Was it ever true that circumcision was thought of as a way to stop masturbation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...n-the-decline/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129362160
Also for those that are getting their kids dick tips cut off so they can fit in better might want to think again since circumcision rates in the US have been falling steadily for the last 10 years. Some studies have shown its gone from 56% to 32.5%
i haven't even read anything but the first page and last page, but i have to say that foreskin restoration is a complete joke and will not restore any nerve endings that were hacked off and is just you stretching skin over time. Once you cut off your foreskin it is gone and if that wasn't your choice then all well, you will never personally know any difference whatsoever anyway.
What a fucking monsterDrastic measures
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote:
“ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ”
further
“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
and
“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ”
He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages and electrical shock.[7]
In his Ladies' Guide in Health and Disease, for nymphomania, he recommended
“ Cool sitz baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae...
Some of those methods are part of what lead Kinsey to his preoccupation with the subject of sex.
how much loss of sensation do you actually think is going on here? or is this just more of the typical penis obsession and worship from straights
Why is a gay man calling out penis obsession and worship
Does the actually amount of sensation lost truly matter? It amazes me how hyper-liberal BG is when it comes to rights for all and best interest for everyone, freedom of speech, and freedom to make your own decisions etc etc but they have zero problem whatsoever with making an irreversible decision for someone that is not them. You have people constantly whining about how they don't want a funny looking dick, you have milkster post a picture of a side by side comparison of erect uncut/cut dicks which look nearly identical and you get replies like.
Majority of BG is so ass backward and full of hypocrisy that it is mind boggling, but really this isn't much of a surprise as it seems like the majority is also a bunch of internet educated atheists lashing out against the bible belt that they are stuck in.
Since you don't obsess over it, you prefer to just leave it uncut since it's unnecessary to get so obsessive over looks right?
Do all jews obsess over the penis as much as you? Sounds pretty obsessive, always ritualistically cutting the penises of little boys like that.
what detail do you want? if I have a kid he's getting a bris, end of story