posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:34 PM
I think that there is enough interest in this area to make it profitable for people to have such redone and more and more men want such. It is a
matter of choice, these days, the problem is that doctors want such for babies born and some men do not want such. And this debate goes back
The history of such is as follows:
At first it was part of a religious movement, part of Judaism. Later it was done for ascetic reasons. Sometimes it was a medical necessity, as in
the case of King Louis XVI, where he was unable to get aroused or perform as his foreskin was too tight and caused him pain, and only after he had a
circumcision, that it allowed for him to be able to perform and have children with his wife. Later it was first on medical and then based on moral
arguments for such practice.
The origin of this practice is not known when it started. It was at one time believed to be a part of a religious sacrifice or a rite of passage. In
some, it was the marking of a slave, symbolic of castration. The earliest known accounts goes back to the time of ancient Egypt, during the 6th
dynasty, where it was seen as a religious ceremony . Later it was written that the Egyptians did such as a practice of cleanliness, and found it
better to be clean than comely. Some suggested it as used as part of a mark of being adult. In the Judaic cultures, it was part of a religious
practice, often known as the Abrahamic Covenant. Ancient Greeks considered it to be a form of mutilation, and the Romans did not see such as being
necessary. Even the Romans viewed this practice to be of some benefit, as it showed who as considered to be a Jew and who was not when it came to
In the United States, and in Europe, it was in 1855, that an English doctor, determined that it was best to prevent the spread of STD’s after doing
a study of the Jews of the country and those who were not, reflecting on the rates and spreading between 2 groups. It was not until the Victorian
age, that it was considered to be a virtue to be circumcised, as it was determined to do such would stop a male from masturbating. And would be a
cure for all sorts of diseases and conditions, of which non really had any bearing on if a man was or was not circumcised.
In the 1930’s the leading advocate for such a practice was none other than John Harvey Kellogg, and he believed that a man who is circumcised would
not be wanting to masturbate at all.
So there is the history of why circumcision. Now there are arguments for and against such practice, and the bottom line is this: The best argument
against such a procedure, is that those who are against it are correct, they were never given a choice, it was done at an early age. And in some
cases it was done wrong or caused problems later on in the person’s life. It should be a choice for the person, as it is their body and they have
to decide how they want, and like any kind of body modification, it has to be personal.
Some like that they were and that is fine, but let those who did not want such, go through such a procedure and determine if they want such or not.
It has to be a personal choice.