Spiritually Speaking: If circumcision is to "prevent disease"...?

But in fact it does not prevent any disease.

The idea that natural penis boys have more infections is part myth and part BAD medical advice. It is now known that boys that are natural should not have their foreskin touched by others. The US medical advice was to pull it back and scrub with soap. That causes problems including infections.

You should know that infant boys are EASIER to care for when they are natural (intact). The foreskin does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his penis clean and leave it alone. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from adhering or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising! In short- Intact = wipe like a finger, NEVER retract Cut= vaseline, clean thoroughly, push back remaining skin to prevent adhesions etc (the last step perhaps for several months or years).

There is no data that shows HIV, HPV or any STD change or any real benefit to cutting off parts of a baby boys penis in the US, EU JP.... Even in Africa (with water issues) about the same number of cut men and natural penis men have HIV. Real world studies how that a man with a natural penis is at no higher risk of HIV and HPV. The American Cancer Institute has repeatedly said that male circumcision is of no use to lower the risk ANY cancer of any type. What a bunch of crap.

All it does is mess with sexual function and pleasure.

well then lucky for humans the spiritual reasons for circumcision have nothing to do with preventing disease or else we've have no body parts left.

It's to do with the shedding of the blood and the fact that it's the penis is because of the link between fertility (hence the penis) and the blood, which Jews believe is where the life-force is contained. So the blood of circumcision is one spilling of blood that's pleasing to God. Spiritually speaking a religious circumcision is not to remove much of the foreskin at all - simply the symbolic removal of the tip of the foreskin. And knowing that the RISK of death and infection and the spread of disease was part of the sacrificial nature of the cut.

At least people who do it for religious reasons know the true reasons (I think, anyway... this site is making me wonder, though) and the risks, unlike people who do it for "hygiene" reasons. And who try to trivialize the act by saying things like "it's just some skin", or "it's not all that painful" etc. At least Jews know that if 2 boys in a row have died from circumcision in one family the 3rd and all other boys are exempt from the cut. And if 3 boys are killed by circumcision in a row the next boy born is exempt from getting cut by the Rabbi/Mohel which means exempt from circumcision. As I said, the risk factor was a big part of the sacrificial nature.

Added to that the fact that it is to promote a withdrawn, detached nature in the boy to make him "obedient" and violent from a young age, and deliberately to curb sexual urges and make sex less pleasurable in order to keep the boy spiritually "clean". So I have no idea where this idea of "disease prevention" came to be mentioned. I know it did in the 1800's when they said masturbation caused pretty much every disease out.

Now how that way of thinking can be seen as acceptable today is beyond me.

Thumbs down is for when I think someone is being totally ridiculous or downright rude and insulting. If people do not get a `thumbs down` for promulgating racial hatred, shall we say, other people will look at the answer and think that I and we all agree with or have found no insult or bad feeling contained in the answer. That does not look good to the rest of he world and makes us all appear heartless or indifferent. Some of the garbage spouted out in this section is disgusting to say the least and to let it go `unthumbed` would be morally wrong. Now, reporting is a different matter. I 100% believe in freedom of speech, but I have had the most innocuous answers removed by the religista. How about, "yes a little" as `not an answer` ??? EDIT: At least if you are getting thumbs in any direction, you know people are reading what you say, even if they don`t like it.

Anyone who thinks circumcision prevents disease hasn't actually done their homework.

@tyler-

The numbers actually say no such thing. Funny, but they don't have a higher rate of disease in Europe and Asia where circumcision is extremely rare.

There is a reason that no major health organization recommends circumcision.

Not the AAP, not the AMA, not the AAFP, not the NIH- all of them reiterate that circumcision is a CULTURAL decision and not a medical one.

Any of the so-called "benefits" are completely negated by actually washing your penis and wearing a condom during sex. It is NOTHING like vaccination.

