circumcision

i would most definitly do that hehe

 

The woman sounds like my mom. The stories I could tell!

 

Here's a link for your SO.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

It's a list of all the things that are lost when circumcised. I'd cut and paste, but the list is kinda long.

 

Dont do it.
Tell her you did it and dont do it.
That way you will have her off your back.
Thats none of her business, ask her if she got a problem with penis and want to mutilate them? and to go to talk with a psychiatrist instead. Dontr give in, dont do it.
This is primitive, unecessary and hurtfull.
Threaten her to never let her see the baby again if she call your man one more time about it or mention it one more time.
I think she is mad. She saounds like a mad woman for me to hear.
Whats her problem exactly? why does she want that?
She is crazy.
Whats next? the little girl getting circumsise too? lie cutting the clitoris as baby?
Threaten her to block her number if she insist again.
That kind of thing is delirious and obscene and hurtfull and careless of the child and disgusting.
She got an obsession. It isnt her baby ( by chance!) and that child she wont mutilate!

 

I'll make it short since Everyone has made their point.
Circumcision had 2 purposes: To be clean and to continue the covenant established between G-d and Abraham. Now that we have technology of bacterial and fungi infections, the first purpose has been destroyed.
The debate is whether it helps prevent STD's or not. From my findings, It doesn't except for AIDS. The chances of having your child run around and obtain AIDS...not sure.
Seriously though, It all boils down to the religious view whether Christians should or should not have Circumcision or not.

If you listen to Paul: Galatians 5:2
Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

If you think Paul is a crack-pot: (I have nothing for you)

If you read the Gnostic Gospels:Thomas 53
His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

In conclusion: it is not a health issue. It is a religious issue. I being Jewish Christian would have my children circumcised although it is not necessary for all Christians to practice it.

(Note: If you are not of faith or have a different faith that what I had mentioned, forgive me. I'm sure whatever you think this will help you a little bit.)

 

Oh no! not that kind of crap again!
for your knowledge, they didnt have chlor back then nor soap so it was pretty complicate to get clean, specialy as nomade in the desert with no water to clean yoruself..
by chnace we got the tub and the shower and the sopa and all that so we dont need to cut the sex to avoid it to infect later..
And to stay at the religious stand, we were perfect when in Eden, and i didnt heard anywhere Adam being circumsised by God... so let it be the way it is.

Paul also said that women were not to be invited inside the church.. soemthig Jesus absolutly disagree with..
and Jesus said out with the old in with the new, meaning out with the arch of alliance as Moises had brought it and in with the new alliance or new testimony.
So dont mix too much things togehter, cant only make the meal uneatable.

Let the babies be, and thats it.

 

Zhyppers, this is NOT a Christian forum, and I'm not sure if the parents here are concerned about the religious aspect of this procedure, though I appreciate you trying to clear up the necessity of this procedure, religiously.

I do want to add, however, that as a Jewish Christian, you would, logically, identify firstly as a Christian, because I know you are not born of Jewish lineage. Because of this fact, your sons would NOT have to be circumcised.

Messianic Jews WOULD circumcise, because they identify firstly as a Jew, as an ethnicity, not as a religion.

Whether you subscribe to Hebrew scripture and see Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, the scripture still remains the same and its meaning remains the same. You believe in the whole of the Testaments, but you are not a Jew, ethnically, so therefore you should re-evaluate your needing to circumcise your sons.

Also, there is a growing Jewish movement against circumcision. They also see it as unnecessary.

(if you'd like to know how I know Zhypper's ethnicity and religion, I'm his sister. )

 

Other info on Judaism and circumcision:
The Covenant
The argument that Jewish babies have a right to have part of their penises cut off before they are old enough to give or withhold consent, because to do otherwise would deprive them of their heritage, is irrational. Heritage here means doing what we have done. It may seem, at first, to insult one’s ancestors to do other than what they did, but it is equally an insult to our own and our descendent’s intelligence, to cling blindly to customs of the past.

To be meaningful, a covenant must be entered into by a consenting adult who intellectually understands the covenant. A newborn baby is incapable of this understanding. Therefore, if a man decides to be circumcised later in life — based on his adult understanding of the Covenant — only then is the covenant valid.

Additionally, halacha provides for the ceremony of hatifat dam berit (shedding of a token drop of blood) for babies who can not be circumcised due to health reasons. This is deemed to be completely valid in marking the Covenant.

Even the great Rabbi Mainmonides recognized the problems with circumcision:

”...How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident?

The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired...there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning.”

Rabbi Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, The University of Chicago Press, 1963

Literalism
Some people believe that God commanded that Abraham circumcise himself, his family and their heirs forever, yet there are many doubts to this belief.

