The CDC has formed a releasable idea on male circumcision: it’s just fine and in fact, good for the child.
The latest research on the topic states that the procedure can positively benefit the child in the long run in preventing disease and also cuts down on childhood urinary tract infections. Findings also report that the removal of the child’s foreskin can reduce the “breeding ground” area for bacteria that this particular patch of skin is sometimes considered. While it was confirmed ages ago that the practice primarily came into vogue due to religious and cultural prerequisites, decades of investigation have given scientists and physicians to positively state that a clipped foreskin is a healthy foreskin.
On male circumcision, Dr. Ronald Gray of John Hopkins University states:
“The evidence has gotten much stronger with the results of these trials of the potential benefits of circumcision.”
So, I guess what this is boiling down to is the fact that it’s considered genital mutilation when it’s done to women, but it’s supposed to be culturally acceptable (and healthy!) for it to be done to a young male child, boy or man? I’m not sure I agree with that double standard. I’m sure that clipping the clitoris off of a female is just as painful as slicing off a male’s foreskin, and interchangeably.
I discussed this very topic with my husband a few weeks ago and he took the traditional male route of wondering how “other kids” in school would react to seeing an uncircumcised penis on a child when their own was cut to begin with. I completely differed with him — I told him that as long as the child had been educated on all aspects, including, but not limited to proper hygiene and cultural acceptance of various types of life paths (and penises), there should be no question about it.
Regardless of the spread of disease and the heightened risk for infection, allegations which have always been in place since the topic of circumcision veered into taboo territory, I don’t think I’m going to be too quick to circumcise any male children I may birth in the future.
As many say, if we’re born with it, it must have a purpose somewhere along the line.
What bothers me most of all, however, is the double standard we have with male circumcision versus female circumcision. In all reality, they’re not so different, are they?
I know something even better than circumcision for reducing sexually transmitted diseases. It’s a called a fucking condom. No diseases and everybody gets to keep their body parts. Yay!
They’re really not different at all. Both barbaric, both unnecessary, and both should be stopped. Cutting off the foreskin to avoid UTIs is like removing the appendix and tonsils at birth because they might cause problems down the line. Not a perfect example though since removing the appendix would totally remove the risk of appendicitis but removing the foreskin would only reduce the incidence of UTIs but a small number. The benefits of keeping the penis intact far outweigh the minute benefits of cutting it up at birth.
I have to disagree. Male vs female genital mutilation are very, very different. Male circumcision serves a medical purpose, while female genital mutilation serves to make sex painful for the woman. I’m not saying that the acts themselves are different. They both involve surgically altering the genitals. But the intent is CLEARLY different. While cutting off the foreskin acts to prevent certain infections and diseases, cutting off the clitoris, scarring the vagina or sewing it shut does not do anything remotely medical. In most countries it’s done to prevent women from cheating on their husbands because sex would be extremely painful.
Actually, male circumcision had the intent of attempting to reduce masturbation. And now often has the ‘medical need’ intent of ‘i don’t want him to feel weird in the locker room’.
Screw intent.
I never understood that…do guys really have nothing better to do in high school than stare at each other’s dicks in the locker room? Where the hell did this “being made fun of” thing even come from?
“I never understood that…do guys really have nothing better to do in high school than stare at each other’s dicks in the locker room?”
Honestly? Not really. A lot of guys (I’d say most, but I can’t confirm that) have a fascination with penises (theirs and others). It has nothing to do with their sexual preference…I think it’s more of a dominance thing. If a guy has a penis that is bigger and looks “normal” they may well point out penises that are smaller or look “weird.” Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in the world, but I’ve seen it so many times, both in school and in the military, that it has to be a somewhat common phenomenon.
I disagree too. Male and female circumcision is very different. For a male, all that’s getting clipped is some skin. For a female, the clitoris is a mass of nerves and serves more functions than just being there. You can’t compare apples to oranges.
