A Body Should Not Have Parts Pre-Hacked
If you, once you can talk and make rational decisions, decide that you want to have a part of your body sliced off, well, have at it. Before that time, unless there's some medical need, nobody should be hacking off any bits of your body.
There's a battle by divorced parents in Israel over whether their young male child should be circumcised. The mother stands against circumcision; the father is demanding the kid have his foreskin hacked off. There's a piece (in need of a copyeditor) by Rebecca Wald at an anti-circ blog called Beyond the Bris. An excerpt:
Rebecca Steinfeld, a political scientist at SOAS, University of London, who has written and broadcast on the history and ethics of circumcision, told me she sees it another way. "If the rabbinical judges coerce Elinor into circumcising her son, her right to freedom of conscience would be violated," she said. "By compelling her to irreversibly remove a healthy part of her son's genitals without his consent, the rabbinical judges would also undermine her son's rights to bodily integrity--a cornerstone of post-Holocaust human rights law--and an open future, since he would have to live forever with his father's and the judges' choice."Steinfeld points out that "most criticisms of the rabbinical judgment focus solely on the violation of the mother's rights, but it is important to remember that the child's rights would also be undermined if Israel's High Court of Justice fails to overturn this unprecedented ruling."
I was circumcised when I was too young to remember, and you know what? I'm glad I was. I'd hate to have to pull back some obnoxious foreskin every time I pee or have sex. And how many times would I forget to clean under there when I took a shower?
mpetrie98 at December 28, 2013 11:59 PM
In this case, there's a back-story: this woman only "discovered" her anti-circumcision stance after she began divorce proceedings.
I don't have to tell The Goddess that one of the major tragedies/travesties of our time has been the twisting of traditional Jewish law by vindictive, grasping combatants in ugly divorces.
This woman is no heroine. She tried to use this issue as a wedge in an already nasty divorce.
That is why the religious court came down hard on her - despite many, uhhhh, circumspect rulings on the issue as a result of waves of Soviet and South American immigration to Israel.
Ben David at December 29, 2013 1:59 AM
I love this one! Let's do this! Of all the mundane, meaningless tropes that have found space on Amy's blog over the years, this one will always be special!
This is the trope wherein the least-socialized men in the United States show up (out of nowhere!) to argue that it's an important civil rights matter, and that nobody cares, and that all the bitterness and resentment in their hearts is based on something other than their own incompetence! …Because the interior world plays no part in their development!
…Because 'They cut my unit, Man!'
Good times! Game on!
What's weird is that —quite aside from the fractured personalities we'd expect to show up for this seasonal treat— there's an array of distinct but unfamiliar names who'll show up and somehow feel right at home... As if they know where to find the ashtrays and the restrooms and the busboy station, even though their signatures haven't appeared since LAST time Amy posted one of these.
(As if they were the usual commenters, but were righteously afraid of being judged on their feelings about this topic.)
I love that.
The routines of this topic are so comet-like, so dependable, that a conspiracy theorist might presume there's a blog-content service that puts this topic on the calendar.
Or, the theorist might presume that human nature breeds ninnies.
Okay! READY!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 2:14 AM
the twisting of traditional Jewish law
This "traditional Jewish law" likely came out of other cultures, including primitive ones, and is backward and primitive.
Because something has been done isn't reason to continue doing it.
Those of you who prefer to be without parts of your body can choose to hack them off. Lest you prefer to keep a part of your body, the decision to remove it should be made when you are an adult or at an age where you can make decisions for yourself.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 6:26 AM
I was done aged a few days with no anesthesia other than a rubber nipple filled with brains sugar and brandy! And of course I remember nothing. We did not circumcise our son for all the reasons you suggest. BUT aged 3 he had an infection and had to be circumcised - long story - recovery aged 3 was traumatic and very painful. My wife's grandfather had the same issue in his 70' s again nightmare recovery. An ultra minor deal as an infant. This is not the same as female circumcision in any way and need not be compared with it. And the risks? Even anecdotally I have never heard of a problem. The upside? Much lower infection rates for men and for their partners.
Rob Paterson at December 29, 2013 6:44 AM
I cannot think how "Brains" got into my comment
Rob Paterson at December 29, 2013 6:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4159578">comment from Rob PatersonActually, risks from circumcision INCLUDE infection - or loss of the penis.
This is a medically unnecessary procedure.
You'd also have less likelihood of an infected pinkie through a cut and possible sepsis later in life if we cut it off. Shall we?
Again, this is a barbaric and medically unnecessary procedure done on the unconsenting. It is wrong.
Circumcision is painful to the child. You're wounding your baby right after birth. How sick.
Myths and realities here: http://intactamerica.org/learnmore
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 6:49 AM
I just don't feel passionately about this topic.
If your kid has a Jewish dad, you should expect circumcision. It should not be a big deal.
And it is not exactly equivalent to female genital mutilation which few seem to make a big stink about after the Arabs started flying planes into buildings and chopping off heads.
My husband was circumsized. Our son, was not. My father was not at birth, but then was when he entered the army during World War II.
There is some evidence it protects against AIDs and some other sexually transmitted diseases.
The way it is done in a hospital seems low risk enough. On the other hand, some drunken rabbi wielding a bare knife, could be higher risk.
Isab at December 29, 2013 7:22 AM
crid:
But you're so inviting and friendly to opposing views, why ever would anyone be a regular reader without being a regular commenter?
We could go through the details again. It might be fun. I (foolishly?) think you can come around to understanding, if not accepting, the facts. But I suspect that's not going to happen here. So it goes.
I do have one update, since, as a long-time reader/rare commenter, we're not a couple of regular pals here. On one of these threads in the past, you said I should read "The Culture of Complaint" by Robert Hughes as a critique of my thinking on circumcision, and that it was an analysis that "does not flatter me." I purchased and read it as you suggested. Sadly, I don't have my copy close by, so I can't refer to my notes. I didn't take from it what you implied I should have. Your interpretation that it supports your approach to circumcision as an issue wasn't there to take.
Anyway, hi again!
Tony at December 29, 2013 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4159795">comment from IsabIf your kid has a Jewish dad, you should expect circumcision. It should not be a big deal.
Why?
If your little girl has a Muslim dad should you "expect" female circumcision?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 8:35 AM
Here is an article discussing Amy and suggesting attitudes about circumcision should be more relaxed.
http://itrd.blogspot.com/2011/04/topic-i-wish-i-could-just-nip-in-bud.html
Nick at December 29, 2013 9:23 AM
Hi, "Tony!"
> But you're so inviting and friendly to
> opposing views
Everyone would agree that nothing is better indicative of the righteousness and importance of a proposition discussed on Amy's blog than my receptivity to opposing views Right?
So you're saying courage of conviction —the willingness to be identified with a belief— is inapplicable as a measure of certitude in this matter... Um, for some reason. …Because your arguments require "hospitality" and "friendliness" before their merits can persuade.
But it's not like you're afraid of being wrong or anything. Right?
Cosh sent us all a wonderful aphorism last night, one from a favorite source.
It's difficult to imagine that your reticence is somehow noble. Mockery has cleansing powers for topics like this, issues for which adults seek cover behind childish disregard for language (e.g., "Healthy!" ~ Amy) and for competing interests.
Thinking about it just now, this topic feels like yet another natural fit for the years of the Obama administration. Because Hope!, etc... Centralized policy solutions for all of life's sorrows, and our burdens are never real. (Remember that woman? "Barack Obama's gonna pay my rent...!")
Goddamn right you're ashamed, "Tony."
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 10:45 AM
I have four sons and all are circumcised. Being Jewish had nothing to do with our decision. My ex husband is circumcised and we did our research on this as well as immunizations, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, etc.
The risk of infection and just uncleanliness was a huge concern as well as my boys feeling "different" from all the other boys in the locker room. Teens and young men have plenty of things to be unsure of as they mature and begin having sex. They don't need to also be shunned by young women or teased by their teammates.
We did take a stand on the vitamin K routinely given at birth. That has it's own risks many new parents don't take the time to investigate. We waited until the eighth day of life when natural clotting is at its highest and then had a doc do it.
I have dated two men who still had their foreskins. Erect there is not a noticeable difference but not erect is not appealing visually...to me anyway. Knowing my boys, they would be furious had their dad and I left that decision to them...to make them face pain and personal humiliation to just be what they perceive as "normal". We, my boys and ex, have no regrets but everyone is different ;)
julie at December 29, 2013 10:54 AM
If your little girl has a Muslim dad should you "expect" female circumcision?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 8:35 AM
It isnt a "muslim" thing. It is an African, Arab, tribal thing, primarily performed and enforced by "the women" in the culture. So, yes, if I as a man, was dumb enough to marry into this kind of barbaric culture, I would expect it to be performed on my daughters.
However, the two proceedures are not equivelent. A circumcision, is performed by a trained professional. Female genital mutilation, is usually a rusty pocket knife, in a grass hut with those "opressed women" holding the victim down.
And unlike circumcision it has no known benefits. A substantial number of victims die of infection.
Isab at December 29, 2013 10:55 AM
And what happens if the Mohel has an oopsie?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530755/Jewish-Rabbi-sued-accidentally-SEVERING-newborn-baby-boys-penis-Bris-Ceremony.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Robert at December 29, 2013 11:05 AM
> what happens if the Mohel has an oopsie?
In the most general terms, we can concede (and can even affirm) that when a child is maimed, what you got afterwards is a maimed child.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 11:17 AM
By the way, this blog post meets the standard described here.
Tada! I said it wouldn't take long: 'Leven days!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 11:37 AM
@Isab
Isab said: "It isnt a "muslim" thing. It is an African, Arab, tribal thing,"
Not at all. There are plenty of muslims who see it as a religious obligation. See:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/
Isab said: "enforced by "the women" in the culture."
Much like MGM is enforced by men in the cultures where it's performed.
Isab said: "However, the two proceedures are not equivelent. A circumcision, is performed by a trained professional. Female genital mutilation, is usually a rusty pocket knife, in a grass hut with those "opressed women" holding the victim down."
They certainly are equivalent, they're different sides of the same coin. You think what is called "FGM" is always or "usually" performed as you describe? See the above and think again. In Africa, yes that may be true but not in all places where it's performed. And for what it's worth in places where FGM is done in conditions you describe, MGM is often performed in the same poor conditions with the same unhygienic methods.
Joe at December 29, 2013 11:57 AM
Crid:
My "reticence" is based on my general lack of time to regularly participate in a meaningul way. Perhaps one day we'll pause and you can give me tips on time management.
Instead, you jumped to the idea that I have a character defect, and will take the coward's way any time it gets difficult. Sure, that's convenient for you, I suppose. But if you want to see an example of someone being reticent to defend a position, go back and reread some of those earlier threads on circumcision. Notice the way you started frothing when I (and Amy, among others) presented facts you didn't like. (e.g. Circumcision is always harmful, but whether it's a net harm or not is subjective to the individual recipient.) I didn't run then. I'm here now. Want me to defend my example on harm? Any other position? Ask.
I do love your broad, random, nonsensical asides, though. That's really why I jumped into this one. This topic is another natural fit for the Obama years? Centralized policy solutions? What the hell are you rambling about? The only centralized solution here is the one where parents force circumcision on a healthy boy. Someone decides for you without consideration for you as an individual. (i.e. centralization)
My "policy" solution is that we enforce existing laws against battery, and the equal rights implication of existing laws against non-therapeutic female genital cutting. So, basically, we stop ignoring facts. Some policy expansion...
Tony at December 29, 2013 12:01 PM
> (e.g. Circumcision is always harmful
Poof... Suddenly I'm reminded of the childishness of your argument, and the sporting element is deflated entirely.
Have fun out there!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 12:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4160215">comment from julieThe risk of infection and just uncleanliness was a huge concern
Rather than teach your kids to wash, you have somebody hack off a part of their bodies?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 12:50 PM
The risk of infection and just uncleanliness was a huge concern
Rather than teach your kids to wash, you have somebody hack off a part of their bodies?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 12:50 PM
I kmow this seems impossible to imagine, from 21st century southern California, but there are many climates, and environments where personal cleanliness is darn near impossible to maintain.