What kind of covenant is it that is marked on the body of a baby, who has no choice in the matter and no understanding?
Would the Almighty focus on the mutilation of a baby’s penis?
Modern Jewish scholars have found that circumcision is not even mentioned in the earliest, “J”, version of Genesis nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abraham is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being “sealed” with circumcision. So do not be afraid of divine punishment. God did not mandate circumcision.

from jewsagainstcircumcision.org

 

check out cnn's article on the fact that it is becoming less and less common- this article appeared on Monday- I will find a link tomorrow- too sleepy to repost right now. G'night and g'luck

 

Hipppy Freak, you are a Goddess!

very good to bring here the words of Maimonides, as if he said so, then nobody can say otherwise. He was simply the master in the jewish question and religious questions and traditions, and was never surpassed ever since.
Excellent too your comments about the covenants and the original version of Genesis, as well as the necessity to be a consentant adult for the action to be guillible.
On anyway the action is obviously barbarian.
One can understand the need of it as hygienic circumstantial law, as many others are like with womens menstrautions and after a woman had given birth, as it was very easy back then and with that climate to get an infection, and not so easy to stop them. That it was abused for other purposes later on, is also obvious.
Even today, men and women and girls go around with the feeling that menstruation is "dirty", because it has been treated and considerd as being so, taboo, dangerous, infectious, lethal, for millenaries, and one dont go away from such deep anchored concepts that easily.
You can read it in thread here in the hipforum. Girls still unconfortable of just saying they have their menstruations to her friend or bf.
But none of them are aware that this attitude was inheritated from our ancester and their way to deal with it, 5.000 years ago...
Christianity via the catholic church helped carried those concepts further, setting them deep into all mentalities and the way all view it, transmitting it through attitudes and unsayed and diminishing words like "aunt flaw come for a visit" or words sounding more like trash then anything else, as subsititute for the word menstruation as considered for being even worse as too close to "the thing".
Even atheists bare it in their language and attitudes towards it.
The same goes for circumcision for some people, it is so deep ingrowed in them that logic doesnt reach there.
It is part of the comun subconscious mind.
In Europe, circumcision isnt done, it is in fact considered as child abuse unless it is done as a religious procedure only alowed to the jewish community.
No doctor will do that to a child unless strict medical reasons were to command it.
It is just unthinkable.
Thats why for me it is a chok to see that it is so common in America, and i cant understand how they got mixed up with christianity as nobody was ever circumcised as christian, circumcision being a part of the jewish religious heritage and not of the christian.
As for the remark that its more clean and more beautifull, well, eunuque looks clean to me too, but is that reason enough to cut it off??
We could also get the barbarian tradition of serting young girls neck with gold rings, so they got a neck giraf long, and if they tried to escape from home or were to be adulterous, one could just remove the rings, and her neck will fall, broken, and she will die slowly after some hours.. Thats what the masai still do.
That also looks very eleguant the way they are forced to go and sleep like if they had a planch of wood on their back, and golden ring lokks nice too, even if it must feel like being strangulated and not free of ones moves...
I will be you, I will not talk to my step mum until she changed her mind and had said sorry. And she talk about it before the child is even born??!!
I wont let her come near my door!

 

Forgive me. I f'ed up. I'm new to the forums with very low comprehension. I'm sure it will get better the more time I spend on the forums. For now, I have a mentor helping me understand how the forums work and the different lifestyles.

 

religion is a while nother thing that I'm not even going to get into...
as for us, we are not jewish. yet another reason I want nothing to do with it.

 

I do think there is some validity to the mother having more weight over certain decisions with the baby, it is in her body and she has a chemical bond with it before it is born, the father does not have a chemical/biological continuous bond with the unborn baby and is not as in tune with their parental roles until the baby is born, for the most part. Therefore he may not understand or completely relate to the baby as an individual yet, and may be more connected to the issues surrounding the baby.

However that controlling mother has to go, it's none of her concern at all.

 

DP and I totally agree, so it's a nonissue for us. But, I do believe that until some sort of agreement is made, the less harmful, permanent decision should be upheld. Your child should stay uncirced until he can prove that circing is better.

 

that was kinda what I said to him.
I said that if our son really wants it done that bad, then he can do it when he's older.
As of late, it hasn't been an issue...not to say that it's not going to come up again. However, when he's born, the plan is to be so involved with breastfeeding and school that I just "ignore" it...

 

I never understood why people would assume it was a good idea to cut on a kid's private parts. It seems pretty stupid to me to say, hey, I had that done as a baby and I want my baby to look just like me too. That's a big thing I see said about this.

Fortunately my husband and I agreed that we were not interested in cutting our son. Our son, at 14 is pretty damned happy about it. This is even though we live in the US where the clear majority of boys are cut.

 

and so he should be...

all that cutting achieves is loss of sexual sensetivity, and reduced pleasure from masturbation, the foreskin protects the glans, and makes masturbation and sex more sensetive and comfortable.

hygene isn't an issue - its far better to spend a while teaching your son how to keep himself clean, than mutilate him forever.

let HIM decide, its his body, not yours.

 

actually, I brought that up. Now hubby is insisting that if it's not cut, he's not goign to be able to "last" because he's too sensitive.

 

Uh huh. So your hubby wants to mutilate him now to save him the hassle of having to learn self-control later?

Just buy the kid a copy of the Kama Sutra.

 

Oh Geez...

My DH lasts PLENTY long enough. I've been with both circ'd and intact men and I haven't found foreskin to make a difference regarding "lasting" long enough.

Plus, he wants to take away feeling during sex so his son may potentially last longer? Sounds like a decision your son should be making on his own.