Sure you can. They’re both fruit. Just as both “appendages”, if you will, are sexual organs. With a similar amount of nerve bundles. Aha, comparison complete.
Some skin that includes a massive amount of nerve endings, and which is designed for protection. Yep, no point there!
I disagree. Male circumcision does not affect the ability of the mail to reach orgasm, and has many health benefits which you mentioned above. Female circumcision exists in many cultures for the purpose of depriving females of sexual enjoyment; a ‘rooting out’ of carnality. As far as I am able to understand it, it is another form of oppression of women.
Plus, an uncircumcised male penis is just difficult. Its difficult to keep clean and harder to keep an erection (because it hurts to have the skin pulled back), and that can be trying for both persons involved.
The main point is, they are very different, and should be considered differently. One can’t lump the barbaric and oppressive practice of female circumcision with the westernized procedure of male circumcision. They are different means to different ends.
Really????
Really???
I’m going to have to tell my guy that
ONE – his penis is just too difficult,
TWO – he is obviously dirty,
THREE – he will now commence to have difficulty in keeping an erection.
Now, I’m not a fortune teller, but I’m predicting that he is going to laugh himself silly. You see, he is Irish. And contrary to popular belief, outside of North America and the religions that require it, it just isn’t done.
Go figure. The rest of the world is wrong, huh?
And pssssssssst? Your little hypothesis about the difficulty in keeping an erection?
I am here to tell you THAT is total bullshit.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but I suspect you’re pulling it out of your ass.
This is just too funny. Thanks for the great laugh, anyway.
^^ What Blurry said ^^
I’ve heard some laughably ridiculous things about intact penises but difficulty holding an erection is a new one for me. If anything it would be the other way around since a cut penis is less sensitive to sexual stimulation. My husband is intact and his is like a puppy; you just need to say “up boy!” and up it comes.
And on a totally facetious note I’m laughing at the mail reaching orgasm and now have an image similar to the letters from Hogwarts shooting through the slot in the first Harry Potter movie stuck in my head. Funniest typo I’ve seen in a while.
Oh. my. God.
The visual of the mail flying through the mail slot on Harry Potter has me just about hysterical. I just might pee.
Nobody likes a difficult penis.
Huh? Uhm, I’ll just make it short and agree with Blurry and Rhonda.
Wow. Have you ever even seen an uncircumcised penis? Because nothing you’re saying sounds anything like reality.
Sigh.
And you are woefully misinformed.
Look at the last segment done on female circumcision on Zelda Lily. I posted a link of a circumcision being performed on a baby boy.
Folks, it is not pretty.
Now I’m not saying that female circumcision is okay, it isn’t – not in my book. But neither is male circumcision.
By the way, my son is 20, uncut and has yet to have ANY kind of genitourinary infection.
Neither has my 30 year old uncut husband…
Neither has my 31 year old hubby or 4 year old son. Probably because they bathe…
I still can’t make up my mind. I asked my bf, who is circumcised, what he thought about it and whether he thought it could be considered mutilation, but he didn’t seem to think it was that big of a deal. And UTIs suck. A lot.
However, if I ever have a baby boy I’ll just have to talk it over with his daddy. I figure it would probably just be best to leave it as is I suppose. No reason to get him circumcised, really.
:-/ I’m Jewish, so my sons (if i have any) will be circumcised when they are 8 days old, with family surrounding them and a Maneschewitz-dipped finger in their mouth. None of the men in my life (that i know are cut) have had any sort of issue with it, and it is important to me to follow the traditions of my people.
actually, funny story. the other day my boyfriend asked me if he was circumcised. He. Didn’t. Know. So, yeah. He is. I’d have to ask his mom (um, no) but he probably had it done at or close to birth. it obviously did not impact him much. So…while I don’t discount those people who say it is unnecessary mutilation, I really don’t see it as being a huge deal. I mean, one of my exes actually had one at age 23 because he felt weird being uncut. He enjoyed sex just fine after. *shrug*
and anyone who wants to do it at age 23 for any reasons at all is welcome to go for it. While it is certainly not as impeding as the sewing up of women, the fact is that it is still unnecessary removal of a body part inflicted on an infant.
