Circumcision

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
chaperone		#181	[-]
Posts: 2514 (08/06/08 1:17 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	My wife and I are in the serious point of decision making on this...baby boy coming any day now! We were leaning away from it. Our religious practices don't demand circumcision (Christianity clearly lays out circumcision as no longer required of the law but circumcision is a heart thing - ouch...circumcision of the heart?). But what of health? The studies in Africa on AIDS are questionable at best. What does our OB say? She said she does it in the first hour after birth, takes 30 seconds to do. She wouldn't give us a recommendation either way, she adamantly stated that it's up to each parent. Our strictly anecdotal reason we're leaning toward it is that our friends' uncut four year old kept getting infections. So at 4 years old they had him circumcised so as to stop the infections. As scarring as circumcising an infant might be...this four year old kid couldn't stop holding/talking about and focusing on the pain he was experiencing... But what of OT? Oh wait...do I need to weigh OT's consensus before I make my decision?
HoodooRhythmDevil		#182	[-]
Posts: 455 (08/06/08 1:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	If you were having a girl, with all the attendant potential for "infections" that entails, would you mutliate her genetalia for your convenience?
Angela in WI		#183	[-]
Posts: 24452 (08/06/08 1:20 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I was with my first uncut dude last night and I much prefer cut. Didn't enjoy having to fuck with the foreskin. So please cut your boys.
HoodooRhythmDevil		#184	[-]
Posts: 456 (08/06/08 1:25 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Angela in WI wrote: I was with my first uncut dude last night and I much prefer cut. Didn't enjoy having to fuck with the foreskin. So please cut your boys. Yeah...because Angela may want to fuck them soon and it's all about what she wants. By the way, Ang...you're starting to get up in years and your cooterwings are startin' to flap. Would you mind trimming your crotchliver? Kthxbye.
chaperone		#185	[-]
Posts: 2515 (08/06/08 1:30 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: If you were having a girl, with all the attendant potential for "infections" that entails, would you mutliate her genetalia for your convenience? Nope. chaperone wrote: My wife and I are in the serious point of decision making on this...baby boy coming any day now! We were leaning away from it. Our religious practices don't demand circumcision (Christianity clearly lays out circumcision as no longer required of the law but circumcision is a heart thing - ouch...circumcision of the heart?). But what of health? The studies in Africa on AIDS are questionable at best. What does our OB say? She said she does it in the first hour after birth, takes 30 seconds to do. She wouldn't give us a recommendation either way, she adamantly stated that it's up to each parent. Our strictly anecdotal reason we're leaning toward it is that our friends' uncut four year old kept getting infections. So at 4 years old they had him circumcised so as to stop the infections. As scarring as circumcising an infant might be...this four year old kid couldn't stop holding/talking about and focusing on the pain he was experiencing... But what of OT? Oh wait...do I need to weigh OT's consensus before I make my decision? Is your brat a f.ag? If not, I'm not sure why youre worried about AIDs. I'm not sure you followed my logic. I'm not worried about AIDs but my point was that it seems to be irrelevant to the discussion of circumcision.
HoodooRhythmDevil		#186	[-]
Posts: 457 (08/06/08 1:35 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	chaperone wrote: HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: If you were having a girl, with all the attendant potential for "infections" that entails, would you mutliate her genetalia for your convenience? Nope. There's your answer.
chaperone		#187	[-]
Posts: 2516 (08/06/08 1:59 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: chaperone wrote: HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: If you were having a girl, with all the attendant potential for "infections" that entails, would you mutliate her genetalia for your convenience? Nope. There's your answer. Actually, your logic does not lead me to an answer. I see your question as a bit of a stretch in comparing two things which are not equal. The debate of male circumcision centers around the question of necessity. Even those with strong opinions against it couldn't suggest a precedent of significant damage to the psychology of a male after circumcision. Their argument is that it's unnecessary and inhumane. Irregardless of whether they're correct (in which case we should weigh the debate carefully) 4 millenia of precedent have never elicited serious psychological consequences for a simple operation even if it becomes deemed as inhumane. It may be superflous pain is the argument (and carries some risk of the doctor makes a mistake, so I'm speaking of it in its proper form) but it is not demonstrated to cause long term psychological or physiological damage. Sure, the debate will rage on about who has more fun in sex or what looks better or worse (which will never be proven until someone who isn't circumcised has sex, then gets circumcised, the reports on the pleasure), but no studies will ever be run which discover that male circumcised men are more likely to commit suicide, fail in the work force, or develop alcoholic tendencies (etc. etc.). So...to summarize my original point, circumcising a male at birth is a lot less damaging than circumcising a four year old. Given the precedent of circumcised men doing just fine in life, I'm not concerned about long term negative effects. What I'm concerned with is - is the 30 second surgery (and recovery) pain in vain? That's my genuine question. Female circumcision or other ridiculous interventions that you allude to have little to no precedent for measuring post-op psychological effects (or non-effects). While irrelevant to many, faith is a value for me...so I point out that there's also no Christian religious precedent for female circumcision. In my case - even though my religion doesn't expect male circumcision - the roots of my religion clearly allow for it. Not the case with women. I liken the debate of male circumcision to giving a newborn a vitamin K shot. Many argue it's unnecessary. Few can prove it's necessity or negative side effects, or if they can, they're countered by an opposing side with apparently equal information. Giving a vitamin K shot is painful to a child. Is the pain in vain? In that case, I'll defer to my doctor (and she recommends it). But again, for circumcision, she doesn't give us her opinion for or against. (I'm well aware that circumcision is more painful than a shot...fyi...I'm sure someone will point that out if I don't)
HoodooRhythmDevil		#188	[-]
Posts: 458 (08/06/08 2:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	chaperone wrote: HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: chaperone wrote: HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: If you were having a girl, with all the attendant potential for "infections" that entails, would you mutliate her genetalia for your convenience? Nope. There's your answer. Actually, your logic does not lead me to an answer. I see your question as a bit of a stretch in comparing two things which are not equal. The debate of male circumcision centers around the question of necessity. Even those with strong opinions against it couldn't suggest a precedent of significant damage to the psychology of a male after circumcision. Their argument is that it's unnecessary and inhumane. Irregardless of whether they're correct (in which case we should weigh the debate carefully) 4 millenia of precedent have never elicited serious psychological consequences for a simple operation even if it becomes deemed as inhumane. It may be superflous pain is the argument (and carries some risk of the doctor makes a mistake, but in its proper form) but it is not demonstrated to cause long term psychological or physiological damage. Sure, the debate will rage on about who has more fun in sex or what looks better or worse (which will never be proven until someone who isn't circumcised has sex, then gets circumcised, the reports on the pleasure), but no studies will ever be run which discover that male circumcised men are more likely to commit suicide, fail in the work force, or develop alcoholic tendencies (etc. etc.). So...to summarize my original point, circumcising a male at birth is a lot less damaging than circumcising a four year old. Given the precedent of circumcised men doing just fine in life, I'm not concerned about long term negative effects. What I'm concerned with is - is the 30 second surgery (and recovery) pain in vain? That's my genuine question. Female circumcision or other ridiculous interventions that you allude to have little to no precedent for measuring post-op psychological effects (or non-effects). While irrelevant to many, faith is a value for me...so I point out that there's also no Christian religious precedent for female circumcision. In my case - even though my religion doesn't expect male circumcision - the roots of my religion clearly allow for it. Not the case with women. I liken the debate of male circumcision to giving a newborn a vitamin K shot. Many argue it's unnecessary. Few can prove it's necessity or negative side effects, or if they can, they're countered by an opposing side with apparently equal information. Giving a vitamin K shot is painful to a child. Is the pain in vain? In that case, I'll defer to my doctor (and she recommends it). But again, for circumcision, she doesn't give us her opinion for or against. (I'm well aware that circumcision is more painful than a shot...fyi...I'm sure someone will point that out if I don't) They are exactly equal. Both involve the mutilation (look the word up) of the genetalia of a child. Couch it in whatever socialogical, religious, or psychological argument you want. Distill it down and it's genital mutilation. And "irregardless" isn't a word.
superguppie		#189	[-]
Posts: 23695 (08/06/08 2:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The debate of male circumcision centers around the question of necessity. So, yeah, it's not necessary at all. The pain is for vanity, tradition, whatever. The kid you know is the exception to the rule. Do his parents not bathe him?
Doobie Screw		#190	[-]
Posts: 160 (08/06/08 2:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So, you don't seem to have any reason to do it. It's an irreversible procedure, and there aren't really any good reasons for it. Why not give your child the choice of having it done later in life if he wants.
chaperone		#191	[-]
Posts: 2517 (08/06/08 2:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	HoodooRhythmDevil wrote: They are exactly equal. Both involve the mutilation (look the word up) of the genetalia of a child. Couch it in whatever socialogical, religious, or psychological argument you want. Distill it down and it's genital mutilation. And "irregardless" isn't a word. I can see we disagree, and that's alright. How do you feel about ear piercings as a form of mutilation? So, yeah, it's not necessary at all. The pain is for vanity, tradition, whatever. The kid you know is the exception to the rule. Do his parents not bathe him? I was wondering that myself. (ETA: He doesn't seem to smell un-bathed in general or appear dirty.) Last Edited By: chaperone 08/06/08 2:15 PM. Edited 2 times.
