Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away?

Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away? Oct 14, 2017 0:09:22 GMT

Quote

Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:09:22 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.

You're welcome!

There is always an exception to every rule and if it is of a "serious" health concern, then decisions need to be made and that is more than justified. Other than that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! All these pro-circumcision advocates are doing, is violating an obvious and basic rule of nature, and that is the human right of choice over body autonomy. It is illegal to remove any other part of the human anatomy when it is not warranted, except for the male foreskin, so what's the deal here?

Pleased to know that you survived a serious illness ordeal, and are still trooping along, and it is also pleasant to read flexible and open minded comments, such as your own.