Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

[Eduk]

Calm down everyone. No reason to simply take kathyd's word for it.

[Fooloso4]

Eduk:

Calm down everyone. No reason to simply take kathyd's word for it.

It has probably occurred to many of us (it has to me) that these posts are just a work of fiction. That may be, but if it is then we enter this fictional world and discuss what is going on in it just as we would any other work of fiction. Kathyd may be a work of fiction or Kathyd may be real and presenting a work of fiction, but we do not know that Kathyd or what she says is a work of fiction. What we say about real people and their actions has limits according to forum rules and legal ramifications, so it is best to be prudent.

[Serendipper]

I agree with everyone and, like Lucky, find it interesting that she dodged his question. I'll bet her son hates her guts....

I would have ran away before I'd let mom do that to me. I remember being in a doctor's office listening to him propose a spinal tap and thinking "I'm going to bust out that window and run if she concedes to that nonsense." I grew up in the doctor's office and only occasionally visited a place called home. Allergy shots, bone scans, upper and lower GI with 5000 xrays, tonsils, catheters, heck I don't even remember it all. And the funny thing is I'm perfectly healthy and haven't been near a doctor in decades. I bet I could outrun, outswim, outwork anyone here. Mom should have been the one requiring help. I swear: parents are the worst thing to ever happen to a child because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mom used to say "It's only because I love you that I'm doing this". And I remember saying "I'd prefer it if you didn't." Seriously, kick me in the butt and say "sink or swim" because that would have been best for me. Either I would have survived and consequently thrived or I would have died and been out of the gene pool. That's how nature works. I would not have wanted to have been a modified being kept alive with technology just for the sake of being alive. There is more to life than simply being kept alive and helicopter parents are a menace. We are not raising children, we are raising men and women; we are not to teach dependence, but independence. Mom wanted a baby, a dependent, and she still does, to this day. My 30th birthday I got balloons and clowns. Mom loves me dearly and I survived in spite of it. Serendipity.

[LuckyR]

I agree with everyone and, like Lucky, find it interesting that she dodged his question. I'll bet her son hates her guts....

I would have ran away before I'd let mom do that to me. I remember being in a doctor's office listening to him propose a spinal tap and thinking "I'm going to bust out that window and run if she concedes to that nonsense." I grew up in the doctor's office and only occasionally visited a place called home. Allergy shots, bone scans, upper and lower GI with 5000 xrays, tonsils, catheters, heck I don't even remember it all. And the funny thing is I'm perfectly healthy and haven't been near a doctor in decades. I bet I could outrun, outswim, outwork anyone here. Mom should have been the one requiring help. I swear: parents are the worst thing to ever happen to a child because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mom used to say "It's only because I love you that I'm doing this". And I remember saying "I'd prefer it if you didn't." Seriously, kick me in the butt and say "sink or swim" because that would have been best for me. Either I would have survived and consequently thrived or I would have died and been out of the gene pool. That's how nature works. I would not have wanted to have been a modified being kept alive with technology just for the sake of being alive. There is more to life than simply being kept alive and helicopter parents are a menace. We are not raising children, we are raising men and women; we are not to teach dependence, but independence. Mom wanted a baby, a dependent, and she still does, to this day. My 30th birthday I got balloons and clowns. Mom loves me dearly and I survived in spite of it. Serendipity.

I apologize to you on behalf of the universe, that really sucks. Though those who were neglected, as opposed to helicoptered may not be able to relate to your problem.

As I noted to kathyd, her job as parent stops in 7 years medically, so her reasoning (rationalizations) as to her son's adult future this and that is invalid.

[Serendipper]

I apologize to you on behalf of the universe, that really sucks. Though those who were neglected, as opposed to helicoptered may not be able to relate to your problem.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Ideal parenting is elusive and a mysterious mix of knowing when to intervene and when to step aside.

My friend was beaten and neglected as a child, and now that he is a parent, he spared the rod and has raised an unmanageable tyrant who will not take "no" for an answer. One extreme to the other.

[LuckyR]

I apologize to you on behalf of the universe, that really sucks. Though those who were neglected, as opposed to helicoptered may not be able to relate to your problem.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Ideal parenting is elusive and a mysterious mix of knowing when to intervene and when to step aside.

My friend was beaten and neglected as a child, and now that he is a parent, he spared the rod and has raised an unmanageable tyrant who will not take "no" for an answer. One extreme to the other.

Well, in the context of your conversations parenting can be close to impossible, yet remain quite easy in other contexts. What I mean is that since child-rearing is expensive, time-consuming and challenging, it is imperative that the parent in question really, really want to have kids. Since, unfortunately, only a sizable minority of actual parents do, that leaves a majority of children vulnerable to terrible parenting. OTOH, for those who A) really, really want to have kids and B) have the mental dexterity to outsmart a small child, it is totally possible to control children and provide them the boundaries needed to develop appropriate social skills without laying a finger on the kid physically.

