“There is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised,” God commands Abraham , the Jewish patriarch (Genesis 17:11). “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Jesus revised guidance by saying circumcision of no avail (Romans 2:25-29).
All three Abrahamic faiths (less so for Christianity) believe in circumcision. It is believed that if the male child had no circumcision, something negative would happen to the boy or the child would not be “saved.” Contrary to such beliefs, circumcision is not a practice in Dharmic traditions. Hindu sages would probably have labeled it Himsa (violence).
The American Pediatric Association has not recommended universal newborn circumcision, though they have cited benefits over risks. Further, they have stated that the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families and that circumcision is an elective procedure. Most other international health authorities also have not recommended routine circumcision.
Benefit of circumcision has been cited for people living in unhygienic condition. However, there is no major medical issue noted for Japanese individuals, where the circumcision rate is less than 1%. Further, we are not aware of major issues for the millions of Hindus, especially those who are living in reasonably hygienic conditions. In the USA, the overall rate of circumcision is declining. For example, in the Western US, the rate of circumcision in newborns dropped in the last 32 years from 64% to 40%.
Benefit of circumcision has been cited in reducing HIV infection rates, however for an individual a condom will be far superior protector then being confident about your circumcision. A child born with defect on the foreskin (phimosis) should be appropriately treated. However, for others, to have foreskin on the penis is not a birth defect to be surgically corrected, rather the foreskin has abundant nerve endings designed to increase sexual sensation. Further, one study using 5552 men found that circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties (11% verses 4%) and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment (38% verses 28%). When in doubt, why give pain to a just born child? Why create doubt on God’s creation of skin over the penis?
One need to keep in mind that the painful procedure of circumcision done to a child is (1) done without his consent, (2) is a violation of his human right, and (3) may have negative psychological and emotional consequences. If in doubt about scientific merits, parents should let the child decide at an adult age about the circumcision.
Bottom line, for scientific merits, the jury is still out. If it is a matter of faith, an interfaith couple should decide whose faith will rule their married life.
Other reading materials:
A MUST watch video: http://nocirc.org/
Danish Doctors’ Group Wants to End Circumcision for Boys
http://www.noharmm.org/research.htm
http://www.sfmgmbill.org/Site/Home.html
San Francisco Bay area: The latest figures indicate that 90% of San Francisco Bay Area infants leave the hospital after birth intact (without circumcision).
Jewish movements against circumcision: Beyond the Bris: Jewish Intactivist Parenting Blog; Ending Circumcision in the Jewish Community?; The Kindest Un-Cut Feminism, Judaism, and My Son’s Foreskin; Being rational about circumcision and Jewish observance; Alternative Rituals; A Jewish Woman Denounces Circumcision; Gonnen – Protect the Child; Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation; Jews Against Circumcision; Questioning Circumcision.
Islam prohibits circumcision:http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html “Allah tells us that He has created human beings perfectly. This means when a baby leaves the mother’s womb, he or she is in the most perfect of shape down to the finest detail. Nothing needs alteration.”
Frisch et al., 2011: This new study in Denmark revealed that circumcision was associated with frequent organism diffuclties in men and with a variety of frequent sexual difficulties in women….
The Wall Street Journal Article: Here the author implies some benefits of circumcision. During sexual intercourse, the delicate foreskin may be cut and bruised leaving uncircumcised men more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and herpes that spread through breaks in the skin. Further, the cuts may also make uncircumcised men more vulnerable to HIV infection. However, the circumcision is not a preferred method of preventing sexually transmitted diseases. A rational option is to simply use a condom because even circumcised penises get sexually transmitted diseases.
Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis This article makes a strong case for benefit of male circumcision for a rare disease, the penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer in the USA (~70% circumcision) was 0.00081%. In the developing countried penile cancer rates are higher. Cases of penile cancer in India (0.002-0.01%) and Brazil (0.006-0.014%) are higher where most men are uncircumcised. However the rate of penile cancer in Denmark (2% circumcision) was lower compared to the USA. Amongs factors contributing to penile cancer, circumcision is the most determinant factor.
