…and this is a 
I happen to be male. I found myself unable to read the following story without feeling an urge to double over and cup my crotch, which was really awkward when sitting in a public coffee shop. So stop here if you are prone to sympathetic pains.
A man in British Columbia decided that he and his four year old son needed to be circumcised.
Already, half my readership has decided to flee to less cringe-inducing websites. That's OK, just leave quietly, and close the door behind you.
All right, so he decides they both need to be circumcised. He tries it on himself first, and it's a botch — only partly cut through, the dangling bit is turning black, it's bleeding like a stuck pig, and he was probably in great pain — so he calls an ambulance and gets emergency assistance. It should have stopped there. He has already demonstrated that he is a dumbass, and he should know that this is a procedure he can't do without serious risk of pain and injury. So stop, right? Don't do it anymore!
This guy, though, because he is a world-class dumbass, does the unthinkable: he asks his little four year old son if he'd like to be just like daddy and get his wee-wee mangled by an incompetent hack. The kid says yes. He's 4, he has an excuse. Dad doesn't.
The man does have this tiny nudge of something approaching (but not quite reaching) common sense in his brain, so he does some research first.
The man later returned to the internet for more research and met some other religious fundamentalists, who were also dog breeders. They advised him they used a veterinary powder called BloodStop to halt any bleeding when they circumcised their 13-year-old son.
At $30 a bottle, Blood Stop was too expensive for the man. But during a trip to Washington state to celebrate Passover with a friend, the man found another more affordable product, called Wonder Dust, meant for horses.
Holy crap.
Is there some kind of underground network of fundy kooks practicing genital mutilation with veterinary coagulants or something? Are the police tracking down these dog breeders with a sideline in penis-chopping? This is more than just one lunatic, it's a whole posse of weirdos with a biblical obsession with the ends of their pee-pees.
Anyway, here's the sad part of the story: yes, Daddy got down and dirty with razor blades, horse blood clotter, and a chopping block with his innocent little kid. Since he has a pretense of humanity, he got the boy drunk first. And of course he botched his crude surgery, and his son would have ended up with a hideously deformed penis.
The good news is that social workers got word of what was done, swooped in and took the boy away, and he got repair work done at a real hospital, with real doctors. The father was charged and found guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Further enlightenment emerged:
…the B.C. Supreme Court heard that after a bad motorcycle accident in 2002 left both the man and his wife with brain injuries, he began the religious quest that eventually led him to believe that both he and son needed to be circumcised to celebrate Passover.
Religion and brain damage go together like milk and cookies, don't they?
Comments
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
October 19, 2009 4:08 PM
Wow, what a stupid dick. Literally AND metaphorically.
Posted by: BillFromDover | October 19, 2009 4:08 PM
How sharp was the razor blade?
Posted by: Hadrian | October 19, 2009 4:08 PM
Big sigh of relief. That ended so much better than I expected it to.
Posted by: King V-Dubs | October 19, 2009 4:10 PM
Wow...I can't even find the words for this...
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 19, 2009 4:11 PM
Mandatory, pretty much, I'd say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y
(/... and off everything else attached to my body and those of my offspring, kthxbye.)
Posted by: joe | October 19, 2009 4:11 PM
This is the guy that videotaped himself writing on and putting a nail through a catholic communion wafer?
Thats what he does for "fun"? What a weirdo!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 4:12 PM
Only if it's holy brain damage.
And he does seem to have some excuse, if still not much.
Is there anything less sensible than believing that god made males in a way that had to be rectified by hacking away at their genitals?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: BiffFromDover | October 19, 2009 4:12 PM
"he got the boy drunk first"
This guy is obviously an old Testamenter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 19, 2009 4:13 PM
From the lead in I know the stupidity factor had to be off the scale. At least something was done to help the boy.
Posted by: Olowkow | October 19, 2009 4:19 PM
I couldn't finish reading it. Did the father, hopefully, wind up with a permanently disabled reproductive organ?
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 4:20 PM
Wow, just wow. I had to skim over the last section and just pick out keywords. That's sick!
As for circumcision... Fair enough if adults wants to do it, it's their penis. But doing it to a child? Bastard!
Posted by: Doug Little | October 19, 2009 4:21 PM
This is an interesting result that could shed some light on belief in general. I wonder what level of belief the father was at before the accident as well as what part of his brain was damaged?
Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | October 19, 2009 4:22 PM
He was only found guilty of negligence causing bodily harm? I guess I had better look up that word, seems to me he was actively mutilating his kid. If he had attempted to cut off the child's arm because the devil was in that arm, would it be negligence? Since there is no medical reason for circumcision, I think he got off too easy.
Posted by: hollygolightly | October 19, 2009 4:22 PM
so where exactly does circumcision fit in with intelligent design/creationism? Did god fuck up? "oops, shouldn't have left that bit on there ...it's not like I'm all-knowing or anything, and I can't do anything about it now because it's not like I'm all-powerful. What to do ... what to do. I know, I'll command them to lop it off and call it a test of faith, better yet, a test of faith that *distinguishes* them as my chosen people. They'll buy that!" It sounds like Saw meets Dr. Seuss's Star-bellied Sneetches. /facepalm
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 19, 2009 4:22 PM
Kel, OM #11
According to the newstory, that's what the judge thought as well.
Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
October 19, 2009 4:24 PM
Perhaps we should teach this controversy in schools. Remind all the little boys that if their parents are religious, they may try to chop off your wee wee, so you should run for the hills... See how well that goes over.
Posted by: mothwentbad
|
October 19, 2009 4:25 PM
I'd show you the Mitchell and Webb on this, but you beat me to it several weeks ago.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 19, 2009 4:27 PM
Wow, PZ is psychic- he predicted this comment in his post! To wit:
So true, so true...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 4:28 PM
As an aside, is it easy to find hospitals that are willing to perform an elective circumcision on an adult?? I've never really thought about that before... if in 30 years, my son shows up at his physician's office and is like, "Enh, I think my folks got it wrong. Foreskins are evil! Lop it off, doc!", will the physician write him a referral for a surgeon or a psychiatrist?
As a further aside, I'm shocked this thread hasn't yet degenerated into the usual "Infant circumcision is child abuse!"/"Infant circumcision protects you from dick cancer!" shouting match... I guess another ten or fifteen comments first?
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 19, 2009 4:29 PM
Criminy! I'm with Hadrian. Reading that story, I was sure that bastard was going to end up killing his kid.
Posted by: toth
|
October 19, 2009 4:29 PM
In the immortal words of MC Paul Barman:
Hypocritical oaf
Defy the Hippocratical Oath?
Male? Female circumcision?
I'm a critic of both.
All y'all so called followers of God I'll accuse
Think you should see heaven should see jail for child abuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqMawubfNuU
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 19, 2009 4:30 PM
i want my mommy
Posted by: squareone | October 19, 2009 4:33 PM
Big deal.
My father in law told me to bring him:
ONE HUNDRED SEVERED FORESKINS!
Posted by: Killua
|
October 19, 2009 4:34 PM
Just... ow.
I'm slightly shivering, I can't imagine how serious the brain damage could have been for this guy to think this was even remotely a bright idea.
Please take the child away from the brain damaged crazy person, give him a home where his parent doesn't think "I'm going to mutilate your genitals... being completely untrained for this, and not even having ice".
Seriously, the father is not fit to care for the boy.
Posted by: raven | October 19, 2009 4:34 PM
There is a reason why surgeons go to med school and become interns and residents. Hasn't the guy ever heard of hospitals and doctors?
There must also be a fundie xian underground for do it yourself at home lobotomies.
The frequent Canadian claim that they don't have our problem with religious kooks is wearing thinner.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 19, 2009 4:43 PM
And the judge let him off with negligence. He got his kid drunk and mutilated him, but because it was religious, he got off with negligence. The judge is a bastard, too.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
October 19, 2009 4:43 PM
I'm a woman and even I cringed...
