But it is.
Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?
- Thread starter Deranged Nasat
- Start date
But it is.
Okay, I'll buy that. Chalk it up to 3:00 AM diction. 100% should have been "much".... and to keep the same basic sentence, it should have been more like this:
You might not think I got enough of the arrogance out, who knows. If that's the case, I'll have to live you thinking I'm arrogant. I'm perfectly aware that what I typed is merely an hypothosis, and it may not even be a falsifiable one, which would leave it all but worthless.
Have no fear. My humility due to awareness of my ignorance is fully intact. As I've said many times, the only thing I know for sure is that I don't know anything for sure.
I dunno, I mean didn't we have someone in this thread say they had it done with one kid and not the other? Maybe I made that up or read it somewhere else. But I don't think it's that impossible for a parent to say "You know, I'm not sure that was the right decision and if I had it to do over again, I might not do it."
Certainly not impossible. But that sounds like a person who can be moved by evidence and isn't locked into a belief.
Nonsense. If it was, we wouldn't have threads with hundreds of posts about it.
Those people aren't all that rare! If you think it is, you've been on the internets too long.
Those people aren't all that rare! If you think it is, you've been on the internets too long.
Add that to the fact that I live in Oklahoma, and I think you've it figured out
I couldn't figure out if he throwing his voice behind my idea or if he was anticipating I was going to have a "duck season, wabbit season" reply.
I assumed he was mocking me, but that may be because second grade runs strong in this one
I couldn't figure out if he throwing his voice behind my idea or if he was anticipating I was going to have a "duck season, wabbit season" reply.
I assumed he was mocking me, but that may be because second grade runs strong in this one
Well, it's easy to just come in and be contrary without any substance. I'll give you credit for not engaging in that.
I also substantially agree with you, I just dislike the notion of pushing inherently subjective viewpoints as some kind of objective truth. Like so many things about human affairs, this is one where there's little objective truth to be found. Really, what things can we say with some objective certainty about circumcision?
1. It is not necessary to be done as a preventative medical procedure. I think most people in this thread have taken that as a given, and so it's really not up for contention.
2. Some cultures find it more acceptable than others.
#2 is really where the interest lies, because few would claim the potential medical therapeutic value outweighs the immediate injury of the procedure itself. But if it's a matter of cultural conformity then you could make a strong argument that circumcision is essential for a male's mental health even if it is of dubious or no medical value.
Personally, I think that's a load of shit but I can follow the train of thought that would lead someone to such a conclusion.
It's also entirely possible not to care that much about the issue. I don't care enough about it to get legislation involved. I'm circumcised, and by some definitions that means I was "mutilated," but I can't bring myself to care much about it since it really has no effect on my life. If I wasn't circumcised I don't see my life being substantially different. But I have more information at my disposal than my parents did and so I didn't have my son cut since current medical science tells us it isn't necessary. Some may make the decision on the basis of social conformity, but I wouldn't. I don't think social or religious conformity are inherently invalid reasons for it, though.
I reject the notion that it's necessary to have strong feelings about it either way, or that anyone who isn't completely against it is being clouded by emotion. Whatever emotions I may have had associated with my foreskin left right along with it.
Those people aren't all that rare! If you think it is, you've been on the internets too long.
Add that to the fact that I live in Oklahoma, and I think you've it figured out
I know you're probably just joking, but in all seriousness, that's something worth examining. If you come at things from a viewpoint of cynicism and assume the worst of people, it's going to affect whether or not you can have a reasonable debate with them. You don't have to be like me and assume everything is sunshine and kittens, but you should be careful about the attitudes you project onto others.
I don't know if I'm the one you're referring to, Kestra. I did say that my older son came to us circumcised and I left the decision whether to circumcise my younger son (who came out of me, obviously, uncircumcised) to my husband. The fact is, it was six of one, half-dozen of the other. It wasn't important enough to me to have an opinion. Honestly, the whole Judeo-Christian religious aspect had some resonance, but didn't carry the day. My husband had other ideas, and even he went back and forth about it. In the end, he decided against.
Do I feel that my older son is horribly mutilated? No, of course not. Do I feel that my younger son is unhygenic or dirty. No, although, as I said, his tight foreskin might end up giving him problems in the future.
This topic is, in many ways, like the pro-choice/pro-life debate. Lots of hyperbole, lots of passion, but in the end, you do what feels right for reasons that are not completely explainable to anybody else, and the other side is never going to come around to your way of thinking.
I just noticed this. Going back, I see your younger son is 9. I just wanted to mention that, before the onset of puberty, the foreskin is usually attached to the glans, and usually should not be "retractable" (said like that, it sounds like something out of Wolverine
). In fact, during infant circumcision, the foreskin has to be more or less "ripped" from the glans, exposing the raw mucous skin. In an uncut penis, the foreskin will detach slowly before sexual maturity. It is not advised to forcefully retract the foreskin if it has not naturally detached yet: not necessarily harmful, but it could be uncomfortable or painful (forcible retraction of the foreskin).Now, since your husband is cut, and your older son is cut, it stands to reason there isn't a lot of, uh, experience in dealing with an uncut penis in your household, and what you could consider a "tight foreskin" is actually perfectly normal.
I would say that doctors would know the difference, but in places where the vast majority of people are circumcised (given that you like in such a place), well, I'm not sure. Sorry to intrude and make assumption about your personal life, but I just wanted to be sure you had all the information.
Yeah, you were! Thanks for the clarification. I didn't want to go back and look for your post amongst all the griping.
I was born in 1961 and not circumcised. My brother was born in 1968 and my mother had him circumcised because it was the prevalent belief at the time that it was more hygienic. My next brother was born in 1978 and was not circumcised, because the hygienic belief had been debunked by then and my mother regretted circumcising my other brother.
Thanks for the information, but the ER doctors and specialists did a pretty good job of explaining it to me. My son's case was not normal, and they're the ones who noted that we might have to do something about it in the future. And I don't believe I ever said whether my husband is circumcised or not, so, yeah, your assumptions are faulty.I just noticed this. Going back, I see your younger son is 9. I just wanted to mention that, before the onset of puberty, the foreskin is usually attached to the glans, and usually should not be "retractable" (said like that, it sounds like something out of Wolverine
Now, since your husband is cut, and your older son is cut, it stands to reason there isn't a lot of, uh, experience in dealing with an uncut penis in your household, and what you could consider a "tight foreskin" is actually perfectly normal.
I would say that doctors would know the difference, but in places where the vast majority of people are circumcised (given that you like in such a place), well, I'm not sure. Sorry to intrude and make assumption about your personal life, but I just wanted to be sure you had all the information.
Heh. Better to err on the side of caution.
If by that you mean "cut", by that logic, we should give every woman mastectomies to prevent the loss of life that comes from breast cancer.
Better to err on the side of caution.
oh oh oh oh oh, my bad totally! I didn't put it in context with the post above! I read it as just a general opinion on the main topic, like:
Circumcision? Better to err on the side of caution.
Totally see now!
-------------------
That being said, my point still stands for those who do say it's done for health and saftey reasons.
If that's the case, as I posted, by that logic, we should give every woman mastectomies to prevent the loss of life that comes from breast cancer.