And when you are in a war, or a primative enviroment, saying you should be smart enough not to go there is not an adequate answer.
Isab at December 29, 2013 1:04 PM
Amy Alkon said: "Rather than teach your kids to wash, you have somebody hack off a part of their bodies?"
It's hard to believe the excuses that are used to justify MGM, it's not "clean", it might get "infected", ect. The kind of excuses you'd never see unless you were trying to justify an existing practice. The idea that there is a "cleanliness" or whatever concern is absurd on it's face but in the unlikely event that there was any substance to such a concern, it read to me as: "We have no faith in our son's ability to maintain himself so we're going to surgically remove parts of his body."
Joe at December 29, 2013 1:12 PM
"Not at all. There are plenty of muslims who see it as a religious obligation"
Yes, but it is not a tenant of Islam, and it crosses religious lines. There are African Christians, and native religions that practice it as well. That was my point.
The fact that some Muslims see it as a religious obligation, means nothing unless you want to blame all Muslims both for things that are tenants of their religion that they don't do, and those things that aren't part of their religion that they do.
Culture is the driver here, as usual, not religion. Religion is cultural, as is circumcision,
Isab at December 29, 2013 1:15 PM
Isab said: "I kmow this seems impossible to imagine, from 21st century southern California, but there are many climates, and environments where personal cleanliness is darn near impossible to maintain.
And when you are in a war, or a primative enviroment, saying you should be smart enough not to go there is not an adequate answer."
This is a crock Isab. Routine circumcision is unheard of in nearly all of Europe, non-muslim Asia, Australia, South and Central America. It only became common in some Anglican countries within the last 100 years or so before which it was equally rare in all the aforementioned places plus North America. And in none of these places, whether because of climate, soldiering, or other circumstances did it ever come up as something that should or had to be done. It is strictly linked to religious dogma.
Joe at December 29, 2013 1:19 PM
Crid, do you think we'll go over a 100 comments again?
We have been here before. I won't bore with my same posts from last time. I still feel I have better sex without the extra skin and don't blame my parents for doing it. It is a decision that today requires parental thought and research. I will respect their decision.
Dave B at December 29, 2013 1:31 PM
"It is strictly linked to religious dogma"
If you were actually a medical historian, you would know this is incorrect.
The US government performed circumcision routinely on people entering the military, at least up until World War II, and they did not do it because all the doctors were Jewish.
You must have missed the part where I said that my son, is uncircumcised by my choice, when he was born.
This doesn't make it dangerous or ill advised for other people in other climates, whose risks differ from ours.
Why you want to make this choice for other parents and other people is beyond me.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
Isab at December 29, 2013 1:33 PM
Isab said: "Yes, but it is not a tenant of Islam, and it crosses religious lines. There are African Christians, and native religions that practice it as well. That was my point."
The fact is, it depends who you ask. There are plenty of muslim secs that do feel it's an integral part of their faith. MGM crosses religious line too, coptic christians in Egypt, and American christians for that matter perform circumcision despite any religious requirement to do so.
You also are misrepresenting how it's done in some of the places where it is performed. In Indonesia, it's often done by doctors in a hospital. That is true for other countries where those resources are available. It's not always rusty razors, mud huts, and force. The bottom line is, what we have here, are two sides of the same coin.
There is one crucial difference, routine MGM took root in the a very limited number of western countries and it's for that reason alone that the practice is permuted to persist.
Isab said: "The fact that some Muslims see it as a religious obligation, means nothing unless you want to blame all Muslims both for things that are tenants of their religion that they don't do, and those things that aren't part of their religion that they do."
I have no idea what you're saying here. I am not blaming muslims for anything so you're going to have to elaborate.
Joe at December 29, 2013 1:37 PM
> I won't bore with my same posts from last time.
Yeah, you caught on faster than I did. Forward motion never happens with these people.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 1:48 PM
Isab said: "The US government performed circumcision routinely on people entering the military, at least up until World War II, and they did not do it because all the doctors were Jewish."
Not "at least" possibly during. Circumcision was not commonly performed in the US until about the late 19th and early 20th century. To the best of my knowledge it wasn't performed by the US government on induction into the military before WWI at the earliest and I doubt even that. WWII, yes circumcision's myths were well embedded in the US by then and I am sure piles of money were wasted on circumcision efforts at that time. If you're interested, I would recommend Glick's "Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America". It was a very insightful.
Isab said: "You must have missed the part where I said that my son, is uncircumcised by my choice, when he was born."
I didn't miss it, I just didn't see how it was relevant to the question of correcting your facts on FGM. But if you want it, congratulations to you and your lucky son.
Isab: said: "Why you want to make this choice for other parents and other people is beyond me."
I don't. Let each individual decide for themselves.
Joe at December 29, 2013 1:48 PM
"I didn't miss it, I just didn't see how it was relevant to the question of correcting your facts on FGM. But if you want it, congratulations to you and your lucky son."
Well, you failed on that task. Still no evidence that female genital mutilation is a tenant of Islam.
Glad to see you have evolved from "circumcision is totally unnecessary for health reasons" to "it ought to be a personal choice"
Notice you didn't see fit to address the 60 percent reduction in AIDs transmission by circumcision of adult men in Africa, after saying that circumcision is "strictly religious" and the cleanliness/ disease issue is "a crock".
Isab at December 29, 2013 2:00 PM
Nope. Mom & Dad thing.
Sorry.
(Not really sorry! Kidding about that part!)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 2:09 PM
(Nope was for Joe.)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 2:11 PM
"Sorry.
(Not really sorry! Kidding about that part!)"
Whenever I see that I hear Peewee Herman saying "I'm not sorry" in a very devious way. I am such a sick fuck.
Dave B at December 29, 2013 2:14 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4160436">comment from IsabNotice you didn't see fit to address the 60 percent reduction in AIDs transmission by circumcision of adult men in Africa, after saying that circumcision is "strictly religious" and the cleanliness/ disease issue is "a crock".
Dunno if you're talking to me but here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Isab: "Well, you failed on that task. Still no evidence that female genital mutilation is a tenant of Islam."
It certainly is a tenant of certain Islamic sects, it states it right there in the article:
"In Aceh province, Indonesia’s Islamic stronghold where partial shariah law is implemented, people are so indoctrinated into the practice that opting out is considered immoral, rights activists say.
“Almost every girl in Aceh is circumcised. Parents see it as a religious obligation and turn a deaf ear to any opposing view and look down on those who don’t circumcise their children,” provincial National Commission on Violence Against Women official Azriana said."
Isad said: "Glad to see you have evolved from "circumcision is totally unnecessary for health reasons" to "it ought to be a personal choice""
I don't see how you think I've evolved. In nearly all cases, circumcision is totally unnecessary for "health reasons". That doesn't mean that an adult shouldn't be aloud to choose to have it done for any or no reason including if they've been duped that it would be useful to them. To say otherwise would be as silly as saying an adult shouldn't be aloud to get a tattoo or a piercing through their cock. I have *NEVER* said an adult shouldn't be able to choose this, it's their personal decision not their parents.
Isab said: "Notice you didn't see fit to address the 60 percent reduction in AIDs transmission by circumcision of adult men in Africa, after saying that circumcision is "strictly religious" and the cleanliness/ disease issue is "a crock"."
It is a crock. Just like there are better ways to clean your penis then cutting part of it off, there are far more effective ways to protect against HIV transmission. For what it's worth, there have also been findings that FGM may reduce HIV transmission (see abstract here: http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677) but that doesn't mean we need or should use it.
But again, you're free to present that information to individual adults and let them decided the matter for themselves. For example: "If you feel that you can't keep your penis clean, perhaps you would like us to circumcise you." Or "You might be able to slightly reduce your risk of HIV if we circumcise you."
I find neither reason even remotely compelling since I know how to take a shower and keep myself clean even when those facilities aren't available and the HIV risk reduction for a male living in a low prevalence, developed, first world country is vanishingly small, a crock. The decision should be mine and no one else's.
Joe at December 29, 2013 3:03 PM
> Whenever I see that I hear Peewee Herman
Yeah, I feel stupid for doing that. It's just that their tone of courtesy is so bogus! They're pretending to communicate on an adult level, but then they say things like "Circumcision is always harmful, but whether it's a net harm or not is subjective"... And then you realize they're extremely isolated, and they like it that way. They're building walls and fences as fast as they can.
Sarcasm is the only appropriate response.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 3:36 PM
I was circumcised when I was four, old enough to remember.
It hurt so much that .... oh, it didn't.
And I'm so traumatized by it that ... oh, I'm not.
Maybe there should be a hashtag: #MGMfirstworldproblem
Jeff Guinn at December 29, 2013 5:07 PM
Crid said: "Sarcasm is the only appropriate response."
I certainly understand, when you have nothing.
Joe at December 29, 2013 5:16 PM
"I certainly understand, when you have nothing."
Hey Joe. You forgot to read the paragraph Crid wrote just above that. It's not nothing.
By the way, if you weren't here last time we did this, maybe you could look for it. You'd get your craw full of what Crid is talking about.
Dave D at December 29, 2013 5:24 PM
Dave D:
I did read the paragraph before, and everything Crid has written. There is nothing and it shows.
Joe at December 29, 2013 5:28 PM
So this again. I'm circumcised. Was harm done to me? I don't remember it hurting. Was my flesh cut? Yes, but my cat does that to me all the time, albeit on my hands. Is he harming me? Not really.
Does a child have the innate right to not be circumcised? Is a piece of skin a body part? When my parents had that mole removed from my back, did they have a body part lopped off, or just a piece of skin. Was there a medical benefit to having the mole removed - though it wasn't cancerous? Did my parents do the right thing in having me circumcised? Well I probably would have been more traumatized if a potential GF had a bad reaction to the sight of my penis. I've never had one that wished I still had my foreskin. Good enough for me.
Assholio at December 29, 2013 7:07 PM
Joe, you're a grown man, right?
Worry about your unit as much as you want. Nourish your petty resentments. Presume the rest of the world is just uncaring bastards who're looking for a reason to be mean to you. Argue simplistic points in bad faith, engaging total strangers in closed, unimproving loops of rhetoric; resist perspective, stoicism and all nuance.
This is not sarcasm: You can do that if you want.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 7:13 PM
BTW: Wearing braces was the most tortuous thing my parents did to me. If anything could be considered abuse that would be it. My teeth still aren't completely straight.
Assholio at December 29, 2013 7:13 PM
BTW: Wearing braces was the most tortuous thing my parents did to me. If anything could be considered abuse that would be it. My teeth still aren't completely straight.
Posted by: Assholio at December 29, 2013 7:13 PM
I am with you there. I have had major dental problems caused by state of the art orthodontia as practiced 45 years ago.
Do I blame my parents? No, because they were doing the best they could for me, with the information they had available to them.
I made the decision to not circumcise my son, on the best available information 28 years ago.
If I had it to do over, based on what I know now, I think I would make the opposite decision.
Isab at December 29, 2013 8:01 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663581/
Here is another one. NIH references twenty studies showing either benefits of MC in disease prevention, or neutral effects between populations of circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Some real benefits seem to accrue not just to the men, but the women they have sex with.
Oh, and if this was a debate about vaccination, Amy would be playing the role of Jenny McCarthy. "Sticking needles full of poisonous chemicals into helpless babies, because you have bought into the lies of big Pharma. ". " Cleanliness is all you need to prevent disease. Circumcision and Vaccination are unnecessary"
It is a great emotional argument, but not a scientific one.
Why do I get the impression that the anti circumcision movement is a not so subtle form of anti semitism?
Those evil religious Jews started it, so therefore it must be stupid, and bad, no matter what the science says.
Isab at December 29, 2013 8:37 PM
Yet another empty post from Crid.
Crid said: "Worry about your unit as much as you want. Nourish your petty resentments. Presume the rest of the world is just uncaring bastards who're looking for a reason to be mean to you."
Sorry I won't, I can't, accommodate you Crid. You do keep getting tantalizing close to the core of the issue though, it is my unit, my decision, only I need to worry about it. Not my religion, not my society, and not my parents. If you could only recognize and follow through on your own advice, you'd be there. I understand that perhaps your society, culture, and/or religion prevents you from seeing this issue rationally and your rigidity and shallow mindedness means that change (for you) is unlikely. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter.
Change is coming and whether you like it or not. Secular, non-medically indicated circumcision, is really only common in the US and even here it gets less common with each passing year, slowly for sure but less and less common. One day minor circumcision will be extinguished as a routine practice, eventually the day will come when non-medically indicated minor circumcision is prohibited. Not everywhere and not all at once but one by one, they're already discussing prohibition on and off in some European countries.
And not to disappoint you but there is no resentment on my end, what would give you that idea? Why should there be?
Crid said: "Argue simplistic points in bad faith, engaging total strangers in closed, unimproving loops of rhetoric; resist perspective, stoicism and all nuance."
I am sorry Crid, I don't see simplistic points or that I've argued in bad faith. If anyone here is arguing in bad faith, it is clearly you.
Joe at December 29, 2013 8:53 PM
Have fun out there! Let is know if you find work!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 29, 2013 9:25 PM
"One day minor circumcision will be extinguished as a routine practice, eventually the day will come when non-medically indicated minor circumcision is prohibited."
Hey Joe. How about climate change and who will be president in 2016? I'd like to take advantage of ability to read the future.
Dave B at December 29, 2013 10:17 PM
The word is "tenet," damn it, not "tenant." It's not enough I have to listen to you guys repeat the same points over and over again like some tone-deaf rendition of "Dueling Banjos." At least use the language properly.
A "tenant of Islam" is someone who lives in Islam's apartment complex. A "tenet of Islam" is an article of Islamic faith or belief.
Grey Ghost at December 30, 2013 6:22 AM
I am pro parental choice in terms of circumcision (and have laid out all my reasons in comments to previous posts); however, if the parents are divided on the subject, I am not sure what should happen. What happens if one parent wants the child to go to a Christian school and the other is opposed?
This case is an oddball, because it's a religious court system. Also it seems the father originally agreed and then changed his mind, possibly to demonstrate control.
I did some searching online to find examples of other couples with this dilemma, and in almost every case I could find, it was the father who wanted it and the mother who did not, and the baby ended up UNcircumcised. It's not clear whether that's because "the mom wins" or because uncircumcised is thought of as the reversible position. (If the dad is anti-circumcision and mom is pro, what is more likely to happen in a U.S. hospital?)
Insufficient Poison at December 30, 2013 7:57 AM
Crid:
You haven't let facts interfere with the sporting element in the past. Why such reservation now? All your creative, fascinating ideas... The ones about me that are the least tethered to what I've said are always my favorites. I see no reason those need to stop just because you still don't like facts. There's so much insulting to be done!
Tony at December 30, 2013 8:45 AM
Don't pretend you want conversation: You don't.
Time for all the broken teacups to go back into the cupboard…
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 9:55 AM
> A "tenant of Islam" is someone who lives
> in Islam's apartment complex.
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 9:56 AM
Isab said: "Oh, and if this was a debate about vaccination, Amy would be playing the role of Jenny McCarthy. "Sticking needles full of poisonous chemicals into helpless babies, because you have bought into the lies of big Pharma. ". "
Somehow I doubt this. My suspicion is that Amy recognizes the chasm of difference between non-theraputic circumcision and vaccination. I could be wrong but based on what I've read here, I don't believe I am.
Isab said: "Cleanliness is all you need to prevent disease. Circumcision and Vaccination are unnecessary"
Not exactly, your first assertion here seems a bit too broad and doesn't exactly reflect what has been discussed to this point. And while your second statement might technically be true, it's probably more accurate to say, circumcision is unnecessary and unimportant to the welfare of a child but vaccination, while as a technical matter is unnecessary, is important to the welfare of a child.
Isab said: "Why do I get the impression that the anti circumcision movement is a not so subtle form of anti semitism?"
I am not sure but it's probably because you've not carefully investigated the movement. Had you done so, you'd notice that many of the more prominent members and contributor of the movement are in fact Jewish. Maybe they're self hating Jews? Probably not, at least the ones that I've met. If you read Glick's book (he's Jewish too by the way), you'll have a difficult time reading either anti-semitism or self hatred into the movement.
Crid said: "Have fun out there! Let is know if you find work!"
Thanks, I appreciate your concern for my well-being, but I hate to tell you that I am actually gainfully employed. No worries here. Please let me know if you ever have anything of substance to add to the discussion.
David B said: "Hey Joe. How about climate change and who will be president in 2016? I'd like to take advantage of ability to read the future."
I believe that climate change and the presidential elections fall well outside the bounds of this topic. If Amy posts a discussion about those topics I'd consider giving my 2c if time permits. And I hate to disappoint you but I can't read or see into the future. All I can do, as many others do, is look at how ideas are trending and knowing that as society move forward we've trended toward more rational thinking on an array of social issues. As Theodore Parker said,
"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."
So I know that we will reach a point were non-theraputic circumcision on minors will be prohibited. I don't know how long it will take to get there but we will get there. Progress globally is uneven but mostly moving in the right direction. Places like North America (the US in particular) are moving at a glacial pace. On the other hand, the Europeans are moving faster than I expected with the medical communities of several countries proposing possibilities ranging from strong restrictions to potential prohibition. It will come, it's just a question of when.
Joe at December 30, 2013 9:56 AM
Also—
> It's not enough I have to listen to you guys
> repeat the same points over and over again like
> some tone-deaf rendition of "Dueling Banjos."
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 9:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4162743">comment from JoeIsab said: "Oh, and if this was a debate about vaccination, Amy would be playing the role of Jenny McCarthy. "Sticking needles full of poisonous chemicals into helpless babies, because you have bought into the lies of big Pharma."
What crap.
All it takes to find out what I think is searching this site.
For example:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/10/how_to_bring_ba.html
And another -- "Jenny McCarthy And Andrew Wakefield Kill Another Baby"
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/27/jenny_mccarthy_1.html
Circumcision is medically unnecessary surgery performed on being who can neither consent nor deny consent, and it's done because many people don't think and because many others have primitive religious beliefs that somebody pulled out of their butt centuries before the Dark Ages.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2013 10:13 AM
> Circumcision is medically unnecessary surgery
No it isn't. You're being silly.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 10:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4162761">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]Why would the body evolve to have an unnecessary part in the most crucial area, evolutionarily speaking?
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2013 10:21 AM
Isab:
Knowing what he knows now from his experience, would your son appreciate that?
Tony at December 30, 2013 10:28 AM
Crid:
Neat theory. If I didn't want a conversation, would I have read the Hughes book you said I wouldn't? I just don't want a conversation with my role played by the version of me you've imagined. I'll answer any question on this you want to ask. I'll defend my position until what I wrote is clear. I only ask that you tell that stranger in your mind to be quiet. But it's easier to quit at the beginning and declare yourself the winner while being smug and ridiculous about it.
Tony at December 30, 2013 10:36 AM
> Why would the body evolve to have an
> unnecessary part
Well Golly, I dunno, Big Red... Ask your appendix, which for every generation in human motherfucking history preceding your grandfather's, was (and remains for perhaps a fifth of our globe) the frequent cause of sudden, gruesome death and ferocious, intractable suffering, appearing capriciously at any point in a lifetime.
More to the point:
[1.] The question is in no way relevant.
[2.] The tip of the penis has many charms… (Well, the tip of mine does…) But to call it "the most crucial area" is comically ludicrous. And…
[3.] …To then append "evolutionarily speaking" is dementia. The natural world takes no interest in your word games. It doesn't seek solutions to problems... It doesn't assign tasks to physiology... It doesn't rank genealogical expressions according to how "crucial" some beach columnist might find them in a lay survey of public health trivia.
Nature does what works... Until it fails.
If it's confusing you, and this isn't the first time that it's seemed to do so, you should take a science class. Don't tell us about popular literature. Don't tell us about friendships and conferences and sincerity and living room "rigor": Get a freaking degree. Even just a two-year. Or at least do some guided, graded study. Assigned readings, tests, Cokes and burgers with other students to discuss lab assignments, etc. Scholarships from westside corporations are a dime a dozen, even for adult education.
In the meantime, your presumption that we'll all accept "medical necessity" as the appropriate —or even as an applicable— metric for this discussion is tinged with the adoration of government power that's made recent years in the United States so distasteful.
"Medical necessity" is the front gate of Hell. We have been there before.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 11:12 AM
Most importantly—
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 11:20 AM
Hey Joe. Among all forms of mistake, prophecy is the most gratuitous.
Dave B at December 30, 2013 12:48 PM
Dave B said: "Hey Joe. Among all forms of mistake, prophecy is the most gratuitous."
Prophecy is defiantly an exaggeration. For one thing, I don't claim divine inspiration but to realize your true error, let's try this Dave:
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
please prophesy the next 5 numbers. Anyone is free to jump in and answer if especially if Dave does not receive inspiration and is stumped.
Joe at December 30, 2013 4:49 PM
"please prophesy the next 5 numbers."
I don't think you know what the word means. I am too lazy at the moment to look the correct word. I think it has something to do with Sherlock Holmes. Just came in from moving a horse trailer and snow in 20 degrees below.
Evidently I pissed you off. I am not sorry, but I did not mean to.
Dave B at December 30, 2013 4:57 PM
Lotta snowy pictures">https://twitter.com/PzFeed/status/417781322242093056/photo/1/large">pictures from the central-north states today.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 5:40 PM
Sorry. HTML City is a wanton jungle...
Anyway, that picture is here, only upside-down.
I loves the innernet.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 6:09 PM
Dave B said: "I don't think you know what the word means."
Which word Dave? "please prophesy the next 5 numbers".
hxxps:/www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/please hxxps:/www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/prophesy
hxxps:/www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/next
hxxps:/www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/number
David B said: "Evidently I pissed you off. "
That's not really possible.
Joe at December 30, 2013 6:11 PM
"That's not really possible."
That's cool.
"Which word Dave? "please prophesy the next 5 numbers"."
Like I said, sort of. The next 5 numbers would not be a prophecy. You didn't get it and that's ok. I have not thawed enough yet to recall all of my classes from the 60's to explain it. Besides, you are a being a dick. Is it something I said?
Minnesotans for Global Warming
Dave B at December 30, 2013 6:31 PM
Dave B said: "The next 5 numbers would not be a prophecy. You didn't get it and that's ok. "
I am not sure that you're getting it. My statement that "One day minor circumcision will be extinguished as a routine practice, eventually the day will come when non-medically indicated minor circumcision is prohibited." is no more based on a prophecy than telling me the next five numbers in the sequence. I can see why you were initially confused but the logic was subsequently explained.
Dave B said: "Besides, you are a being a dick. Is it something I said?"
I honestly don't see how. I believe that I've been very fair, accommodating, and exemplarily in my patients.
Joe at December 30, 2013 6:48 PM
Knowing what he knows now from his experience, would your son appreciate that?
Posted by: Tony at December 30, 2013 10:28 AM
Discussing circumcision with an adult male, who is now 28 years old, is a bigger waste of time than watching Obama on TV.
The ball is in his court now. If he wants or needs to alter things at this point, I don't think he will be talking to his mother.
Most of the studies on circumcision and disease prevention started in the 90's. If I owned a time machine, there are about 25 items on my list to redo that rank a lot higher than circumcision.
Isab at December 30, 2013 6:57 PM
I honestly don't see how. I believe that I've been very fair, accommodating, and exemplarily in my patients.
Posted by: Joe at December 30, 2013 6:48 PM
Is that you again Orion?
You miss the point with the same belligerent certainty, and make for the weeds every damn time, which makes me almost positive that this is just another name change.
Isab at December 30, 2013 8:37 PM
"Patients"? ¿Huh?
Also -
> I'll defend my position until what
> I wrote is clear.
We know you're ready to stonewall. Your "clarity" isn't the problem; the problem is that you're wrong.
From this brief exchange, your arguments seems unripened since the most recent bout. (Last summer? Last year?) I'd bet you've not tested them in any other forum, and probably not in conversation... Certainly not with the most challenging people you know.
But you're a grown man, right? (You're not one of the blog's occasional teenagers.) So I think circumcision doesn't mean that much to you as a political issue.
If it did, you wouldn't play identity games. Since Amy's playground is pseudonymous anyway, (!,) (for Christ's sake,) your doubts about your position must be especially deep… Or your enthusiasm must be especially shallow. Your private & precious new meanings for the word "harm" aren't clever, they're mundane… It's not possible that you'd think they could persuade.
So what do you want out of the topic?
Amy's got her own motives. I can't really see what they are, and I certainly don't share them, but they're obviously NOT sinister. Maybe she's a little more wound up about circumcision than she needs to be... Well, that's not a biggie. Maybe I'm more scared of air pollution, while Amy's more concerned about industrial poison in California's lakes and streams, while Flynne (or Gog or somebody) is especially worried about the corrupting power of lobbyist's money on Congress. Each of us finds something to get cranked up about.
Specifically, I'm certain Amy is NOT experiencing some kind of somatic preoccupation with male circumcision… for the obvious reason that she's a girly girl, and not a man. (Besides, she's shared a lot of her life with us, and we've never seen a single neurotic twitch.)
But about the men who get so cranked up about this, I'm not so sure. They want to talk about (imaginary) loss of sensation. ['No! It's not imaginary! It's real!'] (Oh, shut the fuck up.) They're prepared to chatter like Oprah about subjective capacities for sensation; they want to discuss how many angels fit on the head of a pin. They're ready to blow up distant families with new policies, as if circumcision were the grandest violation of human rights in American children's lives... As if divorce, weak education, and abject obesity were unimportant. These men want to talk talk talk, and then they want to weep in a pool of cinnamon candlelight, and they want the rest of us to share the moment.
I think it's a request for therapy.
See Joe at December 29, 2013 8:53 PM: You can fall to your knees and beg the guy to think like an adult, and to consider the context of other adults and their concerns, but he won't do it. You can invite him to privately be as small-minded as he wants, but he won't do that, either. He insists on talking dick with strangers, and chooses to regard taunts as sincere "concern for [his] well being." He tells me I "keep getting tantalizing close to the core of the issue though, it is my unit...."
Read that last sentence again. It's a literal truth.
Well, fellas, here's the thing. Nobody on a blog, and certainly no distant voter with a ballot, is ever going to love you enough to sort out your problems with your dork. Or your Mom & Dad. Or your church. We don't care about pokesticks, and we don't care about personal psychological profiles. If you need to talk to a thoughtful and receptive professional about anything that went wrong in your childhood, go ahead. But you oughta try to keep that stuff out of your politics: The rest of us didn't do it to you.
Now, Amy…
That was a pretty harsh slapdown back there, and I keep trying to find something I'd take back.
I hereby (sincerely) withdraw "some beach columnist might find them in a lay survey of public health trivia."
Unnecessarily off-putting. I truly regret it.
Y'know, Amy, Obamacare is really, really bad. Intrusive, incompetent bureaucrats are making a power grab for one sixth of the American economy. They've flippantly voided millions of arrangements and contracts composed by the smartest, most independent people who ever lived to protect their own well-being. I could send you fifty articles from this hard disk about the corruptions of government and high finance that are making Obamacare happen.
I just can't see anything good that could come of this. It obviously won't do anything for our most needful people, who are already guaranteed a standard of care unavailable in much of the world, and whose problems are caused as much by their own missteps as by plain poverty.
This year, for the first time since Milli Vanilli hit the charts, I took a full-time job. I don't like it, but it's obvious that these government intrusions are going to do a lot of damage before good people can fix things. No matter how well I did as a freelancer (and I did better than I'd ever dreamt possible), I can't face the risks of independence in this shitstorm.
And I've often thought of you during these years, because when visiting your blog, we plainly see that you're an independent businesswoman, one who's never complained about having to make her own way in a responsible manner. You didn't ask for Obamacare, though its authors eagerly pretend that it's all happening on your behalf, especially. Your blog posts about your expenses and concern are genuinely moving; It's not just "There but for the grace of God go I...." America has really fucked this up.
Isn't Obamacare greased by this same impulse to describe health as the highest virtue?
Whose side are you on?
It's still there:
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 11:36 PM
Isab said:
I am sorry to disappoint you but I don't know who Orion is, I am not him (or her).
Isab said:
What point have I missed? From my perspective it is you who've repeatedly missed the point. And I certainly haven't 'run for the weeds.'.
Joe at December 31, 2013 7:36 AM
Isab:
That's my point, in an indirect way. A child will become an autonomous individual with his own preferences and need (or lack of need). While medical necessity isn't there, and it rarely is, proxy consent requires waiting for the child to consent or refuse based on what he prefers for his own body.
Tony at December 31, 2013 7:42 AM
That's my point, in an indirect way. A child will become an autonomous individual with his own preferences and need (or lack of need). While medical necessity isn't there, and it rarely is, proxy consent requires waiting for the child to consent or refuse based on what he prefers for his own body.
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2013 7:42 AM
So you would apply that precept to vaccinations as well?
And if not, why not?
Isab at December 31, 2013 7:55 AM
Crid:
You've said as much. "You don't want a conversation! You're wrong!" Damnit, why have I been so unwilling to see that insight as proof?
At this point I think I just want you to stop being so dense about what I've written. Your new theories are fascinating, though. Kudos on the baseless assumptions and analysis.
See, you're being dense.
Duh. You didn't do anything to me. Amy didn't do anything to me. Etc. If you'd stop patting yourself on the back for being so goddamn smart and perceptive, you might see how ridiculous your argument is.
Anyway, my concern isn't for me, specifically. What's done is done. I understand that. And not everyone is bothered by being circumcised as a healthy child. I've never said otherwise or that those males are wrong for thinking that. Other people have their own preferences. Obviously.
Your insistence appears to be that I need to recognize this fact, even though I already do, and that I should figure out that my personal preference is wrong because it doesn't match their preference. Stop insisting that and you might grasp something here.
Tony at December 31, 2013 7:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4165713">comment from IsabThere's medical necessity for vaccinations. This is a silly argument but I guess it's all some people have.
Amy Alkon at December 31, 2013 8:16 AM
Isab:
No, I wouldn't. The distinction is in what the two are trying to prevent and how they work. Vaccines work by triggering the immune system in a controlled manner to do what it's meant to do. Circumcision removes a normal body part.
If I don't get vaccinated, I'm susceptible to disease by interacting with people. Herd immunity matters. Almost every risk prophylactic circumcision is intended to reduce can be reduced through less invasive methods, and circumcision can still be chosen later. I'm not going to become HIV positive the same way I'd get polio.
Think about the circumcision recommendation (in very specific conditions) for HIV. No one says circumcised men don't need to use a condom. Don't use a condom (i.e. practice safe sex) and the statistics will catch up with you eventually. Yet, I don't have to get a polio vaccine every time I want to go out in public.
They raise similar issues, but the case for proxy consent for vaccines doesn't make the case for proxy consent for prophylactic circumcision.
Tony at December 31, 2013 8:29 AM
There's medical necessity for vaccinations. This is a silly argument but I guess it's all some people have.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2013 8:16 AM
That wasn't my point at all. Every medical decision and procedure is a risk benefit analysis. Most of which cannot be made by lay people, or even medical professionals who don't have the education or the data to get into the numbers in a particular study.
There are children who go unvaccinated because the risks are judged too great compared to the prophylactic benefits. Their parents are making this decision, usually with the advice of medical professionals. Even then, the vaccine injury rate is probably higher than the injury rates for infections from or injuries from botched circumcisions.
What this discussion is really about, as Crid seems to get, it taking these decisions away from parents, and putting them into the hands of government and their "flavor of the month medical studies" which change every few years.
What is next? Prosecuting hispanic parents for piercing their baby girls ears? How about jailing paleo parents when they refuse to feed their child a government mandated portion of carbs, or a low fat diet?
You want to make this a simple black and white issue. "All vaccinations good". No matter the risk benefit analysis. "All infant circumcision bad". I think the real world is a good deal more complicated than that, and in cases where the data is inconclusive, the standard ought to be to defer to the parents values and wishes. ( even cultural values)
Yes, occasionally bad things are going to happen, but that is a risk I am willing to take, in order to be in charge of my own, and my children's destiny, to the very limited extent that I can.
The law doesn't consider you an adult for making your own medical decisions until at least 18. So I guess none of you true believers are going to take your kid to an orthodontist, or have his wisdom teeth removed until he is old enough to decide for himself. How bout a dermatologist for a really bad case of acne? Nope, I guess that is out of the question also. Acne and orthodontia are cosmetic issues. And you have no business making these kinds of decisions for your child even if it is simple and relatively safe to correct a bad overbite when a kid is ten, but expensive and painful to do it when he is 22.
Isab at December 31, 2013 9:18 AM
I guess what I am saying, is we now live in a society where a lot of people think it is perfectly acceptable to perform a dangerous medical procedure called an abortion on a 15 year old girl, who legally lacks the capacity for informed consent) without even notifying her parents,
(because they might get mad or try and prevent it because of their cultural or religious values)
but at the same time, think the decision to remove a small piece of skin a few days after birth is parental malpractice, and ought to wait until the kid is 21.
Isab at December 31, 2013 10:20 AM
> Anyway, my concern isn't for me,
> specifically. What's done is done.
> I understand that.
Could this be more theatrical? Has childish emotional manipulation of this kind worked for you in any other context?... Since childhood, I mean?
Grow up.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 10:57 AM
Hey Amy!
The brutal disassembly of your health insurance was a medical necessity!
Barack Obama wants what's best for you!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 11:09 AM
Isab:
It's about taking this medically unnecessary decision away from parents and putting it into the hands of the individual himself. (I'm not suggesting prohibiting parents from consenting to medically necessary circumcision, with the caveat that they and doctors should exhaust less invasive treatments first.) It has nothing to do with giving government any more power than it already (correctly) has to prevent other forms of battery. This includes the power to prohibit parental choice for non-therapeutic genital cutting on daughters, even when the cutting would be less destructive than cutting a son's genitals or it would be for "cultural values". Same principles of individual rights and autonomy... Validate one, you validate the other.
All infant circumcision isn't "bad". Some are medically necessary. But those are rare. All non-therapeutic infant circumcisions are bad, ethically, because we don't know what the healthy male will want. The risk-benefit analysis is subjective to the individual who has to live with the result. Parental support doesn't guarantee child support. Even the AAP acknowledged this in the technical report they released last year. "... Reasonable people may disagree, however, as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient or how the potential medical benefits and potential medical harms of circumcision should be weighed against each other. ..." The foreskin owner's opinion isn't relevant for what would be a permanent alteration? That's a bizarre notion.
These, and the abortion tangent, are straw men. My dentist only recommended removing my wisdom teeth when they threatened other teeth. I had two removed as a teen and the other two removed in my mid-30s. That was the reasonable timeline because the risks involved things like losing the teeth next to them from the surgery to remove them. Why risk that when they weren't causing problems until they were removed?
The questions your straw men raise are interesting. Do parents have a right to put braces on their child who has straight teeth? Do they have a right to start their child on a preemptive cycle of tetracycline just in case the kid maybe one day might get acne?
Tony at December 31, 2013 11:15 AM
Y'know, little boys, if you'd lost the use of your legs in childhood, we'd expect you to be through with the whining and the defensiveness by now. If you'd lost your sense of sight....
But that's not what happened. You're playing identity games because you're ashamed... As you ought to be.
And because you'll never be able to share your full adult blog presence with us anyway (not that there appears to be much to share), let me just offer you these fond tidings for 2014—
Because blogs.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 11:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4166170">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]My dislike of George Bush has been surpassed by far by my hatred for this jerk Obama and his policies.
Amy Alkon at December 31, 2013 11:39 AM
Crid:
If my parents had removed my healthy legs... If my parents had removed my healthy eyes...
Any other mistaken thoughts you'd like to share, or should I just enjoy "Fuck you: You're a coward." as the pinnacle of your ability?
Tony at December 31, 2013 12:02 PM
Silly bitch, at least you know who you're talking to.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 12:12 PM
Isab said:
Your point was to equate circumcision with vaccination but the problem is the two can't be compared. There is a chasm of difference which has been articulated in this thread, and past threads. Given what has been discussed to this point, what is it about the difference that you don't understand?
Isab said:
Tony beat me to this but it's worth reiterating.
Do we put braces on children who have properly formed, straight teeth?
Do we treat children for acne who have none?
Do we perform circumcisions on boys who have no therapeutic need for circumcision?
And just to flip the coin around I'd be curious to know Isab if you believe it's right that we:
Prohibit parents from tattooing their minor children?
Prohibit parents from ritually scaring their minor children?
Prohibit all forms of female circumcision, even those which are demonstrably less invasive than MGM?
Speaking of piercings, do you believe parents should be able to pierce their child's lips, nose, genitalia?
Is it right that the state would (and they do) intervene in those decisions?
Joe at December 31, 2013 12:21 PM
Crid spewed:
Another pointless post Crid? It seems you have peaked. Who again is posting in bad faith?
Joe at December 31, 2013 12:25 PM
Don't be bitter! I'm just saying that if the people who knew you best and were supposed to love you and do what was best to prepare you for life with the rest of us decided to cut your dork off, it's at least possible that they knew what they were doing!
HNY! (huggssssss!)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 1:28 PM
Crid:
Of course, so I considered that possibility a long time ago. It was too stupid in the presence of facts that I discarded it as a silly idea. They didn't know what they were doing.
But I'll think about it again. Should we have this normal, healthy part cut from our children - SONS ONLY!! WE HAVE PRINCIPLES!! - because something might go wrong some day? Yeah, it's still obviously stupid. They didn't know what they were doing.
Tony at December 31, 2013 2:17 PM
My ex-husband wanted our son to be circumcised and I deferred to his wishes since he knows more about…ahem…living with a "unit" than I do. Still, when my obstetrician went down the hall to the nursery to perform the procedure I fretted. Would it hurt my baby? So I followed him down the hall. It was already done. My baby was sleeping peacefully in the aftermath of the devastation.
When my son was almost 5 years old he was diagnosed with autism. Now I look back on my concern about circumcision and laugh. Much as I try, I can't get all worked up about goddamn circumcision. If a man believes his life was maimed by circumcision, he's….being silly. In my uncompassionate opinion only.
Lizzie at December 31, 2013 2:48 PM
> If a man believes his life was maimed
> by circumcision, he's….being silly.
Verily. And if he's ashamed to share his identity, he knows he's silly.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 3:13 PM
Lizzie:
It's easy to dismiss something when you assume a convenient argument someone hasn't made here. However, I can provide examples if you don't believe that claim can be true.
Or should I mimic your tactic and try to one-up you on the sad violin scale? I know someone whose kid died, so obviously autism is nothing. I don't believe that because it'd be a dumb thing to think. Maybe you can see how irrelevant your comparison is to the question of non-therapeutic child circumcision?
Crid:
Please explain what I need to do to "share [my] identity". What would placate this weird obsession of yours, because I don't recall a request of any sort? I saw where you put my name in quotes earlier, but I guess I mistakenly gave you credit for finding a way to separate me from the stranger in your mind.
Or should I just ask if you know how to Internet? Amy sets the rules here, and I assume my information in "Posted by:" satisfies what she requires from me.
Tony at December 31, 2013 4:10 PM
How else are you known here? Do you comment only on Amy's circ posts?
(Damning enough if true.)
Crid at December 31, 2013 4:27 PM
Yeah. Striving mightily to summon outrage on your behalf and pity for your plight….nope. Got none. In the interest of fairness, I tried asking my dog how he feels about having his unit altered as a puppy, but he was too busy thumping his pet squirrel on the floor to answer.
I work in the medical field and I wouldn't allow a non-physician to perform circumcision on my son. However, as already stated, this is not my hill to die on.
Lizzie at December 31, 2013 4:33 PM
Lizzie said:
How does your dog feel about abortion or animal cruelty laws? Since you're asking.
Lizzie said:
Nobody asked you to die on this hill. But you're in good company Lizzie. Nearly all of the biggest social changes had numerous people who didn't care one way or the other. That didn't stop change from coming.
Joe at December 31, 2013 4:48 PM
Still trying to work myself into a lather, Tony, but no suds.
If I were in the mood to get all hurumphity over some issue (which I rarely am), circumcision wouldn't be a blip on my radar. Good thing you're here to carry the torch.
Lizzie at December 31, 2013 4:49 PM
"But you're in good company Lizzie."
Thanks, Joe. I like Crid too.
I'm curious as to what you and Tony do for a living. Real names not necessary!
Lizzie at December 31, 2013 4:57 PM
> not my hill to die on.
Gonna steal that.
> trying to work myself into a lather,
> Tony, but no suds.
Another!
Swear to God I typed that before she started saying rilly nice things.
Y'know, there are certain developmental stages in life that are unpleasant for everyone. I always figgered one of them for women was menarche. That's gotta be strange (as does menstruation generally). Having made no study of it, I don't know. But incidental sources suggest it comes with some interpersonal weirdness, some competitive Zen in the social circles... Painful gossip about which girls got there first, etc. And while this is a bad description of a half-heard radio show, there are apparently some howling ironies in how (and when) these matters appear for women.
But no woman has ever complained to me about that experience. Ever.
Hell, no woman has ever complained to me about menstruation.
(Women have complained about other things during menses, often in clear terms... Expressions such as "Fuck that shit, you little twerp... To Hell with you, to Hell with your career, to Hell with everything and everyone you ever loved!!! Drop Dead! I said don't touch me! Go straight to HELL! (Pause) WHERE ARE MY GOD-DAMN KEYS?!??!?!")
(But to complain about their developmental burdens, and how the people around them let them down in a vulnerable hour? Never. Not one word.)
It sometimes seems like the little boys are the ones who are looking for something to be screechy about, something they can really wrap their hands around. And they've found it!
You'll never guess where.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 6:05 PM
Shit, I skinned my knuckles last week. Didn't really understand that losing that skin should be a life altering experience.
I actually remember that loss as opposed to the foreskin removed 49 years ago.
My knuckles really, really hurt. I will schedule my therapy session asap.
causticf at December 31, 2013 6:12 PM
Am I mistaken, or do Tony and hey Joe only show up on this topic? How do they know when one is posted? Something is fishy here.
How would one stop parents from doing this procedure?
Dave B at December 31, 2013 6:42 PM
Crid:
I recall commenting on non-circumcision-related posts. Not many, because again, I haven't yet taken Crid's Time Management course.
What I still find fascinating here is how readily you (and others) conflate normal with abnormal. The foreskin doesn't just fall off a healthy child without specific action. Non-therapeutic circumcision is not a "developmental burden" like menstruation. My expectations for our interaction are low, but can I hope you want to stop being that ignorant?
Lizzie:
I'm a software consultant. Have been for 15 years. Sometimes an employee, sometimes an independent contractor. What does that reveal about me?
You don't need to work yourself into a lather about this. If it's not an issue you care about, fine. As effective as it might be, we don't all need to work on the same issue. If autism is more important to you, that doesn't hinder me. I suspect you know a lot more about autism than I know. And the reverse is true of circumcision. You not caring about circumcision any longer doesn't change the facts about it. Your obligation is to not be misinformed.
Dave B:
In order:
A) Enforce existing battery and/or child protection laws to include non-therapeutic genital cutting, an obvious battery.
B) Extend and enforce the Anti-FGM Act to include male minors, in accordance with equal protection of the laws.
C) Social change by educating people on the topic. I'm not having much success here, but that's the case when these obtuse straw men appear.
That's the appropriate order because it would stop circumcision now, which is what should happen when rights are being violated. Expecting that order to happen would be a fantasy. Unlike Crid's self-aggrandizing assumptions, I recognize the complexity of the issue. A) is obvious but impractical. B) is obvious and practical to update but impractical to enforce. When it's practical to enforce A) and B), it will be once C) has stopped most unnecessary child circumcisions. Even then, civil court will probably be the best place to remedy this violation. Ultimately, civil actions will probably hasten C) as the inherent liability of this violation becomes clearer to providers.
Tony at January 1, 2014 8:10 AM
"I'm a software consultant. Have been for 15 years. Sometimes an employee, sometimes an independent contractor. What does that reveal about me?"
Not much, since software is a foreign language to me. I simply suspected you hadn't spent much time working in an operating room and that surgery is a foreign language to you.
"You not caring about circumcision any longer doesn't change the facts about it. Your obligation is to not be misinformed."
I don't think I am misinformed. I think you're making much ado about not much. I am very familiar with surgery, of all kinds. To describe circumcision as hacking, battery, etc. strikes me as misinformation. That is only my opinion, I hasten to aid, as I'm certain there are those in the medical field who disagree with me.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 8:43 AM
Lizzie:
I'm not clear on why I have to work in an operating room to recognize that unnecessary circumcision forced on a minor is unethical. Treating the medical profession as the new priests does no favors for anyone.
Anyway, as you say, there are those in the medical (and legal) field who agree with me. And as I've had attorneys explain to me, all surgery is battery. The defense is consent. In this case, that's proxy consent. The standard for proxy consent is stricter than it is for consent. There is no misinformation on my part.
By asking you not to be misinformed, I mostly meant the idea that because Y is worse than X, X is rendered inconsequential. I got the idea that you recognized at least a little bit about the issues since you initially opposed it for your son. "My baby was sleeping peacefully in the aftermath..." doesn't demonstrate that medically unnecessary circumcision is nothing, either. My argument isn't centered on the pain during the surgery, although it's also relevant.
Tony at January 1, 2014 10:00 AM
> I recall commenting on non-circumcision-
> related posts. Not many,
All you care about is dick. See Dave B. just above. It's unlikely that you visit this blog every day, taking no part but to check for a post about circumcision, but then (and only then) posting a comment within ten hours.
> What I still find fascinating here is
What you find fascinating is dick, and I'm gonna predict this will limit the reach of your persuasion. Speaking just for myself: Your private dictionary entries for "harm," "therapeutics" or "ignorance" hold no interest. If you were right, or even if you were merely bright, you'd be able to make a case. We can well imagine that being wrong has capped the breadth of your thinking.
Amy will bring this up again in a few months, just after thing about waist-to-hip ratios and just before something about the TSA.
Will you have moved into the world to test your ideas with other people? Will you have come up with new approaches to topic —or even better— changed your opinion in some meaningful way?
I bet not. This isn't about others, or even about circumcision, or you'd have a better approach.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 1, 2014 11:08 AM
"As effective as it might be, we don't all need to work on the same issue. If autism is more important to you, that doesn't hinder me."
By the way, I hope you weren't implying that everybody needs a cause and autism is mine. I don't possess the crusader mentality and if I did I wouldn't select an issue as insignificant as circumcision.
"Treating the medical profession as the new priests does no favors for anyone."
I didn't say it does. Just on a purely personal level, given what I've seen and continue to see with my own eyes, the idea of somebody getting their knickers in a knot over circumcision as "battery" amuses me. If this is the biggest afront to your person you can find to address, you are one lucky son of a gun.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 11:18 AM
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 1, 2014 12:38 PM
"an obvious battery"
I don't think so. I would think we would have had charges filed by now if that were true. I don't know how old you are, but I know this was an issue discussed widely among parents at least 26 years ago and probably earlier.
