History of Circumcision in the U.S.
- Thread starter mowinman
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 172
I personally am not on one side or the other, I only presented the information so everyone can be more informed, which should be the ultimate goal of this discussion.
I agree that was a biased article, but almost all research articles/studies are biased in one way or another. People can make arguments either way and can ultimately back it up with facts and statistics in one way or another.
I don't know if I believe in the whole 'God created you one way, so you should stay that way' arguement though (and yes I am Christian). Like it or not, no matter your religion, it is pretty hard to deny that evolution has taken place, and what was once needed, now may not be. For instance, we as humans have both an appendix and a gall bladder, but neither of them are neccessary for us to survive. They are more of a problem than anything, and with infection can cause death. By saying we should be exactly as God created us, is almost saying we should never evolve or change or improve. To take your argument to the extreme, why do we cut our hair or our fingernails? That is a way of improving how we look, staying cleaner, removing germs, etc. I personally had my adnoids and tonsils removed when I was a kid, b/c I would get strep throat several times a year, which left me weak and more susceptible to other diseases. I am extremely glad I had those removed from me and was not left the way 'God wanted.' This is also true for those who have cancer, and have tumors removed, or have heart surgery or whatever else.
Yes I agree, that circumcision can be seen as brutal. I was circumsized when I was born, and I don't remember it, and I have had no problems b/c of it. Sure we can say that it is the babys' choice and they should have the ultimate decision. But it gets more difficult and dangerous the older you get, and by the time they have all the information they need, they will be more at risk. I still have yet to decide what I will do if I have a son, but then again I still have time to read and learn.
I agree that was a biased article, but almost all research articles/studies are biased in one way or another. People can make arguments either way and can ultimately back it up with facts and statistics in one way or another.
I don't know if I believe in the whole 'God created you one way, so you should stay that way' arguement though (and yes I am Christian). Like it or not, no matter your religion, it is pretty hard to deny that evolution has taken place, and what was once needed, now may not be. For instance, we as humans have both an appendix and a gall bladder, but neither of them are neccessary for us to survive. They are more of a problem than anything, and with infection can cause death. By saying we should be exactly as God created us, is almost saying we should never evolve or change or improve. To take your argument to the extreme, why do we cut our hair or our fingernails? That is a way of improving how we look, staying cleaner, removing germs, etc. I personally had my adnoids and tonsils removed when I was a kid, b/c I would get strep throat several times a year, which left me weak and more susceptible to other diseases. I am extremely glad I had those removed from me and was not left the way 'God wanted.' This is also true for those who have cancer, and have tumors removed, or have heart surgery or whatever else.
Yes I agree, that circumcision can be seen as brutal. I was circumsized when I was born, and I don't remember it, and I have had no problems b/c of it. Sure we can say that it is the babys' choice and they should have the ultimate decision. But it gets more difficult and dangerous the older you get, and by the time they have all the information they need, they will be more at risk. I still have yet to decide what I will do if I have a son, but then again I still have time to read and learn.
The ending paragraph to his article. This gut must be whacked to come up with such a ludicrus analogy. He might just as well have said the comparison to an asshole. I think that is where this came from.TheExecutioner said:
WHY ARE HUMAN MALES BORN WITH A FORESKIN?
One function of the foreskin was probably to protect the head of the penis from long grass, shrubbery, etc when humans wore no clothes, where evolutionarily our basic physiology and psychology are little different than our savhana-wandering or cave-dwelling ancestors tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also, the moist tip would facilitate quick penetration of a female, where lengthy foreplay and intercourse would be a survival disadvantage, since the risk to the copulators from predators and human enemies would be greater the longer they were engaged in sex.
Dr Guy Cox from The University of Sydney has suggested that the foreskin could in fact be the male equivalent of the hymen, and served as an impediment to sexual intercourse in adolescent primeval humans before the advent in our species of civilization and cultures [40]. Way back then Cox says the foreskin would have reduced 'successful' sexual acts in those too young to adequately care for any offspring that might arise. With civilization, control of the sexual behaviour of the young by society made the physical mechanism redundant and society introduced circumcision to free the individual from the impediment of having a foreskin. Interestingly, the physical difficulties experienced by the uncircumcised may explain why the word for uncircumcised in Hebrew means 'obstruction' or 'to impede', so explaining the Biblical term 'uncircumcised heart' when referring to obstructionism.