I don’t think parents have the right to make cosmetic decisions like that for their sons any more than their daughters.
Once the child is an adult, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own bodies.
That’s really unfortunate. Yes, chopping off the skin makes things a little easier to clean, and reduces disease transmission.
But you see, teaching your son *how to use soap and water*, and correctly employing condoms serve those functions just fine.
Anyone who can’t keep an intact penis clean, probably couldn’t keep a cut one clean either. Hygiene isn’t that complicated.
There’s also an increased chance for infection before the cut heals. My nephew was born three months after my son was and my sister in law called me to ask if I had any trouble with the ointment or keeping him clean until he healed.
I told her we had no problems like that at all because he wasn’t circumcised.
I just love the section in baby books and websites dealing with care of the newborn penis. The section on cut penises is always paragraphs long. The intact penis section pretty much says to wipe it down and don’t tug on the foreskin.
What about this one:
“People care way too much about this little piece of skin,” said Mark Alanis of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, who has written a history of circumcision. “At the end of the day, it’s unlikely to significantly change your child’s life for better or worse.”
http://jezebel.com/5452117/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-that-is-the-question
It might change their life if they’re one of the lucky ones who loses part or all of their penis or dies as a result of the procedure. Sure it’s a small chance but why would you risk your baby’s life like that?
I agree with you. I just put the quote up, because people give medical reasons for the cut. This guy seems like a good source against that. Cutting is not going to really impact the kid in a beneficial way when it comes to health.
If I ever had a boy it wouldn’t even cross my mind. I’m a German living in Denmark, around here it’s just not done (well, unless you have a cultural or religious reason). It’s not even a topic that’s discussed.
Chopping off the clitoris is like chopping off the head of the penis, sex-wise. Just FYI, that’s not what circumcision does.
No, it’s not. At all.
Cutting off the head of the penis would be life threatening and would stop you from urinating or having sex without some sort of medical intervention.
The foreskin and the clitoris both contain nerves that make sex feel good. Men can have orgasms without foreskin the way some women can have orgasms without clitoral stimulation.
Circumcision of women is worse because most women need clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm. But they can have sex and urinate without a clitoris.
Psst
the urethra isn’t contained solely in the head
But if you chop off the head there would be scar tissue issues and so on. I imagine getting the penis to function properly after chopping the head off would be extremely tricky. Men would probably have to sit to pee and sex would be totally boring.
I have to disagree as well. Male circumcision removes only the foreskin, not his sexual organ. This would be akin to a female’s labia.
Young girls have their clitoris removed, not their labia. It isn’t just a piece of skin. The clitoris = the chance to enjoy the sensation of sex and climax.
The foreskin is actually part of a man’s sexual organ. It contains as many nerve endings as a clitoris.
It’s not an “extra” bit of skin.
Okay.
So, if I follow this logic – we need to start cutting off all infant girl’s labia.
Try as you might, there is no rationalization for circumcision – male or female.
Coming back to medical reasons. My uneducated guess would be that yes it makes sense in areas where water and thus chances to be able to wash yourself are scarce, hence the tradition of circumsition in the Jewish Religion.
HOWEVER, this is not the case in any of the industrialized countries, where people (should) wash themselves daily and thus clean out any of the bacteria that might be down there.
I’m confused by those protesting that cutting off the clitoris and cutting off the foreskin are not the same thing. Did someone say they were? Just because they vary in terms of pain and future effect doesn’t mean that one is very wrong and one is okay.
It’s not okay to maim puppies. And although it is not as bad to kick puppies, it’s still not okay. Both are forms of violence against puppies.
