Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

A place to post Polls.

Moderators: zookie, Mrs J, mariabronn

Knowing this story does this change your opinion of circumcision?

No, Tony the Tiger is my idol.
1
25%
Yes, I always knew that Special K was to blame for my low libido.
3
75%
 
Total votes : 4

Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby TheAquaticCow » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:21 pm

After reading another poll about who was circumcised on this forum, I have a couple stories to enlighten the reader, bring joy to your day and start a discussion. It's a long read feel free to skip around.
The first story starts in the 1700s. A man who was convinced that all mentally ill people were masturbateurs made a pill to keep people from touching themselves. It didn't work so he wrote some books instead to advertise his pills. In the 1800s this one guy was a fan of these books. He loved them so much he set out to find the perfect diet to keep people from having a healthy happy sex life. He made a high fiber porridge thing. It got toasted or stale or something but it was delicious and then became insanely popular. With tons of new found wealth and fame he decided to start a anti-masturbation campaign.
"As a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, Kellogg promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. His methods for the "rehabilitation" of masturbators included measures up to the point of mutilation without anesthetic, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying carbolic acid to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young, he wrote:
'A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.'"

Refrences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harv ... prevention

Welp burning the clitoral hoods of girls was determined not to be that great. But what about boys? Well circumcision got a rebrand and it became accepted that it was more hygienic. A study found that Africans were 70% less likely to contract AIDS if they were circumcised. The same study found that they were 99.99% less likely if they had a condom. It also apparently looks better. Seeing that so many Americans are cut it seemed more normal. In Canada you are more likely to be locker room bullied if you are cut... since well it's not normal and the Government advises against it.

In regards to hygiene here is another story. My study into circumcision started when my mom found out that some skin of my foreskin adheased to the top of my penis in an unusual condition. Now my mom is a left over hippie so she decided not to have me cut. But now presented with this she asked if I wanted to be. I did some research and decided that all those methods sounded painful. So I decided against it. Besides the adhesion didn't hurt and I didn't learn to pull back the skin to pee until I was older. Well another problem is that I got a yeast infection, except that it wasn't it was just a build up of smegma (oil and dead skin cells). The doctor was confused until he researched it and realized I just need to shower by pulling the skin back, (as far as I could.). Well I went through puberty and the skin detached normally and not painfully. And in regards to cleaning it I've never had problems with build up. I shower daily but even on camp outs as a scout you could just wipe it away if it bothered you.

Fast forward to my mission. I am an incredibly private person. (I would like to add that is why I like that this site gives me a layer of anonymity.) But we were doing research into circumcision as a district and there was a lot of misinformation and our district leader was talking about the uncircumcised of heart and that got us talking about getting the cut and everyone was nodding and I kinda looked around awkwardly. Well the District leader picked up on that and was like "Whaat?". Well that had the entire district shook up because it was in the middle of the freaking meeting. Well I was showering one morning and one missionary came in and asked to see it and I refused. So he tried to break into the shower. It was mildly hilarious. In the end I agreed and he had a look and was amazed. Well I shouldn't have done that because now the whole district wanted to compare.
Disclaimer, my district was really close and are some are still close friends even to this day. Anyways the next week after district meeting everyone got to comparing penises. Then they all got to comparing scars from circumcision. One of the missionaries was a Filipino guy that was one, really awkward being surrounded by crazy white elders. But he pulled me aside and told me that I needed to get circumcised. Apparently he had been at twelve years old. His dad told him if he didn't he was gay and that it was a rite of passage into adulthood. He seriously looked me in the eyes and asked "are you a guy or a gay?" Despite the fact that we had 8 (7 since the Filipino elder didn't) grown men comparing genitals I assured him my foreskin had nothing to do with my heterosexual preferences. Of course the president found out about the shower incident and asked if I wanted to send the missionary home. Obviously I didn't. Our district didn't really get any closer. The missionaries that lived in our apartment were now comfortable showering with the door open and walking around naked. But I was a little ostracized in some ways. One time one of the missionaries expressed revulsion seeing my flaccid penis. Telling me that it looked fine erect, but flaccid was discomforting to him. So as any good missionary I turned to the scriptures. I read everything I could about circumcision and the church's stance. I finally settled on the tag line Moroni 8:8 because the law of circumcision was done away with. The strangest thing is even after reading scriptures about Paul condemning the circumcision of converts and the host of things I found out about Kellogg, one missionary's fallback was that the Prophet was likely cut so I should be too... I had no reply, because he was serious. Thankfully I was ending my mission soon and we got a third companion. Who, like me was uncircumcised. I served in the United States with a lot of US people which is why this was even an issue.
Hope you had a good read. And you at least chuckled some. Though in seriousness:
Do you find any benefits to a modern culture of circumcision? Obviously it doesn't stop boys from beating their meat nowadays because of lube. I personally think kids should make the decision when they are older. Please discuss.
Last edited by TheAquaticCow on Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
TheAquaticCow
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:13 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby Deusdictum » Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:04 am

