California judge ruled that a man accused of giving his 7-year-old son a gang tattoo will not face charges of aggravated mayhem, which would have carried a life sentence.
The boy's mother, discovered the quarter-sized mark on the boy's hip -- in the symbol of a local street gang.
The man was charged with aggravated mayhem, a felony that can result in a life sentence. Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl.
Because the tattoo is a gang symbol, the man is also charged with enhancements related to gang activity.
In California, tattooing a child under the age of 18 typically results in a misdemeanor charge.
"It's an interesting issue for sure"! Kids don't belong to their parents as property, do they? You can give a child the haircut you want him to have, but you can't, should not permanently disfigure a child."
The judge dismissed the mayhem charge, reducing it to a lesser charge!
Was the judge right to reduce the charges?
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
The article makes the point perfectly well. Genital mutilation is legal, ear piercings are legal, presumably the chap thought what he was doing was of benefit to the child (perhaps by making him safer at school, who knows, it's surely arguably true though). Why should it be treated differently?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248655 wrote: The article makes the point perfectly well. Genital mutilation is legal, ear piercings are legal, presumably the chap thought what he was doing was of benefit to the child (perhaps by making him safer at school, who knows, it's surely arguably true though). Why should it be treated differently?
Unless a different gang gets hold of him, in which case the opposite would surely be true?
Unless a different gang gets hold of him, in which case the opposite would surely be true?
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
I totally disagree with the judge in this case...a tattoo is permanent where esle you can remove the earrings, etc. As for circumcision, that is made at the moment the boy is born...has no difference imo. The father sounds like an arsehole
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Wonder what the other gang members think about this...............................
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248657 wrote: I totally disagree with the judge in this case...a tattoo is permanent where esle you can remove the earrings, etc. As for circumcision, that is made at the moment the boy is born...has no difference imo. The father sounds like an arsehole
But it's still mutilation for cultural identity reasons-just like this tattoo and arguably a lot more traumatic for a baby than a tattoo for a seven year old nor is a tattoo as life threatening.
But it's still mutilation for cultural identity reasons-just like this tattoo and arguably a lot more traumatic for a baby than a tattoo for a seven year old nor is a tattoo as life threatening.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
gmc;1248678 wrote: But it's still mutilation for cultural identity reasons-just like this tattoo and arguably a lot more traumatic for a baby than a tattoo for a seven year old nor is a tattoo as life threatening.
Neither is a circumcision...and no it's not the end of the world for a baby to get that...they are fine after taht...a little petroleum oil...never bothered my boys, but a tattoo really hurts imo
Neither is a circumcision...and no it's not the end of the world for a baby to get that...they are fine after taht...a little petroleum oil...never bothered my boys, but a tattoo really hurts imo
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
gmc;1248678 wrote: ..... nor is a tattoo as life threatening.
It can be if not done under the hygienic conditions.
It can be if not done under the hygienic conditions.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
gmc;1248678 wrote: But it's still mutilation for cultural identity reasons-just like this tattoo and arguably a lot more traumatic for a baby than a tattoo for a seven year old nor is a tattoo as life threatening.
Well, if the old man is a Crip it could be life threatening down the road for that kid
Well, if the old man is a Crip it could be life threatening down the road for that kid
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248682 wrote: Well, if the old man is a Crip it could be life threatening down the road for that kid
Yes it could be, especially if for some odd reason, the kid didn't want to be a "gang member" when he grew up, but was identified as one by the tat! :wah:
Yes it could be, especially if for some odd reason, the kid didn't want to be a "gang member" when he grew up, but was identified as one by the tat! :wah:
Cars 
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248679 wrote: Neither is a circumcision...and no it's not the end of the world for a baby to get that...they are fine after taht...a little petroleum oil...never bothered my boys, but a tattoo really hurts imo
I'm always amazed how cultural indifference can make that sort of comment possible. Exactly the same could be said by someone in a culture which historically uses female circumcision and you'd presumably be aghast at it but when it's something "normal" in your own society you don't bat an eyelid.