A better and logical comparison should have been the hood of the clitorus.That is the closest comparison to any other tissue that serves as a protective shield. Just think how most of the world views thie african tribe practice of removing it from the mated females. They call it "barbaric" and women and some men say that "at all costs it should be stopped". What makes the practice of circumcision any different.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
I believe Xulf's post simply demonstrated that there are health benefits to circumcision as well. Nobody else has provided any pro arguments for it, and as an open forum where men go to get information, it is important that all sides of an argument be presented.
Parents can and do have the legal right to control their children's access to surgery and other medical procedures. This has and will continue to be our legal tradition. Parents are allowed to make decisions based on what they feel is best for their children's overall health. I believe there is enough reserach to show that circumcision is not particularly harmful. If the operation was as dangerous and traumatic as many of the things I have seen linked here would suggest, the practice would be banned. The mdical community is neither unethical nor uncaring. It is a matter of decision, but essentially a benign practice. Claims of barbarism are a personal opinion of the procedure. Thanks to Xulf for expanding the discussion with solid information.
It is most likely not necessary for boys to undergo circumcision. There is some evidience to suggest there are benefits, there may be some risks as well.One's beliefe that God intended us to be a certain should not and never will be used as a justification for banning circumcision, as that is a religious opinion and has no bearing on legal issues concerning parenting and health care.
Parents can and do have the legal right to control their children's access to surgery and other medical procedures. This has and will continue to be our legal tradition. Parents are allowed to make decisions based on what they feel is best for their children's overall health. I believe there is enough reserach to show that circumcision is not particularly harmful. If the operation was as dangerous and traumatic as many of the things I have seen linked here would suggest, the practice would be banned. The mdical community is neither unethical nor uncaring. It is a matter of decision, but essentially a benign practice. Claims of barbarism are a personal opinion of the procedure. Thanks to Xulf for expanding the discussion with solid information.
It is most likely not necessary for boys to undergo circumcision. There is some evidience to suggest there are benefits, there may be some risks as well.One's beliefe that God intended us to be a certain should not and never will be used as a justification for banning circumcision, as that is a religious opinion and has no bearing on legal issues concerning parenting and health care.
I think God made us just fine without humans trying to play God, we do that enough in this world. Cloning and everything else. God is right we are wrong that is the way it is. Look at those pictures. Why would you want your child to go through that?
Very interesting supra, I had not known that circumcisions had only started to be done in the US, in the 1860's. I was under the wrong impression that circumcision was a protestant thing. I know the muslims and the jews definately circumcize as part of the religion though.
It was also interesting that it happened in the victorian period as an anti masturbation procedure. We sometimes forget how far we have come since the victorian times, in terms of sexual liberation. And even more then that we often forget how liberal sex was before the victorian era.
Many people in the british commonwealth and america, viewed that when you ejaculated you were ejecting a portion of your life energy. So that your health would deteriorate over time from it. Religions popped up pushing complete abstinance. I should look up the name of the most famous one, but its last follower died in the 1970's. Among the smaller ones, there are still living disciples, but they are very few. I remember in 'news of the wierd' last year a 100 year old man died of old age, when asked before he died how did he live so long, he said by never partaking in sex.
Also many of you may not know but the supposed health diets of high carbs and low fat were developed in the early 1900's, to diminish your sex drive. Your sex drive was viewed as something evil and dangerous to society and yourself. The most famous of these diets was developed by a man named Kellogg. And yes that was the same kellogg who made kellogg's cereal. The ingredients in those cereals are designed to crater your sex drive.
Many of the aerobic regimens were also developed pre 1930, designed to crush your sex hormones. Let me put it simply who is likely to have a higher sex drive, a 200 pound bodybuilder who eats tons of proteins, or a 140 pound runner who lives off of kellogg special k? The answer is so blatant yet people still go and eat that shit when they want to get 'healthy'.
That is why I am so interested in this fact on circumcision, its amazing how it got morphed as the times changed from something that was said to reduce your child's unpure thoughts, to something that was needed for higene.
Sort of reminds me of the Iraq war, we are going into get weapons of mass destruction.. doh! none there uh we were going in to liberate Iraqis. uhh iraqis still aren't free, and they are living in chaos.. uhhh we were trying to stop al-qaida see there are al-qaida here now.
It was also interesting that it happened in the victorian period as an anti masturbation procedure. We sometimes forget how far we have come since the victorian times, in terms of sexual liberation. And even more then that we often forget how liberal sex was before the victorian era.