TheAquaticCow wrote:Do you find any benefits to a modern culture of circumcision? Obviously it doesn't stop boys from beating their meat nowadays because of lube. I personally think kids should make the decision when they are older. Please discuss.
There should be no “modern culture of circumcision.” It should only be done in cases of medical necessity. Given the current “culture of circumcision”, this determination should be made by a doctor who is specially trained so that normal development, or minor problems with non-surgical options for correction, is not incorrectly “treated” by the extreme measure of circumcision. If a man is off his parent’s insurance and wants it done as an elective procedure, then that is his choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Deusdictum
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:20 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby be64 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:21 pm

I am totally opposed to circumcision out however unfortunately I am circumcised and so are my sons. At the time they were born I didn't know the downside of circumcision. I am completely aware of the puritanical plot to end masturbation by making the genitals unresponsive to sexual stimulation. However it wasn’t just masturbation they were against. I believe these people were also pretty much against sex of any sort. That’s where the whole bland diet thing comes in for they thought a bland diet would help dampen the sexual desire.
be64
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:02 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby TheAquaticCow » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:07 pm

Honestly it was a messed up time. On one end of the spectrum you had clamps that prevented erections. On the other you had people drinking radium for male enhancement.
Deusdictum: I obviously agree whole heartedly. Though I'm not really sure how to go about talking with other people about it. Even my best friend is resistant about it. Your response makes sense and is concise. But there are a lot of people who want their sons to look like them so they opt to do it. Maybe it's due for a broader topic about Mormon culture that should be posted elsewhere. My district leader started out with the idea that maybe it does remove urges to Masturbate then he was fine with doing the cut. And now that they are having kids I realized I might have missed my window to really change their minds because I didn't want to offend. :cry:
And be64 I think it is a more recent things where parents give it more thought. At the time doctors were handing out circumcisions and Oxycontin as the two most beneficial things in America. I read that American Health Care doesn't cover it anymore after 2008.
TheAquaticCow
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:13 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby be64 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:09 pm

I personally think that most anti sex views over the centuries is from Satan. The only anti sex messages in any scripture are no adultry, fornication, incest, homosexual sex or bestiality. I believe that anything preached other than that came from Satan. I say this because if you research masturbation for example the first mentions of it being sinful show up in the late Middle Ages when catholic theologians began writing in opposition to masturbation and sex in general. It was during this time that sex for any purpose other than procreation became sinful as well. Of course in Europe the Catholic Church basically ruled all countries with the pope outranking kings. It was essentially against the law to ejaculate outside of a woman. You could be punished for sex between the thighs or between the breasts for example. Of course masturbation was forbidden. Eventually every disease known to man was blamed on masturbation. This is when the religious health zealots began preaching all manner of cruel things to prevent the deadly act of masturbation. Of course the Catholic Church did not have prophets or revelation and the Popes were killing each other for power so any “revelation” or teachings from that time can not possibly be from God. Therefore it has to have been from Satan. I think it was his plot to deny the god given pleasures of sex, which he will never enjoy, from mankind. Unfortunately I think this culture of anti sex and anti masturbation has carried forward to the present with people with authority proclaiming that prophets throughout the ages have condemned masturbation. Who were those prophets? Pope so and so and the others?

Unfortunately I believe much of this medieval culture has carried through to today.
be64
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:02 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby KSSunflower » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:11 am

I don’t know about benefits to modern culture. There were studies that suggested circumcision could reduce the risk of HIV and STIs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/
The article was written in 2011, but I didn’t see any significant updated information.

