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.
Yes, I always knew that Special K was to blame for my low libido.
Total votes : 4

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby be64 » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:05 pm

KSSunflower, circumcision didn’t start with the he crazy cereal man but he did think sex was bad and masturbation worse. He invented his bland cereal thinking that a bland diet would decrease sexual desire. He promoted circumcision as a method of stopping boys and men from masturbating.
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:02 am

Re: Did you know that corn flakes popularized circumcision?

Postby Deusdictum » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:23 pm

Wow. I’ve written some long posts in my time, but this is like, crazy long. ;)
KSSunflower wrote: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 don’t know that you would have a leg to stand on if you circumcise as a Mormon for religious reasons — there is officially no religious reason to do so in our day. I also don’t think you have a leg to stand on if you have it done for superficial reasons such as appearance or to fit in with the group. At that point, bodily autonomy wins in my book. The only arguably valid reason is medical.

KSSunflower wrote: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.
While religious and cultural circumcision may have pre-dated Kellogg, that doesn’t mean that it is responsible for the widespread adoption of medical circumcision in the United States. I would refer you to the Wikipedia article on the history of circumcision (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision). Circumcision was viewed negatively in the US until the late 19th century. As late as 1876, the Encyclopedia Brittanica referred to it as a religious (Jews and Muslims) and tribal rite, with no indication that it was used medically. By 1910, this had changed to reading that circumcision was done for medical reasons and also for religious reasons by Jews and Muslims.

What were those medical reasons? Well, frankly, it was a bunch of snake oil. “By the 1890s, hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright's disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer had all been linked to the foreskin, and many physicians advocated universal circumcision as a preventive health measure.” Oh and don’t forget the ladies: “In 1866, Baker Brown described the use of clitoridectomy, the removal of the clitoris, as a cure for several conditions, including epilepsy, catalepsy and mania, which he attributed to masturbation.... the operation was being used to cure hysteria, nymphomania, and in young girls what was called ‘rebellion’ or ‘unfeminine aggression’.”

Adding to this, the germ theory of disease had recently been accepted and people began to be paranoid about smegma. This was the start of the perception that circumcision was good penile hygiene, but as our understanding of disease improved, we began to understand that smegma wasn’t causing the diseases we thought it did.... but we decided to keep on calling it good penile hygiene anyway.

Then there’s masturbation. In this same era, there were negative attitudes about sex as well as masturbation. See https://www.scribd.com/document/63145660/Mormon-Masturbation for a discussion of historical masturbation attitudes and how they impacted LDS thought over time. This is the time period of Kellogg, who believed that circumcision would be beneficial to prevent masturbation. Unfortunately, he and others had sufficient influence to spread this idea and “mainstream pediatric manuals continued to recommend circumcision as a deterrent against masturbation until the 1950s.”

So while people may have gotten the idea to circumcise from religious and tribal groups, it became a widespread practice for completely different reasons.

KSSunflower wrote: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?
I’m willing to accept that if God commands it, or if someone else has that belief, then that’s good enough to justify it. However, LDS today should know that God doesn’t command it. Whatever reason he had for doing so no longer applies, which tells me that it’s not a significant enough health concern to have a current commandment about. He was never commanding it for health concerns to begin with, even if concerns about negative impacts on health kept him from commanding it for girls, or were behind not waiting until men were older.

KSSunflower wrote: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?
Yes, but it was symbolic and instructive. It was not done without purpose. Today, that purpose no longer applies, at least it doesn’t to those of the LDS faith.

KSSunflower wrote: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.

KSSunflower wrote: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.
I think this is where you start getting into the land of competing studies and personal risk aversion. Suppose you have 1000 infants and 3 will die if they aren’t circumcised, but you don’t know which ones. What if you circumcise all of them to prevent those 3 deaths? Great... except that 5 out of every 1000 infants who are circumcised die from complications of the procedure, and they may not be the same ones as would have died had they not received the procedure! Does it still make sense to circumcise? No, it doesn’t. For vaccines, the lives saved vs. lives lost clearly makes the vaccines worth it. For circumcision, there’s a lot of debate about what those numbers are. Even if the numbers are reversed, you’re talking about an infant death vs. an adult death. Suppose the 5 who benefit from circumcision live to be 70 instead of dying at age 50. But the 3 who died from complications would have lived to be at least 50, so the net effect is 20 x 5 - 3 x 50 = a loss of 50 years of life, even if it means that more people survive! It’s not clear cut and the scientists still disagree about which side things really land on.

KSSunflower wrote: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).
Uh... considering the challenge some men have with premature ejaculation, they would generally welcome less sensitivity, as would their spouse. The fact that some men rely on numbing agents to last longer should be a clue that more sensitivity is not always what is needed.

There is also some theory regarding the actual mechanics and the roles of different nerves in managing the ejaculatory reflex. That is, some nerves act to excite toward orgasm, while other nerves actually move you away from orgasm. Circumcised men tend to use different positions / angles, stroke length, and speed / rhythm than uncut men. The theory is that with the loss of the prepuce, circumcised men end up focusing on what stimulates nerves that excite toward orgasm, while uncut men stimulate both types of nerves and end up lasting longer. But I don’t know how much of this is anti-circumcision speculation vs. medical fact.

KSSunflower wrote: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.
What a lot of these discussions tend to ignore is the impact of monogamy. For example, Gardasil is a vaccine for cervical cancer. Yay, take the vaccine, right? Except that the vaccine protects against HPV which is the sexually transmitted virus that causes some cervical cancers. Now, there may still be a lot to consider and you may decide it’s worth it regardless because you don’t know if your kids (or their future sexual partners) will always live the Law of Chastity, or if there may be some other way of getting HPV. But it does change the balance between the risk and the reward.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:20 am


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests