On Circumcision

[Gerr]

Frankly, I have never asked myself the question why God chose male circumcision to symbolize the man-God relationship until my wife asked me. I just accepted it as fact. Any thoughts?

Gerry

[cricket]

Lots. Not sure it's appropriate for me to discuss them in a public setting though.

[Gerr]

Since God chose the physically most intimate part of a man to put his reminder in, I personally see no objection to discussing the reasons.

Gerry

[Bravus]

I think there's something there about commitment: it's a scary procedure, and a permanent change, and definitely not something anyone would contemplate lightly.

It's tempting to think of it as a hygienic move too, for people who were going to be out in the desert away from liberal supplies of water for a long time. But it started way before the Exodus, and it seems more ritual than pragmatic somehow.

Perhaps God knew that men think with the little head at least as often as the big head...

And there were other reminders, like the phylacteries on the hands and forehead.

[Gerr]

My wife is going through the Bible & had just finished Joshua & is now in Judges. She became curious as to why Joshua had to circumcise all the males before they crossed the Jordan. [sounds like a symbolic for heart circumcision for all who must cross over into the heavenly Canaan?]. Then she noticed the up & down, up & down experiences of the Israelites in the time of the judges. It seems the biggest temptation for God's people before the Babylonian captivity was literal & spiritual adultery. Her thought was that God chose circumcision so that each time a male Israelite was tempted to commit adultery, the first thing he encounters whenever he took his private parts out is a reminder of his dedication to God. A very good observation, I think.

Gerry

[benherndon]

Under the heat of passion I don't think many people are going to analyse or philosophize----they're just going to 'get it'! I'm reminded as to why high school kids don't remember to use condoms? The school principal said, "When I can't get them to remember to bring a pencil to class, how can I expect them to remember to put on a condom in the heat of passion?"

Buuut....YES, I've wondered the same thing about circumcision. God told them to put the law on their foreheads and wear it on their clothes. Why didn't He tell them to Tatoo themselves as belonging to Him, being 'chosen'? But, I guess He didn't like tatoos either 'cause the heathen did tatoos. Isn't circumcision sort of a 'tatoo' in a way? Couldn't God have asked them to scarify their arm or faces like some tribes do in Africa. Why did HE pick out that part of man's anatomy?

Does the 'pot' ask the Potter?

From a practical point of view---the Jews did it on the 8th day. The kid screams but its over pretty quickly and he never remembers it.

Not so for the adults, like Abraham. It hurts and for a long time, too.

Remember the Jews who circumcised the Canaanites who wanted to apologize to them. The Jews said they would have to be circumcised. OK! It was done. Then on the 5th day or something like that, in the midst of their greatest pain, the Jews came in and killed them because the Canaanaites couldn't run very fast due to the pain. Just a little bit 'dirty' of the Jews--dont'you think?

Ben

[Stan]

When my father served in WW-2, and in a situation that you could not go to the local Hilton to shower, he said that they guys were not circumised had a lot more health problems in that area of their body. Some got to be very serious.

[Stan]

I can add one word

"OUCH"

[Pockey]

I'll add another word:

SMEGMA

[Robert]

God came to Abraham and said, "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised" (Gen 17:10) Notice the word “covenant”! We all know that Abraham was justified by faith not by works. In fact Abraham was under the New Covenant of grace. Yet we see God telling him to circumcise every male….Does this smack of works?

In Gal 3:17-18, Paul states the following: “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.”

Clearly Abraham was not under the Old Covenant! Then why did God instruct Abraham to do this strange act?

Let’s go to Gen 15:4-6 -- God came to Abraham and said, “A son coming from your own body will be your heir….Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them. Then he said to him, So shall your offspring be. Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”

Did Abraham really believe God? No! His wife, an instrument of unbelief, came to Abraham and said, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant….” [Gen 16:2]

What does good old Abraham do? He complied! How many of you guys would have past up another woman with the blessing of your wife?

So we see that Abraham really didn’t believe God on this issue. Instead of being counted righteous by faith he followed his wife’s program of works! Essentially he, Sarah and Hagar tried to HELP God produce “the child of promise”! How righteous of them….Now look at the problems in the Middle East.

Now it's time for a simple biological question:

How did Abraham conceive Ishmael??? More precisely what male tool did Abraham use to HELP God produce the so-called child of promise??? That’s right, his penis. [:"red"]Therefore the removal of the foreskin of the penis was representative or symbolic of having no confidence in the flesh, but rather in the promises of God. [/][see Phil 3:3] It, although a strange symbol, was a sign of righteousness by faith. Let’s look at this:

Romans 4:11 “He (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised."

You see Abraham already was righteous by faith before he was circumcised. This act did not justify him; rather it proved that his faith was in God. It was a sign of faith. What if Abraham would have said, “No way, I am going to be circumcised?” Wouldn’t that rebellion have been an act of unbelief???? Wouldn’t it have been a denial of “righteousness by faith” – and hence a legalistic gesture?

Yes, and what happens to those who harden their hearts against the message of justification or righteousness by faith? They will be lost – “they will cut off” (see Gen 17:14)

What did the Jews do with “circumcision”? Ah, they made it a condition of salvation….They took a symbol that stood for having no confidence in one’s works and made it a proud sign of salvation by works. Let’s look at this:

ACTS 15:1 AND some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved...." 5 But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

That is why Paul said, "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision [as a means of salvation], Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

[Robert]

[Stan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I'll add another word:

SMEGMA

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" />

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well you made me look THAT up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD [co-author of Say No to Circumcision] underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'" ("Where Is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision," by Paul M. Fleiss, MD, Mothering, Winter 1997)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Pockey]

LOL! I learn something new everyday.

[NormF]

Why circumcision and what was it based on? ....

Well, let me ask this question in reply: How much of this, where the present discussion citing presumed and/or suspected spiritual reasons, present considerations, and current evidences for the practice, is based on fact; and how much of circumcision was based on a very simple reality: the then-current practices of the various Caananite peoples?

I think the doing came first, and the why's accumulated later. Let me argue here regarding some of the evidence for what the former portion of the matter actually was.

Item: Etiology - according to the American Heritage Dictionary, these eight words share a common historical link:

• "TESTAMENT, (TESTIMONY); ATTEST, CONTEST, DETEST, OBTEST, PROTEST, TESTIFY, from Latin testis, a witness."

From the same source, the etiology of this word:

• TESTIS, "the reproductive gland in a male vertebrate, the source of spermatozoa and the androgens, normally occurring paired in an external scrotum in human beings and certain other mammals"

is

• "Latin, witness, testis. See TESTIFY."

Note the pairing of the words witness and testis; they are considered to be synonymous. And recall that in our time, to witness a document is to make a statement at least in part about its veracity.

Item: Genesis 24:1-9, the story of the search for a wife for Isaac, specifically, 24:2 "... put your hand under my thigh", and 24:9 "So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore an oath to him concerning this matter."

... from Strong's Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, Word: #3409, being the word translated "thigh" above -

• "yarek, from an unused root meaning to be soft; the thigh (from its fleshy softness; by euphemism, the generative parts; figuratively, a shank, flank, side:-- renderings in the Authorized Version that result from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew: body, loins, shaft, side, thigh."

  .

  [I left the Hebrew spelling and pronunciation characters out because they are not reproducible in this medium. All emphasis is as shown in Strong's. - NF]

In other words, in a manner not unlike the way we swear an oath today, by placing our hand on a Bible and stating our solemn declaration, promise, or vow, what actually happened back then was that an ancient in the days of Abraham held the testicles of the man who was receiving the covenent and swore by those testicles the verity of his oath.

"Thigh" as you can see, was a euphemism, in English in the King James Bible, and more than that, it merely aped usage that went way back into the ancient Hebrew. Neither the biblical translaters nor the Bible writers themselves could bring themselves to describe the deed as it actually was performed, with the literal words for what was done. Conceptualities and social expectations had changed too much in the intervening years between Abraham's doing and the putting of pen to scroll to even allow them to write such a thing, nor could those who followed, as it got translated - to a degree, somewhat akin to the Hebrew writers inability to fully and openly express the Tetragrammaton ("Yahweh"), either verbally or on parchment. Yet in both cases, they dare not say that either wasn't so or wasn't there; because for too long they had been known to be exactly thus by all their readers and adherents.

And no, this was not a fluke, an aberration, or a one-time event. It was the standard practice of the age. That fact needs to be emphasized. So standard was it, that ultimately the words related to it melded so completely into the language of the following times, into some of the most basic of concepts, that their origins were all but completely lost.

