Posted on 04/05/2006 5:19:29 PM PDT by Giant Conservative
Yep! Well, said.
Thank you for responding. I was getting ready to but I was still in disbelief that the question had actually been asked. (BTW, I better clarify that I am a woman per this discussion topic.)
I've heard that the rule of thumb is...er, I mean the best way to decide the question is "like father, like son."
Well that's how you were created.
"Marked in Your Flesh : Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America (Hardcover)
by Leonard B. Glick
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The book of Genesis tells us that God made a covenant with Abraham, promising him a glorious posterity on the condition that he and all his male descendents must be circumcised.
For thousands of years thereafter, the distinctive practice of circumcision served to set the Jews apart from their neighbors. The apostle Paul rejected it as a worthless practice, emblematic of Judaism's fixation on physical matters. Christian theologians followed his lead, arguing that whereas Christians sought spiritual fulfillment, Jews remained mired in such pointless concerns as diet and circumcision.
As time went on, Europeans developed folklore about malicious Jews who performed sacrificial murders of Christian children and delighted in genital mutilation. But Jews held unwaveringly to the belief that being a Jewish male meant being physically circumcised and to this day even most non-observant Jews continue to follow this practice.
In this book, Leonard B. Glick offers a history of Jewish and Christian beliefs about circumcision from its ancient origins to the current controversy. By the turn of the century, more and more physicians in America and England--but not, interestingly, in continental Europe--were performing the procedure routinely.
Glick shows that Jewish American physicians were and continue to be especially vocal and influential champions of the practice which, he notes, serves to erase the visible difference between Jewish and gentile males.
Informed medical opinion is now unanimous that circumcision confers no benefit and the practice has declined. In Jewish circles it is virtually taboo to question circumcision, but Glick does not flinch from asking whether this procedure should continue to be the defining feature of modern Jewish identity." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019517674X/qid=1144287021/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-6016191-0364756?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Let's hear from the ladies.
Hey beaversmom: Here's one you might find interesting. It's where all those who have had our sons circumcised are basically accused of being child abusers and those that haven't get all defensive.
I think the best person to ask would be a man who was circumsized as an adult who had the opportunity to experience sex under both circumstances.
I'm still trying to filgure out why it was asked.
I'm sorry, but it's not nasty looking. My son isn't circumcised, and he looks fine. He just looks different than circumcised boys.
I asked the question because BS here apparently thinks that a slip of skin makes a man a better lover.
But Tevin was begging for it...
We're here. I don't usually get drawn to this subject but there is a lot of misinformation.
I think the implication was that women wouldn't know a difference between a circumcised male and an uncircumcised male during sex. Somehow we don't have any nerves in our genitals I guess.
So we should wait 'til they're older? YIKES!
What! I have been arguing against the slip of skin.
My husband is circumcised, and he wishes that he wasn't.
You would be wrong!!!!
How do we explain # 170?
#10, nicely done.
From the get go whatever happened is water under the bridge. It's the future that people need to question. Should future baby boys have this done?
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.