Many people in the british commonwealth and america, viewed that when you ejaculated you were ejecting a portion of your life energy. So that your health would deteriorate over time from it. Religions popped up pushing complete abstinance. I should look up the name of the most famous one, but its last follower died in the 1970's. Among the smaller ones, there are still living disciples, but they are very few. I remember in 'news of the wierd' last year a 100 year old man died of old age, when asked before he died how did he live so long, he said by never partaking in sex.
Also many of you may not know but the supposed health diets of high carbs and low fat were developed in the early 1900's, to diminish your sex drive. Your sex drive was viewed as something evil and dangerous to society and yourself. The most famous of these diets was developed by a man named Kellogg. And yes that was the same kellogg who made kellogg's cereal. The ingredients in those cereals are designed to crater your sex drive.
Many of the aerobic regimens were also developed pre 1930, designed to crush your sex hormones. Let me put it simply who is likely to have a higher sex drive, a 200 pound bodybuilder who eats tons of proteins, or a 140 pound runner who lives off of kellogg special k? The answer is so blatant yet people still go and eat that shit when they want to get 'healthy'.
That is why I am so interested in this fact on circumcision, its amazing how it got morphed as the times changed from something that was said to reduce your child's unpure thoughts, to something that was needed for higene.
Sort of reminds me of the Iraq war, we are going into get weapons of mass destruction.. doh! none there uh we were going in to liberate Iraqis. uhh iraqis still aren't free, and they are living in chaos.. uhhh we were trying to stop al-qaida see there are al-qaida here now.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 172
randolf said:
Actually in England, sex was not liberal at all. There was something like 1 prostitute to every 4 men...
Do you have a cite on that, just out of curiousity.randolf said:
I dont know if it was morphed, moreso that it was discovered that there are many hygenic advantages to being circumsizedrandolf said:
You are so swayed by the media. What do you actually consider a WMD? There is concrete evidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. There are remains of nuclear weapns there as well. No we did not find there locations, but just b/c you have never seen $1 million does not mean it does not exist. I personally don't think anyone can deny that we as a world are better off w/ Iraq no longer being controled by a complete sociopathrandolf said:
Last edited:
xulf1 said:
I've read this and watched it in many places. I'll look for one tonight.
xulf2 said:
I agree there is a lessoned chance of getting std's with being circumsized. It seems like the people that push it the most though, are always the most anti sex. Also if its a cultural norm, many people including doctors accept that there must be logic behind it. However this is not always the case. I think religions push it because of the std factor. Its the same reason they push monogamy. There is a theory going around that religions have evolved over time to make the societies they are within powerful. Thus spreading more prodigiously. However although it might be a good thing for society, it may suck as an individual.
xulf3 said:
I do not believe saddam was a complete psycho. Anyone who is going to rule iraq will have to rule with an iron fist. However I actualy support the invasion and conquering of iraq. To fight this war against islam long term, america needs a serious base in the center of the middle east. As we look to the horizon we will ultimately have to go to war with syria, and Iran. Then to win the war you will have to take over pakistan and give it to the indians. Also oil production is near peaking, so its important that america secure as much oil as it can now. Instead of trying to secure oil during oil shocks, where you might need it for your military. It was a logical move.
What I didn't like was the lying for the reasoning behind the war. Maybe you can argue this had to be done, as the public would not have supported it as a long time move to get position for the world war against islam, or to militarily secure oil. Regardless the general person in the public believes we went for different reasons then we did.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 325
Nobody mentions the now-accepted fact that FDR had clear & present warnings that the Japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor - but he did not pass it on. FDR allowed the attack to occur, so that an enraged America would join a world war it had been very reluctant to join (especially coming just 20 years after the first one).
It's a fact, fellas. FDR basically sacrificed thousands of American G.I.s, as well as many civilians, so that he could bring us into WWII. This fact had been argued for years, but de-classified communications have verified those allegations. There was so much diplomatic buzz going on, various Japanese transmissions across the Pacific, even specific intelligence that the Japs were going to try to destroy our Navy while docked at Pearl Harbor. FDR had numerous course of defensive and/or pre-emptive action at his disposal - but he did nothing, knowing that the massacre would give him a blank check to pitch us into WWII.
It's a fact, fellas. FDR basically sacrificed thousands of American G.I.s, as well as many civilians, so that he could bring us into WWII. This fact had been argued for years, but de-classified communications have verified those allegations. There was so much diplomatic buzz going on, various Japanese transmissions across the Pacific, even specific intelligence that the Japs were going to try to destroy our Navy while docked at Pearl Harbor. FDR had numerous course of defensive and/or pre-emptive action at his disposal - but he did nothing, knowing that the massacre would give him a blank check to pitch us into WWII.
Xulf said:
Ok I've started looking through the net tonight for sources on it. I originaly read the idea third hand from an author on hormonal health. I also watched the movie 'The Road to Wellview' with Mathew Broderik.
http://www.ibiblio.org/stayfree/10/graham.htm --interestingly this piece about Kellogg and Graham also mentions circumcision briefly.
http://www.afraidtoask.com/masturbate/History.htm --some psycho inventions by kelloggs and others to stop masturbation. The scarier thing is these were used.
DAmn I've been searching for 2 hours on these carb diets being originally designed to crush sex hormones. So far its only the anecdotal evidence I have found online. Everything that kellogg and graham and the others were doing was designed to limit sexuality, and ejaculation. Its not logical to assume that the diets he designed would not try to include this ideology in it. I will continue looking for a more definitive relationship to this.
Remeber something: America's food economy is controlled by gigantic carbohydrate manufacturers, they also own all the nutrional magazines, and they print the books on nutrition as well. Voices against their carb ideology are out there, but they do not have the resources to publish, or conduct 10 million dollar studies. Its a huge conflict of interest going on right now, in almost every area of our society.
Luckily I was able to fend off those thoughts and go from a 145 pound young man, to a 275 pound built young man, by ignoring them and looking at people who were having success.
Soon I will split their wives apart with a huge cock to.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 390
Some of the studies about the health benefits of circumcision are simply done in a way that skews the results. For instance, as was mentioned, in that long article posted by Xulf, if you don't account for things like socioeconomic status when measuring the two populations you can get quite different results that may have nothing to do with circumcision. The thing to remember is that correlation does not always mean causation. Even the way that data is presented can distort the information. The AIDS study that is often cited as proof that circumcision prevents HIV in particular was not done properly. A particularly large flaw was that the study was only for 2 months, during which the circumcised males were still healing from their procedure, which would mean they were not likely to have as much sex as the uncircumcised group.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
P.S. The gallbladder and apendix do have functions, and so do tonsils. Tonsils help prevent infections of the throat, gallbladder stores bile sow hen we have a meal it can be digested right away, and appendix used to be important for the repopulation of the intestine with good bacteria after a bout of diarrhea. Sure you can live without them, but for the first two, you definitely lose out on some important functions.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
P.S. The gallbladder and apendix do have functions, and so do tonsils. Tonsils help prevent infections of the throat, gallbladder stores bile sow hen we have a meal it can be digested right away, and appendix used to be important for the repopulation of the intestine with good bacteria after a bout of diarrhea. Sure you can live without them, but for the first two, you definitely lose out on some important functions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 391
One thing I learned in high school when I completely wrecked face in Speech and Debate is that all evidence is biased and subjective. The scientific method is complete bullshit and totally based on who is funding the research. "Follow the Money".
If I was born with foreskin, why was it taken from me? I mean... even my umbilical cord would have dried up and fallen off after a few days. Last time I checked your foreskin doesn't just fall off... a doctor has to take a knife to your dick and cut off part of it.
If I was born with foreskin, why was it taken from me? I mean... even my umbilical cord would have dried up and fallen off after a few days. Last time I checked your foreskin doesn't just fall off... a doctor has to take a knife to your dick and cut off part of it.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 124,353
Tahir Aqbar;504374 said:
It is so easily justified because the parents feel they are deciding 'for' the child that is unable. Is this right? Nope, but religion and custom will always have a very strong hold over the populous they preach to. It is such a widely debated item, some men, like myself, are happy they were circumcised, for the simple reason every other boy I knew was circumcised. The only boy's I knew that was not circumcised was an Indian friend and my Father. I do, agree, wholeheartedly, it should be a choice of the individual, but some religion does not give that much time and many people are suBathmateerged in the dogma they were raised on.
I think it is incredible that Penis Enlargement can change that decision, no matter how you were cut. I came to Penis Enlargement with a very tight circumcision, but today, according to a post Supra made, I am like a level 5? I have a small foreskin, just the perfect amount for my preference.
Similar threads
- Sticky