Does the comparison between FGM and circumcision make more sense now?
The scientific research into the health ‘benefits’ of circumcision seem to be missing a step. Yes, removing the foreskin may result in less UTIs. But you could remove many parts of the body and claim it would prevent future health issues. Remove a few of my fingers, and I’m guaranteed to have less hangnails. Remove some of my teeth, and I’ll have fewer cavities. I’d probably be no worse for the wear for both procedures, but I don’t think anyone would be willing to undergo an unnecessary cosmetic procedure just to prevent a potential issue which is easily treatable.
From my experience, parents typically chose to circumcise their boys due to cosmetic purposes. And I personally happen to think that no matter what you do to the penis, it’s still going to be a somewhat unattractive organ.
As for myself, I would never even consider circumcising a child of mine. I do not want one of the first messages I deliver to my son to be “Well my dear, we don’t quite like the way your genitals look, so we’re going to snip them up a bit to make them look tidier to those who may see you naked in the future”.
A bit like cutting the tails off of certain breeds of puppies, isn’t it?
“What bothers me most of all, however, is the double standard we have with male circumcision versus female circumcision. In all reality, they’re not so different, are they?”
Yeah uh Sarah said they were
Saying they are not so different, is not saying the are the same.
See puppy example.
This topic makes me wish there were more male zeldalily readers, I would like to know their views on the subject, whether or not they got cut and if they wish they had/hadn’t been.
It’s all gravy baby
I can tell you that my husband is mostly bemused by the idea. He doesn’t understand why anyone would snip off a bit of their child’s penis.
” And I personally happen to think that no matter what you do to the penis, it’s still going to be a somewhat unattractive organ.
I have to rate myself on the other end of the scale on this comment.
That would explain why some are difficult,its not easy being a penis.
I think most of you are missing the point here. The foreskin is very small and while sensitive, does not determine whether a man can orgasm. Many studies of men who have been uncircumcised and then gotten circumcised later say they noticed little difference in intensity between the two. My theology teacher, back when I was in Catholic school, put it this way. The foreskin and the clitoris are not the same, the clitoris is the equivalent of the male penis. Using this logic, a good equivalent to the foreskin would be the clitoral hood, which does contain many nerve endings and serves to protect an unerect clitoris. While I am in no way advocating for the removal of the clitoral hood, it would be equivalent to male circumcision. Removing the clitoris would be like chopping off a man’s penis. Also, everyone that is talking about having all of a baby’s penis removed by the one performing the circumcision, where are you getting this stuff? While there is definitely a possibility for infection, this is extremely rare, at least in the developed world, as most circumcisions are performed by trained professionals in sanitary environments. The cases of needing to lose part of your penis as a result of a botched circumcision are extremely, extremely rare. Indeed, I agree with the commenter who says there should be more male commenters, but also there should be more informed commenters.
So it’s OK to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an infant’s penis because the risk of serious side effects is rare? If doctors told parents that they want to perform a wholly unnecessary and painful operation to remove part of their baby’s penis and that there was a small chance of death or disfigurement then most parents would refuse and kick the doctor out of the room.
I’ve done my research and I know what I’m talking about. I have several friends who are medical professionals including nurses, midwifes, and doctors and not a single one is for circumcision.
“Using this logic, a good equivalent to the foreskin would be the clitoral hood, which does contain many nerve endings and serves to protect an unerect clitoris. While I am in no way advocating for the removal of the clitoral hood, it would be equivalent to male circumcision.”
So, what are you saying?
Make up your mind. I, and most of the rest of the civilized world, feel that circumcision – male OR female is unnecessary surgery.
Whether it is performed in a mud floored hut in Africa, or a clean hospital nursery, it is still barbaric.
And RIDICULOUS!
