• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Circumcision should be banned

D

Diogenes_the_cynic

Member
It is a horribly painful procedure that likely ruins one's infancy.

It removes the vast majority of nerve endings which are highly specialialised from the penis. It leaves the glans bare and open to keritanization which furthers the loss of sensitivity. In addition, it ruins the gliding action of the foreskin and the mechanical functioning of sex.

It should be banned worldwide and all practicioners should be tried for assualt and torture of an infant (it's not like they can't tell the baby is in pain).:mad: Okay I'll admit that might be taking it too far, since this is basically a cultural evil.
 
Last edited:
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I'm circumcised and have no recollection of the procedure. I have no problems with sensation or function. Also, most girls don't dig smegma.
 
Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
I don't know what my husband would do if he were any more sensitive. And he seems to have no problem with his ability to "function" sexually.


Further, why this is in religious debates and not sexuality, I don't know. Unless, someone can with why this is a subject for religious debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I

iholdit

Active Member
Being circumcised has been shown to reduce the liklihood of contracting certain stds amongst other benefits.
I havent posted enough yet to be allowed to post links to studies to show this. Im sure you can find the studies though if you are interested.
 
Madhuri

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
iholdit said:
Being circumcised has been shown to reduce the liklihood of contracting certain stds amongst other benefits.
I havent posted enough yet to be allowed to post links to studies to show this. Im sure you can find the studies though if you are interested.
Click to expand...

There are all sorts of studies showing contradicting information.
I honestly don't think the differences are significant enough to make a fuss about. For instance, if a person is hygienic then having foreskin or not makes little difference.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
My son isn't circumcised. I figured there was no reason to. There is a slight risk that it will cause problems in the future, but there is really no reason to worry about that. All the doctors I've asked said that really, it comes down to a personal choice.

As for it ruining one's infancy, that is just dishonest. Yes, the baby feels pain. Yet, it has no long terms effects on them. They have no memory of it, and really isn't something ever thought about.

As for circumcision helping prevent STD's, that is doubtful. A circumcision removes protective foreskin. Having it removed means that STD's are more likely to occur; however, the difference is extremely small.
 
dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
When I was married, me and my now ex-wife discussed if we would circumcise. We were both against it. Now, I'm not as "militant" (for lack of a better word, my ex-wife is extremely against circumcision) about it as some other people might be, but I see no need to put a child through this process. My son is not circumcised. And as far as there being studies in favor of it, me and my ex found many more that were against it. I myself am circumcised, I don't remember the procedure, and I have had no problems sexually. But I have to agree with the person here who asked why this is in religious debate instead of sexuality or some other place more appropriate.
 
D

Diogenes_the_cynic

Member
rakhel said:
I don't know what my husband would do if he were any more sensitive. And he seems to have no problem with his ability to "function" sexually.


Further, why this is in religious debates and not sexuality, I don't know. Unless, someone can with why this is a subject for religious debate.
Click to expand...
It's your God's covenant for one. :facepalm:

Second, some view spirituality to be an extension of their bodies.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
It was sponsored as a religious ordeal in the United States to a point. Many Christians found it a must as it is found in the Bible.
 
D

Diogenes_the_cynic

Member
rakhel said:
You didn't raise a religious debate,.

You raised a legal one.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Actually, the fact that you think there's a difference also highlights a major difference in our spiritual views. All life is spiritual to me. Our experiences, including those of sexual ecstasy, all contribute to our spiritual states. The legal side of it serves to protect people from losing access to these states.
 
Last edited:
D

Diogenes_the_cynic

Member
Father Heathen said:
Right, but I hear women dislike the taste of uncut men, regardless.
Click to expand...
True, but if you're talking about oral sex that's kind of one sided anyway no? I'd say vaginal intercourse is more important. You know cause you both reach orgasms at once ideally?

Although, you should all know that I'm not saying people who can't or won't won't reach good states or anything. There are many pathways to many good things in life and death.

You shouldn't block one from options though. I think it's a violation of sexual freedom too.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Diogenes_the_cynic said:
It is a horribly painful procedure that likely ruins one's infancy.

It removes the vast majority of nerve endings which are highly specialialised from the penis. It leaves the glans bare and open to keritanization which furthers the loss of sensitivity. In addition, it ruins the gliding action of the foreskin and the mechanical functioning of sex.

It should be banned worldwide and all practicioners should be tried for assualt and torture of an infant (it's not like they can't tell the baby is in pain).:mad: Okay I'll admit that might be taking it too far, since this is basically a cultural evil.

[youtube]tPYtu2FimdU[/youtube]
YouTube - Cynic - Uroboric Forms (Live 2007) Pro-Shot
Click to expand...

They don't even give the infant pain killers or a local anesthetic. :cover:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top