The final evidences for this are that the Christian Bible is divided at its most fundamental level by two covenents labeled, the "Old Testament", between God and the Israelites, and the "New Testament", made to the adopted sons and daughters of Abraham. This most basic of words, "testament", was used to describe the two most important facts of the Bible to Christian believers, and it came from the practices of Abraham's time. That, and the fact that the words with those origins are with us still today, having the derivitive meanings with which they are still possessed.

Should we then be surprised to find a link of equal or greater intensity between other physically proximate genitalia and the highest affirmation under heaven a man could make of loyalty to God? Nor could we, on the other hand, reasonably expect to find something arising out of an all new context rather than this? I think not. Especially when, in addition to the facts above, you consider the full meaning of the Hebrew word for circumcision:

... Strong's, Word #4135 -

• muwl, a primary root; to cut short, i.e. curtail (specifically, the prepuce, i.e. to circumcise); by implication, to blunt; figuratively, to destroy;--circumcise (-ing, selves), cut down (in pieces), destroy, -- rendering in the Authorized Version that result from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew: must needs."

As we might say in the legalese of today, "The lesser party of the second part yields completely and totally to the greater party of the first part."

Granted, this doesn't mean that some or all Canaanites did it first and the Israelites came along after and copied them. But as fellow Semitic peoples, with the already existing common tradition of how to establish an oath, it does speak strongly as to why something like circumcision would be settled on by the Hebrews as the practice of choice to underscore a covenent made.

From the modern perspective, clearly testaments and circumcision arose out the common practices of antiquity in the time of Abraham. Originally, that was simply the way things got done. As societal values and expectations changed, other meanings, senses, and most of all, embellishments, were read into those words and how they came to be used. But I believe that initially they were nothing more than the standard operating procedures of the time. Years later, spiritual meanings and justifications for the practice that remained - circumcision - merely rode in on the coattails of a thoroughly established but blushingly ignored tradition ... a way to look at the Emperor and manage not to see what his "new clothes" revealed.

This said, I don't believe that this line of reasoning invalidates spiritual and theological considerations. More nearly, it is simply a nod toward recognizing the more earthy aspects of the nature of the matter's history.

Regards,

Norm

[Gerr]

If God chose circumcision merely because it was a common practice among the Canaanites, why then did He chose this PARTICULAR practice & excluded or made as abomination ALL their other worship practices (ashera, the "high places", temples prostitutes, baals, etc.)? What meaning did it have for the Canaanite practitioners of circumcision?

BTW, your word origin study on testament/testify/testis was interesting to me. I've have never in my life made a connection between one'es genitals & one's testimony/witness. Thanks.

Gerry

[NormF]

For starters, there appears to be little evidence that any of the other Canaanite peoples practiced circumcision.

But first, in order to answer your questions, let's back up a little further before pushing back into this forest. Among biblical scholars there is growing support for a couple of new perspectives regarding the origins of the Hebrew people. One is that contrary to the claim, it may well be that they did not do a very thorough job of annihilating the natives of the Promised Land when they moved in. The second is that they may never have moved in in the first place, that initially, they and the Canaanites were one. The ramifications of either proposition yield the same sorts of results, results that may answer those questions.

The idea of monotheism was so novel that it's very unlikely that it was a bottom up notion. From the simply historical point of view, though especially including believers and believing historians, the worship of such a god was almost certainly top down. It's just too unique for people to have come up with it on their own and then fashioned a god accordingly. But structuring a religion around the worship of such a divinity has lots of room for bottom up activity ... and plenty of good evidence. But let's save that discussion for another day, except to see that part that applies to the question here.

Worshipping, one god though he might be, was not necessarily so all new though. In the process of fashioning a religion around the worship of the one true God, leadership of the time almost certainly felt the need to distinguish those who so believed from the rest of the population around them. At the same time, it was difficult to jettison entirely their cultural roots. The result produced a mix - things that were kept, things that were tossed, things that were new.

For example, the covering cheribim over the ark. Most historians believe they were almost certainly fashioned to look like a four-legged bull with the head of a bearded man, yet equipped with large, powerful, blocky, feathered wings. Apparently there were several slips twixt fork and mouth though, because that was something Christian children of the early- and mid-20th century were taught was what Baal looked like, or was at least Babylonish. The fact is though that this was the way angels were initially visualized in all of that region. Eventually, this image mutated in ancient Israel to become in appearance entirely men though with great powers, then much later men in white robes with powerful bird wings similarly empowered. And by the time of our Victorian era, they were lovely ladies in white robes with large, but by then more delicately formed, bird wings.

