Gut Rumbles
 

February 20, 2006

ain't her call

This woman needs to be dragged off and shot. Who the hell is SHE to make such a decision?

An Illinois judge has halted the circumcision of an 8-year-old boy while his father contests the mother's plan for the operation.{...} The 31-year-old mother has said two doctors agreed with the circumcision, saying it will prevent medical problems.

The boy is eight years old, for crying out loud. If he's not suffering severe medical problems RIGHT NOW, Mama should leave his dick alone. Teach him to wash the damned thing and she's done all she needs to do to prevent future medical problems.

I wouldn't eliminate the possiblity that she wants to lacerate her son's pecker just so she can fuck with his father. I've seen that kind of crap happen in divorce situations. It's all about symbolic emasculation.

Leave that boy alone.


Comments

Uncircumcised men have a 100% increase of disease.

Which is 2 per year, as opposed to 1 per year.

Posted by: Yogimus on February 20, 2006 01:16 PM

Plus it ain't pretty when you're eye to eye with it, so to speak.

Posted by: Cheryl on February 20, 2006 01:24 PM

Female circumcision is widely decried as multilation and an assault on women. Male circumcision is the most commonly occurring elective surgery in the US. Double standard? Of course.

Posted by: Gahrie on February 20, 2006 02:25 PM

Gahrie,

What's done to females in parts of Africa and Asia, isn't a "circumcision," it's a castration. So you're talking about the difference between apples and hand grenades here. A male circumcision doesn't cause a man to be crippled for life and die young, unlike female castration often does for the women.

Posted by: Juliette on February 20, 2006 02:59 PM

Female circumcision is the amputation of the clitoris, which would mean that if the male circumcision was comparable it be the slicing off of the penis. To compare one with the other is (as Juliette said) like comparing apples and hand grenades.

Posted by: Ruth on February 20, 2006 03:07 PM

When Sarge-In-Training was born, the advice that the pediatrician gave CINCHOUSE and I was, that if dad is, do son only because it will avoid questions such as "Why does mine look different that daddy's?" Other than that, there is no need.

Posted by: Sarge on February 20, 2006 03:16 PM

Both are mutiliation of the sexual organs which are designed to eradicate sexual pleasure. Male cirumcision in the US became popular as a means of eliminating masturbation, not for religious or hygene reasons.

Posted by: Gahrie on February 20, 2006 03:17 PM

Juliette and Ruth:

If you want to compare CASTRATION:

In a male that would be cutting off the Testicles.
In a female that would be removing the Ovaries.

"Female circumcision" is in NO way castration.

Posted by: anonymous on February 20, 2006 03:58 PM

Ya wanna hear something odd?
I've never seen an uncircumcised pecker in real life, as in "face to face", I mean.
Only in magazines and "videos".

Guess that has a lot to do with my thinking that circumcised ones are... sexier. Or something... cuter, maybe?
Whatever...

Still, this just occured to me.
Never seen a snake wearin' a sweater in person.

Posted by: Stevie on February 20, 2006 04:01 PM

OKay "anonymous"... but cutting off the clitoris would be like cutting off the penis, and to my knowledge, penis REMOVAL is NOT part of circumcision.

Posted by: Ruth on February 20, 2006 04:02 PM

A note to the ladies: Sorry, but, your opinion matters for exactly jack shit in this matter. We don't care if you think it "looks sexier", or whatever completely irrelevant and asinine justification you'd like to conjure.

The bitch in question needs to be shot in the head and thrown in a dumpster.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on February 20, 2006 04:18 PM

When in doubt, whip it out.

Posted by: Catfish on February 20, 2006 04:34 PM

As it turns out, later down the road, when the boy is a married man, his wife/female partner will be at a greater risk of cervical cancer because of the smegma found under the forskin.

Posted by: stephanie on February 20, 2006 04:54 PM

I'm with Mr. Lion on this one. Circumcision is performed without anesthesia. Boy babies experience dramatic changes in heart and respiratory rates, oxygen and plasma levels. If you've heard one scream during circumcision, you'll know it's barbaric. The study that found wives of men who were uncircumcised had more cervical cancer was later refuted by two follow-up studies, but received very little publicity. Smegma is a natural lubricant. Little girls produce smegma under the clitoral hood identical to smegma produced by little boys. We don't circumcise the clitoral hood. We teach little girls to clean themselves. We accumulate various things under our fingernails. We get dirty noses. We don't remove our fingernails or cut off our noses. We clean them. As far as looking 'cuter', I've seen some butt ugly female genitals in my day. Maybe we should take a knife to'em.

Posted by: Tessa on February 20, 2006 05:35 PM

Yo, Mr.Lion....

I'm not saying this bitch is right.
In fact, I think she's wrong as hell, considering the boys age.

My only point was that I've never seen one with my own two eyes that wasn't cut and that maybe that's why, when I do actually think about it, the circumcised one seems more "natural" to me, that's all.
(And, yes, I do get the irony of calling a trimmed dick "natural" when, OBVIOUSLY the truly "natural" one is the one left the way it was made.)

