Infant Circumcision Theory

The theory claims that the original purpose of infant circumcision was to make the person different from others for the rest of his life. The emphasis was made on proper timing, the procedure (ritual) has to be done within the first few days of infant’s life (I think it was within first 5 days from birth) during the first initial experience of the world by the infant. Instead of being used to being comforted the infant is subjected to painful traumatic experience which in turn permanently alters how he perceives the world. And indeed, there is scientific studies that confirm that infant circumcision permanently alters brain pathways of the infant.
But what effect does infant circumcision have on the development of child’s experience of the world around him? Exactly what kind of person is achieved?

Does the procedure desensitize the child to pain, i.e. does it make him less sensitive to pain in life?

Does it have the opposite effect, does it make him hyper sensitive to pain?

How does it affect his emotional development in general?

no idea about the theory but

i was circumcized, i don’t remember it, and i don’t knowingly have any positive or negative emotional response to the thought that i was circumcized, or to the idea of circumcision in general

dunno if thats useful

I bet they used anesthetics.

I think what Pandora’s talking about is original circumcision (like 3,000 years ago or whenever it started). And if she’s right, and circumcision began as a means to expose a new born to some kind of intense pain so as to prepare him for the pains of life ahead of him, I’m sure it would have had an alarming effect. A newborn’s brain is fresh, un-used to dealing with intense experiences (except perhaps the birthing process itself), and so such an experience could drastically affect its future development.

My suspicion is that, no, the procedure does not desensitize the child to pain, or even make him any more prepared/capable of handling pain. What a newborn needs most is protection, warmth, nurturing, everything to make him/her feel comfortable and safe. And this comes natural to mothers (and even fathers–no one, except maybe the most depraved of psychopaths, would ever think about harming a newborn in such a brutal manner). This is even true of the vast majority of animals. If it comes so nature, and is so widespread among the animal kingdom, how can harming a newborn be good for it?

Do you think the procedure can affect a person’s character later in life? In studies, the scientists keep mentioning biological (unconscious) memory of pain experience that is still passed on. How exactly it influences behavior is not very clear.

Most of the studies on the subject deal with experimentation on rats. There are also studies that are done to see if there is correlation between neonatal trauma (or birth complications) and increase in suicide rates in adolescents (which, although interesting, does not sound very convincing to me).
Many studies hint at increased pain sensitivity and increased anxiety in the individual.

From rat studies:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595204/

This is something that I’ve come across (from the same study) that struck me (this, again, is for rats):

In short, infants feel more pain. Not only that, but their body amplifies it, as explained more clearly here (pain inhibition and response in infants):
wellcome.ac.uk/News/2009/Fea … 054083.htm

This is another interesting study that tries to make a connection between various pre/neonatal trauma (including circumcision) and possible self-destructive or aberrant behavior in adulthood.
With regards to circumcision, it only implies that the infant’s immune system is weakened by the following vaccination procedure:
“Circumcision seemed to disrupt their post-natal adaptation [39] and treatment of circumcision pain with a topical anesthetic decreased their responses to vaccination pain at 4-6 months of age”
cirp.org/library/pain/anand4/

I am assuming that the people who first came up with the idea were likely aware of consequent behavioral changes. If it is indeed true (which has not yet been proven, I know) that circumcision makes a person more sensitive to pain then why such a result was needed to begin with? Why create a person that is hypersensitive to pain?

When Abraham came up with the idea, it was started by adults on adults. Grown men did it.

I am not circumcised. I like how my foreskin is prehensile, and can pick up stuff, I use it to write all my letters. Hard to use a computer though… gotta make it plop up and down all over the place, takes alot of effort, and if it makes me sweat, it’s not worth it, especially as I gotta gold on to the ends of the table when I do it. If I am in a grocery store, I can snag a grape easily if my fly is open, and store it in the foreskin for later.

Yeah… I still have a foreskin, and therefor… I must be taken as the model of normality. Women pause when they sea it… and don’t grasp how sensitive the little thing is to being stretched if it doesn’t get stretched regularly. I personally don’t fuck around with my foreskin, and when I have sex, it recoils back slowly on it’s own, but some women just see the stiffy, and then grab hold of it and yank it back like it’s no problem. It’s a serious fucking problem, don’t do that shit. A woman only gotta lose her cherry once… every new chick however becomes fascinated and tries to tear mine. It’s a quick way to makes a boner go soft, torment and rip the poor thing. It didn’t do anything to you… I don’t grint my molars on your clit, so be nice to Emmerson (my Foreskin is named Emmerson, and my Dick is Moby Dick. It would be off topic to name my testicles.)

:laughing:

EDIT: you have phimosis, CN

CN you have my vote for the best post in a long time, You have given me one damn fine laugh, thank-you.

This is what Wikipedia was suggesting also.

I am interested in psychological reasons behind it. How and why did it come about exactly? How does an idea of cutting the foreskin out and making this practice a distinguishing feature created? If it was done to mark one as a clan member, why did it have to be in this particular manner? Of one thousand and one ways that one can mark/mutilate one’s body, why did it have to be circumcision?