I'm always amazed how cultural indifference can make that sort of comment possible. Exactly the same could be said by someone in a culture which historically uses female circumcision and you'd presumably be aghast at it but when it's something "normal" in your own society you don't bat an eyelid.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248685 wrote: I'm always amazed how cultural indifference can make that sort of comment possible. Exactly the same could be said by someone in a culture which historically uses female circumcision and you'd presumably be aghast at it but when it's something "normal" in your own society you don't bat an eyelid.
yes, it is a cultural difference..and no I don't agree with female circumcision as that happens later in a girls life under not so normal hygenic circumstances...she is held down against her will, whereas as baby boy is given a little bit of meds to hold off the pain...I'm wondering are you circumscised?
yes, it is a cultural difference..and no I don't agree with female circumcision as that happens later in a girls life under not so normal hygenic circumstances...she is held down against her will, whereas as baby boy is given a little bit of meds to hold off the pain...I'm wondering are you circumscised?
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248686 wrote: yes, it is a cultural difference..and no I don't agree with female circumcision as that happens later in a girls life under not so normal hygenic circumstances...she is held down against her will, whereas as baby boy is given a little bit of meds to hold off the pain...I'm wondering are you circumscised?
You'd need to look to find that out, ducks.
As for hygiene, the cultural environment largely determines that. In the US circumcisions are mainly done in hospitals. They're less likely to be called on in, for example, Egypt, at the moment, but then Egypt hasn't the financial resources of North America. Given an equivalent level of wealth I'm sure it would be done to the same standard of hygiene.
I think you're wrong about the age - you have to bear in mind that there's a lot of outraged prejudice in Western society when it comes to females though not, for some baffling reason, when it comes to males. There are also at least three completely different procedures stuck under the same label for girls. I'm not talking about the far rarer cutting off of flesh, nor about sewing up as a preventative against rape, I'm talking about what I described and I do think that's done at an equivalent age to Western practices on boys.
None of it should be called normal, it's all grotesque. A friend of mine had his foreskin chopped off around ten years ago for cultural reasons. Nobody could reasonably call it an acceptable practice.
You'd need to look to find that out, ducks.
As for hygiene, the cultural environment largely determines that. In the US circumcisions are mainly done in hospitals. They're less likely to be called on in, for example, Egypt, at the moment, but then Egypt hasn't the financial resources of North America. Given an equivalent level of wealth I'm sure it would be done to the same standard of hygiene.
I think you're wrong about the age - you have to bear in mind that there's a lot of outraged prejudice in Western society when it comes to females though not, for some baffling reason, when it comes to males. There are also at least three completely different procedures stuck under the same label for girls. I'm not talking about the far rarer cutting off of flesh, nor about sewing up as a preventative against rape, I'm talking about what I described and I do think that's done at an equivalent age to Western practices on boys.
None of it should be called normal, it's all grotesque. A friend of mine had his foreskin chopped off around ten years ago for cultural reasons. Nobody could reasonably call it an acceptable practice.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
I wouldn't want to give my child any kind of piercings...earrings or tattoos. Don't even like the idea of circumcision.... Besides circumcising babies for religious and cultural reasons, I think it was done because parents at one time thought it would help in cleanliness, but quite a few parents today aren't doing it.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248689 wrote: I wouldn't want to give my child any kind of piercings...earrings or tattoos. Don't even like the idea of circumcision.... Besides circumcising babies for religiour and cultural reasons, I think it was done because parents at one time thought it would help in cleanliness, but quite a few parents today aren't doing it.''
We did it for practical reasons...my nephew who is not circumcised has had all sorts of problems...from the day he wasn't circumcised...my boys are..so much less mess...although mine are not sexually active my nephew is...he hates that his parents didn't do the circumcission.
We did it for practical reasons...my nephew who is not circumcised has had all sorts of problems...from the day he wasn't circumcised...my boys are..so much less mess...although mine are not sexually active my nephew is...he hates that his parents didn't do the circumcission.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248689 wrote: I wouldn't want to give my child any kind of piercings...earrings or tattoos.
It's a bit extreme of a government to intervene over what's essentially a family decision. Either a family has a choice in the way they bring up children or there's no point in the family unit at all, we might as well adopt government crèches. Who brings up children, families or governments? If tattooing has meaning for that family then it ought to be their decision and nobody else's.
It's a bit extreme of a government to intervene over what's essentially a family decision. Either a family has a choice in the way they bring up children or there's no point in the family unit at all, we might as well adopt government crèches. Who brings up children, families or governments? If tattooing has meaning for that family then it ought to be their decision and nobody else's.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248693 wrote: It's a bit extreme of a government to intervene over what's essentially a family decision. Either a family has a choice in the way they bring up children or there's no point in the family unit at all, we might as well adopt government crèches. Who brings up children, families or governments? If tattooing has meaning for that family then it ought to be their decision and nobody else's.