Dave B at January 1, 2014 2:26 PM
Crid:
Blah blah blah with the mindless assumptions and smears that always allow you to keep your mind closed to your errors. Work on your reading comprehension.
Lizzie:
I'm not sure why you think putting battery in quotes is correct. That's an example of you being misinformed. Surgery is battery. The question is whether proxy consent is valid for this surgery. It's far from clear that it is, no matter how long we've allowed parents to make their son's decision.
Tony at January 1, 2014 3:21 PM
I know that surgery without consent is battery legally speaking. The quotation marks were reflective more of my bemusement at the fact that THIS….this of all things….has you foaming at the mouth. That you honestly feel a competently performed circumcision constitutes some gross harm. I disagree and it's clear neither of us is going to change the opinion of the other.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 4:17 PM
Lizzie said:
That's not who I meant, you and Crid aren't really the same. You're more of an appeaser, someone not willing to challenge the status quo and take a stand even if your own interests were directly involved. If you lived in the 19th century, you wouldn't have cared to get involved in women's suffrage or seen the point in dealing with slavery. Crid does have principles that he seems to fight for, they're just the wrong ones. If he (or she) lived in the 19th century he would have fought to keep slavery and women in the kitchen, he'd probably call women's suffrage advocates 'women lovers' and we can guess what he would have called 19th century abolitionist. You two are different, Crid isn't in your company, at least from what I can see.
Lizzie said:
Well, although I think it's immaterial to the discussion, I am happy to indulge you. I am a Computer Engineer.
Dave B said:
I am not sure about Tony, I may have posted on another topic on this blog but it's probable that I haven't. I don't have all the time in the world after all and if this discussion is indicative of the discourse in other threads I probably wouldn't bother.
Lizzie said:
This is where I figured you were going with the first question but as Tony noted, there isn't really any relevance. If it would make you feel better, it would be a simple matter to get in touch with individuals who you feel might "understand" the issues better. There are no shortages of doctors, both practicing and research, nurses, P.A.s, and other medical professionals involved in this issue. There are also no shortage of attorneys, biomedical researchers, ethicists, artists, physicists, and many others.
I do somewhat understand your concern, the attorneys (for example) could probably explain to you with more precision why circumcision is indeed a battery. The nurse or doctor probably has a deeper understanding of the complications that will occur, ect. ect.
Joe at January 1, 2014 5:09 PM
"You're more of an appeaser, someone not willing to challenge the status quo and take a stand even if your own interests were directly involved. If you lived in the 19th century, you wouldn't have cared to get involved in women's suffrage or seen the point in dealing with slavery."
Apples and oranges. Slavery and women's suffrage are issues of importance. Circumcision is not. But it's provided you with the role of caped crusader for social change, which is good for loads of pretend-heroic fun. If you lived in the 19th century, you wouldn't have the time or energy for such frivolity.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 5:34 PM
Lizzie said:
That is your opinion. There were plenty of appeasers (much like yourself) who would have found none of those issues important.
Lizzie said:
Not just me, there are far more people involved than you probably realize.
Joe at January 1, 2014 5:52 PM
I should add:
Lizzie said: " If you lived in the 19th century, you wouldn't have the time or energy for such frivolity."
Your description is of course your opinion, but if I lived in the 19th century, this issue wouldn't have existed because secular circumcision rarely occurred. The US didn't start up this ridiculous practice until much later.
Joe at January 1, 2014 5:57 PM
"if I lived in the 19th century, this issue wouldn't have existed because secular circumcision rarely occurred."
Oh, I have no doubt that a crusader wannabe (like yourself) would have seized upon something, anything else in its stead.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 6:10 PM
Lizzie said: "Oh, I have no doubt that a crusader wannabe (like yourself) would have seized upon something, anything else in its stead."
I probably would have been an abolitionist and possibly worked on women's suffrage. If I had discussed it with you at that time, I bet you would have said, "I don't possess the crusader mentality" adding that those issue are foolish and unimportant.
Joe at January 1, 2014 6:23 PM
"I probably would have been an abolitionist and possibly worked on women's suffrage."
Nah. I bet you would have championed a cause as equally foolish as your current one. Discernment is unlikely to be your strong suit in any century.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 6:36 PM
Lizzie said: "I bet you would have championed a cause as equally foolish as your current one."
That is your, uninformed, opinion. Critical thinking is clearly not your strong suit. But what does it matter? You're content to sit on your hands, it's not like you would involve yourself in any issue in any case.
Joe at January 1, 2014 6:59 PM
Lizzie:
Saying that I'm "foaming at the mouth" made me laugh. Thanks for that joke. Good one. (If you want to see an example of someone actually behaving that way, Crid offered a top-notch example in a prior thread.)
As for feeling a competently-performed circumcision constitutes some gross harm, it's clear that it constitutes harm. Please understand my argument without the editorial adjectives. I'm realistic about the likelihood of us agreeing. But disagree based on what I've written, not something simpler I don't believe (or trollish fantasies, as Crid insists upon manufacturing).
And what about incompetently-performed circumcisions, which occur in hospital and non-hospital settings? Those aren't predictable in advance so that we can just not perform those. They're not mere statistics. And what is the definition of a competently-performed circumcision? The answers can help you understand how the evaluation of the outcome is subjective.
Tony at January 1, 2014 7:12 PM
"But what does it matter?"
Bingo! THIS doesn't.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 7:21 PM
Lizzie said: "Bingo! THIS doesn't."
To you, perhaps not. But just because you feel it's unimportant doesn't make it so. Pick any social issue and before that issue was resolved, it'd be easy to find plenty of people who felt it was unimportant. It's only the passage of time that allows everyone to realize how foolish and wrong they were. Many years from now, your apathy will be seen in the same way.
Joe at January 1, 2014 7:44 PM
Hysterical. Your crystal ball is on the fritz. Better get it to the repair shop. Unless you're afraid it will be emotionally scarred by any tinkering!
Time for bed. We start early in the OR, where foreskin is the least of our worries.
Lizzie at January 1, 2014 7:57 PM
Lizzie said: "Your crystal ball is on the fritz."
No need for a crystal ball, that is the inevitable out come of all social change.
Tony posed and interesting question which I doubt you can answer. Talk about needing a crystal ball.
Joe at January 1, 2014 8:26 PM
Hey Joe : "the attorneys (for example) could probably explain to you with more precision why circumcision is indeed a battery."
If true, can you present some cases where charges have been filed, tried and won for a normal, everyday circumcision? What was the punishment for the parents?
Dave B at January 1, 2014 8:45 PM
Davers-
While thoughtful people will regard your straightforward challenge as directly on point, your targets will ignore it as a "broad, random, nonsensical aside" from "someone who doesn't like facts," a "smug and ridiculous" inference from "ignorance."
These are computer guys, and not fully adult ones. They're not here to learn or improve their arguments; this is a kind of intellectual terrarium for them, a realm (of anonymity) where their boss can't throw shitty work back in their faces for being worthless; they will not take your point. They dream of a land where version .90 runs perfectly.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 2, 2014 2:21 AM
Dave B:
Have a think on your question to spot its flaw. Or have a think on your perception of me to see if you can figure out why you mistakenly assume I can't spot the flaw.
I'll be traveling today, so take your time before responding, if your poorly-conceived question was intended as more than a "gotcha".
Tony at January 2, 2014 4:58 AM
I was gonna ask this earlier, then decided to be a gentlemen. But because you're being so cowardly and evasive and peckerheaded, I gotta know... Do the women in your lives admire you? Not just 'Do they admire your devotion to your dork?,' but are they, in general, impressed with the way you conduct your life? Do they think your manner of moving through the world improves the planet in ways that'll help them get their needs met, even if they'll never share any intimate projects with you? Y'know, office respect.
But by the way, have either of you guys ever kissed a girl? Ever talked to one?
Do evasive and obstructionist exchanges like this get your needs met in other life contexts?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 2, 2014 8:25 AM
"Have a think on your question to spot its flaw. Or have a think on your perception of me to see if you can figure out why you mistakenly assume I can't spot the flaw."
I find the above an unusual way to talk, but that could just be me. I understand why Crid made his comment at 2:21am. He understands that I was just questioning Joe's (are Joe and Tony interchangeable) statement not an attempt at "gotcha."
It's weak to say attorneys could explain why circumcision is indeed a battery. Then why no prosecution? Attorneys file charges and lawsuits at the drop of the hat over frivolous issues. And yet they sit back and do nothing as infant boys are battered for years and years. Like Crid says, you guys need to up the integrity of your arguments. This is probably not a good quest for simpletons.
Dave B at January 2, 2014 4:30 PM
Simpledon-hood can be cured! (I'm a great example!)
Cowardice has to make its own way.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 2, 2014 6:59 PM
Dave B said:
In the US? There have some civil cases such as this one. The attorney who handled this case has handled other similar cases and if you're interested I'd encourage you to contact him. There are also cases winding their ways through courts in Finland, Sweden, and Germany. I am pretty sure that Amy has posted about them.
Tony is correct, there are a few problems with the question you've asked. I am not sure if I've figured out all the problems with your question, but I am willing to give it a shot. To begin with, you're asking about a battery case against the parents, but they didn't commit the battery. The individual who performed the circumcision did.
Second, and much more importantly, you've asked, "if true [that circumcision is a battery], can you present some cases...". This leads me to ask, do you believe that an action can fall within the statutory definition of a crime but not be prosecuted? Put another way, has there ever been a time when actions were common place, but probably criminal, and not prosecuted then after long periods of cultural evolution are now?
Dave B said:
It's simple, society hasn't evolved enough yet to protect boys from circumcision the way we protect girls. That is to say our society doesn't yet recognize the issue. To provide a comparison for you that is more recent than the ones I am thinking of regarding my second point, and also because the circumcision case I provided you was a civil case, let's focus on the question of gay marriage and civil case law.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no gay marriage civil cases before the 1970s. From the 1970s until the early 2000s there were very few and none of them could have been described as a win until the mid 90s. Were there no gay couples who wanted to be married before the 1970s? Were there no attorneys willing to take those cases before the 1970s? Were they sitting back doing nothing while these couples rights were being violated for years and years? Or is the explanation simply that society wasn't ready to extend the rights of marriage to same sex couples?
Joe at January 2, 2014 8:54 PM
Dave B:
I was having some fun.
You seem to be conflating criminal and civil courts. Your question was about criminal charges, not civil suits.
To answer your question: No. I do not know of any such criminal prosecutions in the U.S.
You believe it's possible to disprove my position. Perhaps. The question you asked doesn't do that. It's a faulty question. Joe touched on its problem a bit. He is correct about prosecutorial discretion. And in an earlier reply to you, the path I established did not expect criminal prosecution. I'm also saying that remedying after the fact for this is an inferior option. Not all circumcisions are a "normal, everyday circumcision", and we're not psychic to know which medically-unnecessary child circumcisions will (not) meet your criterion.
The larger problem with your question is its assumption that law is synonymous with rights. We have a specific view of what constitutes an individual right today. Our understanding of rights is dynamic. Joe mentioned the useful recent example of same-sex marriage. Other examples exist throughout history. Your question assumes our understanding of rights is now static because we've reached the pinnacle of knowledge and insight, if only on (male) children's rights. It assumes that what the law says and how it's enforced today explains the entire realm of rights.
Our understanding needs to expand from where it is on non-therapeutic genital cutting to include all minors rather than just female minors. The rights to bodily integrity and autonomy already exist for male minors, just as we codified for female minors. If you (in)validate one, you (in)validate the other.
Tony at January 3, 2014 8:22 AM
Crid:
What relevant question would you like me to answer that you believe I haven't addressed?
Tony at January 3, 2014 8:23 AM
Again, Pilgrim, again...