It was mentioned in another article (written 2017) that around 60% of males in US get circumcised annually. Whereas most males in Europe are not circumcised, yet they have less incidence of HIV/STI than the US. It goes on to basically say that one would think it would be the other way around.

Where does that leave us? Conflicted.

The church doesn’t put a religious obligation. However, I would say that it also doesn’t put a religious restriction. Furthermore, at one point God saw fit to command his people to circumcise all of their males, so that would suggest that it isn’t bad/wrong to do.

I read that it was a “symbol prepatory for baptism.” The 8 days represented being accountable at 8 years old. I see it as similar to garment wearing. Both are used to show a dedication to God, separation from sin and the world. There is nothing wrong with living the Laws of Moses. The problem came from judging others based on their observance. This is why Paul taught that we are not justified by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith fulfills the law.

One last thing. If one is going to circumcise, there is much less risk if done while an infant. I would also say less traumatic. Some things are just better done while young. This is one of those things.
"It is not sex that gives the pleasure, but the lover." ― Marge Piercy, “Sensuality is not a sexual invitation, it’s a depth invitation.” ― Lebo Grand http://mormonsexualdialogue.boards.net/, http://www.chatzy.com/24691190515294
User avatar
KSSunflower
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 1:24 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby Deusdictum » Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:26 pm

KSSunflower wrote:There is nothing wrong with living the Laws of Moses. The problem came from judging others based on their observance. This is why Paul taught that we are not justified by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith fulfills the law.
There is nothing wrong with wearing a propeller beanie and we shouldn’t judge those who do. But that doesn’t mean it is in the least bit necessary for salvation or a measure of piety in any way shape or form, regardless of whether you have faith.

KSSunflower wrote:One last thing. If one is going to circumcise, there is much less risk if done while an infant. I would also say less traumatic. Some things are just better done while young. This is one of those things.
True. However, I would question the reasons why someone would want to do this to their child and whether it is more important than the child deciding for himself when he is older. Usually if it is medically necessary, age doesn’t matter and it’s impossible to predict who will or won’t need to for medical reasons. It doesn’t make sense to circumcise 1000 infants if only 5 of them will eventually find it to be medically necessary. Now, there may be something to be said for people with family histories of needing circumcision. For example, I have a friend whose family had all of their boys circumcised because they had a family history of severe phimosis, very small openings at the end of the foreskin, or some other problem. But even in such scenarios you can limit the circumcision it to what is medically necessary (just the tip?) and not perform extreme “high and tight” circumcisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Deusdictum
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:20 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby KSSunflower » Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:31 pm

Deusdictum wrote:There is nothing wrong with wearing a propeller beanie and we shouldn’t judge those who do. But that doesn’t mean it is in the least bit necessary for salvation or a measure of piety in any way shape or form, regardless of whether you have faith.
Huh? Did I say it was? That was kind of my point. Neither is NOT doing it “the least bit necessary for our salvation, or a measure of piety.” It’s not bad or wrong to circumcise, that was what I was saying. Judgement either way shouldn’t happen.

Deusdictum wrote: True. However, I would question the reasons why someone would want to do this to their child and whether it is more important than the child deciding for himself when he is older. Usually if it is medically necessary, age doesn’t matter and it’s impossible to predict who will or won’t need to for medical reasons. It doesn’t make sense to circumcise 1000 infants if only 5 of them will eventually find it to be medically necessary. Now, there may be something to be said for people with family histories of needing circumcision. For example, I have a friend whose family had all of their boys circumcised because they had a family history of severe phimosis, very small openings at the end of the foreskin, or some other problem. But even in such scenarios you can limit the circumcision it to what is medically necessary (just the tip?) and not perform extreme “high and tight” circumcisions.

We don’t have to circumcise 1000 infants, or even any, if parents choose not to do it. It’s left for each parent to decide. As I said, waiting could make it much more difficult on the child. Some parents may not want to take the chance, especially when it’s a fairly simple procedure when done as an infant. Similar to vaccines (which are also done on the possibility a person might need it), it is done as a preventative. One many people believe to be worth the risks, as well as the pain children go through on a frequent basis their first few years of life (unlike circumcision). As parents we make many decisions for our children, not knowing the outcome, hoping it’s what’s best for them in the long run. This is one of those things.
"It is not sex that gives the pleasure, but the lover." ― Marge Piercy, “Sensuality is not a sexual invitation, it’s a depth invitation.” ― Lebo Grand http://mormonsexualdialogue.boards.net/, http://www.chatzy.com/24691190515294
User avatar
KSSunflower
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 1:24 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby TheAquaticCow » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:06 am

KSSunflower wrote:It’s not bad or wrong to circumcise, that was what I was saying. Judgement either way shouldn’t happen.


