Can this parent really believe she did nothing wrong? Tatooing her kids!???

[Peek a Boo]

We will be on opposite sides here. To tattoo a child (and yes I care not a whit where or what color) and permanently alter appearance is not at the discretion of a perent. I strongly support parental rights over state rights but can not agree that a parent can permanently mark a child (Yes...I make an exception for that little snip that some boys get).

 

My argument is not only based on legality but also the morality of saddling a child with a tattoo.

 

so you are ok with permanently marking a child and saddling them with the cons of those markings as long as it is a circumcision or [i'm guessing female] ear piercings? anything else?

 

why should YOU be allowed an exception to permanently mark your child and someone else not be allowed an exception to permanently mark THEIR child?

 

I understand that your passions are strong,but the logic doesn't hold out when we examine parental authority and interference of the state.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, if the parent used a sharpened guitar string attached to a motor and did a whole bunch of babies with the same crude tool.

 

so you'd be ok with this if they had taken the children to a licensed tattoo parlor that followed all generally accepted legal standards? or used a separate [accepted] needle for each kid at home? when would the practice be "ok" in your mind?

 

and you do realize that this starts veering into "licensed teachers" vs "unlicensed home teachers" right? hee hee..

[pqr]

The bolding is mine.

 

You may see it as saddling, other cultures may see the same thing as a right of passage. So who gets to decide what's acceptable and what's not?

 

Her argument was not that it was some cultural rite of passage.

 

Let me ask you this? Female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures. Do you feel that we should not decide that such an act cannot be performed in our nation? Yes, I understand that a tattoo is, in most cases, reversible while the other is not, but if we are now going to base an argument on cultural norms then the issue of reversibility should not come into play.

 

In some cultures marriage at a very young age is the norm. Do parents in the US have the right to marry off their 10 year old daughter?

 

I simply fail to see how giving a 10 year old a tattoo is acceptable.

[hornblower]

True true, and what my definition of a person is also I suppose. lol

 

And don't forget you need to define "is" (cf Pres. Bill Clinton)

 

:D

[specialmama]

When I was 10 I knew how to say no. I knew how to call the police. IF someone held me down and forced a tattoo on me, or if someone molested me, or if someone hit me, etc... I was old enough to let it be known.

 

This is a very insensitive, arrogant and naive thing to say on a board with mostly females, 3/4 of whom (statistics say) have experienced some kind of sexual victimization.

[Caraway]

Black tattoos can be removed with laser light. These tattoos are black.

 

I don't see the difference. In fact, since black tattoos can be removed, I'd say tattooing is a less permanent choice.

 

 

I haven't read the entire thread, but...

 

Wow.

 

I have a black tattoo that I am trying to have removed. Besides being VERY expensive, it is EXTREMELY painful. And, having received several treatments, it is unclear if my tattoo is actually going to go away.

 

I wouldn't consider the possibility of removal to be a sure thing!

[MelanieM]

so you are ok with permanently marking a child and saddling them with the cons of those markings as long as it is a circumcision or [i'm guessing female] ear piercings? anything else?

 

why should YOU be allowed an exception to permanently mark your child and someone else not be allowed an exception to permanently mark THEIR child?

 

I understand that your passions are strong,but the logic doesn't hold out when we examine parental authority and interference of the state.

 

This. I could see the argument here if it applied to all or none -- i.e. no physical altering of children, ever, or physical altering is ok with parental/child consent. But I guess I don't see how people can have it both ways. What's the logic behind the pick and choose mentality?

[pqr]

so you are ok with permanently marking a child and saddling them with the cons of those markings as long as it is a circumcision or [i'm guessing female] ear piercings? anything else?

 

why should YOU be allowed an exception to permanently mark your child and someone else not be allowed an exception to permanently mark THEIR child?

 

I understand that your passions are strong,but the logic doesn't hold out when we examine parental authority and interference of the state.

 

 

I give a pass to male circumcision because it is based either on a religious belief or on a reasonable decision to take the health and hygiene of a child into account. Yes parents may choose the religion of a child and (within reason) allow a mark.