Wikipedia on Circumcision, a good source of general information.
Positions of medical associations:
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures. (The CDC have not yet made any final recommendations regarding circumcision.)
Australasia
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.”
Canada
The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted “Neonatal circumcision revisited” in 1996 and “Circumcision: Information for Parents” in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed”, and the 2004 information to parents says: ‘Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. […] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.’
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.
United Kingdom
“Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes “ritual”) circumcision. Some people ask for non-therapeutic circumcision for religious reasons, some to incorporate a child into a community, and some want their sons to be like their fathers. Circumcision is a defining feature of some faiths”.
The BMA stipulates that “competent children may decide for themselves; the wishes that children express must be taken into account; if parents disagree, non-therapeutic circumcision must not be carried out without the leave of a court; consent should be confirmed in writing”.
“In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”
United States
The American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) stated: “After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.”
The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.
The circumcision debate
http://www.doctorgeorge.com/article.php?sid=78&mode=thread&order=0
I have three young sons and thus far, not one of them has been circumcised—not out of choice but out of indecision. This circumcision issue has actually become a long-running debate between my husband and me. To cut or not to cut, that is the question.
Circumcision is the surgical removal of the penis’ foreskin. For some groups, like the Jews and the Moslems, circumcision is seen as a religious rite. Others see it as a boy’s passage to manhood circumcising young lads at the cusp of adolescence. Still others practice circumcision because of health reasons. We’ve enumerated the various reasons for and against this delicate practice.
You decide.
Issue: Circumcision alleviates phimosis
FOR
A good medical reason to perform a circumcision is phimosis, a rare external congenital condition, which involves an abnormal tightness at the tip of the foreskin. Phimosis may obstruct the stream of urine causing urine to dribble out or spray in different directions. Urine could also accumulate between the tight foreskin and glans making these organs susceptible to infection. Normal sexual development may prove difficult.
AGAINST
Phimosis is an extremely rare condition. What’s more, the foreskin protects the glans from urine, stool, and external irritation. Some concerned groups see circumcision as a cosmetic procedure like ear piercing or lip stretching.
Issue: Circumcision minimizes the occurrence of urinary tract infections
FOR
Several studies of male babies in the 1970s and 1980s conclude that uncircumcised infants and children have a significantly higher incidence of urinary tract infections than circumcised males. The studies assert that the removal of the foreskin facilitates genital hygiene and reduces contamination of the tip of the glans, thus reducing the chances of an ascending bladder or kidney infection.
AGAINST
The incidence of urinary tract infections among uncircumcised male babies is too minimal as to warrant circumcision for all. The best way to prevent infections is to practice proper hygiene habits. Furthermore, circumcision exposes the tip of the penis to urine-soaked diapers that may irritate the glans.
Issue: Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases
FOR
During sexual intercourse, the delicate foreskin may be cut and bruised leaving uncircumcised men more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and herpes that spread through breaks in the skin. The cuts may also make uncircumcised men more vulnerable to HIV infection.
AGAINST
Circumcision is not the real answer to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Using condoms and limiting the number of sexual partners have proven to be more effective in reducing the occurrence of STD. Even circumcised penises get sexually transmitted diseases. There are a lot of other factors to consider including access to medical care, geographical location, lifestyle, race, and socioeconomic factors.
Issue: Circumcision eliminates the possibility of cancer of the penis.
FOR
Cancer of the penis occurs almost exclusively among uncircumcised men. Some doctors also believe that cancer of the uterine cervix is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
AGAINST
The incidence of penile cancer is so low that routine newborn circumcision is not warranted. Other factors such as hygiene, family history, and sexual history are equally important in the incidence of penile cancer.