[Serendipper]

The grass is always greener on the other side. Ideal parenting is elusive and a mysterious mix of knowing when to intervene and when to step aside.

My friend was beaten and neglected as a child, and now that he is a parent, he spared the rod and has raised an unmanageable tyrant who will not take "no" for an answer. One extreme to the other.

Well, in the context of your conversations parenting can be close to impossible, yet remain quite easy in other contexts. What I mean is that since child-rearing is expensive, time-consuming and challenging, it is imperative that the parent in question really, really want to have kids. Since, unfortunately, only a sizable minority of actual parents do, that leaves a majority of children vulnerable to terrible parenting. OTOH, for those who A) really, really want to have kids and B) have the mental dexterity to outsmart a small child, it is totally possible to control children and provide them the boundaries needed to develop appropriate social skills without laying a finger on the kid physically.

It's that "really, really want" that bothers me. Mom lost two pregnancies before me and she "really, really wanted" me.... wanted me in a box so I couldn't get hurt, which had the opposite effect since I went wild. She treats her animals the same: one cat lives in a bedroom and the other lives outside the bedroom. You can't get near them for they flee for their lives at the sight of a human. One cat she used to keep in a carrier all its life. Caring too much is just as problematic as caring too little, if not moreso because caring too little doesn't result in having skin chopped off someone's tallywacker.

He can't exert any punishment because the kid just does what he wills. If he doesn't feel like going to school, then dad can't make him go unless he gets physical, which he won't do because of his own father's actions. He's actually been to court over truancy. Other friends have kids that were well-behaved and are now independent adults because they got a belt across the hiney, had chores to do, and were expected to pull their own weight as much as possible. Like I said, there has to be a middle way between the extremes. I'm not advocating spanking, but there must be some consequence because a parent cannot make idle threats or the child discovers he can get away with anything; that's what I mean by sparing the rod (it's metaphorical).

[LuckyR]

Well, in the context of your conversations parenting can be close to impossible, yet remain quite easy in other contexts. What I mean is that since child-rearing is expensive, time-consuming and challenging, it is imperative that the parent in question really, really want to have kids. Since, unfortunately, only a sizable minority of actual parents do, that leaves a majority of children vulnerable to terrible parenting. OTOH, for those who A) really, really want to have kids and B) have the mental dexterity to outsmart a small child, it is totally possible to control children and provide them the boundaries needed to develop appropriate social skills without laying a finger on the kid physically.

It's that "really, really want" that bothers me. Mom lost two pregnancies before me and she "really, really wanted" me.... wanted me in a box so I couldn't get hurt, which had the opposite effect since I went wild. She treats her animals the same: one cat lives in a bedroom and the other lives outside the bedroom. You can't get near them for they flee for their lives at the sight of a human. One cat she used to keep in a carrier all its life. Caring too much is just as problematic as caring too little, if not moreso because caring too little doesn't result in having skin chopped off someone's tallywacker.

He can't exert any punishment because the kid just does what he wills. If he doesn't feel like going to school, then dad can't make him go unless he gets physical, which he won't do because of his own father's actions. He's actually been to court over truancy. Other friends have kids that were well-behaved and are now independent adults because they got a belt across the hiney, had chores to do, and were expected to pull their own weight as much as possible. Like I said, there has to be a middle way between the extremes. I'm not advocating spanking, but there must be some consequence because a parent cannot make idle threats or the child discovers he can get away with anything; that's what I mean by sparing the rod (it's metaphorical).

Oh, as I mentioned, being motivated to do a good job is a prerequisite to being a good parent, but is not a guarantee of it. Or to put it a different way, if you aren't motivated, you will suck at it. But if you are motivated you also need to have certain skills, including balance. Sounds like your mom lacked that.

As to your friend's troubles, if you haven't laid the groundwork long before school starts, you're too late.

[Belindi]

Kathyd is a devil's advocate whether she intends it or not. Good! I'm pleased there is such an uproar here against circumcision. Is there some objective means of identifying persons who circumcise? Should our wrath be aimed at religions, or at authority generally?

Children cannot be trained as animals are trained, and the socialisation of children has a lot to do with how the parent or teacher relates to the child. Some children are more docile than others but no child is born a criminal.

The boy who truants needs guidelines he doesn't sound to me like a happy child. A parent needs to assert themself and their house rules for everybody's sake. If the parent belts the child because the parent is truly angry with the child's behaviour and the child recognises their parent has feelings, the punishment is a lot fairer than when the child is made to believe that he is a bad boy or a bad girl at heart and the parent a dispassionate judge.