Were you a judge of relevance, you'd not be obsessed with your dork. The world doesn't ache with curiosity about you, your penis, or your feelings toward it; in fact, you are the petitioner, the presumptive (and presumptuous) agent for change, the one who should be investigating (and humbly integrating) the postures and insights of those whose opinions you'd seek to refine.
Honey, no one's askin'. This erupted daydream of messianic leadership betokens the childish response to stress mentioned earlier. The casual observer notes that the women who've bothered to disagree with you (and they are preciously few*) spoke of reviewing the matter with other people; how they might have been prepared to fight about something more important, but decided to listen to the men whose understanding was more intimate than their own.
The women reached out into the world. They didn't wait to be asked.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 3, 2014 12:06 PM
Also, shit fuck, Son, 8:23 AM was pathetically wordy... Which is not the same thing as "lawyerly." If you were never going to properly answer Dave's response, you shouldn't have offered him the topic. Jurisprudence stands away from you.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 3, 2014 12:14 PM
Crid:
Some wordy words coming at you.
I asked Isab in response to her saying she might circumcise her son if she had it to do over again: "Knowing what he knows now from his experience, would your son appreciate that?" I asked her for the opinion of the man whose understanding was the most intimate. Please read that as many times as necessary for you to grasp its importance here.
Related, and to investigate: You told Amy that "circumcision of a healthy child is medically unnecessary" is silly. Why do you believe circumcision of a healthy child medically necessary?
Tony at January 3, 2014 2:53 PM
> Please read that as many times as necessary
Once covered it. Againagainagain the problem isn't that your perspective isn't appreciated, it's that it's inapplicable. Said she: "Why you want to make this choice for other parents and other people is beyond me."
> Why do you believe circumcision of a healthy
> child medically necessary?
What makes you think I do? We covered this YEARS AGO. You weren't reading then. You aren't reading now.
Be sure and think about your dick a lot.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 4, 2014 2:41 AM
Crid:
If you appreciate my perspective, why do you pretend that her statement is a summary of my position? I do not want to make this choice for other parents and other people. Parents want to make this choice for other people. It is not the parents' choice to make. I want males to make this unnecessary choice for themselves if - and only if - they want it, which is unknowable without first asking for their consent. That this parental "right" is allowed for sons only helps demonstrate why the "applicable" status quo is indefensible.
I can read:
You mocked me for allegedly having a personal definition of therapeutic, which indicates that you don't know what it means. Since you now want to pretend that you didn't understand me when you offered those insults, which of Amy's five words made you reply to her with "No it isn't. You're being silly."?
Tony at January 4, 2014 9:58 AM
If I type it again, will you read it?
Aw, why bother? We've given thousands of words to each of your little issues, but you can't see them. Nobody "appreciates your perspective", right? In the future, we'll remember that the topic itself means nothing to you; You just want to be smug and oblivious.
Can you understand how this should have been fun? Next time you pretend you want an exchange, we'll know where to send you... http://tinyurl.com/n4e3t83
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 4, 2014 1:14 PM
crid said:
He clearly read it the first time. In response to Amy's comment, "Circumcision is medically unnecessary surgery", you replied, "No it isn't. You're being silly." Taking your suggestion that he should be the one who should be "investigating (and humbly integrating) the postures and insights of those whose opinions you'd seek to refine."
Tony investigated, interrogating you, per your instructions, as to why you believe routine circumcision is medically necessary surgery. Which, according to your earlier post, you clearly believe. So go ahead, type it again. We can make this a two part question.
1. Do you believe routine circumcision is medically necessary surgery? (YES/NO).
2. If YES to 1 then you can proceed to answer Tony's question, "Why do you believe circumcision of a healthy child medically necessary?"
Your reply to Amy seems to indicate you've decided YES for the first question. If that's not the case, this is your chance to clear the air and let everyone know where you stand. In the interest of clarity, don't answer more than was asked.
I'll even go first to show you how easy this is:
1. No
2. Due to 1, does not apply.
Joe at January 4, 2014 2:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4176817">comment from JoeJoe's points here are right on.
Crid, do defend why this surgery would be medically necessary (routinely).
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2014 3:21 PM
Crid:
You're evading the questions I asked based on odd statements you've already written, and this after telling me to be more curious. That's fine. But Joe and Amy's responses make it clear you're the only person you have a chance to fool here. I suspect that's enough for you. If not, I look forward to your answer(s).
Tony at January 4, 2014 4:25 PM
Nobody's evading anything: That's not my position, it's just the one you want to have a fight about.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 4, 2014 10:52 PM
crid said:
So we're clear then, circumcision is medically unnecessary surgery and your response, "No it isn't. You're being silly.", to Amy's comment was you misrepresenting your own opinion?
Joe at January 5, 2014 6:45 AM
Already asked and answered. Type the word circumcision in the blog search engine. Prior threads pop up containing this same discussion among you, Amy, Tony, and Crid, including Crid's views on cirumcision as surgery (hint: Not!), medical necessity (clue: Not!). Same cast of characters, same dialogue…
Though on this go-round I did get a kick out of your statement, "Not just me, there are far more people involved than you probably realize." It sounded like a cheesy line from a bad science fiction film about aliens taking over Earth. I had a boyfriend who collected such movie posters. Attack of the 50 Foot Woman was his favorite.
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 7:14 AM
Lizzie said:
If that is the case, then he should have no problem explaining why his reply to Amy's statement that "Circumcision is medically unnecessary surgery" was, "No it isn't. You are being silly." That does not give me the impression that Crid's view on circumcision as surgery is that it's not medically necessary. So I am just looking for clarification, wondering which is it? It's not a difficult question to directly answer, there is no need for argument or commentary. Only yes or no, that's all that a follow up reply would require.
Lizzie said:
I am glad to hear that. The good news is that's it's true, there really are many people who believe that boys deserve the same respect for their bodies that girls enjoy. I recognize that you're not one of them, perhaps one day that will change or perhaps not.
Joe at January 5, 2014 8:07 AM
Crid:
We read
as you putting the no it isn't emphasis on medically unnecessary. When you said your reply didn't say that, I humbly integrated that information to mean you recognize that circumcision is medically unnecessary, in spite of other signals suggesting otherwise. Thus, I asked which of Amy's five words generated your response.
Lizzie:
I assumed Crid's answer is that circumcision is not surgery. It didn't seem reasonable to assume circumcision or is caused the confusion. I recall that wrong belief about surgery from previous threads.
We can dance around the meaning of surgery and surgical, but we'll need Crid's private dictionary for "circumcision is medically unnecessary not surgery" to be correct. I asked my revised question without my assumption because I'd prefer to let Crid answer which of Amy's words was objectionable. I investigated. I did not want to assume Crid hasn't humbly integrated facts since that thread.
This is important in the debate. A person who thinks surgery is not surgery does not understand the most basic facts involved. Considering there are other words in this thread that Crid doesn't understand, such as centralization, it'd be useful to understand how misinformed Crid is on the topic.
Tony at January 5, 2014 8:12 AM
Tony, I can't speak for Crid, I was merely pointing out that you and he have previously covered this and you can refer to those prior discussions.
For myself, I think our fundamental disagreement lies not in the definition of surgery or medical necessity, but in our definitions of the word harm. I don't believe that competently performed circumcision constitutes harm and that whether the risk involved is an accceptable one should be decided by the parents. As Crid mentioned in one of those old threads, it's a risk to life and limb to drive your child anywhere in a car. One could argue that a car trip to say, Pizza Hut, is not truly necessary. One could also argue that feeding my son pizza every night for dinner is potentially unhealthy. But whether my son travels in the car to Pizza Hut and eats pizza for every meal is and should be up to his father and me. It should not be decided by YOU.
Since you appear to believe that every circumcision is harmful, we will never see eye to eye here.
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 8:40 AM
> So we're clear then
You're clear about nothing... as clouded as can be.
Having your bluff called means nothing to you. You're playing your own poker game, and it's auto-erotic. You're still assigning roles, just as an adolescent boy imagines Miss November on his Left and Miss July on his right.
> circumcision is medically unnecessary
> surgery and
Silliness! Remember that link I posted? I asked you to follow it.
You didn't. You should have, because we've covered this. Why the fuck would anyone want to do it again, especially, especially when you made such a torpid showing in earlier times?
(See above at December 29, 2013 12:32 PM)
I think you and Joe are just lonely. There's no expression of "rights" for which a grown man could be so eager for repetitive, unproductive conversation. But for you two, these loops aren't barrel rolls, they're a conversational downward spiral... At the bottom of which, we presume, you'll finally feel free to share your intimate feelings about your mother (or whomever) in some sort of psychotherapeutic safety.
'Cept, y'know, nobody gives a fuck. That's not really what we're about here. If the earlier conversation had paid off, you wouldn't need to do it all again. But since you didn't read it the first time....
As for Amy, I think she sees this as just another way to maintain petulance about the Churches through teenage-obsessive technique. "Hacked!"
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 5, 2014 9:17 AM
See? Tony? Look at this Lizzie woman!—
> Prior threads pop up containing this same
> discussion among you, Amy, Tony, and Crid,
> including Crid's views on cirumcision as
> surgery (hint: Not!)
She only had to read it once! M'kay? She's not even that eager to take part here, but she's demonstrating some important techniques!
Again, I think you need to be grateful to these women, and respond to their opinions (and clarity) in a receptive and grown-up manner.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 5, 2014 9:21 AM
Perhaps a little lost in all this earnestness is my favorite post in the thread, from causticf:
"Shit, I skinned my knuckles last week. Didn't really understand that losing that skin should be a life altering experience.
I actually remember that loss as opposed to the foreskin removed 49 years ago.
My knuckles really, really hurt. I will schedule my therapy session asap."
Does losing skin hurt more when it's close to the bone?
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 9:59 AM
Lizzie:
Every circumcision involves harm. There was a normal, healthy body part. Now there isn't. That is a fact not open to personal opinion. Crid got frothy at the nuance of net harm. I'm not sure that's your objection.
The objective harm, as opposed to just the risk, separates it from taking your child to Pizza Hut or any other straw man for parental choice. This alleged parental choice is allowed for sons only. The prohibition we have against parental choice for girls is 100% applicable to boys. Again, (in)validate one, (in)validate the other.
A healthy male deciding for himself is not me making this choice.
If someone had grabbed causticf's knuckles and scraped them up without his permission, the example might be useful.
Crid:
Very creative evasion after my last comment. The important techniques you claim Lizzie demonstrated involved and required fallacies, not limited to: "I don't believe that competently performed circumcision constitutes harm..."
Tony at January 5, 2014 10:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4178741">comment from TonyIf someone had grabbed causticf's knuckles and scraped them up without his permission, the example might be useful.
Exactly. This is forcible and medically unnecessary removal of tissue.
The epidemiologist I talks to talks about how medical procedures have risk. You don't get to subject your child to that risk because you don't think much or have primitive religious beliefs.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2014 10:29 AM
"Every circumcision involves harm."
Nope. You won't get a consensus on that, either from circumcised males or from physicians. Our parents have the power to make decsions for us, many of which can and often do lead to harm. Circumcision is one of the least potentially dangerous. As a student I did a clinical rotation at a major trauma center and saw firsthand what an automobile can do to a young male body. It made circumcision look like a stubbed toe. We still put our children in cars. Even when driving somewhere isn't necessary.
And human nature being what it is, I have no doubt there are those men who were NOT circumcised and resent their parents for neglecting to do so, because they were ridiculed in the locker room or whatever. One of the more amusing aspects of parenthood is that you're so often damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 11:05 AM
Crid said:
No I don't think so, you were given an ample time and every opportunity to clarify your statement. There is no more reason to believe that your reply, "No it isn't. You're being silly.", applied to the fact that circumcision is surgery than the fact that the sky is blue had you been replying to the statement, "The blue sky is clear."