Many, if not most, of the practices defined in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and to a lesser extent, in Numbers, were things that marked monotheistic believers for what they were and distinguished them from their neighbors.

Ashera poles, altars in high places, fertility rituals, baals ... these were things that were rejected as inconsistent with monotheistic worship. Sacrificial offerings, priests and their vestments, class distinctions between priests and people ... these were kept, either because there were no conflicts, or because they benefited those who were writing the rules (in both the Bible and lesser documents).

Lastly, there were things new. The biggest one was in worship that was concerned with sacred time, rather than sacred places or things (though the insistence for maintaining certain places to be sacred lingered, and lingers still). There were concerns over cleanliness that morphed into ritual purity - outwardly in how one cleaned and kept one's body (bathing, baptism, handwashing, etc.), and inwardly in how and what one ate.

And finally, things quite new, like circumcision. Derived in part from a related body of practice, but unique and distinguished from that source. With links to ritual purity, a (secret) badge of singular identity. Top down new or bottom up new? ... there are many pieces of evidence for the latter.

Regards,

Norm

[cricket]

All right. I'm back in the discussion.

When my son was born, my husband and I had to make the decision as every parent must as to whether or not our baby should be circumcised. We found no Biblical evidence that it was required for us today. The only reasons we were given were for health and social acceptance.

As Stan mentioned, I've heard the WW2 stories of men with problems. Those were problems with hygiene. If the men had taken better care for cleanliness over the years, there wouldn't have been the problem. While smegma serves a purpose, it should be removed on a daily basis and the area completely cleansed.

As for social stigmas, I've heard that the boy should look as the father. But why is that? My son has straight blond hair, my husband tight-curly brown hair. There are differences among people, and we learn to deal with those differences.

So, for us, it came down to two things: the pain at the time of the procedure, and the lasting results of circumcision on our son's future sex life.

The pain seemed unnecessary. The claims typically made that the infant experiences no pain are not scientifically proven. In fact, it's been shown that the poor babe's heart rate increases dramatically with this procedure.

So the last thing to consider was the future sex life of our son.

(Okay, guys, here's the part I didn't feel comfortable discussing, but I'm going to anyway.)

The circumcised glans is structurally different than the glans of the uncircumcised. Once circumcised, the skin of the glans becomes dry to the air, calloused, if you will. It also looses much of its sensitivity.

For this reason, there are men who have undergone painful procedures to have their remaining foreskins lengthened for better protection.

And so, my thoughts on this were that Adam was not circumcised. He was meant to have this sensitive glans, and he was meant to have a heightened sexual experience as a result.

It was the sexual experience that God had originally intended for men.

Is it possible then, that the reason for circumcision was to consciously choose to remove this pleasure from men? Every sexual encounter following the circumcision would then be less pleasurable and thus, a constant reminder of the wages of sin?

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Is it possible then, that the reason for circumcision was to consciously choose to remove this pleasure from men? Every sexual encounter following the circumcision would then be less pleasurable and thus, a constant reminder of the wages of sin?

---

[:"blue"]It could also be argued that circumcision might give men MORE pleasure by prolonging coitus, & thus also giving the spouse greater likelihood for a climax, instead of, "wham bam, thank you, maam". [/]

Gerry

[benherndon]

Christine, I am a surgeon--not that I'm smart (I am actually so dumb sometimes that it astonishes me!---explanation will follow) but nevertheless I spent 48 yrs as a surgeon. I have circumcised hundreds of newborns, also some in the pre teens and teen ages and some adult men. Circumcision has nothing to do with the future sex life of a little newborn boy! Sex is an extremely complex set of mental and physiological reflexes. Every man sets up his own unique set of reflexes as he develops.

Pain in the newborn is obvious, only the ignorant or predjudiced would say it isn't painful! However, the little boy gets over it rather quickly and doesn't remember it when its healed.

Some men think that as they age the foreskin gets in the way of their 'sensation'. I've learned to never cooperate with such a thought but to try to educate against that false presumption. Its the aging---NOT the foreskin!!

