The Holy Prepuce
The revolting influence of a tiny part of the 'Christian' Death & Mutilation Cults
WARNING FOR FEEBLE MINDS & INDIGNANT DISPOSITIONS
This essay includes some of the most disgusting & disturbing things known too humanity, & includes links to vile artworks (not shown on this page) that maybe should be seen as surreal humour to help transcend the horror?
This was written & accidently published (before finishing properly) last year, & then I forget about it until I notice Jon Rappoport getting excited about the topic recently.
So, here it comes again more proper, & with joyful illustrations ,not by me this time for a change, as I have no interest in illustrating this topic- so I have added a handful of cheeky 1950’s British Postcards from seaside resorts instead.
I did try & get chatty bot GP to do some postcard pictures for this- it even volunteered, but it was prohibited from from doing so by it’s programme limitations! Here is a description I make from old postcard that has etched into my imagination from childhood travels- yet we could not find it on the net/web anywhere yet…
‘‘a beautiful buxom & alluring blond haired woman is behind a fence, on the other side of the fence facing her is eager man with his pants half down his legs… hes 'inserted' himself through a hole in the fence, yet he's in utter shock… because behind the fence next to the alluring woman we (tho not he) can see a goose with its head at the same height of the pained mans midriff on the other side of the hole’’.
Such things are now taboo to envision sadly. So it is.
[UPDATE- Serge send me similar postcard & I may have remembered it wrong in combination with another one- I will paste the postcard at the very end of this essay if you wish to see it , just scroll to the bottom of the page]
By the Wayside- Please note: I am not suggesting any of the following TALE OF THE FORESKIN is to be believed, but still it is the story we are told, however far-fetched, or pertinent it may be. Other components about this are very serious & should be considered I think with sober importance.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
''...Once you hear the words holy foreskin you can never forget it.''
David Farley journalist and historian, presenter of the entertaining documentary linked here= The Holy Foreskin of Jesus Christ
''All Jewish boys are required by Jewish religious law to be circumcised on the eighth day following their birth; the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, still celebrated by many churches around the world, accordingly falls on January 1 '' wikipedia
Possibly the worlds greatest devil worshipping CULT = the Catholic Church, & to prove this fact they have a disgustingly entitled event on January 1st called the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ. In public today they have replaced the original abhorrent circumcision abuse with BABTISM. To serious theologians familiar with perennial wisdom traditions this adds even more insults & injury to JOHN the BAPTISTs teaching being usurped by his younger rival, & some say kin. This convoluted topic is too tricky to be brief about here, so I may return to it at a later date.
I will mention Biblical origins of this mutilation madness later in this, after a brief overview of what is the object of so much adoration among fanatics of Jesus Christ.
Many writers have discussed this topic including James Joyce ,Umberto Eco, & José Saramago. It was popular for discussion among people from the early AD’s until 1700’s & throughout the middle ages there was good trade in holy relics. They were used with the intention of healing people as a magical talisman, a focus for ‘gods will & miracles’, but given no miraculous powers themselves by the Church, they were considered a type of psychic magnifying glass to focus energy, as only god itself could perform any miraculous acts.
The Bible mentions baby Jesus undergoing ‘purification according to the law of Moses’( this would be by getting circumcised in the book of Luke (2:22-24). Also in ACTS 15 the topic is discussed regarding the gentiles. So, it transpires that many people, without much purpose or importance in life, have spent time in much wonder over what happen to Jesus decapitated piece of skin from his generative organ. But still, many people of great power & influence also spend much time & money considering the ‘allegorical saviours’ damaged reproductive tool parts, & where they may be residing.
The debates & hunt for this ring sized piece of decomposing flesh became the goal of pilgrimages (& in our times it is even subject to documentary series from National Geographic & History Channel) . Destinations of these pilgrimages became incredibly wealthy because of this patronage. This market for death & mutilation was so lucrative that many Holy Foreskins began to exist. Enterprising collectors began acquiring as many as possible, & the bigger story of Saints Relics is what I was to write about here discussing the world greatest foreskin collections, the collectors & who was the most collectable saint to have parts of their body saved away.
Instead today I am to going to focus on the most popular foreskin in history, even though it will transpire it is from a allegorical figure who's history is many thousands of years older than any alleged 'historical' Jesus Christ, or his increasingly large ensemble of family that is including wife & brothers previously only known about in esoteric teachings. Until recent times this was kept as some of the biggest secrets in heraldry & genealogies, although maybe not in ways people would assume
As you will see & appreciate, this is a peculiar topic that seems to be taken far more seriously than most of us would initially imagine. The value of some relics is so great that the costs are never disclosed, some have fetched astonishing prices, or are valued so highly that they are considered beyond monetary worth; while trade in such items is typically shrouded in secrecy & wrapped in intrigue.
A Brotherhood was even formed in 1426 called 'of the Holy Circumcision of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ in our Beloved Lady's Church in Antwerp" with a zodiacal 24 members who were all abbots and prominent laymen.
—
Among fetishist advocates - relics are believed to provide a tangible link to the divine or holy figures their parts allegedly belonged to. Many traditions attribute miraculous powers to relics, such as healing or protection. For a superstitious mind & impressionable congregation such things certainly can exert potent emotions.
This mutilation event is not a trivial matter, & involves much cult symbolism that it is unfair not to explain more fully , but also to do so is actually a vast undertaking & involves discussing (among other antagonisms) the important wars between BO & PITH worships: & all the inversions & convolutions of those most influential events & hidden cultural disruptions. I will certainly be discussing that conflict in detail later, but now is not the time.
However, before we consider the focus of this essay, it may be useful to know some of the ideas held by ‘the profession’ of such gruesome artefacts- such as their hierarchy of importance among parts & personalities. It is not confined to Christian/Catholic ghouls but also many other fanatics such as Muslims & Buddhists.
There is certainly also some magic, & plenty of trickery involved with such icons!
In Christianity relics are are typically associated with Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or saints. There are 3 main classes -
First-Class Relics: Physical remains of a saint (e.g., bones, hair, or ashes) or objects directly associated with Jesus (e.g., fragments of the True Cross).
Second-Class Relics: Items owned or used by a saint (e.g., clothing, books, or tools).
Third-Class Relics: Objects that have been touched to a first- or second-class relic.
In Buddhism, relics are often associated with the Buddha or other enlightened beings. These relics are called śarīra and can include: Physical remains of the Buddha (e.g., teeth, bones, or ashes). Crystallized pearls or beads said to form from the cremated remains of highly realized practitioners. Relics are enshrined in stupas (mound-like structures) and are venerated as symbols of the Buddha's teachings and enlightenment. For example: The Tooth Relic of the Buddha in Kandy, Sri Lanka, is one of the most sacred relics in Buddhism.
Judaism: Relics are rare, but objects like the Ark of the Covenant or fragments of ancient scrolls (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) hold immense religious significance.
Sikhism: Relics include personal items of the Gurus, such as the sword of Guru Gobind Singh or the original Guru Granth Sahib.
In Hinduism, relics are less common, but certain objects and places are considered sacred due to their association with deities or saints. For example: The Jyotirlingas are believed to be manifestations of Lord Shiva. Personal items or remains of revered saints, such as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa or Sai Baba of Shirdi, are also venerated.
In Islam, relics are less emphasized compared to other religions, but some objects are still revered for their historical and spiritual significance. Examples include: The Black Stone in the Kaaba in Mecca, believed to have been given to Abraham by the angel Gabriel. Items associated with the Prophet Muhammad, such as hairs from his beard, his cloak, or his footprints.
SPECULATIVE LIST OF THE TOP RELICS & THEIR ESTIMATES VALUES
Topmost is possibly one of three ‘items’ - Jesus Foreskin- which we will discuss soon, The head of John the Baptist which is too esoteric to discuss today & …
1. The Holy Grail
The Holy Grail is the legendary cup said to have been used by Jesus at the Last Supper and later by Joseph of Arimathea to collect Jesus' blood at the Crucifixion.
Value: The Grail has never been sold, but its cultural and spiritual significance makes it one of the most sought-after relics in history. If it were ever found and authenticated, its value would be incalculable—likely in the billions of dollars.
2. The Crown of Thorns
Believed to have been placed on Jesus' head during the Crucifixion, the Crown of Thorns is one of the most sacred relics in Christianity.
In 1238, King Louis IX of France acquired the relic from the Byzantine Emperor Baldwin II. He paid an enormous sum—reportedly 135,000 livres (a fortune at the time)—and built the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris to house it.
Value: While it is now housed in Notre-Dame Cathedral, its historical and spiritual significance makes it priceless.
3. The Shroud of Turin
A linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma consistent with crucifixion. Many believe it to be the burial shroud of Jesus.
Value: The Shroud has never been sold, but its insured value has been estimated at $50 million or more. Its historical and religious significance, however, makes it effectively priceless.
4. The Buddha's Tooth
A sacred tooth believed to belong to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.
The relic is enshrined in the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, Sri Lanka, and is considered one of the most sacred objects in Buddhism.
Value: While it has never been sold, its cultural and spiritual importance makes it invaluable. If it were ever to be monetized, its worth would likely be in the hundreds of millions.
5. The Emerald Buddha
A highly revered statue of the Buddha carved from a single block of jade (not emerald), housed in the Wat Phra Kaew temple in Bangkok, Thailand.
Value: The statue itself is considered priceless, but its historical and cultural significance elevates its worth to an incalculable level.
6. Relics of Saints
Relics of famous saints, such as Saint Peter or Saint Paul, have been highly sought after throughout history.
In 2016, a fragment of bone believed to belong to Saint Peter was displayed in the Vatican. While not sold, its spiritual significance makes it priceless to believers.
Value: Smaller relics of saints have been sold at auctions for tens of thousands of dollars, but the most significant ones are rarely traded.
The Mary Magdalene Relic
In 2017, a bone fragment said to be from Mary Magdalene was sold at an auction in Paris for €28,000 (approximately $32,000 USD). The relic was accompanied by a letter of authenticity dating back to the 19th century.
Other Notable Relic Sales
Saint John Paul II's Blood Relic: A vial of blood from Pope John Paul II was sold at auction in 2013 for $9,000. The relic was accompanied by a certificate of authenticity from the Vatican. Adjusted for inflation, this would be around $11,500 today.
Saint Valentine's Relic: In 2017, a relic containing the remains of Saint Valentine (the patron saint of love) was sold at auction for £1,700 (approximately $2,200 USD). Adjusted for inflation, this would be around $2,500 today.
Relics of Saints in General: Smaller relics, such as fragments of bone or clothing from lesser-known saints, have been sold at auctions for prices ranging from 1,000 to 20,000, depending on their provenance and historical significance.
It may be amusing to compare the most expensive items of rock n roll memorabilia with these religious totems ?
Now, onwards into the horrid world of fanatical mutilation.
The Holy Prepuce:
‘‘What is it & where has it been?’’
This is a question all women ( actually anyone at all) should be thinking when looking at any foreskin, however holy or not it is to them.
Here I shall provide just a snippet of information available to the public on this sensitive matter embodied as the Holy Prepuce, something that 'Chat bot data slave' refuse to discuss with me when I first quizzed it, but after I write this essay I ask some things again & suddenly it is very well informed about the topic!
Any historian with eyes open knows that the Catholic Church is terminally perverse & spiritually ill. Yet even experienced researchers become surprised to discover that to the High Priesthood The most valuable holy relic of known time is that of the Biblical infant Jesus Christs foreskin. The only relic that comes close in value (that I am aware of) is the Head of John the Baptist. Even HAIR from the Virgin Mary only fetches from $100 to a few thousand $ among collectors & connoisseurs.
According to oldest existing texts on this= the apocryphal writings compiled or created about 5thC : & after the ritual circumcision alluded to in LUKE , the end piece of 8 day old baby Jesus ''… was 'preserved in an alabaster-box of old oil of spikenard’’ ( a amber coloured oil of honeysuckle/muskroot)'
Then, ''….(an) old Hebrew (Hixoss mercenary) woman took the foreskin...'' & gave it to her son, ''a druggist, to whom she said, "Take heed thou sell not this alabaster box of spikenard-ointment, although thou shouldst be offered three hundred pence for it."
According to the Bank of England, £3 in 8 AD could be worth approximately £3,000,000 today. So it was a potentially pricey little box he was entrusted with.
‘‘Now this is that alabaster-box which Mary the sinner procured, and poured forth the ointment out of it upon the head and feet of our Lord Jesus Christ, and wiped it off with the hairs of her head.[2]'' Arabic Infancy Gospel
This act is not what it may seem to non-Hebrew, comparative cultural analysis, or theologically minded peoples. Many commentators see this chapter of Jesus life as actually a Wedding ceremony, with MARY become his wife. The foreskin itself is often mentioned as a type of betrothal ring made of flesh.
Mysteriously the foreskin was not heard from again for almost 800 years.
Then it was gifted on December 25, 800, when Charlemagne gave it to Pope Leo III after his visit to Old Jerusalem. Charlemagne had discovered it inside a jewel laden, cross shaped box he claimed. Others say it was a a wedding gift from the powerful Hixoss looking Byzantine Empress Irene consort of LEO IV & sole figurative dominator for Rome .Its gifting was the ritual act that oiled Charlemagne to become emperor.
Others say it was gifted by famous Irish Saint Brigida (also known as BRIDGET & BRIDE), so the symbolism is consistent , even if the names & places change.
Psychopathic sadist Catherine of Siena in the 1400’s said of it =
'' on the eighth day, when he (Jesus) was circumcised, (he) gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring!"[7] :
& that is great example of how celibacy can rot the mind worse than rabid VD mould, what has it done to her imagination= nothing healthy that is for sure.
We are lead to believe that for nearly 750 years the Holy Prepuce was kept in a elaborate decorated cupboard at the Sancta Santorium in Rome (*1)
In 1547 it was then stolen when 14,000 Germanic Mercenaries employed by Charles the 5th sacked Rome.
Again miraculously it reappeared in Calcutta ( edit: actually spelled Calcata about 30 miles from ROME) , & made Calcutta the most popular place to do pilgrimage. Is the name a type of joke= ‘Caliper Cutter’ ? Or, alternatively the story is a soldier who stole it from Rome was arrested. Anyway, it was kept in Calcata & for some unknown reason not returned to ROME. This does not make any sense if it was in any way a genuine remnant of holy knob lobbing, & instead it may as well have been some catgut knot, or pig bladder used like a rubber band. Whatever its dubious authenticity the show still rolled on.
According to locals of Calcata the Priests would not let people go near it, even though by now it was worshipped very intensely. After a service where the Priest would dangle it from his hand, he would put it back into its usual storage receptacle: now simply some old shoe box on top of a non elaborate cupboard.
Some considerations before we procced
The fact that there is no substantial proof of such individual called Jesus Christ of Nazareth existing, & his entire alleged existence; including all the notable events of his life were written down & well known about millennia before his alleged birth show us what Jesus Christ really is for our imaginations= a typical, yet still very special, astro-theological allegory, & PROCESS of natural rejuvenation & resurrection of life.
The most able minds of Christian times (meaning pre 1959s in the ‘West’!) all knew this, but dictates of Church & State made their expression on such matters have to be cyphered & cloaked in poetic terms &/or numerological correspondences, if not they could risk death or torture for themselves & family. For know we will go along with the idea Jesus Christ was genuine individual manifest, instead of inevitable archetype he really is.
From Mustard seed to mighty edifice
A church was built especially to house the specific foreskin remains from Charlemagne for the next few hundreds of years, & 8 Popes endorsed it. Pope Benedict the 13th even gave unlimited pardon to any sin if the perpetrator venerated the holy foreskin.
It is likely a real foreskin was used, but still who's was it ?! It could be any old foreskin, maybe it was not even a human one as 'Almost all mammal penises have foreskins or prepuces,[1] '
''In addition to the Holy Foreskin of Rome (later Calcata), other claimants included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay, Santiago de Compostela, the city of Antwerp, Coulombs in the diocese of Chartres, as well as Chartres itself, and churches in Besançon, Metz, Hildesheim, Charroux.[12] Conques, Langres, Fécamp, and two in Auvergne. ''
Here are the main contenders -
The Church of the Holy Circumcision (Rome, Italy)
One of the earliest claims to the Holy Prepuce came from Rome, where it was reportedly venerated in the Church of the Holy Circumcision (no longer extant). The relic was said to have been brought to Rome by Saint Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, in the 4th century.
2. Chartres Cathedral (Chartres, France) During the Middle Ages, the Chartres Cathedral in France claimed to possess the Holy Prepuce. It was a popular pilgrimage site for those seeking to venerate the relic.
3. Santiago de Compostela (Spain) The Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, one of the most important pilgrimage sites in Christianity, also claimed to have the Holy Prepuce at one point. This claim added to the cathedral's prestige as a destination for devout Christians.
4. Coulombs Abbey (France) The Abbey of Coulombs in France was another site that claimed to possess the Holy Prepuce. The relic was reportedly given to the abbey by Charlemagne in the 9th century.
5. Lateran Basilica (Rome, Italy) The Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome, the official ecclesiastical seat of the Pope, also claimed to have the Holy Prepuce at one time. This claim added to the basilica's status as one of the most important churches in Christendom.
6. Calcata (Italy) The most famous claim to the Holy Prepuce comes from the small Italian village of Calcata, near Rome. The relic was said to have been stolen by a soldier during the Sack of Rome in 1527 and brought to Calcata, where it was venerated for centuries. The relic was kept in a jeweled reliquary and displayed during annual processions. However, in 1983, the relic was reported stolen, and its current whereabouts are unknown.
7. Other Claims Over the centuries, at least 21 different locations across Europe claimed to possess the Holy Prepuce, including churches in Antwerp (Belgium), Hildesheim (Germany), and Besançon (France). The proliferation of such claims led to skepticism and even ridicule, with some theologians and scholars questioning the authenticity of the relic.
Then either : - in 1945 it was lost from the Catholic custodians & from inside a jewel encrusted cross [5] , or a local priest reported it missing in 1983 .[9] . I will not speculate on this as it is all so much lies & cypher, that to do so is indulgent stupidness.
It seems that in almost all the stories of Holy foreskins they go missing!
''Most of the Holy Prepuces were lost or destroyed during the Reformation and the French Revolution.[9] ''
At the abbey of Charroux ;'' At some point,..the relic went missing, and remained lost until 1856 when a workman repairing the abbey claimed to have found a reliquary hidden inside a wall, containing the missing foreskin''.
Who could be so careless with such a useless but highly adored cult object?
Maybe it is not so useless though? It certainly is not useless while attached to the body, in what ways is it still attached to the template of a body?
According to scientists eager for more funding opportunities, the DNA (Dubious Natural Arrangements) could be taken from the Holy Prepuce & used to 'yes defiantly , well possibly, ok at the moment maybe, make a clone'' , which means ''if you give us funding we will make progress on this but never achieve it. Instead we can construct abominations & horrors of biology that will haunt you for eternity''.
''in the late 17th century the Vatican librarian Leo Allatius wrote an unpublished[19] treatise entitled De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (A Discussion of the Foreskin of Our Lord Jesus Christ), claiming that the Holy Prepuce ascended, like Jesus himself, and was transformed into the rings of Saturn. ''. He believed while Jesus ascended to the Heavens he left his foreskin with Saturn & placed it around the luminary for eternity. This may sound quite mad, but remember what was CHRONOS & what is SATURN, what happened in their myths? I do not need to encompass such overt allegories here, if you do not know then please inform yourself with even the most basic of searches.
The Catholic Church has taken a cautious stance on the authenticity of the Holy Prepuce. In 1900, the Church issued a decree stating that anyone who wrote or spoke about the Holy Prepuce could face excommunication. This was likely an attempt to discourage the veneration of dubious relics. Today, none of the claimed relics are officially recognized by the Church, and the whereabouts of the Holy Prepuce (if it ever existed) remain a mystery.
What are we to make of this mutilated history, why is it worth even mentioning?
This is not a simple thing to answer.
There is rich symbolism here of the SUN mutilated by Saturn, of generative energies interactions & processes given anthropomorphic visages.
Meanwhile the horror of genital mutilation has to be confronted before people can interact in fair-minded ways. Every adult of reasonably sound mind & disposition should be free to do what they like with their own bodies, but to force a child into a unlawful=non consensual & disgusting mutilation should be considered a crime that it really is. It is also a crime against Nature that facilitates a state of mind capable of more crimes against Nature, & Human nature.
ORIGINS within the BIBLE
It is more than sad that some barbaric cultures still practice this obscene act on helpless babies, while the origins of its repulsive alien practice is embedded in the worlds most popular, best selling book of all known time= THE BIBLE.
The Bible is a book so popular it is claimed to be the word of 'god' itself!
Who believes such utter rubbish from obvious liars, it is a book written by people, the fact so many lie about the authors does not mean the authors were liars specifically , but to claim they are the voice of 'god' itself seriously implies that lies are being told, most probably by compulsive liars. To be able to lie so freely some un-natural event must have corrupted the spirits of the liars.
Even a casual bit of research shows that the Old Tenement Bible, originally written in Hebrew was formed without VOWELS at all, & hardly any sentence breaks. It is obviously a cypher requiring missing keys to properly fathom. It is also a book of numerology & gematria, as the letter values are also number values & that is a fact well known about & impossible to separate from any proper Biblical discussion. Languages that involve letters having numerical values are called "abjad languages''.
Does this then mean the Bible is utter rubbish made for stupid & desperate lost souls of today?
No , but sadly that happens too often. Instead with the correct keys the Bible is one of most important Books ever compiled, full of fascinating ALLEGORIES, occult science ('the nature of Nature') & anthropomorphic resonance. Yet still, even at face value it has historical use, despite many esoteric concerns being mutilated in the process of transposition, transliteration, translation & transferences to become simplified English jargon !
The Bible (phonetically Bi-Bel (or BULL) = TWO LORDS.
Also Bible can = tower of 'BABEL' for waffle & word confusions , & also 'Bibble' for dribbling babies ) it is without doubt (mainly) TWO books about TWO 'gods'= Old Testicle Patriarch psychopathic Father figure of petulant tantrums, & genocidal inclination, & his more lovely , poetic & compassionate SON, so unlike his father.
Both are allegorical of Natures nature, to be destructive without remorse , & yet also still the most benign generative force in UniVerse. This is in many ways what SATURN/ SATAN is , it is an ARENA for existence= THE SOWER & REAPER, Life Death & resurrections as cyclic process.
This does not mean I like the Bible, just that to dismiss it out of hand, or take it as supernatural 'claimed fact of gods thoughts' is just simple minded & willfully stupid.
Some powerful facts of Western world events can only be properly comprehended with knowledge from what the Bible conveys. It is unarguable fact that the greatest thinkers of the past were very religious minded, partly because they HAD TO BE under threat of being branded heathen & ostracised, but also because they were smart enough to see astro-theological & moral allegories the Bible is so expert in.
This view will make me unpopular with both sides, I know!
Either you should love the Bible or Hate it,&/or ignore it. Life is not so simple even though that is what we are encouraged to feel & think. The Bible is a great example of a 'valid fiction' in many of its pages, like the Protocols of Zion, it may be a type of lie, but that lie is more valid than many superficial truths.
The Bible is in fact a COMPILATION of many great oral teachings & instruction used for initiation from many places, & this is why it suffers from so much contradiction & notable inconsistency.
Initiation was given to almost ALL YOUNG PEOPLE before industrialisation, it is not devil worship habit or secret society conspiracy, it is how child was instructed in family trade & history of ancestors. It is essential aid to live better life, that is now sadly open to such corruption that many are correct to be suspicious of its modern fashions. However, initiation should be remembered as INTENDED to be natural instruction from a benign sensibility, not perverse corruption or abuse tactic, which is too often the case among power hungry cults today.
So, I apologies to have to share so much background before getting to the meat of the matter!
I would also like to do more comparative cultural view on this, but that would require a whole book & that is not something I wish to concentrate on considering the subject matter. So I will confine it to mostly Western ideology for here & now.
The first written mention of the inhumane & curse worthy violation of circumcision
is found in the contradictory (*2) book of Genesis =
Genesis 17
9 Then God said to Abraham,(*3) “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
…
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
Here is ORIGINS OF MUTILATION CULTS. On surface reading =then Abraham is first massive piece of sadistic shit, & morally evil hypocrite in history. This is not a passionate accident, this is planned evil agenda for complete control environment & spiritual decomposition.
Mutilator Cults in tandem with DEATH CULTS have been ruining world & human hearts, minds & bodies for many centuries, possibly even millennia now.
Abraham is symbolic process of de-humanisation, & all things from Abraham are genuine evil, far worse than any devil worship claims. If it comes from Abraham you will know straight away it is soul-less excrement & intended to harm your body & spirit.
What has Abraham given the world apart from genital mutilation?
Abraham has not only given the world abundance of miserable life hating, death worshipping mutilation addicts, he has also provided 3 shitty modern (alienation) religions of bigotry & intolerance. These manifestations of mental & psychic decomposition have crippled & killed more people than any 'act of nature' or 'imaginary viruses: that transpire to be poisoning subterfuge', & have fuelled more wars than any other excuse in all of history.
Cain/Cane had a mark, was that a tattoo ? Tattoos are also mutilation cult defilement. Everyone enslaved (even to a 'cause' or 'team') usually has tattoo to show who they are OWNED by, or BELONG to.
This does not mean tattoo can not be wonderful & magical thing of great beauty, just it is so important it should not be considered in light heart, or a fashion accessory. To do so is insult to creation & sacred temple of the body. To be marked so without good cause is a curse upon the spirit as reflection of the body. Why now so many tattoos from wishy washy middle class poseurs? Because it is reflection of scarred psyche, a branding for the fodder they have become? Getting a tattoo is act of masochism.
What is a Tattoo also = ‘‘A military marching band performance is called a “tattoo” because it is derived from the Dutch phrase “doe den tap toe,” meaning “turn off the taps.” This referred to the military drummers signaling innkeepers to stop serving beer and for soldiers to return to their barracks.’’ Tattoo is a miserable curtailment.
Moses nearly gets killed by his 'god'
LAWs are claimed to come from Moses & the Bible with the 10 commandments.
