I can't believe people continue to subject their sons to this cruel and barbaric practice.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Except that circumcision makes it look more aesthetically pleasing to most women. It makes it look bigger. It's cleaner, so you don't have to sit there and scrub between all the excess flesh all the damn time.
Hm...seems like being circumcized is the way to go.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Face lifts would make many women more aesthetically pleasing. That doesn't mean a face lift surgery should be performed on them against their will.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Except that circumcision makes it look more aesthetically pleasing to most women. It makes it look bigger. It's cleaner, so you don't have to sit there and scrub between all the excess flesh all the damn time.
Man to man: how hard would doing that be?
quote: Hm...seems like being circumcized is the way to go.
This is like a woman in Sudan, not knowing better, defending clitoridectomy.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
While I agree that circumcision is basically unnecessary cosmetic surgery performed on infants without anesthesia (usually) and am mildly disturbed by the practice, I'm more annoyed at the insistence on equating it with FGM.
Circumcised male genitals perform more or less within the expected parameters in the areas of both pleasure and procreation, while female genitals that have been "circumcised" more or less do not. (As evinced by the lack of a need to do pressure sensitivity studies on circumcised females before establishing scientific certitude of a negative effect on sensitivity.)
So you put me in an awkward place. While I agree that circumcisions are not usually medically necessary and happen far more frequently in America than they should (and that people should always be allowed to make those decisions about their own bodies themselves), your actual argument makes me want to beat you with a stick. And really put my back into it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: While I agree that circumcision is basically unnecessary cosmetic surgery performed on infants without anesthesia (usually) and am mildly disturbed by the practice, I'm more annoyed at the insistence on equating it with FGM.
Circumcised male genitals perform more or less within the expected parameters in the areas of both pleasure and procreation, while female genitals that have been "circumcised" more or less do not. (As evinced by the lack of a need to do pressure sensitivity studies on circumcised females before establishing scientific certitude of a negative effect on sensitivity.)
So you put me in an awkward place. While I agree that circumcisions are not usually medically necessary and happen far more frequently in America than they should (and that people should always be allowed to make those decisions about their own bodies themselves), your actual argument makes me want to beat you with a stick. And really put my back into it.
quote: Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis:
Shut up. Stop comparing FGM directly to circumcision. It's stupid. It's the best way to announce that you have a worthlessly hyperbolic position on the matter that trivializes FGM in comparison.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: do not forget key words BARBARIC and MUTILATION which have always made every thread about circumcision better.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Let's play circumcision thread bingo. There's only three squares: "Mutilation" "Barbaric" and "Free Spot" and when you get three in a row, you have won "you are in a terrible thread about circumcision" bingo.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree with you.
I just really, really hate you.
The false equivalence here is both physical and social. If circumcision prevented most men from having orgasms except by prostate stimulation, the physical equivalence would be closer.
The social equivalence is almost nonexistent. Female circumcision serves the sole social purpose of controlling female sexuality, which has been a huge part of the oppression of women for most of recorded history. Male circumcision served, early on, to distinguish Jews from other tribes of people and also served some purpose in preventing disease (which is pretty much moot in modern times, provided there is access to hygiene instruction).
I admit there are some similarities between male and female circumcision, but the equivalence argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. What's more it trivializes centuries of cultural oppression of women.
So, I stand by what I said.
I agree, more or less, with your goal (ETA-inasmuch as I care about circumcision at all, I would describe it as largely unnecessary). But I find your argument of equivalence risible and offensive.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You know, I was circumcised, and I am okay.
It's possible I don't know what I'm missing, but what I have is pretty good.
If you removed the entire head of my penis, it would probably be more similar to a clitorectomy. But that isn't the case.
Now, would I do the same to my son? I dunno. I don't think so. When my friend had his kid, I objected: he said it was medixcally necessary, pointed me into some material he said agreed with him, but the information he used actually said nothing of the sort. He wasn't Jewish, and there was no good reason for it. So i dunno. That was awhile ago, and maybe I don't feel that strongly about it. I guess, if my son wants the aesthetic benefit of it, he can have it done on his own time? I mean, my penis has no problems with pleasure or anything like that. So I guess I am just ambivalent these days about it. Moreso than I was when my friend had it done to his kid, anyway.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually, there's several kinds of FGM. One kind is removing the prepuce from the clitoris, so it's similar to circumcision. Way I see it, it should not be allowed. It should not happen to babies. It hurts excruciatingly and it's their body. Why can't a male decide when he's 18 whether or not he wants to be circumcised?
I've read that removing the foreskin not only removes a lot of nerves but it removes protection for the delicate glans. This can cause keratinization of the penis. If 80% of people don't do this, why do we bother doing this here? Most of the so-called medical benefits can be prevented with condoms, cleaning and such. I don't think it should be done anymore.
Yes, folks get offended when we compare the two, but the fact is that either way the rights of this person to decide about these personal parts of their body is taken away by culture and shoddy science. http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html So can we please, PLEASE not cut boys or girls there? I can't understand why it's so hard to realize why this is so wrong. I can't even watch a circumcision being performed on a baby. It's agonising. That poor baby doesn't even know what's going to happen.
Plus, when folks go on about foreskins being gross, it's like you're saying that the natural male body is gross. Think about how folks would react if you said the same thing about women!
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus, when folks go on about foreskins being gross, it's like you're saying that the natural male body is gross. Think about how folks would react if you said the same thing about women!
Unfortunately, many people do seem to find it gross. I am circumcised so I have not had this problem but I have a friend that is both promiscuous and NOT circumcised. He has told me that several women have been instantly turned off by it which lead to a premature end to his budding relationship.
Of course, at least he has the choice to do something about it if he wishes. Most of us did not.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree, except on two points.
One, while they are sometimes comparable physically, the direct equivalence ignores centuries of gender repression and inequality. I do not believe it is unreasonable to find that offensive. (And my family has long been part of bucking the American trend of unnecessary surgery on infants. My mother refused to participate in circumcisions during her training as a nurse, and was quite lucky she wasn't failed for it.) In huge swaths of the world, women are regarded as property. So pardon me if I don't have the mental energy to weep and tear my hair over the tragic loss of a few foreskins. In the overall scheme of things, there are much bigger fish(horrible injustices) to fry (rail against). You'll probably have better luck changing attitudes about circumcision than people have attempting to achieve equality for women. I have the good fortune to know which I care about more, is all.
Two, genitals (natural or altered ETA: of BOTH sexes) are gross. We just get used to them because they're fun. ;P
Aaaaand, I'm done.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Man to man: how hard would doing that be?
I like how you ignored the first two points and went straight for the last one. Still, you're missing the point. Kids and men alike who aren't circumcized and who don't clean those areas proficiently can get infections much easier than if they had been circumsized. I would think that this information would stand on its own as obvious.
quote: Hm...seems like being circumcized is the way to go.This is like a woman in Sudan, not knowing better, defending clitoridectomy.
So I'm not allowed to disagree with you because I "don't know any better"? That sounds a little arrogant, don't you think? I'm circumsized and I know three grown men who have had the procedure done after they turned 18, using their own money, all because they wanted to. As a result, they all experienced better sex and enjoyed the "look" that resulted from it. I'd say my stance is fairly well cemented in actual human experiences.
And to compare this to FGM is just outragous and, in my opinion, offensive to those women.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was not circumcised...until after I had multiple infections...at age 12. It was agonizing, embarrassing and crippling, I was bed ridden for over a week for recovery. Nevermind the fact that (before the surgery) I was mocked in the locker room for having a weird wiener. (And that I had to pee sitting down for months afterward.)
When my son was born, I was not convinced he should get one. My own experience was a point on the side of doing it. My wife is nurse (MA), she felt strongly that it should be done, for the medical reasons of preventing infections. It's not just a question of "these are modern times" it's also a question of young children not being good at cleaning themselves, and the outcome being horrible. I said okay, but only if he had a local anesthetic. When I insisted to his pediatrician that my son get numbed, she told me that that was standard procedure. My son got the circumcision, and slept through it. I'm glad we did it.
As to male and female circumcisions being compared, it's like trimming your nails vs cutting off your fingers. FGM is a shameful, evil act which should be stopped by force if necessary as a crime against humanity.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Thing is, it's not like trimming your nails. When done to a baby it's a lot more like having your nail peeled back and your finger cut. So the finger doesn't get cut off, but the tip of the skin and the nail does. Usually without anesthesia. And even with it, it still hurts.
So, having argued about this issue so much, I'm thinking, screw this. I'm moving to Europe. Why the hell would a woman not want a man just because he has a part of his body that is NATURAL and HAS A FUNCTION??! If a man said women should be cut because their genitals smell and look weird, women would have a fit and rightfully so. But, it's perfectly OK to pick on men for having a part of them that's not just a piece of skin, but it's supposed to be there. Have you read some of the reasons why women are forced to get circumcised? You get all of these folks going on about how clitorises grow and how unnatural having whole genitals is. I'm not trying to trivialize FGM, but why is it that girls get this sort of protection in the US and boys don't?
I am so going to Europe.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Syn...because there is a legitimate medical reason for male circumcision. If there wasn't, then it would be in the same category (not the same level) as FGM.
Having personally suffered the medical consequences of not being clipped, let me tell you, I wish my parents had done it when I was but a wee lad.
ETA: And male circumcision isn't like trimming your nails, in and of itself. But that isn't what I said. I said, male circumcision vs female "circumcision" is like trimming your fingernails vs having your fingers cut off.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
80% of people in the world do not get circumcised. And most of the health benefits could be gotten by NOT cutting the foreskin off. I don't know what it is with the US and this whole obsession with cutting foreskins. At least it's going down a bit, but still. You don't hear about men in Europe having exploding foreskins. I am so there. Plus just because it's done on a baby, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt like hell and affect them. I really wish folks in the US would stop doing it. Also people in parts of Asia don't either.
Historically speaking, circumcision for non-religious purposes in the west was used as a "Cure" for masturbation. Kellog, the inventor of Corn Flakes even proposed that girls have carbolic acid put on their foreskins to keep them from masturbating. And the only reason why this practice kept up in the US for ages was conformity. It's been said to prevent venereal diseases, epilepsy, and so many other things, yet the fact is, there are NO good medical reasons to put a person through this sort of procedure. I can't even understand whose idea it was to even start cutting the most sensitive parts of genitals. Especially off of children.
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
So many people with anecdotes.
I was circumcised when I was a baby. The doctor messed up. My penis can be charitably described as "mutilated and ugly".
Comparing circumcision to FGM is indeed rank hyperbole. FGM GUARANTEES mutilation, circumcision does not. BUT circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic surgery that has a chance of failure, like all surgeries. It's still taking away a person's right to their body, if done when they are young. For all those reasons, circumcisions done on children should be stopped, if not by law, than by social pressures. I don't care about ADULTS choosing to be circumcised; everyone has the right to risk failure for cosmetic, aesthetic reasons.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not just a question of "these are modern times" it's also a question of young children not being good at cleaning themselves, and the outcome being horrible.
The foreskin isn't supposed to retract until around preteen age (or possibly later), and forcibly pulling it back to clean can lead to infections.
We don't remove everyone's appendix because some people get appendicitis. Why should we remove everyone's foreskin because some people get infections?
That said, I agree with Olivet.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, mutilation by definition is cutting. So you can call it that. I think we kind of trivilize circumcision a bit in a way, because we're so used to it and it's been done in this country for years and it's been considered so MAINSTREAM. And yet, it IS indeed mutilation in the sense that something is being cut off of a child and no matter what they used from plastibells on it just really makes me want to cry. Those poor little cubs. You can't tell me it doesn't hurt them to do that. And having all that feces and urine coming in contact with that open wound just increases the risk for infection. Also, folks should learn more about foreskins.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have only girls and would probably not circumcise a boy. However, my nephews were all circumcised and I would hope even Syn would agree with their parent's decision. I can't remember what the boys' problem was but they needed to use the foreskin to fix it. If they hadn't done it, the boys would have lots of sexual problems in the future. So, for their sake, it is nice that everyone does it. Doctors have lots of experience and no one in the locker room will mock them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, for their sake, it is nice that everyone does it. Doctors have lots of experience and no one in the locker room will mock them.
I believe that infant male circumcision rates have actually fallen below 50% in the US in the last few years. Not "everyone does it" anymore.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I hate the locker room argument. No one should be looking at your son's junk in the first place. I'm reading about one main reasons for circumcision, phimosis (if anyone had me facebooked, they'd know I've been ranting about infant circumcision a lot) What I learned is that it can be treated WITHOUT circumcision and in fact, boy's foreskins retract at a certain age, usually by adolescence. It can be treated with stretching instead of cutting the foreskin off altogether. Some guys have the condition and just live with it. I don't know why folks in the US mostly are so eager to circumcise. I'd be suspicious. It's like how hysterectomies were the solution to every female problem. They act like circumcision is the only solution to MALE problems and that the foreskin is just skin and not a part of the body that has a purpose to it. It's kind of warped, really. That men in the US should be made to feel bad about this part of the body and having it intact. Just look at sitcoms, shows like Sex in the City where they mock men for having penises that look like "anteaters". Folks have no business teasing people over their natural, healthy body parts. This really has to stop, especially when it comes to forcing surgery when there are other solutions.
Also foreskins tend to be used in cosmetic creams and for skin grafts.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
phimosis isn't what they had. Sorry- wish i could remember the name.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Phimosis is when the foreskin can't retract or it's too tight. It makes me suspicious that so many doctors are so EAGER to recommend circumcision. People are doing it less though so maybe we will get used to foreskins here in the US? Some very famous people are against circumcision. That always helps turn the tide a bit and there are those who actively refuse to circumcise their sons.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Hypospadia sounds right. It isn't that circumcision is the treatment, it was a side effect of fixing the problem. I think the foreskin was used to repair.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
OK... I was wondering why circumcision would be used to treat that.... @_@
Also, why the heck is it that parents can't teach their kids to STOP picking on other kids for any reason?
http://fha.maryland.gov/genetics/hypo_qa.cfm I'm reading about this and this site said something along the lines of you have to fix it or else the kids will make fun of it. I''m not arguing against fixing that, but this site I'm reading now says something different, but if some little jerk is going to make fun of my son for being different he really needs to consider his existence and purpose on earth.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My brother said if not fixed, it would cause problems with fertility. Also, painful erections. With the first, they joked about waiting until he was an adult so they wouldn't have to worry about their son having sex as a teenager or fathering a child.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Hypospadia sounds right. It isn't that circumcision is the treatment, it was a side effect of fixing the problem. I think the foreskin was used to repair.
My son had this condition and a circumcision was required to provide skin for the repair.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I vote against circumcision, though given the current cultural climate I understand why many prefer to have their children circumsized. As part of my training, I observed a couple circumcisions of infants. I found it "barbaric" in the sense that it definitely caused pain to the infant, used a metallic clamping tool, and has very shaky medical ground.
My bf has a strong aversion to the idea of the "natural state." He thinks it's gross. We agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Syn,
quote:...if some little jerk is going to make fun of my son for being different he really needs to consider his existence and purpose on earth.
These are children we are talking about. And yes parents should teach them not poke fun, but come on, you are requesting a level of philosophy and self reflection which is simply beyond most adolescents.
I'm glad that circumcision is being brought into question, but I do not agree with your strong beliefs against it. People should make informed decisions. My parents choose to go against the grain, and in my particular case, it was a bad thing, and it affected my choice for my son.
Zhil was mutilated (I'm so sorry dude) and I'm sure it will affect his choice.
But to claim that all circumcisions are bad/monstrous across the board as you seem to be rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While the comparison to FGM, or the 'milder' forms of female circumcision, fails on the face of things because of differences in what's done and what results, and is thus deeply stupid and betrays a lot of ignorance...this *is* Sa'eed, after all. And here's a thread about circumcision as practiced in the USA, likening it to FGM very specifically.
Thinly-veiled anti-Semitism: go! Or rather, gone in this case as it's already been activated, so to speak. This absurd comparison is as stupid and transparent as when he recently criticized *X-Men First Class* of all things as a retelling of Jewish myth and history, with Jews telling about how superior they are and how troublesome it is to deal with the masses.
I'm just mentioning this so folks can understand the deeper context here. Male circumcision, it can be said that on strictly secular grounds there are problems with the practice, I think. But only someone with a deeper, dishonest agenda would liken it to FGM.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Very thinly veiled, if it's veiled at all. But what you can you expect from him?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm sorry, but it's cutting a baby without their consent. I just don't think that's right. I'm not antisemitic. I'm anti inflicting pain on babies if they don't need it or don't consent. I'm anti cutting off a part of the body that doesn't need to be cut 9 times out of ten. I think that across the board genital cutting like altering a baby with ambiguous genitalia on babies and children really shouldn't happen unless there's a good medical reason for it. And it can't be for something that can be prevented in better ways that don't alter a baby forever. For no reason at all should a person's genitals be cut or altered without their consent. Not for religion, not for culture, not for shoddy medical reasons. It shouldn't be the parent's decision because it's not their body. This is an intimate part of them. They need to have that choice. I do not have a dishonest agenda except I object to people hurting people of just about any kind.
And I wish I didn't know what breast ironing is. Why do people DO things like this? There's a reason why I'm more scared of people than spiders and snakes. Because people will do something that hurts a child and say it's for their own good even if there's proof that it ISN'T.
Plus we under estimate children. They can learn not to BE like this. And it's not a good reason to cut someone to prevent them being made fun of when it's a natural body part that shouldn't be made fun of in the first place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps Sa'eed has a history of antisemitism, but nothing he has posted in this thread has been so that I've seen.
His outrage in believing that we are hurting our male children unknowingly and in a widespread manor does not to my mind equal thinly veiled antisemitism to me. He is wrong to compare the two (FGM and circumcision) so casually, as they are worlds apart, but I can not agree with the conclusion you are drawing simply by that evidence.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I realize that the comparison to FGM is a bit much, but that's like saying it's wrong to compare cutting off a tip of a finger to the total slicing of the whole thing. I particularly made the comparison to FGM because of the study I linked to in the OP: Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My son, whom we steadfastly refused to circumcise at birth, had a chordee (without hypospadia) that was severe enough to make erections painful for him. (You might be surprised how often a baby boy gets erections.) It had to be repaired (we got several opinions), and they needed his foreskin for that surgery as well. It wasn't what we had intended for him, but stuff happens. Circumcision was just not something that was done in my family, despite it being the national norm at the time.
But it is clearly not the end of the world (or the end of his potential for sexual fulfillment and happiness), either. It is what it is.
Despite advocating against the routine circumcision of all baby boys (and indeed, the cosmetic procedures often done on baby girls with atypical genitalia), I remain annoyed at the insistence that circumcision and FGM are the same. I think it actually weakens an otherwise strong argument by giving the opposition an easy way of dismissing anti-circumcision advocates as alarmist crackpots. There are (tenuous)parallels, but pointing them out does not help the cause.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't really think it does... In the sense that the results are perminant, it's cultural, folks will say it's better looking, cleaner and smells better. I just think it's wrong. There's many men trying to restore their foreskins because they lose a lot more than just a bit of skin and it's kind of time to acknowledge the affects it could have on someone in the long term. Some folks are ok with it, but this doesn't mean we should keep doing it unless it's super medically necessary. I'm talking dying here. Some folks are stating that the foreskin is the male version of the clitoris. (I'm doing way too much research on this by the way.) So I think we should STOP circumcising and learn more about the foreskin and NOT CUT GENITALS.
And I am not a crackpot, but someone who really wants to spare people pain.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Synesthesia: vicious anti-semite.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But I don't hate Jews. I just hate... people cutting delicate body parts and inflicting pain on people for any reason even if it's traditional.
Also, some Jews are against circumcision too. I'm in a facebook group with some folks who are Jewish who are against it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I would also like to spare people pain and bring an end to an archaic practice that America clings to for some reason I don't entirely understand. I just think that telling people their parents/families/cultural traditions are monstrous and evil (and exactly equal to the sexual crippling of girls) is not the best way to get them to listen to you. *shrug* I could, of course, be wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Syn: Above Rakeesh and Lisa were talking about Sa'eed, not you. I don't think anyone believes you are antisemitic here.
I don't think you are a crackpot either. I believe you just have a heart for children and for people.
I also don't agree with you as for banning male circumcision except in case of life threatening cases. Parents should make an informed decision based on medical fact and their doctor's recommendation as to their particular case.
All circumcisions should be done with local anesthetic.
I'm afraid your stance of parents should not have the authority to choose to prevent possible future health issues with a simple surgery will not be widely accepted, and should not be.
ETA: I agree Olivet, FGM is a different world away and closely comparing the two does not help your case at all. Further, I agree with you that chopping off body parts to be more accepted as normal is crap.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do try not to say barbaric or something like that because I don't want to make people feel bad, but it breaks my heart to think of those babies. Also it makes my imaginary penis hurt. Which sounds strange, but it's like an empathy penis. Kind of like seeing someone pass by me with a broken finger and having my fingers hurt only a bit worse. i can't even think about footbinding while walking without my feet hurting. I just wish that folks wouldn't DO it. It makes me feel bad for the baby boy. I'm thinking GRRRRRRRR and WHY?!? GAH! URG! But, then I do not want to hurt people's feelings but I also do not want people to have that child's foreskin cut because it will really hurt a lot! Sure, you're talking about a baby and they won't remember it, but pain can affect a child for life and sometimes you got to politely say, are you sure this is a good idea to get people to not do something that's traditional.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just it should be up to the child. That is a life changing surgery. Once you lose it, you can't get it back and there's a lot of risks to cutting that you wouldn't get if you didn't have it done. Like infections, gangrene, that situation where the boy lost his penis altogether and they tried to raise him as a girl, but he was a boy and he was never the same as a result and that ended sadly. There's a question of where do the parent's rights end and the child's rights begin? Do doctors really know everything? There's questions that have to be asked so people can make better decisions.
Also, there's always Europe and Asia to consider.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I know you're not a crackpot -- you're just very emotional and passionate about the subject. I also know you're not antisemitic. Just to be clear.
I sympathize. I really, really do. I just don't think intensely emotional appeals are the best way to get this message across, even though it is satisfying to whip oneself into a hysterical, passionate froth about issues that one believes are important. Then you have men who are very happy with their sex lives who see you weeping for their lost foreskins and think you're a leeetle bit odd. Again, I could be wrong.
But I get where you're coming from. I really do.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm all for asking questions...pushing this issues into the forefront and making people really examine their choices.
That being said, you need to realize that you have to respect a parent's choice for their children in this matter, regardless of how your empathy penis hurts.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But it's not unreasonable to allow the baby to make that decision though. It really should be his choice. And I think this goes for ear piercing too. Unless it's for medical reasons. If it's just cosmetic then, no, they don't have that right. It belongs to him.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But it's not unreasonable to allow the baby to make that decision though. It really should be his choice. And I think this goes for ear piercing too. Unless it's for medical reasons. If it's just cosmetic then, no, they don't have that right. It belongs to him.
I just thought I should say, since I've mostly harped on the points I disagree with in this thread, that I agree with these statements entirely. (I wouldn't push for legislation to that effect, though. Change is happening incrementally. It does take a frustrating amount of time.)
ETA: It's a matter of bodily agency, and I'm all for individual bodily agency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There are plenty of ways to discourage practices without having to criminalize them. I don't care one way or another about circumcision and I know that if you don't like circumcision, don't worry, its general prominence is dropping off and it'll probably just end up being something only some devoutly religious sects do.
Seriously, if you dislike circumcision, igniting fires over the practice like this (THIS IS BARBARIC, YOUR POOR MUTILATED PENISES ::sadface:: ) is the exact wrong way to do it and just generally makes you out to be an idiot. All you have to do is just inspire people to understand that it's fine either way and there's no real pressing need to surgically alter babypenises (and lo, god demanded that you cut that sucker, don't forget to suck some blood out of it, yeah, that's right, with your mouth, mmm, that's the stuff) and it'll just drop off on its own because you've removed cultural conceptions of the necessity or normativeness of the practice.
Dead serious here: the easiest way to ensure that circumcision dwindles to a fringe practice over the next couple of generations is to get out a lot of porn with uncircumcised males. That's pretty much it. Not kidding.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I tend to agree that the vehement/passionate advocacy against male circumcision may be counter productive. As a circumcised male myself, I am tempted to tune out people who seem to believe it's a horrible thing. It's not horrible. It might not be, all things considered, optimal. But...being circumcised is fine. It's good. e.g. I think there must be some psychological compensation if there is indeed a physical pleasure deficit, because sex is just great, thanks.
Pushing the "there's no compelling reason to do it, so don't" line of reasoning may be more persuasive than "you are doing something terrible" line.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Part of the argument against the "don't circumcise babies, but let them all decide when they are older" is that the procedure is actually fairly unsafe for adults. There are far fewer doctors who have experience with adult circumcisions, and there are a lot more complications from the surgeries. It's a situation where it's either do it as a baby, or never do it at all. You still might land on "well then never do it at all!" but the argument that the guy can just decide later is a suspect one.
Also, I think Samp is entirely right about the porn thing.
quote:From Olivet: So pardon me if I don't have the mental energy to weep and tear my hair over the tragic loss of a few foreskins. In the overall scheme of things, there are much bigger fish(horrible injustices) to fry (rail against).
I continue to be amazed at how often I hear this line of reasoning used against male-related issues. Now, I agree that the comparison between FGM and male circumcision is dramatically overstated. It's a terrible comparison. But is male baby circumcision a valid issue for discussion, and perhaps even a serious problem in the eyes of many that deserves addressing? Of course it is.
I get into a lot of conversations about changes I'd like to see in this society regarding how men are treated, and the two biggest responses I tend to get whenever I raise an issue are: 1. We women suffered for so long, now it's your turn! and 2. There are still lots of women's issues that are so much more important, so we need to drop your issue entirely until ours is fixed.
Now, I agree that there are a lot of important women's issues out there, most of which I think are higher on the scale of importance than most men's issues, but since when did fixing gender inequality become a thing where we can only fix one issue at a time?
Men have it pretty good in this country, but there are still several things that could and should be fixed where women have the advantage. Just as there are lots of things that need to be fixed where men have the advantage. It just feels like many women feel that any discussion about men's issues is an automatic assault or insult to women's issues, and I wish it wasn't so.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It just feels like many women feel that any discussion about men's issues is an automatic assault or insult to women's issues, and I wish it wasn't so.
Agreed!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
On the whole I'd rather preference and encourage attention to things that won't go away on their own. I am fine sacrificing things like The Great Circumcision "Debate" (™) and just letting that issue mellow out on its own. Way better than trying to incite by telling people that they have broken penises and their parents were barbarmutilizingating them, yes, because that always goes over well. Maybe stop allowing medicaid to cover it because it's cosmetic surgery, and that'll accelerate the pace greatly.
But in any case, there's a limited supply of energy to go around trying to effect positive change, and since you have to prioritize where that's going to go, this particular issue is worth neither time nor effort at this juncture.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On this issue, perhaps, sure. But I think it's indicative of a larger trend, and I think most male-centric issue tend to get painted with a very similar brush to what this issue is being tagged as.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's also the issue wherein the people who get all fervently militant about "intactivism" (saying that legislation to ban circumcision is needed now) are pissing into a well already poisoned by overt antisemetism, and that many of the fervent advocates for banning it are jew-o-phobes and/or moslem-o-phobes turning attention to it because it's a more acceptable cover to coach their desire to get back at the Monster Mohels.
To the extent that when someone really cranks up the snip hate, you can't help but wonder if this is just hardXcore berkeley campaigning for babypenis rights, or if it's yet another antisemite fronting this as part of a broader campaign against judaism.
(in this case though, since the proposer is somalian/clive candy/sa'eed, we don't have to wonder. Obvious antisemite making thread against circumcision = less than surprising)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It should be noted that the reason this issue got 'tagged as' such things was because of the very specific likening, in both practical and moral terms, of male circumcision and FGM.
It was and remains a ridiculous comparison for the reasons already explained, and pretty transparently designed to hitch onto popular revulsion over FGM and tack it onto male circumcision.
This isn't a case where people have said, "Boo hoo men's rights! Women..." This is a case where a man (actually I'm not sure Sa'eed, CC, etc. is a man) looked at a practice that is deeply and fundamentally damaging on physical, psychological, and political levels (in the sense that if women have to be mutilated nice and early, they're not likely to have or believe they should have equality later). This practice, furthermore, is done pretty much only in places where women are treated as degrees of chattel, or from people of such cultures.
To take *that* and then try and piggyback male circumcision onto it is absurb. It's a means of grabbing up the moral weight one of the worst, most vivid injustices against women conjures and say, "Men too!"
This isn't one of those areas where there's equality if mistreatment. Not between male circumcision and FGM. Do we circumcise men in order to apply specific roles to them based on their gender? To curtail sexual pleasure? As a means of enduring chastity? The answer to all of those questions is 'no', and furthermore the dangers posed by FGM and male circumcision aren't comparable either.
Ugh. The reason this issue was responded to by some as an attack on women's issues is because it *is* in the sense that it trivializes one particular issue. Here's a straightforward illustration to demonstrate: "Why do we get so up in arms about FGM? We allow male circumcision as a matter of course." If *that* argument is foolish, so is the first one in this thread.
There are lots of reasons why male circumcision should be phased out. That it's comparable to FGM isn't one of them. That they both deal with genitalia isn't enough to sustain the comparison.
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...this particular issue is worth neither time nor effort at this juncture.
Unless, of course, it's personally affected someone, right? But I suppose it's just selfishness on their part.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm circumcised, and I'm doing very well. I doubt you'll find too many circumcised guys out there who want their foreskin back. I'm sure there are some, but most of us enjoy being this way. Most women enjoy us being this way too. If you don't believe me, start a poll asking women whether they'd rather have oral sex with a circumcised or uncircumcised man.
I don't see why it's a big deal. It should be up to the parents to make that choice. Unlike FGM, it doesn't make a big difference either way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I can't help feeling that if it wasn't a grandfathered in cultural practice, we would react much more strongly than we do to circumcision.
Much like the way alcohol is grandfathered in as an drug. It may not be *as bad* as heroin in sensible-ish doses, but from the point of view of a non-drug society it would be considered very similar.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis.
Good thing I got snipped, or else I'd never leave the house. It's hard...err, difficult enough already!
On the other hand, maybe I have traumatic subconscious memories of my circumcision. I have an irrational fear of people getting near my penis with knives. Okay, maybe not irrational.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Most women enjoy us being this way too. If you don't believe me, start a poll asking women whether they'd rather have oral sex with a circumcised or uncircumcised man.
The answer will be highly dependent on the cultural norm where ever they're from.
"Most men who had this done as children really don't think they've been mutilated" is a fine argument. "Women like my penis better" is a argument.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How can you tell if your circumcised again?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: It just feels like many women feel that any discussion about men's issues is an automatic assault or insult to women's issues, and I wish it wasn't so.
I hope you realize, in the context of the greater discussion, that this was not the focus of the point I was making in the quote you used.
I do make a point of expressing my opinion that circumcision is unnecessary, and I do care about men's issues. The false equivalence and highly emotional appeals saying circumcision is exactly the same as FGM DOES make me angry. Rakeesh detailed the course of that reasoning well enough that I won't go over it.
Bringing FGM into it has the effect of derailing the discussion (if you look at the thread as a whole, the respondents reacting negatively to the comparison were not confined to one gender), and that is annoying, because discussion will help change things.
So, recontextualizing my comment as "men's issues don't matter because women have it worse" is a bit of a stretch. My point was that bringing FGM into it makes easier to do just that - dismiss the issue as the hyperbolic whinge of an already extremely privileged group.
Like Samp, I think this is an issue that is slowly resolving itself culturally, but anything we can do help it along is probably good. (The porn idea is the best I've heard, actually.)
Having said that, I admit that this issue doesn't loom as large for me now as it did when I was preaching the benefits of not cutting on your babies to other young moms and moms-to-be. It just doesn't come up as often in the spheres I move in these days.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't think there is much derision on the topic of male circumcision being compared to female genital mutilation. Two people have compared them, and if memory serves, they both backed down. Everyone else has been against it.
The real "hot topic" is: is male circumcision bad?
For me personally, I think that it is a good thing that parents are questioning the idea that get him snipped is standard, and making a medically informed choice for their sons.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The discussion has moved past that, S_W_, but my comment that Lyr had an issue with was taken out of that context. I was just explaining that I don't think male issues are any less important than female issues. (Some issues are less important to me, but affecting change requires focus. There are a lot of worthy causes and no individual can focus on them all at once.)
To me, the circumcision debate is more or less a done deal. It's on its way out. The change will be gradual, but we've already hit a less than 50% circumcision rate.
[ June 19, 2011, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't think there is much derision on the topic of male circumcision being compared to female genital mutilation. Two people have compared them, and if memory serves, they both backed down. Everyone else has been against it.
The real "hot topic" is: is male circumcision bad?
For me personally, I think that it is a good thing that parents are questioning the idea that get him snipped is standard, and making a medically informed choice for their sons.
The comparison *was*, though, the issue that led to accusations of some women not caring for men's issues and how frustrating that is. And cheering that claim.
Just to be perfectly clear about the initial 'hot topic'.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think it is terrible that my mother's religious background dictated that I was going to have a circumcision. I don't blame her, I blame society.
I don't think it should be illegal, but outside of religious reasons, I think doctors should be forced to give parents all of the facts before just taking the payment.
There are way too many myths and legend about the uncircumcised penis that many parents are just going along with.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How about if it's not a male or female issue but an issue of where your human rights begin and the culture's rights end? I think they end at your boyd. It's not trivializing women's issues to believe that men have the right to bodily integrity too.
Also, people do need to learn that foreskin isn't ugly and it's not a ticking time bomb that will explode and conquer the world with evil.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
I was circumcised. The thing that upsets me about it was that I was never told by my parents that I was circumcised. So I had no idea until I was around 17 or so that I was missing a part of my body.
That was upsetting. Would have been much less so if they had sat me down at some point and explained it to me, as well as an explanation of why they chose it.
It felt like a violation to me, because not only did I have no choice in the matter (obviously) but was never even informed of what happened.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can't speak for Lyrhawn, but I was only cheering that I am against the attitude that dealing with men's issues somehow hurts women's issues. It is good to keep things in perspective, and the circumcision issues is honestly a minor one, unless of course it has vastly affected your life (example: had your penis mangled).
And saying that it is a minor issue is not offensive. But saying that it is a non-issue because women's issues are more important or dire or whatever is annoying as hell and just plain wrong.
Considering how nearly unilaterally people have been saying that male circumcision vs FGM is an unfair comparison, I don't see the rub.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Considering how nearly unilaterally people have been saying that male circumcision vs FGM is an unfair comparison, I don't see the rub.
The rub is that something I said was taken out of context as an example of an attitude/belief that I do not hold or support. It was said at a time in the thread when people were making that comparison. I was just trying to correct that, not resurrecting and argument (about FGM) that seems to be more or less settled in this discussion, as you so astutely pointed out.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fine, your comment didn't embody the sentiment I cheered...take the rest up with Lyrhawn.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How about if it's not a male or female issue but an issue of where your human rights begin and the culture's rights end? I think they end at your boyd. It's not trivializing women's issues to believe that men have the right to bodily integrity too.
Male circumcision does have a medical reason behind it. It can be said that clipping all males is an overreaction to those potential medical issues, and questions should be brought to bare. Circumcised males suffer nearly zero after effects of being cut (in the vast majority of cases).
Female genital mutilation has zero medical positive effects, it is actually quite harmful physically, mentally, and used as a type of "slave collar" culturally and any comparison between the two is unfair, not cool and downright wrong.
Just don't compare them. Don't put them in the same boat for discussion, don't lump them together under a general category. They are different. One is arguably medically sound, the other is an atrocity. The end.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Zero after affects? Zero? Dude, you need to do a bit more research here. Seriously. Do More Research.
Plus, cutting a healthy part of the body for medical reasons does NOT seem like a healthy thing to do! I am against cutting people's genitals, not just women, but men too and boys get NO protection at all in this country from this procedure. Girls at least get protected from a mere nick on the clitoris. Why can't they both get equal protection? I don't care if people say don't lump them together. Fact is, no one has any business cutting people's genitals for any reason at all without their consent and that's all there is to it. If you're going to cut the foreskin's of babies because they MIGHT get an infection or it MIGHT be cleaner, you might as well cut off other parts of people.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fine, your comment didn't embody the sentiment I cheered...take the rest up with Lyrhawn.
I meant no offense, dude. I was just clarifying because it sounded like you had misunderstood me. I'm sure Lyrhawn, to whom my original explanation was directed, will understand what I was getting at when he reads it. I'm sure he was more reacting to an attitude he perceived in the comment (which was my fault, I admit) rather than accusing me of being dismissive toward male issues. At least, I think he might remember me well enough to know that. (I have sons, and have always tried to be an advocate for them and issues that affect them and my Beloved.) I just wanted to clarify, in general, so as not to be misunderstood.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no inter-personal conflicts/slapfights going on. I was just trying to be clear, is all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps Sa'eed has a history of antisemitism, but nothing he has posted in this thread has been so that I've seen.
His outrage in believing that we are hurting our male children unknowingly and in a widespread manor does not to my mind equal thinly veiled antisemitism to me. He is wrong to compare the two (FGM and circumcision) so casually, as they are worlds apart, but I can not agree with the conclusion you are drawing simply by that evidence.
Oh, please. He isn't outraged. This is just something he can use to attack Jews with. What, did you just meet him? This is a guy from Somalia, who is so into the way things are in Somalia that his first two user names on Hatrack were The Somalian and the_Somalian. He couldn't care less about human rights. See his other thread on public floggings for an example.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Synesthesia: vicious anti-semite.
No. Synesthesia: just doesn't get it. Ibrahim Sa'eed Clive Cindy Candy Carter: vicious anti-semite.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Dude, you need to do a bit more research here. Seriously.
I'm comfortable with the depth of my understanding, if you want to "enlighten" me, go for it!
My son's circumcision had little to zero negative effects. There was a bit of pain and we gave him Tylenol, there was a bit of tenderness, we used triple antibiotic ointment. He is just fine.
I didn't get one, got bad infections with lots and lots of pain, right when I was figuring out that my willy was good for something other then peeing, had a full fledged knock me out risk of death surgery and over a week of bed rest with agonizing pain and having to learn how to pee again.
quote:Plus, cutting a healthy part of the body for medical reasons does NOT seem like a healthy thing to do!
You are not a doctor. I have agreed with you every time about aesthetic/cultural acceptance reasons for clipping being bad. If parents wish to make an informed medical decision with the aid of their doctor, I say good enough!
quote:As far as I'm concerned, there are no inter-personal conflicts/slapfights going on.
I'm with you, sorry if my last post on the matter seemed abrupt.
quote:Oh, please. He isn't outraged. This is just something he can use to attack Jews with.
Lisa, I am not comfortable lumping people into the "psycho ignore" group simply because some of their previous statements were crazy and wrong. Nothing he has said this thread is crazy or antisemitic. (He retracted his comparison of male circumcision and FGM) I caution you to not assume that people who have a wrong idea about something once are beyond all hope of having an intelligent conversation in the future.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
SW, it's not "once". This poster has a multi-year, many screen-name history.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Saying someone is "thinly veiling" something is different then, "has a history of antisemitism".
I don't claim to know Sa'eed's history. I only feel people are being unfair to him right now based solely on what he has said here and now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I only feel people are being unfair to him right now based solely on what he has said here and now.
When a poster has consistently demonstrated a specific view for several years, sometimes more obliquely than others (especially when the forum admins have recently scolded and/or banned his latest screen-name), it is not only unreasonable to assume that they are doing something different this time, it is naivete that borders on stupidity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote: I'm circumcised, and I'm doing very well. I doubt you'll find too many circumcised guys out there who want their foreskin back. I'm sure there are some, but most of us enjoy being this way. Most women enjoy us being this way too. If you don't believe me, start a poll asking women whether they'd rather have oral sex with a circumcised or uncircumcised man.
Here's a response to your poll. I have some experience with both and,while penises are all delightfully different, I have noticed no discernable "drawback" to foreskin.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
One of the few good things my son's father has ever done for him is to talk me out of circumcising him. If he hadn't, I would have done it.
Why would I have done it? A) Because it is supposed to be cleaner and who can trust little boys to wash anything well? But even more importantly, B) Because everyone does!
Yep, those would have been my oh so wonderful reasons for circumcising my son. I actually learned pretty quickly that A isn't that big a deal. B) on the other hand was a much bigger deal. The rate may be under 50% in the U.S., but I don't know a single other mother in my town who has not circumcised her son(s), and according to my son he is the only boy in school who has a penis like his.
When my son was toilet training, I actually got really worried about the social impact. My dad and brothers were harassing me all the time for having not done it. I was beginning to realize that the world we lived in was NOT moving in sync with the rest of the country and that my son may very well be the only boy in his locker room uncut. I actually spoke to his pediatrician about it. (For reference, she was Jewish and thus had circumcised her sons.)
She told me that we could circumcise him up to about age 5 with the same procedure and the same risks as an infant. After that point, it became a little riskier and more painful, but still was an outpatient procedure that could often be done in office. She did say that there wasn't, "a good medical reason" to do the circumcision, but also that it was a very safe procedure. In the end I didn't do it. It just didn't seem worth the pain it would cause him.
He has mentioned some teasing in school about it, but not much, and he doesn't seem particularly bothered by it.
If my son came to me today, next year, in five years, or whatever and told me he wanted it done, I would contact the doctor though. I don't think male circumcision is the end of the universe. I do think it's a little barbaric in most cases, but we do LOTS of things that are a little barbaric. I mean, women use tweezers to individually remove hair from a very sensitive brow line and pour hot wax over other areas to yank even more hair out by the root. People use needles to insert ink into their skins. People punch holes in themselves to hang bangles on. It's not like our society has really progressed all too far from being barbaric.
Personally I view male circumcision (in all but a few medically required circumstances) as quite similar to piercing an infant's ears. I don't agree with either practice, and probably wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think it makes anyone an awful parent.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
The only difference between the semi-arbitrary customs of a civilization and those of barbarism is whether it's your culture doing them, honestly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have tattoos, but I knew they might hurt, they didn't hurt very badly. And they are beautiful cute butterflies and one moth and make me happy every time I look at them. I don't like using words like barbaric though. It doesn't help, even on the inside I think that cutting a baby in such a sensitive place makes me want to scream and run off with the baby so it can't be done to them. I couldn't bear to have this done to my future son because it would hurt so much and if so many people live just fine with foreskins, why bother anymore? I don't even believe in plastic surgery for people who are beautiful but imperfect, like everyone else is. I don't tweese out hair either. At least the people who do stuff like that are adults who know what they're in for, but those babies don't know what's going to happen to them. Folks say they don't feel it or they won't remember it, but it doesn't matter to me because it will hurt them and I won't allow that just because everyone else is doing it when at one time everyone else was binding Chinese's girls feet (though some groups opted out, not a lot though, it was 3 billion women, now granted, this is worse than circumcision, but it was done out of tradition and because men liked it and I don't get WHY it was done fore those reasons. I would have been like OH, HELL TO THE NO! I AM NOT DOING THAT TO MY DAUGHTER'S FEET. I DON'T CARE IF EVERYONE IS DOING IT! OR IF SHE WON'T GET A HUSBAND, ARE YOU OUT YOUR DAMN MIND!) and a lot of people are breast ironing. Folks should think that there are some things that we shouldn't do if everyone is doing it if it involves pain. This doesn't make people bad, but don't be afraid to REBEL!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't claim to know Sa'eed's history. I only feel people are being unfair to him right now based solely on what he has said here and now.
That's just it. You don't know his history.
He's been banned from the site multiple times I've actually lost count. And this is really saying something because of how essentially absent moderation was at the time.
Each time, he would start a trollslumming spree of multiple threads about his ridiculous, medieval views on women, gays, jews, or whatever. On the subject of jews, he's blatantly antisemetic and has described the jews as basically being greedy, tribalistic parasites. He's ridiculously homophobic and misogynistic and has said things about gays and women that are not fit to reprint. But if you're up for some entertainment, search his old accounts (especially Clive Candy) for relevant words like 'women,' 'woman,' 'feminist,' 'feminism,' 'gay,' 'homosexuality,' 'jew,' 'jews,' 'jewish,' etc. and take note of some of his more hilarious slumthreads like "False Rape Accusations" and "Network Television: A Gay And Female Ghetto?"
He's probably got some sort of detente agreement with JB. But he's still the same person, with the same completely blinkered neurotic hatred of women, gays, jews, and god knows who else, and he keeps trying to weasel through his old bullshit, and it's profoundly obvious to anyone who knows his history.
Now, don't get me wrong, he's greatly entertained me each time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat his thinly veiled attempts to sneak back in his protohuman positions on women, gays, and jews as anything other than what they are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I caution you to not assume that people who have a wrong idea about something once are beyond all hope of having an intelligent conversation in the future.
You "caution" me? Really? I'm unimpressed. And the multinamed critter formerly known as The Somalian is absolutely beyond all hope of having an intelligent conversation. He is a troll, plain and simple. Nothing more. A misogynistic, antisemitic, troll.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I only feel people are being unfair to him right now based solely on what he has said here and now.
When a poster has consistently demonstrated a specific view for several years, sometimes more obliquely than others (especially when the forum admins have recently scolded and/or banned his latest screen-name), it is not only unreasonable to assume that they are doing something different this time, it is naivete that borders on stupidity.
And pardon the correction, but it wasn't his screen name that was banned. He was banned. He chose to flout the banning and came back with a new screen name, but don't let the fact that Janitor Blade chose not to go head to head with him obscure the fact that he is here despite having been banned.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: ...Samprimary and Lisa, please do not respond to any of Clive's posts in any threads...
At the risk of stirring the pot, it seems like the two people who are most adamantly opposed to any discussion with "Sa'eed" are also the one's who have the most history with him.
Your point is taken that he has a major history of wrong doing.
Despite that, this has been a pretty good discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At the risk of stirring the pot, it seems like the two people who are most adamantly opposed to any discussion with "Sa'eed" are also the one's who have the most history with him.
I have a 'history' with him and I'm proud of it, natch. I said for months that he needed to be banned and that it was negligent to allow him to continue posting, and I was right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your point is taken that he has a major history of wrong doing.
That was not quite the point. The point was, "He's got a major history of wrong doing in specific ways, and he's coming as close as possible to that history now while still getting away with it, and treating him as something other than an anti-Semitic troll is simply buying into it."
'Good discussion' is a peculiar way to characterize it, too-since a goodly piece of it centered on it being an assault on 'men's rights' (men's issues is a phrase I can get behind, but politically 'men's rights' is just a ridiculous term) to reject a comparison between male circumcision and FGM. And then another good bunch of it centers around 'well I had mine done and I'm fine/ladies like it so therefore...'
But good discussion is a subjective label of course, and the way that's decided will of course vary.
[ June 19, 2011, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Could it be that folks are rejecting the similarities of the practice of cutting genitals (I feel the urge to yell at this movie character who is about to shoot himself, why I must type this is a mystery) is because Sa'em... is kind of... anti-female? It's just there's the cutting aspects to consider and the fact that cutting the clitoral hood is similar to cutting the foreskin as it's being discovered that the foreskin has more nerves than the clitoral hood does or even the clitoris. So folks saying it doesn't cut down on sensitivity is a bit... So I would like folks to NOT do it as it's not just a male or female issue but a HUMAN issue as in humans have the right to have their genitals intact.
Also I read that the foreskin has a function in intercourse too. Folks should study it more before they keep cutting it off because some of this anti-foreskinness isn't totally accurate.
And there is NO WAY if I had a boyfriend and he was intact I'd make him get circumcised. Why would I do that? Why should I get disgusted over a natural part of his body? If he wanted me to get my vagina altered folks would say, "Drop that zero and get yourself a hero." but it's ok to act like foreskins are sooooooooooo nasty and soooooooooo slimy and smelly (I've read folks saying this on other places I'm posting about this) and it's just so.. rude.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I only feel people are being unfair to him right now based solely on what he has said here and now.
When a poster has consistently demonstrated a specific view for several years, sometimes more obliquely than others (especially when the forum admins have recently scolded and/or banned his latest screen-name), it is not only unreasonable to assume that they are doing something different this time, it is naivete that borders on stupidity.
And pardon the correction, but it wasn't his screen name that was banned. He was banned. He chose to flout the banning and came back with a new screen name, but don't let the fact that Janitor Blade chose not to go head to head with him obscure the fact that he is here despite having been banned.
Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor. I've been presented with some evidence by certain posters, but nothing I could not ignore.
I have my own theories regarding this, but I'm not going to ban posters on hunches, or because other posters want me to so badly. Were I do that, you Lisa would have banned some time ago.
I'm monitoring this discussion, and while I don't much like Sa'eed's approach to the topic, and it was needlessly aggressive, it wasn't done in such a way I'd feel comfortable locking the thread, much less suspending/banning a posters.
If he crosses the TOS, whistles his posts, and I'll look at it, and decide how to respond. I've banned posters again, but I get no joy out of it, and neither should you.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I've been presented with some evidence by certain posters, but nothing I could not ignore.
Has he even denied it? You'd think that'd be the first step.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor.
Link 2: Sa'eed acknowledges that he was Clive and Cindy and the Somalian.
Look, you're the moderator. You can do whatever you want. But please don't insult us by pretending that it hasn't been made clear to you who he is and what he's doing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That second link is rather confusing and hardly conclusive compelling evidence...not that I care either way...because I don't...just sayin'.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Most men who had this done as children really don't think they've been mutilated" is a fine argument. "Women like my penis better" is a argument.
Women liking my penis better directly leads to me having more fun with it.
Which isn't to say if I have a son I'll have him circumcised... but I think the social aspect of it is something that's been rather trivialized in this thread. As well as the fact that I've found life without a foreskin rather delightful.
{QUOTE]How can you tell if your circumcised again?[/QUOTE]
Uh, this is probably a joke, but...
Look down. Check for foreskin.
Foreskin = no! No foreskin = yes!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Rebelling for myself and rebelling for my child are two different things though. There is a danger involved in rebellion. I grew up in this little town, and I know how... difficult being different can be. (There are also good reasons for staying here, so it's not as simple as just moving somewhere else.)
Thus, not circumcising my son could be an equally painful decision for him, in a different way. Kids can get REALLY cruel, and if I'm making him truly the odd one out, then I would be causing that pain in a way. That is the danger of not doing "what everyone else is". It's not as if there isn't a serious cost for breaking the mold. Even if you look at something as drastic as foot binding. Who is to say that the pain of the foot binding is actually any worst than the emotional pain of being an old spinster in a Chinese village, having no husband and no children, because your parents decided to NOT bind your feet?
In the end, of course, I decided we would risk it. My son HAS been teased, but not badly enough that it really bothers him, and not badly enough for him to want to get circumcised.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I have tattoos, but I knew they might hurt, they didn't hurt very badly. And they are beautiful cute butterflies and one moth and make me happy every time I look at them. I don't like using words like barbaric though. It doesn't help, even on the inside I think that cutting a baby in such a sensitive place makes me want to scream and run off with the baby so it can't be done to them. I couldn't bear to have this done to my future son because it would hurt so much and if so many people live just fine with foreskins, why bother anymore? I don't even believe in plastic surgery for people who are beautiful but imperfect, like everyone else is. I don't tweese out hair either. At least the people who do stuff like that are adults who know what they're in for, but those babies don't know what's going to happen to them. Folks say they don't feel it or they won't remember it, but it doesn't matter to me because it will hurt them and I won't allow that just because everyone else is doing it when at one time everyone else was binding Chinese's girls feet (though some groups opted out, not a lot though, it was 3 billion women, now granted, this is worse than circumcision, but it was done out of tradition and because men liked it and I don't get WHY it was done fore those reasons. I would have been like OH, HELL TO THE NO! I AM NOT DOING THAT TO MY DAUGHTER'S FEET. I DON'T CARE IF EVERYONE IS DOING IT! OR IF SHE WON'T GET A HUSBAND, ARE YOU OUT YOUR DAMN MIND!) and a lot of people are breast ironing. Folks should think that there are some things that we shouldn't do if everyone is doing it if it involves pain. This doesn't make people bad, but don't be afraid to REBEL!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
All of my peers and relatives with sons have had their sons circumcised, mostly for a mixture of medical and social acceptance reasons (also so that the son won't feel he is unusual in comparison with his father.) These folks aren't unaware of the advocacy against circumcision, nor are they unsympathetic to its arguments; they believe, I think, that since they haven't been harmed by being circumcised, it won't create a harm for their sons either.
And who knows? Perhaps the greater sensitivity cited in the study creates more frequent premature ejaculations. (I'm curious to know if there is any survey data supporting this.) So maybe men's sexual partners are a beneficiary of the procedure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor.
what??
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor.
Link 2: Sa'eed acknowledges that he was Clive and Cindy and the Somalian.
Look, you're the moderator. You can do whatever you want. But please don't insult us by pretending that it hasn't been made clear to you who he is and what he's doing.
Lisa: How about you don't insult me by suggesting I'm being dishonest. My record stands for itself, and I don't believe that record suggests dishonesty or an unwillingness to do what needs to be done.
I've never seen your second link before.
Having seen it, I still feel compelled to stick with what I'm doing now. I'll allow Sa'eed to post so long as he abides by the TOS. If he doesn't I won't.
This is the last thing I'll be saying on the topic for now. If anybody has anything else to say about the matter, or my moderating you can email it to me. Thanks in advance. If you post it here, I won't be responding to it here.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I've been presented with some evidence by certain posters, but nothing I could not ignore.
Has he even denied it? You'd think that'd be the first step.
I can't recall to be honest. I've been mostly pleased with his posting as of late.
When I take somebody's posting history into account, I take all of it, that includes recent positive trends.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fine, your comment didn't embody the sentiment I cheered...take the rest up with Lyrhawn.
I meant no offense, dude. I was just clarifying because it sounded like you had misunderstood me. I'm sure Lyrhawn, to whom my original explanation was directed, will understand what I was getting at when he reads it. I'm sure he was more reacting to an attitude he perceived in the comment (which was my fault, I admit) rather than accusing me of being dismissive toward male issues. At least, I think he might remember me well enough to know that. (I have sons, and have always tried to be an advocate for them and issues that affect them and my Beloved.) I just wanted to clarify, in general, so as not to be misunderstood.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no inter-personal conflicts/slapfights going on. I was just trying to be clear, is all.
Yep, that's exactly what I was doing, though, you could have fairly said I was OVERreacting.
I freely admit to being somewhat hypersensitive on this one because I see it so often. Sometimes I see it where it isn't. Should of given you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
I can see this is something you care about deeply. And I don't mean to offend you.
But can you understand that, for most people - even the men who it's been done to - it's a minor surgery that either has no impact on, or has been directly beneficial for their sex lives? Sex without a foreskin is extremely enjoyable, I don't feel mutilated or damaged or deprived in the slightest.
I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but by grandstanding and making it out to be much worse than it is, you're producing the exact opposite of the effect that you're trying to create. People will dismiss you because of it, and dismiss your arguments with it.
You're also making circumcised men out to be sad, mutilated freaks. They're the majority of the US population, and probably don't like being called mutilated.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
Canada would do it also. As a male, I can't say its an issue that has really ever come up IRL.
Looking around, estimates vary but its most likely a minority that get circumcised.
quote:The Canadian Institute for Health Information reports a rate of 20% for the mid-1990s declining to 9% in 2005. The Provincial Ministries of Health give rates of 51-67% in 1970, steadily declining to 18-23% by 2003 in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. To illustrate the variation between different regions, even within the same province, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Statistics Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, have reported rates between different districts ranging from 2% to 70%, with a mean of around 50%. Then in 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported a rate of circumcision of male babies of 31.9% for Canada overall for 2006-2007 [Canada, 2009]. Rate was 44.3% in Alberta, 43.7% in Ontario, 39.2% in Prince Edward Island, 35.6% in Saskatchewan, 31.6% in Manitoba, 30.2% in British Columbia, 18.0% in New Brunswick, 12.3% in Quebec, 9.7% in Northwest Territories, 6.8% in Nova Scotia, and lack of reliable information for Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't really say mutilated. But people do make it seem like intact men are dirty and gross because they have foreskin. Either position doesn't make sense, but my problem is it's a surgery that isn't really needed anymore. I don't think the affects are know well enough for people to keep doing this.
I reckon soon people in this country will circumcise less, but I kind of want them to consider doing it less now....
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Syn, every mohel I know uses a topical analgesic, so that wasn't the objection.
You do realize that article is 10 years old, right?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, but Rabbi Shmuley mentioned this and quoted it in an article with the Huffington post which made me think HOW IS USING ANESTHESIA AND HAVING A NURSE OR DOCTOR DO IT NAZI LIKE?! AUGH!
Syn, you are clearly irrational on the subject. I cannot discuss this with you.
(Not that I'm a great fan of Rabbi Boteach. I am not a fan of his grandstanding, hyperbole, and various other of his methods -- even when I agree with him on the issues, which I often do not.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not irrational. I just don't understand why he quoted this article that compares using anesthesia to Hitler.
Also, I don't agree that he stated basically that boobs are for husbands, not babies. There's always the possibility of misquoting people or just not understanding what they are talking about 9 times out of 10. I just showed Mayim Bialik a seal picture with Isaac the fur seal and Chris Isaak to be a bit more gentle about arguing about this as she's deleting all of the comments about it.
But the fact is, no matter how random I am, I'm not irrational I'm just really 100% against circumcision even for religious reasons when it comes to an infant who isn't allowed to make that decision for themselves. And that is not an irrational position to take that it's his body and it should be his decision to alter for life a part of it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not an irrational position, it's just an extreme position.
No one here is saying that there is anything wrong with a natural penis, or that it stinks or is unclean. You keep bringing that up, but no one has said it here.
What people are saying here is, "We don't mind, there is a sexual benefit currently and there is some medical reason for it so it is not an atrocity."
I'd hesitate to say you are irrational...but I wouldn't hesitate to say you are very emotionally invested in this subject, but not very involved in this discussion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm not irrational. I just don't understand why he quoted this article that compares using anesthesia to Hitler.
The article doesn't do anything of the sort. You know it doesn't do anything of the sort. It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But the fact is, no matter how random I am, I'm not irrational I'm just really 100% against circumcision even for religious reasons when it comes to an infant who isn't allowed to make that decision for themselves.
Good thing it isn't up to you.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: And that is not an irrational position to take that it's his body and it should be his decision to alter for life a part of it.
Jewish males need to be circumcised. You may not like it, but it's one of the most fundamental requirements of Judaism. Something God commanded us. Regardless of your reasons, this is no different than any other law forbidding us to practice our religion. And it'd ultimately cause more pain and more danger, because circumcising an adult is dangerous and a serious operation, which is not the case for an infant.
A circumcised child cries for about as long as a child who has had a good scare or who has had his pacifier taken away. And they don't even remember it after the fact.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need. It's not extreme to say, why can't the child grow up and decide for himself? There's quite a few Jewish people who don't agree with circumcision, a growing number, in fact. Even if they don't remember the pain, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect and shape them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And that is not an irrational position to take...
It wasn't your position that was accused of being irrational.
quote:I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need.
First of all, don't watch videos of it.
Secondly, babies are incapable of screaming in HORROR. Horror requires a certain level of understanding that they simply don't have.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
Its probably the first ban, but maybe not the first restriction since the Nazis.
quote:Sweden has passed a new law, the first of its kind in the world: Circumcision will take place only in the presence of a doctor and only with the use of a "pain-killer" administered by the medical man. From New York, the World Jewish Congress is accusing Sweden of placing the first legal restriction in Europe since the Nazi period on a Jewish religious practice.
Having had a baby with colic, screaming children no longer tug at my heart strings.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Yep, that's exactly what I was doing, though, you could have fairly said I was OVERreacting.
I freely admit to being somewhat hypersensitive on this one because I see it so often. Sometimes I see it where it isn't. Should of given you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for that. [/QB]
Nothing to apologize for, man. It's easy to forget that it has been years since I posted regularly here, and that most of the current regulars probably don't know me at all. And the bit you quoted was over-the-top and did actually sound like what you thought it was, even though I didn't mean it that way in context.
It was totally my bad. I should be more careful, and hopefully I will keep this in mind in the future.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
Its probably the first ban, but maybe not the first restriction since the Nazis.
quote:Sweden has passed a new law, the first of its kind in the world: Circumcision will take place only in the presence of a doctor and only with the use of a "pain-killer" administered by the medical man. From New York, the World Jewish Congress is accusing Sweden of placing the first legal restriction in Europe since the Nazi period on a Jewish religious practice.
I may move to Sweden. Is it the doctor being there that makes folks opposed to the law? It's one thing for a baby to have something like colic or teething, but this is a pain a baby can be prevented from having to endure.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, a BBC article says that the Jews and Muslims in the country believe (believed in 2001 anyways) that it would be difficult to find doctors that would participate in circumcision since many would refuse to participate for reasons of conscience.
I see little coverage afterwards, so I don't necessarily know if the affected groups adapted, or if the law was repealed, etc..
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Have you started to look into what it would take for you to move to Sweden?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, first it would require money. And there's Finland and Iceland to consider too but Iamamiwhoami is doing a real concert in Sweden in August which will be fantastic!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, that's a no then?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
mph, are you understanding that Synesthesia is not necessarily being literal about moving to Sweden or are you being an ass?
Or some other possibility that hasn't occurred to me yet?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, not yet...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he's probably pointing out that when most people say, "If this happens, I'm out!" they're just venting and hardly ever mean to actually *do* it. Which certainly appears to be the case here.
Not that Synesthesia would get worked up, emotional, and even hysterical about something and engage in some hyperbole...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that he is probably doing that, too. And I think that it is obnoxious.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Any more obnoxious then the multiple times Syn has threatened to leave the country?
quote:I am so going to Europe. .
quote:I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
quote:I may move to Sweden.
Because I don't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need.
Oh yea, did I mention my son slept through his circumcision?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that Synesthesia is a tad overwrought but her hyperbole bothers me much less than people being deliberately nasty about it.
Now. Mph might not be doing that. It is possible that he is taking her literally and is also curious about moving to Sweden.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I doubt he is serious, only pointing out to her that repeatedly saying she is going to move without any plans to do so is annoying. Oh course I am not m_p_h so I could be entirely wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking just in case.
He may well be pointing out that Synesthesia is annoying. I am pointing out that his repeated snarks of that (assuming that is what they are) are obnoxious and mean=spirited.
You feel free to point out whatever you like.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Any more obnoxious then the multiple times Syn has threatened to leave the country?
quote:I am so going to Europe. .
quote:I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
quote:I may move to Sweden.
Because I don't.
So now you're willing to take a forum member's posting history into consideration?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Synesthesia - if you really want to change things here, it would be easier to do that from here, I think.
Also, it's not fair to say Syn's arguments are irrational. They are somewhat hyperbolic and unnecessarily emotionally charged, but that isn't the same thing as entirely irrational.
I suspect she's Feeling personality type and that most of Hatrack are Thinking personality types, so we value emotional/physical impact arguments less than pro/con arguments based on other criteria. But emotional/physical impact arguments aren't irrational -- they are just less appealing to populations of Thinkers.
At least, that is my suspicion.
And even if her highly emotional arguments stretch rationality at times, I have to admit that my knee-jerk distaste for such arguments -- the desire to outright ignore emotional criteria for making judgments -- is also kind of irrational. We are not creatures of pure reason, after all, and ignore the emotional aspects of ourselves and our culture at our peril.
(For the record, while I don't think circumcision is at all necessary medically, I don't believe the risks in doing it are so high as to legally prohibit it. Doing so would be little more than a political cudgel for use in persecuting Jews. It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
Good thing that's not what I said.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
Good thing that's not what I said.
I never assumed you had, hon. I haven't read the whole thread, and was responding to other who seemed to be responding to a statement that she was being irrational. My statement was in no way directed at you, just a general observation on the way the last few comments had been going.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:So now you're willing to take a forum member's posting history into consideration?
There is a world of difference between what is said in the same thread and what is allegedly said in a different thread under a different name. I would think that would be obvious.
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do want to at least visit there before I decide to move...
I keep reading that when the baby sleeps through the procedure they could be passing out. I have no way of knowing this, I just cannot get past the idea of cutting THERE. Even with numbing cream. I keep putting myself in the position of the baby and how it feels to have something like that suddenly happen. I don't think it's quite the same as ripping a bandaid as a site about brit milah said because there's just so many nerve endings there. That alone makes me wish people, more people would stop doing that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Olivet, have I mentioned that I agree with you on just about everything you have written in this thread. And that I suffered a bit of dyslexia on that last sentence, there.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QB]
quote:So now you're willing to take a forum member's posting history into consideration?
There is a world of difference between what is said in the same thread and what is allegedly said in a different thread under a different name. I would think that would be obvious.
Ah. I'd been skimming a bit, and missed Syn's having made the "Europe... Or Asia" comment in this thread; my mistake.
I do think that it's silly, though, to treat each thread as though it exists in a vacuum. Do you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
I don't think anyone did either. I'm not certain who Olivet was responding to, but perhaps it was a global reaction, rather than to any one poster.
Syn, my kids all reacted far more negatively to their immunizations than my son did to his circumcision. In both cases, I believe the pain is for a purpose. Which doesn't mean the pain should not be reduced as much as practical.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
I just skimmed the thread and I thought I saw someone asserting that her arguments were not irrational, and I was just agreeing with that. Maybe I misread something. I meant no offense.
Guess I've learned my lesson about posting threads when I don't have time to read every single post. I had no idea that statement would upset people, or seem like i was attacking someone in particular.
My bad.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Olivet, have I mentioned that I agree with you on just about everything you have written in this thread. And that I suffered a bit of dyslexia on that last sentence, there.
Maybe I should have said non-Jewish Americans? That seemed clunky, but the dyslexic reading is MUCH worse. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QUOTE] I'm not certain who Olivet was responding to, but perhaps it was a global reaction, rather than to any one poster.
I skimmed back and didn't find it either. I thought someone said something like "it isn't irrational to argue..." and I was just agreeing. I'm at a stage in my personal growth where I'm trying to accept that emotional arguments can still be rational, so that was at least partially directed at myself. A reminder, like, because I'm still not comfortable with the idea.
So maybe it was one of those conversations I had with the voices in my head. You guys have those, too, right? Right guys? O_O No?
*quietly shuffles out of thread*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I do think that it's silly, though, to treat each thread as though it exists in a vacuum. Do you?
My objection to people saying that Sa'eed's postings were "thinly veiled antisemitism" were that I could detect nothing of the sort, and a more fair comment would have been "Sa'eed has a large history with antisemitism and this could be just another attempt to take a poke at our Jewish friends."
I don't think each thread lives in a vacuum. I just think fair play is a Good Thing (TM) and should be used as much as possible.
Lisa and Samp trying to counter the negative message that Clive/Somolian/(possibly)Sa'eed, is a good thing, but if they take it too far then they become the ones who have a negative message.
Sa'eed didn't say anything wrong (after taking back the unfair comparison), and he shouldn't have been jumped upon for past (possible) sins.
Sa'eed may well be the Somolian...I don't know, but more to the point, I don't give a damn. If he keeps the crazy in his pants and the mod is fine with him posting, then so am I.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone-Wolf, you may be missing the fact that circumcision is a practice that originated and is considered religiously necessary by Jewish people.
Given his history of posting, he may as well have started a thread stating that not eating bacon is stupid or that eating cheeseburgers is essential for health. (Both of those things being forbidden to some Jews.) It wasn't about foreskin; it was about Judaism.
And he also got a bonus dig at women who argue against FGM.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...first thing, you can't know that for sure, second, who cares? Despite what Rakeesh says, I say this has been a good/entertaining/enjoyable discussion, one he started. And he didn't say anything about Jews, and he retracted his unfair comparison, so, I don't buy the dig on women either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well no, what *actually* happened is that Sa'eed said the comparison was 'a bit much'-and then went right on comparing the two.
He's got a specific history of anti-Semitic posting, even under the name Sa'eed. In his *other* identities, some of which he's copped to some of which he hasn't, it was much worse-as well as *actually* trivializing women and women's rights issues, not just the way-wah trivialization that was accused in this thread (due to misunderstanding) and then cheered by you.
But hey, I guess as long as Sa'eed is trumpeting men's issues, you don't have to pay attention to the trivialization of FGM (he didn't withdraw the comparison), or the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism (he wasn't talking about *Communion*) until Yiu get the sort of standard of proof necessary in criminal court.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stone-Wolf, you may be missing the fact that circumcision is a practice that originated and is considered religiously necessary by Jewish people.
Didn't miss it. Don't care. I'm not being crass...I believe that circumcision has a medically decent reason to exist because of my personal experience, so if people want to continue it for religious purposes, I don't think it has any impact.
If it was FGM and there was a religious purposes, I'd have something to say about it.
If I believed that male circumcision was cruel or had zero medical reason, I might feel differently.
I don't think Syn has anything against Jews either, she sees this particular issue from a humanitarian/emotional side. I'm glad we have people like her who care about the well being of our babies, even though I don't agree with her 100% (or even 50%)
The Jews are a tough people, and they have had to deal with change throughout their entire history, and I'm sure that including some antiseptic and having a doctor look over the should of the Rabi (or whichever is his name is, can't remember) will not offend God or fundamentally change who they are.
Anyway, my point is that one can be against circumcision and not be antisemitic, this is not a foregone conclusion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But hey, I guess as long as Sa'eed is trumpeting men's issues, you don't have to pay attention to the trivialization of FGM (he didn't withdraw the comparison), or the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism (he wasn't talking about *Communion*) until Yiu get the sort of standard of proof necessary in criminal court.
Sa'eed has had very little input into this discussion, he has been discussed more then he ever added.
He isn't the only one who compared male circumcision and female genital mutilation, and other then him and Syn, everyone shot them down, but unlike Syn, he admitted it was over the top...what else do you want?
Also I have no idea what this: "or the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism (he wasn't talking about *Communion*) until Yiu get the sort of standard of proof necessary in criminal court." means.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course one can. I think that most people in this thread that are against circumcision are not antisemitic. That is not the case for Sa'eed who does seem to attack Jews and women - sometimes with a reasonable point, but just as often without.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* So just to be clear-and I say this as someone who wouldn't be opposed to across-the-board medical requirements-you say they'll be just fine with it religiously on...what basis exactly? Your extensive knowledge or Jewish culture?
Perhaps it would be wiser not to say to a certain religion, "This'll be fine according to your standards," when you obviously know little of those standards.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...you say they'll be just fine with it religiously...
You know Jeff, if you focused a bit more of your attention on your reading compression skills instead of your snarky comeback skills you might get into less arguments on the internet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
rrrh.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:...you say they'll be just fine with it religiously...
You know Jeff, if you focused a bit more of your attention on your reading compression skills instead of your snarky comeback skills you might get into less arguments on the internet.
quote:The Jews are a tough people, and they have had to deal with change throughout their entire history, and I'm sure that including some antiseptic and having a doctor look over the should of the Rabi (or whichever is his name is, can't remember) will not offend God or fundamentally change who they are.
In this case, it's being pointed out to you that when you say "I'm sure" what you're really saying is "I'm totally assuming that ..."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps you are right Samp, but I feel it safe to assume that if the Jew's culture can survive generations of slavery, they can handle a bit of numbing goo and an observer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps you are right Samp, but I feel it safe to assume that if the Jew's culture can survive generations of slavery, they can handle a bit of numbing goo and an observer.
That could a bit like saying, they can handle a BLT. We don't know (till one of them rings in) whether that would be prohibited or not. Or whether the requirement to have an observer make ritual circumcision practically impossible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not all you said. You said you were sure that this course of action wouldn't offend God in the eyes of Jews.
I pointed out (using as my basis the fact that you didn't even know the name of the guy who *does* it among Jews) that you have very little basis for making the claim.
And for the record, it doesn't matter how much input Sa'eed had on the conversation, either: you were also wrong when you said he backed off the initial comparison. He said it was 'a bit much' and then *went right on* comparing them. That's not backing off. I'm enjoying some snippy comebacks in this case inky because your own words, well, don't actually have support in what you've said.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...the BLT thing...isn't applicable as what we eat is entirely voluntary, where as minor surgery has a governing body in this country. If some traditions have to be slightly modified to meet the need of having a medical professional there, then tough. My point is that the Jews as a people have overcome more hardship then this times a million.
Rakeesh...r-e-a-d-i-n-g c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n. I said I was sure it wouldn't offend God and that it wouldn't fundamentally change who they are.
As to Sa'eed. I don't care. You can believe he is Hitler/Mao Tse-tung/the antichrist/that evil Brit chick from "Weakest Link" for all I care. I choose to judge him by his words. Here is what he said. "I realize that the comparison to FGM is a bit much, but that's like saying it's wrong to compare cutting off a tip of a finger to the total slicing of the whole thing. I particularly made the comparison to FGM because of the study I linked to in the OP: Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis." He admits that comparing them as the same thing is wrong. I don't agree with his finger analogy, but he is not discussing the whole ramifications, but trying to bring up specific medical evidence.
Let's make this really simple:
Sa'eed:
Are you Clive Candy? Are you the Somalian? Do you believe that women are inferior? Do you believe that Jews are inferior? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's the thing: you don't make that decision for Jews, whether something will offend God. I guess I can go tell a Sikh, "Listen, buddy, remove your headwear. God won't be annoyed, right?"
Of course if I *did*, I'd be showcasing some huge presumption or some substantial ignorance. I read what you said. It was pretty foolish for the reasons I've described. Your assertion that you didn't say what you plainly said is funny, though.
As for your questions...heh. Yes, because after all, the way to find out if someone is a misogynist or antisemitic is to just ask them plainly. That'll work!
Nothing to see here people, Stone_Wolf's on the case! Move along.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If you can't see the difference between "I'm sure God won't be offended" and "I'm sure that this course of action wouldn't offend God in the eyes of Jews" then you have bigger problems then reading comprehension...but if you really need me to explain it to you I'll be happy to, you big silly.
Meanwhile, mind explaining what this means as I asked you before?
quote:...or the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism (he wasn't talking about *Communion*) until Yiu get the sort of standard of proof necessary in criminal court.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
[sarcasm]Oh, and I'm sure that your concept of "assumption of guilt without evidence" is far less worthy of mockery then my "let's find out what he has to say for himself" approach. [/sarcasm]
Either way, good job with the open mockery, it becomes you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need. It's not extreme to say, why can't the child grow up and decide for himself? There's quite a few Jewish people who don't agree with circumcision, a growing number, in fact. Even if they don't remember the pain, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect and shape them.
Synesthesia, you honestly don't know what you're talking about. They do not scream in horror. You're making that up. It is extreme to try and dictate to a nation that was civilized when your ancestors were probably painting themselves blue and hiding in trees that only you know what's moral and ethical.
As far as Jews who assimilate, it's a problem. But it's our problem. Mind your own business.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, there has been lots of evidence. It might make sense for you to check out some of the other threads where Sa'eed (under various names) has posted to understand some of the context. Or even just the ones he has started.
ETA: to give some examples. He is an admitted anti-Zionist (which would be not too bad in my opinion) but he crossed that line pretty often and is a bit obsessed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...if it's good enough for Papa Janitor, it's good enough for me.
I've said from the start that if people want to add a warning that this might be an attack on Jews/women judging by his past posts, that it would be fair.
No matter what he wrote before, claiming he is "thinly veiling antisemitism" in this thread is simply uncalled for, as I've read all four of his comments, and nothing about it is even remotely mentioned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Explain it to me, then. Furthermore, if you were *only* saying, "I don't think this would offend God," well that's different. But then my question becomes, "What does *your* opinion matter? It's not your religion!"
You said that Jews have changed for bigger things than this, and that you're sure God won't mind and that this won't change them. *Why* do you get to make that call, anymore than I do about Sikhs? The answer is, you don't. It's absurd.
And, dude, we've had this discussion before. Please don't talk to me that way, "...as I've asked you before." You don't get to call me to account or something. Just ask your silly question, which by the way is obvious: that statement meant that it's thinly-veiled anti-Semitism for the reasons that have been explained (reasons that you haven't actually *looked in to*), and that your standard for whether or not Sa'eed is the other posters is silly too. Lisa's second post illustrates it.
But then, if your way of finding out it someone is misogynistic or antisemitic is to just say, "Hey, mister, are Jews inferior or subhuman or anything like that?" then I'm not surprised at the kinds of thing you need to hear before you believe it.
Heh. 'Judges by what he says.' Because if he doesnt answer that question with a yes, he must be neither misogynistic or antisemitic! Right? Right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: So maybe it was one of those conversations I had with the voices in my head. You guys have those, too, right?
*narrows eyes*
This whole thread is a trick to get me to admit this in public, isn't it?
ISN'T IT?!?
Well, I won't do it and you can't make me! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Put another way, if I were to say regularly how stupid and violent, say, African-Americans are and then started making a ridiculous over-the-top accusation about hip hop music, people would with justice claim it was thinly veiled racism at work. Especially if I didn't actually back off of the initial absurd comparison, like Sa'eed *didn't*.
Another example: "Circumcision is comparable to FGM."
*prompt criticism*
"OK, maybe that's a bit over the top. Here's another example of how awful circumcision is, comparing it again to FGM."
That's not backing off, or withdrawing, or any other synonym.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
He's cute when he's angry isn't folks?
Anyway...here is how I read what Sa'eed said:
quote:I realize that the comparison to FGM is a bit much, but that's like saying it's wrong to compare cutting off a tip of a finger to the total slicing of the whole thing. I particularly made the comparison to FGM because of the study I linked to in the OP: Circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis.
Stone_Wolf_'s interpretation: I agree that they are different but they both involve the same idea, cutting genitals, and I was trying to show that circumcision isn't just cutting off an "extra part" but instead trying to highlight this new medical evidence which indicates that the foreskin actually contains five most sensitive parts of the penis.
It isn't a matter of everything he said is right or that I agree with him. It's more a matter of it's wrong to disregard everything he says because he has said some crazy crap in the past.
As to me asking you to actually answer my questions, live with it. Or just answer my questions. Or admit you don't. Or do whatever you want like I will do whatever I want. What you said didn't make sense. If you don't mind that you aren't clearly communicating, great...but it begs the question why you are even posting here.
quote:Because if he doesnt answer that question with a yes, he must be neither misogynistic or antisemitic! Right? Right.
Well I'm glad you are taking up both sides of the conversation, it does save time. Although I wish you would ask better questions and give better answers, but hey, I don't want to interrupt your conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, I think that if you read the threads I linked, you will see a pattern of very sly digs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...sorry I must have missed your post...I'll back track and look them over in the near future...folding laundry atm.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just let us know when the appellate hatrack court has enough evidence to proceed, and
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They sure do scream in pain though. You can't deny that. It sounds heart wrenching to me and if you put it like that, "Mind your own business." it only makes quiet meek me rather mad. As babies kind of are my business....
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need. It's not extreme to say, why can't the child grow up and decide for himself? There's quite a few Jewish people who don't agree with circumcision, a growing number, in fact. Even if they don't remember the pain, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect and shape them.
Synesthesia, you honestly don't know what you're talking about. They do not scream in horror. You're making that up. It is extreme to try and dictate to a nation that was civilized when your ancestors were probably painting themselves blue and hiding in trees that only you know what's moral and ethical.
As far as Jews who assimilate, it's a problem. But it's our problem. Mind your own business.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And what Samp, don't leave us in suspense?!?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: As babies kind of are my business....
In what sense?
Are you also going to start objecting when parents immunize their children? Practice cry-it-out/Ferberize/whatever-it's-being-called-this-week?
There are medical benefits to circumcision. You feel they are not sufficient to justify circumcising a child? Great. Don't circumcise yours.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone wolf, I'll be sure to keep your new policy on requiring answers to questions in a presumptive way in mind. For, y'know, next time you don't. Which will be soon, if patterns hold.
As for angry, heh. Who between us has talked about punching people, about being so angry they'd like to torture, etc.? I'm pretty sure that was you! So please, by all means, refuse to address direct statements by claiming I'm angry.
It's fun how you can link to Sa'eed explicitly saying, "Maybe it was a bit much, but here's why the comparison was valid," and then continue to say he's backed off it! And then to say, "How do we *know* he's misogynistic and antisemitic?" and then the means you offer of finding out are...asking a question practically no one would say 'yes' to except the most flagrant bigots.
When that's pointed out to you, you laugh it off.
When you say to Jews, "Well I'm sure God won't mind," you bristle at accusations that you're trying to tell Jews about their own religion.
So, to sum up, the way to find out if someone is misogynistic or antisemitic *isn't* to ask, "Hey, do you think they're inferior?" but the way to find out what Jews think abou something in religious terms *is* to ask them. I see why you'd be confused. You got the two responses switched around.
(You *still* haven't asked, so far as I can see, "Hey, Jewish people...would this be cool according to your religion?" instead just assuming, "I'm sure God won't mind." Part of a habit of yours of assumptions, for example recently that words mean what you think they mean, even when it's clearly demonstrated that it means that *to you*. But hey, instead of acknowledging you might be wrong, just assume God's cool with it-it doesn't bother *you*, right?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QUOTE]
The Jews are a tough people, and they have had to deal with change throughout their entire history, and I'm sure that including some antiseptic and having a doctor look over the should of the Rabi (or whichever is his name is, can't remember) will not offend God or fundamentally change who they are.
Maybe putting it another way: whoever decides what would fundamentally change Jews concerning circumcision is *probably* someone who knows the title of the person who performs them. Just, y'know, throwing that out there.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...I looked over the links...can you help a bit more...only a few things really catch the eye so far:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I made this thread because I didn't want to derail the Rick Sanchez thread and I think this is a topic that's worthy of discussion. Lisa's thread implies that I have a thing about "Jews." I do, as far as anti-Zionism is concerned. But that's it. I'm an irreligious person and religious bigotry is alien to me so I feel that Lisa's thread is really nothing more than the usual attempt to conflate anti-zionism with unjustifiable bigotry against Jews -- a tactic that usually works in making would be critics of Zionism fearful of speaking out.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Israel's Palestinian population very well recognize its existence -- they live there. But as citizens in a democracy they have a right to disagree with how that country should be and this legislation is aimed to punish them (and perhaps create the excuse for their expulsion) for disagreeing.
Waah!!!! Waaaah!!!! Someone call the waaaaahmbulance!
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not an argument for why Israel ought to be considered justified for doing it, it's an argument for why Sa'eed is a dishonest schmuck for only talking about Israel.
As, y'know, he does with regularity.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There are medical benefits to circumcision. You feel they are not sufficient to justify circumcising a child? Great. Don't circumcise yours.
+1
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, vaccines are useful and actually prevent disease. Much of the so-called benefits of circumcision are being debunked left and right. The real reason why folks started doing that for non-religious reasons was to stop boys from masturbating, but they'd go on about how hygienic it is, how it cures epilepsy and prevents syphilis, pure bunk. 80% of men in the world are intact, yet they don't have exploding foreskins or infections left and right because it's a healthy part of the body that has a purpose. As for Cry it out, I'm against that too. Studies have shown it can cause brain damage and it can cause attachment issues. And it's actually kind of mean, not to mention annoying to just let a baby cry in their crib when people are supposed to pick them up and attend to them. All that baby training nonsense is just that, nonsense started by people who probably never even held a baby. But folks STILL keep pushing out that cry it out crap to new parents when it's the last advice they need. I'm also against spanking too and inflicting any kind of pain on a child they don't need. How could I possibly NOT get my son circumcised, but not care about other kids being forced to have surgery they don't need, that doesn't really have most of the health benefits folks rant about. Folks went without circumcision for ages, it's going out of favour all around the world. I just don't understand the point of not only altering a healthy part of the body in such a painful way but not giving someone a choice about it. Folks are learning more about the world and listening less to the Kelloggs and Ezzos of the world and doing more research about this and other issues. Rear facing car seats come to mind.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: As babies kind of are my business....
In what sense?
Are you also going to start objecting when parents immunize their children? Practice cry-it-out/Ferberize/whatever-it's-being-called-this-week?
There are medical benefits to circumcision. You feel they are not sufficient to justify circumcising a child? Great. Don't circumcise yours.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...I will give you a longer response later, as I am busy (I would have said the response you deserve, but that gesture isn't really available in the emoticons)...suffice to say, you misquote me constantly, put words in my mouth, generally don't read my posts closely and have an attitude. I'll point out these things later in detail...for now, I'm very comfortable saying, have a nice day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd be delighted to hear where I misquoted you Stone Wolf. By that I mean actually saying you said something you clearly didn't say, rather than pointing to your words, showing how they say something objectionable, and you getting cranky about it.
Case in point, you saying, "This won't change Jews," and my saying, "You know little about Jews, but even if you did, how do you make that call?"
Words in your mouth! Cause you spoke em.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It is extreme to try and dictate to a nation that was civilized when your ancestors were probably painting themselves blue and hiding in trees that only you know what's moral and ethical.
As far as Jews who assimilate, it's a problem. But it's our problem. Mind your own business.
Um, what do anyone's distant ancestors have to do with anyone right now knowing what is moral and ethical???? Because I can point to tons of ancient civilizations that weren't particularly moral or ethical by today's standards. That's just a stupid argument.
I'm not saying I agree with Samp. I do find ritual circumcision of little boys barbaric, and wouldn't do it myself. I also find piercing the ears of baby girls barbaric and wouldn't do that myself either. However, I do not consider either sufficiently harmful to think we need to overturn cultural traditions because of it.
And just so we're clear about who is making that statement, it's me, an American Woman who is just shy of 30. As for my ancestors, well, quite frankly I haven't the faintest clue what they were doing 5,000 years ago. I'm a mutt, so they were probably doing alot of different things, possibly including trying to kill one another!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: The real reason why folks started doing that for non-religious reasons was to stop boys from masturbating
Wait, what?
Just to set the record straight, masturbation works just fine without a foreskin. Speaking as a young adult who still remembers puberty well, I can say it didn't even slow me down.
Circumcision has no impact on the pleasure of masturbation, foreplay, oral sex, vaginal sex, etc. It's in no way debilitating. I don't know how it compares to having a foreskin (Stone_Wolf could answer that more accurately, since he's experienced both), but if anything I wouldn't mind knowing I'm slightly desensitized. I can imagine it helps with the problem of going off early.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Syn, not to be mean, but claiming that people who advocate cry it out are people who have never held a baby when you are not a parent is a bit hypocritical. What I believed was the right way to parent before I had one of my own was very different than what I believed after my first. And what I believed after my first was very different than after my second- mostly in that I realized I know nothing. Also, you take the more extreme version and put it on everyone. Like with cry it out, it generally isn't advised until 6 months. Also, when you haven't slept for a very long time, eventually, cry it out happens- if only out of exhaustion.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Lisa, how is a person or a couple thinking for themselves and possibly not agreeing with every part of judaism a problem? Im trying to not be antagonistic, this idea just bothers me. Im leaving my other problems with that post alone.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I did not say people who ADVOCATE it have never held a baby. I'm talking about how you had a ton of so-called experts in the past saying this is how you raise kids, put them on schedules, don't hold them, don't breastfeed, ect. Most of these folks were men who probably never held a baby, yet they were trying to tell people how to raise perfect children by depriving them of what they need to survive in the first place, compassion and such.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
No one said it actually WORKED to prevent masturbation, only that it was the reasoning behind it. This is accurate btw, I think it was some Puritan who thought it up a long time ago. Of course, if the circumcision is done during adolescence it probably DOES stop masturbation, at least for a little while.
As for the more general observation, it probably is easier to masturbate with a foreskin than without because there is at least some in&out motion with the foreskin which probably provides some sensation. (Having neither a foreskin, nor a penis, I'm just guessing here...) I can't imagine it makes too much of a difference though, since both circumcised and uncircumcised males seem to do it quite easily.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: The real reason why folks started doing that for non-religious reasons was to stop boys from masturbating
Wait, what?
Just to set the record straight, masturbation works just fine without a foreskin. Speaking as a young adult who still remembers puberty well, I can say it didn't even slow me down.
Circumcision has no impact on the pleasure of masturbation, foreplay, oral sex, vaginal sex, etc. It's in no way debilitating. I don't know how it compares to having a foreskin (Stone_Wolf could answer that more accurately, since he's experienced both), but if anything I wouldn't mind knowing I'm slightly desensitized. I can imagine it helps with the problem of going off early.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Do you work with children often, Syn? I confess I don't remember what your job is.
This is strictly out of curiosity. I try to avoid using a person's profession or personal life in arguments, because I hate arguments like that being used against me, and because it often turns into a pissing contest.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I used to... I practically raised my cousin from the time he was an infant to school age.
I exaggerate slightly, but yeah...
It's just there are certain cycles that need to die like the ones I grow up with....
Don't use those kind of arguments. I hate that... I don't have kids yet, that's beside the point. I WAS a kid and one day I will have kids...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I don't know how it compares to having a foreskin (Stone_Wolf could answer that more accurately, since he's experienced both)...
Dude, I was 12...and that was nearly two decades ago...so suffice to say I wasn't gettin' any, and if I was boffing the bishop (who remembers exactly when that habit started), I couldn't tell you if there was a difference or not now, 19 years later.
Rakeesh...I don't care anymore...you just aren't important enough for me to invest my time arguing with you over stupid details. I used to find it entertaining, and now I do not. Prepared to be ignored as I see fit.
DDDaysh...I don't know if you want to know this or not...so if not, sorry...but even circumcised males can grip the outer skin and move it up and down like a dog's extra skin and masturbate thusly.
Syn...trust me when I tell you that until you have children, you don't know what you are going to do. I only became a father 20 months ago, and I had planned on what I was going to do and not do most of my life. All my well made plans went out the window the second my son was born. And like scholarette said, exhaustion can be a major factor in your decision making process.
I don't expect you to agree here, but I would really like you to do this: Remember what you are saying now, when you have kids, and then come back and give us a report. It might be a bit different then you imagined.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Lisa, how is a person or a couple thinking for themselves and possibly not agreeing with every part of judaism a problem? Im trying to not be antagonistic, this idea just bothers me. Im leaving my other problems with that post alone.
Are you sure you want me to answer this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I very much hope so, Stone Wolf. It'll make ignoring awkward questions that much easier if you're allowed to ignore them right off the bat instead of on a case-by-case basis like thus far:)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You know if you looked back over my posts and yours, I'd bet vs large odds that I would have admitted that other people have valid points and adjusted my point of view at least twice as often as you have.
I'm a stubborn person, and admit it freely. But I try and be reasonable and fair to everyone, even the people I do not like, and admit when I'm wrong.
At times I appreciate your voice in a discussion, and at other times I wish you would never post on these boards again, and the real difference between the two is when you are speaking your own mind and trying to convince someone that what they said is wrong. When it is the latter you are often holier then though, assumptive, snippy, sarcastic and a general pain.
You can keep assuming that my reluctance to talk to you is because my position is a weak one, and I know it and need a cop out, or you can take a risk and really believe me when I tell you that I really think that arguing with you is not productive or fun and your attitude is a major stumbling block to progress in a discussion.
Either way, I simply reserve the right to not address what you have to say.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It is extreme to try and dictate to a nation that was civilized when your ancestors were probably painting themselves blue and hiding in trees...
And the amazing part is that this just went unnoticed. Nobody even said "boo".
Frickin' really, Hatrack?
Lisa, what wouldn't you say? I'm honestly wondering.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Much of the so-called benefits of circumcision are being debunked left and right.
Not really. If you meant that many of the medical benefits can be achieved by other means, I might agree with you. But "debunked" puts you right back in irrational-town.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know what's an even bigger impediment to discussion? The assumption that because you didn't *intend* to say anything wrong or presumptuous, you shouldn't be treated as though you have.
Case in point, again: who are you to assert that a government mandated oversight to circumcision would not 'fundamentally change' Jews and their religion? Still waitin' on an answer to that, or you can continue complaining about how mean I am without ever, y'know, *addressing* that. Or perhaps you can continue suggesting Sa'eed withdrew his comparison when what he *actually* said-and it's still there-was that it's a bit much, and then went right on standing by it.
You *kind* of addresses the problem I said your post had of telling Jews what they'd think was OK with God, I guess. But you still *haven't asked anyone who is actually Jewish* what the impact might be. You suggested your idea wouldn't be a fundamental change to Jews and you *didn't even know the word mohel*.
You could've asked, instead of...gasp!...assuming! So yeah, I 'assume' you're being presumptive. Just silly of me.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Lisa, how is a person or a couple thinking for themselves and possibly not agreeing with every part of judaism a problem? Im trying to not be antagonistic, this idea just bothers me. Im leaving my other problems with that post alone.
Are you sure you want me to answer this?
If you felt the urge to censor youself once already, yes.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It is extreme to try and dictate to a nation that was civilized when your ancestors were probably painting themselves blue and hiding in trees...
I understand this comment to be a racial slur, and as such a direct and intentional violation of the TOS.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I think less discussion about civilizations, cultures, and religions is warranted.
Also, a little less outrage couldn't hurt either.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here's the deal Rakeesh, you've said you agree with me, but can't get past your impression of what I said, and insist that not only do I address it, but I address it from your understanding.
You get bogged down in this tiny little micro arguments of personality and completely loose sight of the big picture. For instance, it was not my idea that a doctor be there for the briss, and the fact that we agree that it is reasonable to have a licensed doctor there for a minor surgery. You are stuck on "admit you are presumptuous"...and you turn the discussion into an adversarial contest.
You spin nearly everything I say into..."this is what you really mean" and none of it is good. And I don't care what you think any more. There are plenty of good people here who actually are interested in the exchange of ideas instead of the mindless arguments you drag me into.
Go ahead, tell me what I'm really doing/not doing. I don't care what you think anymore. Really. You aren't a "bad" person, but this isn't a tennis match and there is no score or out of bounds or winner or looser.
And to be brutally honest, I feed into the fire as much as you do, and I need to do better.
So here goes. Sa'eed's "retraction" wasn't as much of a retraction as it could/should have been. That being said, I feel he was trying to make a point about that study he furnished in the OP, which basically never got discussed.
When it comes to what Jews find acceptable or not, I don't care. Does that mean I'm a bit insensitive to religious matters. Yes it does. Does that mean that my opinion should have no weight in a discussion of what should or shouldn't happen when it comes to public safety and religion. No, it doesn't.
Everyone decides for themselves what is okay in the eyes of god or not, and anyone who tells you what you must do to be good in the eyes of god is presumptuous. I simply spoke for myself and my beliefs. I also spoke of my belief that Jews could handle a tiny bit of change.
We here on discussion boards speak of our beliefs and how we think the world should work. To a certain extent it is all presumptuous, but mostly it is a place for us to share our beliefs and change them in ourselves and others through growth.
I have grown, and seen other posters grow here. Perhaps Sa'eed isn't one of them, but by damn I will give him every chance to improve himself and sharpen his mind on the hatrack whetstone.
I can't say as I've ever seen you admit to being wrong, or embrace a new idea. From you I've seen nothing but a battle for every inch of turf in what can only be called a war of words. And I no longer want to fight. You want to chat, or discuss or even disagree that is fine, we can do that, but I will not battle with you, especially over trivial minutia when we agree on the actual topic at hand.
Oh yea, and Lisa's post is hostile and I reported it without commenting because I didn't think for a second that she would welcome any comments as the sheer negative inappropriateness of her post can only lead to fighting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wanting it to be a requirement that a doctor be present, I agree with. Saying to a religious group, "This won't change who you guys are," I don't. It's especially silly and objectionable-not to a huge degree or anything-because we could just as easily *ask*.
The bits about, "Jews have suffered plenty, so this won't be a big deal," was just...strange. It's like, so, because they've gotten the shaft throughout history we can just do as we like with 'em now? No, I don't think that's what you meant. But it *is* what your words pointed to. In that sense it's quite a lot like the discussion on rape not long ago. Over and over again, for quite awhile, you operated on your *personal* definition, used that in disagreeing with others, and when they disputed it used your own personal definition as a rebuttal. In a similar sense to you saying to Jews, "This isn't a big deal," without *checking*. That you were ignorant of the topic -not an insult, just a descriptor-only made it stranger and more confusing.
As for chancing my mind about things or admitting I was mistaken, well it's silly to get into a contest about that. I can only say that I have, I'm not going to thump my chest on it or anything. But just at-a-thought, some issues I have changed my mind about or reconsidered here over the years and years I've been hanging around: capital punishment, abortion, posthumous baptism, proselytizing, just to name a few. I haven't actually discussed a wide variety of things with you, though. And for all your (frequent) complaints about being judged on what you say, you also want people to judge you on what you *meant* to say.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for Lisa, yeah, pretty foul. Lends some unpleasant credibility, on the micro scale at least, to Sa'eed's past claims about Jews not just thinking they're the chosen people but superior in secular ways too. But I've sort of lost hope over quite a long time that she'll actually be reprimanded for that sort of thing. Other than perhaps privately and ineffectually.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I still can't seem to get through to you...there is a difference between the two statements:
A. I think the Jews can handle it, heck they handled a lot worse.
B. This won't change who you guys are.
A is me speaking my opinion, B is you saying that I am telling an entire people what they will do. All on a topic we agree on!
In an attempt to try and avoid fighting, could use just use the quote function and use my words instead of putting false quotation marks around your version of what you think I said please. I mean, why do you have to rephrase everything I say, what is the reason for it? It causes a lot of problems and anger and it just isn't needed.
If you disagree with my opinion, then simply state that you disagree and why. This is why I say you strawman me, this is why I've told you to bite me in the past...here is an example of how you could do it which would cause no friction:
"I, Rakeesh, disagree with this statement: ]quote[ Original statement ]/quote[ And here is why..."
I'm glad you have changed your mind about stuff. I don't think we disagree about much of this stuff when it comes to substance but we end up fighting tooth and nail over tiny details which in the end derail the conversation and are truly irrelevant.
quote:And for all your (frequent) complaints about being judged on what you say, you also want people to judge you on what you *meant* to say.
You add these little zings at me nearly every post...you're the one who talked about punching people so is clearly the angry one, you're the one who complains frequently, you're the one who ignores questions which are inconvenient to your case, you're the one with a habit of assumptions...these personal digs need to stop. You need to stop making this into a place to air a vendetta against me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The Jews are a tough people, and they have had to deal with change throughout their entire history, and I'm sure that including some antiseptic and having a doctor look over the should of the Rabi (or whichever is his name is, can't remember) will not offend God or fundamentally change who they are.
Just for fun, and because it's not enough to say you said something you've said but to actually *prove* it or be accused of strawmanning...there. You said what I pointed out. From your position of substantial ignorance on Judaism in this respect, you then go on to say, "This won't change y'all."
If you are unhappy having that pointed out, *maybe you shouldn't have said it to begin with*. Or you could *still* ask instead of standing by your assumption. This isn't even like the opt-in/drunk discussion. Here you're *explocitly saying* something, while claiming you didn't say it. Getting really pissy and whiny about having it pointed out, too.
As for your rubric for responding to you, allow me to quote you again:
quote:...live with it. Or just answer my questions. Or admit you don't. Or do whatever you want like I will do whatever I want.
In the past I didn't think you were actually *forgetting* (or lying) about what you'd actually said. But perhaps that's not the case. And, y'know, before you get angry or frustrated or whatever about that word 'lying', bear in mind that you've accused *me* of the same repeatedly-for claiming you said what you in fact said, as I've now shown even to *your* standards you did say.
And for the 'personal digs', well hey: if you don't want to hear it, don't say things like, "He's cute when he's angry..." (do I need to use the quote feature for that, or will you deny having said it?) and not expect to have your own little funny episodes with temper and violent rhetoric mentioned.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nice quote work...thanks for that...keep up the good work! Do you think that pain killer and a doctor's observation would fundamentally change the Jewish people Rakeesh? Because I doubt you do, but just want to make sure it's known that you consider my statement to be assumptive. Well, it's what I think, draw your own conclusion. What do you think about it?
I admit I got some jabs in there as well...and declare that A) I'm sorry for them, and B) I'm done with them.
Hopefully this ends this particular bit of the Rakeesh/Stone_Wolf_ show, and now we can move on now. If not, that's okay too, but I'll refrain from participating, maybe that will solve the problem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll add that I indeed said that I didn't think it would fundamentally change the Jews...so I can understand some of your frustration, but here is the beauty of actually quoting me...I don't argue when you do...so, sorry for the frustration...please try and keep adjectives like "pissy" and "whiny" out of our talks, as they just aren't a nice thing to say.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:I don't know how it compares to having a foreskin (Stone_Wolf could answer that more accurately, since he's experienced both)...
Syn...trust me when I tell you that until you have children, you don't know what you are going to do. I only became a father 20 months ago, and I had planned on what I was going to do and not do most of my life. All my well made plans went out the window the second my son was born. And like scholarette said, exhaustion can be a major factor in your decision making process.
I don't expect you to agree here, but I would really like you to do this: Remember what you are saying now, when you have kids, and then come back and give us a report. It might be a bit different then you imagined.
Please do not say this. First of all, it seems condescending, and second of all, do you even know my history and my reasons for being so obsessed with wanting to break a certain cycle? I don't hate my mother, but she was hitting me with a belt when I was having chemo between the ages of 2-5. I'm lucky I didn't get raised by her exclusively. She loves me. I know she does, and so does my father, but they were young when they had me, she was abused most of her childhood and nearly passed such things on to me and actually said I didn't have it so bad. Can you see why I'd want to try to do better? This is a huge issue because it's not just about a nip of skin or cry it out but about actively wanting to do better and setting out to do it no matter what...
I should also point out that Japan was doing pretty well and they never circumcised at all. China too, but they foot binding thing.
[ June 22, 2011, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I think less discussion about civilizations, cultures, and religions is warranted.
Also, a little less outrage couldn't hurt either.
Why? It's the appropriate response to what was said.
When you let these personalities post after years of ensuring we know who they are, you get the outrage.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Syn, I'm sorry you have had those things happen in your young life, and I don't mean to sound condescending. Some of the surprises which come with parenthood are, well, indescribably good. But surprises none the less.
I'd bet on you vs large odds that you will do better then your parents. Again, that being said, expect surprises.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I think less discussion about civilizations, cultures, and religions is warranted.
Also, a little less outrage couldn't hurt either.
Why? It's the appropriate response to what was said.
When you let these personalities post after years of ensuring we know who they are, you get the outrage.
You misunderstand, I'm saying that what seems to be causing this conversation to jump the tracks is discussion along the lines of, "My culture/religion is better than your culture/religion."
Also, I am not saying that when a poster says something beyond the pail outrage is unwarranted, only that outrage rarely serves to keep a conversation civil.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'll add that I indeed said that I didn't think it would fundamentally change the Jews...so I can understand some of your frustration, but here is the beauty of actually quoting me...I don't argue when you do...so, sorry for the frustration...please try and keep adjectives like "pissy" and "whiny" out of our talks, as they just aren't a nice thing to say.
Something else that ain't a nice thing to say: repeatedly suggesting I'm being dishonest for suggesting you've said *things you actually said*.
Strawmanning, false quoting, putting words in your mouth are just a few of the things you had to say on the subject. It's not the first time that's happened, either. But, well, you 'understand my frustration' so it's all good, right?
Naw. Suggesting someone was being dishonest when they make an accusation that's factual is itself dishonest. Or incredibly forgetful, at first. *That* has been the common factor in discussing things with you, from topics such as torture, rape, and now circumcision of all things. This is just the most overt it's been.
As for fundamentally changing, well since you ask nope, I think it probably wouldn't, mostly because I knew already that many mohels are *already* doctors. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel That's just a *guess* on my part, though. I don't actually know. I wouldn't just pooh-pooh it, though, justifying the assumption by of all things how frequently Jews have gotten screwed. (In addition to mentioning that before, I've *also* directly quoted you saying that, so I don't feel the need to do so again. To preempt possible-likely?-claims of not having said that.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't mean to sound contrary here JanitorBlade, but why issue a global piece of advice like that when only one poster made such ridiculous and biased claims? And then an equally global administration against us responding (appropriately) to that outrageous post? I do not understand your methods.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fun fact that not many people know: The "pale" in the phrase "beyond the pale" refers to fences. Pales are the stake parts of wooden fences (like "impale") so Pale came to mean the part enclosed within a fence. A famous Pale was one in Ireland. Inside was the part of Ireland that was entirely subject to England. "Beyond the pale" were scary, barbaric* Irish.
*Though likely uncircumcised.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: So, even down to the detail level we agree. How nice. Maybe we can start agreeing in positive terms instead of fighting about it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't mean to sound contrary here JanitorBlade, but why issue a global piece of advice like that when only one poster made such ridiculous and biased claims? And then an equally global administration against us responding (appropriately) to that outrageous post? I do not understand your methods.
I didn't take any sort of administrative action against anybody. I merely indicated how certain elements could change so as to facilitate conversation.
I haven't chosen to censure anybody in particular at this point.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Forgive me for the word choice...I was using the word "administration" as what you said, not as any particular action.
My point (which I seem to be communicating poorly) is why not edit/delete the one post which is clearly causing the issue and then specifically tell that poster to not post like that instead of telling everyone in general what would be helpful?
Or to put it another way, why use a bomb when you could use a scalpel?
I'm really asking btw.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm talking about how you had a ton of so-called experts in the past saying this is how you raise kids, put them on schedules, don't hold them, don't breastfeed, ect. Most of these folks were men who probably never held a baby, yet they were trying to tell people how to raise perfect children...
First of all, there's no such thing as a perfect child. Each one is a whole bundle of problems.
But seriously, let me point out that you yourself sometimes come across very similarly. On more than one topic, you're very eager to tell people (IN ALL CAPS, EVEN ) how they should be raising their children, despite a relative lack of experience or expertise.
Not that you're not allowed to have opinions or feel passionately about any subject, but if you want to actually convince people instead of just talking to make yourself feel better, it's a good idea to keep in mind how you might be coming across to others.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Fun fact that not many people know: The "pale" in the phrase "beyond the pale" refers to fences. Pales are the stake parts of wooden fences (like "impale") so Pale came to mean the part enclosed within a fence. A famous Pale was one in Ireland. Inside was the part of Ireland that was entirely subject to England. "Beyond the pale" were scary, barbaric* Irish.
*Though likely uncircumcised.
This is the most interesting thing Ive read in this topic. Its reached its zenith, and now I can ignore it altogether.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Lisa, how is a person or a couple thinking for themselves and possibly not agreeing with every part of judaism a problem? Im trying to not be antagonistic, this idea just bothers me. Im leaving my other problems with that post alone.
Are you sure you want me to answer this?
If you felt the urge to censor youself once already, yes.
Censor myself? Maybe. Anyway, the answer is that Jewish law isn't optional. It is obligatory for every Jew, whether the person recognizes the obligation or not. Cardinal friggin' Lustiger is obligated by Jewish law. Or was. Death gets you off.
Now... some people will say that if a law isn't enforced, it isn't a law. And they're entitled to that opinion, even though they're wrong.
Jewish parents who don't have their sons circumcised are Bad Jews.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Forgive me for the word choice...I was using the word "administration" as what you said, not as any particular action.
My point (which I seem to be communicating poorly) is why not edit/delete the one post which is clearly causing the issue and then specifically tell that poster to not post like that instead of telling everyone in general what would be helpful?
Or to put it another way, why use a bomb when you could use a scalpel?
I'm really asking btw.
We're talking about a thread, the very title of which calls Jews barbarians, and none of you seem troubled by that. So no, I'm not going to apologize for what I said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If it's 'obligatory,' would you fix that by making it a law, if you were in charge? Force jewish parents to have their children circumcized, or force uncircumcised jews to be circumcized even if they're unwilling?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great question Samp!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Lisa: the title is one person's opinion, and not widely shared and I find highly suspect that you can rationalize bad behavior by pointing a finger at Sa'eed (of all people, especially by your comments) and say, he started it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not to mention that people having problems with it (including myself) cropped up instantaneously in addition to the description of the title provided is wrong, so
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It sounds like you accompany "bad jew" with "bad person" and that is very sad. Thats all I have to say that I can say politely and without inflaming myself, and I am not going to interact any further within this line of conversation. I hope you understand that I do not mean to be disrespectful, just unwilling to be unproductive.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If it's 'obligatory,' would you fix that by making it a law, if you were in charge? Force jewish parents to have their children circumcized, or force uncircumcised jews to be circumcized even if they're unwilling?
Not today, no. But surely you know that after the Messiah comes, all Jews will be living according to the Torah. Or rather, surely you're aware that this is what we think. And yes, that'll include the Jewish system of religious courts.
Jewish law holds that the first obligation of circumcision is for the father to circumcise his son (by agent, in most cases). If the father doesn't, the responsibility falls to the boy. If he doesn't, the responsibility falls to the community.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: It sounds like you accompany "bad jew" with "bad person" and that is very sad.
But I don't. That's your incorrect misreading of what I said. I was pretty clear, and I think my history on Hatrack shows that if I'm saying something, I don't just make implications; I come right out and say it. If I wanted to say they were bad people, I would have said that. But they aren't, so I didn't.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Thats all I have to say that I can say politely and without inflaming myself, and I am not going to interact any further within this line of conversation. I hope you understand that I do not mean to be disrespectful, just unwilling to be unproductive.
Feel free.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So on one side of the irrational scale we have Syn saying outlaw circumcision, and on the other we have Lisa saying make it mandatory.
And as far as I can tell, everyone else (except Sa'eed) in the middle going, "huh?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What 'responsibility' falls to the community to obligate circumcision? You don't make it sound like they have the right to circumcise someone by force.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So on one side of the irrational scale we have Syn saying outlaw circumcision, and on the other we have Lisa saying make it mandatory.