My mind is made up. I am pro-circ, because I think it is worth it to try and reduce potential health risks (especially AIDS transmission, as doctors have seen a reduced rate of spreading in areas where circumcision is more prevalent), but I would never make anyone get circumcised if they didn’t want to, because it mostly doesn’t make a difference. It is certainly not genital mutilation; cutting off a penis or a clitoris is mutilation, removing a foreskin is not. By your logic most Muslim and Jewish many and many American men are mutilated. That is just bs. I am circumcised and there is nothing wrong with my penis, trust me. I don’t know where you get your info, but many of the anti-circ people are the same sort of people that hang out in fundamentalist churches and spread lies about abortion. Maybe you better check your “sources.” You should take a page from Sara. Even though she and I do not agree about circumcision, we both realize it is not genital mutilation.
As far as I know, babies can’t voice their opinion about circumcision. Other than, you know, screaming their fucking heads off when it’s happening.
So, how is that not circumcising somebody who doesn’t want it?
And since a penis is, in fact, genitals, and they are being cut, it’s mutilation.
A condom is a much better way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases than cutting off part of an unconsenting baby’s penis.
An important consideration to your stance is whether circumcism and decreased prevalence of AIDs is a direct correlation. It’s very likely an indirect connection. To elaborate, the same factors that have influenced a country to perform such an act have also but very separately created a decrease in AIDs. Perhaps if their medical practices are advanced enough to successfully perform a circumcision, they also happen to have the medical and common knowledge of how to prevent the transmission of AIDs. Perhaps a culture sexually liberal enough to remove the foreskin of a small child in a ceremony open to extended family and friends is also liberal enough to speak to their children about safe sex practices and the risks of being sexually active. Perhaps the missionaries who brought the practice to a foreign culture have also brought with them condoms. It’s a slight but very impacting difference.
It’s difficult to think of ones penis as “mutilated” but the use of that word isn’t completely off base. It can be quite a violent act. Yes, in the US it is usually done in a very sterile environment with doctors in a fancy smancy hospital but it is still rather painful for the child. There is bleeding. There is crying. Part of the human body is being removed while the child is still conscious often without the use of anesetic. Most doctors pop a sugar coated pasifier in the baby’s mouth and that’s about it. Things have gone wrong. Penises have been irreparably disfigured. Children have died. There was recently an outcry over the deaths of many infants who ended up contracting herpes (a lethal virus for an infant) due to the traditional Jewish practice of orally removing the blood from the penis. Cold sores in the Rabbis mouths’ were the cause of death. Circumcision has been around for thousands of years, well before we understood proper medical and ethical practices.
If you look at the definition – “Mutilation is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.” Yes, perhaps now in our culture we are accepting and even find a cut penis aesthetically pleasing however it does change both the function and appearance of the penis. The foreskin has a purpose. Some would state that it degrades the appearance of the penis. Many Europeans are horrified with how they look. The culture you are currently socialized in believes it looks good and being in the majority holds a lot of power over what is seen as normal vs. abnormal but I do believe that male circumcision is mutilation. My only point was that I don’t believe it is to quite the same degree as with females because of everything I mentioned in my previous post.
You’re only trying to detach the word mutilation for two reasons. 1, you don’t want to think of your own penis as being something ruined or mutilated, perfecting fair and understandable. It certainly functions properly and many women and men definitely find it attractive. 2, you’re assuming that so many many people would never go along with “mutilation” therefore it must be something else. Yet, millions of people used to go along with foot binding, neck stretching, and hundreds of other forms of body modification. Just because most people accept it doesn’t mean it isn’t mutilation.
Please don’t bring me onto your side without fully comprehending my stance. ;-)
Whether you remove part of the penis (the foreskin) or the whole penis it’s still mutilation. I understand that it’s unpleasant to think of it like that as a circumcised male because nobody wants to think their parents willingly allowed a doctor to mutilate their genitals but that doesn’t make it any less true.