Further, asserting that females with circumcised partners have a lesser chance of contracting cervical cancer seems very far-fetched. There are weightier risk factors associated with cervical cancer such as age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners, possible viral transmission, family history, nutrition and hygiene.
Issue: Circumcision is a safe procedure.
FOR
Circumcision is a simple and safe procedure. Complications such as infection and bleeding are usually minor and preventable. Bleeding can be controlled with pressure or rarely, with a suture. Good hygiene will control infection. Marking how much skin to take off before doing the procedure ensures that the correct amount of foreskin is removed.
AGAINST
Circumcision is a potentially dangerous procedure. Excessive bleeding is the most frequent complication. Infections can occur. And if insufficient skin is removed, the end ring of the foreskin may heal by contracting and thickening, thus producing a phimosis.
Issue: Infants hardly feel the pain of circumcision.
FOR
The pain associated with circumcision lasts only for a few short minutes. Infants hardly feel it. Pacifiers seem to do the trick of alleviating the baby’s pain.
AGAINST
Infants do feel the pain especially those circumcised without anesthesia.
Issue: Circumcision is cost-effective.
It’s a cost-efficient procedure because it results to savings in a national scale by preventing penile cancer and eliminating the need for later, more costly, circumcision or phimosis and infection.
AGAINST
Some health insurers and welfare programs refuse to pay for or reimburse for a routine circumcision. In reality, the cost of neonatal circumcision far exceeds the benefits.
Issue: Boys want to look like other boys.
FOR
Since a lot of newborn males are still being circumcised, other boys want to look like the majority and like their fathers. Other boys might tease uncircumcised boys because the appearance of their genitals is different.
AGAINST
There are a lot more uncircumcised boys now than a few years ago.
Slice of life: the circumcision debate :
A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil’s Storehouse of Human Knowledge
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/874/slice-of-life-the-circumcision-debate
.
Also read if in relations with a Christian: Hindu-Christian Marriage, Will Gandhi go to Hell since he was not Baptized?, Bible on Hindus?, Idol-Worshippers, I am a Christian mother, I converted without knowledge of my family, I am Christian getting married to a Hindu, Do all Christians go to Heaven?, Ignorent Molly trying to convert a Krishna believer to Christianity ..a video, Namastey London movie…intolerant Christians ..a video, All religions are not same, A Hindu America?, Why I am a Hindu?, A fundamentalist Christian, Why I came back to Hinduism?, Dharma is not the same as religion, Text book on How to convert Hindu Students to Christianity,
Also read if in relationship with a Muslim: Islamic Women Today, Muta, HRS, wife-beating, Muhammad, Hadith, Koran, Inter-race marriages, Hindu-Muslim marriages, Hindu girl/boy, Muslim girl/boy, Christian-Muslim marriages,
Be a friend on Facebook. Return to InterfaithShaadi.org. To share your experience, read.
My parents want her to convert for a church marriage
When a study or research is conducted we do not know about the bias of the person or institution performing it. So when a research claims that risk of HIV transmissions is reduced in circumcised males they blatantly overlook the fact that during the AIDS epidemic in USA 85% of the American males were circumcised. Which would make anyone question the intent of the study where claims are made of the reduced risk of HIV transmissions in males.
Personally I feel that it is the decision of the individual himself. But claiming that it is the scientific and right way to go reminds me of the fox that lost its tail and told the other foxes what a great advantage it was till it got foxed itself.
Human beings can live without many organs like appendix, kidney, colon which might be removed for medical reasons but if anyone claims that it would be the right thing to do to a newborn in order to avoid medical complicacies in future is outright ridiculous and insane.
Lastly these were ideas and practices of a human beings who are at the least a millenia and a half behind the modern day humans and had no idea as to what kind of living conditions the inhabitants of other locales might be living in but science and medicines have developed since then. But we are not prepared to open our minds, get above our biases, utilize logic, process the scientific information and do away with what needs to be done away with.
