San Francisco man wants to ban circumcision

[Adami]

You keep insisting (7SB) that there's no harm in circumcision.  The verdicts still out on that one.  The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the case is since we have no frame of reference.  The absence of obvious harm doesn't preclude harm that's unseen.  Of course that goes both ways, but lets not just assume that it's a meaningless decision.  Given the fact that there's no way of knowing what's best, I'd suggest deferring towards the evolution and the development of a part that does actually serve a purpose beyond appearance.  

You'd think several thousand years of circumcision would yield some pretty conclusive evidence. Unless of course you're looking for a minute bit of potential harm that no one has noticed yet. In which case who cares?

I would consider a loss of sensitivity to be harm.  The problem is that there's no way of knowing whether or not such a loss exists.  For some reason, most people who are already sexually active don't seem to be interested in having part of their dick cut off for the benefit of research. 

If there is a loss of sensitivity, it's clearly not something that people can notice in reactions to touch.

[El Barto]

Who would know?

[Adami]

Who would know?

Well we'll have to wait till a child is born with two penises. We'll circumcise one and not the other and see how it goes.

[El Barto]

Who would know?

Well we'll have to wait till a child is born with two penises. We'll circumcise one and not the other and see how it goes.

Truth be told, I'm somewhat unconvinced about the loss of sensitivity for a variety of reasons.  Be that as it may, I'm not particularly comfortable with just assuming that one's dick will be "just as good" after snipping part of it off for little or no reason.  The potential benefits of leaving it alone seem stronger than the potential benefits of tinkering with it.  Like I've said all along, I wouldn't interfere with someone having it done for religious or medical purposes.  I just don't think the majority of them are occurring for any reason other than "it's what the cool kids are doing."  I wouldn't want to potentially diminish my kid's wang just because he's American. 

[Adami]

A lot of people may have dumb reasons for doing it, but thats their right. People are free to do dumb things all of the time.

[eric42434224]

My wife has said I have a beautiful dick, and is glad Im circumcised.  (I didnt say huge, just aesthetically pleasing )
I also had braces on my teeth as a kid...VERY painful and without my adult consent...all for 100% cosmetic reasons to fit a societal ideal.
Thanks Mom...for both.

[El Barto]

A lot of people may have dumb reasons for doing it, but thats their right. People are free to do dumb things all of the time.

Bullshit.  We as a society tend to frown upon people doing dumb things that affect others beyond their control.  Again, if you're going to defend the right to do dumb things to your kid, at what point does this become unacceptable:

My wife has said I have a beautiful dick, and is glad Im circumcised.  (I didnt say huge, just aesthetically pleasing )
I also had braces on my teeth as a kid...VERY painful and without my adult consent...all for 100% cosmetic reasons to fit a societal ideal.
Thanks Mom...for both.

Bully for you and your dick, but the braces were a medical requirement.

[eric42434224]

Bully for you and your dick, but the braces were a medical requirement.

No they werent.  I would be perfectly fine without them....just not with a smile that is the societal ideal.

[7StringedBeast]

What we are really arguing here is whether or not parents have the right to make decisions for their child that will affect the child for the rest of its life.  That's pretty much what this boils down to.

I believe parents have the right to raise their child the way they want to, because they are the parents.  The child does not get to run its own life until the parent deems it ready.  That's how its supposed to go.  Otherwise, we should let children make legal decisions and hold them responsible for crimes they commit when they are 5. 

And I like to think that parents can make good decisions for their children without some stupid law telling them what they can and can't do.  I don't think giving your infant cut is a bad parental decision.  I think millions of people over the course of history can attest to that.  There might be a few people who aren't happy with their parents decision, but shit, that's life.  Blame your parents, not the system or the laws.

[El Barto]

Bully for you and your dick, but the braces were a medical requirement.

No they werent.  I would be perfectly fine without them....just not with a smile that is the societal ideal.

Fair enough.  If that was your case, fine, but they often serve specific orthodontic purpose that's well beyond cosmetic.  However, I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison anyway since there's not much of a question that straighter teeth are beneficial and harmless.  Both of those are in question with circumcision. 

[7StringedBeast]

Bully for you and your dick, but the braces were a medical requirement.

No they werent.  I would be perfectly fine without them....just not with a smile that is the societal ideal.

Fair enough.  If that was your case, fine, but they often serve specific orthodontic purpose that's well beyond cosmetic.  However, I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison anyway since there's not much of a question that straighter teeth are beneficial and harmless.  Both of those are in question with circumcision. 

Are they really in question though?  I mean, millions of people get circumcised.  There is no big uproar about it.  I've never heard a guy complain that he was cut before ehra said he wished he had a choice. 

I'm not doubting complications could possibly arise, but I'm going to say its gotta be pretty rare.  The same goes for the hygiene problems with not getting cut.  I'm sure its a bad problem, but doesn't happen much because people take care of themselves.  So why change anything.  Everything seems to be OK. 

Why change the law because a tiny minority have had a problem?  That's not how the country works.

[eric42434224]

Bully for you and your dick, but the braces were a medical requirement.

No they werent.  I would be perfectly fine without them....just not with a smile that is the societal ideal.

Fair enough.  If that was your case, fine, but they often serve specific orthodontic purpose that's well beyond cosmetic.  However, I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison anyway since there's not much of a question that straighter teeth are beneficial and harmless.  Both of those are in question with circumcision. 

The point is that a large percentage of kids are put through a time consuming and painful process for cosmetic reasons.  These are the cases that I am using as a comparison.  And there most certainly are risks with orthodontia.  It isnt necessary, and there are risks....but nobody ranting about braces.
They both have negligible risks, and both are done for societal cosmetic reasons.  And both have a benefit...Many women like cut dicks and straight teeth.
7SB makes the point that this is more about the parents right to choose.  Arguing the merits of cut or un-cut is kind of silly, and I would hazard a guess that 99% of people surveyed would not change their dick if given the choice (that choice would not include changing size....just foreskin.)
  

[ehra]

There is no big uproar about it.  I've never heard a guy complain that he was cut before ehra said he wished he had a choice. 

Considering it's the norm around here, that's really not surprising.

Everything seems to be OK. 

Sure, as far as you're concerned. You get exactly what you want 

[El Barto]

Again, I'm not referring to possible risk of complications.  I'm referring to the possibility of decreased sensitivity, which nobody can confirm or deny.  If there are no medical benefits, then I see no reason to act on the general assumption that it won't decrease his enjoyment later on in life.

And as for parental choice, I think we all support that to a certain extent, but of course that specific extent is the tricky part, isn't it?  None of us would suggest that a parent can do whateverthehell they want with their child.  

[7StringedBeast]

There is no big uproar about it.  I've never heard a guy complain that he was cut before ehra said he wished he had a choice. 

Considering it's the norm around here, that's really not surprising.

Everything seems to be OK. 

Sure, as far as you're concerned. You get exactly what you want 

So because you did not get your way, a law should be enacted?  I don't mean that in a harsh way like I have something personal against you or anything, I'm just saying, is that how policies should go down in the US now?

Like I said, blame your parents on this one.  Or become a doctor and figure out an operation to put the skin back on.  Sounds weird, but why not if you think there is that much of a demand for it.  Hell maybe that operation already exists?  They can do face transplants now.

Don't take away parents' rights to parent.  That's really what I'm getting at.  They should have the choice.  

I for one am happy that I didn't have the choice because I wouldn't want to go through the process now because it'd be painful.  So there, that's my argument using me as my example to match yours.  

[7StringedBeast]

Again, I'm not referring to possible risk of complications.  I'm referring to the possibility of decreased sensitivity, which nobody can confirm or deny.  If there are no medical benefits, then I see no reason to act on the general assumption that it won't decrease his enjoyment later on in life.

And as for parental choice, I think we all support that to a certain extent, but of course that specific extent is the tricky part, isn't it?  None of us would suggest that a parent can do whateverthehell they want with their child.  

Right, but in this case do we really need a law banning parents from making this decision, or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  That way we are still letting parents be parents, instead of making a law that takes that away for all people.

[eric42434224]

There is no big uproar about it.  I've never heard a guy complain that he was cut before ehra said he wished he had a choice. 

Considering it's the norm around here, that's really not surprising.

Everything seems to be OK. 

Sure, as far as you're concerned. You get exactly what you want 

Maybe you should confront your parents about it, and let them know how much anguish this is causing you.  Not sure if you will get an apology or explanation, but perhaps it can allow you to have some closure, come to terms with your loss, and allow you to move on and focus on the things in life you can control.

My point is this:  I am cut.  Would it have been better if I wasnt?  Would I have more sensitivity?  Would my life be different?
Answer.....who the fuck cares.  If the fact that you didnt have a say in the matter of your circumcision really bothers you that much, then I think you are over-reacting.  This is just my opinion of course, but really?  Really?  Get over it and move on to far more important things....like using that hammer instead of lamenting the fact that some of the handle was shaved off as an infant.

[ehra]

Don't take away parents' rights to parent.  That's really what I'm getting at.  They should have the choice.  

I for one am happy that I didn't have the choice because I wouldn't want to go through the process now because it'd be painful.  So there, that's my argument using me as my example to match yours.  

The different between your example and mine is that you could still choose to have it done but you don't think the pain would be worth the supposed religious significance. I have no choice. And this has nothing to do with "parenting." A parent can still raise their kid Jewish regardless of if they have their foreskin attached or not. They could tell their kid how important being circumcised is to their relationship with God. This is really no different from the earlobe example I mentioned earlier, unless someone can point out some use they serve that I don't know about.

And why is it that on one hand we're saying that the process is completely unharmful to the kid, but now the argument for why parents should be able to make the decision is because it'd be too painful to do later? At what age is it acceptable to have it done? If a family decides later on that they're going to raise their 10 year old Jewish are they still well within their rights, or is it now cruel for putting the kid through that pain?

My point is this:  I am cut.  Would it have been better if I wasnt?  Would I have more sensitivity?  Would my life be different?
Answer.....who the fuck cares.  If the fact that you didnt have a say in the matter of your circumcision really bothers you that much, then I think you are over-reacting.  This is just my opinion of course, but really?  Really?  Get over it and move on to far more important things....like using that hammer instead of lamenting the fact that some of the handle was shaved off as an infant.

"derp a derp, just get laid." I guess that's what this thread is going to come to?

My point is that people shouldn't HAVE to "just get over it." The reasons for why it should be allowed are self contradictory; it's ok because it's not harmful and parents should be allowed to make the decision because it'd be too harmful to do later in life.

But apparently calmly arguing why something should or shouldn't be allowed means I'm outraged out of my mind. 

[El Barto]

Again, I'm not referring to possible risk of complications.  I'm referring to the possibility of decreased sensitivity, which nobody can confirm or deny.  If there are no medical benefits, then I see no reason to act on the general assumption that it won't decrease his enjoyment later on in life.

And as for parental choice, I think we all support that to a certain extent, but of course that specific extent is the tricky part, isn't it?  None of us would suggest that a parent can do whateverthehell they want with their child.  

Right, but in this case do we really need a law banning parents from making this decision, or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  That way we are still letting parents be parents, instead of making a law that takes that away for all people.

I agree completely.  As I've said, I'm opposed to the law.  I'm just equally opposed to the attitudes that are being thrown around in it's opposition.  When it comes to the parent's right to make the decision, I really don't see the difference between snip-snip and getting your baby daughter a tramp-stamp.  Yet I suspect that plenty of people would go absolutely bat-shit insane if you were to do that. 

[eric42434224]

Ehra;

Not saying you are outraged, but this does seem to be an important topic to you.  Are you sad or angry?  Have you expressed this to the ones that did this to you instead of on a Dream Theater Message Board?  Perhaps you should.  THEY are the ones you should have an issue with, not every parent and their choice.  Im glad mine did it, and I am glad they had the right as parents to make decisions for me as a child.

The issue is that you didnt want your parents to make that choice for you.  And it appears that you dont want parents to be able to make that choice period.  Too bad.  That decision is my right as a parent, and was their right as a parent.  There are plenty of people that are happy with the decision the parents made, and plenty that arent.  Thats life.  It is amazing to me how a flap of cock skin can be such a big issue for someone.

JMO.

[eric42434224]

Again, I'm not referring to possible risk of complications.  I'm referring to the possibility of decreased sensitivity, which nobody can confirm or deny.  If there are no medical benefits, then I see no reason to act on the general assumption that it won't decrease his enjoyment later on in life.

And as for parental choice, I think we all support that to a certain extent, but of course that specific extent is the tricky part, isn't it?  None of us would suggest that a parent can do whateverthehell they want with their child.  

Right, but in this case do we really need a law banning parents from making this decision, or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  That way we are still letting parents be parents, instead of making a law that takes that away for all people.

I agree completely.  As I've said, I'm opposed to the law.  I'm just equally opposed to the attitudes that are being thrown around in it's opposition.  When it comes to the parent's right to make the decision, I really don't see the difference between snip-snip and getting your baby daughter a tramp-stamp.  Yet I suspect that plenty of people would go absolutely bat-shit insane if you were to do that. 