Here on Earth, it is an objective fact that circumcision is surgery, just as it is an objective fact that the sky appears blue. The only part of Amy's statement on which it is conceivably reasonable to disagree is on the question about whether or not routine circumcision is necessary or not. That you're clearly willing to dismiss the basic objective facts, coupled with these "foaming at the mouth" sophomoric replies demonstrates how weak your position is.
Joe at January 5, 2014 11:46 AM
> creative evasion
You're a coward and a fool. All your points have been addressed directly addressed in the smallest possible number of words, here and elsewhere. Are you still lonely?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 5, 2014 12:10 PM
Lizzie,
I won't get a consensus that circumcision is a net harm, which is a consensus I'm not trying to get. If it helps you, replace the word "harm" with "cost". There are costs. Risk-benefit is an incomplete analysis. Does that make it easier to accept the fact?
You're still offering straw men. It's possible for something to still be bad even though something else is worse. Also, I've seen first- and secondhand what a circumcision can do to a young male body. I linked several earlier.
I know there are intact men who wish they'd been circumcised. I've met some. Strangely enough, they can still get what they want, which is what I'm advocating for all males to be able to do. Perhaps also strangely, they sometimes go through with it and realize they've made a mistake. I've met some men like that, too.
Tony at January 5, 2014 12:14 PM
Crid:
☑
Tony at January 5, 2014 12:32 PM
Did I do that right?
Tony at January 5, 2014 12:33 PM
"It's possible for something to still be bad even though something else is worse."
You're still missing the point. Every day parents must make decisions for their children that carry risk. The mere potential for injury is not reason enough to step in and interfere. In this particular risk, your argument is weakened by the fact that there is not a consensus among physicians regarding medical necessity/benefit and by the fact that millions of circumcised men don't consider themselves injured in any way. It's a long from there to "every circumcision is harmful."
Among the things that have harmed my son in his life, circumcision doesn't even make the bottom of the list. Physically he is a perfectly healthy young male.
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 1:42 PM
Excuse typo-I meant a long way from there
Lizzie at January 5, 2014 1:48 PM
Lizzie:
Obviously we still disagree. You're rebutting points that are at best an incomplete version of what I'm saying. But instead of just more back-and-forth, let me ask this: How should we evaluate the foreskin before it's removed? What about the males who do not approve of having been circumcised? Should there be consequences for circumcisions gone wrong? If so, what and for whom? If not, why not? Finally, what separates circumcision from female genital cutting as a valid non-therapeutic parental choice?
Tony at January 5, 2014 6:05 PM
> at best an incomplete version of what
> I'm saying.
That "at best" is a nice touch! Real nuance-y and edjucmicated-like! …'Cause Lizzie's (multiple!) failures to understand may paint an arcing rainbow of misapprehensions, each shading almost imperceptibly into the next!… But you're a positive thinker, so you're going to put the most pleasant-possible spin on things! (For her sake!) "At best!"
Still, as this sequence tumbles blindly, toothlessly & unloved into a pauper's grave, you're once again misunderstood by a readership indifferent to the fulsome majesty of your detailed reasoning.
And that's gotta hurt.
Dood.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 5, 2014 8:32 PM
I move houses and lose net access for a few days and miss all the fun.
A few points.
1. Circumcision kills nearly 100 infants int eh US every year, no one even bothers to track this, the number is researched by backtracking infant deaths from 'blood loss' and 'infections'
2. FGM runs the gambit from a full removal of the clit to drawing a single drop of blood, which is far more benign and still illegal.
3. Studies show they FGM reduced AIDS infections in subSaharn Africa, gonna do it to your daughter now?
4. The study that claims circumcision reduces AIDS infection never concluded and therefore invalid
5. You have no idea how large a penis will be after puberty. How can you calculate how much to cut off?
6. The reduction in infectivity rates for STDs tops out at less than a 3% drop which is LESS than most margins of error
7. The drier nature of a circumcised penis causes micro fissures in a woman's vagina leading to a slight increase in infection rates for women, this rate is slightly higher than the drop from men, less than 4%
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns
Tell me that this doesnt bother you
9. Circumcision is big business, all those foreskins are sold to bio medical companies who put them in nutrient baths to pump out chemicals which are most makeup products. Thats right ladies, every day you put on makeup your smearing baby dick skin all over your face
10. For Lizzie, www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Tell us again how this isnt a problem.
lujlp at January 6, 2014 11:29 PM
I can’t believe the BS here, a male has the right to his ENTIRE body. A parent has NO Right to cut whatever they want off. Can a parent have their Childs ears cut off? Hell no they would be locked in a loony bin.
.
"I choose for my son on everything” yes you do, you make choices for him, necessary choices, not cosmetic, Parents make equal choices for their sons AND daughters, yet parents are only allowed to cut the baby boys. Does this sound like an equal choice? Hell in the USA, can you a parent choose to have your daughters cut? Even the least invasive type (there are 4 types of FGM; the least invasive type is less damaging than MGM)??? Hell no, and there is NO religious exemption, NOT EVEN a single pin prick to draw a drop of blood for the religious ceremony... So why should you be allowed to cut up a baby boys junk???? And for the record, I am against the cutting of all babies junk… Drop the scalpel and back away from the innocent baby!
.
STD protection? Ah most men in the USA are victims of MGM, (unless he was an adult age 18+ and capable of making INFORMED choices) you got cut up, and still need to wear a condom to prevent STDS, cutting up a penis at birth does NOT stop or reduce the need of condoms and other diseases people make up….
.
His future wife will not like it; she won’t have sex with him… 1- Why would you want your son to marry a shallow disgusting human being? If she doesn’t love him, and ALL of him, why should she be around him let alone his intact penis? Would you want a man around your daughter, when he won’t sleep with her intact genitalia? (Women have the choice to be cut after age 18, and we don’t see women lining up to get it done…. Which is why people cut baby boys, they are afraid that men would NOT choose it, especially after they are fully informed on what happens and what is lost) Would you want your daughter pressured by a man to have her breasts augmented ? Also if NO one is allowed to cut babies genitalia, eventually there would only be Intact men…. Women would still get a choice, sleep with a natural intact male or become celibate the choice is hers.
.
Cut it off, it reduces cervical cancer in some women…. Okay would you expect your daughter to be altered for the benefit of a man? Who has guaranteed that he would WANT to sleep with women? Hell if he was cut up for this specific reason, yet has NO desire to be with a woman he got fucked over for nothing…
.
Religion? What religion is your son the moment he is born? Your religion? A baby is NOT born into any religion, it is forced upon them. In the case of the Jewish religion, he is born and cut up for YOUR (The alleged parents) religion…. What if he grows up and is NOT Jewish? What if he grows up to HATE you and the religion because of what was done to him? You have NO right as a parent to carve your religion into his body. Remember Freedom of and FROM religion. If it is so damn important to cut him up as some covenant with YOUR god, maybe you should ask, WHY does my god want me to harm this innocent religionless baby? AND in this particular religion there are alternatives to the cutting up of an innocent infant. Hell if he does become Jewish (by his choice) he can have the bris/circumcision done as an adult when HE CAN CHOOSE FOR HIMSELF (with PROPER medications of course) and don’t get me started on the fact that some pedophile mohel’s suck the blood from the wound ON the babies’ penis… and some babies have died from it...
.
They cut men for WWII, ah the men were stupid enough to allow the government to cut them up... and by the way the men had to be what 18 years old, and had a choice..... And the excuse of hygiene? Hell we have women in combat now, what are they doing for hygiene? You know in those types of climates, it must reek (notice the sarcasm, of course ADULTS know how to clean their junk) If a woman can be in combat and keep herself clean, what makes a man incapable of doing the same ?
.
It looks funny, yes because you were brain washed into believing a MGM penis is normal when it is NOT normal, with 80% of the men in the world are intact, being cut up is NOT normal…. Think about it, out of 10 guys, 8 are intact… only 2 would be cut up….
.
My son will get teased in the locker room, Hmmm your son will get teased for having his entire penis? When your question should be why are the kids teasing him? Because they know they are MISSING part of their junk? Knowing they will eventually need Viagra??? Why are the other kids staring at your sons junk in the first place.....?
.
It is estimated that 113 or so boys DIE as a direct result of the illegal cutting each year... (See 14th amendment, FGM banned in 1997, which would make MGM illegal, though it is not enforced) and with the number at 113, their cases couldn’t be covered up by another medical issue... A baby boy cut up, bleeds out, the cause of death only "Blood loss" nothing mentioned the parents’ illegal consent to kill their son by UNNESSESARY COSMETIC SURGERY... and to these alleged parents, YOUR FAULT, not that innocent baby. Bitch all you want, had YOU NOT given permission, the cosmetic surgery wouldn’t have happened and the boy wouldn’t have bled out.
.
This barbaric practice will not stop until all the victims turn on their abusers, the alleged "Parents" and then the alleged “Doctors” who ignored their OATH of FIRST DO NO HARM.
Annoymous at June 23, 2014 11:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/29/a_body_should_n.html#comment-4791204">comment from Annoymous"Annoymous" is right.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2014 4:11 AM
1. Circumcision kills nearly 100 infants in the US every year, no one even bothers to track this, the number is researched by backtracking infant deaths from 'blood loss' and 'infections'
ME. In the USA and Canada, there is no honest count of the number of routine and ritual circumcisions that have botched or lethal outcomes. We know from media reports that the number is not zero.
2. FGM runs the gambit from a full removal of the clit to drawing a single drop of blood, which is far more benign and still illegal.
ME. With male circumcision, there are but two variables: how much foreskin to remove, and whether or not to preserve the frenulum. The range of FGM is a good deal more complex.
3. Studies show they FGM reduced AIDS infections in subSaharan Africa, gonna do it to your daughter now?
ME. There is a such a study, and it has been deep sixed by being ignored.
4. The study that claims circumcision reduces AIDS infection never concluded and therefore invalid
ME. In only one African country does the %age of intact men who are HIV positive substantially exceed the %age of cut men who are seropositive. This fact alone makes me question the African clinical trials. They were also cut short after 18 months, so that risk compensation was not allowed to manifest itself.
5. You have no idea how large a penis will be after puberty. How can you calculate how much to cut off?
ME. This is a very valid objection to infant circumcision, one that does not apply when the circumcision is performed after puberty. The foreskin and the penis grow by different amounts. Every little boy has a long pointed foreskin. Most grown men do not.
6. The reduction in infectivity rates for STDs tops out at less than a 3% drop which is LESS than most margins of error.
ME. Europe and Japan do not circumcise, and are not STD hells.
7. The drier nature of a circumcised penis causes micro fissures in a woman's vagina leading to a slight increase in infection rates for women, this rate is slightly higher than the drop from men, less than 4%.
ME. There is no careful research comparing PIV with an intact penis to PIV with a cut penis. After the 40th birthday, the glans of most circumcised penises do not look appetizing. The foreskin keeps the glans smooth, moist and sensitive. There are American wives who complain in social media that PIV with their circumcised husbands is a cause of chronic pain and irritation. They know that circ is to blame, because of previous relationships with intact men.
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns
Tell me that this doesnt bother you
ME. Most American doctors still refuse to inject lidocaine before performing an RIC. This is barbaric, and should be outlawed.
concerned cynic at October 19, 2014 9:55 PM
How many parents have the understanding of urology, STDs and human sexuality they would need in order to have any business deciding the fate of a son's foreskin? Every man should decide for himself, when he attains his majority, what kind of penis he will have throughout his adult life. Circumcising babies implies that young men cannot be trusted to make the right decision. I have read a rabbi argue thusly: the foreskin predisposes a man to sexual immorality. But no young man will agree to part with his foreskin, once he is in the habit of masturbating with it. Hence the foreskin must be removed by force, and very early in life so that he can neither resist, nor remember the indignity to which he was subjected, nor know the sexual value of what was taken from him.
The rabbi's reasoning revealed a condescending attitude of an unsurpassed intensity towards the male of our species.
concerned cynic at October 19, 2014 10:04 PM
Leave a comment