Mutilation is a negative word, but also a technical term. Probably only in textbooks or science books is it used without trying to make something sound evil or icky, and since I try to speak fairly and properly about things, I say mutilation. Heck, piercing ones ears is "mutilation". And this time it's for fashions sake.

I'm done now. I apologize for the long post.

_________________
We cannot do good except to someone else. Evil we can do alone.

Very well said, ExternalMidnight. I agree very much with your post. You hit the nail on the head: parental choice regarding circumcision; circumcision of the heart; complaining about being circumcised. . . very good. I will not circumcise my boys either, basically for the same reasons.

_________________
“Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; our great hope lies in developing what is good.” —Calvin Coolidge

Thanks, Eternal Midnight, for the compliments, and I'm glad we understand ea/other better now!

To add my 10 cents to Thursday's question re: infant religious facial tattoos and PlainsMustang's "parental choice" issue w/circumcision, etc., yeah, it's a tricky issue, because we all obviously have our strong opinions on such things and there are legal issues like you said EternalM, and there are also cultural sensitivity issues. Now, Thursday's philosophical ponderings aside--in reality--I don't think there are too many cultures that practice something as "drastic" as the facial tattooing of infants for reasons religious or otherwise. There are some Native American groups in California and I think also in what we would now call Latin America or the Amazon that did practice facial tattooing, I think on females, but I believe (I could be wrong, though), that that was usually not done until the child was older, like as part of a puberty/coming of age ceremony. Now, if you are part of a tribe where that was the norm and you live pretty isolated from the rest of the world, I don't know if there is, culturally-speaking, some huge issue w/it. I personally think doing something like that to the face is horrible, but I don't think I could come up w/some "absolute" argument against it. Now, if it caused an undue amount of pain, one could call it cruel, or if the child involved lived in a modern urban setting where no one else does that, it could easily be considered cruel because socially it would make them an outcast and prevent them from obtaining normal employment, etc., and on those very real social levels, could be morally wrong. So, I think context in something like that makes a huge difference.

A comparitively more recent real-life example would be the Chinese practice of foot-binding. Girls in families of means would have their feet "bound" tightly to prevent them from growing too large, with their toes forcibly curved inward towards the bottoms of their feet. This was still practiced by some in the 1800s, even in America. This was done because their aesthetic said to have smally, knobby feet was attractive for women, but it also prevented them from walking for too long... hmmmm.... Now, could preventing one from walking normally in the name of "culture," "class," "beauty," etc. (I don't think there was any religious component there) be considered acceptable or simply a matter of parental choice or culture? Or is it better described as immoral "mutilation"? Christian missionaries were among those outspoken against the practice, and eventually the practice was outlawed in China and abroad.

As far as the term "mutilation" goes, I understand the word to mean physically altering part of one's body to the point where it could not be restored normally again, usually causing some type of handicap of loss of function or visual norm. In other words, we don't talk of "mutilating" our fingernails or hair when we cut them: 1. because it is usually a desirable practice for the sake of hygene and appearance, and 2. our nails/hair will essentially "grow back" so it's neither permanent nor unalterable.

For that reason, I don't consider piercing one's ears to be mutilation because if you remove the earring, in most cases, the ear will return to normal over time, however, a tattoo is permanent (save difficult laser removal techniques). However, male circumcision forever removes a normal part of one's body--the foreskin, ferenulum, etc.--and it will never grow back and it can't be replaced. So there, I think (as even Paul referred to it this way) of it as a better candidate of the term mutilation than piercing or something like that that can essentially be reversed if the person chooses.

[In the same way, a normal act of discipline, since it is temporary, cannot be equated w/an unalterable physical procedure. (Now, sure, abuse leaves "marks" on one's psyche, but abuse is different than discipline in both context and severity) I am not one of those who find normal corporal discipline (like spanking) to be "abuse" if it exists in the context of a loving family relationship and is appropirate given the circumstances of the child's willful disobedience, etc., but I digress...]

With that definition of "mutilation" in mind, I don't know if parents in our liberal society should have the "right" to make a permanent physical alteration to their infant's body like circumcision, since the child as an adult cannot reverse the procedure.

However, as for mac's "complaint" about his being circumcised, I would say that he has a right to be sad, even angry about it ("be angry and do not sin") because, yeah, an irreversible choice was made about his body that he doesn't like, that, more importantly, was not medically necessary (again, we may not "like" being disciplined, but I would argue it is often "necessary" for one's development and it is temporary, so that's a different issue). HOWEVER, Mac should also work to get "beyond" his dissappointment and try to understand WHY his parents made that decision, and he'll probably find that what they did was done with the intention of his best interest, according to what they understood at the time from what the doctors were saying then, etc. With that in mind, even though he may not like the decision and that can't be changed, he can better see their hearts in their decision, and hopefully that will enable him to forgive and cease to be angry over the issue, and see that his parents really care about him. That can help us realize better the need for grace for our own well-intentioned mistakes!

And, like the rest of us, he can choose to act differently should he be blessed w/sons himself one day!

Indeed. I imagine it optimal for each generation to be able to "step back" and look at how they were raised so they can decide more thoughtfully how they will raise the next generation.

If a tradition is harmless, it's helping to bond us together, keep it. If it's harmful, it's stupid, work to get rid of it. If it's helpful, it's in the realm of truth, share it.

_________________
We cannot do good except to someone else. Evil we can do alone.

Well said!

As for mutilation, yes, it appears you're right: It's actually talking about damage that's more or less irreparable -- like maiming, but can be cosmetic damage too. Since ear piercings usually grow back and fill in, they don't quite fit the bill, as some of you said. But back to circumcision, I saw this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 24587.html

I don't know how definitive it is, but this article makes me realize one thing. We can discard circumcision, but we must not hate circumcision, because if actual, positive, supporting evidence is discovered, we might be tempted to be prejudiced against it.