Hence, To chop off or not to chop off foreskins that is still the problem.
You have made great points, thank you for sharing your views.
Must watch the video to the end to see how much agony the baby is undergoing due to circumcision. I could not see it till the end. You guys try and see if you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lvu9hmTMyo&list=PLW_MULQ84Mu2xBttCDlqDBlIW-2VzddsO&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-Lvu9hmTMyo%26list%3DPLW_MULQ84Mu2xBttCDlqDBlIW-2VzddsO&has_verified=1
…………….There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in high-risk populations.[10][32] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows an absolute decrease in risk of 1.8% which is a relative decrease of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years,[10] and in this population studies rate it cost effective.[11] Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined.[33]…………….
Here is the wikipedia link which gives complete details about Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
We are clearly aware of this but remember the critical word “high-risk populations”. For this reason, we have carefully worded our statement as ” a billion plus of uncircumcised Hindus around the World, especially living in reasonable hygienic conditions.”
Circumcision, some facts:
1.USA: dropped from 90% (50 years ago) to 45% at present.
Reason of circumcision – 1) Like father like son and – 2) Doctors recommend as they are paid for the procedure
2. Japan: Zero percent (No less developed country than USA)
3. Europe, Canada and Australia: 90% (50 years ago) 25% at present
4. Non Muslim Asia: Less than 1%
5. South America: Less than 10%
It shouldn’t be surprising to see the Christians and the Jews practicing circumcision as all the Abrahamics are supposed to follow this practice. The Jews started it and the Christians and the Muslims followed in that order. So, it’s not the Muslims who started this practice, but they carried on this practice passed on to them by their chronologically preceding religion. Traditionally, the reason is not medical but it’s the mark of their association with the God.
With each passing year, more and more people are coming against this practice in North America and consider it as an inhuman and torturous practice. It’s also considered grossly and irreversibly disfiguring someone’s organ without his permission and before his adulthood. Mind it, once done, circumcision cannot be undone. The child will have to live all his life with it. Many of the adults are complaining against this when they grow up. So, whatever the remainder of the populace is practicing now is mostly less educated and traditional.
None is under any obligation to accept the facts written above. My intention is to motivate others to do their own research and take decision based on the facts, not based on some malicious fiction. Those claiming to follow humanity, must wait until the child has attained adulthood and is in a position to decide his own course of life.
Hello every one,
Female circumcision, otherwise referred to as female genital mutilation by critics, involves surgery on a young woman’s clitoris, major and minor labia, and is considered a culturally significant practice in many African countries. The practice has a longstanding history, and is said to be one of the most significant rites of passage young women undergo. This, however, does not protect it from being considered by most of the world, myself included, as a brutal, inhumane act that destroys an important aspect of female sexuality.
Unlike male circumcision, women who undergo this procedure experience compromises in their physical and sexual health. In the most extreme form of female circumcision, referred to as infibulation, the entire clitoris and most of the major and minor labia are completely removed, often with unsterilized scissors, razor blades, and other non-surgical cutting tools. Opponents of banning this practice state that it has important religious, marital, and health benefits. These claims, however, have largely been debunked through basic sociological, anthropological, and medical knowledge.
The first claim of this practice is that it fulfills an important religious requirement. Most of the people practicing this ritual are Muslim, however the Koran makes no mention of removing components of female genitalia. The Koran says, “Reduce, but do not destroy,” but destruction is exactly what is happening to the genitals of young women in these countries. No commands were ever made by the Prophet that women need to be circumcised. I find this ironic-religion is referenced as the number one reason, yet the religion makes no mention of female circumcision to the extent that it is being carried out. This misinterpretation has resulted in crude mutilation with minimal religious relevance.
The second claim is that it preserves group identity. This may be true, but that is only because it is considered a cultural norm. In these patriarchal societies, women are considered inferior by many of the men if they are not circumcised. Naturally, most women have come to see this as a requirement should they ever want to wed, thus perpetuating the perceived need to undergo the procedure. I see this as an example of how male domination, and the resulting female submission, has normalized a disabling, oppressive, medically unsafe act under the guise of a rite of passage.
