posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alternatively dictionary.com says that shallow is
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saying, I have a 60% less chance of contracting AIDS through sex than uncircumcised males.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.)
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
