and so here we are again in the yule season (what's a yule? is that like a hybrid of a yak and a mule? why would we celebrate its log then?). anyway...it's a stressful time of year, as we all know. shopping pressure and cost, memories of lost loved ones and fighting with, perhaps planning the imminent death of, the loved ones you still have...almost everyone i know is grouchy and anxious and stressed and broke. fa-ra-ra-ra-ra....
so it's important to remember the whole point of Christmas. and for me, that's Jesus and the love and hope and redemption he brings. and family all piled on top of each other. and food. and giving presents is fun, too. especially if it's something totally personal and unique and surprising. that, i like.
and Christmas carols are alright. especially the pervy ones. i laid out my favorite Christmas date rape song last year.
this year, i'd like to note (with alarm!) some of the lyrics of my favorite holiday infidelity song...
Winter Wonderland (1934 by Felix Bernard and Richard B. Smith)
He'll say: Are you married?
We'll say: No man,
But you can do the job
When you're in town.
so all my life i've thought "WHAT JOB?" geez! what is this "parson" fella getting away with while he's in town?! and are we really expected to believe that this conspiring little vixen who likes to lie by the fire is unmarried? we KNOW she's a stone cold freak who likes to play in "the eskimo way." i don't even want to know.
but, in reviewing the available information....i have to admit that i didn't entirely know what the words were leading up to and following this phrase, and now that i see that "Parson Brown" is a snowman (and, furthermore, that "parson" means "minister"....), perhaps i jumped to conclusions.
nah. i stand by my position that this song is sketchy and must be stopped.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
To Cut or Not to Cut: A Discussion on Baby Woo-woo Trimming
so i was recently talking to a coworker about her soon-to-be-on-this-planet male child (or, you know, out of amniotic fluid and into fresh air? is that better?) and whether or not she plans to circumcise him upon his arrival. people seem to be considering this more often, instead of just doing it routinely. anecdotally, i've observed a trend away from circumcision over the past few years, when it's been widely considered the norm in most cultures in the US for many years.
it is definitely a cultural thing. in the US, reports i found showed that between 55-90% of the population is circumcised. it varies by race and age and country of origin within the US population, also. but in the UK, it's more like 15%. it seems that if it's not a religious custom, than we generally do for our boys whatever the males of our community have had done to them. (or you know, theirs).
but just because dad and grandpa were or weren't (eck), does that make it right? is there any true need to have it done? is there a right answer here?
here are the reasons i find AGAINST circumcising (mostly given by hippies, so if you smell a faint aroma of patchouli while you read this- that's why):
1. he will lose all the best parts of his wang-doodle and all that sensitivity!
2. it is archaic. initiated back when Jews lived nomadic lives and wore sandals in dirt floor abodes and bathed rarely...we don't have those hygiene issues anymore and it's easier to keep the 'bits and pieces' clean.
3. it is unnecessary pain inflicted on a poor bebe
4. there is risk of things going amiss and leaving the child malformed for life or in danger with a major complication (on this note- there is a large amount of material out there and it isn't very conclusive, but known complications are rare, according to most studies i found (cdc says 0.2- 2.0%), and mostly include infection, bleeding, and not removing enough foreskin).
and now the reasons FOR circumcising (and these are usually argued by the kill-joys, so if you smell the faint odor of fluoride and low fat butter substitute, that's why):
1. don't worry about losing a little sensitivity- some would argue this is a good thing!
2. even in our much cleaner society, a lot of grime can still develop under the foreskin. this is known as smegma (SO TOTALLY NOT MAKING THIS UP!)
3. if done in the baby's first day of life, they have zero memory of the pain, and they rebound very quickly (anesthesia usually involved a sugar sucker and nothing more)
4. and most importantly in my book- there is increased risk of HIV and other STD's with the warm and moist little winkie umbrella still in place for infections to brew in. (interestingly, today in the news there was an article about Africa pushing circumcision as an AIDS prevention method). there is also a significant increase in UTI's and a small increased risk for penile cancer and, subsequently, cervical cancer (in female partners of the uncircumcised) from HPV transmission. and then, there's always phimosis and paraphimosis where the foreskin either can't retract back behind the glans or is stuck retracted and swells and can't get back around...and then penis tissue dies painfully. not good.
so that is my small analysis of the foreskin situation. take from it what you will and pipe up w/ comments or questions if you have them.
toodles!
it is definitely a cultural thing. in the US, reports i found showed that between 55-90% of the population is circumcised. it varies by race and age and country of origin within the US population, also. but in the UK, it's more like 15%. it seems that if it's not a religious custom, than we generally do for our boys whatever the males of our community have had done to them. (or you know, theirs).
but just because dad and grandpa were or weren't (eck), does that make it right? is there any true need to have it done? is there a right answer here?
here are the reasons i find AGAINST circumcising (mostly given by hippies, so if you smell a faint aroma of patchouli while you read this- that's why):
1. he will lose all the best parts of his wang-doodle and all that sensitivity!
2. it is archaic. initiated back when Jews lived nomadic lives and wore sandals in dirt floor abodes and bathed rarely...we don't have those hygiene issues anymore and it's easier to keep the 'bits and pieces' clean.
3. it is unnecessary pain inflicted on a poor bebe
4. there is risk of things going amiss and leaving the child malformed for life or in danger with a major complication (on this note- there is a large amount of material out there and it isn't very conclusive, but known complications are rare, according to most studies i found (cdc says 0.2- 2.0%), and mostly include infection, bleeding, and not removing enough foreskin).
and now the reasons FOR circumcising (and these are usually argued by the kill-joys, so if you smell the faint odor of fluoride and low fat butter substitute, that's why):
1. don't worry about losing a little sensitivity- some would argue this is a good thing!
2. even in our much cleaner society, a lot of grime can still develop under the foreskin. this is known as smegma (SO TOTALLY NOT MAKING THIS UP!)
3. if done in the baby's first day of life, they have zero memory of the pain, and they rebound very quickly (anesthesia usually involved a sugar sucker and nothing more)
4. and most importantly in my book- there is increased risk of HIV and other STD's with the warm and moist little winkie umbrella still in place for infections to brew in. (interestingly, today in the news there was an article about Africa pushing circumcision as an AIDS prevention method). there is also a significant increase in UTI's and a small increased risk for penile cancer and, subsequently, cervical cancer (in female partners of the uncircumcised) from HPV transmission. and then, there's always phimosis and paraphimosis where the foreskin either can't retract back behind the glans or is stuck retracted and swells and can't get back around...and then penis tissue dies painfully. not good.
so that is my small analysis of the foreskin situation. take from it what you will and pipe up w/ comments or questions if you have them.
toodles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