But still the Old Testicle 'god' had demanded Abraham form a Covenant with him & that was to be circumcised, & to also mutilate all his children & so on, forever.
The Hebrew term בְּרִית bĕriyth for "covenant" is from a root with the sense of "cutting", because pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice.[1]
What does the word COVERN mean in English? What would be an ANT of the COVERN ?
Forming a covenant is part of slavery practice. Wearing a TIE is also representation of circumcision & chaining of a slave. To TIE is also TO BIND, as used in all symbolism of FASCISM, and also some etymology of the word RELIGION, so we have resolution of opposites in wearing a tie, as it is binding to permanent ALLIGANCE while in reference to also cutting away GENERATIVE INDEPENDANCE.
''- God was seeking to kill Moses
- Zipporah, Moses’ wife, took a flint knife and circumcised their son
- after the operation, Zipporah touched Moses’ feet with the foreskin
- Zipporah called her husband “a bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision
- at that point, “the Lord let him alone” (Exodus 4:26). ''
Moses, the leader of God’s people, was blurring the distinction in his own family. Further, Moses was to be the lawgiver for Israel, and it would not do for the giver of the law to be a lawbreaker. Part of the law would require circumcision (Leviticus 12:3). (*4)
The covenant found in Genesis 15 is known as the Brit bein HaBetarim, the "Covenant between the parts" in Hebrew (also translated as the "Covenant of the pieces"), and is the basis for brit milah (covenant of circumcision) in Judaism. The covenant was for Abraham and his seed, or offspring,[14] both of natural birth and adoption.[15]
I remember being told from a well placed uncle (& friends have also mentioned this) that some jobs in government & high office were not available to uncircumcised people. At the same time anyone with a visible tattoo would never get a job in certain professions or in a public service role.
Here are some artists who have painted the anti-christ fantasy of the 'allegorical Jesus' imaginary circumcision, I have not used any off them here because they become genuinely vile, & fodder for sadists, & even possibly virtual child abusers, although I do not wish these images banned (they are paintings not photographs & only representations), I also do not wish to encourage their popularity. There are over 84 still existent paintings in the worlds most revered churches & art galleries/museums.
Here s a list of about 150 of them
Paintings of the circumcision of Christ - Wikimedia Commons
They include works by William Blake, Rembrandt ,Dürer ,Peter Paul Rubens, Parmigianino, Leonaert Bramer & Giovanni Bellini did several, & even Jackson Pollock tried his hand at it.
Here is a video about one = A guide to Signorelli's 'The Circumcision' | National Gallery
I will wrap this up for now, there is much still worth discussing on this, that I hope to consider another time, hopefully this is a useful primer & launch pad for further investigations among any readers. Generative forces & their abuses is possibly one of the most important things that is necessary to be aware of , yet is still kept as massive secret, or mentioned in hysteria while cloaked in demonization.
appendix
a very excellent comment by @endofscene who I have contacted to ask permission to use.
….. Infants can't consent, and without genuine informed consent a contract is invalid. Therefore there can be no covenant because one of the parties (i.e. the babies) cannot give meaningful consent to the contract.
The original brit milah was not the removal of the whole foreskin but only part of the foreskin. The ritual was radicalised in the first or second centuries by zealous rabbis who wanted to prevent "uncircumcision" (Hellenic Jews hiding their circumcised status using string). The foreskin isn't an "extra layer of skin on the penis". It is standard anatomy and a natural normal part of the penis. It comprises up to 50% of the motile skin system on the penis and contains the most touch-sensitive parts of the penis.
If circumcision is a physical reminder for the Israelites that they are in relationship with God (to no avail, apparently) then why is it only done to one gender? Are not Israelite women also in relationship with God? If they are then where is their "reminder"?
The wedding ring analogy might sound nice but it doesn't really hold water once you understand the aforementioned point that infants cannot give consent. An infant can't consent to be married; nor can they consent to be in a covenant with God. Both 'contracts' are equally meaningless when involving newborn babies. Ancient Hebrews did not walk around naked. If anything, Biblical evidence suggests ancient Hebrews were very prudish.
I'm not aware of any evidence that the slaves of ancient Hebrews walked around naked, but even if they did that would be a small minority of the Hebrew population. And since circumcision wasn't unique to Jews (and still isn't), seeing a circumcised man wouldn't necessarily indicate his religion. And even if it did indicate his tribal origins it would tell you little about his current beliefs and behaviours. (Many Jews became assimilated into their surrounding Gentile cultures.)
Calling female circumcision a form of torture but not acknowledging the same of male circumcision is obviously irrational and sexist (and even racist). Infant male circumcision without proper anesthetic is undoubtedly a form of torture. The facts about that are quite clear for anyone who wants to watch the procedure and look at the science (if you're so hard-hearted that you need scientific studies to prove to you that screaming infants are suffering). Note that Jewish circumcision is traditionally done without any anesthetic and there is no commandment to use anesthetic in the Torah. Of course, anesthetic can be used for any type of male or female circumcision if the people performing it are humane.
Can you provide any Biblical support for your claim that Jewish women don't require circumcision because they enter into the covenant through marriage to a Jewish man? And what about Jewish women who never get married (maybe because they are ugly or disabled)? What about Jewish women who marry a Gentile? Are Jewish widows still in the covenant? What about Jewish women who die before marriage? Or Jewish baby boys who die before circumcision? (Or Jewish baby boys who die from circumcision?)
Again, infants don't offer a piece of their penis back to God. Adults do it to them. Infants get no say. There is no humility or sanctity involved in this, at least not on the part of the person making the sacrifice. Indeed, the sacrifice is literally being forced upon them. And I doubt whether there is much humility involved on the part of the parents either, as they are pressured and coerced by their family and community to do this, and they are threatened with exile and excommunication if they refuse.
This is a toxic ritual and causes a lot of emotional distress for parents and children. Many baptisms are done on adolescents and adults. Many Christian sects expressly only perform adolescent/adult baptism because they understand that infant baptism is meaningless considering that the infant cannot consent and has no understanding of the ritual.’’
— - Footnotes- —
(*1) Along with the Heads of St Peter & St Paul.
(*2) = the chronology is a mess of two different account of creation.
In what order did the creation occur exactly ?
(*3) AB.RA.HAM
is another astro-allegorical figure presented as a TRINITY
Just like SOL,OM,ON= the TRIPLE SUN
or JAH.BAL.ON
or IS.RA.EL
All these EXTERNAL analogies also have INTERNAL ones for practical Tantra practices.
(*4) Why was God going to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24-26? | GotQuestions.org
The Egyptians themselves may have regarded circumcision as an ethnic 'identifier', judging from depictions of foreigners in battle scenes...’