The reflex to ejaculate comes greatly from the intense blood engorgement of the penis. That is to say that the intensity to trigger the reflex depends finally upon the intensity of the engorgement--& more dependent upon that as aging occurs. These new drugs have shown that clearly. A man may be very excited mentally and 'need' to reach the climax but it won't happen unless the penis is engorged---in most instances--though of course there is signficant variation.

I was circumcised because of balanitis and prepuce-itis when I was in my fifties--because of severe renal stone problems, surgery, deadly complications and long, months long, wearing of catheters---many times I've catheterized myself even when in the hospital. I said I was 'dumb' above-- retrospectively, I should have chosen a 'dorsal slit' procedure instead of circumcision.

Before setting up any judgement about circumcision it pays to be experienced first hand, I've discovered. Many adult men that have been sent to me for the operation I have discouraged from having it for ANY reason other than balanitis or prepuce-itis of significant degree.

Adult circumcisions done after sexual activity has started for the male will require significantly prolonged recovery period. This is due to the sudden lack of protection of the glans penis from the stimulation of constant exposure of the glans to the 'elements' surrounding 'it'. This takes months of re-adaptation of the "New" and unpleasant sensory stimulation--it is 'tiring' and causes the urinary accelerator muscles of the pelvis to tire and cause moment by moment 'attention' to the area--- that is unpleasant, too. Adult men who have undergone circumcision will almost always be disappointed at the length of time it takes to re-adjust the feeling back to 'normal'. I feel sorry in retrospect for Abraham who had it done when he was about ninety.

The act was ordered by Moses to be done on the 8th day, even IF it was the Sabbath! There is a physiological reason besides the religious reason. It takes a while for the newborn to have a good blood clotting mechanism for one thing. Another reason is that newborns who live to the 8th day are probably pretty healthy babies. Also, by that time, the mother has recovered somewhat from the actual birth process and is more able to give the child the special care required after the procedure. Life is complex. A lot of wisdom is necessary.

The surgeon never wants to be heard saying when doing a circumcision or a hemorroidectomy!!!

Ben

[cricket]

Thank you for openly sharing this with us, Dr. Ben. As I am not a man, I honestly can't say much about the physical and psychological process he will go through during sexual stimulation. As far as a woman can have knowledge, however, I am ashamedly well aware of what she can perceive of these men's actions.

You mentioned that age plays a significant role in a man's sexual stimulation. Couldn't it be argued then, that a non-circumcised male would be more easily stimulated in old age, than a circumcised male? His glans is still more sensitive, is it not, than otherwise?

You have led me to presume that you've had sexual experience both as an non-circumcised male, and as a circumcised male. In the initial arousal state only--not in the immediate pre-climactic state--would you agree that the non-circumcised male may have an easier time of arousal?

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

You mentioned that age plays a significant role in a man's sexual stimulation. Couldn't it be argued then, that a non-circumcised male would be more easily stimulated in old age, than a circumcised male? His glans is still more sensitive, is it not, than otherwise?

---

>>>I don't think a uncircumcised male would have any lesser or more stimulation than a long time circumcised male. The glans is more sensitive to nonsexual stimulation when the foreskin is retracted, yes, but I don't think that is significant when he's 'aroused' for purposes of sex. Actually I've never had a man that was circumcised complain that he wishes he wasn't. I've had several who weren't circumcised that asked to be circumcised and its been those, since my experience, that I have strongly discouraged from having the operation. What I told them to do was to retract the foreskin, leave it retracted and replace their clothes leaving the glans exposed to his clothes and motion. See how they like that 'new' feeling. It doesn't take long, believe me, until they say, "Whoa, let's forgo the operation. I will stay like I am!"

Quote:

---

You have led me to presume that you've had sexual experience both as an non-circumcised male, and as a circumcised male. In the initial arousal state only--not in the immediate pre-climactic state--would you agree that the non-circumcised male may have an easier time of arousal?