Jesus... and I'm wondering in a post if I'm being "too touchy" today?
*sigh and an eye roll*

Posted by: Stevie on February 20, 2006 05:42 PM

When you got 12 inches,doesn't matter either way. Onward and upward

Posted by: alcanal on February 20, 2006 07:04 PM

At age eight, this would be incredibly traumatic and why at age eight has this come up? Leave him alone; when he is 21, he can make his own decision on this (be I know what it will be).

Posted by: maxnnr on February 20, 2006 07:23 PM

Dick is dick, and sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad...but I have never been able to correlate cut and uncut into the equation. My boys aren't cut...The latest reserach, which will change in a few months, states that the only beenefit to circumcision is a SLIGHTLY reduced rate of AIDS transmission in circed men. BUT I think there are better ways to prevent AIDS than nipping some skin.

Posted by: Steph on February 20, 2006 07:29 PM

Here's a novel idea -

Let the son decide when he is old enough to understand.

And let DAD teach him the hygiene that guys need to know about,
when did fathers lose their clout as parents where the courts are concerned?????

Posted by: A Different Kim on February 20, 2006 07:55 PM

My son had a circumcision at the age of 8, under general anesthesia and for medical reasons. Pardon me if my terminology is incorrect in describing his situation... the foreskin was incorrectly attaching to the head of his penis in such a way that he was unable to withdraw it to clean himself. The doctors' opinions were along the lines of "it's not a big problem now, but will be when he's older - say in his 20's".

We got a couple of opinions, as this was something neither my husband or I took lightly. My son was uncomfortable, of course, for a couple of days. Everything has been fine since.

So maybe they're not telling the newspapers the whole story... maybe there is a medical reason for the mother to take this stand.

Also, the idea of "like father, like son" is baloney. My husband is circumsized but neither of our children were (until my son had his procedure at the age of 8). The comparison was never an issue. I know you guys might take offence, but if you have a different nose to your child, do you change his nose? "It looks different, Johnny, because Daddy had a little operation. But you didn't need it." How hard is that?

Posted by: Karen in Australia on February 20, 2006 09:20 PM

Karen: A boy's foreskin detaches naturally as he develops. Sometimes that doesn't occur until his early teenage years. If your doctor suggested that the condition would continue to be one "in his 20's", I suggest finding one that isn't an incompetent idiot.

It's a trivial issue to teach even a very young child to clean themselves regardless of whether their foreskin has detached or not. If it hasn't, and it is torn back, as it is in all circumcision procedures, the penis glands are often damaged.

The cleanliness argument is about as disingenuous as those for female circumcision.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on February 20, 2006 10:56 PM

Two boy chirrens. I've SEEN circumcision, and it's done WITHOUT anesthesia.
NO cutting on my kiddos, unless medically necessary.
Circumcision is UN-NECESSARY.
I assume they learned through example, i.e., bathing them as children, how to clean themselves properly.
Never had a problem, medically, with either.
My oldest is a Marine. Tell him his dicky doo "looks" different, and he'll kill ya! Kidding. Maybe not...
And lastly, from firsthand knowledge...cut, uncut, look the SAME when errect.

Posted by: Lil Toni on February 20, 2006 11:23 PM

Circumcision is the stupidest thing in the world. Nature built it the way it is for a reason. This whole hygiene/disease thing is a crock of shit. Any decent parent will teach their kid to properly wash his dick. If you canít even do that, than you probably ainít mentally equipped to procreate.

Plus it ain't pretty when you're eye to eye with it, so to speak.

What the hell kind of shallow, happy horseshit is that? Since when did the removal of a body-part equate to ďprettyĒ?

Bottom line; there should be pretty severe medical reasons before someone should be hacking off a part of juniors ham hock and failure to teach him to properly wash himself and lookiní pretty sure as hell ainít part of that equation.

Posted by: Daniel Medley on February 21, 2006 02:45 AM

Thanks for your opinion, Mr Lion. Perhaps I oversimplified things. My son's situation *wasn't* straight forward and several options were pursued before taking this decision. I didn't want to go into a long and complicated medical issue here. I simply wanted to point out that perhaps there was a medically valid reason for the mother following this course of action. It's a very personal problem and not one people tend to talk about openly, for good reason.

Posted by: Karen in Australia on February 21, 2006 03:46 AM

Whew......!

Details aside, babies of Both sexes should not have a knife anywhere near their Thang.
A man's hoodie has a mechanical function during coitutation, as God intended it to.

News Heard This Past Week:

The new cosmetic surgery craze; women having their labia "sculpted" so as to look pleasing.
So I'm thinking I might have my foreskin shaped a bit....a diamond implant.........maybe that dreadlock look..... whataya think?

Posted by: Wes Jackson on February 21, 2006 04:10 AM

Just one MORE example of feminism run amok.

Posted by: maggot on February 21, 2006 11:12 AM

I'm with Lion, here. It ain't your dick, lady.

Posted by: dipnut on February 21, 2006 02:30 PM

Interesting comment SARGE. I had my two sons circumcised for the exact opposite reason. I wasn't circumcised and I always felt embarrassed in the locker room to be different from everyone else and I didn't want them to have to go through that.

As far as disease, that's just nonsense if you keep it clean. And if you don't keep your tool clean, it don't matter whether you're circumcised or not, it's going to stink and be sore.

Posted by: bigdocmcd on February 21, 2006 03:37 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.