Are we going to discuss German circumcision?

[eightangryreindeer]

There is a fantastic joke in here somewhere about Schweinsteiger, the Euro, Angela Merkel and Greece being in flames.

Give me a minute.


My opinion is that it's an odd thing to make illegal, and I'm really annoyed because my friend just left and she is married to a German guy and they have two sons so I'll need her take on this.

[amandasw]

Jun 28, 2012 14:03:52 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

My H and I have talked about it, if you are really interested. He's never had any problem with his penis, and most of the boys he grew up with were circumcised. He thinks it's the "normal" thing to do and doesn't see any reason to deviate from the "normal" practice. Kind of like the way he felt about me changing/not changing my name when we got married. So ... I expected that he would have made a huge stink about it and then later decided that I actually had a point and that not circumcising was cool. lol

thanks - we aren't anywhere near making babies, so haven't talked about it much and I'm just more curious what guys think about this topic than women in some ways.

[hubes]

Jun 28, 2012 14:10:49 GMT -5 @amandasw said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:03:52 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

My H and I have talked about it, if you are really interested. He's never had any problem with his penis, and most of the boys he grew up with were circumcised. He thinks it's the "normal" thing to do and doesn't see any reason to deviate from the "normal" practice. Kind of like the way he felt about me changing/not changing my name when we got married. So ... I expected that he would have made a huge stink about it and then later decided that I actually had a point and that not circumcising was cool. lol

thanks - we aren't anywhere near making babies, so haven't talked about it much and I'm just more curious what guys think about this topic than women in some ways.

I left the choice up to my DH. I don't have a penis, and really, I have no idea what kind of care those things take.

He decided to have DS circumcised. I guess I feel like its a weird thing for me to have a strong opinion about. Like a man who has a strong opinion about outlawing abortion or birth control.

[onesweetworld]

Jun 28, 2012 12:49:58 GMT -5 @booby said:

good. i'm happy to hear this. i don't care about religion. the practice is barbaric and entirely unnecessary.

Agree.

[amandasw]

oh and also, I tend to err on the side of not making things illegal because a) people might just find a way to do it anyways and b) if you want something to change/stop/etc you should educate people - have discussions and make a change from the bottom up rather than implement a law

[papie]

Jun 28, 2012 14:15:52 GMT -5 toledo said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:12:51 GMT -5 hubes said:

I guess I feel like its a weird thing for me to have a strong opinion about. Like a man who has a strong opinion about outlawing abortion or birth control.

I don't understand this. I have strong opinions about everything concerning my children's health. I'm guessing my H probably has a strong opinion on whether I should even get my girls' ears pierced.

Exactly.
If you want to compare to BC, I would think that if my 12yo daughter were to get on BCP, her dad would probably have an opinion about it, you know?

[thebamker]

Jun 28, 2012 14:13:22 GMT -5 @amandasw said:

oh and also, I tend to err on the side of not making things illegal because a) people might just find a way to do it anyways and b) if you want something to change/stop/etc you should educate people - have discussions and make a change from the bottom up rather than implement a law

back alley circumcisions!

[snipsnsnails]

I get not caring about religion, but even if you don't care about religion, do you care about the government's protection of its peoples' religious freedoms? And this question is serious, not rhetorical.

I mean, they just banned a mosque building in my town and I'm bent out of shape and sending letters about that. Don't make me go look up the formative history of Canada. I don't know it! Ha.

[papie]

Jun 28, 2012 14:20:38 GMT -5 snipsnsnails said:

I get not caring about religion, but even if you don't care about religion, do you care about the government's protection of its peoples' religious freedoms? And this question is serious, not rhetorical.

It depends if the religious freedom is competing with their basic rights. Like their right to a whole penis.

[snipsnsnails]

Aw, pap, when you phrase it that way, you purposely pit freedom of religion against fundamental rights. Religious liberty is viewed as a human right by many the world over - including both of our countries.

[papie]

I'm not trying to be offensive. But I'm seriously bothered by things done to babies in the name of religion. Because those babies didn't have the choice.

Is it different than, say, JW who refuse that their childen get blood donations because of their religion? Which btw is against the law?

[snipsnsnails]

Aw, I'm not keeping at it because I'm offended, I'm genuinely curious about people's feelings on religious liberty and freedom.

And JW are allowed certain types of transfusion as well as emergency, non-elective transfusions and this is deemed ok within the confines of their beliefs. As far as a parental option for a non-emergency surgery that will not allow transfusions, yes, I think that's their religious freedom and most doctors will work with that when possible.

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 14:50:07 GMT -5 snipsnsnails said:

Aw, I'm not keeping at it because I'm offended, I'm genuinely curious about people's feelings on religious liberty and freedom.

And JW are allowed certain types of transfusion as well as emergency, non-elective transfusions and this is deemed ok within the confines of their beliefs. As far as a parental option for a non-emergency surgery that will not allow transfusions, yes, I think that's their religious freedom and most doctors will work with that when possible.

I think religion and its trappings should be a conscious choice.

[Deleted]

I have an issue with a government asserting power over religious beliefs, because the government is essentially saying "I know better than your God".

Uh, dude, unless we're participating in ritual human sacrifices you can fuck off.

Oh, AND in the case of child protective laws, the government is asserting its possession of your children, to an extent. I'm all for the absolute minimum when it comes to governmental regulations regarding partenting practices because the opposite end of the spectrum is terrifying. Terrifyiing. The second children are not seen as the property of their parents we lose all say.

[snipsnsnails]

Jun 28, 2012 14:51:02 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:50:07 GMT -5 snipsnsnails said:

Aw, I'm not keeping at it because I'm offended, I'm genuinely curious about people's feelings on religious liberty and freedom.

And JW are allowed certain types of transfusion as well as emergency, non-elective transfusions and this is deemed ok within the confines of their beliefs. As far as a parental option for a non-emergency surgery that will not allow transfusions, yes, I think that's their religious freedom and most doctors will work with that when possible.

I think religion and its trappings should be a conscious choice.

If that's the case, allow me to speak in hyperbole for one moment, should we ban all parents from practicing any sort of faith or religious practice with their child until they are old enough to consent?

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 14:53:29 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

I have an issue with a government asserting power over religious beliefs, because the government is essentially saying "I know better than your God".

Uh, dude, unless we're participating in ritual human sacrifices you can fuck off.

So anything short of human sacrifice is okay?

*scribbles quietly in my notepad*

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 14:53:54 GMT -5 snipsnsnails said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:51:02 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

I think religion and its trappings should be a conscious choice.

If that's the case, allow me to speak in hyperbole for one moment, should we ban all parents from practicing any sort of faith or religious practice with their child until they are old enough to consent?

Well that's not up to me.
That's up to the general consensus.
But on a personal level I feel that it should be a choice.

[papie]

Jun 28, 2012 14:53:29 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

I have an issue with a government asserting power over religious beliefs, because the government is essentially saying "I know better than your God".

Uh, dude, unless we're participating in ritual human sacrifices you can fuck off.

Oh, AND in the case of child protective laws, the government is asserting its possession of your children, to an extent. I'm all for the absolute minimum when it comes to governmental regulations regarding partenting practices because the opposite end of the spectrum is terrifying. Terrifyiing. The second children are not seen as the property of their parents we lose all say.

But shouldn't we, as a society, protect children of abusive parents? Isn't that the government interfering with parenting? What if you deeply believe that your child needs a beatup when they don't listen? What if God told you that?

[eddy]

Least favorite gbcn debate. Just thought I would put it out ther. :-)

[snipsnsnails]

I think that's when it comes down to measuring out the resulting tension between two human rights and where the importance both not just in this situation but in resulting situations comes in.

I think we can both see the tension, but come down on different sides of the middle, you know?

And I'd never flame that! Ha!

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2012 14:58:37 GMT -5 @booby said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:57:24 GMT -5 papie said:

But shouldn't we, as a society, protect children of abusive parents? Isn't that the government interfering with parenting? What if you deeply believe that your child needs a beatup when they don't listen? What if God told you that?

exactly. hello honour killings. there are a lot of things religion tells us to do, but we can't all sit back and go, 'no prob!' just b/c it is based on religion.

That's what my "absolute minimum" implies. Yes, there are things that should be stopped. Murder, for one. A procedure that may have a slight negative impact on sexual enjoyment and with a very low incidence of complications? Not gonna stop that.

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 15:02:06 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:58:37 GMT -5 @booby said:

exactly. hello honour killings. there are a lot of things religion tells us to do, but we can't all sit back and go, 'no prob!' just b/c it is based on religion.

That's what my "absolute minimum" implies. Yes, there are things that should be stopped. Murder, for one. A procedure that may have a slight negative impact on sexual enjoyment and with a very low incidence of complications? Not gonna stop that.

But aren't we as a society trying to get to some optimal existence? Isn't that the goal and we're all pushing and pulling and compromising trying to find something that most closely matches a happy medium for all?

Why compromise on sexual satisfaction?

Is it more important that the parents religious freedoms are protected or the child's penis?

[vampsterdam]

Jun 28, 2012 13:55:40 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

Jun 28, 2012 13:54:29 GMT -5 poopedydoop said:

I agree with booby. If you want to grow up and chop a part of your penis off for whatever reason, good for you.

There are a lot of men who resent their parents for having them circumcised. The foreskin protects the head from everyday friction, keeping it very sensitive, and sex more pleasurable.

I guess this is why ancient religious guys decided it should be chopped off.

Aren't there religious men in countries like Italy or Greece who haven't had it done? So yeah...

FTR, I am indifferent on this.

[papie]

Jun 28, 2012 15:02:06 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:58:37 GMT -5 @booby said:

exactly. hello honour killings. there are a lot of things religion tells us to do, but we can't all sit back and go, 'no prob!' just b/c it is based on religion.

That's what my "absolute minimum" implies. Yes, there are things that should be stopped. Murder, for one. A procedure that may have a slight negative impact on sexual enjoyment and with a very low incidence of complications? Not gonna stop that.

You view it as minimal. Apparently germans don't.
Go Germany! Athough I hate them for beating Greece in the Euro. And for holding Greece by the balls. Whether the peens attached to those balls are circumsized or not.

(yes, this is me ADDing on the debate)

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 15:01:54 GMT -5 snipsnsnails said:

I think that's when it comes down to measuring out the resulting tension between two human rights and where the importance both not just in this situation but in resulting situations comes in.

I think we can both see the tension, but come down on different sides of the middle, you know?

And I'd never flame that! Ha!

I think that's why it's good that there's a cooperative whole, at least the notion of it.

[amandasw]

Jun 28, 2012 15:05:49 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

Why compromise on sexual satisfaction?

ok, when this part gets brought up every time we have this debate, I do want to know what guys think. I know my H has no complaints about how pleasurable he finds sex! lol

but for realz, how often is this actually a problem?

[papie]

Jun 28, 2012 15:08:21 GMT -5 @amandasw said:

Jun 28, 2012 15:05:49 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

Why compromise on sexual satisfaction?

ok, when this part gets brought up every time we have this debate, I do want to know what guys think. I know my H has no complaints about how pleasurable he finds sex! lol

but for realz, how often is this actually a problem?

How would they know? It's not like they have been having sex both ways.

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 15:08:21 GMT -5 @amandasw said:

Jun 28, 2012 15:05:49 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

Why compromise on sexual satisfaction?

ok, when this part gets brought up every time we have this debate, I do want to know what guys think. I know my H has no complaints about how pleasurable he finds sex! lol

but for realz, how often is this actually a problem?

I don't think it actually is because men either experience their sexual lives as circumcised men or uncircumcised men so they only know what they have and not what could be.

[candyapple]

Jun 28, 2012 15:14:02 GMT -5 kevin arnold said:

Jun 28, 2012 14:56:15 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

hoooboy.

I made a funny back on page 2 and I don't have it in me to go back through all the replies to see if someone lol'd at me.

But I did chuckle to myself to see some people noted as "Full Member" beneath their username in light of this topic. Hehe...member.

IF ANYONE FINDS THIS FUNNY, PAGE ME AND LET ME KNOW BECAUSE I WON'T BE COMING BACK IN HERE. TIA.

Is this a sensitive topic, Kevin?

Do we need to talk about this, Kevin?

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2012 15:05:49 GMT -5 @candyapple said:

Jun 28, 2012 15:02:06 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

That's what my "absolute minimum" implies. Yes, there are things that should be stopped. Murder, for one. A procedure that may have a slight negative impact on sexual enjoyment and with a very low incidence of complications? Not gonna stop that.

But aren't we as a society trying to get to some optimal existence? Isn't that the goal and we're all pushing and pulling and compromising trying to find something that most closely matches a happy medium for all?

Why compromise on sexual satisfaction?

Is it more important that the parents religious freedoms are protected or the child's penis?

If you want a happy medium for all go read "Brave New World" and see how that pans out.

Life is about individuals. What makes me happy will not make you happy. Reducing joy to meeting neutral mutually agreeable parameters is destroying it.