Awkward Topics Thread

Opaline

Opaline

1
I figured we should have a thread for awkward topics that you don't want to post in one of the main threads. I don't mean ban worthy things; obviously we should keep it appropriate. But just anything you feel should be specially designated as "awkward" before anyone reads it and then gets embarrassed.

I don't know, just something I wanted to do because I have such a topic.
 
Last edited:
S

Silatuyok

Well-known member
I think going along with anything that extreme, simply because it is customary, is really sad. Unfortunately, most people aren't in the habit of questioning what is customary.
 
MikeyC

MikeyC

Well-known member
Opaline said:
In horror class we were discussing what things could fit under the category entitled "doing something to others which you wouldn't necessarily want done to yourself". I mentioned circumcision. Yes, I did. And the girl next to me - a particularly extroverted girl, I might mention, at least when it comes to class discussions - loudly proclaimed that the procedure was safe and painless (really!?) and that it was done for hygienic purposes (the usual baseless excuse). And she said something crazy, about how we aren't running around naked and wild anymore, and therefore the foreskin no longer had a function because we had pants (she said jeans specifically, I think) to protect the penis. I was just shaking my head the entire time and I said those things were excuses and that the foreskin most certainly does serve a purpose. But I didn't want to get into it too much because it might be just a little out of place in a horror literature course, and I didn't want to start talking about the glans of the penis and all of that in class. Talk about awkward.

It saddened me greatly. People often hold the most ignorant beliefs and they defend them using the most ridiculous claims. Even just thinking about it without medically-sound scientific explanations, you can tell circumcision is barbaric. It's forcing a baby boy to undergo genital mutilation - and yes, it IS mutilation, because it removes an integral part of the penis. And he has no say in it. And if it's for religious reasons, the child then doesn't get to choose what religion he even wants to participate in, if at all. And most people are probably not aware of this, but the foreskin makes up about one third of the tissue of the penis at birth, and it contains many many nerves, and keeps the top from drying out.
Click to expand...
There's many debates as to whether circumcision is necessary or not. I once heard that circumcision in America is about 90% or more of males, where in Australia is closer to half. I don't think we're going to reach a consensus around the world whether it's beneficial or not to circumcise.

I won't reveal what I am, but I agree with kihira that letting the male choose as he gets older is wiser than having the parents choose for him.

I do agree with the girl in your class in that it is done for hygienic purposes, and it's done before you start having memories, so in that sense it's okay. It's a widely accepted thing to do and I can't really see it stopping.

Female circumcision, where "genital mutilation" is a more apt term - is never acceptable.
 
MikeyC

MikeyC

Well-known member
Opaline said:
Yes, it's done for hygienic purposes, but that is ridiculous. Just teach your child to wash properly! Would you yank out someone's teeth to avoid cavities? The foreskin is there for a reason, just like teeth. It's a protective covering that conveniently moves in preparation for sex, and then is there to protect at all other times. Sounds pretty perfect to me. It serves the same function in the female.

I think it's just as unacceptable to do it to males as it is for females. How is it worse for females? Because females are more fragile, delicate creatures? Actually, the female genitalia is arguably stronger than the male, for reasons I won't go into here, but I'm sure if you think about it you'd get what I'm saying.

The foreskin isn't just some superfluous flap of skin that causes infection and is best removed. Infections aren't that common, and you can teach children how to wash. It's as much a part of the body as your teeth, your fingers, your rear end, your kneecap... How can anyone argue against the fact that it has so many nerves and that women have the same structure, only smaller? But it's not okay to do it to females, and it IS to do it to males. I don't get it. It's not okay for anyone.

I know that most people won't change their minds, though. And I would be happy to change my own on the matter if there was a good reason to. I'd rather believe it ISN'T harmful, because it horrifies me that it's so ubiquitous and yet so harmful. But I can't do that. And if I ever have a baby boy, I'm going to leave his body alone. It's sickening.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, and you make some strong points. It's there for a reason so, if it's tended to properly, there really shouldn't be any issues. Maybe circumcision now is more a social thing? I'm not sure.

At any rate, I definitely agree with everything you said. :)

EDIT: And I think it's worse for females because the v.agina is completely mutilated, or removed, which is just horrifying. I have no research to back me up here, but that's what I've heard. I'd love to be proven wrong!
 
Ithior

Ithior

Well-known member
Opaline said:
I said I wasn't going to reply, butttt... I lied.

It most certainly isn't painless. The babies scream with pain. When my mother asked the doctor about it, he said he hated doing it for that very reason. He hated hearing the gut-wrenching screaming. I don't know why they can't give anesthetic, but apparently they can't. And even if they could, I imagine it still hurts like a mother as it heals, too.

It's not always safe, either, but there are risks associated with any surgery. My "really!?" was directed toward the claim that it is painless.
Click to expand...

Ok, for babies it might be painful, but I wasn't considering circumcision done on babies when I said that.

Edit: and now that I think about it, that makes the comment about the jews totally unnecessary. Can't they just wait until the kid is old enough to have anaesthesia?
 
Last edited:
GraybeardGhost

GraybeardGhost

Well-known member
Male circumcision, at least in the U.S., is most often performed on newborn infants, who are unlikely to have any recollection of the procedure, despite the pain they may experience. Female circumcision, which is more likely to occur in less developed parts of the world, is usually performed upon older girls, around the age of puberty, if I recall correctly. They are a lot more likely to understand what is happening to them and to remember it. There is a far greater potential for girls to be traumatized by the practice, it would seem.

Either way, I'm agin it. :thumbdown:

We evolved the way we did, fun parts and all, for a reason. I don't claim to know why, but we did, so I don't think it makes much sense to go cutting things off just to suit some mystical tradition. There are cases in which partial circumcision (for males, anyway) is medically necessary, but those are rare. In most cases, it's a senseless, silly thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Ithior

Ithior

Well-known member
I'm against doing it on babies, especially for religious reasons.

But I gotta say, from the perspective of someone who had to do it for medical reasons, it feels like you guys are saying that a circumcised man looks hideous, frankenstein-ish.
 
S

Silatuyok

Well-known member
I don't think anyone commented on the way it looks.
And certainly no one is judging anyone who IS circumcised.
 
MikeyC

MikeyC

Well-known member
Ithior said:
it feels like you guys are saying that a circumcised man looks hideous, frankenstein-ish.
Click to expand...
I've always heard the opposite, to be honest, but this is less on what it looks like, and more on the ethics of circumcision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top