What's all for a reason, WET3? Routinely circumcising infant boys? What's the reason, Wet? I don't think a lot of people even really know what the given reasons are, and yet they choose to have the procedure done because supposedly "that's what everybody else does" It's so important for women, as future mothers, to understand this as well!

*******

KFWB, a popular news radio station here in Los Angeles (and an ABC affiliate) just put together a series on the circumcision debate! I heard part of it going to work the other day and luckily they posted it on their internet site. It is well done, and comes out pretty much against it, all things considered. This is pretty revolutionary here in "pro-routine infant circumcision America" where, quite frankly, the topic really isn't brought up that much. It's great to get the dialogue going and raise awareness so parents can make a more informed decision.

Here's the link to the site's page (you can listen to the interviews there):

http://www.kfwb.com/To-Cut-or-Not-to-Cut-/2266829

That's a very expansive and interesting site. I find it interesting that Doctors and the medical community describe their efforts to cover circumcision by saying how their information will help parents make "an informed decision". They know full well the many reasons different parents lean toward the operation on their infants, and they don't want to knock over the boat.

I wonder if circumcision would ever happen in a modern society that didn't already have it. I somehow doubt it, but obviously it came from somewhere.

Interesting...

_________________
We cannot do good except to someone else. Evil we can do alone.

As a circumcised male I have to say that I wish I would have had a say on this. I don't have a natural human penis anymore, and I will never experience what it is like to have a natural human penis. Still I have to look at why I was circumcised.

1. A circumcised penis is much easier to clean
2. Less chance for infection with a circumcised penis (both infection of the glans and urinary tract infections)
3. Less chance for other medical problems with a circumcised penis such as when the foreskin is too tight and won't retract down the penis.
4. Most Americans when I was born in the 1980's were circumcised, and I think that helped me not get stuck on barriers with women and locker room adolescent things. I was like pretty much everyone else, glans exposed.

Now that being said if I have children will I circumcise them? No I won't, it's a tremendously sexual and intimate decision that needs to not be taken away from the individual. To make decisions like that for someone is simply not called for in my opinion, but I forgive my parents for making the decision they did.

Im a circumcised person and somewhat it was a traditon(Well maybe since most boys are cut) done when were still young man(we all know we need to undergo this surgery for no reason. we just NEED they say).

At the age of 10+, boys are being circumcise here in our country. Boys need it or else they will be teased by their buddies. They somewhat believe that being circumcised will make your penis longer. Some health organization offer Free circumcision during summer for those boys who would like to be a "grown-up man". Some are willing, some....are being force to. This tradition is truly painful and takes a week until it heals.

As a guy who had to be circumcised in his teens (14 to be precise) I firmly believe in the medical advantages that circumcision grants to us males. It garners a less chance of catching STI's it 100% prevents (or in my case) cures phimosis where "stretching and steroid creams" failed. Should I have an children I will have my sons circumcised as it is one of the best health advantages I can give to him, and wouldn't want him to go through what I had to. The procedure has been around since ancient times and still persists which tells us something is beneficial about it, why else would humans still perform the over 5.000 year old simple procedure. Now I don't want to get involved into any arguments with anyone (especially the his body his choice debate) as a parent it is up to you to do what is in the child's best interest health wise and what you believe is the best thing you can do.

It's a contentious topic, for sure. But I'm yet to hear an argument against letting boys decide whether they want to have it done or not. If it's not done and the boy/man decides for himself he wants it done, he can. Once it's done, you can't reverse it.

As much as I love my parents dearly, I wish they'd given me the choice, as I can't unmake the choice they made.

As for why we still do it, as has already been mentioned, there are some medical reasons for why it's supposed to be better (just as there are medical reasons for why it's better to leave intact). The other reason is family tradition.

_________________
Leader board:
Personal Best: 44 days (26 May 2013)
2nd: 33 days (2 Feb 2013)
3rd: 20 days (1 Mar 2013)
4th: 15 days (23 Mar 2013)

I was circumcised as newborn for "health" reasons not because my parents thought it was anything to do with following the Bible. Paul is very clear in the New Testament. I will not have my sons circumcised at birth. I'm sure it's going to be fun explaining why daddy's looks different.

I am cut, cut as an infant. Wish it hadn't been done, but not the end of the world.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a large decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males.

Source?

The more important studies show that wearing a condom greatly reduces HIV transmission the most in males, cut or uncut... #NoGloveNoLove

Ok,some guys are saying that it has medical benefits here...but c'mon,you can't decide to take a part of your son's body,just because you think it's better for his health!!
You can always make sure his foreskin can be retracted while he grows up,if you do that,i can assure you that the chances of having phymosis are going to be very low.Phymosis don't appear suddenly,so you can at least prevent it.
Hygiene benefits?What,are you lazy to clean your penis properly?Your penis have a foreskin to keep it safe,otherwise it wouldn't exist!!Don't you think that women have problems cleaning their vaginas too?Why do you think that they have their own vagina shampoo?
I don't think that having a big scar it's a pretty thing to see,and if your tool it's working just fine,why would you just "fix" something that it's not broken?
And to be honest,i really don't think any GOD would want you to take a part of your body.He gave you that body,100% working normally,and it just don't make sense,take a part that you can't get it back.Adn why women can't take a part of their body too?Does this GOD want to make men always the victims?Men have to go to wars,men have to protect and provide everything for his family,like if the women can't have the ability to do so nowadays.There won't be any proof for me that it's something that some GOD order you to do.

_________________
[ AB starting from: October 6th of 2014 ]