It's already a sickening thing when it's done in a hospital... BUT HOME MADE? Wow... I mean... WOW.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 19, 2009 4:45 PM
I think I can honestly say I never really expected to see the term 'home circumcision' anywhere outside an SMBC or Red Meat cartoon...
(/Borrowing the phrase again: the religious aren't just nuttier than we suppose. They are nuttier than we can suppose.)
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 19, 2009 4:47 PM
He also answered "Did you at least give him ice to help stop the pain" with "Did the ancient Israelites have ice?" (no)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 19, 2009 4:47 PM
Now that's a story.
And I agree. Religion = dain bramage.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
October 19, 2009 4:51 PM
uffda. Uff-fucking-da.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
October 19, 2009 4:51 PM
@Carlie: GYAAH! He DIDN'T USE ICE?!
Oh man that's just downright EVILER. But well, the ancient israelites had BOOZE huh?
Posted by: Lola | October 19, 2009 4:51 PM
What's his phone number?
Posted by: DJM | October 19, 2009 4:53 PM
These non-christian chimps display more empathy and intelligence than dear, old dad:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091019-japan-chimpanzees-altruism-video-ap.html
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 19, 2009 4:56 PM
This is the guy that videotaped himself writing on and putting a nail through a catholic communion wafer?
I think maybe you don't exactly have your facts straight there.
Thats what he does for "fun"? What a weirdo!
Dude, there's a guy going around waving his hands around pretending like he has magic "spell" thingies flying out of them, and he's completely serious. He isn't even doing it for fun. He really thinks there's magic "poof" rays shooting out of his hands!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 19, 2009 5:00 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you aren't the brightest kid in your finger painting class.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 19, 2009 5:02 PM
MichelleR - yeah, and they apparently had Wonder Dust in ancient Israel, too. Social workers didn't get called until the preschool noticed the poor kid was waddling around funny, and then found out why. (Hemant covered this on Friendly Atheist too)
Posted by: Draken
|
October 19, 2009 5:03 PM
I see the Landover Baptist Church has a manual on DIY circumcision, in 4 easy steps!
Posted by: jcaps | October 19, 2009 5:03 PM
"...after a bad motorcycle accident in 2002 left both the man and his wife with brain injuries, he began the religious quest..."
Ahhhhh, nuff said.
Posted by: redmonster
|
October 19, 2009 5:03 PM
Perhaps I'm just classist, but I think that, if you're going to perform a penis-mutilating procedure on your small dependent child, while you have no medical training, you can at least save up for some good supplies. This is your little boy's weeny you're talking about, man! If you can't take him to a qualified doctor, then frakking spend the money and get the best blood-clotter you can find!
Though, I suppose if he can mangle his own willy and still think it's a good idea to try the same thing on his son, then the health of their boy-bits isn't very important to him.
Alyson
Posted by: Kraid
|
October 19, 2009 5:03 PM
As a brewer and aficionado of mead, I object to it being described as a "biblical beverage." It is certainly older and far more widespread than that. Besides, I don't think the Bible even mentions mead, unless you want to interpret "the land flowing with milk and honey" that way.
Oh yeah, the part of the story about genital mutilation was bad too.
Posted by: Isaac | October 19, 2009 5:04 PM
I know many people who had urine infections and circumsising in a hospital really did cure their diseas. I don't think anyone can do it home alone.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 19, 2009 5:13 PM
Is that a cue for some Python music?
Inflammation of the foreskin reminds me of your smile ...
Posted by: Dan B. | October 19, 2009 5:16 PM
Someone give the man an EEG! He may have developed temporal lobe epilepsy after the car accident, which is associated with hyper-religiousity.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 5:18 PM
-And the judge let him off with negligence. He got his kid drunk and mutilated him, but because it was religious, he got off with negligence. The judge is a bastard, too.-
This was NOT negligence. Negligence is leaving your kid home alone, not stripping a minor naked, forcing him to do substance abuse and then slicing bits of his body off as part of a ritual.
For all their complaints about Satanic rites and witches... perhaps someone needs to look good and hard in the mirror.
Posted by: Quidam
|
October 19, 2009 5:19 PM
Prior to the motorcycle accident he was a Jehovah's Witless, so Harley Davidson are not entirely to blame.
I'm thinking the kid learned some important lessons about emotional blackmail, that parents aren't necessarily loving or wise and religion can make you do stupid and painful things to themselves and others.
Posted by: Dianne
|
October 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Oof. I'm crossing my legs now and I'm not even a man.
A couple of random thoughts:
1. Why didn't this man take himself and his offspring to a doctor to get the foreskin removed? Surgeons, at least in the US, will remove foreskins.
2. He couldn't afford $30 blood clotting drug but could afford a trip to Washington?
3. Ice isn't Biblical? Is calling EMS when your penis is about to fall off Biblical? If he'd stuck to the Bible when it came to his own pain his son need never have gone through all that.
4. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Darwin Awards yet. He should get an honorable mention at least.
Posted by: littlejohn | October 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Brain damage from a motorcycle accident, eh? Here's an argument for wearing crash helmets on both your heads.
At least he didn't bite the foreskin off, as Hichens reports some orthodox Jews do. Yikes!
Posted by: Randomfactor | October 19, 2009 5:31 PM
Guess we're lucky the guy didn't go for the human sacrifice bit, like Abraham.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
October 19, 2009 5:31 PM
And led to an outbreak of herpes in NY City.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 19, 2009 5:33 PM
Draken, I'm gonna keel you. :P
Posted by: Quidam
|
October 19, 2009 5:34 PM
What IS Wonder Dust?
Iodoform
2.0%
Potassium alum
5.0%
Flowers of sulfur
2.0%
Tannic acid
2.0%
Activated charcoal
5.0%
Copper sulfate
13.0%
Hydrated lime
71.0
Hydrated lime (Calcium hydroxide) is cement - it dissolves skin! From the MSDS
Now imagine that on your glans (oooooh no don't)
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 19, 2009 5:34 PM
This is gross. Circumcisions should be performed in hospitals by trained professionals with good equipment.
@21: Male circumcision actually does lower the rate of transmission of HIV/AIDS, which is why it is done in hospitals and is promoted in Africa. Of course, if the Catholics would let Africans use condoms...
Posted by: Damien Totter | October 19, 2009 5:37 PM
I'm wondering if he (Mr Home Circumcision guy & family) is also following the biblical instructions for taking a dump:
Deuteronomy 23:11-14
DT
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 19, 2009 5:40 PM
Why didn't this man take himself and his offspring to a doctor to get the foreskin removed? Surgeons, at least in the US, will remove foreskins.
I believe it was in Canada, and the doctors he approached (quite rightly) told him absolutely not.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 5:42 PM
PZ sez:
Interesting. I'm openly male. ;p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 19, 2009 5:43 PM
unnhh.... yeah. sympathy pain in my girlparts :-/
Posted by: Mikko
|
October 19, 2009 5:45 PM
Wow that was really really realty really really really really really really really stupid
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 5:48 PM
Fuck!
My immediate thought was: So he decided to get circumcized; that's fine, but why the fuck didn't occur to him to get it professionally done? I assume there are doctors who'll do adult circumcission and why on earth would anyone think it be an easy think to do oneself?!?!
Then I thought, maybe there aren't many doctors who will do adult circumcision. (I've heard second hand of a few folks getting it done for obscure religious reasons but maybe these were done by a closed circle of peers not open to the public, as it were.) So I googled to see if there were doctors who will do it for adults. (I don't want to post "Geez, go to a doctor" and then be embarassed later by finding out there are none.)
First thing I found was an illiterate 11-year old writing on Yahoo Questions that he wants to be circumcized and the quality of the answers (especially the "best answer" just depresssed me.
There's no hope for the future, is there?
Anyway I was just too grossed out to read any of the other results so I don't know if there are doctors who do adult circumcision...
Gad, I was grossed out and I'm circumcision nuetral! (I just don't see that it's a big deal to be concerned over what other folks do.) But, ew, these guys are nuts!
