I considered current events, politics, health, and debate as possible homes for this topic...
Here's a link to the story: German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault (http://news.yahoo.com/german-court-outlaws-religious-circumcision-172728400.html)
QuoteThe regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court added.
Although the boy in this story has Muslim parents, the following comments were to be expected:
QuoteThe court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children. "The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."
The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community. The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination." The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann.
Yay, and let's see other enlightened countries follow suit. Let's see this spread until the practice dies out, and let's see a simultaneous end to the horrors of fgm in more benighted nations. I well understand the long religious significance of this practice, but it's long past time for the human race to grow up and stop offering blood sacrifices (of infants, no less!) to appease deities with such fragile sensibilities when it comes to any aspect of human reproduction. An adult who chooses bodily modification is welcome to it -- whether circumcision, facial piercings, bosom enhancement, tattoos, or filing incisors down to vampire teeth, for a quick sampling -- and the disapproving religious, political, corporate, and esthetic experts are free to feel offended if they so desire. But keep your mitts off the kids.
Here, here, PoN. I've detested the idea of infant genital mutilation in this respect for a long time now, and it's great to see a country with the chutzpah to finally stand up to it (see what I did there?). This isn't an assault on religious freedom, as when that child grows up, they'll be totally free to make the decision themselves: cut or uncut? What's the point in having a foreskin if you're going to cut it off? It's there for a reason, and if Jehovah didn't want it there, he shouldn't have made it in the first place.
If it had been done to me, I would not have been a happy bunny!
I just wanted to say that while conceptually I agree with the decision, there are some health benefits derived from (male) circumcision, to the point that it has been recommended in a number of African nations to prevent the spread of AIDS (circumcised men have a lower chance (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/) to get infected).
The principle though, is key to prevent female circumcision, which is perhaps the most barbaric practice still in use, particularly in the muslim world.
I beg to differ. I am fully in support of stamping out female gential mutiliation, but regard it as quite different to the circumcision of boys at age 8 days old, and also there is a huge difference between male circumcision as a teenager or adult than as a baby at 8 days old.
Both my sons were circumsized at 8 days old and I was the person looking after them afterwards. They were fine, and not upset. I also held my nephew, 8 days old, while he was circumsized and he was fine, he didn't cry. I think this judgement is racially motivated and I note the fact it is Germany.
And ^^ Zono.
I guess the problem is the matter of principle, if you can allow what can arguably be called mutilation in males (regardless of how safe, sanitary and relatively low long term issues*), you have to allow it for females, or enter into a particularly bizarre argumentation of what exactly is the difference.
* check the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects) article on the subject, the argument is far from settled.
I did think for a few moments about the case originating in Germany before I posted the link and added my persxonal comments. I am also aware that some doctors or religious leaders can be counted on to perform this procedure "correctly". That is not the universal case, however, and there are plenty of cases here in the first-world USofA where interns or residents were given the task with little-to-no instruction and supervision. Thre a re also documented cases of religious leaders passing along STDs during the procedure. The results are neither holy, healthy, nor esthetic.
Thus, I must respeectfully disagree with Grif on this one. If there is a legitimate need for a medical procedure, then it is a legitimate medical procedure and should be handled as such. But a decision to impose this on male infants based only on the degree of religious commitment of the parents is not a legitimate medical need.
(fwiw my parents were among millions of who went mindlessly along with this procedure in US Catholic hospitals, and while I have no reason to believe that my brother personally suffered disfigurement because of it, it was not a medical nessessity; current non-fundamentalist parents seriously question it, disallow it, or take a much more educated interest into the person assigned the task.)
Preamble: with respect to Griff's comments, nothing I say here is meant to be a criticism of what she witnessed. Different strokes for different cultures, and all that. These are my opinions, based on my life-experiences.
It was done to me, without my consent. I cannot say if it affected me or not-- I was not given a choice, so I'll never know or fully understand the differences between one state or the other.
I think it's wrong to do it to babies. But if post-puberty males wish to partake of the cultural ritual, who am I to say they cannot? Same goes for any sort of voluntary body-modification: so long as the participant is not under undue coercion, it's their body, it ought to be their decision.