There is another theory suggesting that first circumcisions were performed by royalty. But what reasoning was behind it?

(One really has to try to get into the mind of the ancients to attempt to answer these questions).

You’re a bit of a clown, Contra.

I doubt the loss of your foreskin is any more or less traumatic than being born. You don’t have the mental faculty to remember anything before the age of 3 or 4, I doubt such pain has a long term affect on you beyond any other pain you feel as a babe. That said circumcision is of course fairly pointless, and Jesus and Thomas would back me up on that one.

Medically necessary yes, by culture no.

What reasoning is behind sticking a load of rings around a neck to stretch it, or a saucer in your lip to make your lip look huge, or wearing Tattoos on your body that are always in plain sight, like on your face, like the Maori. There doesn’t need to be a reason for body “art” beyond culture any more than there is a need to cut the end of a child’s willy off.

It gives men a degree of self control. I notice most of the guys, myself included, who are not circumcised are sex addicts to a certain extent- took me years to control it. It’s not the same as the Whore-Madonna Paradox, but it plays on something similar, if your joining a culture where this is expected. Jewish culture has always been fluid in terms of accepting outsiders, and was much more the case in it’s early times. Abraham’s religion isn’t the Jewish religion… (he accepted a foreign priesthood to administer the rites of his belief system- it’s very common in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Moses and Jesus did the same, accepting the ritual authority of outsiders to intergrate themselves into the belief system, turning it into a more mainstream religion. Jesus didn’t invent Baptism, it’s a Assyrian Royal Rite that he inherited from John the Baptist)… Abraham’s religion was a voice telling him to leave his father’s house and travel, and do stuff to test his faith under daring and absurd conditions. What became Kosher overtime was what binded the community together, and not seperated it. Chanakya did something similar (not circumcision, but the conservative bent to identifying the homogeneous from wide cross currents, Hindus didn’t all agree on what it was to be a Hindu before or during his time, but once Alexander was pushed out of India, this Philosopher determined for all time what it was to be one). Obviously, Abraham wasn’t too deeply concerned with the Categorical Imperiative, or conceptions of Fatherland or Promised Land. These conceptions would emerge in the tradition long after, or in minor branches of it. It was, like all of Abraham’s understandings, something that targeted a thing of great value. It was a extention of the sacrifice unto the self. He figured out one way or another killing one’s son on a alter wasn’t something that voice was too thrilled with. But cutting the forskin off the progenitor of one’s line… that’s a dead on accurate target of one’s hopes in dreams in the very people you most cherish. It shouldn’t be a surprise the jews have survived so long, or the persistance of America and it’s homophobia, or the survival of Islam. These are survivor cultures, and they target the Alpha Males most cherished member. Society to a great degree in each of those cultures still idolizes Manhood to a high degree. It can be lauded, mocked, and lambasted, but all three cultures will survive while more feminist cultures will rise and then fall. Notice I am not saying states, but cultures.

The self control… think the Rape of Lucretia, or of Dido… central to Roman Republican Ideology. A man looking to join a community that practices this circumcision, a form of self control… if he has to, he’s going to do it out of either deep faith and belief, or deep love and attraction. He’s going to be a little more clearheaded about the pros and cons of the woman, and the male members of said community is going to take him more seriously than someone just using one of their women as a careless sexbag. He can become a authoritive member of it much quicker, and with less doubt, totting the status quo of membership of a conservative, responsible outfit. The kids have it easy as they get it what they can’t remember, and just grow up in the culture… guys like Smears can arise in such a society and claim to be ‘Jewish’ or ‘American’ or ‘Christian’ but clearly doesn’t associate with the values, and isn’t really trusted. He might associate enough from his experiences from his childhood to clean his act up enough to become successful enough… but does anyone here think he would ever cut such a body part off himself voluntarily? No. Fuck no… if he had to, he would run and get high as a mother fucker, and wouldn’t be spotted again by his old relations. Big difference in the men willing to go through with this act.

Abraham to a high degree hit upon the smartest formula for binding a community together on sexual norms. The female circumcision just doesn’t have such a historic high turnout. Macho men just don’t give a flying fuck if their sexbags can feel sex or not, just so long as they don’t stray. In male circumcision, it’s different- they are expected to keep track of the family and the community. They become of a higher economic and historic order in administrating and passing on techniques to wealth and know how. It’s a right of passage- taken from the highest Jewish Royalty- Abraham. Our Baptism rites are from Assyrian Royalty as well. Many of our wisdom psalms are of the best of the societies the Jews lived under, from royal texts attributed to the highest kinds. It’s a eclectic tradition, and like the early Jesuits in China, we aim at the highest understandings in existence- both intuitively and from the clear empirical data available. The kosher rule of taking sea salt over say, mined salt seems small and meaningless to us now, but it matters if your a seaside nation sitting on the intersection of several international traderoutes, and had to figure out how to keep your society self sufficient and independent. It also discouraged slavery, which as a Abrahamic value, as Salt Mines traditionally have been slaver operations.

^^ interesting post!