---

>>>Yes, I've had sexual experience pre and post circumcision as an adult. The answer to your last question is in the negative. Truthfully I think lots of men and perhaps their partners have ideas pro or con regarding circumcision vs uncircumcision. I don't think that has anything to do with sexual pleasure, discomfort or increased or decreased sensation, assuming there is no balanitis or prepuce-itis and providing of course in the case of the circumcised adult adaptation has been completed. (I have to insert here that many urology specialists do not know all there is to know about circumcision until they've at least been in practice a rather long time. The old Professor of Urology at LLUMC didn't know about it even when he was past retirement age)

The sensation to sex is not altered long term nor is arousal improved or diminished by circumcision. Ejaculatory response is not altered either. Actually some men who are uncircumcised, as they age and the intensity of the sensory response begins to fade a bit, will actually manually retract the foreskin during sex to heighten their feeling, they think. That's why they come in asking for circumcision sometimes. Those are the ones I strongly discourage from having the operation. Because in the long run, it isn't going to make any difference.

The problem is the aging, even influenced by inheritance from their fathers, as to 'how long' they can continue this activity into their far adult life. That's exactly why the pill is such a good medication properly used. It relaxes the muscle around the penile arteries and arterioles, as well as relaxing the 'valve' muscles that are relaxed by the nitric oxides allowing them to block the blood from exiting the penis---thus increasing the tenseness of the erection which in turn helps the man reach the climactic ejaculatory response. The Pill is wonderful for most men!

Pardon the frank discussion----all who are perhaps offended by the graphics I've described. I didn't start this thread but there are lots, a LOT!, of older men and their ladies who are greatly favored by these new medicines these days. Hopefully something will be discovered that will help the ladies too.

For the ladies dryness and lack of lubrication is a problem for most as they age. During the past 10+ yrs or so, "Personal Lubricants" have been developed that have greatly helped that unique female problem.

Let's back up a little to the newborn male. Preputial stenosis is a real problem for little boys. It also occurs in adult males. Preputial stenosis can be a real painful problem and can have various problems with balanitis as you mentioned in your earlier posts. If this cannot be handled by appropriate successful complete momentary retraction of the foreskin, it must be handled by what is called a dorsal slit of the foreskin for half to 3/4ths of an inch, or muiltiple smaller shorter slits around the circumference of the foreskin opening, or, by circumcision. I've had to do circumcisions from months to years after birth in those cases in order to solve the problem of preputial stenosis. '

In short, uncircumcision or circumcision in the absence of other problems, has no effect one way or another on a man's sexual activity, sensation, etc. But, as I said, the sexual ejaculatory reflex and its triggering mechanism is complex and each man is probably a bit different. Personally, but without scientific proof, I feel that a man is unique in himself. What he learns to develop a reflex to is unique to him and I've often wondered if that complexity, and its development in the man is what gets off kilter in his mind and causes matters such as perversion. Their are all sorts of perversions of the 'normal' sexual reflex developments and some are farther from 'normal' than others. Homosexuality?? I am not sold on the current excuses most commonly used!

Let me sign of with an observation I've heard about. It is: The Lord has given a man enough blood to run his brain or his penis---but not enough to run both at the same time!!

Ben

[cricket]

Dr. Ben,

You're awesome! Thank you so much for this detailed explanation. I find it very beneficial to my understanding of the male body.

Some may find it too graphic (it isn't), but I think you've chosen your words carefully to be detailed in an informational format.

I am pleased to know that sexual stimulation for a man seems to be equally as psychologically based as it is for a woman. While I may have heard this before, I've never given the description as much merit as I have now. I do appreciate greatly the information you've shared.

I hope that it will be of benefit to others who read as well.

~Chrys

[Paul Beach]

Dear friends,

Mrs. Gray was one time asked why God didn't just "pre-circumcise" men when they were created? On the other hand, maybe the foreskin was attached as a part of the fall, as a Satanic mutation and God wanted men to get back to the true "pattern" as it were.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Gray

[Kevin H]

Abraham and his desendants had a suzerain treaty, which was the common form of covenants of the day. One part of it was a physical mark; cutting off the ear lobe, or an ear, or little finger etc.

Abraham would have expected some physical mutilation. He had moved into Canaan, although not everyone performed the practice, circumcision was common among the Canaanites. Abraham's family living in that culture would have probably picked up that coustom. So Yahweh just took the coustom as the physical mark that Abraham expected for his covenant.

In this very begining of circumsicion is built in the consept that God did not need it in and of himself, but was reaching people where they were at the time, and thus not perminant and so Isaiah could predict that a day was coming when gentiles would start worshiping Yahweh on the Sabbath and circumcision would no longer be an issue.

[Robert]

I hear a lot of talk, but without Bible proof....