Lisa is not saying that. Lisa is saying that some day it will be mandatory.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait a second... I did not exactly say outlaw it...
Though... Mostly I wish people would STOP doing it altogether on their own, but I don't understand why not doing it would make someone a Bad Jew... What if it were a mother who had reasonable concerns about the pain factor?
And why I am on the extreme side... I think I am a bit cranky about that now... Mostly... because Lisa tends to be a slight be harsh... and I don't think I'm really harsh... am I? There's things I don't agree with though, but I empathized more with the kid going through that. *shudder*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
m_p_h: Point taken.
Syn: Yes, Lisa can be harsh. You don't come off as harsh, but you do come off as judgmental at times, naive at others (at least to me).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and I don't think I'm really harsh... am I?
Not in the same way as Lisa, but yeah, when you're passionate about something (and it seems that you rarely post about anything unless you are), you usually come across as pretty extreme.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Wait a second... I did not exactly say outlaw it...
Though... Mostly I wish people would STOP doing it altogether on their own, but I don't understand why not doing it would make someone a Bad Jew... What if it were a mother who had reasonable concerns about the pain factor?
And why I am on the extreme side... I think I am a bit cranky about that now... Mostly... because Lisa tends to be a slight be harsh... and I don't think I'm really harsh... am I? There's things I don't agree with though, but I empathized more with the kid going through that. *shudder*
Synesthesia, circumcision is important to Jews because, for their religion, it is an important part of the covenant their people made with God. Sort of (but not exactly like) Christians being baptised. It is a big deal for them.
And Lisa is not saying to make it mandatory but she is saying that in the hoped-for future it will be mandatory.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There could be worse things to be extreme about than compassion and gentleness towards children... You should hear some of my other inactivist acquaintances and various extreme APers...
Mostly I want to brainwash myself before I have kids, there's attitudes about kids that disturb me and I've heard them from at least every relative I've spoke to...
I really just cannot get past the cutting aspect of it and how it changes the penis for life. Folks are trying to restore their foreskins, it's so... permanent...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There could be worse things to be extreme about than compassion and gentleness towards children...
If you're trying to actually change other people's minds, there's not much that is worse than seeming extreme.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:There could be worse things to be extreme about than compassion and gentleness towards children...
I think nearly everyone here would agree with you, but an extreme view none the less. Where I feel it rubs people the wrong way is that you do not acknowledge that A) it is a medically sound decision, and B) a parent's decision for their children.
Your goal of not wanting circumcision to be the the unquestioned norm is one that has been widely accepted.
ETA: Even my negative experience with not being snipped wasn't enough to make up my mind about it with my son. I did some research, and spoke about it at length with my wife (who was for it, as a nurse) and even then I asked the doctor three separate times if my son would get a pain killer. He did not pass out, he fell peacefully asleep as I stroked his hair and my wife held his hand. Getting people to ask questions is good. Assuming that it is always painful and horrible experience is not.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it should be the decision of the person who owns the penis, and the medical benefits are too questionable.
But again, the attitudes about this seem to be different in other places for some reason.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I think it should be the decision of the person who owns the penis...
This is not a reasonable goal, as the surgery is a minor on infants and major, possibly life threatening on adults. I was in bed in excruciating pain for a week and half of recovery after my circumcision at age 12. Any time they put you all the way under for surgery there is a small but real chance you will never wake up again.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
Being a parent myself, Synesthesia, I do understand your concerns, however, I think when you become a parent that you'll view the role differently. Parents are required to make choices that effect their child's upbringing. It's part of the job.
As far as the topic of circumcision itself, I view it in a historical context tied to religion. People (generally speaking) are not the brightest, for the time and place of the origin of this custom, the leaders would have needed some way to convince people that it was necessary. Thus, as with many other topics, they tied it to their religion so that the fear of God's wrath would keep people clean and alive to procreate and spread the religion further.
As someone who was not circumcised, I cannot tell you how the other half lives. Growing up I was taught that it was important to clean it and make sure that I took proper steps to prevent infection. As far as how it affects stimulation and sensitivity, only those who have had a circumcision as an adult would be able to tell you if there is a difference for them.
As far as women preferring one form over the other as reason for justification of circumcision, that is yet another example of the shallow world we live in, if it holds any merit at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Parents are required to make choices that effect their child's upbringing. It's part of the job.
And there's always somebody willing to tell you that the choice you made is going to ruin the child's life.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
And frequently, mr_porteiro_head, parents do make the wrong choice.
There are parents who choose to spoil their children so that their children expect that everything will be handed to them on a silver platter and that, to me, is wrong.
There are parents who choose to beat their children bloody, ignore them or starve them. To me, that is also wrong.
I raise my daughter to think for herself but to also obey the rules. She has chores, despite the fact that she is young, and understands that you don't get everything just because you want it. I feel that this will allow her to function in society. Am I ruining my daughter's life? Probably. I hope for the day when she comes back, in her 20s, and thanks my wife and I for being stern with her.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Wait a second... I did not exactly say outlaw it...
Though... Mostly I wish people would STOP doing it altogether on their own, but I don't understand why not doing it would make someone a Bad Jew... What if it were a mother who had reasonable concerns about the pain factor?
It wouldn't make a bit of difference. It is one of the most essential core requirements of Judaism. And we aren't exactly asking for anyone else's opinion on it. God vs. a squeamish mother? God wins. And someone who rejects something so fundamental to Judaism is obviously a bad Jew.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I raise my daughter to think for herself but to also obey the rules. She has chores, despite the fact that she is young, and understands that you don't get everything just because you want it. I feel that this will allow her to function in society. Am I ruining my daughter's life? Probably. I hope for the day when she comes back, in her 20s, and thanks my wife and I for being stern with her.
Yes. It isn't our job to raise happy children. It's our job to raise happy adults.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why is circumcision so fundamental to Judaism Lisa?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, it was considered so fundamental that the early Christians fought over requiring it for non-Jews to become Christians.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fascinating, Boots, but I don't think it answers the question of "why".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
ETA: I am not endorsing that web site in general. It just contained a fairly easy access to Genesis 17 which should be sufficient.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I raise my daughter to think for herself but to also obey the rules. She has chores, despite the fact that she is young, and understands that you don't get everything just because you want it. I feel that this will allow her to function in society. Am I ruining my daughter's life? Probably. I hope for the day when she comes back, in her 20s, and thanks my wife and I for being stern with her.
Yes. It isn't our job to raise happy children. It's our job to raise happy adults.
Was that to be taken as sarcasm? My daughter is very happy, Lisa. There are just expectations of her and things that must be done. She has two loving parents who spend time with her and read to her. The difference is that if my daughter wants something, we don't immediately buy it for her. We don't give into the "Gimmes".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks Boots, that helps me understand better.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Johivin, I don't think Lisa was being sarcastic, merely agreeing that if you keep your child happy it won't make them happy as adults (i.e. punishing/giving responsibility/discipline would make a child less happy in the short run, but is better for them in the long run).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I raise my daughter to think for herself but to also obey the rules. She has chores, despite the fact that she is young, and understands that you don't get everything just because you want it. I feel that this will allow her to function in society. Am I ruining my daughter's life? Probably. I hope for the day when she comes back, in her 20s, and thanks my wife and I for being stern with her.
Yes. It isn't our job to raise happy children. It's our job to raise happy adults.
I'm not saying children have to be happy ALL the time, but not being raised in a harsh way can contribute to a happy adulthood. It's like something like NOT teaching a child discipline, or letting them do what they want. It's more like treating the child not like they are a pre-adult, but a child that's developing and learning. Which isn't really how I was treated a lot of times... It doesn't mean spoiling them, or putting them on a pedestal, but respecting and being kind to them... Like, I read an article about someone complaining about wussy parents. I'm not saying let the child use a pacifier until they're 30, but does it have to be snatched away with no kind of transition? No consideration for how the child feels? That's why I like Sears and when his wife was writing about taking her child out and saying goodbye to the toys before just yanking the child away. Like the child didn't have to be stressed or the parent. They're just so nice.
Also, not even the pain aspect can change your mind about that, Lisa?
Also, circumcision is one reason why I have trouble with religions...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If there isn't an intrinsic cultural or religious reason for it there's no good reason for circumcision.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My penis disagrees with you Blayne.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
OOC Lisa what about those Jews who reject circumcision due to the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust because it was an easy way to identify them?
quote: My penis disagrees with you Blayne.
Its not like an easily cosmetic process that reversible.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of agree with Blayne, but I'd add medical reasons, but folks have to learn that you do NOT retract a baby's foreskin. You just do not do that. It retracts on its own. Retracting before it's ready will cause infections and women also have a foreskin like part too, so if you retracted that, that would cause problems as well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I just thought of a reason, not getting random erections in class, dang rubbing causing... uncomfortable... awkward... situations...
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: There could be worse things to be extreme about than compassion and gentleness towards children... You should hear some of my other inactivist acquaintances and various extreme APers...
Mostly I want to brainwash myself before I have kids, there's attitudes about kids that disturb me and I've heard them from at least every relative I've spoke to...
I really just cannot get past the cutting aspect of it and how it changes the penis for life. Folks are trying to restore their foreskins, it's so... permanent...
I totally understand where you are coming from. I can see how you think it is wrong to circumcize a child. I am happy though that you do not think it should be illegal.
I am the oldest of 5 boys, and we were all circumcized. I'm actually very glad I was. I have a grandfather that had to have it done while he was in his sixties due an infection, and he was in extreme pain for weeks. He could not walk, and sleeping was uncomfortable as well. My grandfather is also a very clean man, he showers at least twice a day. Sometimes it just happens.
My new nephew was circumcized a few weeks ago, and after the initial cut, he was fine. He was still a little sore down there, but he recovered quickly. It really isn't as gruesome as you might think. It didn't look deformed or bloody or scabby at all.
I don't know. I really understand where you are coming from, but I have to ask myself whether I would want to have it done when the baby will not remember it and can recover quickly, or when they are older and go through the extreme pain, as well as any potential monetary losses from loss of time at work, etc.
And don't knock the Jews. The hospital my brother went to didn't have a size that would fit his little fella, so my parents took him to a Rabbi. The Rabbi did it free hand, apparently he did a better job than the hospital did on the rest of us.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blayne, the reason my penis disagrees with you is that my circumcision was done for medical reasons.
Syn...you sure you agree with him? He's saying
quote:If there isn't an intrinsic cultural or religious reason for it there's no good reason for circumcision.
Or if you remove the negatives you get:
If there is an intrinsic cultural or religious reason for it there's a good reason for circumcision.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's really just the pain aspect that makes me think there's not a good reason for it, also I'm a heathen too...Surgery on babies that isn't for a life threatening situation doesn't sit well with me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why is circumcision so fundamental to Judaism Lisa?
That was (apparently) *so hard*.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I assure you that there is little to no pain in a modern circumcision done in the hospital. After my son's surgery regular baby tylenol was all that was needed for the pain. Trust me, babies let you know if they are unhappy/in pain. The wound itself never bled, and just looked red, then healthy pink.
My son never suffered in the whole process.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh, what is the point of your post other then to egg me on into a fight? Are you seriously that much of a negative person? Just gotta pop up and put some sarcasm in...or is it, told ya so?
Either way, you're character is lacking. Go away.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Geraine, not a rabbi; a mohel. Not all rabbis are mohels, not all mohels are rabbis, but many are both. That is, he may well have been a rabbi, but it is the training as a mohel that made him qualified to do a circumcision, not his training as a rabbi.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Geraine, not a rabbi; a mohel. Not all rabbis are mohels, not all mohels are rabbis, but many are both. That is, he may well have been a rabbi, but it is the training as a mohel that made him qualified to do a circumcision, not his training as a rabbi.
Not sure how that really mattered to my story, but thank you for clearing that up. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are enough misperceptions about Judaism and circumcision (in this thread and in the world at large), that I felt like clearing yours up. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh, what is the point of your post other then to egg me on into a fight? Are you seriously that much of a negative person? Just gotta pop up and put some sarcasm in...or is it, told ya so?
Either way, you're character is lacking. Go away.
Well I can't be *sure* but your repeated suggestions that j was lying, dropped without comment when I demonstrates I wasn't, *might* lead to some satisfaction when you actually, finally ask the question instead of presume and dictate.
One might even wonder what that sort of behavior days about character.
Go away?
quote:Or do whatever you want like I will do whatever I want.
So, naw, I think when you contradict yourself or make assumptions, I'll go by your standard, bro. Especially when, y'know, you're specifically full of crap (saying words are being put in your mouth) when I provably didn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you want to explain better to Stone Wolf, that would probably be good. I was aiming for the small word version.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't bother to explain anything to me Rakeesh. I'm not prefect, I'm stubborn, and jump to defend myself sometimes when it isn't called for, but I also have tried again and again to come up with a way we can coexist here, even share in discussions and time again you have returned with unveiled hostility, attacking me personally consistently, on topics we actually agree on.
You are persona non grata to me. I won't answer your posts ever again. Good bye.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A proper medical reason for it goes without saying; generic medical reasons like hygiene aren't to my mind sufficient.
I'll never be able to play peekaboo now with my future girlfriend Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I still love you Rakeesh ^_^
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Don't bother to explain anything to me Rakeesh. I'm not prefect, I'm stubborn, and jump to defend myself sometimes when it isn't called for, but I also have tried again and again to come up with a way we can coexist here, even share in discussions and time again you have returned with unveiled hostility, attacking me personally consistently, on topics we actually agree on.
You are persona non grata to me. I won't answer your posts ever again. Good bye.
Yes, well, I do hope that's true. It'd be the first time after similar declarations. Anyway, the irritation started when you were telling Jews about their religion from a position if serious ignorance. The hostility in *this* thread towards you started pretty much when you said I was lying even when I wasn't. Especially after I used your own standard for doing so. The *contempt* didn't really start until you just dropped it at that point. 'Stubborn' isn't actually an excuse for saying someone is lying when they're not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YOU'RE DEAD TO ME RAKEESH
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There are enough misperceptions about Judaism and circumcision (in this thread and in the world at large), that I felt like clearing yours up.
I mean seriously I even literally linked to Monster Mohel, so by now everyone needs to know that Mohels are disgusting deranged men who suck blood out of baby penises (and need to be stopped by blonde superheroes)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, that totally helped with clearing up misconceptions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm actually reading foreskin man right now. it's more creepy than I could have possibly dreamed Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why is circumcision so fundamental to Judaism Lisa?
Because God said so.
During our history, Christians and others have, from time to time, forbidden us to circumcise our children. Often on pain of death, both for the child and for the parents. Many Jews have died rather than obey such wicked laws.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I raise my daughter to think for herself but to also obey the rules. She has chores, despite the fact that she is young, and understands that you don't get everything just because you want it. I feel that this will allow her to function in society. Am I ruining my daughter's life? Probably. I hope for the day when she comes back, in her 20s, and thanks my wife and I for being stern with her.
Yes. It isn't our job to raise happy children. It's our job to raise happy adults.
Was that to be taken as sarcasm?
Not in the slightest. I first heard that from my younger sister. And it's true. From time to time, the restrictions we put on our daughter will make her unhappy. And when she grows up, particularly when she has children of her own, she'll understand that it was for her benefit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also, not even the pain aspect can change your mind about that, Lisa?
There isn't nearly as much pain involved as you seem to think, Syn. I've been at my own son's circumcision, as well as many others. Sometimes the fear of a thing is worse than the thing itself. You're shrinking from shadows, but they aren't what you think they are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely hard to believe that cutting a part of the body that sensitive with that many nerve endings doesn't hurt.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: OOC Lisa what about those Jews who reject circumcision due to the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust because it was an easy way to identify them?
I've never heard of people like that. But if they exist, they're idiots.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely hard to believe that cutting a part of the body that sensitive with that many nerve endings doesn't hurt.
See, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. You aren't dealing with reality here. You're railing against something that exists in your imagination. Nerve endings aren't nearly as well developed a week after birth as they are later on in life, and neither are memories.
Feel free to keep imagining the worst and then condemning what you've imagined. You seem to be enjoying it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, this is so reality. The reality of the situation is no matter how much you say the nerves aren't developed yet, or they don't feel it, that kid crying like that shows that they are feeling the pain of that intensely. I can't understand how folks can't see that! That they are inflicting pain on a baby and it doesn't matter if they won't remember it.
I don't care if folks call me an extremist. I'll wear the label proud because it's wrong to do that to a baby on so many levels. That is a PERSONAL body part that's private and meant for pleasure and folks are going to do THAT to it? Out of tradition or culture or whatever when more people are figuring out that they don't want to do this anymore? http://www.forward.com/articles/11192/ http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/ I'm sorry, I know it's an old tradition, but it doesn't seem right to me. There's no way I could or would let anyone do that to a child of mine, let alone other folks' children if it's a proven fact that it HURTS. That alone is enough for me to be totally against doing that to babies.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Honestly, the kid starts crying when you take off the diaper at that age. And often cries bloody murder for absolutely no discernible reason. A newborn crying is not really evidence of a whole lot.
None of my sons was really phased much by his bris. I know it's a bit hard to believe, but it's the reality. They stopped crying as soon as they were picked up and weren't really any fussier than my girls for the few days following.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think it's reasonable to assume that it's painful. Now, I don't think that pain alone is a sufficient argument. The degree of pain changes based on many factors of course. The following is the abstract for the Cochrane Database review on Pain Relief for Neonatal Circumcision:
quote:Abstract Background Circumcision is a painful procedure that many newborn males undergo in the first few days after birth. Interventions are available to reduce pain at circumcision; however, many newborns are circumcised without pain management.
Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for reducing pain at neonatal circumcision.
Search strategy We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - 2004 week 19), CINAHL (1982 - May week 1 2004), Dissertation Abstracts (1986 - May 2004), Proceedings of the World Congress on Pain (1993 - 1999), and reference lists of articles. Language restrictions were not imposed.
Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing pain interventions with placebo or no treatment or comparing two active pain interventions in male term or preterm infants undergoing circumcision.
Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Ten authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was obtained from the trial reports. For meta-analysis, data on a continuous scale were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or, when the units were not compatible, as standardized mean difference.
Main results Thirty-five trials involving 1,997 newborns were included. Thirty-three trials enrolled healthy, full term neonates, and two enrolled infants born preterm.
Fourteen trials involving 592 newborns compared dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) with placebo or no treatment. Compared to placebo/no treatment, DPNB demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -35 bpm, 95% CI -41 to -30], decreased time crying [WMD -54 %, 95% CI -64 to -44], and increased oxygen saturation [WMD 3.7 %, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.7]. Six trials involving 200 newborns compared eutectic mixture of analgesics (EMLA) with placebo. EMLA demonstrated significantly lower facial action scores [WMD -46.5, 95% CI -80.4 to -12.6], decreased time crying [WMD - 15.2 %, 95% CI -21 to -9.3] and lower heart rate [WMD -15 bpm, 95% CI -19 to -10]. DPNB, compared with EMLA in three trials involving 139 newborns (133 of whom were included in the analysis), demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -17 bpm, 95% CI -23 to -11] and pain scores. When compared with sucrose in two trials involving 127 newborns, DPNB demonstrated less time crying [MD -166 s, 95% CI -211 to -121], and lower heart rate [WMD -27 bpm, 95% CI -33 to -20]. Results obtained for trials comparing oral sucrose and oral analgesics to placebo, and trials of environmental modification were either inconsistent or were not significantly different.
Adverse effects included gagging, choking, and emesis in placebo/untreated groups. Minor bleeding, swelling and hematoma were reported with DPNB. Erythema and mild skin pallor were observed with the use of EMLA. Methaemoglobin levels were evaluated in two trials of EMLA, and results were within normal limits.
Authors' conclusions DPNB was the most frequently studied intervention and was the most effective for circumcision pain. Compared to placebo, EMLA was also effective, but was not as effective as DPNB. Both interventions appear to be safe for use in newborns. None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Syn...you sure you agree with him? He's saying
quote:If there isn't an intrinsic cultural or religious reason for it there's no good reason for circumcision.
Or if you remove the negatives you get:
If there is an intrinsic cultural or religious reason for it there's a good reason for circumcision.
Not to be picky, but if you remove the negatives, you get the inverse of the statement, which is not necessarily an equivalent statement. You want the contrapositive instead:
"If there is a good reason for circumcision, it is an intrinsic cultural or religious reason."
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Oh, yeah, definitely painful. But it seems like they get over it very quickly and are not very bothered by it later.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Shots are painful, too.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
As, I would venture, is BIRTH itself.
Maybe we should stop that, too...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Ugh. I don't know why people are trying so hard to defend something that the more I think about it isn't right on a lot of levels. Such as that being a personal part of the body that the person who owns it has the right to decide about!
And yes, I am officially an anti-inflicting preventable pain on babies extremist and proud of it. A baby should be in the arms of his mother and father being cuddled, not being cut for any reason at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:The self-described enlightened ones of the 'progressive' city of San Francisco have collected enough signatures to put a proposed ban on circumcision for males under age 18 on the ballot come this Election Day. (A similar move to put such a motion on the ballot in Santa Monica has been proposed, but thank G-d, its proponent has retracted it.)
This is nothing but anti-semitism in the guise of concern for human rights.
For the time being, we must do what we can to defeat these motions legally: Write letters, lobby your representatives, circulate and sign petitions, attend rallies, and most of all, TURN OUT ON ELECTION DAY AND VOTE.
But if, G-d forbid, such motions pass, the time to be nice and proper will be over. Jews and their supporters must take to the streets en masse in forceful shows of public civil disobedience and Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of G-d's name).
On or after November 2, a healthy Jewish boy is likely to be born in or near the city. The bris will be celebrated the day after Election Day, at which point we will know whether the motions will have been passed or defeated.
IN THE EVENT THAT THESE MOTIONS PASS, let us celebrate the boys' entering the covenant of Abraham our Father by holding the Bris ceremony in the VERY PUBLIC AREA mentioned above. Jews must fill Union Square to celebrate such a bris in public.
IF OUR ARAB 'COUSINS' CAN TAKE TO THEIR 'STREET' FOR THEIR 'CAUSES' AND SPREAD THE WORD VIA FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET, WE MUST DO THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC KIDDUSH HASHEM. Barring mass flight to Israel (and let's be real, that isn't going to happen), WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND LET THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ANTI-SEMITIC/SELF-HATING-JEWISH 'INTACTIVISTS' KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT BE PUSHED TO THE WALL.
The Greeks and Hellenists under Antiochus, and later the Romans, also banned circumcision in the name of their 'progressive' and 'enlightened' values. In the end it was the JEWS who prevailed; we are STILL HERE while those vaunted empires lay in ruins. Let's PREVENT such a thing from happening here as we live!
SPREAD THE WORD! LET'S CROWD THESE PLACES WITH JEWS AND PRO-JEWS, AND NOT LET OUR RIGHTS BE TRAMPLED ON BY THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS FEW!
Personally, I think they should bring every Jewish boy born on the 2nd. Bite me, San Francisco.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You do realize your extremism is making me MORE extreme, right?
Also, whoa. England kicks some serious ass! They don't make me feel absolutely insane for believing that you should not be allowed to cut a healthy part of a baby's body.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Fruitbat. We're talking about a piece of skin smaller than the nail on your little finger. It doesn't get "peeled" away. It's snipped and that's it. Have you ever seen a circumcision? Unlikely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It actually doesn't just get snipped. It's fused to the glans.
Also, I rather like fruitbats. Quit trying to antagonize me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You do realize your extremism is making me MORE extreme, right?
Are you helpless against this? I mean, can I make you into a complete loony by being transigent enough?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
She's making me mad though. I'm really slow to anger. It's like if I'm around extreme conservatives I get MORE liberal and if I'm around hyper liberals I might get HYPER conservative almost to the point of wearing a pink business suit...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, now I kinda want them to pass the thing just to see the spectacle of a mass public circumcision.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why would you WANT to see that? I can't even look at a picture or a video without wanting to cry...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm really slow to anger.
No, you're not. Fully a quarter of your posts tend to involve explaining why you feel that something is making you justifiably angry.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's difficult NOT to be angry about that. But I wasn't even at the snarling like a bear point until Lisa starting on this http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=101041856655798 Harsh. I'm antisemitic because I don't believe people have the right to cut such a personal delicate body part?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Synesthesia, honey. I am on your side but take it down a notch. They are not cutting the whole thing off. You have heard from lots of men here who haven't been horribly traumatized and who have suffered no debilitating damage from circumcision. More than likely, most of the men you know are circumcised and are not tortured by it.
It is falling out of favor and as people realize that it isn't necessary for medical reasons it will taper down to just those who consider it necessary for religious purposes. And you are not going to be able to change a religious practice that is thousands of years old - as old as the religion itself. So let that go.
I applaud your passion for children, but recognize that there are big hurts and small ones and regain a sense of proportion.
Hey. It could be worse. Masaii do this with a machete-type knife (and no anesthetic) when they reach puberty. Showing any fear or pain is considered a dishonor.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Am I the only one creeped out by the testimonials of males being ridiculed for having an intact penis? I am intact and outside of a locker room where we all politely stare at the ceiling and dress quickly the only people I have exposed my genitals to are people I have been intimate with. I have never in my life had comments made about my foreskin, especially in a derogatory manner. The idea of someone besides a lover talking about my penis, is creepy and made more so by making fun of it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am creeped out by that. You should read some of these magazine things in which women go on about dirty anteaters and such. That's not very nice... Or they say, I don't want to date someone with that flap of dirty skin. Mean. -_-
*sigh* It's probably a bit hurt if you're a baby though...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I remember seeing my Muslim classmates in the locker room and since I knew they were not circumcised until they were 10 years old or so I made the connection that what I was seeing was an uncircumcised penis. I don't think it ever occurred to me to laugh or make fun of them, to me it was just another fact about them, like their darker skin, their naming scheme (Ibrahim instead of Abraham), etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
AchillesHeel, I find that odd, too. I don't see an aesthetic disadvantage to penises with foreskin and, as the men I have been with all seem to have been normally able to wash themselves, no other problem either. It would never occur to me to find it odd or unattractive. Nor have I noticed a consistent difference in "performance".
ETA: Syn, a good way to weed out shallow women.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Indeed. that's what someone said about their intact son. That it would be a bimbo deterrent.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It actually doesn't just get snipped. It's fused to the glans.
Do tell. And which of us has actually seen a circumcision?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Funny you should say that. I was living in Israel when the Soviet Union fell. One million former captives of the Soviet Union immigrated to Israel over the course of a single year.
During that year alone, forty thousand grown men who hadn't been circumcised in the USSR because of the anti-Jewish repression went and got circumcised.
Happily, an awful lot of Jews care about being Jewish, and care about what the Creator of the world wants us to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My friend saw one of the Masaii circumcisions and threw up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
The hell you say. The people on that page are neither ignorant nor fools. You know, the USA is almost 235 years old. In a century or two, it'll be history like all of the other nations we've outlived. The railing against circumcision here is almost funny. We might even remember this particular effort. Or it might get lumped into all of the other ill-considered attempts to thwart God's will.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My friend saw one of the Masaii circumcisions and threw up.
From what you've described, I might do the same.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Funny you should say that. I was living in Israel when the Soviet Union fell. One million former captives of the Soviet Union immigrated to Israel over the course of a single year.
During that year alone, forty thousand grown men who hadn't been circumcised in the USSR because of the anti-Jewish repression went and got circumcised.
Happily, an awful lot of Jews care about being Jewish, and care about what the Creator of the world wants us to do.
You have to understand that I am an atheist, and therefore it still makes no sense to me. I understand it, I just cant understand why a grown man would allow any ideology to physically effect such a sensitive body part, or any for that matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My friend saw one of the Masaii circumcisions and threw up.