As Alzaetia pointed out the vast majority of circumcision are performed on people who are far too young to give consent. It’s potentially dangerous cosmetic surgery being performed on infants. The risks are much higher than doctors would have you believe. The really serious problems like loss of penis are rare but excess blood loss is really quite common. Infants are tiny little humans and they only need to lose a few tablespoons of blood before they need a transfusion.
The only reason so many American’s think it’s not barbaric is that it’s the norm. If there were a country where infant has their pinky toes hacked off at birth there would be a huge outcry in the US no doubt. Why the fuss? It’s just a small part of their body and wholly unnecessary, just like the foreskin. Actually the pinky toe is even less useful than the foreskin and personally I think a foot missing a toe looks a lot less weird than a penis missing a foreskin.
Sara, WTF are you talking about, Rabbis using their mouths to remove blood from the penis? Jews are FORBIDDEN to consume blood. At all. Orthodox Jews check every egg they eat to make sure there is not one little blood spot. so I’m horrified to hear that you heard somewhere that a Jewish man would put blood in his mouth. Please link to the article where you saw that.
I was a bit confused about the weird Jewish vampire bjs too. Are we sure that actually happens?
…never mind. apparently it is a very rare ritual called metzitzah b’peh, practiced among only a few sects of Judaism, where the mohel (the trained person who does circumcisions for Jews) sucks the blood from the wound and then spits it out. EWWWWW. but since the herpes thing, it’s become VERY controversial. Also, that is a very RARE thing–i can assure you the majority of mohels don’t do it that way. so that can’t be an argument against circumcision. wikipedia has a lot of info on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah.
“so that can’t be an argument against circumcision.”
The best, most valid, and frankly, the only necessary argument against circumcision is consent.
Babies cannot and do not consent to circumcision.
Any grown man who want to be circumcised should be free to do that. And babies should be free to be uncut until such a time as they are able to consent to the procedure.
No amount of “pros” or “cons” can successfully trump the very real fact that this is done to babies who have not consented.
They are VERY different. When a boy is circumcised the pain he endures it only during and for a short time after the procedure. Female circumcision was originally done because it was believed that if would deter women from being unfaithful to their husbands because sex would become less enjoyable and actually often painful. They were done for two completely different reasons with completely different results.
Sara?
Where are you getting your information? Other than what your Grandma told you, or you heard in the grocery store, etc.
Please provide some documentation, okay?
Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No worries. Most people aren’t well versed in this topic and I appreciate the chance to have an intelligent debate and discourse. It’s what keeps us all conscious.
In regards to male or female circumcision?
The World Health Organization classifies female genital mutilation in three separate categories. Type 1 is removal of the clitoris and hood. Type 2 also includes part of the labia. Type 3 is the most severe and involves a narrowing of the vagina, among other things. It often makes childbirth painful and more dangerous for the woman.
Many organizations have taken to calling it female mutilation or cutting because it involves so much more than simple removal of skin. Yes, the male foreskin has ample nerve endings in it but when done properly, it does not interfere with normal sexual behavior or pose a continuous health threat. It’s also done when the boy is still an infant. Many doctors will refuse to circumcise an adult male whereas with females it’s predominately done during the adolescent and adult years.
It has been documented that it is, in some cultures, performed to keep the child “pure” until marriage, to quell sexual urges, keep women loyal to their husbands and some cultures even wrongfully believe it will decrease the chances of contracting aids.
Hello?
Anyone in there?
Just because FGM is horrible does NOT make MGM okay.
Got it?
I never said that I agree with MGM. I don’t believe in unnecessary surgery, period, but it’s also not fair to compare it to FGM. At this point I would not circumcise my child. That being said I’ve never heard of a woman regretting not being circumcised but some men prefer to be and regret not being “cut”. My brother was adopted and long story short by the time my parents had custody he was too old to be circumcised. He adamantly wishes he was and even contacted a doctor but cannot find one willing to do it. He wants it done partly due to hygiene (he’s had multiple UTIs and serious complications when he had to have a catheter for several months after an auto accident), had difficult time properly using condoms and have gotten mixed reactions form women. I wish our society could be more open minded to un-cut penises and would not circumcise my child just because I believe society dictated it. MGM is unnecessary in our current day and age and I am doubtful it ever really had health benefits. However, I believe it’s inappropriate to compare it to FGM.
http://www.veoh.com/collection/Circumcision/watch/e176471PJGJ6FGQ
This is a shortened video.