HoodooRhythmDevil		#192	[-]
Posts: 459 (08/06/08 2:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	chaperone wrote: I can see we disagree, and that's alright. How do you feel about ear piercings as a form of mutilation? It's not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a statement of fact. I make no moral judgement (here) about it. It's like saying that the ocean is wet. It's not really a point that requires agreement. It stands on its own. Mutliate: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (not in its original form) The penis is the male genetalia. To cut it so as to make it imperfect is to mulitate it. Call it what you wish but it's genital mutliation. If you start there, then you're at least starting with facts, not myths or preconditioned false information. Hey...you want to mutilate your child's genetalia, that's between you, your kid, and whatever morality you claim. Just don't call it something other than what it is...own the fact that you're deciding to mutilate your son. And if you pierce a child's ears before they are aware, then yes it is mutilation without the consent of the mutilated.
Endofthread		#193	[-]
Posts: 5156 (08/06/08 2:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Hoodoo seems so wise. No wonder Zeep loves to pleasure him more than anyone else.
HoodooRhythmDevil		#194	[-]
Posts: 461 (08/06/08 2:32 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Zeep loves to pleasure me more than anyone else because I am a gentle and considerate lover... Naw...jes' kiddin'. It's because I tip well. And for chaperone, go read the 20 pages of this thread, then come back and we can discuss the matter rationally: http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/9935 (I can't fucking believe I got sucked back into this discussion again!) OK, back to the part where Zeep pleasures me...
chaperone		#195	[-]
Posts: 2518 (08/06/08 5:58 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	HRD (and others) thanks for your thoughts and input. I enjoy rational discussions and controversial issues...this thread was timely for my wife and I as we weigh the options. Sometimes I wish I saw the world more black and white, I suppose I just don't.
NellB		#196	[-]
Posts: 433 (08/06/08 7:04 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Chaperone, Congratulations to you and your wife and your growing family. Since you've given credit to some anecdotal experience thus far, consider this. MOST uncircumcised boys do not suffer from infections or hygeine problems. If there were some kind of epidemic of foreskin infections, wouldn't we all automatically circumcise? But we do not. Globally, most men have their foreskins. My little boys have theirs, and neither kid has ever had any health problems as a result of it. Anecdotal, but worth mentioning. ::soapbox:: Your baby boy will be perfect just the way he is.
Atomic Plunger		#197	[-]
Posts: 2187 (08/06/08 7:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	200 dick hats
Screerider		#198	[-]
Posts: 22387 (08/06/08 7:34 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Of course, going by the above definition of mutilation, child birth is female genital mutilation too. Man, does it radically alter that shit up or what? Jes' sayin'.
HoodooRhythmDevil		#199	[-]
Posts: 479 (08/06/08 8:45 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Not really. Generally, the woman involved in giving birth is a willing participant. It's the mutilation that she and the kid will do to the man that's mutilation...
yukugajoob		#200	[-]
Posts: 801 (08/06/08 10:34 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Chaperone, We are brothers in spirit (check my profile page and you'll see). But I must disagree with you on a point. You correctly state that our faith no longer requires circumcision, but it "allows" for it. You base part of your argument for circumcision on this point. But, our faith also no longer requires shunning unclean foods, women speaking in church, and other things, although it "allows" for them. We no longer observe these practices either out of convenience or simply being "in step with the times." Cutting your child's body for no reason other than "my faith allows for it" or to prevent the risk of a phantom infection known by you to have occurred only to one child is not a valid reason. And, while it is still only one person, and therefore not enough on which to base a "study" an adult friend of mine got circumcised a few years ago. He was 42 at the time. He did it because he thought he was missing out on being "normal" by being "natural." Several months afterward, he admitted he had made a huge mistake. To this day he still regrets having had the surgery. So, there is at least one man who had sex, then was circumcised, and had sex again, and says it was better before. I stand on the side of "circumcision is mutilation" by virtue of performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on someone who is unable to make the decision for themself or even voice their own viewpoint on the matter. Please reconsider.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Circumcision

Quick Reply