If it were "normal" in this society, people wouldnt go bat shit.  Just like people dont go bat-shit with piercings, huge ear lobe thingys, neck rings, and tatoos in many tribal cultures.
It all comes down to what is acceptable in society.  Circumcision has been acceptable, with VERY negligible risks, for thousands of years.

[bosk1]

...or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  

Actually, the problem is just the opposite.  Most hospitals nowadays completely inundate birth parents with information about everything under the sun, including circumcision.  Some of the information is great.  Some of it is crap.  But the problem is that you get so much, most people just feel like it is information overload and toss the whole stack in the trash.  

[eric42434224]

...or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  

Actually, the problem is just the opposite.  Most hospitals nowadays completely inundate birth parents with information about everything under the sun, including circumcision.  Some of the information is great.  Some of it is crap.  But the problem is that you get so much, most people just feel like it is information overload and toss the whole stack in the trash.  

Dont even get me started on the Lactation Nazis.

[bosk1]

[El Barto]

...or do parents just need a little bit more awareness of the choice they are making.  Say a pamphlet at the hospital with facts and consequences supporting both sides so they can make an informed decision.  

Actually, the problem is just the opposite.  Most hospitals nowadays completely inundate birth parents with information about everything under the sun, including circumcision.  Some of the information is great.  Some of it is crap.  But the problem is that you get so much, most people just feel like it is information overload and toss the whole stack in the trash.  

And if you don't mind the inquiry, what was the well-researched conclusion in the Bosky household?  You guys do seem to be overly informed about such things.  

[7StringedBeast]

Don't take away parents' rights to parent.  That's really what I'm getting at.  They should have the choice. 

I for one am happy that I didn't have the choice because I wouldn't want to go through the process now because it'd be painful.  So there, that's my argument using me as my example to match yours. 

The different between your example and mine is that you could still choose to have it done but you don't think the pain would be worth the supposed religious significance. I have no choice. And this has nothing to do with "parenting." A parent can still raise their kid Jewish regardless of if they have their foreskin attached or not. They could tell their kid how important being circumcised is to their relationship with God. This is really no different from the earlobe example I mentioned earlier, unless someone can point out some use they serve that I don't know about.

And why is it that on one hand we're saying that the process is completely unharmful to the kid, but now the argument for why parents should be able to make the decision is because it'd be too painful to do later? At what age is it acceptable to have it done? If a family decides later on that they're going to raise their 10 year old Jewish are they still well within their rights, or is it now cruel for putting the kid through that pain?

I think you misunderstand.  I don't have the choice either.  I had it done when I was an infant.  And I'm happy about it.  I'm glad my parents got it done for me.  I am also not Jewish.

So my example is the perfect contradiction to yours.

It can go either way, so things should stay the same.  Like I said, just get people informed on their decision and let the parents choose like they do now.  Your parents had a choice.  So blame them for not picking the right one.  I don't know what else to tell you really.  I've made all my points that I want to make.

Also your earlobes are there to pick up higher frequency sounds.  You can hear more with your earlobes in place.

[bosk1]

We didn't do a ton of research on that.  Just enough to be comfortable.  We went with this option:


Not for religious reasons--I'm Jewish by birth, but not religion.  Just seemed like the benefits outweighed any very marginal and very slight potential downside.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

A parent can still raise their kid Jewish regardless of if they have their foreskin attached or not.

Well, I suppose you could be RAISED Jewish, but you wouldn't actually BE Jewish by Halachal law.

[ehra]

Ehra

It really isn't that big of a deal to me, but this is what the thread is about so of course my posts are going to focus on it. What I have or haven't discussed with my family after the fact really doesn't have anything to do with this thread (or at least what we're talking about, which is if it should have been done in the first place).

Also your earlobes are there to pick up higher frequency sounds.  You can hear more with your earlobes in place.

Huh, didn't know that.

A parent can still raise their kid Jewish regardless of if they have their foreskin attached or not.

Well, I suppose you could be RAISED Jewish, but you wouldn't actually BE Jewish by Halachal law.

It has to be done at birth for the person to be considered Jewish? Who would even check that? 

[bosk1]

Not at birth, but on the 8th day.

[ehra]

I think the most important realization I've come to with this thread is that Ike, by law is not actually Jewish. But then why was he allowed in Jew Scouts?

Mind = blown

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Well, the different sects of Judaism have different rules, but the Old rules say the male must be circumcised at 8 days

[Zook]

Is god circumsized?

[Adami]

Is god circumsized?

Yes.

[Zook]

So if we were created in his image, what's the deal with that flap o skin?