As for the alleged health issues? That's not ever been conclusively proven one way or another; anecdotal "evidence" is not conclusive, nor are random samplings of different cultural practices-- too many variables here, with respect to other life-situations, such as general eating habits, general bathing habits, plumbing fixtures, etc, etc, etc.
And I looked at the link-- but it was inconclusive at best. No actual scientific papers were cited, making me question their methodologies. Did the "researchers" have an agenda? (likely) If so, what was it? Were they completely unbiased with respect to circumcision, or did various cultural norms have an affect on their observations? So I even question their conclusions-- they may be right, but the article did not give sufficient information to say.
To me, the bottom line is this: we are each given one body to use up as we each see fit, during our one-trip-around-the-track existences. Should not that body be given to the person, as intact as is reasonably possible -- at least until said person is old enough to be making informed decisions about it?
Never mind the horrid practice of mutilating little girls-- there's also a growing trend to body-modification of not-so-little girls with breast augmentation in their teens... WTF? I have no criticism of adult women choosing this for themselves; it's their body, it's their decisions and their decision alone (or it should be).
But a teen girl is no more qualified to "choose" this, than a teen boy is to becoming a father. They are not experienced enough. And being so young, they have plenty of time to choose these things, later in life, when they are not hopped-up on raging hormones.
... meh. My inner libertarian is showing again.
:soapbox:
Edit: re-reading this, I realize I seemed to contradict myself at the beginning and at the end. But what I meant was, I think such permanent body modifications should not be allowed to people who's brains have not finished growing up. Yeah, that's a rather wide bad of age, there-- but setting arbitrary age-limits would needlessly punish those kids who are mature enough, just to protect the majority who are not.
I don't have a good answer for this conundrum either.
Maybe one day, humans will mature into an actual adult culture, such that we won't need arbitrary rules about such things as the above. But I doubt I should live so long...
Male circumcision had some benefits originally (as so many other strange-looking religious laws in the Book). But advances in hygiene etc. have essentially made them superfluous. The risks now clearly outweigh the benefits. In the US the custom never really had a justification.
Quote from: Swatopluk on June 27, 2012, 06:14:01 PM
Male circumcision had some benefits originally (as so many other strange-looking religious laws in the Book). But advances in hygiene etc. have essentially made them superfluous. The risks now clearly outweigh the benefits. In the US the custom never really had a justification.
I've seen that claim before, but I've not seen any scientific rationale supporting it. I'm not dissing you here, I'd really love to see references to an actual scientifically based study on this issue. The majority of "studies" were flawed in multiple ways: they tended to compare widely different cultures' results, which ignores too many issues to be conclusive.
According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.
Quote from: pieces o nine on June 27, 2012, 05:25:59 PM
.......... I am also aware that some doctors or religious leaders can be counted on to perform this procedure "correctly". That is not the universal case, however, and there are plenty of cases here in the first-world USofA where interns or residents were given the task with little-to-no instruction and supervision. Thre a re also documented cases of religious leaders passing along STDs during the procedure. The results are neither holy, healthy, nor esthetic.
All Jewish circumcisions in the UK are performed by well-trained doctors who also hold the special position in the synagogue. I can't say there's no risk, but it must be tiny.
Quote from: Swatopluk on June 27, 2012, 07:23:52 PM
According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.
Yes, most religious rules are outdated, but doesn't stop them being maintained. Religous practice is all wierd in my book.
Quote from: Swatopluk on June 27, 2012, 07:23:52 PM
According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.
Thank you-- that is sound reasoning right there. And not something I would have thought of myself (what with being cut already).
A sound, practical reason to proceed. Of course, using some sort of personal "cover" or sheath ought to keep the sand out just as well, I'd think... I'm thinking one of those cast-iron skillet handle covers?
Something like these (http://tinyurl.com/ck33quw) ought to do the trick-- added bonus, it's warmer for when it's cold.
