1902: Arbitrary

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

i've heard this a lot and always without explanation. what's the science behind it?

I imagine it's the same as why it's much easier to contract shit in an ass/vagina than with a dick. If you have something that can trap and retain infected material, you're more likely to get what it got.

[Sparrow]

here's a link from the cdc: CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

there's a real lack of definitive research on the how and why. i'm of the opinion that good hygiene and sexual safety habits are a kinder gift to my child than removing part of his sexual organ.

[BrianAlt]

Supposedly it is based on hygiene. However, I'm sure it was much more of an issue thousands of years ago. Today it's much easier to keep clean.

Personally I wouldn't know what it would be like with one and I'm glad I don't know. If it was the other way I can imagine I'd feel exactly the same way.

[bw81]

It can get hard dealing with other dickhead parents who think that because whatever worked for them and their situation, HAS to work for you and your kid. You have to develop a thick skin and learn how to bite your tongue to the point of it severing in half if you don't want the guilt, judgements and conflicting opinions to destroy your confidence in raising your child.

The hardest part though, is when "professionals" do the same. Paediatricians, GPs, nurses, etc... can be very over-bearing especially with your first;

"If you don't breastfeed your baby they will probably eat your dog."

"If you don't let your baby sleep with noise they will never sleep unless it is dead quiet for the rest of their lives. And they will probably eat your dog."

Or one of my favourites (which actually happened to my wife and I) was when our paediatrician said that we just forgot how hard it was dealing with a newborn when our son (our second child) was born and was crying all the time for nearly 6 months. Turns out he had a very sensitive stomach and he was intolerant to gluten, soy and dairy. But we only found that out after doing our own research and taking him to other "professionals" who weren't dickheads.

Every decision you make as a parent will be scrutinized by some fuckwit - family and friends included at times. You get good at smiling, nodding and lately, for me, just saying, "No, that is stupid."

I have a long road ahead of dickheads to come since my son has been diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum. I'm sure I'm going to have a lot more stories in the years to come.

In regards to circumcision, my wife said she would not rather do it to our son but said that if I was adamant that we do it then she would agree to. I was cut but I just didn't see the need to do it to him. I think that, like most of the parenting decisions you make, you will wonder whether you made the right choice and yo-yo back and forth every once in a while.

And Myq rocks.

[flerchin]

Myq says (paraphrasing) "Different people can come to different, yet correct, answers to the same questions. Sometimes the answer that is right for you, is not right for another person."

tl;dr Myq is smart. Your circumcision argument is invalid.

[myq]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The teacher should absolutely be stripped of licensing and jailed.

Myq and Chemda both noticed the power imbalance, but only Keith is the one recognizing that this was a gross abuse of power.

Even if this guy thought he could consent, he was wrong. She was a 31 year-old adult and licensed professional who should have known better.

It's a breach on both a professional and a moral level, and she should be in jail.

I understand what you're saying. I've seen that there are cases where a psychologist goes to jail for sleeping with a patient, assumedly for the same kind of consent issues that come up with that power dynamic situation. And I get what you're saying about it being a moral concern (and of course, no question on the professional concern, of course they should not keep their job), but IS it actually a legal one under current law? And when you say that the guy can't consent, is that something that is truly verifiable?

The whole point of "age of consent" is that once you get to a certain age, if you believe you are consenting, that is what constitutes consenting. Of course, in the psychologist/patient situation, obviously age isn't the only thing at play; the power dynamic is as well, but I do think that in some case-by-case assessments, the two situations are not necessarily completely parallel.

Here's a reason why I don't think the teacher has to go to jail, based on a preventative criminal motivation... they're only CAPABLE of committing the crime if they ARE a teacher. If they're no longer in a supervisory role where they can sleep with someone on the lower end of that power dynamic, then they are of no danger to anyone in the community, based on the evidence here. They should be fired, and then they'll never re-offend because they can't.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I imagine it's the same as why it's much easier to contract shit in an ass/vagina than with a dick. If you have something that can trap and retain infected material, you're more likely to get what it got.

Definitely, diseases likes these thrive in wet places, so the more wetness there is (which not being circumcised increases), the greater the disease potential, in my lay person understanding.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

here's a link from the cdc: CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

there's a real lack of definitive research on the how and why. i'm of the opinion that good hygiene and sexual safety habits are a kinder gift to my child than removing part of his sexual organ.

I understand what you're saying, but based on tons of anecdotal experiences, including my own, in addition to these studies, in general people don't remember the experience of being cut (nor anything else until about age 3), and there are generally no adverse effects on sex life. (Sex feels great to me!)

I don't think anyone should be told they should or shouldn't, as long as all the information is transparently available.

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

Supposedly it is based on hygiene. However, I'm sure it was much more of an issue thousands of years ago.

However, the studies being done ARE happening today. So today is when less disease transmission is occurring with circumcision.

Originally Posted by bw81

And Myq rocks.

Thanks! Myq also thanks!

Originally Posted by flerchin

Myq says (paraphrasing) "Different people can come to different, yet correct, answers to the same questions. Sometimes the answer that is right for you, is not right for another person."

tl;dr Myq is smart. Your circumcision argument is invalid.

ts;du (too short, don't understand). Are you saying this to me or someone else?

Is anyone here saying definitively that people should definitely do one or the other thing when it comes to circumcision? There certainly seem to be some reasons for, and some reasons against. No?

Glad I'm not having kids probably!

[Sparrow]

who are all these guys going bareback?

[fluxquanta]

the little things that matter

Edit: Also penises are little things that matter.

[myq]

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

the little things that matter

Edit: Also penises are little things that matter.

how about that!

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

I forget, when was it that Chemda earned her master's degree in linguistics?


OH RIGHT, that was Myq.

end of debate.

Are you suggesting that Chemda is not proficient in linguistics?