But I think there is argument that it is. At the least it is unnecessary. Personally I think it is genital mutilation. And the foundation of it came from a crazy cereal maker who hated sex. If I had gotten cut, I would have regretted it my entire life. Because I knew what it was like to be intact. It's intentionally hurting a kid and then taking away a part of their genitals. Like how is this view irrational? And I think it is an issue that you can't be neutral about. Female circumcision is a crime in the US.

Deusdictum wrote: For example, I have a friend whose family had all of their boys circumcised because they had a family history of severe phimosis, very small openings at the end of the foreskin, or some other problem. But even in such scenarios you can limit the circumcision it to what is medically necessary (just the tip?) and not perform extreme “high and tight” circumcisions.

KSSunflower wrote: We don’t have to circumcise 1000 infants, or even any, if parents choose not to do it. It’s left for each parent to decide. As I said, waiting could make it much more difficult on the child. Some parents may not want to take the chance, especially when it’s a fairly simple procedure when done as an infant. Similar to vaccines (which are also done on the possibility a person might need it), it is done as a preventative. One many people believe to be worth the risks, as well as the pain children go through on a frequent basis their first few years of life (unlike circumcision). As parents we make many decisions for our children, not knowing the outcome, hoping it’s what’s best for them in the long run. This is one of those things.


I want to talk to the point of medical preventative circumcision. Comparing vaccines to circumcision seems to be a fallacy in my eyes. Comparing circumcision to anything else that is life threatening is not an apples to apples comparison, vaccines are medically proven to be beneficial in a great degree and are not nearly as invasive or permanent. My issue here is that you take away their agency for a very life altering procedure. I feel that if a parent does something hoping for it to be good for them in the long run, why take away that set of nerves for them to enjoy during their adult sex life? Many times, really, the only reason parents feel they should cut their kids is because of aesthetics, because it looks cleaner and isn't so difficult to clean, or dad is cut. That's like getting your daughters labiaplasty to get them smaller more "aesthetically pleasing" looking lips for when they get married 23 years in the future. In my eyes a woman that is shallow enough to prefer that I am cut is like if I would only have sex with a woman if she had breast implants. I digress, the only medical reasons, according to doctors, is Phimosis and Balanatis. And often in these cases a full circumcision is not required (Deusdictum's point.)
Cleaning like I stated above is a myth. I've never had an infection and it requires 5 seconds in the shower to peel back the skin. And UTI's are more common in women and are treated with... antibiotics not corrective surgery.

In regards to the study. The medical community is an intense fight over the validity of this study. First it was done in Africa and the study acknowledges this. Applying the study in Africa also would require they look into studies in the U.K. and Sweden where circumcision rates are from 2-3%. The issues that circumcision could even be argued to protect against is a reduction in the likelihood of contracting HIV where a simple piece of latex is 30% more effective and 100% cheaper and non life altering. I'm talking about America where we have the means to condoms accessible at every corner. And usually for free in a lot of places.

Talking to the point that the risk is lower for kids. There are lots of cases where circumcision leads to death of an infant through infection though this is only 2% of all operations and may not be statistically relevant.

Utah I think has 60% rate of circumcision. Which is interesting because it is the highest rate in the West United States. Coastal states are as low as 20-30% where as Detroit is up to 90%. That tells me it's more cultural. Because both the Nephites and converts to the early church were not about that cut life. In recent years the United States has pulled back (no pun intended) on betting on the medical benefits of circumcision. Rates are dropping from 81% to now just 50%. That is a lot of parents who either have regrets or can't afford it because the government doesn't pay for it anymore.