====
Actually, I'd be curious to hear from folks in the medical profession. Are doctors who perform adult circumsicion "common"? Or would a doctor believe it to be unnescessary and refuse to do it? Or...
===
This is the guy that videotaped himself writing on and putting a nail through a catholic communion wafer?
Thats what he does for "fun"? What a weirdo!
I'd respond to this if I had the slightest idea what this guys point is.
Interpretation 1) A sentence reading "This [from] the guy who [X] Question Mark" usually implies one views the guy's action as hypocritical or contradictory. I don't know about PZ videotaping himself but PZ's putting a nail through a communion wafer implies ==> PZ mocks catholics rituals. This post with "Brain damage and religion go hand in hand" ==> PZ has a low opinion of religion. Those two actions seem perfectly consistant to me.
"This what he does for fun? What a weirdo!" implies posting hideous yet engrossing stories about extreme stupidity is bizzare. But ... well, I don't see why.
Interpretation 2) "This is the guy who X" could be a statement or question as to whether the subject of this post (the guy who mangled his dingkhy) is the same person who X.
If that was the intent then, no, the guy with a blacken infected geegaw, so for as I know, didn't put a nail through a communion wafer.
Posted by: L.Minnik | October 19, 2009 5:50 PM
"...the judge also ruled the child could not have consented to the operation and the father should have known he needed a trained professional to perform it"
maybe that would mean that all children, especially infants, are too young to consent?
that would make sense
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2009 5:54 PM
"Religion and brain damage go together like milk and cookies, don't they?"
Yes a relative of mine fell off a horse and banged her head and while in hospital became a born again christian.
Of course it is only anecdotal.
Posted by: crisw | October 19, 2009 5:54 PM
I have used WonderDust on its intended targets- livestock- and gotten it in small cuts on myself. It stings like hell. I can't imagine the torment this little boy went through!
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 19, 2009 5:56 PM
This story is a high-speed collision of the tractor-trailer rig of the horrific with the freight train of the deranged at the rain-slicked intersection of the weird.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 19, 2009 5:59 PM
joe, #6: This is the guy that videotaped himself writing on and putting a nail through a catholic communion wafer?
Thats what he does for "fun"? What a weirdo!
I dunno. Maybe. Pretty low on the weirdness index, if you ask me. You wanna know what really is weird? Those Catholics who really believe that the wafer becomes the flesh of Jesus. Man, those nuts are weirdos!
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 19, 2009 5:59 PM
I have a cousin who botched a self-circumcision. In his defense, he was only about 8 or 9 at the time and didn't mean to do it. He was simply riding his bicycle like a bat out of hell when he lost control. Normally this just skins a kid up. When you're barreling down a dirt road bounded by a barbed-wire fence, the consequences can be more dire. He went flying into (and mostly through) the fence. The barbed wire ripped his pants and ripped him, too.
The doctor finished the job in the emergency room.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
October 19, 2009 6:00 PM
He then applied the Wonder Dust, gave the boy some ice cream and told him he could watch whatever movies he wanted that week
Could someone point me to the passage in the Israelites' religious book where they have ice cream (but no ice) and movies?
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 19, 2009 6:01 PM
Its not a popular notion, but I've always maintained that people should have to sit and pass some kind of test before they are allowed to breed.
Libertarians begin foaming with indignation in 3, 2, 1..
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
October 19, 2009 6:02 PM
Sorry...forgot I needed to blockquote paragraphs separately here.
First two sections, quoted from the linked article.
Last sentence, mine.
Posted by: Quidam
|
October 19, 2009 6:02 PM
Woozy #59
In Canada circumcisions are funded for neonatal boys under 30 days. After that they must be paid for, unless they are done from medical necessity. Doctors are perfectly willing to perform adult circumcisions for a few thousand dollars, but wouldn't do it on a 4 year old since it indicates a general anesthetic. It's not a service in high demand so I doubt any doctors advertise.
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 6:07 PM
I believe it was in Canada, and the doctors he approached (quite rightly) told him absolutely not.
For sake of discussion (civil and honest) why "abolutely not"?
Could it not be argued that such a procedure being of no demonstrated harm, legal (is adult circumcision legal in Canada), a personal choice, and of historic precedence is acceptable?
Or would it be argued that a doctor is professionally obligated to give his opinion and as this doctor, presumably, believed the procedure to be unnescessary and without benefit rightfully refused?
On the third hand, might not a doctor who sees no benefit or reason for adult circumcision recommend it anyway in the belief that the patient would seek out (and in this case did) more dangerous options? Or at least be obligated to mention doctors who will?
What about unnescessary plastic surgery? Or, in my case, removing benign (but *ugly*) skin "shrimps". (My insurance won't cover that.... *sob*)
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 6:14 PM
In Canada circumcisions are funded for neonatal boys under 30 days. After that they must be paid for, unless they are done from medical necessity. Doctors are perfectly willing to perform adult circumcisions for a few thousand dollars, but wouldn't do it on a 4 year old since it indicates a general anesthetic.
Thanks. Seems a sensible policy to me.
Um, so this guy didn't want to fork over a few thousand bucks?
Posted by: Paul
|
October 19, 2009 6:22 PM
You have to ask? He wasn't willing to invest in a knife sharp enough to cut clean through, nor in a $30 anticoagulant for the hatchet job on his kid. Or $0.99 for a bag of ice.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 19, 2009 6:22 PM
Seriously, WTF is Yahweh's obession with guy's penis? Does he like have all the guys in heaven strip naked and stare at their "heads" all day?
Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse
|
October 19, 2009 6:26 PM
You would think the idiot would have at least used a RonCo Whack-o-Matic.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | October 19, 2009 6:36 PM
OK, we all have done stupid stuff in our youth or drunk, but
I was wondering if there are any statistics on how many adult morons exist in the (for example)US?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
October 19, 2009 6:38 PM
Dang. I was going to have hot dogs for dinner. Then again, scoring them with a knife never bothered me before.
Posted by: Marcie Dietrich
|
October 19, 2009 6:47 PM
Why are people like this always able to have children? That poor little boy... =(
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
October 19, 2009 6:47 PM
So pathetic, but--
At least he made no money:
The tips were lousy!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
October 19, 2009 6:58 PM
And his counsel is going to appeal even before the dude gets sentenced!
One can only assume counsel is a career type with no time for a family ...or children...with or without foreskins!
Or counsel is as barking as his client.
Actually it would not surprise if chummy walked thanks to the grace of god!
#75
"I was wondering if there are any statistics on how many adult morons exist in the (for example)US?"
Last poll registered was around 70% give or take...which was a significant decrease on the 1980's poll that claimed 86% xian delusional ;-)
Posted by: Travis
|
October 19, 2009 7:00 PM
As someone who experienced the fun and pain of a professionally performed circumcision only a few months ago I really feel for this child. I thought I felt bad but this poor kid, it must have been awful, I cannot imagine it.
Posted by: Stan | October 19, 2009 7:09 PM
This, dear friends, is why I support a mandated procreation license -- at the very least, the rigorous scrutiny to which prospective adoptive parents are subjected should apply to all children.
If you are interested -- or morbidly curious, as it were -- to see the sort of abusive douchebaggery literally demanded from 'conservative' assclowns, try ParentalRights.org. The site used to allow comments, and I suspect my virtually singular rational voice may have had a hand in the removal of that feature, but it still boasts a substantial amount of pure dumbfuckery.
Anyway, here's my position, succinctly put:
A willing cock and snatch do not a right to children make.
--
Stan
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 19, 2009 7:11 PM
Hey Kid, remember what Daddy did to himself that got him a ride in an ambulance and a stay at the hospital? Well, Daddy wants to do that to you.
There's ice cream and movies in it for you.
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 19, 2009 7:12 PM
Reminds me of one House episode where some woman's radical religious conversion was a "symptom".
