Circumcision to discourage masturbation

[Adrenochrome]

I don’t know if this should belong in humanities or MGCBTSOOYG, so I’m going to post it here.

I recently heard that it was Judaism and Christianity who invented circumcision because they believed it helped discourage masturbation. Now I find this sick, and I’ve seen circumcisions. They take the baby, strap him down by his arms and legs, rub his penis erect, and then stick this medical tool over it to slice off the foreskin without using any painkillers, and the cry you hear is hideous. A baby is hypersensitive compared to a full grown man, so they’re in more pain. At the end of the operation it looks like the baby is sleeping, but recently I found out that what’s really happening is that the baby is going into shock. God knows what this psychologically does to a baby.

I have no problem with circumcision if it’s a full grown man, but these are babies who cannot make the decision themselves. Mutilating anyone’s body without their permission, unless it was to save their life, is sickening.

Now a lot of you will say there’s medical benefits, but that’s just not true. Yes, men with foreskin are more likely to get a urinary infection, but that doesn’t mean you have to cut his foreskin off. A urinary infection can easily be cured with antibiotics. As for the rumour men with foreskin are more likely to get aids, there’s scientific evidence that says this is true, and there’s scientific evidence that says there is no correlation between having a foreskin and being more likely to contract aids. But, if you don’t want infections and aids, use a condom. There is no medical need for a circumcision.

There’s actually ups to having foreskin., it’s meant to be there to keep the head of the penis as an internal organ, it increases the pleasure of sex for both the man and the woman, and - I’m not sure if this is right - it’s there to help the body know when to ejaculate.

In America the majority of men have circumcisions - imagine all those babies being strapped down and mutilated - and it’s actually seen as odd to not have a foreskin, and a lot of girls see foreskin as gross now. It’s pathetic.

If this supposed “god” didn’t want you to have a foreskin, he would of made you without one. This is just another example of the sick shit people infected with religion come up with to repress a healthy thing such as sex, and what it does to society.

In some countries they cut off a woman’s clitorises to indoctrinate her into womanhood, this has been banned and seen as a violation of the human’s right act. I think circumcision should be stopped too.

[Q777]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



If this supposed “god” didn’t want you to have a foreskin, he would of made you without one.

Could some one provide a citation that God him self doesn’t what humans with a foreskin or is it just humans doing to keep humans moral?

[Digital_Savior]

Some more interesting theories.

quote:Proposals for circumcision origin. Evidence is increasing that the metaphors used to explain origins at the time circumcisions began were significantly different from those we use today. The following are some of the reasons given for the origin of male genital mutilation: An act of consecration, a sacrifice, a tribal mark, a blood-charm, for hygiene, to remove phimosis, protection against sexual dangers, a test of courage, to increase reproduction, a hallowing of the sexual life, an intensification of sexual pleasure, a diminishment of sexual pleasure, an expression of the belief in resurrections, to be more like a woman, and to be less like a woman (ERE, B, W 265-266).2

The last two, which find the reason for circumcision in men's physical difference from women, I think come closest. If circumcision has a pre-patriarchal origin, being like a woman would seem to make sense as a motivation. If circumcision is a patriarchal invention, being less like a woman could be a reason. But patriarchal circumcision, from all indications, is an adaptation of a ritual already well- established before the rise of male-dominated societies.

Pre-patriarchal origin. We know circumcisions were being done at the time writing was invented (TS 4). Patriarchal patterns began to take over as a cultural norm 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, becoming fully instituted in Europe and America only after the witch burnings and, some would argue, not until the 19th Century.3 Circumcision may continue as an expression of hierarchical control by dominant males or their gods,4 but it is not likely to have started in such an environment. We don't mutilate what we truly love and admire. The original mutilation must have been seen as an improvement of the male genitals, as many see it yet today.

Blood-letting and creation. Perhaps, circumcision did begin as a male bonding rite, but not as a bonding among males. The bond was likely a bonding of males to a female-gendered awareness, to a cultural philosophy dominated by female metaphors. Male genital blood-letting is man's way of being "on guard" or "aware" of female-type forces that make and control our bodies and the universe. It is his way of fitting in and righting nature's wrong. Nature's mistake is not the prepuce nor any particular part of his genitals. The mistake is the failure of male genitals to bleed which denies them the power of creation (GJ).