:ROFL:
I have not been in the Arabian deserts yet but I hear from people that were that the extremly fine sands* get into everything even through several layers of seemingly impenetrable clothing. It's also a notorious problem for machines and motors. Air filters have to be essentially air-tight to keep the sand out (defying their purpose) and have to be constantly cleaned. In WW2 air filter cleaning was a range limiting factor in the North African campaign. Often vehicles had to stop not due to empty fuel tanks but because it was engine desanding time again. Iirc even the modern tanks in the US-Iraq wars had some difficulty to cope with it (apart from the original gas turbines in the Abrams tanks overheating leading later to a reconversion to Diesel engines).
Btw, sand is considered a significant factor in possible missions to Mars. The spacesuits etc. have to be sandblast-proof because Martian dust and sand storms are both common and abrasive.
*there is actually a shortage of coarse sand, so Saudi Arabia imports it from Scotland. At times it was even the main export from Scotland to Saudi Arabia.
[advocatus diaboli] Does not a similar problem occur with eyes in a sandstorm? Are eyelids helpfully excised to prevent chafing? [/advocatus diaboli]
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on June 28, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
Something like these (http://tinyurl.com/ck33quw) ought to do the trick-- added bonus, it's warmer for when it's cold.
Called Willy Warmers. ;D
Indeed. :ROFL:
Quote from: pieces o nine on June 28, 2012, 02:36:42 AM
[advocatus diaboli] Does not a similar problem occur with eyes in a sandstorm? Are eyelids helpfully excised to prevent chafing? [/advocatus diaboli]
Sand in the eyes is indeed a problem (camels have specially 'designed' eyelids to cope with that). But the other protective functions speak gainst uch radical solutions. Cutting off of eyelids was iirc a form of punishment, the first step in a sequence of nasty treatments. Fixing eyelids in the open position has also been used in support of sleep deprivation torture. It's of course also an option to put sand under the lids and then force them closed for an extended period of time.
The advocatus diaboli may delliberately pose provocative arguments or those with which s/he does not agree to explore flaws in previously presented arguments. (Even when s/he knows the other, more barbarous usages of the provocative argument posed.)
:devil:
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on June 27, 2012, 05:35:04 PM
Never mind the horrid practice of mutilating little girls-- there's also a growing trend to body-modification of not-so-little girls with breast augmentation in their teens... WTF? I have no criticism of adult women choosing this for themselves; it's their body, it's their decisions and their decision alone (or it should be).
But a teen girl is no more qualified to "choose" this, than a teen boy is to becoming a father. They are not experienced enough. And being so young, they have plenty of time to choose these things, later in life, when they are not hopped-up on raging hormones.
I have it on good authority that this same cohort of not-so-little girls has moved on to undergoing voluntary labiaplasty (reduction / reshaping surgery), more or less to look more like the images portrayed in pornography. This is still female genital mutilation, to meet a culturally-imposed standard. Does the factor of choice negate the criticism of the practice?
I'm kinda with Bob on this one... I think people should be able to make decisions for themselves, but few seem to really be aware of why they make the decisions they make, and what the long-term consequences are.
Quote from: Aggie on June 28, 2012, 05:51:59 PM................. few seem to really be aware of why they make the decisions they make, and what the long-term consequences are.
Yeh, like having one breast chopped off!!! :mrgreen:
That still leaves the amazon career choice open ;)
mmmm lots and lots of books :)
The only form of bodily alteration I can understand the reasoning for when performed on children, beyond corrective surgery for cleft palates, etc, is when a child is being bullied for some bodily feature, such as ears which stick out a lot. Even then i'm not in total agreement of it, and look upon it partly with cynicism borne from the cosmetic surgery industry just looking for ways to earn more money. But labiaplasty and boobs jobs on teenagers? What the FSM?
I like boobs of many different sizes, from small to reasonably large, although there's a definite upper limit, and understand the need a woman may feel if her self-esteem is very low because of her boobs being either too big or too small (not so sure about labiaplasty in adult women, and i'll refrain from airing my thoughts here about that, lol), but for someone who is still developing physically, mentally, and emotionally? It should not be an option.
A significant issue is boobs too big meaning too heavy. However, I have not heard much of reduction being done for such cases. Another significant issue is one boob being bigger (or smaller ;)) than the other. Again, I think the number of women having this corrected surgically is relatively few. The main reason for surgery is to make boobs look stupidly big (IMO).