Anyway, is it OK if one doesn't know if he's been circumcised? Cause I have a friend...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 19, 2009 7:18 PM
Tell your friend to look at the end of his peepee. If it looks like a little helmet, he's circumcised. If there's skin covering the little helmet, then he isn't.
Posted by: hollygolightly | October 19, 2009 7:25 PM
Perhaps if religion didn't regularly shame the use of said body part this asshat would have been a bit more resistant to going at any penis with a razor blade.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2009 7:28 PM
I was going to say that, instead of being punished at all, the poor brain-damaged man should have been locked into a mental hospital and his child (or what's left of his child) taken away.
But then I read this.
That'll teach me to do armchair psychology.
Only if you fail to account for the fact that, right after the operation, men don't have sex for a few weeks. Complete abstinence obviously lowers the rate of HIV transmission.
We've been through this on every single circumcision thread so far. Near the top left corner of this page there's a search engine...
(When I was halfway through my first such thread, I had to lie down to avoid fainting. Where I come from, only Jews and Muslims are circumcised, so the topic never ever comes up anywhere. I had no idea some Americans claim bogus medical or even hygienic reasons. Urgh.)
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 7:33 PM
>>>>Um, so this guy didn't want to fork over a few thousand bucks?
>>You have to ask?
No, guess not. I just wanted to evaluate my initial reaction of "Geez, it's amazing how stupid a guy will be when there are professional doctors who will do it safely for them" by verifying whether there actually are doctors who will do it safely for them. The guys obviously a nut but it *might* be possibly understandable (but still laughibly nuts) if he truly, truly, truly believed he needed one and he absolutely had no other recourse whatsoever but to do it himself.
Just wanting to make sure... I don't want to libelously call someone a moronically stupid delusional whackjob when they are only a stupid delusional whackjob. I mean, fair's fair, after all.
>>Disgusting.
Well, he is brain-damaged. Which actually makes it really sad.
>>Hey Kid, remember what Daddy did to himself that got him a ride in an ambulance and a stay at the hospital? Well, Daddy wants to do that to you.
Well, when you are only 4 years old, fear of disappointing or of disobeying parents can be pretty persuasive. I can easily imagine imagine a 4-year thinking he doesn't *at all* want his penis cut and infected but being afraid to hurt his father's feelings.
Or he could be a really dumb kid.[1]
No matter how you look at it, this story is sad. (and gross!)
[1] Or he could have figured between a painful infection and nearly dying in a hospital or having god hate him and burning his skin and eyeballs forever ... Poor kid. He's only four!
Posted by: thickslab
|
October 19, 2009 7:36 PM
@Quidam #69
This is not true. Manitoba is the only province or territory in Canada that funds routine circumcision. All other provinces and territories do not fund it, which means that it must be paid for out of the parents' pockets.
Posted by: Shona | October 19, 2009 7:48 PM
The American attitude to circumcision shows that we all have our cultural norms and prejudices, yes, even the atheists!
I'm sure I've got plenty. Changing your mind is a hard thing to do.
Posted by: recovering catholic | October 19, 2009 7:49 PM
Although the procedures were done by a doctor in a hospital and there were no physical complications, my husband and I will forever regret and carry the guilt of choosing to have our sons circumcised some 30 years ago.
I suppose I could say in our defense that we did question the pediatrician about it. He told us all kinds of horror stories about infected penises. Today, of course, we are much better informed and would never presume to make such a decision for our sons.
How do parents begin to apologize for something like this?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 19, 2009 7:54 PM
I believe it was in Canada, and the doctors he approached (quite rightly) told him absolutely not.
For sake of discussion (civil and honest) why "abolutely not"?
I read it as the doctors were denying him to have his son circumcised, not himself. I may have read it wrong.
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 7:56 PM
(When I was halfway through my first such thread, I had to lie down to avoid fainting. Where I come from, only Jews and Muslims are circumcised, so the topic never ever comes up anywhere. I had no idea some Americans claim bogus medical or even hygienic reasons. Urgh.)
I was always under the impression that where I come from (1961; United States-- Baltimore and California Sampling) that nearly all boys were circumcized for hygenic reasons and I remember being surprised that elsewhere people considered circumcision a reliable indication of original faith.
My grandparents debated circumcizing my uncle in 1943. They had heard the hygenic reasons but had their doubts. So they asked their doctor who said "Well, I don't think it's nescessary but in my opinion, I think a boy should look like his father". So it was done. (That argument didn't convince him when it came to his sons though.)
My circumcission is kinda a funny story. See, my father's family was Jewish and my mother's family was ... oh, never mind... upshot is, when you are in a stupor with drugs and the ordeal of induced labor and an orderly asks "Will you have your child circumcized" don't assume it's purely a casual conversational question. If you are going to answer "yes" it would be a good idea to also add "by a moyle during a bris when he's eight days old" if, indeed, that is the case. Otherwise a simple "yes" could easily be misconstrued. I often think that story is the origin of my alienation and inability to feel part of my mostly absent faith.
Posted by: Travis
|
October 19, 2009 7:59 PM
Shona, that is indeed true. While far fewer people in Canada get it done these days it is still fairly common, at least when it comes to people in my age group. I think many of them simply view circumcision as normal.
While I do not support the procedure for anything other than a real medical reason I have to say when I had it done I was a lot happier (of course, it also fixed a condition I had for a long time so perhaps that has something to do with it) and thought it looked a lot better. Whether or not I think it looks better because I had a problem with it before, or because I have a bit of the North American attitude that it is supposed to be cut I do not know.
Err, sorry for talking about my penis so much, but the timing of this thread is good for me and my recent experiences (and I love talking about my penis of course).
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 8:08 PM
I read it as the doctors were denying him to have his son circumcised, not himself. I may have read it wrong.
No, you might be right. I read it as refusing to have himself circumcised but I may have read it wrong.
Besides, I was serious about "for reasons of discussion" and I wasn't intending to argue my point-- just discuss it.
Of course, as your "rightfully so" refered to refusal to operate on the son rather than on the man, there isn't much to discuss after all...
Posted by: GMacs | October 19, 2009 8:21 PM
Surgeons, at least in the US, will remove foreskins.
One more reason we aren't that great. I wish I'd been born somewhere with a more reasonable approach to the penis.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 19, 2009 8:26 PM
Seldom mentioned in these discussions is the proposition that foreskins make intercourse more comfortable for women. Seemed true in my few encounters with one...
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 19, 2009 8:29 PM
I know so guys who think the same too. lol :-)
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
October 19, 2009 8:32 PM
My favourite House quote on religion:
"Isn't it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy we can't tell them apart."
Posted by: Quidam
|
October 19, 2009 8:42 PM
Thickslab #88
Mea culpa. My information is out of date.I see the procedure was delisted (socialist bureaucrats rationing healthcare) in the late 80's - after my boys were born. I didn't want them circumcised but that was the information I was given at the time.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 19, 2009 8:45 PM
I was going to ask how they knew...then it dawned on me. :D
Posted by: marie-annick
|
October 19, 2009 8:49 PM
Not all doctors in Canada will do a circumcision for you either, but they will refer. When my nephew was born in Alberta in 2002, he was circumcised for 100$. I have no idea what a surgeon will charge for a 4-year-old, but if he wasn't willing to shell out 30$ for some coagulant, I doubt he would have paid for a professional.
Also, I would still hold to the claim that we don't have the same problem with religious loons that you do in the U.S. This isn't to say that we don't have any, but the comments on the story are universally critical of the father's actions. Attending church is not a requirement for holding public office here and the last poll on the subject I read quotes 70% of Canadians who say Christians make them uncomfortable. We simply don't have the same public endorsement of the religion that you do.
Posted by: skylyre
|
October 19, 2009 8:50 PM
If I was one of the doctors who operated on this guy... no way am I fixing his johnson. He deserved to lose it and he should NOT be making any more offspring.