From what you've described, I might do the same.
The meal of congealed milk and cows' blood that was served probably didn't help either.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: AchillesHeel, I find that odd, too. I don't see an aesthetic disadvantage to penises with foreskin and, as the men I have been with all seem to have been normally able to wash themselves, no other problem either. It would never occur to me to find it odd or unattractive. Nor have I noticed a consistent difference in "performance".
ETA: Syn, a good way to weed out shallow women.
I wasnt refering to how it works, the intact penis seems to have been doing a good job for hundreds of thousands of years. I was commenting on how interested and judgemental some people seem to be about someone elses penis. I dont like the idea of anyone besides the baby boy in question deciding to remove parts his genitals, but I have no interest in the penile status of anyone in the world. I just dont.
The idea of concerning oneself with the genitals of another outside of a consensual medical or romantic setting is downright odd to me. It isnt as if women are judged openly about how thier vagina looks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, vaginae are a bit harder to see in a locker room. Certainly, everything visible about our bodies is thoroughly judged. Including breasts and whatever pubic grooming is there to see.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
The answer is "yes."
Also, laugh out loud at that facebook group, honestly. Every time I think the circumcision debate has hit Peak Crazy, I see something like that and have to re-estimate the upper potential levels of nutty zealotry on both sides of this debate.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
I'm trying not to, but it's difficult. Especially since I have doubts about circumcision being an HIV vaccine and the fact that I am NOT a NAZI.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Wait a second.... Its illegal to sell booze after a certain time where you live? That is so strange to me. I live in Vegas though so I'm used to being able to do pretty much anything 24 hours a day.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Arizona is still in the grips of the fundamentist christians, and our alcohol laws reflect that. Although recently the time to start selling beer on Sunday was brought down from ten to six a.m. And as the person who is present for last-call and the earliest moment one can puchase alcohol, the way people act for and on alcohol has made me straightedge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I lived in South Carolina, retail stores like the Pier One where I worked couldn't even open until after noon on Sundays.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
+1
Reasonable people can disagree, without thinking the other person is evil.
Shame there aren't more reasonable people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Wait a second.... Its illegal to sell booze after a certain time where you live? That is so strange to me. I live in Vegas though so I'm used to being able to do pretty much anything 24 hours a day.
midnight here
although I think our blue laws are all but done; we just got rid of the sunday prohibitions.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Fruitbat. We're talking about a piece of skin smaller than the nail on your little finger. It doesn't get "peeled" away. It's snipped and that's it. Have you ever seen a circumcision? Unlikely.
As far as pejoratives go, fruitbat isn't close to the worst, but the principle is still the same Lisa, don't call people names.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
I'm trying not to, but it's difficult. Especially since I have doubts about circumcision being an HIV vaccine and the fact that I am NOT a NAZI.
No one called you a Nazi. And I think it's pretty childish of you to continue beating that particular dead horse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Fruitbat. We're talking about a piece of skin smaller than the nail on your little finger. It doesn't get "peeled" away. It's snipped and that's it. Have you ever seen a circumcision? Unlikely.
As far as pejoratives go, fruitbat isn't close to the worst, but the principle is still the same Lisa, don't call people names.
She says she likes fruitbats.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lisa: Then you are lucky your insult was not particularly insulting. Unless you are claiming you knew that Synethesia would not take offence at being called a fruitbat, something I am not willing to rule out, but I feel is very unlikely.
Synesthesia certainly didn't indicate that you had some sort of inside knowledge I don't have. Just don't do it please.
edit: Or now that she has indicated she doesn't like it, I think we can rule out the latter possibility.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do. But it's still rude to name call people...
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm circumsized and perfectly happy. Hooray for anecdotes~!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It actually doesn't just get snipped. It's fused to the glans.
Do tell. And which of us has actually seen a circumcision?
Lisa, the foreskin is typically adhered to the glans of the penis of a neonate. It often does need to be separated manually before circumcision, including for a traditional Jewish circumcision, but this can usually be done quite quickly [with a few seconds of careful motion].
quote:The adhesions between the glans and foreskin are separated using a probe. The foreskin is pulled away from the glans. This process is often done with a hemostat. --from the above link
There are references to this throughout the internet:
quote:The mohel uses a magen or shield to protect the glans and guide the knife. He may use a silver probe to loosen the foreskin before beginning. There are three phases to the procedure: me'ilah, the actual removal of the foreskin; p'riah, the tearing of the genital membrane underneath the foreskin back to the corona; and m'tzitzah--suction--the removal of blood and cleaning of the affected area. --from My Jewish Learning
---
Added: I was trained to do circumcisions (but obviously, not a bris) using both the Gomco and the Mogen. The foreskin is usually quite adherent [at at least a spot or two], but different people have different ways of making sure it separates. I believe the completeness of separation is a particular factor of concern for a bris, although that I do not have firsthand knowledge of.
Pain control was a primary concern where I worked. The most crying occurred as the baby was being secured (some really didn't like to be strapped down, which is how it was done there -- but I think it is different at a bris). Often they slept through the procedure.
We used the full combination of bundling in warm blankets, sugar water, non-nutritive sucking, premedication with tylenol, topical EMLA, and a lidocaine dorsal penile nerve block for pain control. Parents were welcomed to be present.
---
Also added: It is not a procedure I encourage, and I prefer not to do them. It is no longer a part of my job requirements, and that is fine by me.
[ June 26, 2011, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Indeed. that's what someone said about their intact son. That it would be a bimbo deterrent.
I don't think preferring circumcised penises makes you shallow or a bimbo. That's insulting quite a few women for no good reason.
I prefer the women I have sex with not to have excessive armpit or leg hair and to keep themselves well trimmed down there. Actually, there are quite a few things I like and dislike sexually. I don't feel it makes me shallow, I just think it means I'm well aware of what I desire sexually. My partners make a concerted effort to arouse and please me, and I do the same. (I shave, work out, wear cologne, and do other things I don't care to mention here)
I think it's more of an indication of the underlying sexism in our culture. Women are expected to do all sorts of unnatural things to be more sexually alluring to men - shave their bodies, wear heels, wear bras, fit into little dresses, pierce their ears, sometimes even get liposuction or breast augmentation surgery and it's taken with a grain of salt.
Women are expected to meet a man's expectations. But as soon as a woman expresses her own expectations - I prefer a man who's muscular and tone, I prefer a man who's clean shaven/has a beard and smells nice/smells natural, I prefer a man with/without a foreskin - they're dismissed as being shallow or sluts.
What if a girl is genuinely grossed out by an uncircumcised penis (and I've met plenty that are), and because of that views fellatio as something that's disgusting and humiliating instead of enjoyable? Doesn't she have the right to seek out circumcised partners to make her experience more enjoyable without being called a slut?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, I'm not sure if a person should pick their partners based on their genitals. I'm just saying that's not the best basis for a relationship. It just seems wrong to be grossed out by a body part that is intact the way nature intended it. Plus, a lot of it comes from a culture that is really negative about foreskins going on about how dirty they are, when it's not the case. You get some cultures going on about how intact natural vagina is soooooooo nasty. It's kind of harsh either way. Why should a dude have to get part of his body cut to please these ditzy women in the first place? I'm not going to get parts of me altered for some man. I'm going to find a man or even a woman who will appreciate all of me, and men deserve that too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would consider a man who expected me to do unnatural things to my body to be shallow, too. Thankfully, there are plenty of lovely men who appreciate women with all their parts. I do, in fact, find asking about those preferences to be a good way to sort out those men who are too shallow for me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sexual attraction is something of a mystery, different cultures at different times in history have sought out different aesthetics in their mates.
(I think) I understand where Dogbreath is coming from, that if you do have a personal preference of how your partner should look/dress/smell/etc that doesn't make you shallow.
(I think) I understand where the ladies are coming from, that part of what they are searching for in a mate is someone who accepts them and their natural bodies as they are.
I think it's unrealistic to not try find a mate who you are attracted to, and sometimes that will be physical traits which can greatly differ from one person to another (surgically altered or not). As much as I would like to think I could accept anyone no matter their physicality as a possible mate (if I weren't married to a beautiful, intelligent, wonderful woman) I must admit that it is not true. I could not have a relationship with someone I didn't find attractive, not matter who they were on the inside. I don't believe that makes me shallow. I could of course have a friendship with them, and enjoy their company.
Boots: American culture expects women to shave their legs, armpits and bikini line, I think it is unfair to say a man is shallow simply because he accepts his culture's standard of beauty. I actually don't care either way (although I do have some preferences, but this is not the place to discuss that), but that's not the point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you would be surprised at the Americans who aren't tied to what you consider "American Culture".
ETA: And, honestly, American culture can be pretty shallow.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I do agree with your edit, I don't think people are shallow simply for trying to make themselves attractive to their partners.
Someone who judges people solely or even majoritively on their appearance is shallow.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For me, the distinction isn't necessarily that a person is being shallow for preferring a particular standard of beauty. (After all, we're all going to have preferences and it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick one standard as "shallow.")
But that the person is being shallow by expecting that a partner should change themselves to fit that standard regardless of how they might feel about the matter, particularly when modifications are permanent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's purely warped though to consider the intact male penis to be gross though. It's not as if vaginas and vulvas are a fragrant rose garden either...
I can't help but think it is shallow to not only reject a man for having a foreskin but to make him get it cut off? See, that's in some ways you can compare this to FGM. Folks who believe in it will say, but it's soooooooo much cleaner and men like it better. http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752 I've got to find this article about FGM and what some dude had to say about it. But it's pretty warped. It's seriously warped that people think you have to cut the most pleasurable parts of the genitals. Especially on children. There's so many things that are warped, but what can you DO about them?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think (nor did I say) that trying to be attractive to one's partner is shallow. I did express the opinion that expecting one's partner to modify body parts - and I would add especially by surgery - to be shallow.
If, for example, a man would only date me if I got a boob job, he would be a non-starter.
ETA: BTW, Synesthesia, there are lots of people who delight in the natural (assuming good health and hygiene) smells of their partner's bodies, especially in the more private places.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Folks who believe in it will say, but it's soooooooo much cleaner and men like it better.
As if the penis of every intact male in history has been disgustingly filthy.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, I'm not sure if a person should pick their partners based on their genitals. I'm just saying that's not the best basis for a relationship.
Why not? What makes the genitals taboo? Men have preferences on women, why not the reverse? How many songs are there out there about men who like big butts? Or fake breasts?
My wife grew up in Europe, where most men are not cut. She said they freaked her out because she thought they were ugly. I think the phrase she used was something like "It looks like a creepy worm." She likes the look of a circumsized penis.
It was not the basis of our relationship and I doubt it would have been a deal breaker, but it is her preference. I do think you are right though, it shouldn't be the basis of a relationship. Unfortunately the amount of men that date women just because "She has a big ass" or "she has huge boobs" is just too common.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:It's purely warped though to consider the intact male penis to be gross though.
I'm one of those warped thinkers who prefers a circumcised penis. However, if the man in question is well-suited in other ways, I wouldn't reject him for being intact. Nor would I demand he get circumcised.
Heaven forbid a man have a body part women prefer to have changed!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I can't help but think it is shallow to not only reject a man for having a foreskin but to make him get it cut off? See, that's in some ways you can compare this to FGM.
quote:In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through; see Diagram 1D. Generally, a practitioner recognized as having the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local anesthetic is used. However, when carried out "in the bush", infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, without sterile procedure or anesthesia.[31]
Comparing an adult male being pressured by his partner into a voluntarily surgery done in a hospital with a preteen girl being held down and having her genitals scrapped off with a sharp object and then having her legs tied together for weeks at a time is not helpful to your cause and will only piss people off, like myself.
I have tried very hard to be respectful of your beliefs and the kindness which motivates them. But if you keep making a comparison between a minor surgery and an atrocity against humanity I will not remain civil with you Syn.
It's not cool.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Not changed Took, removed. A highly sensitive part of the male sexual organ, cut off. And I should point out that no one here is endorsing men forcing women to alter thier bodies either.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Please stop being pissed off because to an infant it's probably NOT a minor surgery. First of all, no one should pressure someone to alter their body, let alone do it to an infant. It's wrong. Plan and simple. If someone, for example wanted me to get surgery on my hand to remove this patch of skin, I'd be like HELL NO. Because it's my scars, I love them, and a person should love all of you, even if your penis looks like an anteater or some soldier helmet. It's just wrong either way.
Furthermore, whether it's done in a clean sterile environment, or just a little snip, or a jab with a needle on the clitoris or infibulation on a dirty cottage it is STILL WRONG TO TAMPER WITH ANYONE'S GENITALS LIKE THAT!
Plus most circumcisions on infant's aren't performed with anesthesia either. I'm sorry, bu tno one has the right to cut anyone's body over culture and religion or because they don't like natural genitals. Having whole genitals should be a human right. This is not difficult to understand.
Plus the REASONS are similar. Not the exucution. Culture, because people think natural genitals are disgusting. How did this ever happen in the first place? And why can't we just stop doing this?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Synesthesia, take it easy. Again, try a little perspective. It has been explained many times why some people "can't just stop" circumcising.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I feel you are failing to understand the ramifications of FGM, and the motivations. Men use FGM to specifically and intentionally make sex not pleasurable to ensure that the women never cheat on them. There is no medical reason for it to exist at all. Female genital mutilation is a slave collar around women's necks, and it is not a minor process, which is easily recovered from and done with good intent.
I could say that lighting a match and the nuclear bombing of Japan are comparable, as they both involved fire, or compare someone uttering the "n word" under their breath and the holocaust, since they both involve racism, but no one will take me seriously.
And that's exactly the risk you take when you say such ridiculously extreme things, that people will write you off as a crazy and not even give your message a chance. That and you anger those of us who are trying to talk about this with you (at least me, I shouldn't speak for anyone else).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There's different degrees of it...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can certainly see how those two procedures are similar.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's all wrong in my opinion. I'm an extremist when it comes to people being allowed to have whole, uncut genitals unless there's a darn reason to alter them...
And that poor little girl Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The most disturbing thing about that link is the pink font and flowers, like having her daughter's clitoris snipped off with a pair of scissors was just a normal baby thing between breast feeding and butt wiping. *shutters*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure it was "snipped off".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In fairness, I don't think they are necessarily cutting it off.
quote:Although all the women had undergone circumcision as infants, there was no clinical evidence of injury to the clitoris or the labia and no physical sign of excised tissue. In the interviews, the majority of women described the procedure as a nicking of the tip of the clitoris or prepuce with a pen-knife or similar, only drawing a drop of blood and causing briefpain.
quote: In countries such as Malaysia and celebration where relatives and guests are invited, and Indonesia (Albar, personal communication) female circumcision has been reduced to puncturing the clitoris with a needle and allowing some bleeding
That Muslim variant does seem more comparable to the Jewish one, maybe even less permanent.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm sorry, bu tno one has the right to cut anyone's body over culture and religion or because they don't like natural genitals. Having whole genitals should be a human right. This is not difficult to understand.
It's a Jewish males right to be circumcised as an infant and not have to suffer through doing it earlier. You want to violate that right and cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering in the process.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that you hold some sort of moral high ground, here. You're squeamish about something, and you want to stop it no matter what rights you may have to trample in the process.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait, what? It's not just being squeamish about it. It's really should be up to the boy to decide what happens to his genitals. No one else.
Suffer through doing it earlier?
I kind of really wish people would stop cutting genitals altogether...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's a Jewish males right to be circumcised as an infant and not have to suffer through doing it earlier. You want to violate that right and cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering in the process.
You aren't talking about a 'right' here.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why isn't there a right for... I don't know... people not to inflict pain of any sort on a baby that isn't the natural pains of life?
Man, I feel like such an AP extremist with babies in a sling and a breast feeding patch and a no circumcision patch. But, I really would rather that boy be in his mother and father's arms NOT having to go through that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is a parent's ability to choose to circumcise their son a right? As a medical issue, parents do have a right to make informed medical decisions for their children. I'm not sure about religious parental rights though.
[edit] I'm not stating an opinion, btw, merely a fact...I do not know...I don't have this knowledge.[/edit]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Why isn't there a right for... I don't know... people not to inflict pain of any sort on a baby that isn't the natural pains of life?
You've been pretty clear you don't like circumcision Syn, but I can't quite figure out what consequences you'd like to see enacted your ideal world for those who do circumcise their child. Can you clarify?
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QB] Is a parent's ability to choose to circumcise their son a right?[QB]
I am not convinced the harm involved in circumcision warrants ammending the freedom to express ones religion in this case.
That right should only be interfered with in very rare instances.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Why isn't there a right for... I don't know... people not to inflict pain of any sort on a baby that isn't the natural pains of life?
You've been pretty clear you don't like circumcision Syn, but I can't quite figure out what consequences you'd like to see enacted your ideal world for those who do circumcise their child. Can you clarify?
Hobbes
I don't know... I really wish folks would not bother doing it. i don't want them to get arrested. A lot of the folks don't know it's not a surgery that's totally needed except in rare cases. It's not like they're evil or anything. Maybe the doctors and such should pay a fine or something, but so many people think it's necessary when it isn't. It doesn't help that our culture is foreskin phobic, but things are changing so maybe it's better that folks learn on their own that you don't have to do it and babies feel pain and they don't bother with it anymore or listen to the experts who push it every five seconds, and all of their relatives who push it too and just say, you want to do WHAT? No way.
It's funny how I never really thought about this issue before and now that I've learned about it I'm just Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So, to be clear, you don't support regulation of any kind?
And as a side note, a lot of people are aware that it's not 'needed' (in the sense I imagine you intend that word based on previous posts) still have it done and aren't evil. I'm sure you weren't saying they were but the phrasing was confusing to me at least.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of do, and at the same time... I want it to not be necessary to have regulations because folks won't do it anymore.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think the word you are looking for Syn is "wish"...as in, upon a star or the magic gene granted me three wishes...
Your compassion and longing for babies to not suffer needless (or any) pain is admirable but in the real world the ramifications of even simple seeming issues (like don't hurt babies in their stuff) can be multifaceted and difficult to wrap your brain around.
Perhaps you can see if there is an organization dedicated to increasing general knowledge/awareness that circumcision isn't obligatory and volunteer your time time there?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Already joined several. But the thing is, it's already seldom done in Europe except for religious reasons, and even some religious folks are questioning it.
This really... doesn't seem difficult to me. What confuses me is that this sort of thing even exists. I really can't understand it at all.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, so I'm trying to pin this down Syn. Every post you've made emphasizes you wish people wouldn't circumcised their children, so I understand that. However, since it's a religious thing for some I think it's rather self-evident that no matter the world someone will do it. Are you arguing for consequences of any kind for the parents, or requirements prior to preforming the act that would make it hard to obtain (as some suggest or require for abortions)? Or are you just wishing people didn't do it, with no thought of any change in law of any kind?
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... one thing that has caused circumcision to go down is the fact that a lot of insurances or Medicaid isn't paying for it. That's one thing that could help. I hate the idea of parents getting arrested over circumcision because so many folks think it's beneficial. If they can be pushed into it by relatives and doctors and such, the opposite could happen. They can be pushed into NOT doing it. Folks can learn more about the foreskin and what it does, and learn that it's not a simple procedure for an infant, and the numbers go down and keep going down... It helps to send accurate, up to date information out there and convince people that foreskins are not a ticking time bomb and 80% of men are intact without horrible side effects and that foreskin is NORMAL.
I'm hoping you don't need a law to do this. Usually laws like this make people furious, but the law being discussed in San Francisco seems reasonable to me in the sense that you really should not be able to alter anyone like that in the first place. Heaven forbid someone did that to a grown man.
I'm more for education than jailing people over this. That would make things worse.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Synesthesia:
quote:I don't know... one thing that has caused circumcision to go down is the fact that a lot of insurances or Medicaid isn't paying for it. That's one thing that could help. I hate the idea of parents getting arrested over circumcision because so many folks think it's beneficial.
When my son was born the hospital gave us literature discussing both options including benefits and draw backs, they also provided links to literature discussing both.
The overwhelming impression I got was that there isn't a clear right way, and hospital certainly didn't talk about it as if there was a clear way to go.
I mean heck, in Africa they are circumcizing people en masse because a study was deemed so relevant it needed to be concluded prematurely, and enacted on ethical grounds, because male circumcision has shown to drastically decrease the chance somebody can contract HIV through sex.
Does the fact an African has a much better chance of not getting HIV through circumcision suddenly make it OK for parents to circumcize their baby? I confess I find it somewhat tiresome and concerning that people have to find a rationale for religious belief that is divorced from God, just so they can practice their religion in their own household.
Where does that stop? By having my children pray with me at night, am I *imposing* a sense of relying on some fairy tale instead of self-reliance? Would it then be necessary for the state to step in so as to stop me from damaging my child's mental health which is I think you will agree as important as physical health?
There was a time in this country where easily the vast majority of males were circumcized routinely. I haven't met anybody who looks back on that time with horror and regret. I certainly don't look down at my own penis in anger and frustration, sex works just fine for me.
Also you might want to read up on how circumcision is performed today, my son was circumcised, and there was no knife or searing involved.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I haven't met anybody who looks back on that time with horror and regret.
I look upon many times in the US with horror and regret Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Manifest destiny is my favorite smudge on our #1 foam finger.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:It's a Jewish males right to be circumcised as an infant and not have to suffer through doing it earlier. You want to violate that right and cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering in the process.
You aren't talking about a 'right' here.
Um... actually, yes, I am.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I haven't met anybody who looks back on that time with horror and regret.
I look upon many times in the US with horror and regret
I regret we couldn't drag Canada into the US kicking and screaming after three tries. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: and that foreskin is NORMAL.
Of course it's normal. For non-Jews. And for Jewish boys less than a week old. Who said it wasn't normal?
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
It seems like it would be best to discontinue the practice unless it is medically necessary on an individual basis. Parents really shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children into their religion at the cost of the child's well being. They can certainly make the choice to do so when they're older, but forcing a religion on a child is... barbaric.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I regret we couldn't drag Canada into the US kicking and screaming after three tries.
I regret that time period too ... but probably for different reasons Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: It seems like it would be best to discontinue the practice unless it is medically necessary on an individual basis. Parents really shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children into their religion at the cost of the child's well being. They can certainly make the choice to do so when they're older, but forcing a religion on a child is... barbaric.
Ain't gonna happen. And it's the opposite of barbaric to raise a Jewish child Jewishly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I probably would not force my heathenism on future children. If they want to be a religion, they could do that.
But then they'd tell me I'm going to hell. How frustrating.
There are some that hate being circumcised and having the choice taken from them. Using things like the plastibell doesn't seem less painless to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Um... actually, yes, I am.
Nope. You would be if you were saying that the parents had the right to circumcise their child. There is no right that a jewish baby male possesses in this regard which is not otherwise present on non-jewish male babies. They are not, in fact, exercising any rights or consenting on the procedure. They are having an act performed on them by the decision of their parents.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I don't really understand how a baby can be Jewish. Judaism is a set of complex philosophical and theologic beliefs that a child can't even begin to comprehend. It's very strange that parents can trundle along pretending that an infant is just as devout to the arbitrary requirements of a religion as they are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I don't really understand
Exactly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I don't really understand
Exactly.
Intent on imitating Lisa's style today?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
That is really a pretty strange thing to say dante. I mean, children are almost always considered to be of the culture they were born into, even when they haven't yet learned all the rights and customs.
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I don't really understand how a baby can be Jewish. Judaism is a set of complex philosophical and theologic beliefs that a child can't even begin to comprehend. It's very strange that parents can trundle along pretending that an infant is just as devout to the arbitrary requirements of a religion as they are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I don't really understand how a baby can be Jewish. Judaism is a set of complex philosophical and theologic beliefs that a child can't even begin to comprehend.
The answer's pretty much a derivation of what you note here. The very same theologic beliefs assert that the baby is Jewish given a number of conditions, none of which involve comprehension on the part of the baby, and as far as they're concerned, being born a jew makes them obligated to do a ton of things and have a ton more restrictions on what they're allowed to do, whether or not they agree when they're grown up. Etc etc etc.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I don't really understand how a baby can be Jewish.
Jewish is a religion and a race...I'm Jewish...as my mother is a Jew, as her mother is a Jew...but my grandmother never practiced any particular religion that I was aware of, my mother claims to be "a completed Jew" (Christian) and I'm against organized religions. My father is (among other things) from Swedish stock, so he dubbed me a "Swew", or Swedish Jew.
To rivka...he asks a question and you instead of answering the question, point out he is ignorant...well played!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's not a question of ignorance. This particular poster has had this conversation before, but doesn't understand. Whether that's due to incompatible worldviews or some other reason, it really is that simple.
He doesn't understand.
This is not an insult, a slur, or anything else along those lines.
It is merely a statement of fact.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I guess Judaism is a little different, since it has such a strong cultural and ethnic component. I just sort of get the willies whenever someone pretends a child believes in or understands a very specific God. It's disconcerting. It's like pretending a baby is a Strict Constitutionalist because its parents are.
How about "child of Jewish/Muslim/LDS parents" rather than "Jewish/Muslim/LDS Child". That way you avoid making the ridiculous claim that the child has religious beliefs while preserving the implication that a parent has some right to raise a child according to their personal philosophy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But Jewish is a race...like saying don't say the child is black, just raised by parents who are black...it's silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
race isn't even the right word for it. It's ethnoreligious group. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
But a child PRACTICING a particular religious or cultural tradition is, in fact, of that religious or cultural tradition even if they do not yet have a rational belief in the reasons behind it.
Being Jewish is an incredibly strong example, but it is far from the only example.
If I only take myself as an example, I was a Catholic child. I was born into an extremely Polish Catholic family, I participated in sacraments, rites, and rituals pretty much from my moment of birth. While I may not have made a conscious decision to believe in Catholic doctrine, it made me no less a Catholic child. This fact was never more clear than when my own child was born, and whether or not to baptize him was an agonizing decision.
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I guess Judaism is a little different, since it has such a strong cultural and ethnic component. I just sort of get the willies whenever someone pretends a child believes in or understands a very specific God. It's disconcerting. It's like pretending a baby is a Strict Constitutionalist because its parents are.
How about "child of Jewish/Muslim/LDS parents" rather than "Jewish/Muslim/LDS Child". That way you avoid making the ridiculous claim that the child has religious beliefs while preserving the implication that a parent has some right to raise a child according to their personal philosophy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But that the person is being shallow by expecting that a partner should change themselves to fit that standard regardless of how they might feel about the matter, particularly when modifications are permanent.
Sorry it's been taking so long to reply, it seems by the time I get around to it the conversation has moved on...
I want to make an important distinction: I too don't approve of asking your partner to change. But just as boob size, butt size (some like 'em big, some like 'em small), body hair, make up, etc. can influence what woman a man wants to date, circumcision can be an influence in what man a woman wants to date. It's more of "I'll date or not date this person because he has/doesn't have a foreskin", not a "I'm going to make my current partner get a circumcision to please me."
If it makes the difference between a sexual encounter being a wonderful, pleasurable experience or an awkward, uncomfortable, gross experience, I don't think a woman should be subjected to a foreskin just to prove she's not a shallow bimbo.
I'm not going to call women who prefer foreskins shallow or whores, everyone has their own preferences, their own turn ons. Can't we live and let live?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry Db, but I think it is against the user agreement for people here to agree to disagree. We are contractually obligated to argue the topic to death. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I've got no problem with argument, I enjoy it.