This is not the case or justification that the mother is using. She marked he children based on a simple desire of a 10 year old probably to fit in or look cool. Not good enough.

[nukeswife]

Her argument was not that it was some cultural rite of passage.

 

Let me ask you this? Female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures. Do you feel that we should not decide that such an act cannot be performed in our nation? Yes, I understand that a tattoo is, in most cases, reversible while the other is not, but if we are now going to base an argument on cultural norms then the issue of reversibility should not come into play.

 

In some cultures marriage at a very young age is the norm. Do parents in the US have the right to marry off their 10 year old daughter?

 

I simply fail to see how giving a 10 year old a tattoo is acceptable.

 

I realize it wasn't stated to be a cultural thing, but you didn't seem to be saying "If this were for cultural reasons it would be ok" You seemed to be saying "This is wrong no matter what"

 

You may simply see how giving a 10 year old a tattoo is acceptable and I see piercing an infants ears as a bad idea, but I didn't go off on my friend when she did it, because it was HER CHILD not mine.

 

A lot of the examples of other cultural norms you posted have laws that make them illegal here in the US, If there is a law that states "Parents may not give consent for a person under the age of X to get a tattoo" then I'll stand corrected and they can lock them up and throw away the key.

[MelanieM]

Let me ask you this? Female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures. Do you feel that we should not decide that such an act cannot be performed in our nation? Yes, I understand that a tattoo is, in most cases, reversible while the other is not, but if we are now going to base an argument on cultural norms then the issue of reversibility should not come into play.

 

I completely agree that female circumcision should not be allowed. But perhaps you should consider why this same argument you are making doesn't apply -- in your view -- to male circumcision. Why are you making the exception there?

[hornblower]

I really don't like ear piercings on babies, I cannot imagine tattooing a kid, I have objections to circ in boys, and absolutely froth at circ'ing females. And yet these practices are common in certain social milieux.

 

Interesting when cultures and customs come into focus like this.

 

BTW, when I was growing up in Poland, the ONLY people who had pierced ears were gypsies and peasant girls. Respectable, urban, modern women wore clip ear rings or none at all. My mom pierced her ears when she was in her 40's & had been living in Canada for some time; & then she got carried away: put in a whole bunch, right up the side of the ear. And then she got a tattoo. And then another one. And another one. My kids have a funny grandma.......

[LauraGB]

so you'd be ok with this if they had taken the children to a licensed tattoo parlor that followed all generally accepted legal standards? or used a separate [accepted] needle for each kid at home? when would the practice be "ok" in your mind?

 

 

No. I don't think its right at all. I think it borders on abuse. I also believe (but I'm not positive!) that respectable tattooists will not tattoo anyone under 16, even with parental permission. And the smart ones will get consent from BOTH legal parents before even doing a 16 year old.

 

 

and you do realize that this starts veering into "licensed teachers" vs "unlicensed home teachers" right? hee hee..

 

But right now, it IS legal for me to teach my kids without a license. It is not, as I see it, legal to stab my kids repeatedly with sharp objects.

[pqr]

I completely agree that female circumcision should not be allowed. But perhaps you should consider why this same argument you are making doesn't apply -- in your view -- to male circumcision. Why are you making the exception there?

 

That is a good question and one that I wrestled with as I wrote about female circumcision. I suppose I can only argue that, other than the health reason, it has limited to no impact on...ahem "the workings" while the female equivalent does. If the female equivallent was not so destructive and did not impact the life a to female to such a great degree I suppose an argument could be made....but as this is not the case it can not and should not be made.

[Peek a Boo]

I simply fail to see how giving a 10 year old a tattoo is acceptable.

 

nobody is saying that it is "acceptable" -- we're saying that it isn't necessarily our place to decide if it is acceptable.

 

I'm guessing that you would not find it acceptable to teach your children [insert difference of opinion/faith here]. Does that mean you think other parents who do teach those things are being bad, wrong, morally corrupt,or need to be arrested?