BTW- there is a higher incidence of complications FROM circumcision (about 1 in 100 circumcisions) than there is a reduction in urinary tract infections due to circumcision in infant boys (from 0.1% in circumcised infants to 0.5% in uncircumcised infants).

Where is that benefit ratio again?

Some people say its part of their religion that they need to circumcise their boys. Isn't having a baby done taking his religious freedom away? What about if he grows up and as an adult chooses another religion? Plus what sort of religion will want you to chop off part of your penis?

Is it really cleaner to be circumcised? If its too hard to clean under the foreskin does that mean that all circumcised guys have parents who thought they lacked the intelligence to retract their foreskin and wash every day? Plus brushing your teeth takes more than 10 times as long as washing under the foreskin yet they don't remove every child's teeth to save them brushing.

Can circumcising stop the spread of AIDS? Once again does that mean the guys parents thought he lacked the ability to put a condom on?

Plus last time I checked the AIDS rate in the USA (where the circumcision rate in adult men is higher) was higher than Europe (where the circumcision rate is very very low). Also if a guy has AIDS he can still spread it to his partner whether he is cut or not if he doesn't wear a condom.

Is NATURAL INTACT penis is ugly? "Some" people think it looks better to be cut and therefore all men need to be cut?

Should all women have breast implants because there are some guys that like large breasts?

And why is a huge scar on your face considered unattractive but a big scar around the shaft of your penis good to look at?

Isn't it better to love someone for who they are and not how their penis looks?

plus check out this link and tell me they look better?

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.h...

Some people say intact guys get phismosis, and because "SOME" men "MAY" have this issue all men should be cut? Doesn't make sense to me, even more so when phismosis can be treated without circumcision. Could you imagine if you said everyone had to have their tonsils and appendix taken out because some people have problems with them.

There are some out there that say intact guys get picked on at school, I never did when a lot of the other guys at my school were cut. Also why would other guys be looking at my penis anyway? In over 24 years of having sex I've never had a complaint or got knocked back because of my foreskin.

Should the son's genitals look like his dads? A young boys penis will be smaller that his father, does that mean he should have a penis enlargement to look the same? Also they fathers genitals will most likely have pubic hair, Should the father shave his genitals to look like his son? Sounds stupid but what's the difference? I never compared my penis with my dad plus I don't stand next to my son and compare his and my penis's either.

If more than 85% of the worlds men are intact / uncircumcised could it really be that bad? In the end the choice should be left up to the one who is most affected...the boy. If he wants it done as an adult then let him go for it but why take that choice away from him?

moose

A silly clip about those who say circumcision is good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apyRc8KU0Ec&feature...

http://intactivistsofaustralasia.wordpress.com/

http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Circ.html (pics from baby circumcision)

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foresk...

(functions of the foreskin animation)

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Circumcision-Remove...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Circumcision-Does-N...

http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/ (recommended for 18+yo)

http://www.wholebabyrevolution.com/Circumcision-Fa...

If a child grows up and later needs it removed or wants it removed he can do so. Once you remove it, it is near impossible to restore. It is pretty clear which decision is final and which one allows freedom of choice.

The hygiene reason makes me cry. If you are a parent that cannot teach your kid basic hygiene and need to mutilate your child i despair. Might as well give your kid chemotherapy if you don't feel you can teach them to wash their hair.

What happens when they won't wash their hands? Gonna chop those off?

I guess "hinnike" didn't read their own link, which starts out:

"Paraphimosis is a relatively uncommon condition..."

There are indeed no health benefits, as long as little boys are taught how to wash their penises. However, since religious people terrified of talking about anything concerning sex won't even say the word penis, lots of little boys never get the ten seconds of education it takes to negate any health benefits of circumcision. In other words, religious people would rather mutilate your penis than say to their kids, "Here's how to wash your penis."

Sad, yes?

Peace.

1

The difference is, the biblical god was obsessed with penises, not with appendixes, tonsils, or kidneys.

Good point: Let's pull all teeth to prevent tooth decay.