I never said that the government should intervene in this kind of a family decision. I said that I would not want to give my child any piercings until they are old enough to make their own decisions.......
And yes, it is the family's decision to allow for tattoos or piercings. But, I would not do that to my child.
I never said that the government should intervene in this kind of a family decision. I said that I would not want to give my child any piercings until they are old enough to make their own decisions.......
And yes, it is the family's decision to allow for tattoos or piercings. But, I would not do that to my child.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248691 wrote: ''
We did it for practical reasons...my nephew who is not circumcised has had all sorts of problems...from the day he wasn't circumcised...my boys are..so much less mess...although mine are not sexually active my nephew is...he hates that his parents didn't do the circumcission.
Surely if he feels that strongly about it then he could get it done now. I couldn't imagine making that decision for 'practical' reasons. I recall my husband making a fuss about it, saying we should get my son done as his mate had had his son done, his argument was that it's cleaner. I say balls to that, teach good hygiene and it's no different.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
We did it for practical reasons...my nephew who is not circumcised has had all sorts of problems...from the day he wasn't circumcised...my boys are..so much less mess...although mine are not sexually active my nephew is...he hates that his parents didn't do the circumcission.
Surely if he feels that strongly about it then he could get it done now. I couldn't imagine making that decision for 'practical' reasons. I recall my husband making a fuss about it, saying we should get my son done as his mate had had his son done, his argument was that it's cleaner. I say balls to that, teach good hygiene and it's no different.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248695 wrote: And yes, it is the family's decision to allow for tattoos or piercings.
But not, evidently, in California.
But not, evidently, in California.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248693 wrote: It's a bit extreme of a government to intervene over what's essentially a family decision. Either a family has a choice in the way they bring up children or there's no point in the family unit at all, we might as well adopt government crèches. Who brings up children, families or governments? If tattooing has meaning for that family then it ought to be their decision and nobody else's.
First off it wasn't the families decision to get that kid tatooed...daddy did that on his own time. As for the circumcision that is my business also...and you never did answer my question of are you or aren't you?
First off it wasn't the families decision to get that kid tatooed...daddy did that on his own time. As for the circumcision that is my business also...and you never did answer my question of are you or aren't you?
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248698 wrote: First off it wasn't the families decision to get that kid tatooed...daddy did that on his own time. As for the circumcision that is my business also...and you never did answer my question of are you or aren't you?You got all the answer you're going to get on an open board though. I'm not posting images, pictorial or verbal.
Some families consider such decisions to be the responsibility of the family's head. Some families are patriarchal. Others are clan-based and leave choices like that to the Elders.
Some families consider such decisions to be the responsibility of the family's head. Some families are patriarchal. Others are clan-based and leave choices like that to the Elders.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
cars;1248654 wrote: California judge ruled that a man accused of giving his 7-year-old son a gang tattoo will not face charges of aggravated mayhem, which would have carried a life sentence.
The judge dismissed the mayhem charge, reducing it to a lesser charge!
Was the judge right to reduce the charges?
Yes, I reckon the judge was absolutely right.
You might consider jailing a person for life for cold blooded serial murder, terrorist activities, mass genocide. What the father did was misguided and wrong in my opinion, but under the current laws of California the punishment for the original charge would have been out of proportion ridiculous.
The judge wasn't condoning the offence, just trying presumably to introduce some common sense into this tragedy.
Poor kid. Dad did this to him and Mum delivered them all up to the police. The family unit is smashed. Dad will probably go to jail. Mum will be a single mum. The seven year old kid is probably completely bewildered by all the grownups who've smashed his life apart for adult reasons beyond his comprehension. Poor little mite.
The judge dismissed the mayhem charge, reducing it to a lesser charge!
Was the judge right to reduce the charges?
Yes, I reckon the judge was absolutely right.
You might consider jailing a person for life for cold blooded serial murder, terrorist activities, mass genocide. What the father did was misguided and wrong in my opinion, but under the current laws of California the punishment for the original charge would have been out of proportion ridiculous.
The judge wasn't condoning the offence, just trying presumably to introduce some common sense into this tragedy.
Poor kid. Dad did this to him and Mum delivered them all up to the police. The family unit is smashed. Dad will probably go to jail. Mum will be a single mum. The seven year old kid is probably completely bewildered by all the grownups who've smashed his life apart for adult reasons beyond his comprehension. Poor little mite.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Betty Boop;1248696 wrote: Surely if he feels that strongly about it then he could get it done now. I couldn't imagine making that decision for 'practical' reasons. I recall my husband making a fuss about it, saying we should get my son done as his mate had had his son done, his argument was that it's cleaner. I say balls to that, teach good hygiene and it's no different.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
Whatever...we had it done for practical reasons...
spot;1248700 wrote: You got all the answer you're going to get on an open board though. I'm not posting images, pictorial or verbal.
Some families consider such decisions to be the responsibility of the family's head. Some families are patriarchal. Others are clan-based and leave choices like that to the Elders.
and once again you have never answered the question...are you or not? I really don't care to see if your not...it was a simple question...are you or not? Not the end of the world imo. As for the decision on whom made the decision to have my boys circumcised...me....don't like it, tough.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
Whatever...we had it done for practical reasons...
spot;1248700 wrote: You got all the answer you're going to get on an open board though. I'm not posting images, pictorial or verbal.
Some families consider such decisions to be the responsibility of the family's head. Some families are patriarchal. Others are clan-based and leave choices like that to the Elders.
and once again you have never answered the question...are you or not? I really don't care to see if your not...it was a simple question...are you or not? Not the end of the world imo. As for the decision on whom made the decision to have my boys circumcised...me....don't like it, tough.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248704 wrote: and once again you have never answered the question...are you or not? I really don't care to see if your not...it was a simple question...are you or not? Not the end of the world imo. As for the decision on whom made the decision to have my boys circumcised...me....don't like it, tough.
There are some things one doesn't ask on a forum. Are you gay, are you white, have you done jail time, are you Catholic, were your parents the sort of people who'd have their child circumcised, they're all quite sensibly off limits. It's all information which might be volunteered but can't be demanded.
There are some things one doesn't ask on a forum. Are you gay, are you white, have you done jail time, are you Catholic, were your parents the sort of people who'd have their child circumcised, they're all quite sensibly off limits. It's all information which might be volunteered but can't be demanded.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Betty Boop;1248696 wrote: Surely if he feels that strongly about it then he could get it done now. I couldn't imagine making that decision for 'practical' reasons. I recall my husband making a fuss about it, saying we should get my son done as his mate had had his son done, his argument was that it's cleaner. I say balls to that, teach good hygiene and it's no different.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
what a load of bullocks. I would agree with your hubs, it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
what a load of bullocks. I would agree with your hubs, it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248712 wrote: what a load of bullocks. I would agree with your hubs, it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly
That sounds pretty much like "Other communities consider female genitalia to be ugly, offensive or dirty, and thus the removal of the external genitalia makes a woman more hygienic and aesthetically pleasing", to me. This notion of if we do it it's acceptable but if they do it it's an affront seems hard to justify, whichever party it is that's speaking.
That sounds pretty much like "Other communities consider female genitalia to be ugly, offensive or dirty, and thus the removal of the external genitalia makes a woman more hygienic and aesthetically pleasing", to me. This notion of if we do it it's acceptable but if they do it it's an affront seems hard to justify, whichever party it is that's speaking.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248712 wrote: what a load of bullocks. I would agree with your hubs, it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly
Well I have to disagree with you there. Open the flap lol hmm ok.
Personally I don't spend any time around teenagers, who all naturally tend to go through a grubby oik stage. But, I do know that grown men are fully capable of washing themselves thoroughly, even under the foreskin.
Well I have to disagree with you there. Open the flap lol hmm ok.
Personally I don't spend any time around teenagers, who all naturally tend to go through a grubby oik stage. But, I do know that grown men are fully capable of washing themselves thoroughly, even under the foreskin.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248717 wrote: That sounds pretty much like "Other communities consider female genitalia to be ugly, offensive or dirty, and thus the removal of the external genitalia makes a woman more hygienic and aesthetically pleasing", to me. This notion of if we do it it's acceptable but if they do it it's an affront seems hard to justify, whichever party it is that's speaking.