 

I do believe that there are levels of "acceptable". We all have our own levels of what we will and will not stand by and watch or let happen w/o a fight. i would find it unacceptable to let my teen children have sex in my house, but others consider that OK. Some would find it unacceptable that i let my oldest jump off a roof. I'm sure there areother things i do as a parent that you would find unacceptable.

 

So the bigger question becomes: when do you think that level of unacceptable becomes a legal issue where children need to be removed from the home or a parent arrested?

 

I do not find it acceptable in this case to penalize the parents merely for a tattoo. The safety issues I do have a problem with, but my advice [if asked] would be to use a new needle and approved ink and know what you're doing.

[Peek a Boo]

it has limited to no impact on...ahem "the workings" while the female equivalent does. .

 

and men who have had to be circumcised as an adult for medical reasons [and have experienced sex both pre and post C] have testified otherwise. ;)

[MelanieM]

That is a good question and one that I wrestled with as I wrote about female circumcision. I suppose I can only argue that, other than the health reason, it has limited to no impact on...ahem "the workings" while the female equivalent does. If the female equivallent was not so destructive and did not impact the life a to female to such a great degree I suppose an argument could be made....but as this is not the case it can not and should not be made.

 

I'll echo what Peek a Boo said regarding sensation. That is the reason circumcision was widely introduced in the Western world in the first place. Also, there is no preventative medical reason to circumcise baby boys. In fact, here in Canada you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor that will do it for you, and it is one of the few things *not* covered by our Universal health care.

Edited January 7, 2010 by MelanieM

[pqr]

nobody is saying that it is "acceptable" -- we're saying that it isn't necessarily our place to decide if it is acceptable.

 

I'm guessing that you would not find it acceptable to teach your children [insert difference of opinion/faith here]. Does that mean you think other parents who do teach those things are being bad, wrong, morally corrupt,or need to be arrested?

 

I do believe that there are levels of "acceptable". We all have our own levels of what we will and will not stand by and watch or let happen w/o a fight. i would find it unacceptable to let my teen children have sex in my house, but others consider that OK. Some would find it unacceptable that i let my oldest jump off a roof. I'm sure there areother things i do as a parent that you would find unacceptable.

 

So the bigger question becomes: when do you think that level of unacceptable becomes a legal issue where children need to be removed from the home or a parent arrested?

 

I do not find it acceptable in this case to penalize the parents merely for a tattoo. The safety issues I do have a problem with, but my advice [if asked] would be to use a new needle and approved ink and know what you're doing.

 

I suppose because it is permanent.

 

We are on the same side as far as parental rights, but this is not an issue of a cultural mark, a religious mark, a religion, a philosophy this is simply a "decoration." I see the concern about where this stops and where parental rights begin, but I do not believe I ever advocated legal intervention. I did not support the charges rather I stated that they were bad parents....they are. they are nuts, but being a bad parent is legal.

[Peek a Boo]

No. I don't think its right at all. I think it borders on abuse. I also believe (but I'm not positive!) that respectable tattooists will not tattoo anyone under 16, even with parental permission. And the smart ones will get consent from BOTH legal parents before even doing a 16 year old.

 

But right now, it IS legal for me to teach my kids without a license. It is not, as I see it, legal to stab my kids repeatedly with sharp objects.

 

It is legal to stab your kids repeatedly with sharp objects-- if you're getting multiple ear piercings. :) I'm betting there are some laws about other practices that I'm not even aware of tho.

 

Should ear piercings be considered borderline child abuse?

 

most definitions of child abuse cite actual harm to a child.

I'm simply not seeing the "actual harm" here. These are not mortal or injurious stab wounds. They are less than what is imposed for ear piercings [which goes completely through the ear lobe, not just up under the skin]. Tattoos are an "acceptable" form of repeated stabbing like homeschooling is an accepted form of "legal brainwashing."

 

If it becomes illegal to teach at home w/o a license in every subject, will you stop teaching at home if you don't have a license in every subject?

[pqr]

and men who have had to be circumcised as an adult for medical reasons [and have experienced sex both pre and post C] have testified otherwise. ;)

 

 

Well on that I will have to trust your sources.

[Peek a Boo]

I suppose because it is permanent.

 

We are on the same side as far as parental rights, but this is not an issue of a cultural mark, a religious mark, a religion, a philosophy this is simply a "decoration." I see the concern about where this stops and where parental rights begin, but I do not believe I ever advocated legal intervention. I did not support the charges rather I stated that they were bad parents....they are. they are nuts, but being a bad parent is legal.

 

and "decoration" is probably the most protected right a parent has wrt children. Choosing to permanently decorate your child in the way you wish is a right we do have and is exercised via ear piercings all the time.

 

I would have to say that how one chooses to decorate their child is the least of my concerns when it comes to evaluating their parenting. It reveals a lot about their personal tastes, but nothing about how they are parenting.

 

i think nuts is something i can agree with. ;)

[pqr]

 

i think nuts is something i can agree with. ;)

 

See, I knew we could find common ground.

[KJB]

:001_huh:

 

:bigear:

 

:D

[LauraGB]

Does anyone know what the symbol stands for? I think I remember a guy from CA who recently just earned himself some serious trouble for tattooing his young child with a gang symbol.

 

 

Tattoos are an "acceptable" form of repeated stabbing like homeschooling is an accepted form of "legal brainwashing." ?

:D

 

If it becomes illegal to teach at home w/o a license in every subject, will you stop teaching at home if you don't have a license in every subject?

I'm not sure - I've never really thought about that. If I did choose to hide out and continue, which would be a distinct possibility, I would be breaking the law (regardless of how stupid I feel it would be) and would have to accept the consequences were I to get caught. So...I wouldn't do it in a public place or flaunt it (like say, a tattoo on my dc's hands to give away my ignorance...).

[st_claire]

This is a very insensitive, arrogant and naive thing to say on a board with mostly females, 3/4 of whom (statistics say) have experienced some kind of sexual victimization.

 

I'm so sorry you found it to be so. But I honestly think that a 10 year old can speak up as much as an 18 year old. Now maybe in some, maybe many cases, people don't speak up, but that doesn't change overnight when they hit a magic age. I don't think it's right to give away the freedoms of so many for the marginal security of a few.

 

Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

[st_claire]

I really don't like ear piercings on babies, I cannot imagine tattooing a kid, I have objections to circ in boys, and absolutely froth at circ'ing females. And yet these practices are common in certain social milieux.

 

Interesting when cultures and customs come into focus like this.

 

BTW, when I was growing up in Poland, the ONLY people who had pierced ears were gypsies and peasant girls. Respectable, urban, modern women wore clip ear rings or none at all. My mom pierced her ears when she was in her 40's & had been living in Canada for some time; & then she got carried away: put in a whole bunch, right up the side of the ear. And then she got a tattoo. And then another one. And another one. My kids have a funny grandma.......

 

Great post and she sounds like an awesome grandma :D

[Guest Katia]

I guess the difference, to me, is that I don't think I know any women who don't have their ears pierced... I know lots of women who don't have tattoos, I know lots of women who don't have eyebrow piercings, I know lots of women who don't have their noses pierced. But, everyone I know has earrings. It's inevitable...other piercings and tattoos are not.

 

It is not inevitable.

 

Since you have children, I'm assuming you are older than my adult girls, who are 18 and 20. Please.....meet them......and you will then know women younger than yourself who do not have ear piercings and do not want them as neither one wants holes put into their bodies.

 

Both attend college and both know many, many other women who do not have holes in their bodies (in their ear-lobes) and do not want them. These women are not swayed by social culture. They do exist.

 

And, ftr, I have had my ears pierced four times.....so it's not like I'm teaching them it's 'bad' or something. I just let them make their own decisions about their bodies.

[st_claire]

But right now, it IS legal for me to teach my kids without a license. It is not, as I see it, legal to stab my kids repeatedly with sharp objects.

 

 

If it was not legal, would you stop teaching them?

What if it was not legal to practice your religion?

What if it was not legal to marry your love?

etc....

 

Laws alone do not determine what we should and should not do.

[st_claire]

nobody is saying that it is "acceptable" -- we're saying that it isn't necessarily our place to decide if it is acceptable.

 

I'm guessing that you would not find it acceptable to teach your children [insert difference of opinion/faith here]. Does that mean you think other parents who do teach those things are being bad, wrong, morally corrupt,or need to be arrested?

 

I do believe that there are levels of "acceptable". We all have our own levels of what we will and will not stand by and watch or let happen w/o a fight. i would find it unacceptable to let my teen children have sex in my house, but others consider that OK. Some would find it unacceptable that i let my oldest jump off a roof. I'm sure there areother things i do as a parent that you would find unacceptable.

 

So the bigger question becomes: when do you think that level of unacceptable becomes a legal issue where children need to be removed from the home or a parent arrested?

 

I do not find it acceptable in this case to penalize the parents merely for a tattoo. The safety issues I do have a problem with, but my advice [if asked] would be to use a new needle and approved ink and know what you're doing.

 

 

Well said :)

[Renee in NC]

Well there is the hitch in your statement. They did have parents that consented for them, it may have been only one of their parents but the dad that did the tattooing was giving his consent for his children and the mom in the video gave consent for her kids. Sure he shouldn't have used the same needle, he should have taken more precautions against infection and the whole homemade tattooing kit is a bit weird, but is the child cruelty, well that's a matter of opinion. Like others have said if these children had not been in a blended family where both of the bio-parents were the ones that did it, it would have never made the news.

 

When my mom took me to get my ears pierced when I was 11, she didn't have to ask my dad if it was ok, just one parents consent was needed because they were married so nobody would have ever thought to ask if it was ok with both of my parents.

 

When my ds got ear piercings at 14, including both ear lobes and an industrial on one side, all it took was the consent of his stepmother. No one asked my opinion. I would have said no (at the time) and she knew it - she did it out of spite and control. However, there is absolutely nothing I could do about it - he had adult consent.

 

His holes will *never* close and they will always be noticeable because they are guage piercings, not just studs.

[LibraryLover]

That seems rather dangerous to me. The same needle? Where they intoxicated when they did it? That could go wrong.

 

Has anyone mentioned how permanent circumcision is yet? More so than tattoos or ear piercing? ;) Not to pot stir...but yk, someone has to mention that in this sort of thread. ;) Might as well be me.

Edited January 7, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Mom-ninja.]

Well....

 

People pierce their children's (little babies even) ears all the time. I'm not sure this is too different?

 

signed,

KJB

non-tattooer

non-piercer

 

People also allow other body modifications on children, and it is not questioned.

[Plucky]

When my ds got ear piercings at 14, including both ear lobes and an industrial on one side, all it took was the consent of his stepmother. No one asked my opinion. I would have said no (at the time) and she knew it - she did it out of spite and control. However, there is absolutely nothing I could do about it - he had adult consent.

 

His holes will *never* close and they will always be noticeable because they are guage piercings, not just studs.

 

It only takes 15 minutes w/ the plastic surgeon and some anesthetic to fix earlobes. There is healing time of course. So it doesn't have to be forever and he can fix them if he changes his mind. :grouphug:

[Mom-ninja.]

It matters because you are being very offensive!!!!

 

You are offended because tatoos are offensive to you.

 

Ear piercing children is accepted in our culture while tattoos are not. Comfort level depends on what is culturally acceptable. What we deem as right and wrong is based on cultural acceptance.

 

There are many many types of body modifications in different cultures. Enlongating a child's earlobes is normal in one part of the world, but not in ours....as an example.

[Parrothead]

Has anyone mentioned how permanent circumcision is yet? More so than tattoos or ear piercing? ;) Not to pot stir...but yk, someone has to mention that in this sort of thread. ;) Might as well be me.

I don't think that is comparing apples to apples. During a circumcision a body part is removed. So to compare accurately you would have to compare removing another body part.

 

Tattooing is adding to the body. In our culture it is not acceptable to add to the body of children.

[Impish]

I'll echo what Peek a Boo said regarding sensation. That is the reason circumcision was widely introduced in the Western world in the first place. Also, there is no preventative medical reason to circumcise baby boys. In fact, here in Canada you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor that will do it for you, and it is one of the few things *not* covered by our Universal health care.

Depends where you are in Canada, I guess. I had absolutely no problem getting our 4 yo circ'd. My OB/GYN did it in his office, and since we were struggling financially, he didn't charge for it either.

 

As for no medical reason to get it done...I guess it depends on what info you come across in your research. My GP explained about higher rates of STD's and wives with cervical cancer in uncirc'd males. *shrug*

[Mrs Mungo]

To me, there are two issues here:

 

1. Unsafe tattooing practices, there are definitely laws against this in many states and for good reason.

 

2. The mother of the children did not consent.

 

That's why it "blowed up so big." Yes, the father should be in trouble here.

 

eta: It's a cultural norm in many predominantly-Muslim countries that Christian children are tattooed with a cross on their hand. It's considered particularly important for girls because they need not follow the same rules as Muslim girls.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Bee]

At the time the child was under a year old and the mom put the rather large tattoo on her leg-some sort of eastern symbol.Dh said it was obviously not done professionally. It was and is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to get a tattoo in our state. The mom was not from a country or culture where tattooing children is the norm. The mom had numerous tattoos and piercings of her own. Sorry, I thought it was barbaric when he told me about it and I still do. I can't imagine it was a painless procedure.

[MelanieM]

Depends where you are in Canada, I guess. I had absolutely no problem getting our 4 yo circ'd. My OB/GYN did it in his office, and since we were struggling financially, he didn't charge for it either.

 

As for no medical reason to get it done...I guess it depends on what info you come across in your research. My GP explained about higher rates of STD's and wives with cervical cancer in uncirc'd males. *shrug*

 

Yes, that was poorly worded on my part. I should have said that circumcision is not considered medically necessary by the Canadian Medical Association (apparently your GP doesn't follow their guidelines) and is therefore not covered as a medical procedure under our health care system. (The Canadian Pediatric Society has an indepth report on the subject: http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm) Because of this, it in increasingly difficult to find a doctor that will perform the procedure in the city where I live. I suppose my assertion that this applied to the rest of Canada was simply wishful thinking.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think that is comparing apples to apples. During a circumcision a body part is removed. So to compare accurately you would have to compare removing another body part.

 

Tattooing is adding to the body. In our culture it is not acceptable to add to the body of children.

 

and of course, America is quite the melting pot of cultures, so that needs to be kept in mind also. ;)

 

eta: It's a cultural norm in many predominantly-Muslim countries that Christian children are tattooed with a cross on their hand. It's considered particularly important for girls because they need not follow the same rules as Muslim girls.

 

huh. that's interesting.......

[ChristusG]

The only real issue I see here is the lack of sense that they used when using the same needle on each child, plus the whole home-made tattoo gun.

 

I can easily see the children all watching while mom and dad gave themselves tattoos and then asked for one themselves, so the parents declined, the children begged, and then the parents said "okay, just a little tiny one." Smart idea? Not so sure, but I don't think the children should be taken away from them or anything (unless there are other factors at play that we do not know about).

 

I do think there was stupidity using a home made tattoo gun. I mean, seriously, a sharpened guitar string? That sounds freaky to me. And the risk of infection sounds pretty high in a home-made setting.

 

I understand the other parent being upset, but we do not know what sort of relationship they have. Are the mother and father always at each others throats? Would she have cared if the children got their ears pierced? Would she have cared if the father fed the kids pizza for dinner instead of some vegetables? Is she just looking for reasons to attack the father or is she genuinely concerned about the tattoo itself.

 

And just to let you know, I'm not coming at this from the perspective of a pro-tattooing family. I do not believe tattoos are right, DH does not either, and we also do not pierce our daughters ears.

[LibraryLover]

Except I wasn't comparing them. Circ, tattoos, ear piercing are all cultural body modifications. I was listing a few.

 

I don't think that is comparing apples to apples. During a circumcision a body part is removed. So to compare accurately you would have to compare removing another body part.

 

Tattooing is adding to the body. In our culture it is not acceptable to add to the body of children.

[Renee in NC]

It only takes 15 minutes w/ the plastic surgeon and some anesthetic to fix earlobes. There is healing time of course. So it doesn't have to be forever and he can fix them if he changes his mind. :grouphug:

 

That's very good to know! I don't know if he will ever change his mind, but I am glad there is an option if he does. I don't mind them now, but it seems to me it's a stupid decision to give to a 14yo. His Dad has multiple piercings as well. I do want to say that they have refused to give permission for tattoos, for which I am very, very thankful. My dh has tattoos, but you can't see them under shirt sleeves - that was a military requirement.

[Spy Car]

I completely agree that female circumcision should not be allowed. But perhaps you should consider why this same argument you are making doesn't apply -- in your view -- to male circumcision. Why are you making the exception there?

 

Apples and Oranges.

 

So-called "female circumcision" is not "circumcision." It is a "Clitoridectomy" and is a barbaric act of genital mutilation aimed at removing a female's pleasure center.

 

"Female genital mutilation" bears nothing what-so-ever in common with the circumcision of boys, which is a sound procedure for promoting health and hygiene which benefits both males and their partners, and doesn't diminish sexual pleasure. Quite the opposite.

 

The two acts have nothing in common other than "female genital mutilation" sometimes being euphemistically referred to as "female circumcision."

 

Bill

Edited January 7, 2010 by Spy Car

[Mommy22alyns]

Tattooing is adding to the body. In our culture it is not acceptable to add to the body of children.

 

 

Do you consider ear piercing adding or subtracting? Because infant ear piercing is pretty socially acceptable.

 

 

And ITA and a big thank you to Bill.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't believe in any non-religious medically unnecessary body modifications without the consent of the child.

 

However I think they were simply wrong in this case. It is against the law to tattoo children. They will be stuck with those consequences and I don't think they are old enough to be aware of the ramifications.

 

Ear piercings are not seen with the same critical eye as tattooing. No one will refuse someone employment because they had their ears pierced at one point. In some jobs (including the military) any tattoos must be covered and that would be more difficult on the hand.

 

How could someone not foresee a problem with that? That bottle of ink looked nasty. They are lucky they didn't all get infections. Gross.

 

 

 

I have tattoos, my son is not circumcised and my daughter does not have her ears pierced, she wants to though so we are going to make her an appt. Just including my qualifiers :lol:

Edited January 7, 2010 by Sis

[MelanieM]

So-called "female circumcision" is not "circumcision." It is a "Clitoridectomy" and is a barbaric act of genital mutilation aimed at removing a female's pleasure center.

 

Some men would argue that their pleasure centers have been altered along with their genitals, as well. It's easy to say that isn't the case when it happens in infancy and the man grows up to not know any different experience. But men who are circumcised in adulthood have testified that there is indeed a decrease in pleasure. Even if that weren't the case, common sense would indicate that the nerve endings found in foreskin provide some level of sensation.

 

"Female genital mutilation" bears nothing what-so-ever in common with the circumcision of boys, which is a sound procedure for promoting health and hygiene which benefits both males and their partners, and doesn't diminish sexual pleasure. Quite the opposite.

 

 

The idea that it is a sound procedure for promoting health is debatable at best, and is not supported by medical associations governing... any of the world?

 

As for the argument around diminishing pleasure, I have no first hand knowledge and can't definitively speak to that. And unless one has experienced intercourse as an intact and circumcised male, then I would say it's not possible to say this is in fact the case.

 

The idea of promoting hygiene by removing a part of the body is quite bizarre to me. I wouldn't have my son's teeth removed rather than show him how to brush them, so why would I cut off part of his penis rather than show him how to clean himself?

 

The two acts have nothing in common other than the euphemism of "female genital mutilation" sometimes being referred to as "female circumcision."

 

 

Or the fact that male circumcision is sometimes called male genital mutilation.

 

I'm not trying to say that female genital mutilation should be down played. But it's dismissive of the feelings of many circumcised men to suggest that circumcision is no big deal.

[Slartibartfast]

 

The idea that it is a sound procedure for promoting health is debatable at best, and is not supported by medical associations governing... any of the world?

 

 

 

I believe the AMA and the AAP have stated there is no medical reason to circumcise. There are religious covenants that require it but it does not affect hygiene.

[Spy Car]

Some men would argue that their pleasure centers have been altered along with their genitals, as well. It's easy to say that isn't the case when it happens in infancy and the man grows up to not know any different experience. But men who are circumcised in adulthood have testified that there is indeed a decrease in pleasure. Even if that weren't the case, common sense would indicate that the nerve endings found in foreskin provide some level of sensation.

 

Let's say I have more perspective on this matter than 97.4% of the people on this forum, and I''m telling you circumcised men have more satisfying sex lives.

 

Circumcision in adulthood is a serious and risky operation that can't be compared to the circumcision of an infant. That's why it's a specious argument to say "let the grown-up child decide" rather than giving them the lifetime of protection when they are young, and a parent needs to take on the responsibility of the decision.

 

The idea that it is a sound procedure for promoting health is debatable at best, and is not supported by medical associations governing... any of the world?

 

It's not debatable. Circumcised penises are cleaner and less likely to be the entry (and exit) point of disease and infection. The evidence for that is clear.

 

As for the argument around diminishing pleasure, I have no first hand knowledge and can't definitively speak to that. And unless one has experienced intercourse as an intact and circumcised male, then I would say it's not possible to say this is in fact the case.

 

Well, I have first hand knowledge, and I can assure you intercourse with a circumcised penis is ****-fine.

 

The idea of promoting hygiene by removing a part of the body is quite bizarre to me. I wouldn't have my son's teeth removed rather than show him how to brush them, so why would I cut off part of his penis rather than show him how to clean himself?

 

Lady, I know plenty of unhappy uncircumcised men and the smegma problems they live with. It's foul, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

 

Circumcision is a much better solution.

 

Or the fact that male circumcision is sometimes called male genital mutilation.

 

No it's not :glare:

 

I'm not trying to say that female genital mutilation should be down played. But it's dismissive of the feelings of many circumcised men to suggest that circumcision is no big deal.

 

MANY? I have NEVER, EVER, met a man who wasn't very happy to be circumcised. There may be a few internet-wackos out there to be exploited by radical anti-circumcision crowd, but this is not a real issue with men. Trust me.

 

I believe the AMA and the AAP have stated there is no medical reason to circumcise. There are religious covenants that require it but it does not affect hygiene.

 

There are a multitude of medical reasons to support circumcision, including protection from many STDs, a decrease in urinary tract infections, and the spreading of the HPV virus (to name a few).

 

And there is a drastic impact of hygiene.

 

Bill (sheesh!)

Edited January 8, 2010 by Spy Car

[Slartibartfast]

 

There are a multitude of medical reasons to support circumcision, including protection from many STDs, a decrease in urinary tract infections, and the spreading of the HPV virus (to name a few).

 

And there is a drastic impact of hygiene.

 

Bill (sheesh!)

 

I don't have a penis but the AAP has actually stated the opposite of what you are saying.

 

There is not a large medical benefit. There is not a large impact on hygiene. I just don't see that there would be a big issue in getting boys to wash their bits.

 

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

 

Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene

 

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Sis

[Caraway]

and doesn't diminish sexual pleasure. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

This goes against everything I have ever read on this topic. :glare: