Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away?

Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away? Oct 13, 2017 9:52:54 GMT

Quote

Post by scienceisgod on Oct 13, 2017 9:52:54 GMT

Oct 13, 2017 4:18:26 GMT rachelcarson1953 said:

Oct 13, 2017 3:48:59 GMT Toasted Cheese said:

The penis comes with a foreskin. It is there to protect the glands. It can also assist with masturbation, and also during erection and insertion, it can also assist in massaging the glands with thrust. Many uncircumcised males, also keep their foreskins retracted, giving the impression of a cut cock. Hygiene is a false argument and any male with self-awareness about himself, should know how to wash.

I am not sure where you are from, but if you lived in a region where circumcision was common practice, it would have then been considered the norm. It became common practice also in Australia and NZ after WWII, no doubt due to influence from the US medical establishment. The majority of men in the world are uncircumcised. It is more of an issue in the US and those that are Jewish and Muslim. Europeans, Central and South American and a vast majority of Asian countries keep their males intact. As for Africa, I'm sure there are more uncircumcised males here as well, however, circumcision could have been performed as a ritual into manhood by many tribes.

Females may want their sons circumcised, because they think it looks better. How creepy is that? Do they intend on f<>king their sons? Ask any uncut male if he wants to be circumcised, and I bet a massive majority of them would rather keep his foreskin. Regardless of whether or not people think it is a big deal or not, the bottom line is, the procedure is being performed without consent, especially when it is unnecessary. A male person needs to make up his own mind when he becomes sexually active. Uncut is natural and beautiful and as nature intended the male penis to be.

Just to add, most males wouldn't discuss about other men's cocks, due to the stigma of being labelled homosexual, due to the projected normalcy of our heterosexist society.

Thank you for the education. Given what you have said, what else I have read here and what a quick google search produced, it seems that it is an unnecessary procedure for the vast majority of infant boys. There does seem to be several medical circumstances where it is a palliative procedure, but I agree, just doing this non-reversible invasive procedure on non-consenting infants is wrong. They should be of an age to fully understand the procedure, the risks, and the reasons for doing the procedure or not doing the procedure. And that goes for the cultural/religious factor as well.

Culturally, I was raised in the bible belt of the USA, was religiously kept ignorant of a lot of things. I abandoned all that later in life when logic, reason and science became available to me. I am a cancer survivor, and owe the last 27 years of my life to advances in medical science. I was able to make medical decisions for myself, fully informed of risks vs. rewards. Everyone should have that right.

Circumcision was introduced in this country during the Progressive era for the purpose of discouraging masturbation, by making it uncomfortable. The foreskin is a mechanical lubricant. Circumcised men turn to widely available artificial sources now.

The hygiene argument didn’t come till later, along with the idea that girls need to douche. But we know a lot more about bacteria now, and we dismissed that idea for girls, but not yet for boys. Every major health organization, especially the World Health Organization, enthusiastically promotes universal male infant circumcision. Even so, the circumcision rate continues to drop from its peak of about 90% mid last century.

One more thing. When circumcision was introduced, it was introduced for both sexes. John Harvey Kellog, what a guy.