That poor kid. Why couldn't this guy have hacked off his weiner before he procreated? *sigh*
Posted by: defective robot
|
October 19, 2009 8:54 PM
Oh crap. I just made an appointment for the big V and now I think I'm changing my mind. PZ, you may have just endangered my marriage with that story.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 19, 2009 9:03 PM
Nothing wrong with an elective vasectomy, especially if you're sure you don't want to have children, or don't want any more children than the ones you have. My father and eldest brother both had them. Perfectly sensible operation; it's not like you'll be having it done at that guy's house.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 19, 2009 9:04 PM
"That poor kid. Why couldn't this guy have hacked off his weiner before he procreated?"
I have a feeling the kid would still prefer existing to not existing, as it were.
Note that he sought medical attention for his own problem, but the boy didn't until a social worker noticed something amiss.
Having a pattern recognition module in my brain is really depressing, sometimes.
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 19, 2009 9:05 PM
Tis Himself #84
Thank you for not making my friend google it.
Posted by: Dr. Fill | October 19, 2009 9:27 PM
I'm reminded of this one:
A teacher noticed that a little boy at the back of the class was squirming around, scratching his crotch, and not paying attention. She went back to find out what was going on. He was quite embarrassed and whispered that he had just recently been circumcised and he was quite itchy.
The teacher told him to go down to the principal's office. He was to telephone his mother and ask her what he should do about it. He did it and returned to his class. Suddenly, there was a commotion at the back of the room She went back to investigate only to find him sitting at his desk with his penis hanging out.
'I thought I told you to call your mom!' she said.. 'I did,' he said, 'And she told me that if I could stick it out till noon, she'd come and pick me up from school.'
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 19, 2009 9:48 PM
Huh. Big deal. Y'all want a gross story?
[Sound of scampering feet and slamming doors]
I found this one in a little magazine aimed at reproductive health clinics (ad-supported & free; no pretense of peer-review but written & edited by people with letters after their names; went out of business over a decade ago), so can't vouch for veracity.
[Sniffs & snorts, a few more doorslams]
According to this doc somewhere in Oklahoma, he treated a patient for an unusual infection which had left this unfortunate individual with grapefruit-sized testicles.
[Moans; more scampering]
So he (the doc) took a case history. It seems the patient worked in a machine shop, and often lingered there when his colleagues took their lunch break so as to privately indulge his personal hobby.
[I'm warning you, fellows: if squeamish, follow the trail the others took. These Okie bastards are tough. All right, see y'all later.]
He (the patient) liked to masturbate at his jobsite. His instrument of pleasure of choice: a rod spun in a lathe.
[Squeaks; doorframe being broken]
Yeah, if only he could have found a willing woman. The callus buildup alone... Anyway, one day our protagonist got himself misaligned a bit, or maybe there was a burr on the rod. The short version: scrotal laceration.
[Whimpers; a window breaking]
Hang on now, dudes, here comes the gross part. Apart from cleaning up the blood before his co-workers returned, our Sooner faced another task: putting himself back together. Apparently this workplace lacked both a first-aid kit or a roll of duct tape, but this resourceful fellow found a fallback technology: a stapler.
[Screams: nonstop hysterical unrecognizable-as-human screams]
So, if you remaining Macho Men™ find yourselves in a fight with an Oklahoman, don't bother trying to kick him in the crotch: even the non-cowboys are too rugged and gristly to be slowed down that way. (After all, our hero didn't even go to the doctor's office until the next week.) Just distract 'em with a metal tools catalog - for cowboys, the latest Heifer International mailer - and run like hell.
Got that, guys? Guys?
[Deep silence]
[end of thread - return to top?]
Posted by: C Sue | October 19, 2009 10:10 PM
As a horse owner, can I now expect to see another warning label the next time I pick up Wonder Dust at the saddlery?
"NOT FOR HOME CIRCUMCISION USE"
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 19, 2009 10:16 PM
and you know his middle name? yep, Ga briel...!
Posted by: Copernicus | October 19, 2009 10:32 PM
Uh oh PZ, did you inadvertently (subliminally) connect your "I happen to be male" with the circumstances of this story?
If my genetics is correct, that H-Y antigen was on the loose at least twice, and the third time unlucky- was that happenstance, or are we praying that humans, like gnus, need the deranged to be croc-fodder?
Posted by: WMDKitty | October 19, 2009 10:53 PM
"Religion and brain damage go together like milk and cookies, don't they?"
Yes. Yes, they do. And now I want milk and cookies. ^_^
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
October 19, 2009 11:38 PM
My sons were born in 81 & 89 (in Ontario)and I opted for no circumcision. I just could not see the rationale for an unnecessary surgery that might put them at risk. My English trained doctor seemed pleased with my decision.I am not sure if I would have had the guts back then to fight the doctor if he had insisted on it. Every surgery carries risks - people have died from the surgery, drugs and infections getting minor procedures in the dentist chair! Doing that to infants just seems so wrong....
#103 defective robot
When my husband went in for his big V some 20 years ago,the procedure was not very common. The doctor (he, too, was English and from the same medical practice) cheerfully informed us that he had performed the surgery on himself! Yep, he sat on the table in his examining room, froze his balls with a local and snip, snip - a DIY vasectomy. Said it took only 15-20 minutes.
Guys, a word of advice. Don't tell any woman who has given birth at least once that you are afraid of a little snip, snip. When you have something the size of a bowling ball forced out through your delicate personal parts, you are not very sympathetic to someone whining about a few small nicks that will heal in a couple of days....
Posted by: ivo
|
October 19, 2009 11:48 PM
I agree with Shona at #89: As a European, I find this whole topic rather disturbing. I have the impression that the only people (except for religious nuts) to whom circumcision sounds like something normal, possibly with medical advantages, a routine operation which one is allowed to perform on little innocent infants -- are Americans.
I mean, try to imagine an industrialized Western nation where a significant proportion of the male population undergoes an operation, say, to make their ears pointy (Legolas style). That's the tradition: most little boys get "sharpened" shortly after conception, *snip* *snip*, and here you go with your nice little pointy ears.
It certainly started out as a religious custom, something to do with a fantasy book... but now it is done out of habit, or for ludicrous "hygienic" and "medical" reasons (it keeps your ears wax-free and prevents ear infections). Actually, some adults claim to do it for aesthetic reasons, and that I could understand. But I have a feeling they simply want to be like everyone else: round ears are relatively rare and they look funny, and many women openly dislike them.
Now, try to imagine the same thing traslated to your penis instead...
As I said, nuts.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 19, 2009 11:57 PM
Dear Brother Pierce R. Butler,
Ripped scrotums are an occupational hazard of being a rugby loving Noo Zillunder, so much so that I have had a zipper installed in my man bag to speed things along. But the most famous scrotal rippage to have graced our much loved national game happened to the greatest No. 8 of them all--Buck Shelford.
WIKIPEDIA: "Shelford...was a notable victim of the infamous "Battle of Nantes" in the second Test. Roughly 20 minutes into the match, he was caught at the bottom of a rather aggressive ruck, and an errant French boot found its way into Shelford's groin, somehow ripping his scrotum and leaving one testicle hanging free...he calmly asked the physio to stitch up the tear and returned to the field before a blow to his head left him concussed."
BUCK'S ripper of a game is immortalized here.
Posted by: woozy | October 20, 2009 12:40 AM
I mean, try to imagine an industrialized Western nation where a significant proportion of the male population undergoes an operation, say, to make their ears pointy (Legolas style). That's the tradition: most little boys get "sharpened" shortly after conception, *snip* *snip*, and here you go with your nice little pointy ears.
The thing is, I can easily imagine that. I can even imagine being a rational and free thinker and still feel it's a norm. Every now and then I'd laugh and say "you know, it's really weird when you think about it" but still think "oh, well". Other than circumcission, I can't really think of anything that translates to *surgery* but we do all sorts of hair styles, gender roles, jobs, courtship, shaving (hairy armpits is unladylike? How you figure), clothing, etc. Okay, lip disking and feet binding didn't last into "industrial" age but somehow circumcission in America caught on. And my other examples, hair length, body shaving, etc. aren't as "extreme" as surgery but I think we hold onto these weird rituals as norms *frequently* and don't notice as they are "the norm".