Spot, that is not what Ducky is saying. She does not feel that female genitalia is ugly. She feels that for sanitary reasons she had her boys circumcised to prevent diseases.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
Spot, that is not what Ducky is saying. She does not feel that female genitalia is ugly. She feels that for sanitary reasons she had her boys circumcised to prevent diseases.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248722 wrote: Spot, that is not what Ducky is saying. She does not feel that female genitalia is ugly. She feels that for sanitary reasons she had her boys circumcised to prevent diseases.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
Sadly there are also claims that performing male circumcision was as a preventative measure for repression of male sexual pleasure in the past.
We have to watch the wording very carefully here, mutilation is a word adopted to make circumcision sound worse, and it's working isn't it.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
Sadly there are also claims that performing male circumcision was as a preventative measure for repression of male sexual pleasure in the past.
We have to watch the wording very carefully here, mutilation is a word adopted to make circumcision sound worse, and it's working isn't it.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248722 wrote: Spot, that is not what Ducky is saying. She does not feel that female genitalia is ugly. She feels that for sanitary reasons she had her boys circumcised to prevent diseases.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
I was comparing the language: "it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly" - it reads identically, to me at least.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is genitalia mutilation by definition. It's considered culturally acceptable in some groupings within Western society. I'm fascinated that cultural conditioning can be so powerful that people can say X is perfectly normal while Y is appalling and yet both involve the same act.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
I was comparing the language: "it is cleaner...don't have to open the flap to clean it, etc. also leads to less diseases...cleanliness...all those germs hiding up under the forskin...gross anddon't tell me teenage boys aren't super cleanly" - it reads identically, to me at least.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is genitalia mutilation by definition. It's considered culturally acceptable in some groupings within Western society. I'm fascinated that cultural conditioning can be so powerful that people can say X is perfectly normal while Y is appalling and yet both involve the same act.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Oh well, we seem to have moved away from the OP, so here's my pennyworth.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. Cleanliness is something parents are normally expected to teach their sons and their daughters.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. Cleanliness is something parents are normally expected to teach their sons and their daughters.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
AussiePam;1248736 wrote: Oh well, we seem to have moved away from the OP, so here's my pennyworth.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. One teaches one's children cleanliness, generally. We called Circumcised and Un-Circumcised 'Roundheads' and 'Cavaliers'.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. One teaches one's children cleanliness, generally. We called Circumcised and Un-Circumcised 'Roundheads' and 'Cavaliers'.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
AussiePam;1248736 wrote: Oh well, we seem to have moved away from the OP, so here's my pennyworth.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. Nobody seemed to report any bad issues either way.
The lad I spoke of earlier was teased at school because he was the only one circumcised in his peer group. Sad hey, but I guess if they'd stayed out in South Africa no one would have taken any notice.
I'll take a look and see if there's a point I can split the thread and leave it all coherent if you like.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. Nobody seemed to report any bad issues either way.
The lad I spoke of earlier was teased at school because he was the only one circumcised in his peer group. Sad hey, but I guess if they'd stayed out in South Africa no one would have taken any notice.
I'll take a look and see if there's a point I can split the thread and leave it all coherent if you like.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
spot;1248717 wrote: That sounds pretty much like "Other communities consider female genitalia to be ugly, offensive or dirty, and thus the removal of the external genitalia makes a woman more hygienic and aesthetically pleasing", to me. This notion of if we do it it's acceptable but if they do it it's an affront seems hard to justify, whichever party it is that's speaking.
With all due respect spot female and male circumcision, as you say, are both mutilation of genitalia cannot be compared as the same.
The foreskin is arguably dispensable, while the sensitive areas of the female that are discarded are not.
With all due respect spot female and male circumcision, as you say, are both mutilation of genitalia cannot be compared as the same.
The foreskin is arguably dispensable, while the sensitive areas of the female that are discarded are not.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
I leave for a few hours to go out, & when I come back, leave it to a cetrain indivitual to derail my OP Tatoo thread into a female and male circumcision argument.
Start you own thread to discuss your agenda! :-5
Maybe you can discuss putting a tatoo on you circumcision!
Start you own thread to discuss your agenda! :-5
Maybe you can discuss putting a tatoo on you circumcision!
Cars
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
I think putting a tattoo on a young child is stupid.
If the child wants a tattoo when he is old enough to decide that is fine by me.
I like the idea of letting kids stay kids as long as possible.
Then again I am a bit old fashioned I guess.
Everyday I see what happens to kids when they are made to grow up to fast.:-5
If the child wants a tattoo when he is old enough to decide that is fine by me.
I like the idea of letting kids stay kids as long as possible.
Then again I am a bit old fashioned I guess.
Everyday I see what happens to kids when they are made to grow up to fast.:-5
It's nice to be important,but more important to be nice.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
'Because the tattoo is a gang symbol, the man is also charged with enhancements related to gang activity.'
what sort of a man does this to his 7 year old son, related to gang activity?:-5:-5
what will happen when the other gang sees his tat?
what sort of a man does this to his 7 year old son, related to gang activity?:-5:-5
what will happen when the other gang sees his tat?
Life is just to short for drama.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
cars;1248752 wrote: I leave for a few hours to go out, & when I come back, leave it to a cetrain indivitual to derail my OP Tatoo thread into a female and male circumcision argument.
Start you own thread to discuss your agenda! :-5
Maybe you can discuss putting a tatoo on you circumcision!
I have looked several times at this thread with a view to splitting it Cars. The trouble is the opening post quotes the fact that even the lawyers argued that a tattoo was no different to circumcision.
cars;1248654 wrote:
The man was charged with aggravated mayhem, a felony that can result in a life sentence. Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl.
I guess it was unavoidable that some people here would also hold the same opinion. By no means was it an intended or deliberate derailment of your thread.
Start you own thread to discuss your agenda! :-5
Maybe you can discuss putting a tatoo on you circumcision!
I have looked several times at this thread with a view to splitting it Cars. The trouble is the opening post quotes the fact that even the lawyers argued that a tattoo was no different to circumcision.
cars;1248654 wrote:
The man was charged with aggravated mayhem, a felony that can result in a life sentence. Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl.
I guess it was unavoidable that some people here would also hold the same opinion. By no means was it an intended or deliberate derailment of your thread.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Betty Boop;1248696 wrote: Surely if he feels that strongly about it then he could get it done now. I couldn't imagine making that decision for 'practical' reasons. I recall my husband making a fuss about it, saying we should get my son done as his mate had had his son done, his argument was that it's cleaner. I say balls to that, teach good hygiene and it's no different.
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
'practical reasons'?......as in what?
Your right Betty on this one, balls to that!
and adults who 'think' boys are given pain meds during circumcision?
just because the doctor or nurse say they are?
nope, they're not!;)
I only ever came across one guy that had been circumcised, he was born in South Africa, he was happy to talk openly about it and he is convinced he is less sensitive in that area due to being circumcised.
'practical reasons'?......as in what?
Your right Betty on this one, balls to that!
and adults who 'think' boys are given pain meds during circumcision?
just because the doctor or nurse say they are?
nope, they're not!;)
Life is just to short for drama.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Betty Boop;1248772 wrote: I have looked several times at this thread with a view to splitting it Cars. The trouble is the opening post quotes the fact that even the lawyers argued that a tattoo was no different to circumcision.
I guess it was unavoidable that some people here would also hold the same opinion. By no means was it an intended or deliberate derailment of your thread.
No where was "female genitalia" mentioned in OP, that's where the main derailment started from.
I guess it was unavoidable that some people here would also hold the same opinion. By no means was it an intended or deliberate derailment of your thread.
No where was "female genitalia" mentioned in OP, that's where the main derailment started from.
Cars
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
cars;1248788 wrote: No where was "female genitalia" mentioned in OP, that's where the main derailment started from.
Hello my friend Cars:-4
Please don't be upset with me for saying this, but that's what happens in many threads. They get derailed because members become so passionate about their point of view and lose sight of the original post.
Normally, members don't mean to derail threads, and this was not a slight against you Cars....Sorry that it happened, but that's the nature of the beast:rolleyes:
Hello my friend Cars:-4
Please don't be upset with me for saying this, but that's what happens in many threads. They get derailed because members become so passionate about their point of view and lose sight of the original post.
Normally, members don't mean to derail threads, and this was not a slight against you Cars....Sorry that it happened, but that's the nature of the beast:rolleyes:
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248793 wrote: Hello my friend Cars:-4
Please don't be upset with me for saying this, but that's what happens in many threads. They get derailed because members become so passionate about their point of view and lose sight of the original post.