That badly-behaved , untutored, boy will have to work out for himself what is right and what is wrong unless he gets psychological help. Corporal punishment won't educate him.

LuckyR wrote on 17 November:

I assist families in making this decision professionally (in the Pacific NW). Briefly there has been significant amounts of energy put into evaluating the medical risks and benefits, so there is a comprehensive medical opinion. As has been alluded to, the overall medical computation leads to a benefit. However the benefit is almost insignificantly small.

Does the "medical computation" include that male circumcision detracts from sexual pleasure which it does? Indeed that's why God likes dead foreskins.
It is within the capability of a school hygienist to explain that men and boys need to retract their foreskins and wash the secretions away. The only justification for male circumcision is phimosis.

[Eduk]

Why do you say no child is born a criminal? You don't believe in nature? Or you are making a different point?

[Belindi]

Why do you say no child is born a criminal? You don't believe in nature? Or you are making a different point?

Criminality is a legal not a biological category. Individuals are deemed to reach an age of criminal responsibility. I see what you are saying about nature and the bad acts of born psychopaths are pathological not moral defects.

[Eduk]

Er well the point about criminality being a constructed category I agree with, hence me asking for clarity.
However you seem to slightly contradict yourself? I mean granted a phycopath is not considered a moral agent and hence they don't go to jail, much like the child they are not deemed responsible enough.
But, and I'm still not clear on this point, what about resonably functional individuals who commit crimes.
It seems to be that the extreme liberal believes nothing is anyone's fault while the extreme conservative believes everything is everyone's fault. I feel it depends. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes it is towards the extremes and rarely is one person possessed of only one ratio.

[Belindi]

Eduk wrote:

But, and I'm still not clear on this point, what about resonably functional individuals who commit crimes.
It seems to be that the extreme liberal believes nothing is anyone's fault while the extreme conservative believes everything is everyone's fault. I feel it depends. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes it is towards the extremes and rarely is one person possessed of only one ratio.

I agree. My own opinion regarding the whatabout you refer to is that by hook or by crook a moral consensus is arrived at and made into law; otherwise the society is likely to collapse.

I am on the liberal spectrum which puts me at the slight disadvantage of supporting democracy along with rule of recognisable law.

[LuckyR]

Kathyd is a devil's advocate whether she intends it or not. Good! I'm pleased there is such an uproar here against circumcision. Is there some objective means of identifying persons who circumcise? Should our wrath be aimed at religions, or at authority generally?

Children cannot be trained as animals are trained, and the socialisation of children has a lot to do with how the parent or teacher relates to the child. Some children are more docile than others but no child is born a criminal.

The boy who truants needs guidelines he doesn't sound to me like a happy child. A parent needs to assert themself and their house rules for everybody's sake. If the parent belts the child because the parent is truly angry with the child's behaviour and the child recognises their parent has feelings, the punishment is a lot fairer than when the child is made to believe that he is a bad boy or a bad girl at heart and the parent a dispassionate judge.

That badly-behaved , untutored, boy will have to work out for himself what is right and what is wrong unless he gets psychological help. Corporal punishment won't educate him.

LuckyR wrote on 17 November:

I assist families in making this decision professionally (in the Pacific NW). Briefly there has been significant amounts of energy put into evaluating the medical risks and benefits, so there is a comprehensive medical opinion. As has been alluded to, the overall medical computation leads to a benefit. However the benefit is almost insignificantly small.

Does the "medical computation" include that male circumcision detracts from sexual pleasure which it does? Indeed that's why God likes dead foreskins.
It is within the capability of a school hygienist to explain that men and boys need to retract their foreskins and wash the secretions away. The only justification for male circumcision is phimosis.

Not so much. It reduces the risk of penile cancer (admittedly a modest amount for an uncommon problem), as well as the better known improvement in the prevention of acquisition of the AIDS virus, among other very minor issues. You are aware that despite instruction, many don't perform adequate hygiene, right?

Bottom line, the benefits are overall tiny, as are the risks. Thus the correct advice to make the decision on non-medical grounds.

BTW do you consider premature ejaculation a problem? Regardless, many do and if an individual does, improvement in this area is commonly self described as an increase in sexual pleasure.

[Belindi]

LuckyR wrote:

Not so much. It reduces the risk of penile cancer (admittedly a modest amount for an uncommon problem), as well as the better known improvement in the prevention of acquisition of the AIDS virus, among other very minor issues. You are aware that despite instruction, many don't perform adequate hygiene, right?

I am aware of the problem that many men don't wash under their foreskins and of the cancer risk to men and their partners of not doing so. Also of how nooks and crannies of skin preserve and multiply germs in stale excretions. But surgical intervention is a drastic remedy compared with learning basic care of the skin, plus provision of adequate washing facilities for the millions who lack them.