Is circumcision is an unnecessary ritual? Presumably in addition to the Biblical and other connections there's a financial consideration too—just as large numbers of children used to have their tonsils removed in the UK, for no very satisfactory medical reason—Rae West.
'Cultural' point: male circumcision is helpful in anal sex: is this the intention behind this 'Jewish'/ Moslem activity? Just as female 'circumcision' (in fact, removal of the clitoris) has the intention of removing female pleasure?—Rae West
THE ALLEGED BENEFITS
THE ALLEGED DISADVANTAGES AND RISKS
THE BOTTOM LINE
WHEN PARENTS DO DECIDE TO CIRCUMCISE
WHEN PARENTS DECIDE NOT TO CIRCUMCISE
REFERENCES [Note: some probably outdated]
THE ALLEGED BENEFITS
1. Circumcision allegedly reduces the likelihood of UT Is.
Point: A number of studies indicate that circumcision significantly reduces the likelihood of urinary tract infections (UT Is) during infancy. Some studies have shown as much as a ten-fold reduction in the rate of UT Is in circumcised infants as compared to that in intact (not circumcised) infants.
Counterpoint: The rate of UT Is in intact infants is only about 1 or 2 in 100 (depending on which study is quoted) while the rate of complications from infant circumcision is about 4 in 100 (depending on exactly what is defined as a complication). For many reasons, it is difficult to compare the reduced likelihood of UT Is and the rate of complications from circumcision, but detailed comparisons seem to indicate that the benefits and risks cancel each other out.
2. Circumcision allegedly reduces the likelihood of penile cancer.
Point: Although it is not unknown in circumcised men, penile cancer is most often seen in intact men.
Counterpoint: Penile cancer is extremely rare. It occurs in the United States in about 1 of 100,000 men per year (overall). Although the rate might be higher if we were to consider only intact men, the rate is simply not high enough to justify routine, infant circumcision. In addition, the causal agent in cancer of the penis is a known virus, and good hygiene appears to be a superior alternative to routine circumcision.
In addition, penile cancer has been occasionally observed in circumcised men and it is often in the circumcision scar itself that this cancer occurs. In fact, one well-conducted study found that more than a third of those who were suffering penile cancer were circumcised.
3. Circumcision allegedly reduces the likelihood of cancer of the cervix in one's female partner(s).
Point: (N/A)
Counterpoint: This has been fairly well laid to rest as simply untrue. Studies comparing the frequency of cervical cancer in Israeli women (whose husbands are almost always circumcised) with that of Scandinavian women (whose husbands are almost never circumcised) show no significant difference. In addition, there is a significant correlation between cervical cancer and both smoking and the presence of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV); in other words, it is both factors in conjunction with each other which correlate with the likelihood of cervical cancer.
4. Circumcision allegedly reduces the chance of contracting STDs and HIV infection.
Point: Several studies have shown a correlation between being intact and a higher likelihood of contracting STDs and HIV infection.
Counterpoint: Critics remind us that correlation does not prove causation. They point out that there are many methodological problems with these studies in that other possible factors, such as personal cleanliness and failure to practice safe sex, were not taken into account.
In addition, the most optimistic estimates of benefits in reducing the frequency of STDs and HIV infection are marginal and are not likely realistic. In fact, a recent study concluded that there was no definitive benefit to circumcision in preventing STDs.
5. Circumcision allegedly makes genital hygiene easier for the child.
Point: In the case of a properly performed circumcision, this is probably true.
Counterpoint: The key here is "properly performed." The fact is that an improperly performed circumcision can actually impede genital hygiene. Some circumcised children, for example, end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections.
In addition, many people believe that it is not justified to do amputative surgery of a normal body part in order to improve hygiene when parental instruction and/or supervision would probably suffice. The care of the intact penis is not difficult (see information at end of article); in fact, the foreskin should normally be left entirely alone for the first few years.
6. The circumcised penis is allegedly more aesthetic.
Point: In the United States, where circumcision has been the norm, this is probably the viewpoint held by many parents.
Counterpoint: What is and is not aesthetically pleasing is in the eye of the beholder. In Europe, where circumcision is extremely rare, many people believe that a circumcised penis looks strangely deformed and ugly. In any case, a bungled circumcision can be especially unaesthetic even to an American. In addition, few men would likely want to accept diminished sexual sensitivity for the sake of a possible aesthetic benefit.
7. A boy who is intact will allegedly feel awkward with his mostly circumcised peers and/or relatives. [This is often referred to as "locker room syndrome."]
Point: For some intact boys who are growing up among mostly circumcised peers or relatives, this can be a problem. It is not necessarily that there is teasing of an intact child by others, but rather that the child himself may feel "different." This feeling can be so intense that the child will resent not having been circumcised.
Counterpoint: Many children feel no such awkwardness. This is especially true when the parents support their child in being intact, letting him know why it was that they made the decision that they made. In addition, circumcision rates are dropping in the U.S. to the point that in a few places it is now the norm to be intact (California is an example). In many other places it is approaching a fifty-fifty situation.
In addition, regardless of the status of peers and relatives, some men resent the fact that they were circumcised without having had any say in the matter; some become very resentful toward their parents. This is especially true in the case of a bungled circumcision.
A recent nationwide survey of adult men which was done by "Men's Confidential" magazine clearly indicates that a significantly higher percentage of adult men who are intact are satisfied with their intact status than circumcised men are with their circumcised status.
There are a number of men who are so dissatisfied with their circumcised condition that they are "restoring." In some cases, a surgical restoration is done, but more often restoring involves a long period of taping and stretching penile shaft skin until there is at least a semblance of foreskin. In this regard, it should be remembered that an intact individual can always choose to undergo a circumcision whereas a circumcised individual can never again become truly intact.
8. A circumcision during infancy allegedly precludes the possibility of a circumcision later in childhood or adulthood when it would allegedly be more expensive, more painful, more traumatic, more complicated, and more likely to result in complications.
Point: It is probably true that a circumcision in later childhood or adulthood is more complicated and more expensive, and possibly more problematic and traumatic.
It is also true that, in the U.S., 5% to 10% of intact children will eventually undergo a circumcision during childhood or adulthood, and this can be a traumatic experience. It is also true that a properly performed infant circumcision precludes the possibility of a later circumcision.
Counterpoint: The key is "properly performed." Surprisingly, it is not unheard of for children to undergo two or more circumcisions. A circumcision revision is sometimes done during the prepubertal period either to correct complications of an infant circumcision or simply because the parents and/or child are dissatisfied with the result of an infant circumcision. Some adults undergo a scar revision (or recircumcision) in adulthood.
With regard to the possibility of an intact child requiring a circumcision in childhood, critics point out that U.S. doctors (who are mostly circumcised) are generally pro-circumcision as well as unfamiliar with either the advantages of remaining intact or the care of the intact penis. They are often unaware of alternative medical and surgical procedures which are far less drastic than circumcision and are simply too anxious to take the easy way out and circumcise when it is not truly necessary.
With regard to pain, it should be noted that it is far easier and safer to control pain in the case of an older child or adult than it is in the case of an infant. Infant circumcisions are usually performed without anaesthesia and can be excruciatingly painful. In addition, the injection of local anaesthesia into free tissue (such as the penis) carries its own risks: it can, for example, cause permanent vascular and nerve damage. General anaesthesia, which should probably be the norm for circumcision of older children and adults, is simply too risky to use in the case of newborns.
THE ALLEGED DISADVANTAGES AND RISKS
1. Circumcision is allegedly an unnecessary surgery which cannot be justified on medical grounds.
Point: Several cost-utility analysis studies have concluded that there is no cost-utility benefit to routine infant circumcision (i.e., that the minimal potential benefits of circumcision are offset by the disadvantages and risks).
In addition, there are certain medical problems which are actually caused or aggravated by circumcision; one of these is meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the meatus, or urethral opening at the tip of the penis) which may later require surgical intervention. Meatal stenosis is far more often seen in circumcised children than in intact children and is, in fact, considered a consequence of circumcision. While the exact etiology is unknown, some studies point to the fact that the foreskin provides protection for the urinary meatus during the diaper period and/or that the frenular artery can be damaged during circumcision and result in ischemia (lack of proper blood supply) to the glans (head of the penis) and meatus.
Counterpoint: Lifetime cost-utility analysis is not usually a factor that enters into the decision of parents as to whether or not they will have their children circumcised.
2. Circumcision, like any other surgery, puts a child at risk for possible harm.
Point: There is a definite risk associated with circumcision. Many parents (and even many doctors) do not realize the frequency or severity of complications that can and do occur as the result of circumcision. The complication rate for infant circumcision has been given as from 2% to 10% (depending on exactly what is considered a complication). If by complication we take it to mean an unwanted and unexpected result, the best estimate of the complication rate for infant circumcision is around 5%. The most common complications include bleeding, infection, the removal of too little or too much tissue, meatal stenosis, and scarring. Less common are skin bridges, skin tags, and loss of the tip of the glans. Even loss of the entire penis and death are not unheard of. Just about anything that could happen has happened.
A child who has to live with a noticeable circumcision complication may be far worse off emotionally and physically than he would have been were he not circumcised in the first place.
Counterpoint: The operation is a fairly simple one which seldom has a significantly adverse outcome when performed by a skilled operator.
3. There is a loss of erogenous tissue which is, in itself, allegedly worth saving. A drastic circumcision, especially, can result in a significant loss of sensitivity and sexual pleasure.
Point: Many men who were circumcised at an age of awareness confirm that there is a loss of sensitivity, sometimes severe.
The foreskin is more richly innervated than the glans itself. In addition, certain structures associated with the prepuce, such as the highly sensitive frenum, are often partially or totally destroyed during a circumcision. To a greater or lesser extent (depending on the technique of the operator) the highly sensitive mucosa (what is often referred to as the "inner lining" of the foreskin) is lost to circumcision.
Through exposure to the elements and a keratinizing process, the glans and whatever mucosa remains become much thicker and less sensitive. Many free nerve endings in the glans die off during this keratinizing process.
In addition, inasmuch as the mucosa is normally adherent to the glans at birth, in order to perform an infant circumcision, it is usually necessary to separate the mucosa and the glans; doing so involves stripping or tearing the one from the other, often resulting in considerable trauma to both structures which may possibly have a lasting, detrimental effect on sensitivity and in some cases leaves noticeable pock marks on the glans and the mucosa.
Some doctors seem to feel that a "good" circumcision is a "tight" circumcision. One of the most common complaints of circumcised adults is that erections are painful due to having had a too drastic circumcision. In this regard, it should be mentioned that it is not possible to judge with any degree of accuracy in the case of an infant how "tight" his circumcision will be when he is an adult.
Counterpoint: Barring an adverse circumcision complication, most circumcised men seem to have no trouble with sexual sensitivity and sexual performance. Many men who were circumcised at an age of awareness report no noticeable loss in sensitivity.
4. There is allegedly considerable pain involved in a typical infant circumcision performed without anaesthesia.
Point: Many studies verify the fact that infants do feel pain and that they feel it intensely. Some of these studies indicate that they feel it even more intensely than do adults. There is no doubt that a circumcision without anaesthesia can be excruciatingly painful.
In addition, there is a question as to the effectiveness of the various local anaesthetic techniques which are typically employed when anaesthesia is used in an infant circumcision. There is no question, however, that the use of local anaesthesia significantly increases the risk of complications and in itself has the potential to cause vascular and nerve damage. General anaesthesia is simply too risky for use in the case of infant circumcision.
Counterpoint: Because the nervous system is not fully developed at birth, some allege that infants do not feel pain in the same way that adults do. It is claimed that this is evidenced by the fact that some infants seem to be relatively unaware that they are undergoing circumcision.
5. A boy who is circumcised will allegedly feel awkward with his mostly intact peers or relatives. [This is often referred to as "locker room syndrome."]
Point: For some circumcised boys who are growing up among mostly intact peers or relatives, this can be a problem. It is not necessarily that there is teasing of a circumcised child by others who are intact, but rather that the child himself may feel "different." The problem is often more pronounced in the case of a circumcised child who is among others who are intact than it is in the case of an intact child who is among others who are circumcised for the reason that a circumcised child has had a part of his penis cut off and may feel more "exposed" and deprived. This is especially likely when there is significant scarring, discoloration, an adhesion, a skin bridge, a skin tag, or any noticeable complication resulting from circumcision.
Some children are devastated when they first learn that a part of their penis has been cut off and disposed of. This feeling can be very intense to the point that the child will resent having been circumcised. In at least a few cases, this has caused real problems between parents and children at some point down the road.
Counterpoint: Many children feel no such awkwardness. This is especially true when the parents support their child in being circumcised, letting him know why it was that they made the decision that they made. In addition, although circumcision rates are dropping in the U.S., it is still the norm in some parts of the country.
6. There is an alleged human rights issue involved.
Point: Many humanitarians feel that a child has a right to an intact body. They feel that it is unethical for parents to seek or for doctors to cooperate in performing genital surgery on unconsenting minors when there is no clear, medical need (i.e., disease or trauma). In fact, it would appear that routine infant circumcision violates the February 1995 statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics regarding informed consent, parental permission, an assent in pediatric practice, stating that in the case of nonessential treatments, which could be deferred without substantial risk, physician and family should wait until the child's consent could be obtained.
It should be noted that while tattooing of children has been outlawed in some states, parents in those same states can opt to have their sons circumcised. In addition, while most Americans decry the practice of female "circumcision" in other cultures, they are alone in the world in sanctioning the practice of nonreligious circumcision on such a high percentage of males. Humanitarians tend to see this as inconsistent.
Counterpoint: Parents often make decisions to have medical and/or surgical procedures performed on and in behalf of their children. Inoculations and orthodontic work are two examples. Infants and young children are not in a position to make these decisions for themselves, therefore parents act in behalf of their children.
THE BOTTOM LINE
There is no clear cut medical basis on which to make a valid decision to circumcise. Therefore, the decision to circumcise represents a parental choice and nothing more.
Circumcision does provide some minimal, potential health benefits such as a lowered risk of UT Is, penile cancer, and foreskin problems. These are offset, however, by the disadvantages and risks.
Although most circumcision complications are quite minor, some are quite serious. Any decision to circumcise should be made with this in mind.
While it is true that circumcision can actually improve sexual pleasure in the case of an adult male who has a problem which is corrected by circumcision, the fact is that circumcision diminishes sexual sensitivity and pleasure to a greater or lesser extent (depending on exactly how it is performed) in the case of a normal male when there is (or would have been) no such problem.
There is a human rights issue involved. While many parents correctly believe that they have a right to make medical decisions in behalf of their children, many others believe that circumcision in the absence of disease or trauma is not properly a medical decision. They question whether genital surgery performed on unconsenting minors can be justified on the basis of parental preference.
All things considered, it is the author's opinion that routine circumcision cannot be justified either on medical grounds or on the basis of parental preference.
WHEN PARENTS DO DECIDE TO CIRCUMCISE
When parents decide to circumcise, thought should be given to who will do the surgery and how it will be done. Too many parents are willing to take potluck in this regard; that is, the surgery is performed by their child's primary care physician in whatever manner he or she happens to perform it. Better to choose a doctor who regularly does circumcisions and who is well-trained to do them. A pediatric urologist is probably the best choice.
In addition, it is not a bad idea to discuss -- ahead of time -- exactly how the operation will be performed. Will anaesthesia be employed? If so, what type and why? What technique will be used for the operation itself? How much tissue will be removed? Will care be taken to preserve the frenum and a good deal of the mucosa?
WHEN PARENTS DECIDE NOT TO CIRCUMCISE
The important thing to remember is that, in the infant and very young child, no special care is required of an intact penis. It is especially important that no one (this includes mothers and the child's physician) attempt to forcibly retract the child's foreskin. (Doing so can cause the very problem for which physicians will often recommend circumcision.) The first person to retract a child's foreskin should be the child himself.
During the first years of life, the foreskin and glans are normally connected to each other (in the same way that the fingernails are attached to the fingers) by a common membrane called the synechia. This connective tissue dissolves naturally during the child's lifetime so that the percentage of boys who have retractable foreskins increases with age. By adolescence, the vast majority of boys will have retractable foreskins.
Once the foreskin has become retractable, the child should be taught to practice good hygiene. The following instructions given by the parent or caretaker may be helpful: 1.) Gently pull your foreskin back. 2.) Rinse with warm water. 3.) Pull your foreskin back in place over the head of your penis.
REFERENCES [NOTE: Many may be outdated]
Adult Penile Circumcision: Erotosexual and Cosmetic Sequelae. Journal of Sexual Research, 1983 Aug, vol 19, pp 289-292.
Answers to Your Questions about Your Young Son's Intact Penis. (Brochure) National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC); P.O. Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512.
Attitudes and Practices Regarding Analgesia for Newborn Circumcision. Pediatrics, 1993 Oct 4, vol 92, pp. 541-543.
Circumcision: A Decision Analysis of its Medical Value. Family Medicine, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp. 587-593.
Circumcision. A medical of a Human Rights Issue? Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 1992 Mar-Apr, vol 37, pp. 87s-96s.
Circumcision and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. American Journal of Public Health, vol 84, #2, 1994 Feb, pp. 197-201.
Circumcision in Children Beyond the Infant Period. Pediatrics, 1993 Dec, vol 92, pp. 791-793.
Circumcision Decision: Prominence of Social Concerns. Pediatrics, 1987 Aug, vol 80, pp. 215-219.
Circumcision No Longer a "Routine" Surgical Procedure. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1995 Jun 1, vol 152, pp. 1873-1876.
Circumcision Revision in Prepubertal Boys.... Journal of Urology, 1995 Jan, vol 153, pp. 180-182.
Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology of Meatal Stenosis following Circumcision. British Journal of Urology, 1994 Jan, vol 75, pp. 91-93.
Complications of Circumcision. British Journal of Surgery, 1993, Oct, vol 80, pp. 1231-1236.
Early Adolescent Knowledge and Attitudes about Circumcision.... Journal of Adolescent Health, 1992 Jun, vol 13, pp. 293-297.
Is the Risk of UT I Really the Pivotal Issue? Clinical Pediatrics, 1992 Feb, pp. 100-104.
Management of Foreskin Problems. Archives of Diseases of Children, 1991 Jun, vol 66, pp.696-697.
Male Circumcision Satisfaction. Men's Confidential. 1996, March.
Neonatal Circumcision. Urological Clinics of North America, 1995 Feb, vol 22, pp. 57-65.
Newborn Circumcision. American Family Pediatrics, 1988 Oct, pp. 151-155.
Pain and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987 Nov 19, vol 317, pp. 1321-1329.
Preputial Plasty: A Good Alternative to Circumcision. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 1994 Apr, vol 29, pp. 561-563.
Relation of Circumcision to Cancer of the Cervix. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1973 Dec, vol 177, pp. 1056-1065.
Routine Neonatal Circumcision: A Cost-Utility Analysis. Medical Decision Making, 1991 Oct-Dec, vol 11, pp. 282-289.
The Circumcision Decision. American Baby, 1996 Mar, pp. 70-73.
The Circumcision Question. Postgraduate Medicine, 1992 May 1, vol 91, pp. 237-242, & 244.
The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and its Loss to Circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996 Feb, vol 77, pp. 291-295.
The Question of Routine Neonatal Circumcision, New England Journal of Medicine, 1990 May 3, vol 322, pp. 1312-1314.
First uploaded to Internet by Rae West 98-01-18; revised 98-09-22; reuploaded 2013-04-28; anal sex and removal of clitoris note added 2013-11-05 .
Great stuff as usual, with plenty of peculiar facts & insight.
Here’s the image you were looking for I think. There may be variations - but this is a well known one like you describe, or your memory has combined two different postcards into one that is more likely than this !