Normally, members don't mean to derail threads, and this was not a slight against you Cars....Sorry that it happened, but that's the nature of the beast:rolleyes:
Hi my friend KE. :-4
Unfortunately many times, it's not passion, just pot stirring!
Please don't be upset with me for saying this, but that's what happens in many threads. They get derailed because members become so passionate about their point of view and lose sight of the original post.
Normally, members don't mean to derail threads, and this was not a slight against you Cars....Sorry that it happened, but that's the nature of the beast:rolleyes:
Hi my friend KE. :-4
Unfortunately many times, it's not passion, just pot stirring!
Cars
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Kathy Ellen;1248722 wrote: Spot, that is not what Ducky is saying. She does not feel that female genitalia is ugly. She feels that for sanitary reasons she had her boys circumcised to prevent diseases.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
Thank you KE...that is exactly what I was trying to convey. For boys to be circumcised is not really a big deal imo, but for a girl, yes it is a big deal and it is meant to prevent her from feeling pleasure during sex.
Removing the foreskin of a penis is not the same as genitalia mutilation, and certainly not for the same reason. To mutilate the female genitalia is to control the woman....Disgusting....
Thank you KE...that is exactly what I was trying to convey. For boys to be circumcised is not really a big deal imo, but for a girl, yes it is a big deal and it is meant to prevent her from feeling pleasure during sex.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248809 wrote: Thank you KE...that is exactly what I was trying to convey. For boys to be circumcised is not really a big deal imo, but for a girl, yes it is a big deal and it is meant to prevent her from feeling pleasure during sex.
I hear ya Ducky:-6
I hear ya Ducky:-6
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
AussiePam;1248736 wrote: Oh well, we seem to have moved away from the OP, so here's my pennyworth.
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. Cleanliness is something parents are normally expected to teach their sons and their daughters.
not many do it anymore here either Pam, they haven't in years, cleanliness is something parents teach all of their kids.
and as I said in an earlier post, parents assume their kids have pain medications, they don't, so why on earth would parents put boys through such an ordeal for no reason?
its barbaric.:-5:-5
In Australia, my father's generation of males were routinely circumcised, as were my own generation of males. My son's generation, however, were not routinely circumcised. In fact, the hospital doctors refuse to do it, unless parents insist, for cultural or religious reasons. They actively talk you out of it. My son's Jewish and Muslim schoolfriends looked a bit different from the other boys, but it was not considered a big deal. I have heard of one of my sons's uncircumcised friends who did need the procedure later on, for medical reasons (tight foreskin or something like that) - I haven't heard any other bad reports either way. Cleanliness is something parents are normally expected to teach their sons and their daughters.
not many do it anymore here either Pam, they haven't in years, cleanliness is something parents teach all of their kids.
and as I said in an earlier post, parents assume their kids have pain medications, they don't, so why on earth would parents put boys through such an ordeal for no reason?
its barbaric.:-5:-5
Life is just to short for drama.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
both my boys were put under anastetics for the "ritual" as you peeps would call it for foreskin removal...I had both my boys in my arms after the "barbaric" procedure and neither one of them cried. A bit of petroleum jelly on the tip did the trick....I don't think they were "traumatized".
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248815 wrote: both my boys were put under anastetics for the "ritual" as you peeps would call it for foreskin removal...I had both my boys in my arms after the "barbaric" procedure and neither one of them cried. A bit of petroleum jelly on the tip did the trick....I don't think they were "traumatized".
they aren't under general anesthetic here.
they aren't under general anesthetic here.
Life is just to short for drama.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Odie;1248819 wrote: they aren't under general anesthetic here.
Well, they are here.
Well, they are here.
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
qsducks;1248820 wrote: Well, they are here.
a genral anesthetic on a two day old infant?.........that's just way to dangerous just for a circumcision. :rolleyes:
nope....no doctor would ever allow that here.........I would never consent to it.
a genral anesthetic on a two day old infant?.........that's just way to dangerous just for a circumcision. :rolleyes:
nope....no doctor would ever allow that here.........I would never consent to it.
Life is just to short for drama.
-
kayleneaussie
- Posts: 9127
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:11 am
Dad Tatoo's his 7 year old Son!
Well I will put my two cents in on this subject.....I think the father was totally wrong putting a gang tattoo on such a young child but I agree with what the judge did as a life sentence would of been harsh......
FOC THREAD PART 1