Hmmm, there's got to be an actual example I can give that's more extreme then shaving or clothing.... think, woozy, think...
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
October 20, 2009 2:45 AM
I'm ashamed to have this tit represent my great city. Really, we're not all fundamentalist wee-wee choppers. Most of us are really nice.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
October 20, 2009 2:50 AM
By the way, even circumcisions done right are... awful. That anyone would do such a thing to their child is beyond me. The science behind circumcision and it's "benefits" is readily available to moms and dads. Why the hell would they have a chunk of their kid's wang cut off without thoroughly researching the procedure and, in doing so, discovering how ridiculous it is? Ahh, the United States. What a place.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 20, 2009 2:56 AM
Indeed. the repeated torture commonly known as the Bikini Wax is something I'll never understand. Especially after reading a sufficiently large number of articles about the glorious infections it can cause :-/Posted by: DLC
|
October 20, 2009 4:28 AM
And Yaweh, being half in the bag, did say:
"Here you! just you stop this second and go hack your foreskin off!"
Doesn't sound so damn wise now, does it ?
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 4:58 AM
One of the unfortunate byproducts of women walking around with an uncovered midriff these days is that you get way too much information about the hairiness or lack of such of their privates, by the revealing presence of a large field of red raised pimples right under their bellybuttons.
:P
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | October 20, 2009 4:59 AM
He should have invested in one of these.
Oh, jesus Mary and fucking Joseph... I nearly fainted reading the description.
Posted by: woozy | October 20, 2009 5:00 AM
Indeed. the repeated torture commonly known as the Bikini Wax is something I'll never understand. Especially after reading a sufficiently large number of articles about the glorious infections it can cause :-/
Actually, I think it's kind of odd that I can't think of more arbitrarily "norms" akin to circumcision. It's actually kind of strange that we don't tatoo or train bones at early ages.
When I try to think of "norms" we take for granted but are actually arbitrary I think of arbitrary things that aren't that universal but... lying on your back during childbirth; invented by a doctor 200 years ago so he would have minimal sight of the woman. Children sleeping in cribs rather than in their parents bed. Weaning children; is there any reason that we know of that children *shouldn't* be breast fed 'till they are eight? Female Aliens in sci-fi movies must be played by women (okay, I'm being silly but even if the aliens are insectoids, or reptiles, we just assume the women must have breasts, be smaller than the males, and have softer voices, and alien culture where men wore dresses would just be ... wrong) Taboos against eating insects and spiders (kinda a waste that we don't eat termites). Heels are torturous but we dismiss it with a chuckle and a wry "what we do for fashion" but any *serious* attempt to stop it is considered "out there". Don't bath or go swimming or in general get wet on your period (don't know why I'm obsession on what we make women do). We wear clothes. etc.
Hmmm, none of those are as "extreme" as actual cutting off bits of your flesh... (Dang, I feel there is something *obvious* I'm overlooking? Do we eye-drop babies for no good reason? We used to sugar mother's nipples (geez, you don't think a baby will *naturally* go for it?) but I don't think that was ever the "norm". Do we ... I know there are most be something I'm over-looking...) ... okay, so none of those one things are as "extreme" as surgery but I think just the quantity of them and the way we accept them unquestioningly as "not that weird" and how arbitrary they all really are illustrates my point.
Mind you, I'm not advocating that we don't do these thing (breast-feeding a kid till he's eight is "icky" and, ew, bleeding in my pool!?!?!? *Cooties*!!!! ick!) but they are rather arbitrary when you think about them.
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | October 20, 2009 5:01 AM
Hmm.
tags don't work.. here it is:
http://www.circlist.com/instrstechs/smartklamp.html
Posted by: Keenacat | October 20, 2009 5:28 AM
Adult males might cut off their foreskins for the looks all they want, even if my fully european experience sez it's stupid and only exacerbates the use of personal lubricant. I even think it looks really weird.
But for the hell of it, I just don't get why ANYBODY would want to perform a circumcision on a perfectly healthy baby boy! I mean, WTF? Is it really funded in some parts of Canada and the US? It is (a completely unneccessary) surgery, after all! A minor one, indeed, but it still might lead to severe complications. I remember reading a text about gender psychology where a twin boys penis got so severed during elective circumcision that the surgeons and parents decided to just "make" him a girl and raise him as such (It went totally wrong, if I remember correctly).
I'm pretty ok with most stuff adults do to themselves for the looks (yes, I had a bikini waxing twice). But performing surgery on a child for purely esthetical reasons files under child abuse, at least for me. No bonus points for "everyone is doing it".
Posted by: Keenacat | October 20, 2009 5:30 AM
Does Typepad hate me or is anybody else having problems with logging in?
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | October 20, 2009 7:26 AM
Wonder Dust: A caustic and drying agent for slow-healing lesions and excessive granulated tissue (proud flesh). Also for use on other livestock as a blood-stop powder after castrating, docking or dehorning. It contains a deodorant to remove objectionable odors from foul or infected wounds.
Wonder Dust ingredients:
http://www.drugs.com/vet/wonder-dust-wound-powder.html
Iodoform 2.0%
Potassium alum 5.0%
Flowers of sulfur 2.0%
Tannic acid 2.0%
Activated charcoal 5.0%
Copper sulfate 13.0%
Hydrated lime 71.0%
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 20, 2009 8:32 AM
@Keenacat #125:
It's really hard to take you seriously when you start off mocking penises that don't conform to your societal norm as "weird", then cry "child abuse" against parents who are trying to help their sons fit into their societal norm.
In the United States, it's uncircumsized penises that look "really weird" to insulting, judgmental asses like you, so if you want to argue against circumcisions in the US, it's best to stick to facts about the surgery and actual harm caused. (And, no, a single unreferenced horror story doesn't cut it.)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
October 20, 2009 8:55 AM
David M (@86):
If you think a few weeks of complete abstinence is the sort of thing that only ever happens after penile surgery, all I can say is... I envy you, sir! ;^)
PS: Huzzah! Finally I'm able not only to sign on using MT, but to do so from work. I'm baaaaack... or at least, I will be, once my campaign is over in a couple weeks. Anyone want to come to the Greater Hartford on Nov 3 for some pollstanding, sign-waving, or giving rides to the polls? (And if any of you lurkers out there happen to live in Vernon, CT.... vote for me!!)
Posted by: Keenacat
|
October 20, 2009 9:28 AM
Naked Bunny,
I think it just might be a difference if I, as an adult, personally have preferences on circumcised vs. uncircumcised in an encounter with another adult (who might have his own preferences that differ from mine) or if somebody is circumcising their child.
A circumcised child will have no chance to choose its own preference on this topic as an adult and act accordingly. An uncircumcised child has the option to go for elective circumcision later if he prefers his manly bits circumcised. As in informed consent, which is especially important when surgerys don't have a medical indication.
I just hope we don't need to argue on how no surgery is always safer than surgery (as long as we talk about surgery lacking any medical indication).
Grown ups are into the wildest stuff. I do my occassional bikini waxing, my sister sports some tattoos and piercings, other people do bodymods. I mean, bodymods. Ever been to a convention? Finding certain things weird is normal and doesn't equal acting it out on the people, mind you. Especially since you can get used to most things.
But that's stuff adults do, with informed consent etc.
How this has anything to do with having your babys foreskin removed is beyond me, seriously.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 20, 2009 9:33 AM
I forget the guy's name, but I read that an English explorer circumcised himself so that he could sneak into Mecca. And no, I did not read your story passed, "A man in British Columbia...".
Posted by: Thcia | October 20, 2009 10:14 AM
This is stupid. Circumcision is cruel and unnecessary, even when done correctly by a doctor. My father was circumcised at 4 and he remembers it (his father was Jewish).
I was circumcised because I was born in the USA. There is no good medical reason for it. If it aint broke don't fix it.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
October 20, 2009 10:22 AM
@Peirce R. Butler
I'll pass on the stapler. But when I had epididymitis it was sufficiently painful that I can see what that guy went through (and I read the whole thing). See there I was sitting in the animal house at the microscope injecting dna into fertilised mouse eggs, as you do. Anyway I was injecting away and my left ball gradually became sorer and sorer until it literally felt as though someone was standing on it. Which is what I told the guy injecting next to me as I gave away the mice destined to receive the injected eggs.
I took myself painfully off to the doctor and seeing it was an emergency consult got no choice but was in too much pain to bother about dropping my trousers in front of a woman doctor. I got a script for an antibiotic and took the next day off work, until I could walk without being in agony as my leg bumped my scrotum. My wife and daughters were highly amused.
It has become the sort of grumble that flares up as an indication that I have become a bit run down. A hard to ignore grumble. I sincerely hope no other guys out there get this.
Posted by: ivo
|
October 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Tilting at windows: you must be thinking of Richard Francis Burton, personnage extraordinaire ("explorer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, ethnologist, linguist, poet, hypnotist, fencer and diplomat." Would you think a little circumcision could stop him?)
Posted by: ivo
|
October 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Naked Bunny, Keenacat is right, and has spelled it out much better than I could. Adults can do (pretty much) what they want to themselves for whatever reason they see fit, but to impose an irreversible, unnecessary useless surgery on a child is simply child abuse. If the boy's parents do it in order for him to fit into some perceived societal norm, it's still abuse -- not in front of the US law perhaps, but doesn't everybody has a right to their physical integrity? If it's so important to get it done, they can always do it to themselves later if they so wish.This is not so different from parents forcing religious indoctrination onto their children. Or do you think that it's a good thing to baptize and brainwash one's children only so they don't feel too different from their school mates? In both cases, it's parents imposing their damn prejudices.
Posted by: skylyre
|
October 20, 2009 12:43 PM
Oh amphiox... "I have a feeling the kid would still prefer existing to not existing, as it were."
I know I know. I didn't mean to wish he was never born. It's just so unfortunate that these brain damaged wackos are able to have children. The poor lil guy shouldn't have to go through mutilation by the hands of those that are supposed to love and care for him.
The fact that the kid wasn't given the immediate medical attention the father was just makes me feel worse.
Posted by: tariqata
|
October 20, 2009 2:46 PM
Keenacat@125: You're thinking of David Reimer, whose story did indeed end very badly. Although I think the course of therapy recommended and practiced by John Money was the cause of Reimer's psychological distress, had the circumcision not occurred and been botched, it would never have happened.
Posted by: Kraid
|
October 20, 2009 3:12 PM
I feel exactly the same way about my fellow Americans.I gather that the anti-/pro-mutilation debate has occurred here before, so I'm trying really hard to restrain myself from launching into an angry screed about the parallels between unconsentual genital mutilation and rape. It's quite appalling and baffling how so many Americans subscribe to idea that infant circumcision is desirable.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 20, 2009 3:13 PM
Great idea. Just apply a few search/replace regular expressions on an old classic and it's amazing how well it syncs up:
The Scar-willied Sheepses.
With Apologies to the great, late, Theador Suess Geisel
This episode brought to you by the letters "vi" and the regular expressions:
%s/\<\([sS]\)tar/\1car/g
%s/bellie/willie/g
%s/\<\([Ss]\)neetches/\1heepses/g
%s/\<\([Ss]\)neetch/\1heep/g
Posted by: Keenacat
|
October 20, 2009 3:30 PM
Yes tariqata, he is the one I was referring to.
And I do think even if such gruesome mishaps (or stuff like scars etc.) would never occur and adverse events were limited to the pain and uncomfort the baby experiences after the surgery it would still be abusive.
Posted by: tariqata
|
October 20, 2009 3:36 PM
No disagreement from me on that Keenacat.
Posted by: Lee Picton | October 20, 2009 4:27 PM
testing - suddenly I am being forbidden to comment, and until now Live JOurnal has worked just fine!
Posted by: Lee Picton | October 20, 2009 4:47 PM
Well, the old fashioned way worked, after all...
There was an elaborate display a few years ago in the Smithsonian that suddenly put things into perspective; it was a retrospective of body modification practices around the world that were culturally approved. Can you remember the following from your old National Geographic magazines?
--- Chinese foot binding
--- stretched lips
--- high hat heads
--- skin scarification
--- super long necks
--- elaborate tattooing
There were others, but included in the display were examples of the results of comtemporary plastic surgery, and suddenly these things looked a lot less weird. Circumcision seemed a minor thing by comparison, and indeed it was not even an option when the spawn was born, almost 40 years ago. He recently had a son himself and also elected it for the grandbaby, and I have to admit, I did not feel a strong degree of objection to it.
However, do not project for a moment that I can think of female genital mutilation in the same category, as it is done specifically for the purpose of preventing sexual pleasure in women and is performed on little girls against their will under the most appalling conditions. Some things are just beyond the pale. Also, note that foot binding has been discontinued, and some of the other practices are fading.
Posted by: James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | October 20, 2009 8:00 PM
As I have been saying for years, "Most of the world's problems are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the dark yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of logic and reason."
Posted by: Kyorosuke | October 20, 2009 8:36 PM
I'm an uncircumcised American (okay, that sentence sounded absurd), and didn't realize until I was much older that my, uh, willy, was the exception rather than the rule (I suppose I must have missed those male bonding rituals you see in coming of age stories...). I can't say for sure, but I assume my parents opted not to do it because my parents raised me and my sister irreligiously (which was another thing I didn't realise wasn't normal... I went through a lot of surprises as a kid).
Posted by: Zedge | October 20, 2009 10:49 PM
Clearly the only rational solution to this mans problem is suicide!
Posted by: James | October 21, 2009 1:09 AM
I'm circumcised, but it was at birth and I don't really mind... But just recently, my 17 YES 17!!! year old friend decided he should have his done. We made fun of him for weeks! Always asking "hey man, hows the little guy?" and snickering about the lunacy of the whole thing at that age willingly.
Posted by: Colin | October 21, 2009 10:35 AM
I missed this story in my daily pharyngula reading. I'm not sure how I missed it, but now I'm not really sure I should have come back to read it! WTF? I mean seriously, WTF is wrong with this psycho?!
I won't get on my anti-circumcision soapbox, though I think it's an inhumane, and unnecessary act. Like previous posters, I am also an uncircumcised American. Sure, I took some ribbing in high school, but I'm damn glad my parents saw no need to butcher me. I guess I couldn't totally avoid the soapbox...
If people want to be moronic with their own adult bodies, let them, but to inflict your insanity on a small child?
I really wish I could be more coherent, but this post just made me seethe with rage.
Posted by: tunktunk | October 21, 2009 11:35 AM
# 86" Only if you fail to account for the fact that, right after the operation, men don't have sex for a few weeks. Complete abstinence obviously lowers the rate of HIV transmission."
That is not very scientific, is it?
From wikipedia: The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.
***
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm)
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4].
***
If you are a creationist and believe God created us in perfect form, then of course being against circumcision makes sense for you. But I don't hold such a belief. I don't think we are perfect. Weighing hygenic and medical, not religious, benefits of circumcision against the risks of the operation, I assess that circumcision is better. I had my son circumcised when he was a few weeks old. It healed in matter of a few days and he won't remember a thing.
You may disagree all you can. However disregarding the results of medical research, without providing equal proof is not the best way to make your arguement.
And at the end of the day, whether you agree or not, parents do have a lot to say about the way their children are brought up. Whether to pierce a little girl's (or boy's) ears, whether to raise one according to a certain religion, whether to circumcise their boys are all examples of that.
I agree with a previous poster who says you cannot possible put female circumcision in the same category as male circumcison. Former is a supression of women, a cruel pratice, which absolutely maimes a humanbeing. The other one has pros and cons.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 21, 2009 2:50 PM
Peter Ashby @ # 133: My wife and daughters were highly amused.