The third major claim is that the procedure helps to maintain cleanliness and health. This is simply not true. Due to a lack of health education in these countries, the cause-and-effect connection is not drawn in that surgically removing components of female genitalia actually compromises health: it leads to constant infection, reproductive complications, and, in many cases, death of the woman. I understand that our health education is more comprehensive and scientifically based in the Western world than in the African countries and cultures that practice female circumcision, but when there is resistance in the presence of such facts, which have been made available to these cultures, I see it as denial and reluctance to change based on preserving tradition.
People who practice female circumcision fail to realize that removal of one’s genitals does not eliminate sexual desire or further marriage goals through its promise of chastity-it only eliminates the ability to have an orgasm. Desire to achieve sexual satisfaction does not diminish for the woman. In fact, many women end up having multiple partners due to the inability to achieve sexual gratification. In essence, female circumcision’s Western equivalent is Abstinence-Only Education, which is largely considered a failure. Additionally, preserving family honor is not a strong enough reason to protect this act from being banned. Many cultures used to perform mercy killings of their daughters under the excuse of restoring family honor, especially in the case of infidelity or other perceived atrocities, yet this is now banned as murder is illegal worldwide. Why can’t local governments advocate for the welfare of their women and ban this act as well?
Opponents of banning female circumcision, such as those made by P. Masila Mutisya as featured in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Human Sexuality, argue that prohibiting this rite of passage is an example of Western cultural imperialism. I wholeheartedly disagree-protecting the welfare of humans from dangerous, disabling surgical procedures is a humanitarian responsibility. The practitioners and countries who hold this ritual as culturally significant are misinformed about what it does to the female body, as most of their claims have been debunked by science and sexual knowledge-they are not criminals; they are simply operating from a medically naive standpoint.
Mutisya also argues that Western culture is practically devoid of all rites of passage, with the exception of marriage and death rituals. This ethnocentric response undermines the Western culture and discredits humane rites of passage. It also fails to recognize many other healthy, humane rights of passage such as first haircuts, high school and college graduation, and Coming of Age ceremonies (Unitarian Universalism). Mutisya is attempting to argue that Western people cannot relate to the importance of these African rites of passage, yet he fails to realize that almost every culture has them in some form or another.
While I do acknowledge the important passage female circumcision represents-the transition from a girl to a woman-I believe the practice does not take into account the welfare of the women. As the author in favor of prohibition says, “We all share common goals like the desirability of promoting people’s health, happiness, opportunities, and cooperation, and the wisdom of stopping…torture and exploitation. These common goals make up a world community (Kopelman, 1994).” What she means by this is that we need to assess and address the harm this procedure is causing to young women, put culture aside, and intervene. A ban on such practices will not have the effects that Mutisya says it will-it will not break a culture apart; it will allow compensatory rituals to be decided and instated by the practicing cultures that are more humane.
Legally and ethically, I do believe female genital mutilation should be banned, but I am aware of the cultural need to recognize a female’s coming-of-age. Though I disagree with the practice, I am not strongly opposed to the pricking of the clitoris or labia as a means of recognizing a transition from adolescence to adulthood, so long as there are not any long-term effects, and that it is performed in a sanitary manner. The complete removal of the clitoris as in type 2 and 3 circumcision, however, is abusive, unnecessary, and needs to change. I am grateful for the efforts of human rights campaigns, but I strongly believe any change short of a ban needs to come from a prominent voice within the culture as outside influences have failed thus far.
