In Which I am Questioned About Circumcision

Ahem.

Okay, it’s been a while but something happened this morning and I felt a need to share.

So the kids and I usually have these bible discussions in the mornings before school and today raised an awkward moment.

We read a part of the scriptures where God asked the Israelites to circumcise their hearts. In explaining this scripture, I explained that usually men circumcise their penises by removing the foreskin but now God was saying they should circumcise their hearts in the sense of removing whatever it was stopping them from serving God like they should.

Then the questions

‘So mum, were we circumcised?’
‘Yes, you were. At eight days so I doubt you will remember’.
‘Did it hurt?’
‘Er, yes. I guess it did.’
‘You mean you hurt us as babies, that is so not cool’
(Me getting uncomfortable)
‘So, why did you make us go through that pain?’
(Me stuttering) ‘I think there are some health benefits’.
‘Health benefits? Like what?’
‘Time for school guys, why don’t we talk about this when you get back’.

I don’t have the time to do extensive research on circumcision and its benefits for men. So I’m hoping one of my readers has and will be willing to share. Please use the comments section. Thanks đŸ™‚

Advertisements

15 comments

  1. Loool. Its my first time here and i find this space fun to read, and educative too. The main benefits of circumcision that i know of are with regard to health- reduction in the risk of developing urinary tract infections, cancer and contracting STIs. N.B: Your boys are so adorable đŸ˜€

  2. Aside the fact that a circumcised Penis looks better to the eyes, it is scientifically proven that uncircumcised penises aid more transmission of STDs..as to sexy all satisfaction, Only Women can tell if one Is better than the other.

      1. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics said in its new policy statement that there are medical advantages of circumcision for boys. The AAP said the benefits of circumcision for boys outweigh the disadvantages.

      2. The AAP’s policy (which said the benefits were not sufficient to recommend it) was answered by 38 paediatricians (heads and spokespeople for the paediatric associations of Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and senior paediatricians in Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland) who concluded:

        “There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm”

        http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896

    1. “Looks better to the eyes”? Not according to the great Renaissance artists, who even put foreskins back on men who historically would have been circumcised, such as David and John the Baptist.
      STDs? No the studies are contradictory. For example in a large cohort study in Dunedin, New Zealand, 500 men followed till adulthood showed no difference in STD uptake. (An earlier study a few months earlier found a difference, but even the author of that one admitted that the new one was more convincing.)
      Sex? It should be obvious that a specialised, uniquely mobile part, strategically placed, is better for both. It’s richly endowed with specialised nerves, like those of the lips and fingertips. Does anyone doubt that the lips are important to the pleasure of kissing?

  3. I wrote my final law school paper for St Johns (New York) on circumcision and I think you’d be interested in reading it as it would answer a lot of your questions. Shoot me an email if you are; I’ve left it below.
    andrew.delaney21@gmail.com

  4. The person the penis is attached to is the only one entitled to an opinion on what’s better. The stats on HIV showed only a 1.3% reduction, and that was from condoms and sex ed. The 60% stat was fabricated by Brian Morris, an FGM supporter who believes that foreskin causes homosexuality.

    The foreskin protects the glans, interacts with the coronal ridge, provides extra skin for growth and produces a substance called langerin that destroys HIV.

    That is why the AIDS epidemic hit the US and Africa the hardest – those were the areas with the highest circumcision rate. Now HIV rates are going up in Africa because cut men are getting the impression that they’re totally immune to HIV.

  5. Epidemological studies in Europe are flawed. They do not take in account that Muslim boys have sex with non-Muslim girls, but not the other way around. So young people having sex is above average likely to involve a circumcised male.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s