Adult Circumcision

A young collogue of mine at the office will be married in about six months. He is Catholic; the prospective bride is Jewish. Yesterday, he confided in me that they had sex for the first time this past weekend. She discovered, apparently to her horror, that her prospective groom was uncircumcised. She is now insisting that he be circumcised prior to the wedding. He is freaking out, but wanted my opinion. I told him I give it some thought, although I thought at the time to myself that there would be no knife near my junk. Any opinions from the group would be appreciated. Thanks.

Personally, I think ritual circumcision is genital mutilation. Leaning on religion just doesn't make it right. They used to torture and burn people at the stake in the name of religion. That wasn't right either.

BTW, I'm Jewish and was circumcised as an infant.

Circumcision should never be a religious decision. I am uncircumcised, and have had no issues with my genitalia.

I am uncircumcised and nobody else in my family is either. I think that the bride needs to get used to the idea of a foreskin, particularly since, when he puts it in, it gets pushed back and for practical purposes is not there. Non-Jewish circumcision is widespread in this country because in the 19th century, it was seen as a way of preventing masturbation which was regarded as immoral and harmful, and all sorts of other negative things, none of which were, or are, true. The bride might talk with her gyn and ask him/her to explain things.

hankb

I dislike the idea that the bride to be would make such a big deal about her future husband getting circumcised. I would tell him to refuse her request. That being said, I much prefer the look of a circumcised penis.

A young collogue of mine at the office will be married in about six months. He is Catholic; the prospective bride is Jewish. Yesterday, he confided in me that they had sex for the first time this past weekend. She discovered, apparently to her horror, that her prospective groom was uncircumcised. She is now insisting that he be circumcised prior to the wedding. . . .

The time line of this description makes it appear that they decided to get married before they ever had sex. That is incomprehensible to me for a number of reasons.

My husband is circumcised, and I like a circumcised penis, but I think the bride-to-be is completely out of line insisting her future husband get circumcised and I don't think he should do it. She could ask him, but doing so should never be her decision.

While I agree that getting circumcised should be his decision and she shouldn't be insisting on it, I think it's fine for her to ask. Something to keep in mind is the reason it is so critical to her is that circumcision is the sign of the covenant between God and the Jews, according to their Scriptures. It's why the boys are circumcised on the eighth day. Having said that, if it IS that important to her, it would have been wiser to get engaged to someone who shares the same opinion/holds the same values.

It's interesting that his penis is more important to her than his religion. She should have selected a man of her faith. I wonder if they discussed the religious education of the children and how the household should be run, although in Judaism, the religion of the mother is the recognized religion of the children.

I wondered the same.

Blindside's "junk" has NOTHING to do with this situation!

His "collogue" [sic] should be talking to his fiancee rather than to other people, regardless of relationship or affiliation. While the idea of circumcision may be either religious or hygienic or both in her mind, it IS a valid issue in either case.

If he loves her enough, and otherwise believes he will spend the rest of his life with her, then circumcision MAY be a good decision. However, if he sees it as a petty "demand", they may as well break it off now rather than later...

I suppose there is a difference in having a frank discussion about something that one of the two prospective spouses finds important, or having one of the two drawing a line in the sand and demanding that something be done or else. There are reasonable demands and then there are outrageous demands as well, and frankly, when it comes to religion, so many demands end up being very unreasonable and utterly without much basis in fact of any kind. It's all just custom, handed down generation after generation, but without ever questioning the purpose of it all.

In this instance, if there is no agreement about conversion to his prospective wife's faith, then I'd say the demand is utterly unreasonable. Proof that the bride-to-be cannot even conceive of valid issues outside her own (narrow) religious upbringing. And if it's not circumcision, what will the next inconceivable thing be that is religiously related?

I wonder what the bride-to-be would have done had the future husband insisted on her being infibulated prior to marriage or having a nasal plug to state just one rather pointless social custom in some cultures? Or herself being circumcised - also a religious/social requirement/custom in some cultures.

Whoever first thought up the whole circumcision thing way back in the mists of time, sure has a lot to answer for. The arrogance alone of insisting that a bronze age ritual still be performed in modern times is something I wonder that people still accept. Don't they know how to take a small step outside the socio-cultural box and look back in, to consider the possible folly of some beliefs?

This raises so many questions.

1) Why does she want him to have a procedure for non-surgical reasons. My ex boss had it done and he said he he has never been in so much pain in his life.

2) What right does she have putting her religious beliefs on to him.

3) I do not know of any religion that does not have a base rule of no sex before marriage, and yet she has such religious beliefs that she was willing to forget this rule.

And on a personnel note, why are babies circumcised anyway. What right does any parent have to put their religious beliefs on someone that is too young to agree and the procedure is non-reversible.