TLDR: Vaccines don't alter the look of genitals permanently and therefore is a poor analogy, it's more constructive to just talk about it without relating it to anything else. Circumcision is not medically needed except in 3% of cases. Is not proven to reduce STI's,cancer or UTI's in America by any significant margin or the results are invalidated by the authors. Consensus is that a condom is better. There is a double standard of demonizing female circumcision as FGM and condoning Male circumcision. Cleaning a uncut penis is not difficult. Reasons for circumcision is less about health and more about aesthetics (and originally about keeping men from beating their meat.). Foreskin was designed to protect a penis and is more pleasurable for men.
TheAquaticCow
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:13 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby KSSunflower » Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:46 pm

TheAquaticCow wrote:
KSSunflower wrote:It’s not bad or wrong to circumcise, that was what I was saying. Judgement either way shouldn’t happen.


But I think there is argument that it is. At the least it is unnecessary. Personally I think it is genital mutilation. And the foundation of it came from a crazy cereal maker who hated sex. If I had gotten cut, I would have regretted it my entire life. Because I knew what it was like to be intact. It's intentionally hurting a kid and then taking away a part of their genitals. Like how is this view irrational? And I think it is an issue that you can't be neutral about. Female circumcision is a crime in the US.
You are correct, there are those who believe it is wrong. However, there is nothing that prohibits or discourages members of the church from making that choice for their child. You can believe that it is mutilation for yourself and those you hold stewardship over. Others hold different beliefs and are free to have them too.

I would argue that the foundation did not come from a "crazy cereal maker who hated sex." Many ancient civilizations performed circumcisions, including the Egyptians and Aztecs. God gave the covenant of circumcision to the Israelites. Religious historical text (not LDS) says this circumcision was only the tip, leaving the majority of the foreskin intact. It was later that they began exposing the glans when some tried to hide their circumcisions due to persecution. When doctors began seeking knowledge of how to perform circumcisions from the Jewish community, this is how they were taught to do it. Regardless of how much foreskin is removed, allcircumcision requires permanently removing part of the person's genitals. It was also done without consent, since God instructed that it be done to all of their male children (not girls) at 8 days old, as well as their slaves.

We are taught all of God's commandments are good. Why did God give the commandment of circumcision? Was there no other way? Why was it done at 8 days old? Was there significance to doing it at this time? Why were only males circumcised, and not the girls too?

Genesis doesn't give us much to go on as to why God instituted circumcision. JST gives us more insight. "And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old." Apparently, they weren't observing the ordinance of baptism correctly. They were washing their children and sprinkling blood. This doesn't really explain why it was only done on males, though.

On the topic of FGC, most don't find MC comparable to FGC. You could probably argue that too, but I wanted to point that out. I understand the double standard argument. Your question didn't ask about what is fair, it asked whether there are any benefits. Men and women are made differently, and what is good for man isn't necessarily good for women (and vice-versa). Male circumcision is a different procedure with its own benefits and risks.

Again, I think it's important to answer why God didn't have them circumcise the girls/women. I don't know the answer but since you are posing it as a moral/ethical topic, I think it should be answered, along with why he had them do it at all. Was he wrong? Would you call the circumcision God required mutilation, knowing it also takes away part of their genitals even if it was a lesser part initially?

Deusdictum wrote: For example, I have a friend whose family had all of their boys circumcised because they had a family history of severe phimosis, very small openings at the end of the foreskin, or some other problem. But even in such scenarios you can limit the circumcision it to what is medically necessary (just the tip?) and not perform extreme “high and tight” circumcisions.

KSSunflower wrote: We don’t have to circumcise 1000 infants, or even any, if parents choose not to do it. It’s left for each parent to decide. As I said, waiting could make it much more difficult on the child. Some parents may not want to take the chance, especially when it’s a fairly simple procedure when done as an infant. Similar to vaccines (which are also done on the possibility a person might need it), it is done as a preventative. One many people believe to be worth the risks, as well as the pain children go through on a frequent basis their first few years of life (unlike circumcision). As parents we make many decisions for our children, not knowing the outcome, hoping it’s what’s best for them in the long run. This is one of those things.