One point; older men naturally become less sensitive and less, let us say, ‘Austin powers’ like. We could say that younger men being desensitised provided them with a platform, that perhaps should be for elders. After all a young man is still young even if he acts like an older one, he still doesn’t have the acumen, wisdom and knowledge that age brings.

Second point; one would not go to a eunuch for marriage guidance [well, of a sexual nature at least], he simply wouldn’t know anything about it experientially. We could equally say that a desensitised man cannot objectively debate upon the morals of a sensitive man. Indeed by being mutilated he has lost some youthful joy and spirit.

What we do not remember often affects us. I am sure it adds to whatever impressions one gets of life from birth and other potentially traumatic experiences.

I found this quite an informative reading on the subject of circumcision:
gutenberg.org/files/23135/23 … CHAPTER_II

Control of own or another’s sexuality appears to be a common theme, although it is not the only reason why circumcision was/is practiced.
For example, it was also used to mark one as a prisoner of war/slave, or as an initiation process into priesthood. Some of these practices are so bizarre and ‘barbaric’ (especially those historically practiced by natives in S. America) that I cannot find any logical explanation for them, except that they must have irrational origins, whether from drug use or as a result of deeply held superstitions.

There is also a mention of a belief that circumcision was may have been an answer to impotence, as it was believed that it would facilitate impregnation.

Some of the side effects of my NOT being circumscised, which I found one other guy in the past who agreed (hard to get guys to talk about actual cock size and freak occurances) is during sex, the sensitivity of the head, from the friction can cause the foreskin to be pulled back in such a way it makes the sex more addictive in the rythmn… like a male G Spot almost. The problem is, once it’s stretched back there, the blood to the head of the penis starts expanding… and it gets VERY FUCKING BIG. I have a normal size cock… but it looked like a toadstool from Super Mario Brothers how big it was, twice it’s normal size and didn’t stop expanding. I literally had to put my cock on ice and stop having sex because it was too painful for the two of us. Forskin has side effects. It’s rare for that to happen, only a few times in my life… but I am always worried about my penis exploding from too much good, repetitive sex. It wasn’t a case of a erection that can’t go down, but in a dramatic increase of human size cock to donkey size cock. Bigger than pronstar size I am talking about. It was like a little thin line, my foreskin- almost like the rink on a condom. So damn small. I can understand why men focus on various forms of circumscision.

You do know there are various forms of circumscision? Not all are straight off the top, some preserve the forskin and has vertical cuts the length of the head of the penis, allowing it to flap back. I wouldn’t want that stuff myself, but had that penis not deflated, I would of gone that course with a boxcutter to release some of the pleasure.

Be careful of marathon sexing if you have a foreskin, and your hitting just the right spot. They are not designed for that stuff, and you’ll be trapped with a king kong size tool in the end, and stretchmarks, and bleeding. Looks like your lip cracked down the middle but burns alot because the outside of the forskin is dry. They sell chapstick in gas stations, but not cocksticks.

For those of us who had late circumcision, disease and cleanliness issues were in the forefront of why we were advised to have the procedure done. In fact, had it not been for the circumcision, retraction may not even would have been possible.

Another take on the politics of shearing, it was a regrettable condition to be circumcised during the deutchland uber alles period, and circumcision was a pretty sure sign that selection would be made for extermination.

like i said before, I think you have phimosis. I have a foreskin (most of the world does for that matter) and that’s not really normal. the treatments are really easy, anyway. ask your doc about it if you’re serious lol

Contra-Nietzsche

I have never known your problem, perhaps try tantra ~ not the religious kind, just use all that extra sensation to prolong the experience. The trick is to go slowly and feel everything, with the odd spurt of vigour. Then pound fuck into that thing using the pelvis to compress the labia [there are loads of nerve endings behind all that stuff], shout out “somebody call the cops, a villain has broken in and is smashing the place up” and punch that thang with your pelvis once more. :mrgreen:

More seriously its all in the control of ones ejaculations, did you know it is possible to cum up to 16 times? The trick is that, when you are getting near to Cumming go sloooooow, hold it in, even stop if needs be for a few seconds until ‘the force’ of the ejaculation calms. Once you reach this zenith you can then keep bringing yourself up to the brink or if necessary let a little semen out ~ which gives you more control.

While I am at it here’s a blow job trick you can do with this; once you reach the point before ejaculation just freeze, then once the ‘effect’ passes by you can then bring yourself up again and let a small mouthful at a time go. Strangely the sense of disgust a woman gets [I know some like it and let it happen anyways] at the usual point of ejaculation goes away! Then they will really get into everything etc, etc.

You probably know all this, but some may not.

Circumcision is religious nonsense that should be banned from practice.

Why?

Also yeah i’ve heard people say it’s a traumatic experiance for the baby, but don’t you have to be able to remmeber something in order for it to be traumatic?

The whole circumcision argument seems to be linked with the spanking argument, those who have had it doen to them usualyl don’t see it as beign bad at all, sometimes they see it as good.

And people who haven’t see it as terrible.

I say trust the empiracal evidence on this stuff.

Because I was traumatized by it.