[Destro]

Why yes I do have such links.

Circumcision and Footbinding: The parallels are astounding

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: CIRCUMCISION

The practice of circumcising babies began in Western society in the mid-1800's as a means of preventing masturbation. "Circumcision was used as a deliberate surgical intervention to debilitate and desensitize the penis" (2. Hodges, 1995). Masturbation was said to cause epilepsy, tuberculosis and insanity (nocirc, 1997). "Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of sexuality and was named as the cause for every known disease, from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease, tuberculosis and death" (2. Hodges, 1995) . The influential Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of Kellogg's Corn Flakes, preached that the reason that young boys masturbate is because the foreskin rubs on the head of the penis. Dr. Kellogg believed that boys who were circumcised at birth would be less likely to masturbate (Joannids, 1996). "In 1928, the American Medical Association (AMA), published an editorial in its journal calling for routine circumcision of all male infants at birth. The primary justification ..was the prevention of masturbation"(2. Hodges, 1995).

[Alia]

Thank you.

Just took a cruise around the web. Since the early 90s, I see more and more articles denouncing circumcision as a means to stop men from masturbating. What hogwash. I've been tracking this issue since then and only BECAUSE it became such a large issue in the early 90s. In most of the articles I just read, oh yes... many liken circumcision to "gender mutilation". "preventing masturbation" -- what a HOOT! I guess the implied is that uncirc'ers like to masturbate more "freely"? lol.

In the following link is a pro/con article. The inserts are written by an anti-circ'er.

[REBUTTAL TO] MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM CIRCUMCISION

I'm sure you already know, the anti-circ movement is worldwide, and led predominantly liberals, no? This is not to say there aren't individual valid reasons to circ or not to circ. I'm not discounting that. I do despise the "agenda" of likening circumcision to "gender mutilation", however. I'm not even going to address the so called "masturbabory" agenda being widely published in past decade concerning circumcision.

I think the anti-circer's had more credibility when they were using the Line that the Medical Industry was foisting "circumcision" on everyone in order to make more money. That sounds far more plausible than the "GENDER mutilation/Masturbation" one. At any rate, Whether to circ or not to circ, should be an individual or parent's perogative. It is NOT gender mutilation, IMHO, no matter how many hysterical articles are calling it so. The "anti-circ" movements wish GOVERNMENTS to make circumcision ILLEGAL.

In my search, Sean Hannity had this topic on his show:

Circumcision To Be Banned In U.S.

Most the artcles coming up in the search seem to make very "light" of a Jewish religious practice. None is bringing up information I had via web to me in the 90s; about living thousands of years ago in the desert with little water for hygienic purposes -- yeast and STDS being passed onto women and therefore to newborns.

No. No. I'm not getting into a circ/anti-circ debate with you. Circumcision is already A CHOICE in America. And around the world.

The issue that anti-circ'ers liken circumcision to "gender mutilation" defeats them, IMHO, as a movement. Gender Mutilation in Women means CUTTING OUT the clitoris. Although the glans is a sensitive tissue, men are not being deprived of sexual pleasure or release through being circed. If that were so... and using your own article... rhetorically asked here: would the population have grown so? You think men, deriving no sexual pleasure due to having been "gender mutilated" were punishing themselves with women?

I hope you will think on the following, for just a moment:

Orthodox Jews and Muslims yet practice circumcision (as do many Christians). Imagine a world in which some large body OUTLAWS "circumcision". How many Jews and Muslims and Christians will be jailed? A "foreskin" bootleg industry will arise? Will they be tracked and hunted down like gun owners are?

More seriously, in the early 90s as I debated these issues.. let's say that UN bodies and country governments do not outlaw Circumcision. And let's say, that two generations down the road, more uncirced men begin having wild diseases affecting their penises. If the circ'd do not get these diseases, will there be a pro-circ movement! Will it start out by saying the "uncirc" movement was begun by the medical profession in order to make more dollars on the backend? Will it be asserted that this was done in order to decrease population?

After a while, ya get to see the "social issues" run in cycles and circles, IME.

Anyway, thanks for the discourse.