I seem to recall a news story way back when about Jews escaping Soviet Russia. In the USSR, they had never been circumcised due to necessary secrecy. On entry to the US, they chose to comply with religious convention. As adults, the story indicated, instead of a full, traditional circumcision, these men had a small snip of skin removed under local anesthesia. This way, they felt acclimated but without the inherent danger of real surgery.

Just a thought.

I seem to recall a news story way back when about Jews escaping Soviet Russia. In the USSR, they had never been circumcised due to necessary secrecy. On entry to the US, they chose to comply with religious convention. As adults, the story indicated, instead of a full, traditional circumcision, these men had a small snip of skin removed under local anesthesia. This way, they felt acclimated but without the inherent danger of real surgery.

Sounds to me like a sneaky way to circumvent an albeit religious and therefore arbitrary law, but still a requirement to them if they wish to comply fully to their social and religious obligations ... ha ha.

A friend of mine, an uncircumcised Christian, wanted to marry an Indonesian lady who is Muslim. Her family would not agree to the marriage unless he converted to Islam and was circumcised. He agreed. The big problem for him was the requirement that the woman's mother and sister observe the operation to prove that he was sincere. They watched while my friend had his public hair shaved, complemented him on the size of his penis when he developed an erection, and soothed him when he was given painful novacaine injections in his foreskin (which solved the erection problem). He was very embarrassed but later said that it was all worth it. They are happily married now.

Her family would not agree to the marriage unless he converted to Islam and was circumcised. He agreed. The big problem for him was the requirement that the woman's mother and sister observe the operation to prove that he was sincere.

Letting a family place their demands on a marriage is about on the same level as having one of the spouses do so, but then adding so many more layers of complexity to all the demands and obligations.

And it seems rather odd to me that a circumcision should be observed by female family members, rather than male. Isn't there a bit of dichotomy between the obligation that females comport themselves in a chaste and subservient manner and looking at something that isn't any of their business in the first place? I wonder how that is justified?

Alhough it sounds unlikely it is fairly common practice in Muslim countries for the financee's close female relatives to observe the circumcision of a finance converting to Islam. I know 2 formerly Chrisitian guys who have gone though this when marrying into families in Middle East. Both have, in my opinion, played down the pain and embarrassment of the operation...

Letting a family place their demands on a marriage is about on the same level as having one of the spouses do so, but then adding so many more layers of complexity to all the demands and obligations.

And it seems rather odd to me that a circumcision should be observed by female family members, rather than male. Isn't there a bit of dichotomy between the obligation that females comport themselves in a chaste and subservient manner and looking at something that isn't any of their business in the first place? I wonder how that is justified?

I understand that as the religion is passed from mother to offspring. I don't agree, but I understand.

What strikes me as unusual is that local anesthesia for circumcision is a nerve block at the base of the penis.

I understand that as the religion is passed from mother to offspring. I don't agree, but I understand.

Oh I understand the lineage thing, which makes sense as there is little dispute over who one's mother is, compared to the possible candidates for fatherhood. Makes sense in a way ...

But I was commenting on the otherwise so prudish habits of those religions concerning sexuality of any kind, certainly about the mixed company thing they have regarding males and females. And then it is thought normal to be an opposite gender spectator at a circumcision ... I don't see how it rhymes. Not my concern of course, but I do like it when things have a direct and linear causation. Not when a culture is all over the place with contradictions and exceptions ... that can be so confusing ...

I understand your friend , I didn't get cut till I was 49. I did it for my wife and it was the wrong thing for me . I lost alot of feeling in my penis ,I thought that it would enhance our sex life but it didn't. men do crazy things for love...

For a consenting adult the issue is a personal decision. In a relationship one does things for the good of the relationship that one might not do solo. So in this case I guess my feeling is that it's up to him. There are different issues with respect to children, although I don't think it is an easy question.

But the practice, and the fact that it is intertwined with religious beliefs and rituals makes it a complex subject. I once heard (expounded from a pulpit no less) that the practice of male circumcision probably developed so that the tribe would always appear virile and strong in comparison with its enemies.

He should absolutely get it done, I had it done as an adult and LOVE the outcome, it makes things so much nicer.

Wetandfun I know there are a lot of circumcised men who think it is driedupandnotfun because they got a different experience of circumcision to you. I think you are happy with how it went for you but that does not mean it always be the same for other men.

I looked at the date on the first post and it was June 2014. He will be married to her now or not and will have been circumcised or not so there is no point advising him now is there?

I think it was really unkind of the Jewish bride to act like that just because her man had his foreskin. I think if you love a man you love him and you do not act like that and offend him.

I once heard (expounded from a pulpit no less) that the practice of male circumcision probably developed so that the tribe would always appear virile and strong in comparison with its enemies.

Historical sources, from Antiquity on, often explained circumcision as a religious rite that was imposed on a (priestly) caste as a sign of adherence and also as a manner of showing an outward sign of chastity and renouncement of sexual activity. This was apparently the case at times in Pharonic Egypt. If one belonged to the privileged priestly class, circumcision was often mandatory as a means of showing commitment to serving the Gods - and not the pleasures of the Earthly flesh.

In other words, it was meant to show subjugation and lack of sexual activity. Also consider that in Antiquity, circumcision was rare,confined to Jews, certain classes in Egypt and what were considered to be barbarian peoples, outside the realm of the civilized world. So the tribal explanation would all depend on what one particular tribe thought about the subject. If they practiced circumcision, it was obviously great. If they didn't, those who did were barbarians.

Of course there are so many reasons stated, that it is possible to pick and choose whichever suits a person's particular fancy and cultural surroundings. But there being so many contradictory and conflicting reasons given, it is difficult to point to any one reason.

I think it was really unkind of the Jewish bride to act like that just because her man had his foreskin. I think if you love a man you love him and you do not act like that and offend him.

This isn't only the case with mixed Jewish-Gentile marriages, but also something that crops up in Europe with mixed Muslim-non Muslim marriages.

There seems to be a belief and dynamic that circumcision should always trump the other person's persuasion, that it is a non-negotiable condition. I've always found that insistence to be somewhat scary. It makes one wonder: if circumcision is non-negotiable, then what else is as well?

You know so much about this agracier. Yeah I see that for the Egyptians it was to show they were rejecting sex and serving gods instead.

Every day on zity I learn something.

I see now why Jews get circumcised. Is that why it is so popular in America then? Is it something that got introduced by them?

I see now why Jews get circumcised. Is that why it is so popular in America then? Is it something that got introduced by them?

Right. The accepted explanation is that Jews copied the practice from the higher Egyptian classes during their period of bondage. But as usually with cultural practices, things mutated somewhat and it became mandatory instead of just a sign of distinction. And explanations also mutated, from it being thought to suppress sexual feelings to oppositely enhancing them.

Just goes to show that people can construct any kind of explanation they wish to fit their preconceived views.

In the US there is a different reason since Christianity since very early on, was quite strict in its injunction NOT to circumcise. One, because the church, upon being accepted by Roman authorities, wanted to emphasize its connections with the large world of Hellenized Rome where circumcision was thought to be barbaric. And also to emphasize its difference from Judaism. And when Islam came on to the historical scene in the 7th and 8th centuries with its circumcised warriors, the urge to be different was only emphasized anew.

The American obsession and acceptance with circumcision apparently mainly arose in the late 19th century, when ideas about masturbation causing all manner of physical and mental ills and criminal behavior, somehow gained traction among the general (mainly Protestant) population. It was also a way of differentiating native born Americans from recent Catholic immigrants, who were in the main not circumcised. Enter con men and less than scrupulous physicians like the beloved John Harvey Kellogg who promoted sexual abstinence and abhorred masturbation, and the ball was rolling.

Circumcising was also a very tidy source of income for many doctors. Many who very well thought it beneficial, but who certainly appreciated the cash it generated. Children were always being born - often at home without doctor's assistance - but circumcising was not done at home.

Then later, during the 20th century world wars and general induction of able bodied men into the American Armed Forces, it was relatively easy to require circumcision to be mandatory. This because it was thought to be more hygienic and to prevent sexual desires and the spread of VD. After WWII it became virtually universal in the US because of a combination of all of the previous reasons. Also because of ignorance of the alternative and people simply believing males had always been circumcised. Which is truly incorrect from a historical point of view.

Why, even during his (second?) presidential campaign in the early 1900's, Theodore Roosevelt thought it an insult to call someone a 'circumcised skunk'. That is not an indication that circumcision was widespread back then.

So, it is a very recent development in the US, though one would not think so given the zeal of those who defend and encourage the practice.

Just imagine if you will: all of the semi-canonized Founding Fathers were intact, as well as the boys in blue and gray and their brave generals who fought so passionately to make the US the nation it is today. It's something to ponder on .... 😃

My husband told me he thought Kellogg was insane.

Did Kellogg think sex was for animals then and by abstaining from it humans were showing they were above animals?

My husband told me he thought Kellogg was insane. Did Kellogg think sex was for animals then and by abstaining from it humans were showing they were above animals?

Who knows what he really thought? But there must have been some kind of illogical issue to his thinking cause how else would the human race be propagated?

Then again he was consistent with his belief in sex being debilitating in that he and his wife never had children of their own, they adopted many - which is admirable in itself. Though I do shudder to think what kind of household he provided ...

Then again he was consistent with his belief in sex being debilitating in that he and his wife never had children of their own, they adopted many - which is admirable in itself. Though I do shudder to think what kind of household he provided ...

Well I do not think it would have been a very warm and loving household. If he thought it was a really good idea to put carbolic acid on girls clitorises and circumcise boys he sounds a tyrant.