I want to talk to the point of medical preventative circumcision. Comparing vaccines to circumcision seems to be a fallacy in my eyes. Comparing circumcision to anything else that is life threatening is not an apples to apples comparison, vaccines are medically proven to be beneficial in a great degree and are not nearly as invasive or permanent. My issue here is that you take away their agency for a very life altering procedure. I feel that if a parent does something hoping for it to be good for them in the long run, why take away that set of nerves for them to enjoy during their adult sex life? Many times, really, the only reason parents feel they should cut their kids is because of aesthetics, because it looks cleaner and isn't so difficult to clean, or dad is cut. That's like getting your daughters labiaplasty to get them smaller more "aesthetically pleasing" looking lips for when they get married 23 years in the future. In my eyes a woman that is shallow enough to prefer that I am cut is like if I would only have sex with a woman if she had breast implants. I digress, the only medical reasons, according to doctors, is Phimosis and Balanatis. And often in these cases a full circumcision is not required (Deusdictum's point.)
Cleaning like I stated above is a myth. I've never had an infection and it requires 5 seconds in the shower to peel back the skin. And UTI's are more common in women and are treated with... antibiotics not corrective surgery.
I'm not arguing the benefits of vaccines. The medical community clearly believes they have a beneficial purpose that outweigh the risks. Although, again, you're treating perfectly healthy individuals and pumping them full of chemicals for something that may or may not everhappen to them in their lifetime. Male circumcision is seen similarly to vaccines by researchers and health professionals. It has even been called a "surgical vaccine." Regarding antibiotics, yes, we have them but bacteria is constantly becoming resistant to treatments. I don't think it is for one specific health problem that researchers find circumcision beneficial. I think it's the sum total of all the ways it can help lower risks, and it is found to lower the risk of many medical diseases and ailments.

All of that aside, my only point was that vaccines are done based on a possibility of getting a disease, that without the vaccine they may never get. The argument is the same for circumcision in claiming they are unnecessary. We can't say whether a child will grow up to need one. We also cant' say a child will have ever actually needed a vaccine, but they're given all 70+ doses regardless. I disagree they aren't invasive. Kids cry intensely when getting stuck by needles and it has to be repeated numerous times throughout their life. My son (who is old enough to speak and give consent) stopped midway during his vaccine and wanted to rethink getting them. The nurse proceeded anyway, without his consent, because I had already signed the consent forms. The choice wasn't given to him, it was my choice as his parent.

While vaccines do not permanently alter the genitals, there are some who have been irreparably damaged by vaccines. I would call that life altering as well. Yet we think it's ok, even necessary, to do this without a child's consent. Some even think it should be done without parental consent. We make many decisions for our children that could have a great affect on the overall outcome of their life, and we do so without their consent even when they are able to give it.

To be clear, I'm not saying the procedures are comparable, I am comparing the decisions we make on behalf of our children. You seem to vilify parents who choose to circumcise their boys. Those against MC come off as morally and ethically superior for choosing not to circumcise. It is assumed that those who circumcise are only doing it for superficial reasons even though major health organizations, such as the CDC and AAP, endorse the scientific research of MC saying the benefits outweigh the risks.

While AAP does not recommend routine MC for all male newborns, they leave the decision for parents and strongly recommend informing them of the benefits and risks. It is medical practice to ask expecting parents if they intend to circumcise their newborn males. WHY even ask parents this question if it is seen as unnecessary?

Parents do the best they can, with the information they are given at the time. Don't assume their concern about their child's well being is any less because they choose differently than you.

Concerning the nerves to enjoy during sex, many studies have shown no difference in sensitivity. There are some studies where circumcision made men more sensitive and were able to achieve orgasm easier. This conflicts with your position that there is a greater sexual benefit to being uncircumcised (at least from the male perspective).

In regards to the study. The medical community is an intense fight over the validity of this study. First it was done in Africa and the study acknowledges this. Applying the study in Africa also would require they look into studies in the U.K. and Sweden where circumcision rates are from 2-3%. The issues that circumcision could even be argued to protect against is a reduction in the likelihood of contracting HIV where a simple piece of latex is 30% more effective and 100% cheaper and non life altering. I'm talking about America where we have the means to condoms accessible at every corner. And usually for free in a lot of places.
As a woman, I care about sexually transmitted disease. Women are much more likely to have these passed onto them due to having more mucous membrane on their genitals. Knowing this, I can see how circumcision could decrease (not prevent) the incidence of HIV and STI's because the foreskin is the mucous membrane of the penis. Of course, it doesn't remove all risk. As mentioned, condoms provide more protection. However, condoms do not remove all risk either. The CDC believes "all effective measures should be included in public health messages and that MC compliments current safe sex messages.

I have seen the criticism about the Johns Hopkins study in Africa, which I acknowledged in my original post. Any criticisms though have also been disputed. This article states why "it is misleading to compare HIV prevalence in the US, where MC is common, with a similar or slightly lower prevalence in Europe, where MC is uncommon, and conclude that MC does not make a difference..." https://www.ncbi.nlm.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/ Many people feel there isn't a compelling case in either direction, which is why many remain neutral. If professionals can't even agree, how is anybody else suppose to make an informed decision?

The argument, though, is that condoms are way more effective. Nobody disagrees with that. However, Tobian said that despite decades of safe-sex education, STI's continue to be a persistent problem in the US. This is with access to free condoms. Why is that? It doesn't seem to be as clear cut as some would like to make it. Perhaps the CDC is correct in stating we should consider all methods of preventing disease.


Talking to the point that the risk is lower for kids. There are lots of cases where circumcision leads to death of an infant through infection though this is only 2% of all operations and may not be statistically relevant.
Exactly, it's very rare. The risk is lowest when done as an infant, not an older child. Even older infants make it more complicated. Older children have to be put under anesthesia which poses a lot more risk to the child.

Ideally, doctors like to do it the first week. This small window puts a lot of pressure onto parents to make a quick decision, as waiting can also have an impact on the child's life. Going back to God requiring it done at 8 days old. Is there a good reason for that? Perhaps in his divine wisdom he knew this was the best time to do it. I am speculating, but it seems plausible.

Utah I think has 60% rate of circumcision. Which is interesting because it is the highest rate in the West United States. Coastal states are as low as 20-30% where as Detroit is up to 90%. That tells me it's more cultural. Because both the Nephites and converts to the early church were not about that cut life. In recent years the United States has pulled back (no pun intended) on betting on the medical benefits of circumcision. Rates are dropping from 81% to now just 50%. That is a lot of parents who either have regrets or can't afford it because the government doesn't pay for it anymore.

TLDR: Vaccines don't alter the look of genitals permanently and therefore is a poor analogy, it's more constructive to just talk about it without relating it to anything else. Circumcision is not medically needed except in 3% of cases. Is not proven to reduce STI's,cancer or UTI's in America by any significant margin or the results are invalidated by the authors. Consensus is that a condom is better. There is a double standard of demonizing female circumcision as FGM and condoning Male circumcision. Cleaning a uncut penis is not difficult. Reasons for circumcision is less about health and more about aesthetics (and originally about keeping men from beating their meat.). Foreskin was designed to protect a penis and is more pleasurable for men.
I can believe that it has protective benefits, so does hair but people remove that too. I know that the foreskin can also be used for skin grafts. However, it has been contributed to a number of health issues as well. Does removing the tip of the foreskin take away any protection? I would think God knows the purpose of the foreskin and I doubt he would require its removal it is was important.

While circumcision isn't a requirement today, we can't deny it was at one time. While I understand you disagree with it, I don't see how you can justify what the Lord had his covenant people do, and in the same breath look down upon those who continue its practice (whether that decision is religious, cultural or medically based). Does it make a difference whether God commands it or not (such as in the case of polygamy)? If so, how is it different? It is still altering genitals without consent.

If he commanded it today would you be obedient to that command? Why or why not? (You don't have to answer, just something to ask yourself)

Lastly, I stand by my original statement. Whether you circumcise or not, neither is morally bad/wrong. At least, not eternally. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

The reason for discontinuing circumcision wasn't because it was wrong in and of itself, it was because they were doing it under the belief that children were unholy (Remember God said he gave circumcision so they would remember children are not accountable until 8) They gave heed to traditions but did not believe the Gospel of Christ.

Both the introduction and discontinuance of circumcision were brought about by incorrect beliefs. The only circumcision God cares about is the "circumcision of heart." In this case, he's definitely for taking away the foreskin!
"It is not sex that gives the pleasure, but the lover." ― Marge Piercy, “Sensuality is not a sexual invitation, it’s a depth invitation.” ― Lebo Grand http://mormonsexualdialogue.boards.net/, http://www.chatzy.com/24691190515294
User avatar
KSSunflower
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 1:24 am

Next

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests