I'm guessing that you could meet a few Jewish males who wish they had their foreskins back, at this site.
Posted on 01/28/2006 7:21:40 PM PST by chet_in_ny
IMO, the State has no right to regulate/ban a religious ceremony.
A "guideline" is not a regulation or a ban.
A "guideline" is an opinion that you heed or ignore at your own risk or at the risk of your child.
Could you explain how you know this? Or why you believe this?
My wife doesn't agree with you. She seems quite convinced that the real thing is better than an imitation.
Do you think it hurts less on an infant?
I read somewhere that it was once (still?) believed that the infant felt no pain. I doubt very much that that's true.
Here it is:
Elaine: No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me.
I'm guessing that you could meet a few Jewish males who wish they had their foreskins back, at this site.
Excellent link!
I'm a woman and I've had both. I only had the intact man for one night because it was repulsive to me. I couldn't overcome the smell, nor the feel of it.
You shouldn't make such wishful statements when you can't back it up with reality.
The disgusting old men of every religion on earth are the problem.
Or the wallet that turns into a suitcase.
okay.
" ... God ordered Abraham to circumsize himself (with a rock!) ... "
I don't remember that, and I don't see it in Genesis 17. You may be thinking of Zipporah's circumcision of her son (Ex. 4:25).
some churches have a communion cup, and all of the people participating in communion drink from the same cup.
i could see this custom as next on the list.
i doubt if most of the people performing the ritual would become sexually aroused. however, if a pedophile happened to be doing the ritual, his response would be arousal, and all the people there might only add to it.
there are people who become aroused by all sorts of things that would not be arousing to most people. do a search for "paraphilia" and you will be very surprised.
i think i recently saw a headline saying that circumcision helped protect against HIV infection.
however, there is also the issue of what adult women prefer in their sexual partners.
I've seen such reports and I think they're bunk. The United States has less than half the population of Europe yet nearly twice as many cases of HIV. If circumcision is protective, then how come the United States with mostly circumcised men is so far worse off than Europe with almost entirely uncircumcised men?
I think the differences are cultural. In Africa where these studies are conducted most of the circumcised men are Muslim, and they are much less promiscuous than non-Muslim Africans.
I don't know. Whatever is said will be argued. I had painful procedure(s) as an infant small child and don't remember. An infant doesn't have the anticipation like the older child which surely involves some degree of anxiety of turmoil.
An infant may be more sensitive to pain; an older child may be more sensitive to pain because there is a larger area, therefore more nerve receptors.
How can you measure the pain of another? You assume there is pain.
How do you explain all the gang rapes in Europe and Australia?
PS. And it's worth noting that there are contradictory reports - some that find it makes a difference and others that disagree. So, in light of that, the dramatic difference in rates of infection between America and Europe is decisive for me.
And, moreover, it would not change my opinion in the slightest either way. The best protection against HIV is to not inject drugs and to not be a slut. Raising one's children properly will do far more to protect them than mutilating them possibly could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.