I do have a problem with the tone of a lot of the arguments here. I've tried my best to remain cordial and civil, and avoid saying anything that could be perceived as insulting. but it seems several people here have no problem making hurtful, sweeping comments. Synesthesia calling women who prefer circumcised men bimbos and shallow in particular... obviously she realized there are a lot of married men and men with girlfriends on this forum. If I'm not too fond of having most of my past girlfriends called bimbos, I can't imagine the married men here are too fond of their wives being called the same.
Synesthesia: I think you've mentioned you have tattoos. How would you feel if, say, I said "any girl who has tattoos is a mutilated freak, and any guy who prefers girls with tattoos is an effeminate douche bag"? How would your husband feel about that comment?
(FWIW, I love tattoos. My ex had a lot of them, and they made her even more beautiful )
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm sorry, but it's just not nice to reject a guy just because he has a foreskin. Dang. It's like folks in this country act like it's something icky and disgusting. I mean, being subjected to a part that is actually a natural part of the body? It's like a dude saying i don't want to be with a girl who has a clitoris because they are gross and nasty and will cause infection and will grow really long. I think it's the myths about it that bug me. Tattoos are awesome, but they aren't a natural part of the body we're born with. If someone is going to reject a man for having a foreskin I think she or he is the one who has the problem and needs to get over it. Also you shouldn't think a person is a freak or mutilated for having tattoos or ect. You'd miss out on a good person to date if you did that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dogbreath, I don't think you've got the high ground on cordial and civil here.
You went beyond "Aesthetically I prefer the look of a circumcised penis" to suggesting that sex with an uncircumcised man would be "an awkward, uncomfortable, gross experience." Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Dogbreath, I don't think you've got the high ground on cordial and civil here.
You went beyond "Aesthetically I prefer the look of a circumcised penis" to suggesting that sex with an uncircumcised man would be "an awkward, uncomfortable, gross experience."
Re read my posts, I'm referring to women who find foreskins gross. I have no opinion on them myself, being a heterosexual male. Were I a woman (or gay) and held that opinion myself, it still would be perfectly valid - it's not an insult to the moral character of the person involved, it's merely a description of my own tastes. Saying you're not attracted to a person and calling them a bimbo are two very different things.
quote:I'm sorry, but it's just not nice to reject a guy just because he has a foreskin.
Considering all of the ridiculous and esoteric rejections I've heard, I think "I don't like the way your penis looks" would be refreshingly honest. Not long ago, I had a girl turn me down because I remind her of her brother.
quote:Dang. It's like folks in this country act like it's something icky and disgusting. I mean, being subjected to a part that is actually a natural part of the body?
Just put yourself in their shoes. Please. Imagine you *did* think a foreskin is icky and disgusting. To the point that you were grossed out and couldn't enjoy the sex. It's not something you can just change your mind about, either.
Maybe you can't agree with these women, but can you at least agree they're not shallow bimbos for preferring a certain look?
quote:It's like a dude saying i don't want to be with a girl who has a clitoris because they are gross and nasty and will cause infection and will grow really long.
Apples and orangutangs. Circumcision is a harmless, healthy, minor surgery that leaves a male fully capable of enjoying intercourse. I myself think of it as an improvement. At worst, it does no harm. FGM is dangerous, and takes away a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure. It's a terrible comparison.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Saying you're not attracted to a person and calling them a bimbo are two very different things.
Saying you're not attracted to a person and calling them gross are two very different things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I was quoting someone else with the bimbo thing, but I can't help thinking if you're going to be disgusted by a natural body part YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM. It is NOT a healthy, minor surgery. And there's even some proof that circumcision can cause erection problems and lack of sensitivity in the future. This is what I hate. The fact that we're so used to circumcision in this country that A. many people here are repulsed by a NATURAL BODY PART, and B. We down play just how painful and useless that so-called minor surgery is. Why is it that the rest of the world understands that foreskins aren't icky, and the US doesn't? I shouldn't even have to be arguing about this. It should be obvious that performing surgery on a baby that isn't needed, that takes away something that's supposed to protect him from infection and protect his glans and give him and his future mate added pleasure is TOTALLY WRONG. Let alone thinking that a part that isn't disgusting is disgusting. What he heck is wrong with people?
Plus over 100 babies die from circumcision and it's not dangerous? A baby could get gangrene, lose penile tissue, end up with skin bridges, keratinisation, and even bleed to death, but it's harmless? Dude, folks have been way too brainwashed by sitcoms going on about how icky foreskins are.
Plus, consider how much money folks get for foreskins to use in skin creams. Honestly, why exactly am I wrong in this? Folks in parts of Africa will reject a woman for having a clitoris and whole genitals. It's ridiculous. It really shouldn't exist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Synesthesia, just for fun, what *would* convince you that male circumcision isn't as awful as you think it is? I really am asking if there is anything you think might be shown that would persuade you-thus far, anecdotes, links, past prevalence of circumcision without a matching prevalence of male health problems hasn't served to persuade you that the actual, physical impact is as bad as you suggest.
All of that, coupled with your frequently emotional or even hysterical and angry tone, are what's leading people to conclude you're unreasonable. Not some large cultural brainwashing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Nothing really. You're talking about cutting the most sensitive part of a male's body. Usually at the age of infancy. It's a part that has a function. What is RIGHT about it? The pain aspect doesn't convince people because they say babies either can't feel pain or won't remember it. The cutting aspect doesn't convince people because they state that if you don't cut the foreskin, horrible things will ensue, the sexual benefits of not don't it don't convince people because folks will state who needs that extra sensitivity or protection on the glans and they're stinky anyway. Not even the whole it's the penis and penises really don't need to have scalpels near them argument doesn't work. If 80% of people in the world are getting along just fine with their foreskins, why not make it 100%? There's just no convincing argument that will convince me that cutting off foreskins is a good idea.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just for the record, the person who keeps intersecting that foreskins are gross or dirty (by saying, I hate that that is a common belief) is Syn, and no one else.
I think she has a really emotional connection to this problem, and is arguing against the world, or at least her perception of the world, and not anything that anyone has said here. Not only that, but (the way I see it is) she is mostly alone, as those who agree partly have piped in with "well, it's going out of fashion, and a minor problem, which seems to be solving itself" and then left the conversation.
To be fair to Syn I think she is saying that if someone tried to force their partner into a circumcision or flatly rejected them simply because they were uncircumcised they would be considered a "bimbo" in here eyes...not that I agree, or disagree...just what I took away from her posts. So, Db, it's not as if all the wives and girlfriends of us who are circumcised are "sluts" to her...
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Just to point out, and I admit that this case is both rare and extreme, the story of David Reimer who was irreperably harmed while being circumsised as an infant and raised to adulthood as a girl not knowing "her" true gender. He was an identical twin, both infant boys were incorrectly diagnosed with phymosis and one circumsision was botched resulting in such mutilation that they would rather lie to thier child from infancy about his birth gender.
Before anyone has to even say it, yes this was long enough ago that it is unlikely that at our current level of medical know-how that a phymosis diagnosis would be made incorrectly or that the circumsision would go so wrong. Im just pointing out that it was circumsision and the needless minor surgery that was the first domino in this instance.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
All I'm seeing is it's a cosmetic procedure and it's just not needed anymore. Especially since we're learning more about this widely vilified perfectly good body part. Also, the rare possibility of botched circumcision alone is a good reason not to bother with it.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
For clarification, David Reimer's circumcision was done by Bovie, or electrical cauterization with a hot metal-tipped instrument, at 8 months of age [and under general anesthesia]. That is an instrument designed to cauterize bleeding during surgery, and it is not designed for use on genitals.
I have no idea why this instrument was chosen by that practitioner. It does not make sense to me, and I haven't heard of other people using it that way -- it seems well outside the realm of standard practice.
It was a terrible outcome associated with using nonstandard procedures and equipment. I don't mean to diminish that. I also think it is relevant to note how this case differs from the standard procedures done using standard equipment at a more typical age.
(Again, I don't wish to do circumcisions or to promote them, in case that was not clear.)
---
Added: The point I was trying to make was that it's not so much that we have better medical know-how now and that's why this wouldn't happen again, but that it shouldn't have happened then, either. I believe what was done was outside the standard of care then, as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Synesthesia, I'm not asking what argument would convince you. If you knew that, you'd be convinced after all. I'm asking what kinds of things would demonstrate, to you, that you might be mistaken about some of your ideas here.
If you've really made up your mind to the extent that *no* kind of counter could conceivably dissuade you even of some or your ideas, though...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just you're talking about cosmetic surgery on the penis... I really am not sure if I am mistaken about thinking that this really should not be done unless there's a real, actual, solid medical reasons. As in, if there aren't other less painful alternatives to it. Besides, you're talking about cutting genitals here, I'm not sure if I'm mistaken to think that people really don't need to do that... Especially to babies.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You know, as much as I sympathize with your feelings, Syn, you don't actually have a circumcised penis. I do.
It works just fine. What happened to me is definitely not the equivalent of clitorectomies or similar things.
Furthermore, I'm glad it happened as an infant, before I could remember. (If it had to happen at all.) It's apparently far worse when you get older, and I'm glad I don't remember it. I wouldn't have even known if nobody had told me. Oh, I'm sure it hurt. I just don't remember it in the least. I'm happy about that.
Perhaps I am missing a few things. You know what, though? The things I do feel are just fine. Sure, some woman raised to believe removing the clitoris was proper might say the same thing, but the difference in this case is that I actually am capable of sexual pleasure and orgasm and all those pleasant things.
Is it necessary? In my case, probably not! (Though who knows, I could have gotten an infection like Stone Wolf. Wouldn't know.) Would I choose it for my own son? More likely not, unless there was one of those uncommon valid reasons.
But am I, the person with an actual successfully circumcised penis, actually bothered by it in my daily life? Nope. And while I don't wish to take away your fire for the subject, I do wish you'd keep in mind that I am not suffering because of this. At all.
It may not be optimal (I wouldn't know), but being potentially less than optimal is not the same as suffering.
So, feel free to dislike the idea of cutting off a piece of a baby's body. I get that. But please remember that this particular operation isn't the end of the world, and though everyone deserves to have a dissenting opinion, you don't need to get quite so bent out of shape about it.
It's not your opinion that's a problem. But when you get so emotional about it, it weirds out at least one guy who has actually had this done to him. So maybe simmer down a little. Continue pointing out that it isn't necessary, that there isn't a really good reason for it, sure. But try to get a little less horrified. After all, you don't know what it's like.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ... Imagine you *did* think a foreskin is icky and disgusting. To the point that you were grossed out and couldn't enjoy the sex. It's not something you can just change your mind about, either.
I think the conversation is moving quickly and there are a number of similar but different concepts that are getting conflated.
*Note: Synesthesia has posted on bimbos, I've only commented on what shallow might mean and only on that narrow topic*
There are three concepts that I wish to distinguish: a) I prefer attribute X and give people with attribute X a higher priority for closer examination b) I prefer attribute X and wish my partner to change themselves to fit it regardless of their feelings c) I prefer attribute X and will rule out people with attribute Y
My last comment was that I do not think that people in group "a" are necessarily shallow while people in group "b" probably are. However, you seem to be bringing up a different group of people "c."
I think that the way you're describing group "c" pretty much defines them as shallow, colloquially anyways. See
quote:shallow Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.
It seems to me that it is pretty straight-forward that circumcision is a kind of look rather than personality, and that if a person pre-determines that a person is "gross" based on that, then yeah, that person is shallow.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:1. having little depth 2. lacking intellectual or mental depth or subtlety; superficial
Under your definition, it is pretty straight forward, but I don't think urbandictionary is necessarily the best source to quote. I couldn't date someone who was horribly deformed, no matter their sparkling personality...I guess that makes me shallow by your standard.
I personally think of shallow people as using the criteria of physical looks only. To eliminate people you find unattractive physically (for whatever reason) is just realistic, not shallow.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I personally think of shallow people as using the criteria of physical looks only. To eliminate people you find unattractive physically (for whatever reason) is just realistic, not shallow.
I agree, though I recognized I'm biased. There are certain physical traits I'm simply not attracted to, and at least so far in my life have not been able to overcome. The most obvious of which would be severely overweight women, no matter the personality I'm simply not interested.
I'm curious Mucus, my recollection is that you're in favor of same-sex marriage, would you find restricting your romantic intentions to one gender shallow? I ask that in good faith, not rhetorically. In trying to understand your definition I can't tell if you're trying to separate the word from its negative connotations (and thus might legitimately describe such behavior as shallow), and if not where you draw the line on what counts as shallow.
I will say, if it's the former, I would find such a definition legitimate but pointless, as it would be so broad as to be meaningless and one could really only talk about degrees rather is/is not.
Hobbes Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: At worst, it does no harm.
No. At worst, it causes death. It's estimated about 100 babies die from botched circumcisions a year in the US. Even if it doesn't cause death, botched circumcisions can cause physical deformities.
It's a surgery. It inherently is risky.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good point Zhil...there is also a risk of damaging the penis permanently. All surgery has risks, and should be measured against the rewards. For Lisa the reward is eternal salvation, for my son it was avoiding a potential painful and expensive (and even more life threatening surgery) later in life.
I think it is wrong to have circumcision be the unquestioned normal state, with all male babies getting snipped as a status quo.
I think it is equally wrong to say that there is no reason to do it either.
Like almost everything else in this world, it is a question of balance.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zhil:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: At worst, it does no harm.
No. At worst, it causes death. It's estimated about 100 babies die from botched circumcisions a year in the US. Even if it doesn't cause death, botched circumcisions can cause physical deformities.
It's a surgery. It inherently is risky.
Do you have a source for that?
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Zhil:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: At worst, it does no harm.
No. At worst, it causes death. It's estimated about 100 babies die from botched circumcisions a year in the US. Even if it doesn't cause death, botched circumcisions can cause physical deformities.
There was obviously going to be a few unnecessary deaths due to circumcision, and I grant that even given the rarity of these events this knowledge would make a valid argument against circumcision — because, after all, it's not necessary for anything when it comes to penises that aren't screwed up in some way — and I guess that number is now over a hundred annually in the united states alone?
What.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
A clarification for the discussion:
The assertation about the mortality rate for circumcision seems well beyond the pale to me. I skimmed the links given in the two posts above, and they all seem to refer to one study (by Bollinger) published in a journal (Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies) that describes an "estimate" of the rate.
I'd like to see the full article before commenting further, but I am not going to pay $15 for it. It is a journal who is not indexed through PubMed, has had 2 issues a year since 2007, and whose main page is a Wordpress site. The forum associated with the main page of that journal has a total of 1 post.
The journal is presented as a peer-reviewed document. It may well be. I don't know what that means in this context, though, and it doesn't seem to be mainstream medical information (for what that's worth).
---
Added: I do not mean to disparage the journal or the study, but I do think the extraordinary claim needs to be assessed in context. This context is, to me at least, murky at best. I don't know how best to make sense of that claim, other than to say I would need to see information from a source i can accurately assess. What I can see of this single source for it does not raise the level of confidence, for me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Aside from the specific instances of fatal circumcision which they make sure to point out, I want to know (in addition to how reliable the number is overall) how loose the criteria is for classifying something as a death related to/involving circumcision.
Because, well, 117 a year?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I see this number cited on a *lot* of websites with reference to "a new study," but it all traces back to that same source in the journal with a Wordpress website. That doesn't mean it isn't publishing good work, but it is far outside mainstream sources. (I'd never advise anyone to get medical information from a Wordpress site -- ideas, yes, or avenues to explore, but not as a final call on any hard data.)
That being said, there is definitely risk for any surgical procedure, and this is a surgical procedure. The main causes for death after circumcision would be hemorrhage (i.e., with as yet undiagnosed hemophilia) and infection. The former should be watched for in the period of time after circumcision, and the latter should be dealt with by using a sterile field and maintaining appropriate hygiene after (same as with any surgical procedure).
I'm sure it has happened. Like Samprimary, I find the rate cited to be hard to believe. I will look for a more standard source.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's hard to maintain a sterile environment in a diaper full of waste products. That's kind of another reason why I'm against cosmetic surgery. MRSA! eeek!
Unless it's really, really needed cosmetic surgery.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
The sterile field needs to be maintained during the procedure, not afterward.
When the circumcision is done in the first week or two of life, it isn't hard to keep the area clean with good hygiene for the few days needed. Urine is sterile, and after 24 hours, the area can be bathed and more antibiotic ointment applied. Newborn poops are relatively small and infrequent while breastfeeding is established (and even with bottle feeding for the first bit).
It's just not that hard. Complications are rare -- only about 0.2-0.6%, according to the AAP, and the vast majority of those are quite minor and easily dealt with.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Mind you -- I'm not encouraging routine circumcision for babies. I just want there to be accurate information.
[ June 26, 2011, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Just saying, I have a 60% less chance of contracting AIDS through sex than uncircumcised males.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's not really true. Dude, you need to use a condom. Do you realize those studies are inaccurate? Plus, it gives these men a false sense of security, like, YAY! I've got an invisible condom. I can have sex with everyone all day long. URRRRRRRRRG. Ridiculous. A condom or monogamous sex is needed.
Plus, you can still pass AIDS on to a woman if you had it. And, like I said before, if that was the case, why was the rate of HIV so high in this country when a lot of people were being circumcised! I can't believe these folks are happily spreading such inaccurate information and increasing the risk of contracting HIV. They don't even address all of these men in Africa having sex with other men unprotected either! Plus condoms are CHEAPER than circumcision and, well, folks don't have to cut THERE!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Synesthesia...are you seriously going to gloss over the very real, justified skepticism some of the sources you're using excite?
Apparently the standard of evidence needed to *support* your position is very low. What's the standard to *oppose* your position and not be rejected outright?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm really skeptic about that whole circumcision=protection from HIV thing. That has got to be one of the most dangerous things to suggest to a country full of people dying from AIDS besides AIDS drugs are poison, have some vitamin C. Seriously, what are they thinking?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Regarding data about pros and cons of circumcision from the medical standpoint, the CDC factsheet may be helpful.
The information still needs to be interpreted; e.g., risks for routine neonatal circumcisions are going to be different than those for older children who are hospitalized and under general anesthesia. Similarly, the benefits regarding infection transmission for sexually active gay men with multiple partners differ from those for monogamous heterosexual men -- when you talk about amount of decrease in risk, *prevalence* is a major factor.
You cannot directly translate numbers from one population to another.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But people siting that study don't even take into consideration that the circumcised men were abstaining for several weeks vs the uncircumcised men. You already have guys in Africa going on about invisible condoms. There really has to be a more effective way of fighting HIV than circumcision.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
(In case it isn't clear, Synesthesia, I agree with the larger point that applying studies done in Africa to the US population is problematic.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is true...
They aren't even addressing things like dry sex. Maybe it's easier to say, get this cut instead of saying, condoms, stop having dry sex, don't have sex with prostitutes, having sex with other men without a condom is risky, so be careful about that, no, you do not have an invisible condom, you need a REAL condom.
I do not even know..
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so I'll just take that as an emphatic 'yes' to my question about dubious evidence, Synesthesia? You realize how this looks: you mention mortality rates associated with circumcision, and the evidence for that claim is shown to be of uncertain reliability, let's say. When this is pointed out to you repeatedly...nothing. Is circumcision so awful that criticisms of it don't need to be substantiated?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Um... actually, yes, I am.
Nope. You would be if you were saying that the parents had the right to circumcise their child. There is no right that a jewish baby male possesses in this regard which is not otherwise present on non-jewish male babies. They are not, in fact, exercising any rights or consenting on the procedure. They are having an act performed on them by the decision of their parents.
No. It's a retroactive right.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, so I'll just take that as an emphatic 'yes' to my question about dubious evidence, Synesthesia? You realize how this looks: you mention mortality rates associated with circumcision, and the evidence for that claim is shown to be of uncertain reliability, let's say. When this is pointed out to you repeatedly...nothing. Is circumcision so awful that criticisms of it don't need to be substantiated?
I think the HIV thing isn't totally reliable, but you google it and most of the links that come up state it prevents HIV like it's a solid fact. it's good to doubt statistics. But even if it's just one baby a year, or no babies, I still don't see a good reason to circumcise babies due to the risks and the fact that it involves cutting a baby. THERE. At the risk of sounding overly emotional I just cannot get over that aspect of circumcision. I'm sort of a bit surprised that folks don't realize why that upsets me so much...
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I think the HIV thing isn't totally reliable, but you google it and most of the links that come up state it prevents HIV like it's a solid fact.
I think you have to look at the reliability of the sites and the reliability of their sources, though. You could have a metric butt-ton of crappy but emphatic personal sites that say whatever they want; however, in weight against that, one good professional site with solid data and analysis should win out.
People say all sorts of things, but they may not understand what they are talking about. It's the understanding of the topic and how to make sense of it that makes for information you can rely on as, well, reliable information.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think the conversation is moving quickly and there are a number of similar but different concepts that are getting conflated.
My apologies. I used your post as a springboard to respond to multiple similar arguments at once. I only check this forum about once a day, and in (relatively) fast moving threads like this, I can lose track of who said what.
quote:There are three concepts that I wish to distinguish: a) I prefer attribute X and give people with attribute X a higher priority for closer examination b) I prefer attribute X and wish my partner to change themselves to fit it regardless of their feelings c) I prefer attribute X and will rule out people with attribute Y
My last comment was that I do not think that people in group "a" are necessarily shallow while people in group "b" probably are. However, you seem to be bringing up a different group of people "c."
I think that the way you're describing group "c" pretty much defines them as shallow
I think there's a sliding scale, and it becomes significantly muddled with sexuality, where not only is mutual pleasure important, but your own pleasure can affect the enjoyment of your partner. Also, often times one form of attraction can overrule another.
Take, for example, obese women. Is it shallow to judge a woman because she's significantly overweight, and let it affect how you treat her? Yes, definitely. I think in terms of friendship, work, charity, or just day to day interactions, judging a person on their appearance is inappropriate.
Would I have sex with an obese woman? No.
It's not a matter of putting aside my prejudices, it's a matter of I seriously doubt she'd be able to arouse me. It would make any sexual encounters unenjoyable for me, and because I'm not a good actor, pretty unenjoyable for her too.
On the other hand, I have met (and in one case, fallen in love with) girls who, while being physically unattractive to me, have such beautiful personalities and intellect that I find myself incredibly attracted to them and turned on, even more so than I would be by a girl who was a 10 but utterly brainless.
So I guess it's a balancing act. Of course, I don't sit down and conciously think it through, it just happens... I can only anaylze it in retrospect.
I typically think shallow women or "bimbos" are those who primarily consider extraneous attributes (social status, wealth, clothing, car, friends, etc.) when choosing a sexual partner over inherent attributes (personality, intellect, charisma, physique). And I'm speaking in the sense of choosing that partner to conform to societal expectations or to inflate one's own status instead of actual desire - hyperbole speaking, if a woman has a car fetish and the only thing that turns her on is a Porsche, I don't necessarily consider that shallow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For Lisa the reward is eternal salvation
Judaism doesn't really have that concept.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. It's a retroactive right.
Wow. You seem to be inventing definitions of 'right' all for yourself now. You should know better (yes, even you).
An example of an actual right that the baby possesses is the right to be cared for and not neglected. The parents don't have the right to decide whether or not they're going to feed and care for their baby; they have to uphold that right. And if they don't, they can be arrested and/or lose custody of the child, for things like endangerment and abuse. If they had the right to decide whether or not to feed and care for their baby, the baby wouldn't have the right to be cared for; it's a right left to their parents, and they better hope they exercise that right.
The right that jewish parents have to decide whether or not to circumcise their baby (even in israel) is, likewise, completely incompatible with the fantasy assumed right that the baby has to be circumcised as a baby. You can either have one or the other. You will note that a parent's right to decide whether or not to circumcise their baby actually exists, and sticks a fork in the whole-cloth invented notion of a 'retroactive right' that you're trying to assert here. The baby is not exercising any rights. The baby doesn't have a new right that exists only for jewish babies. The baby is actually entirely beholden to the right of the parents to circumcise or not circumcise. You yourself even said you wouldn't uphold this 'retroactive right' 'obligation.' You would leave the right with the parents.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For Lisa the reward is eternal salvation
Judaism doesn't really have that concept.
Amen. Particularly as we don't have the odious concept that there's something we require salvation from.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. It's a retroactive right.
Wow. You seem to be inventing definitions of 'right' all for yourself now. You should know better (yes, even you).
Oh, bite me. A boy is Jewish. He grows up Jewish. And then he finds out that because of "well intentioned" meddlers like Synesthesia, he's going to have to have painful and possibly dangerous surgery, when he could have avoided it had his parents been allowed to do what Jewish parents have done since time immemorial? I think the boy has a right not to be frakked with in that way.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The right that jewish parents have to decide whether or not to circumcise their baby (even in israel)
There's no such right. They are obligated to circumcise their male children. Whether the secular law in Israel mandates this or not doesn't change the obligation. The parents do not have the right to refuse to do it, except of course for medical reasons such as hemophilia or other illnesses.
My son got a staph infection after his circumcision. He wound up in the hospital with a very high fever, and we were scared to death. To this day, we aren't sure that it wasn't a high fever from a virus and that he didn't get the infection at the hospital, but it doesn't matter one way or another. Sometimes bad things happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think the boy has a right not to be frakked with in that way.
This is exactly it. You think, you personally believe that they should have that right. You can't demonstrate that they have that right. The jewish parents can simply not circumcise their jewish child. You can tell them they're obligated to till you're blue in the face; neither you nor anyone else but them has any say in the matter. You even concede that you wouldn't change this. You have no ground to stand on.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You know, some of these bad things can be prevented. And the surgery isn't painful and dangerous as a baby?
I think it's a bit preferable to pick up spiders than to argue with you, Lisa, but I'm not really arachnophobic anyway because spiders are cute.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:At the risk of sounding overly emotional I just cannot get over that aspect of circumcision. I'm sort of a bit surprised that folks don't realize why that upsets me so much...
I've only been present for 3 deliveries, but on a newborn's scale of 0-to-"really pissed off", I think the brief discomfort from circumcision is somewhere in the middle.
Top of the scale being the point where they tear them from their nice warm womb. Man, they really hate that!
Bottom of the scale (which also coincides with many adult heterosexual males) is the brief period in which they have a breast in their mouth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the boy has a right not to be frakked with in that way.
Boys have a right to not be named Eugene, too, by that logic.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I'm kinda amused by the concept of rights that involve time travel Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm curious Mucus, my recollection is that you're in favor of same-sex marriage, would you find restricting your romantic intentions to one gender shallow?
I don't think same-sex marriage really affects things, but the second part is an interesting question and I initially read it wrong.
I think that we probably have to look more into what we mean by "looks." We usually mean things here like hair colour, a person's figure, the shape of person's face, etc. (e.g. a person is good looking) We usually don't mean things that we can determine by sight, but have more substantial repercussions. For example, a person could determine by sight that a person is Ultra-Orthodox Jewish or has Huntington's.
I wouldn't necessarily call a person shallow for rejecting a person in either category, such a choice of partner (assuming they saw the person correctly) could entail major life-changing repercussions involving religious conversion, technology, the chance of a child with a genetic disorder, etc.
A choice of partner that is in the "wrong" gender for you, I think would be more of a life-changing event in the latter category. Choosing a person with a circumcision is in the former, assuming that the argument that have been presented in this thread (circumcised male genitals function pretty much the same) is correct.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Mucus, I mentioned the same sex-marriage thing because if you found homosexuality incompatible with your moral views then I would imagine there's no way to argue that the choice to not date someone of you gender was shallow.
When you use the term 'shallow' in this context do you attempt to divorce it from its negative connotations or do you feel that such decisions are not only shallow technically but also represent a person of poor character? If a person was repulsed by a purely physical attribute would you find them shallow for rejecting (romantically) someone else for the sole reason that they had that attribute? Would it matter what the attribute was?
Hobbes Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
I've been reading posts here and there, and I felt like I had to say something to this.
I was snipped when I was a baby. I don't remember the pain or the experience.
I have a daughter, but if I ever have a son he will also be snipped in his infancy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:...if I ever have a son he will also be snipped in his infancy.
Why?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish you'd reconsider. Fact is, it's not any cleaner, folks who are circumcised still have to wash their bits. Infections can be prevented by by not retracting. 80% of the world doesn't bother with it and most importantly IT HURTS! At least with Bris Milah, the baby is surrounded by family. With a hospital circumcision the baby is strapped down and has his foreskin peeled off and cut! With hardly any anesthesia. I don't know how anyone can know how this is done and still want it done to their son. Who cares if he won't remember it. Fact is, it hurts. If you don't have at least a religious reason for it, why bother? I didn't even know about this, but when I found out they strap the kid down and do this, I thought, oh, hell to the no. No way. No one is going to make skin cream out of my future son's foreskin.
At least look up a video about it before you decide.
But, seriously, if there's one thing people must get from all of my emotional ranting is do research before you have this done because, as much as some folks down play it, this could affect your son for life.
Also, if there's one thing that should convince people not to get it done is the possibility of a doctor's hand slipping. You don't get that sort of risk if it just doesn't get done at all!
[ June 27, 2011, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Who cares if he won't remember it. Fact is, it hurts.
You are incorrect. I have told you again and again, my son did not suffer, he slept peacefully through his circumcision. He actually enjoyed up til he fell asleep because of the sugar syrup on a pacifier they gave him.
Considering that your emotion turmoil is based on causing babies pain I would think that first hand knowledge of the complete lack of pain would be something you might pay attention to, but apparently not.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing, dude, sugar syrup isn't a pain relief medicine. They say the baby sleeps through it, but the kid could be passing out from the pain according to some sources. One said the baby was knocked out for 8 hours because he went inward from it. And even if it doesn't hurt at all, which I find hard to believe considering where they are cutting, it still isn't right to not let him make that decision when he grows up.
Furthermore, I'm not even sure how people can watch videos of this being done or see it being done and NOT think that that baby is hurting!
[ June 27, 2011, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It hurts, but I consider this fact probably one of the most irrelevant arguments against circumcision.
Vaccinations hurt, and anti-vac idiots drop this one into the whole general field of malarkey when they try to insist that you shouldn't vaccinate your child.
Want a real argument against circumcision? Try (a) pinning down some pretty reliable evidence that being circumcised lowers sexual pleasure overall, and (b) point out how there's no real compelling argument for keeping circumcision as a cultural practice, and most of what you'll get is a bunch of people who can't muster an argument that goes beyond 'my god says so,' which is pretty much the most ignorable drama in this whole mess of a 'debate,' assuming you're talking about the direction in logic and compelling directive a secular government should take.
However, Synesthesia, when you amp up the argument to saying that circumcision should be b& forever no matter what no takebacks, you have to justify that kind of intrusion on the rights of parents to perform the procedure on their child. Maybe it's a little risky and dumb considering that there's pretty much literally no real reason to do it for people who don't have something legitimately physically wrong with their weiner, but parents have the commonly abused authority to do things many, many times more stupid with their children, and which can be much more easily and noncontroversially described as 'horrid.' They can, for instance, not vaccinate their children and break down herd immunity in their school district and cause outbreaks of pertussis, some cases of which are permanently crippling. They can send their kids to ghoulish, gulag-like 're-education' camps at a whim, for any reason, even just the suspicion of gayness and the need to be set straight. There's a whole laundry list. A case for banning it outright has to go beyond individual sensitivity and emotional response to the act and give a real, real serious indication as to why it absolutely needs a big, governmental fist coming in and causing consternation and outrage and demands by religious groups that they get specific exemption because God/Shiva/Ahura/FSM says it's not optional for their special little darlings.
Why not skip all that? The 'debate' is dumb to begin with, and this thread is kind of a microcosm as to why. Work on the long arc. Don't flip out and go nuts just feeling horrible about the poor little babies. Don't be part of the crowd that patronizes the circumcised and tells them that they have mutilated broken penises, (sniff, sob, etc, if only your parents weren't allowed to be so barbaric). Don't chastise parents' decisions as wholly and monumentally unjust. Just work on the acclimatization of society to uncut penises. Once you've got as many uncircumcised penises as circumcised penises being lovingly, uh, 'attended' to in porn, you're set. The rest works itself out.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've said multiple times in this thread that my son received local anesthetic, and that I triple checked he was getting before I let anyone even touch his winky. My point with the sugar syrup was that he was not suffering any pain at all. Not having babies yourself I guess you wouldn't know, but they will tell you in no uncertain terms if they are suffering even mild discomfort, by crying very loudly and enthusiastically. He did not pass out in pain, he fell asleep. You can tell the difference, trust me.
I'm not saying that some babies who didn't get a numbing agent didn't pass out. I am hugely against doing anything really painful to a baby without painkiller.
When my children are going to get shots, we give them acetaminophen fifteen minutes before they get the shots.
It seems to me, you are so busy being up in arms and looking for evidence to support your feelings, you are not listening.
My son (and I'd imagine by extrapolation, most modern circumcisions) did not suffer at all.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I would hope that would have eventually, but there's so many misconceptions about intact penises and such in our culture it's ridiculous.
I don't even know why I should have to argue about it. It should be kind of... well.. obvious that it isn't right to do this...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
[mockery] I just wish oh wish oh wish that everyone would be so kind and loving and not ever hurt anyone else, and that everyone would see the world as I do, and not have a differing view point, because I can't seem to understand anyone else's point of view, oh wish oh wish oh wish I may! [/mockery]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Then by all means, let that be the primary substance of your argument, Synesthesia-"It's just wrong, the babies are suffering, even if you don't think they're suffering because it's SO WRONG!"
I say that's the primary substance of your argument because when people rebut or even address the few sources you actually use (case in point, mortality rates), you either completely ignore it or respond with, "Why are we talking about this?! It's so wrong!"
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
OK, But it's not really a bad way to be though, at least the not wanting to inflict pain on people they don't need thing.
I do try to understand other people's points of view, but when it comes to stuff like this, well, there's the baby's point of view to consider. I really just don't see the point of doing this if it's something that really doesn't need to be done.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I would hope that would have eventually, but there's so many misconceptions about intact penises and such in our culture it's ridiculous.
I don't even know why I should have to argue about it. It should be kind of... well.. obvious that it isn't right to do this...
Goodness, we get it, you don't have to repeat the same mantra a thousand times. We understand why you don't like it. Samprimary told you how you could go about it, and I agree with him.
There are some health benefits to getting cut, and infancy is the best time to do it. They will not remember the procedure. If you choose not to get it done for your child then fine.
As for 100 children dying each year due to the procedure, that is unfortunate. If in fact it does help to prevent the spread of HIV however, I would be interested to know how many lives have been potentially saved by the procedure. It is too bad it would be almost impossible to ever find those types of numbers.
Syn, would circumcision be ok with you if someone could show you the number of lives that had been saved due to it preventing the spread of HIV? (If it does in fact helps prevent it. I'm not entirely convinced)
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
As a side note of clarification (I am doing this primarily for those who may be reading as lurkers, BTW, as I expect it isn't as relevant to the ongoing discussion):
Sugar syrup in newborn babies has been well-studied for pain control. It definitely has a significant effect, and this is though to occur through affecting the naturally produced opiods in the developing nervous system.
In those studies there were many objective measures used for assessing pain levels. One of the simplest is vital sign measurement: heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate. Even in the newest of newborns, there is always a response to pain. The heart rate and blood pressure change. This is seen over and over in surgeries (and it is how anesthesiologists know when to titrate the medication they are giving -- when the vital signs change in certain ways, the patient needs more anesthesia -- and this is true, again, for the newest of newborns just as much as for adults). There are other systematic, objective ways of assessing pain in newborns as well, and these are used along with vital signs.
So we know that sugar syrup helps, we have a good idea of how it helps, and we can use it as one item in a full palette of ways to control pain.
This is a systematic review from 2004, assessing 21 different studies of pain control in neonates using sugar water. There has been much more evidence gathered in the 7 years since then, and it only reinforcing the finding that it is useful for pain control in this age group.
If it would make a difference to see additional studies, I will dig them up.
---
Also on a side note (likely relevant to lurkers moreso than the ongoing discussion but that's okay):
On the internet, you can always find singular examples of things done badly. That may be a video someone made of [him- or herself] singing the Star-Spangled Banner off-key, or it may be a video of Fred Phelps picketing a soldier's funeral, or it may be a YouTube rant about someone's personal theory that drinking enough CocaCola will cure cancer.
That does not mean that there are no beautiful on-key renditions of the national anthem.
That does not mean there are no respectful and welcomed attendees to a soldier's funeral.
And it does not mean that there are no effective treatments for some cancers.
This is important: it just means that the person in that video is doing it wrong.
[ June 27, 2011, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: As for 100 children dying each year due to the procedure, that is unfortunate. If in fact it does help to prevent the spread of HIV however, I would be interested to know how many lives have been potentially saved by the procedure. It is too bad it would be almost impossible to ever find those types of numbers.
You might want to do some further checking on that "100" too, by the way. See above. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I would hope that would have eventually, but there's so many misconceptions about intact penises and such in our culture it's ridiculous.
Welcome to culture. It's ridiculous. Often depressingly so. But there's still an arc, and as long as we have some semblance of stability and modern progress, we tend to slowly shed the sillier and/or more harmful habits of our past. Even if you think that circumcision is wrong in every way, the 'intactivist' approach is the best way to, you know, not accomplish anything positive.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
CT, this lurker finds the info you have provided above to be VERY informative! Thank you!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
You do exist! I knew lurkers were real, I never stopped believing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: OK, But it's not really a bad way to be though, at least the not wanting to inflict pain on people they don't need thing.
I do try to understand other people's points of view, but when it comes to stuff like this, well, there's the baby's point of view to consider. I really just don't see the point of doing this if it's something that really doesn't need to be done.
Not responding to direct challenges or observations about some of your flawed or at best dubious backing for your overall opinion?
Not, that actually *is* a bad thing to do. It makes your position much easier to dismiss out of hand-and you as well. Which is pretty counterproductive or should be, given how important you think the matter is.
Also...I realize you *think* you're trying to understand other people's PoV, but you're not really showing much evidence of it, given that passionate outcries and claims of trying to understand isn't actually evidence of doing so.
Case in point again: "Sugar syrup isn't anesthetic!!!!!! Babies babies hurting babies OMG!"
"Well in fact, sugar syrup in this case has been shown to have pain relief properties..."
"Yes but they're MAIMING BABIES!"
(This last is a projection of your likely response, if the pattern holds.) Anyway, what you're doing is useful if your intent is to showcase how awful you think the practice is. As a tool for persuasion, though, it's not just non-beneficial, it's actually *harmful*. Your rhetoric, if it could be said to have any impact on someone deciding to circumcise their child (and this is pretty unlikely for any here, even actual medical experts, people not generally using Internet forum thoughts as input for this kind of thing), would make it *more* likely someone would circumcise since you're speaking so hysterically in opposition.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(Post removed by Janitor Blade, TOS violation)
[ June 28, 2011, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fishtail: CT, this lurker finds the info you have provided above to be VERY informative! Thank you!
Fabulous! What a kindness of you to let me know explicitly.
Here is the plain-language version of that abstract, republished by the Cochrane Review in 2010. The Cochrane group of reviews is the gold standard for making sense of multiple studies on a given topic.
For more information on ways to reduce pain for newborns, there is a great document from 2001 entitled New Guidelines for Management of Neonatal Pain by the International Evidence-Based Group for Neonatal Pain. The guidelines aren't so new anymore, but they remain good. Some avenues:
quote:•Environmental — reducing light and noise surrounding the baby, allowing enough time for rest between medical procedures.
•Behavioural — swaddling the baby and the use of sugar-dipped pacifiers.
•Pharmacologic — appropriate use of anesthetics.
Breastfeeding during pain also helps, though the higher concentration of sugar in the glucose syrup seemed to have more of an immediate effect on the opiod receptors. But certainly for more long-lasting pain, such as recovering from an ear infection, a mother can feel really good about the extra things she can do for her baby by breastfeeding. I suspect bottlefeeding also helps, as just plain skin-to-skin contact has been shown to decrease the pain scale ratings.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Who cares if he won't remember it. Fact is, it hurts.
You are incorrect. I have told you again and again, my son did not suffer, he slept peacefully through his circumcision. He actually enjoyed up til he fell asleep because of the sugar syrup on a pacifier they gave him.
Considering that your emotion turmoil is based on causing babies pain I would think that first hand knowledge of the complete lack of pain would be something you might pay attention to, but apparently not.
She isn't listening. You might as well try and explain to the looney general in Dr. Strangelove that they aren't really after our precious bodily fluids. Paranoia and hysteria are paranoia and hysteria.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
As yet another side note, my understanding is that many mohels (who perform circumcisions for Jewish religious reasons) have long incorporated the pain control methods above. They may dab sweet wine on the newborn's lips, and the baby is held by someone in a comforting way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, Lisa, complaining that someone is irrationally fixated on an ideological point that is blinding her to reasonable positions on a given topic is not something that I think you can do from a position of secure authority. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I disagree Tom...I think Lisa is an authority on being irrationally fixated on an ideological point which blinds her to reasonable positions.
Well, maybe not "authority", how about "experienced"?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree Tom...I think Lisa is an authority on being irrationally fixated on an ideological point which blinds her to reasonable positions.
Well, maybe not "authority", how about "experienced"?
Really. Did you honestly not understand what Tom was saying?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and speaking as a nonlurker CT...your posts in this thread have always been, reasonable, informative, and very helpful.
Cyn...something you might not realize that you are indirectly accusing many parents of posters, and many posters as parents of wrong doing.
I am open to new information with regards to how I'm raising my children, and even new information which means I have caused them harm unintentionally. But you are not offering new information. You seem to be posting site links which agree with your opinion (and little science backing) and lots of emotional filibustering.
I don't think anyone here questions your heart. Where I get rubbed the wrong way is that this is not a blog to rail against the world, this is a place for discussion, and no meaningful discussion can take place if you do not address the comments others post.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and speaking as a nonlurker CT...your posts in this thread have always been, reasonable, informative, and very helpful.
Why, thank you! Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
From Syn's first link:
quote:h. One foreskin can cost as much as $100,000 and to buy foreskin fibroblasts offered by The Coriell Institute for $85 - click here
Was your goal in this thread to encourage Amateur Home Circumcision? How else can we keep that evil doctor off our valuable skin flaps?!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I did not think of that. Amateur home circumcision is not a good idea.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Is there someone I can sell my valuable skin flaps to? They would pay for the circumcision too of course.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: When you use the term 'shallow' in this context do you attempt to divorce it from its negative connotations or do you feel that such decisions are not only shallow technically but also represent a person of poor character?
Hmmm, missed this. Being shallow obviously isn't a good thing, but neither do I think its as critical a flaw as has been implied by some others (i.e. the connotation of bimbo).
Probably not a very interesting answer, I'm afraid.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are so right Mucus, I agree with you 100%, that wasn't a very interesting answer. Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
So many responses since last I looked at this thread.
@TomDavidson - So he won't remember it, of course. If I waited for him to decide when he was 18, i'm sure he would never forget it in his life. I would even be afraid to do it... I'm thankful that I got it over with when I was a baby.
I would prefer the method that Stone_Wolf's son had of course. I don't want my child to be in too much pain. Though it is something that, if at all, should be done in infancy.
I can imagine that actually being born from my mother's womb must have been awefully painful. I would hate for people to argue "since it must be really painful to the baby that it should stop."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I think Tom's question was about why you would snip your kid in the first place, not necessarily about when you'd do it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have to point out that even if they don't remember it, it doesn't mean the pain doesn't affect their brain. When babies are stressed out it releases cortisol. Really, if they don't need to have it done, don't bother with it.
Also, I must continue to wonder why I am being mocked over my strong desire to prevent babies from unnecessary pain. It's bad enough you have natural pains like teething and such. And the world is waiting to shoot arrows at everyone. Why give them a pain they don't even need to have anyway? People in the US act like you HAVE to circumcise. Like it's a MUST. Like you just HAVE TO DO IT AND THERE'S NO CHOICE but really there's not much of a decision to make. You just don't bother with it. Folks get by just find with anteaters.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You're being mocked because you refuse to listen to people, oh, and because you repeat yourself endlessly, and do not address what people say, and tell people what to do, and use CAPS WHENEVER YOU GET EMOTIONAL about repeating whatever you feel the world thinks (even though no one here is saying that) and did I mention you don't listen to anyone also you repeat yourself ENDLESSLY and rail at how much this country has misconceptions and how horrible it is and how we keep hurting babies DOWN THERE and there just is no reason to do it, you don't understand why people just don't stop, even though EVERYONE HAS TOLD YOU AT LEAST TWICE and also you tend to say the same thing over and over.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I must continue to wonder why I am being mocked over my strong desire to prevent babies from unnecessary pain.
It's because you're coming off like a somewhat hysterical wilting flower, and because it is totally not a big deal compared to pretty much everything else you could be upset about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's see if *this* will be addressed in ways that several direct challenges and observations weren't:
quote:People in the US act like you HAVE to circumcise. Like it's a MUST. Like you just HAVE TO DO IT AND THERE'S NO CHOICE but really there's not much of a decision to make.
Well, *some* people do. Something near *less than half* of the people in the USA do, in fact. This has been pointed out repeatedly, but don't let that-or anything-stop you from getting hysterical and ignoring stuff that's inconvenient.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
80% of people in the world don't do it. Maybe we should catch up. I know I'm sounding overly emotional, but look at the baby's perspective in this. It's kind of part of a bigger picture, really, when it comes to babies and treating them with compassion from the very start.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:look at the baby's perspective in this
Aaaah! Syn is right! This is horrible! This is the worst thing that's ever happened to anybody! I'm going to die!
*burp*
Ah, that's better. Where's my giant milk person?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
CT, Thanks for the links. I was surprised to see how much evidence there is that circumcision reduces the spread of STDs. Its still not nearly as effective as a condom or life long monogamy, but interesting none the less. If the spread of AIDS could really be cut in half in Africa by circumcising all male babies, it would certainly be worth it in my opinion.
Of course, nothing is ever that simple with human beings. Unfortunately, whenever we do one thing to make people safer, they compensate by engaging in generally riskier behavior. I don't know how much that's true for STDs, but its certainly true for traffic collisions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Syn,
You are again implying (down right saying?) that to circumcise is to treat babies without compassion.
You are accusing a lot of caring and thoughtful people (I include myself in that number) of treating our children without compassion, implying that we are missing the big picture, that we did not look at this issue from the point of view of our children.
I know to you it seems like a simple matter, [cut + baby + penis = ouch] but life is not that simple, and neither is being a good parent. If you are simply unwilling/unable to see this issue (which I am starting to accept) as anything but that simple equation, let me know, and I'll stop wasting my valuable time trying to discuss this with you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: 80% of people in the world don't do it. Maybe we should catch up. I know I'm sounding overly emotional, but look at the baby's perspective in this. It's kind of part of a bigger picture, really, when it comes to babies and treating them with compassion from the very start.
Ok, well it's quite clear to me now: this issue is *so important* you don't have to have an honest discussion about it. Many times now you've been shown things that either weaken or outright contradict the claims and rhetoric you're making, but repeatedly you've just ignored or brushed it aside.
Just because it's important doesn't entitle you a fanatic's dishonest style, Synesthesia.
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
The baby's perspective... for a short while the baby is very unhappy, possibly in some pain... ... then over it. The part of the brain that forms and retains memory isn't quite there yet. The baby will soon forget and act as if it never happened.
If the baby can forgive and forget, why can't you?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not sure I'm wrong about this and I don't think I'm a looney or delusional or any of that stuff. Sure, I come off as over emotional, but what can I say? I have hyper empathy. Even if you don't remember the first few years of your life, they shape you because that's when your brain is developing. So, why should a baby experience even a few minutes of pain if it's just not needed? Why can't that boy be in his mother and father's arms instead of lying on some circumstraint getting part of his body cut? Who cares if he can't remember it. Fact is, it's just not needed anymore when we have soap, water and condoms. So I'm going to keep arguing against this, just as I will keep arguing against spanking and things like that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have hyper empathy.
No, you don't. You want to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When my son got his first bath, on his first day, the nurses were not comforting him, and I went to do it, since he was crying. They told me it was good for him to get all the fluid off his lungs to cry and cry hard that time.
I don't think you are crazy for caring about babies, I think your not engaging in discussion here and justifying your bad tactics with moral self congratulations vs imaginary mustache twirling villains, and I'm afraid your black and white kindergarten moralities are too basic to actually do any good in the real world.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it's fine to argue against it, Synesthesia. What people keep pointing out to you - and you are fairly consistently ignoring - is that when you use questionable or false facts to argue with, and don't acknowledge when this is pointed out, it undermines your cause.
Along the same lines, when you ignore or distort counterpoints instead of addressing them, it undermines your cause.
Right now you're sort of the PETA of circumcisions.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: CT, Thanks for the links. I was surprised to see how much evidence there is that circumcision reduces the spread of STDs. Its still not nearly as effective as a condom or life long monogamy, but interesting none the less.
Glad to be of help.
I encourage people to be very careful about interpreting the data. It is very easy to be sure it implies one thing, when the reverse is true.
Most of the strong argument for circumcision on infectious disease grounds comes from studies out of Africa, and I think one from Asia. Don't forget that this encompasses much area where there is no clean water supply, and where daily showers or baths are far beyond the pale. (For example, these are the same areas where HIV+ women are recommended to breastfeed even though we know it transmits the HIV virus -- but mixing formula with the unclean water that is available will essentially kill the babies faster. Worldwide, diarrhea illness is the biggest cause of infant death.)
It is thought that routine daily hygiene with clean water would ameliorate much of the problem and keep the foreskin from raising the risk. So the populations (Africa and North America) are different in ways that are likely to affect the numbers.
When you look at the numbers in the US, this is borne out -- most of the studies do not show a clear increase in the risk of HIV transmission if you have an intact foreskin. Of the ones that do, usually it is either a relatively small increase or is not statistically significant.
You have to be careful about the interpretation. But like you said, circumcision has the potential for making a dramatic change in risk of HIV transmission in certain populations. In other populations, it may make no difference at all.
[ June 29, 2011, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Right now you're sort of the PETA of circumcisions.
That's cold.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Sure, I come off as over emotional, but what can I say?
When you started posting in this thread, I contemplated telling you to step back, not get started, literally not even to ever open it and read it. It wasn't hard to see what was coming. But people have been telling you to step away and not even expose yourself to stuff that makes you ill (and leads to you frequently voicing your extremely brittle sensitivities) long enough that I kind of guessed it would be a hopeless gesture.
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
There will always be people for & against circumcisions. I'm sure there are many pro's and con's to it but I think it just comes down to the individuals.
Syn won't be getting her son snipped and can't be pursuaded to do so no matter what information is brought up. The same can be true about those that are for circumcisions.
So what has this thread accomplished? 11 pages of people for and against, links posted, and nub bashing... but i'm sure not many minds changed.
Maybe an agreement of disagreement and move on?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Dude,*** if you are going to go the whole "This Must Be a Productive Discussion" route, you may well be in for some frustration. I think pretty much all we do here is talk about things on which almost all of us have differing perspectives.
***Oh, and play peekaboo. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*peeeeeek*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It clearly states in the user agreement that we are not allowed to "agree to disagree"...
quote:User Agreement Review Considering the real-time nature of this bulletin board, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of this BB and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB. You agree to never agree to disagree with people who are wrong headed and silly and instead keep grinding your opinion into their faces until they finally submit to your far superior grasp of the one, true and only view of whichever subject you are arguing about. Amen.
Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this BB (and any owners of this BB) and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).
We also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate in this BB.
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
@CT - To be honest I don't mind if it isn't productive. People can just share what opinion they have. I can still enjoy a good conversation with that. When it gets to nub bashing... It stops being fun (for me).
@Stone - ... i c wut u did thar
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dude, if you are going to go the whole "This Must Be a Productive Discussion" route, you may well be in for some frustration. I think pretty much all we do here is talk about things on which almost all of us have differing perspectives.
Discussing differing views can be a whole lot more productive than this discussion has been.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I wish you all the success you can get in making that happen throughout the site. Seriously.
I'm just happy when violations of TOS are kept to a minimum. I've given up on any semblance*** of critiquing what others say or conversations in general, though I'm still happy to respond to given bits if I think I have something to offer.
I'm okay that you feel differently, though, and wish you all the best.
--- Very Relevant Addendum:
***
quote:Originally posted by CT: Dude, if you are going to go the whole "This Must Be a Productive Discussion" route, you may well be in for some frustration. I think pretty much all we do here is talk about things on which almost all of us have differing perspectives.
Except, apparently, for KirKis!
I guess I haven't lost hope on you yet, KirKis. It's an awesome responsibility. Can you slow my prolonged slide into apathy?
I'll settle for the chance you haven't lost hope on me. Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
@CT - I don't know if you've noticed or not but, instead of continued nub bashing this thread now contains evidence of "wishing all the best".
Already an improvement.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
You better stick around then. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Dude, if you are going to go the whole "This Must Be a Productive Discussion" route, you may well be in for some frustration. I think pretty much all we do here is talk about things on which almost all of us have differing perspectives.
Discussing differing views can be a whole lot more productive than this discussion has been.
New cases of HIV among men fell by an astonishing 76 percent after a circumcision programme was launched in a South African township, researchers reported.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is that you Clive?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The email address implies that it's Lisa.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so now lisa's altposting now, huh.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I have to admit, the name is better than most other troll/alt accounts I have seen.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Lisa, I sent you an email that I need you to respond to at your soonest convenience, if you please.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Sometimes I think about misbehaving just so BB will drop me a line.
The Jews run Hollywood, they've tanked the economy to further their Zionist goals!
Hmm, I think I'm actually on the other side of that issue. I suppose if I troll, I should do it for my team.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Goal #15 in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is "Hire shrill extremists to hijack circumcision threads and frame everything in the context of Judaism's theological requirements. This will accomplish ... something. We're not really sure yet. Please don't tell anyone we're writing this until we get that ironed out."
#16-#27 are subsequently attempts to forge a secret handshake.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
#19 was drastically unsuccessful, leading to the death of two and the maiming of a third.
It was then outlawed. Rumor's to this day persist about "the secret handshake of doom".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So, Janitor, I replied to your email. I'm thinking it might be worth posting my reply here on Hatrack. I certainly have nothing to be embarrassed about in our correspondance. Do you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you suggesting he does?
Anyway, your not uncommon violations of the ToS and your frequent personal hostility to other posters, certainly denies you the ability to take him to task for behavior, in either his BB hat or JB hat. Or at least to do so in an honest, fair way. Frankly if that is what you're doing, and it very much sounds like you are, the nerve and hypocrisy is striking.
I say that as someone who has disagreed recently with JB, no less, but nonetheless complied.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lisa: Stop posting on Hatrack please. You know my decision on this matter. If you have any decency left, you will leave in peace.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So, Janitor, I replied to your email. I'm thinking it might be worth posting my reply here on Hatrack. I certainly have nothing to be embarrassed about in our correspondance. Do you?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
argument. ![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
Agreed!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Maybe I should have said non-Jewish Americans? That seemed clunky, but the dyslexic reading is MUCH worse. ![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) how they should be raising their children, despite a relative lack of experience or expertise.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)