The legacy of female circumcision is not to be revered-it is to be challenged against modern ethical principles, changing worldviews, and humanitarian movements. Even the most conservative world religions have adapted to societal changes, so there is no reason practicing cultures should continue to perform these detrimental acts in the face of well-substantiated opposition. If practitioners of infibulation knew the facts and accepted the science, they would realize that it is not only failing to accomplish the goals it was originally intended to, it is compromising the health of a very important half of their population. I believe even the most patriarchal societies care about protecting the life of their women; the argument simply needs to be repackaged in a culturally sensitive way, and come from within, so that these humanitarian efforts can prevail
You know what?
You know what?!
You know what?!!
Screw Medical Corporate Science. Mutilation is wrong. Parents shouldn’t have a right on a sexual and urinary organ.
Religion should be banned.
HOW MANY WIVES LORD KRISHNA, BRAHMA, SHIVA, VENKATESHWARA HAD????
They all had more than 1 wife. Except Lord RAMA every Hindu lord has more than one wife.
I WILL EXPLAIN THEIR VULGARITY ABOUT SEXUAL DESIRES HERE:
LORD SHIVA:
God Shiva had two wives-Ganga and Parwati. It was while Shiva was frolicking and making love with Parwati in the forest in the form of elephants that Ganapati, the god with the head of an elephant was born. On another occasion when Shiva was frolicking with Parwati in the form of a monkey, Hanuman the monkey god was born.
Once when Parwati was away, Shiva had sexual inter course with a woman called Madhura, who came to Kailas to worship him. On her return, Parwati saw her husband Shiva making love with Madhura, and she became a frog. When the period of the curse was over after twelve years, the frog took the form of Mandodari who became the wife of Ravana, the ten-headed king of Lanka. The sperm of Shiva which remained dormant in the womb of Mandodari when the was frog began to develop, and finally gave birth to Indrajit. Thus, the so-called son of Ravana-Indrajit of Lanka-was an intelligence son of Shiva.
One thing I want to tell U abt CIRCUMCISION that before my marriage I had a muslim Boyfriend,
I had sex with my muslim boyfriend 4-5 times, when we used to do sex I used to enjoy a lot n very satisfied with him bcoz he had circumcision to his P***s, which my husband doesn’t have (circumcision) n I don’t enjoy much while doing sex with my husband bcoz he doesnt have circumcision,
I still miss the enjoyment of sex with my BF,
He used to say me that the circumcision will protect him from Aids etc diseases,
So don’t ever tell anyone not to do circumcision, bcoz we women like circumcision P***s
Understand ?
Poonam,
There are many factors involved in satisfaction in the sex life. An individual experience does not prove science, read this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947. This scientific study of 5552 subject found that…
RESULTS:
Age at first intercourse, perceived importance of a good sex life and current sexual activity differed little between circumcised and uncircumcised men or between women with circumcised and uncircumcised spouses. However, circumcised men reported more partners and were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors [11 vs 4%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-7.47], and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment (38 vs 28%, OR(adj) = 2.09; 95% CI 1.05-4.16) and frequent sexual function difficulties overall (31 vs 22%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% CI 1.15-9.27), notably orgasm difficulties (19 vs 14%, OR(adj) = 2.66; 95% CI 1.07-6.66) and dyspareunia (12 vs 3%, OR(adj) = 8.45; 95% CI 3.01-23.74). Findings were stable in several robustness analyses, including one restricted to non-Jews and non-Moslems.
Further, sex is not as much as a mechanical but a mental game. It is possible that you may have failed in providing sex to your husband because while having sex with him, you were thinking of your former. Who knows even your husband was dreaming of his former?? If you are already married, it is not worth breaking the marriage just because your former was little better in sex. Instead, get phycological consultation and it will help gain more.
Poonam, what are you recommending to our readers? Are you going to tell your daughter to have sex with at least 10 guys and then marry to the one who performs the best sex?
I wholeheartedly agree with Poonam.Circumcision is essential for good, healthy and fulfilling sex.Once the man is circumcised its a boon both to him and his female partner.Girls should speak out in favour of it
I wholeheartedly agree with Poonam.Circumcision is essential for good sex
Read this, real barbaric tribal custom.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19256839
@ Mehboob,
Read this:
http://mensightmagazine.com/articles/northrup/lovecirc.htm
HOW MALE CIRCUMCISION MAY BE AFFECTING YOUR LOVE LIFE
Pure medical research.
Above report also says that so called health benefits are zero.
There may be some scientific merits to the circumcision; however the parents should think of the risks and benefits of any surgery to a new born. Further, a Dharmic parent has to think of what is the real intention behind the recommendation of circumcision by someone else (religious belief, financial interest, etc.).
As summarized here, no compelling argument could be made for circumcision. In other words, for scientific merits, flip a coin. American Academy of Pediatrics’ conclusion that “data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision” is sufficient now for scientific merits.
If a surgeon tells you that your heart one artery is 50% blocked, you are at a 50% risk of heart attack and should go for a by-pass surgery NOW. Would you not go home and think for a while before deciding? What that surgeon or hospital may not have told you that 1) they have financial interest in performing the surgery, 2) there is no immediate risk this month and that 3) if you control your diet and increase exercise, the plaque may reduce over time and one could avoid a surgery. Likewise, why you would get into pressure from the hospital staff NOW when there is no compelling scientific merit to circumcision? Would not you take your son home intact and take weeks to think before cutting him?
When it comes to “science,” one need to ask if the “Biblical Science” is being discussed here? The Abrahamics’ God told that 1) the Earth is the center of the Universe; 2) HE created the earth in 2+4 days and 3) every male shall be circumcised (1943 BCE). You may believe in the “other science” of 1) Galileo (was impressed for telling truth!!), 2) Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (Origin of Species, 1859 CE) and 3) American Academy of Pediatrics’ conclusion (1999), respectively, over the God’s science.
An interfaith couple has to be clear…..is the circumcision decision a matter of Science or Superstition? If a Dharmic spouse believes in scientific merits of circumcision, but do not want to support religious dogma of the Abrahamic partner; plan circumcision months after child birth and not link it to the BBS rituals.
Jew-Hindu couples, read this http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/evolving-jewish-practices.html#comments
The medical industry in the USA pushes circumcision relentlessly. I have personally experienced it when my first grandson was born in 2010. When my daughter was in the hospital having just delivered a baby boy, every time a doctor, nurse or the “lactation specialist” came to visit her, they would invariably ask, “So, have you made a decision yet about circumcision?” After three days of this pressure on my daughter, a medical doctor herself, and my son-in-law, also a medical doctor, I came to the conclusion that the money made by someone by performing this procedure is the main motivation behind it.
It is quite interesting how the American cultural establishment rails against “female genial mutilation” performed in many African and/or Muslim countries as being barbaric, but they encourage “male genital mutilation”. What I fail to understand is that if the God of the Abrahamics is all powerful and merciful etc., why would He (for Abrahamics God is a male figure!) create baby boys with foreskin on? Makes you wonder! Also, if “man was created in God’s image”, I wonder if their God is circumcised too. Now about Genesis 17:11; as deals with God go, what did Abraham have to lose by agreeing to have the foreskin of all subsequently born defenceless few-days-old baby boys cut without their consent, and, without any anasthesia? I wonder if Abraham himself was circumcised. It is always easy to make a deal when you yourself don’t lose anything!
Every pregnant woman should think through this issue before delivery. It should be noted that every routine circumcision is (1) done without the consent of the baby-boy, (2) is a violation of his human right to make decisions about his own body, (3) is medically unnecessary, (4) cannot possibly have anything to do with one’s spirituality. If a boy is circumcised in his childhood, I would encourage the boy on the attainment of adulthood to sue his parents and the doctors who performed this unnecessary surgery when he was defenceless. One day the legal establishment will catch-up with this issue.
Mr. Dipak after reading your experiences and suggestion i want to reply you in very short and simple-
“YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT INDEED”