My mom expressed horror at the thought of breast reduction surgery because, "Then a boy will never like you and you will never get married!"
Of course, this same dire fate was inescapable for any girl expressing actual opinions, winning a game, seeking employment in order to provide for herself -- or, horror of horrors! -- to ask out a person of the male persuasion, or performing well in math or science, ... ::)
Girls performing well in maths and science is a prerequisite for me. Having an interest in history and nature doesn't go down badly either. Boobs are neither here nor there, if you know what I mean. Not to say that i'm not fascinated with them, like most straight men, just that they are secondary.
I don't have hard up-to-date numbers but have read once (might be a decade ago) that according to surveys only half of men even consider breast size when judging the attractivity of females and that of those again only half think that beauty is in any way proportional to size.
I guess most men think that there is a natural size in harmony with a specific body and that attractivity goes down when the deviation is too big.
As for myself, I do not find big boobs to be beautiful per se but my experience in actually handling any is also zero, so my opinion could change there.
To be provocative: How many people consider Keira Knightley to be ugly because she is clearly lacking in that department and how many would change their mind, if she suddenly developed king-sized* mammaries?
*why is there no queen-sized? ;)
Inflatable (and thus easy adjustable) tops would be the most practical solution in everyday life, I guess :mrgreen: Or the hot water bottle as in Gormenghast.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 07, 2012, 05:36:20 PM
A significant issue is boobs too big meaning too heavy. However, I have not heard much of reduction being done for such cases.
I know of those cases back home, the excuse being that the extra weight will cause back problems, although it is performed in cases where the size isn't really that large, so it IMNSHO preys on the insecurities of the woman in question just the same way for those who want a larger size.
---
I've heard the anthropological explanation (more than once, mind you) about men being partial to large(r) breasts and hips because it would be a marker for healthy(er) children (lower risk of problems at birth and perceived higher milk output for the babies). I imagine both markers have an influence on preference but the realities of match making and pair bonding should be significantly stronger predictors of preference.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 09, 2012, 08:08:24 PM
I've heard the anthropological explanation (more than once, mind you) about men being partial to large(r) breasts and hips because it would be a marker for healthy(er) children (lower risk of problems at birth and perceived higher milk output for the babies). I imagine both markers have an influence on preference but the realities of match making and pair bonding should be significantly stronger predictors of preference.
Yes, otherwise women with small breasts would have died out.
It's all this here stress what does it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19180983 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19180983)
Quote from: Swatopluk on August 08, 2012, 10:30:05 AM
I guess most men think that there is a natural size in harmony with a specific body and that attractivity goes down when the deviation is too big.
I would agree. Proportion and compatibility with overall body type is probably the biggest for me. It's an aesthetic pattern that carries out across many different body aesthetics.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on August 08, 2012, 09:58:33 AM
Girls performing well in maths and science is a prerequisite for me. Having an interest in history and nature doesn't go down badly either. Boobs are neither here nor there, if you know what I mean. Not to say that i'm not fascinated with them, like most straight men, just that they are secondary.
Ayuh, aesthetics aside, intelligence is a much bigger marker of attractiveness than physical attributes for me. Physical attractiveness doesn't hurt, though. ;)
I was a bit surprised that I like large breasts, once encountered. I vaguely suspected I wouldn't. ::) I know for sure that my tastes have changed to prefer a more womanly body type as I've gotten older. I used to like the thin look better when I was a skinny post-adolescent. Now that I'm a skinny adult, I like the look of a woman with some curves. That's still relative to overall body type; it's not a matter of measurements.
I admit to being a great enthusiast of the aesthetics of the female body. I like girlwatching, just looking with no attached intent or specific desire. Variety's the spice of it, just like life.
Quote from: Swatopluk on August 08, 2012, 10:30:05 AM
To be provocative: How many people consider Keira Knightley to be ugly because she is clearly lacking in that department and how many would change their mind, if she suddenly developed king-sized* mammaries?
I like Keira Knightley, and think that her body is in proportion. I don't think larger breasts would suit her frame at all. I also think Nigella Lawson looks great too. Yet another person in proportion. Trust me, Swato, once you have the opportunity to engage with a woman, you'll grow ( :giggle: ) to love breasts of all types.
I find that I don't have a narrow "like" in regards to women, just that they be intelligent enough for me to converse with on a level(ish) field, but looks do certainly factor into it. Redheads, though... :love:
As for the ageing aspect of taste, it has certainly broadened as i've aged. I still find young women attractive, as one 23 year old lady last year can attest to, but my upper age limit has certainly risen quite dramatically since I left my teens. Saying that, I had a 40 year old proposition me when I was in my mid-twenties. Her own kids weren't that younger than me, but I was sorely tempted even then.
I seem to have specialised in men 10 years younger than me (note to self: must get hair dyed again). Dating agencies have consistently had complaints about me being too intellectual (not that I've used them a lot but had some interesting adventures).
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 12, 2012, 03:58:59 AM
I seem to have specialised in men 10 years younger than me (note to self: must get hair dyed again). Dating agencies have consistently had complaints about me being too intellectual (not that I've used them a lot but had some interesting adventures).
So you like a toyboy, eh? :depp_hat:
Too intellectual? As in you won't talk about
Eastenders or
I'm A Celebrity? This is what's wrong with the world.
I've taken the approach with regards to dating at this point, that if someone isn't attracted to who I am as a person, then to heck with them. I'm very enthusiastic with regards to self-improvement, but not going to dumb myself down or hide the fact that I'm an eccentric with a potential romantic partner. I like eccentrics too, so it's not much of a worry. Meeting another one is usually a good excuse to relax the usual day-to-day act of playing normal.
I'm not a Normal Person, but I play one on TV. ::)
I've also found the key to getting any partner you want: I only want the ones I can get. :mrgreen: If they aren't interested, it's one less person to waste any mindspace on. I'm content enough to let people pass by, or make conscious decisions that someone is compatible but best approached as a friend rather than a romantic encounter, when the situation demands it. At the moment, I'm in a holding pattern and it'd take a pretty exceptional person to nudge me out of that.
Then again, I'm young enough to be patient and getting better looking on a continuous basis (for now ::)). Ymmv.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on August 13, 2012, 05:37:34 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 12, 2012, 03:58:59 AM
I seem to have specialised in men 10 years younger than me (note to self: must get hair dyed again). Dating agencies have consistently had complaints about me being too intellectual (not that I've used them a lot but had some interesting adventures).
So you like a toyboy, eh? :depp_hat:
Too intellectual? As in you won't talk about Eastenders or I'm A Celebrity? This is what's wrong with the world.
Unsure about the toy boy. It's been 10 years younger for several (!!) decades now, so they've got older.... I think a toy boy has to be no more than at most in their twenties?? I suppose it depends if you think of a toy boy as in a certain age bracket, or as a certian number of years younger. There is a big difference to do with culture....... like 20 yr olds might not have even heard of The Beatles. :)
LoL@This is what's wrong with the world.
Quote from: Aggie on August 13, 2012, 07:03:33 PM
At the moment, I'm in a holding pattern and it'd take a pretty exceptional person to nudge me out of that.
I take it you mean like an aeroplane?
But Griffin, you're in your very early 40s/late 30s, so someone in their very late 20s would just about be your age bracket. ;)
When I worked in a shop, I once had someone tell me not to blind them with science. Considering i'd just put my case to her in layman's terms, or so I thought, I was rather confused as to how the customer could have been so blinded. Then I thought of many of my other customers, and I soon resigned myself to the fact that there are many of them out there. Far too many. As a case in point, see the attached photograph from someone's Twitter feed. I seriously died a little inside.
:mrgreen:
Afraid that twitter exchange just made my giggle - but yes it is sad about the great uneducated.......
And of course, they haven't "been going" for 3,000 years, we had a coffee break. ;)
And you thought YECs were shortsighted...
... 'tis a sad state of affairs to be sure. So literal. So concrete-for-brains. *sigh*
To be confusing the symbol with the actual thing/reality, a common mistake.