posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How can you tell if your circumcised again?
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only difference between the semi-arbitrary customs of a civilization and those of barbarism is whether it's your culture doing them, honestly.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That second link is rather confusing and hardly conclusive compelling evidence...not that I care either way...because I don't...just sayin'.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
Agreed!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
argument.