Circumcision indispensable. Certainly, circumcision was thought to be an indispensable ritual, important for the survival of the group, not the thoughtless mutilation many claim it has become. The NOCIRC campaign stirs up so many "irrational" and strong emotions because, unarticulated as they are, these reasons, once believed to be a matter of life and death, still motivate genital blood-letting. Vachel Lindsay's poem The Congo has the haunting refrain, "The Mumbo Jumbo will hoo-doo you." Who can doubt the mumbo jumbo hoo-doos us as we watch our entranced shamen in their white robes and sterile inner sanctums wheedling their flintstone knives in the indispensable genital righting rite? Source (http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/voskuil.html)

[Digital_Savior]

Romans 4:7-12 - "Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered over; Blessed is the man whose sin Adonai will not reckon against his account."

Now is this blessing for the circumcised only ? Or is it also for the uncircumcised ? For we say that Avraham's trust was credited to his account as righteousness; but what state was he in when it was so credited - circumcision or uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision ! In fact, when he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised. This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him, and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b'rit-milah (literally, "covenant of circumcision" [See Genesis 17]), but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised."

Translation: God promised Abraham that from him all nations would come. In order to fulfill this prophecy, Abraham had to be blessed in both circumcision, and uncircumcision, so that all people, circumcised or not, could be blessed (salvation).

Basically, as far as Christianity goes, circumcision is merely a personal choice, and has nothing to do with salvation. In Romans 4, Paul makes it a point to illustrate this. He makes it clear that God's blessing of salvation was open to both Jew and Gentile (Jews circumcised, and Gentiles did not).

Genesis 17:5-14 - Your name will no longer be Avram [exalted father], but your name will be Avraham [father of many], because I have made you the father of many nations. I will cause you to be very fruitful. I will make nations of you, kings will descend from you.

I am establishing my covenant between me and you, along with your descendants after you, generation after generation, as an everlasting covenant, to be God for you and for your descendants after you. I will give you and your descendants after you the land in which you are now foreigners, all the land of Kena'an [Canaan], as a permanent possession; and I will be their God.

As for you, you are to keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you, generation after generation. Here is my covenant, which you are to keep, between me and you, along with your descendants after you: every male among you is to be circumcised. You are to be circimcised in the flesh of your foreskin; this will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

Any uncircumcised male who will not let himself be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin - that person will be cut off from his people, because he has broken my covenant."

Because of Abraham's obedience to God, God made a covenant with him that said all nations would come from him. The mark of the covenant was to be drawn in flesh; by circumcision.

That is is the significance for the Jews. This did not apply to the gentiles, who were not offered the covenant of salvation until Christ died.

Paul was instructing the Christian church in Rome (Romans 4) because they were trying to exclude gentiles that would not get circumcised. Their reasoning was that gentiles would not receive circumcision, which meant they had broken God's covenant. Paul corrects them in saying that salvation is no longer contingent upon the mark of the covenant, being circumcision, because Christ fulfilled it by dying on the cross.

Salvation is gained through belief/faith now. Circumcision is only a preference.

It never had anything to do with masturbation, either in Judaism, or Christianity.

[LostCause]

Before I continue I'd like to state for the record that I'm against infantile circumcision. I think it's sad to take a perfect baby boy and cut him all up because of something he can't even form an opinion of yet.

That being said, it wasn't invented by the Christians or the Jews. It's an ancient practice that originates in Africa and was created because back when people didn't have running water and if you live in a very hot climate things can get real gnarly down there. So, they cut off the foreskin to prevent infections. Of course, nowadays that we have running water and a clear understanding of personal hygiene - there's really no need for it aside tradition.

It is a common Judaic practice, but it didn't become a soully Jewish "thing" until recent centuries, since Jews have kept the tradition even though it's superfluous now. It's true that it has been used to prevent masturbation in children, but this is a myth - it doesn't stop masturbation - and it's been pretty well known as a myth for a long time. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't believe that anymore.

Cheers,

Lost

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

It is a common Judaic practice, but it didn't become a soully Jewish "thing" until recent centuries, since Jews have kept the tradition even though it's superfluous now. It's true that it has been used to prevent masturbation in children, but this is a myth - it doesn't stop masturbation - and it's been pretty well known as a myth for a long time. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't believe that anymore.

Cheers,

Lost

Hey, pretty girl...did you even read what I wrote ?

Abraham was given a covenant by God, marked by circumcision. It's been a practice among the Jews since then. There is nothing "recent" about it.

*blows a kiss in her general direction*

[LostCause]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hey, pretty girl...did you even read what I wrote ?

Abraham was given a covenant by God, marked by circumcision. It's been a practice among the Jews since then. There is nothing "recent" about it.

*blows a kiss in her general direction*

I didn't say circumcision was a recent thing. I said that it was only recently that it was so associated with Judaism, because it used to be a very common practice in many areas of the world regaurdless of religion.

Cheers,

Lost

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I didn't say circumcision was a recent thing. I said that it was only recently that it was so associated with Judaism, because it used to be a very common practice in many areas of the world regaurdless of religion.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:It is a common Judaic practice, but it didn't become a soully Jewish "thing" until recent centuries, since Jews have kept the tradition even though it's superfluous now.

I never said that you said that circumcision was a recent thing. I was specifically addressing your claim that it was recent for Judaism, which is not true, unless you consider 5-6,000 years ago "recent."

Since Abraham, circumcision has been an integral part of Judaism. I don't consider that to be recent.

[LostCause]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I never said that you said that circumcision was a recent thing. I was specifically addressing your claim that it was recent for Judaism, which is not true, unless you consider 5-6,000 years ago "recent."

Since Abraham, circumcision has been an integral part of Judaism. I don't consider that to be recent.

You're right. It's not recent, but it's somewhat recent that it's been considered and specifically Jewish thing.

Cheers,

Lost

[Mellow_Fellow]

Digital Sviour, that's because you're a christian nut who probably think the world is less than 20,000 years old. 2000 years out of 4/5 billion is really not very long love, so get over yourself.

And yes, circumcision is pretty harsh imo, not something i would will upon children, people should make the decision for themselves, considering it's not even in the least neccessary, although i guess a few might prefer "the look" and the hygene aspects...

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

You're right. It's not recent, but it's somewhat recent that it's been considered and specifically Jewish thing.

Cheers,

Lost

Um....in what circles is it considered specifically Jewish ?

I personally do not know too many men that aren't cicrumcised, and I only have a handful of Jewish friends.

It is a predominantly gentile practice in the US, so...just curious on where you derived your findings.

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Digital Sviour, that's because you're a christian nut who probably think the world is less than 20,000 years old. 2000 years out of 4/5 billion is really not very long love, so get over yourself.

This had nothing to do with what I said, or what this topic is about.

So, thanks for playing, but you lose.

[LostCause]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Um....in what circles is it considered specifically Jewish ?



In uneducated circles. Which is about 99.9% of the population.

[X16A2]

having your dick circumsised in modern times by modern methods is actualy good. Its better for your hygen and all that shit. Its worse to have done when your older since your used to your foreskin. I dont know about this materbaiting shit. im circumsised and i still jerk off like 2 times a day.

[Adrenochrome]

quote:Originally posted by X16A2:

having your dick circumsised in modern times by modern methods is actualy good. Its better for your hygen and all that shit. Its worse to have done when your older since your used to your foreskin. I dont know about this materbaiting shit. im circumsised and i still jerk off like 2 times a day.

That's nonsense. I covered that in the first post.

[hedonist]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Before I continue I'd like to state for the record that I'm against infantile circumcision. I think it's sad to take a perfect baby boy and cut him all up because of something he can't even form an opinion of yet.

That being said, it wasn't invented by the Christians or the Jews. It's an ancient practice that originates in Africa and was created because back when people didn't have running water and if you live in a very hot climate things can get real gnarly down there. So, they cut off the foreskin to prevent infections. Of course, nowadays that we have running water and a clear understanding of personal hygiene - there's really no need for it aside tradition.

It is a common Judaic practice, but it didn't become a soully Jewish "thing" until recent centuries, since Jews have kept the tradition even though it's superfluous now. It's true that it has been used to prevent masturbation in children, but this is a myth - it doesn't stop masturbation - and it's been pretty well known as a myth for a long time. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't believe that anymore.

Cheers,

Lost

I tried whacking it without usuing my foreskin and it did not feel near as good.