The next is even a bit more graphic.
http://www.strimoo.com/video/17254445/Hospital-Infant-Circumcision-Part-1-Veoh.html
Sara, I’m sorry that I was so snappy with you. It’s just that I know that most people have no idea what is involved.
I have a couple of links , but they are awaiting moderation. Providing they are approved – please take the time to watch them both.
It is an eye opener.
Circumcision should be mandatory. It prevents cancer of the vulva, reduces urinary tract infection, and quite frankly an uncircumcised vagina looks weird and stinks. There’s no medical study proving that uncircumcised women have more sexual sensation. 100 million women are happily circumcised and plan to give their daughters the same benefit. It’s a parental right to circumcise your children: we all have to make decisions about our children, like vaccinations, cutting their hair, heck just what to feed them. Now in the U.S. labiaplasty is becoming very popular. Shouldn’t it be done in infancy when the pain won’t be remembered? Heck, I’m circumcised and I’m not missing anything!
If you’re circumcised then you’re missing something by definition because parts of your body have been surgically removed. If you think the human body looks weird without cosmetic surgery then you need a serious attitude adjustment. I pity your daughters.
Um….I thoroughly enjoy my labia and clitoris. Every piece of skin I was born with is just fine and doesn’t cause me a bit of pain or lack of health. I pity your daughters, too.
And don’t use “GoodMom” as your screen name. It makes it seems as though the rest of us are “BadMoms.”
Oh Good Grief. It’s a sad day when sarcasm so closely matches reality that it’s mistaken for the real thing. Seriously, there are web sites that promote female circumcision along the lines I gave above. That’s not so far out: these are basically the reasons given for male genital mutilation, aka male circumcision.
Oh thank goodness! I read your post half a dozen times trying to decide if you were serious or not. Very well done, just a bit too subtle for me at this hour of the afternoon. I think I like you :-)
When I gave birth a few weeks ago, the dr. asked 2 questions to which I replied in a horrified way “No, absolutely not!”
1. Tubal ligation for you? (vasectomy for hubby when we are done)
2. Circumcision for your son? (he can do that himself if he decides he wants that)
It’s not about it being close to reality. It’s that you can find EVERYTHING on the internet.
And sarcasm just doesn’t come through in text.
Ya had me on this one also!!! Since I don’t remember reading any other comments with that screen name, I had no idea what *sarcasm* meant to you or any sense of your personality.
And your absouletely correct in saying “It’s a sad day when sarcasm so closely matches reality that it’s mistaken for the real thing.”
I’m mildly annoyed about this, because I don’t think a parent should be able to opt to have a body part of their child removed unless it’s of immediate medical concern (such as having your appendix out). I know when I was born my parents weren’t even consulted. My mother was still unconscious and my father wasn’t present at the time (he had to go pick up his mother and bring her to the hospital), so they circumcised me just on principle. Apparently there was some sort of form my mother had to fill out to exempt me from the procedure, which she didn’t know about. Regardless, the end result is I was circumcised without my parents knowing about it (although my mother says she would have probably had me done anyway, she was just angry that no one told her about it).
I’m a little peeved myself, but not enough to go suing folks or anything. I do know that I am not going to have any of my sons circumcised. If they get older and decide they want it done, that’s their business.
Pingback: Accidental Circumcision Creating a Stir in Florida – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra
With havin so much content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright violation? My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know any techniques to help reduce content from being stolen? I’d truly appreciate it.