Heartless wenches - particularly considering how any merriment indiscreetly expressed at discomfort from feminine, ah, misalignments would only end in more pain for you...
Posted by: wow | October 22, 2009 9:47 AM
next he was going to perform a self inflicted change to a woman, and his son, but now his son is gone, so he will have to put his own genitals onto his wife n convert her to a man, and himself to a woman.. what a nut job
Posted by: danceswithbooks
|
October 22, 2009 11:14 AM
I cringed, but I mostly had to laugh at the ridiculous ignorance of this guy. Good thing he was listening to other fundie nutjobs and talk radio. A miracle that child did not lose his member. Can we declare religious indoctrination a form of child abuse already?
Posted by: Vittorio | October 22, 2009 11:34 AM
Religion and brain damage go together like milk and cookies, don't they?
So religion is the reason for this guy to decide to do this operation all by himself? You are like a dead star about to collapse on your own stupidity.
Posted by: Paul
|
October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
I will not equivocate the two based on the matter of degree, but it might interest you to research the justification for circumcision in America before it was mainstream. Indeed, a large motivating factor was to reduce the urge for males to masturbate. It's creepy, reading some of the stuff old man Kelogg wrote trying to encourage circumcision. Even the current justifications are analagous between male circumcision and FGM (e.g. they will feel awkward to be different than everyone else).
Posted by: Kraid
|
October 22, 2009 2:22 PM
The benefits vs. the risks of the operation... is that really the correct comparison to be making? Breast cancer could be almost entirely prevented by giving all females a preemptive double mastectomy. The risk of such an operation is fairly minimal, breasts are mainly just cosmetic anymore,* and the anti-cancer benefit is much greater than that of circumcision. As for the lost breast functions, baby formula does a decent job of replacing breast milk (as decent a job as personal lubricant does for replacing the lubricating and gliding mechanism that a foreskin provides, anyway). Should we routinely cut the baby girls then?
I would strongly argue that one's quality of life must be taken into consideration, since there are many drawbacks to circumcision (or my hypothetical double mastectomy situation) aside from just the risk of the operation itself. Also, one should consider a person's right to make such a personal choice. It's his (or her) body, not yours.
I would also argue that circumcision is different from your example of an ear piercing because an ear piercing is entirely cosmetic. Ear piercing doesn't amputate tens of thousands of erogenous nerve endings, cause keratinization of the glans, make sexual activity more difficult and sometimes painful, etc.
Lastly, the supposed hygienic benefits of circumcision are questionable to me, probably because I live in an industrialized nation where things like daily showers and soap are easy to come by.
As an aside, it is curious to me that most people will find the idea of routine double mastectomies for girls to be so obviously distasteful, yet some of those same people will hem and haw about routine circumcision for boys. I guess if we grew up in a culture where amputating the left hand at birth was the norm (it reduces hand cancer by 50 percent! It prevents people from being sinister...), then we might swallow that one without much criticism too.
*That sarcastic remark was included because many people dismiss the foreskin as "just skin," and consider circumcision to be mainly a cosmetic alteration. It is emphatically not.
Posted by: Lightfoot-Klein | October 22, 2009 2:44 PM
nothing surprises me any more. as a species, we'll be extinct soon, and thank heavens for that !!
Posted by: Ace | October 22, 2009 3:52 PM
What a crock. Who is gullible enough to believe this story.
Posted by: e cigarette | October 22, 2009 4:15 PM
Wow this is a truly wicked story. Interesting though to say the least.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 22, 2009 5:20 PM
Bears repetition.
Some people move a lot in their sleep and fear they'd hurt the baby.
By no means all people move that much, however.
Suckling lowers fertility, so, I've read, hunter-gatherer cultures the world over stop about at... 3. One of my sisters was also breast-fed till 3.
I didn't mean to imply that. I've already admitted to virginity (several times even). I've also made clear enough that I'm 27 years old...
What happened was that at least part of the control group was not abstinent during that time, and that threw the statistics out of the window.
By now I seriously think that it's because registration has been turned off. Once it's obligatory, it doesn't work properly anymore.
Or maybe I'm just seeing patterns where there are none.
And the Wikipedia article completely fails to cite the refutations of those studies? That's... bad. Check out the last few circumcision threads for links to papers.
Posted by: BMWM5er | October 22, 2009 6:11 PM
Just because someone is stupid with guns doesn't mean guns are stuipd.
Just because someone is stupid with religion doesn't mean religion is stuipd.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 22, 2009 6:14 PM
you might wanna rethink that analogy, BMWM5er...
Posted by: Alpha | October 23, 2009 5:52 PM
Ughhh, circumsisions should only be made by professional surgeons and for health and hygiene reasons. I mean, phimosis is pretty disgusting and wierd, but hacking it yourself with a dirty knife is worse.
Posted by: Gaia sighs... | October 24, 2009 12:51 PM
"Could it not be argued that such a procedure being of no demonstrated harm..."
Not so quick, there: the primary practical purpose of male circumcision, removal of the frenar band, Nature's feedback mechanism that allows volitional control of ejaculation, certainly qualifies as 'crippling' in my book. It's sad to see so many men who have been circumcised - most, at birth - offer the same rationale you suggest. Sad, but understandable. Never having known the exquisite sense of control an intact frenar band brings to male sexuality, circumcised victims remain totally clueless about their loss, discounting it much the same as those deprived of a physical sense since birth often depreciate the value their own loss.
Posted by: Ralph Wiggum | October 26, 2009 7:35 PM
My pee-pee is burning!
Posted by: Hugh7 | October 27, 2009 12:00 AM
#157 Ace: "What a crock. Who is gullible enough to believe this story."
Here's the court record: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1397.htm
#149 tunktunk: "parents do have a lot to say about the way their children are brought up."
There is no other case where they have a say about surgically removing healthy, functional, non-renewable tissue from a baby son at whim; no case at all where they have a say about removing such tissue from a daughter (no matter how minimally, hygienically or anaesthetisedly - in fact many countries have special laws against it [but only for girls]); and of course no case where adults, even parents, can circumcise an adult man against his will. Why is the neonatal foreskin a unique exception?
Wikipedia circumcision entries are ruthlessly vetted of any pro-intact material by a man who had himself circumcised as an adult, after wanting to since childhood. It is not a reliable source on that subject.
#139 Steven Mading: Your scar-willied sheepses are brilliant on one level, except that unlike belly stars, willy scars are not just superficial, but represent actual loss that can never be completely replaced. (And I do wish Seuss hadn't rhymed McBean with machine - it rhymes with obtain, at least in our branch of the clan.)
#137 tariqua: "had the circumcision not occurred and been botched, it would never have happened."
And we know David( nee Bruce, later Brenda)'s circumcision was unnecessary, because his twin brother Brian's was called off after his disaster, and he recovered without further treatment. US (and in those days Canadian) doctors are inclined to prescribe circumcision at the first sign of trouble with an intact penis, so they never get to learn about the alternatives.
And to the people who say FGC is so very different from MGC: in Malaysia and Indonesia it can be quite minimal and hygienic, yet it would be illegal in most developed countries. Meanwhile 56 youths have died from tribal circumcision this year in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, alone. Compare apples with apples and the differences vanish.
Posted by: Pipenta | October 28, 2009 2:58 PM
The part of this that really got to me was this:
"The man later returned to the internet for more research and met some other religious fundamentalists, who were also dog breeders. They advised him they used a veterinary powder called BloodStop to halt any bleeding when they circumcised their 13-year-old son."
OMFG! What happened to the four year old was horrible, obviously. But the added level of sexual trauma brought about by parents mutilating their preteen's genitals is so, so very messed up and cruel. He's at that age where he is starting to mature sexually and and and Mommy and Daddy put their hands on his penis and CUT IT! And you just know, those are the kind of freaks who are telling him that it is a sin for him to touch himself. The whole scenario, sadistic, twisted gives me nightmares.
Talk about inappropriate touching! Gah!