[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Ralesk at 25 Jun 2004 02:31:45: Re: When in Rome...
As an answer to: Re: When in Rome... written by David_R at 25 Jun 2004 01:22:19:
>Actually appearance is a legitimate reason, even if it might not be a major component of the reasons for promoting routine circumcision and certainly it cannot be placed in the category of 'necessary' reasons but our desire for conformity to certain grooming and cultural aspects of our lives is not entirely irrelevant and I don't think, personally or as a physician, that circumcision should only be done for 'necessary' reasons- a mistake being made by physicians who are publishing on this topic, as it avoids certain sociological aspects of the procedure: its history and ubiquity make this an unnecessary prerequisite, in my opinion- and clearly of many others too who have thought about it in this light.
Good gods, this was a long sentence!
Actually, I have to say a strict NO about the routine + looks combo. In fact, that’s the same damn thing you felt quite uneasy about two posts above, that people obsess about their childrens’ genitals’ looks. That’s just plain wrong, no matter whether you obsess about a nature-given look or a bloody scar.
And if it’s about the looks, then it should damn well be the right of the owner to do as he pleases, and not anyone else’s. I’m definitely going to be taken an insane person if I preemptively have my son’s big toenails removed and validate it with that I don’t have either of them, and that it saves him from ever getting an ingrown toenail or fungus under the nail — and that his toe will be so beautiful, I know mine is! And also, it’s been a family tradition!
Yes I am aware of the various cultural aspects, but the “Victorian”/Kelloggian thing can hardly be called that, moreso a whim.
Also, how can you, who says he is a doctor, place whims of people different from the patient, in front of the — although not stated with means of language — patient’s personal choice and the medical necessities, whether there are any?
>No matter, the male response to which you wanted to puke is of a far greater legitimacy than the desire to feminize the male by removing a male bonding phenomenon that both socializes and civilizes (grouping the men together and improving on their "wild and unruly" state). So, the two statements cannot be reconciled or paralleled even if they bear a superficial familiar tone- they don't. That is why I found the 'clitoral' comment so revolting. And who could not want to have a son share at least some of Dad's characterisitcs?
And how is your reason for puking any more valid than mine, if you think the way you just described? How are the two cases any different? People obsessing about their SON’S GENITALS.