Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Circumcision


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what i've read, it was in the 90% about a decade ago, the change has happened fast.  It makes sense to me though.  

Millennials are more wary of the 'establishment' (for lack of a better term) and there is a similar movement against circumcision in some circles as there is against vaccines.  Right now it's trendy not to circumcise, which is probably as influential as the popularity of getting your boys circumcised used to be  (and I don't mean that as an insult to those parents who don't circumcise but just that what popular culture says is the right thing to do has an effect and right now, popular culture supports not circumcising).   

And plus, not a lot of insurance (including medicaid) covers the procedure.

I think it  has been longer ago than a decade. From Wikipedia:

Quote

 

In 2005, about 56 percent of male newborns were circumcised prior to release from the hospital according to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.[21]

Data from a national survey conducted from 1999 to 2002 found that the overall prevalence of male circumcision in the United States was 79%.[22] 91% of boys born in the 1970s, and 83% of boys born in the 1980s were circumcised.[22] An earlier survey, conducted in 1992, found a circumcision prevalence of 77% in US-born men, born from 1932–1974, including 81% of non-Hispanic White men, 65% of Black men, and 54% of Hispanic men, vs. 42% of non U.S. born men who were circumcised.[23]

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In any event, how likely is it for an average father to expose himself to his sons so that they have a basis for comparison? Seems to me some conventions of privacy ought to be upheld even in a home and family milieu.

Sometimes my dad forgot to lock his bedroom door, sometimes us kids forgot to knock.  Bathrooms were also shared.  By the time we were teens, everyone in the family had seen Dad.  He made no big deal about, so we didn't either.  I don't think anyone was traumatized.  Calling it "exposed himself" is an overstatement.

There are plenty of cultures where nudity of parents and children is pretty common.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

 

19 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That right there may tell a discerning reader anything s/he needs to know about circumcision.  If insurance won't cover it, there's a good likelihood it isn't as necessary, medically speaking, as some might have us believe.

Insurance has not covered a lot of things over the years. Insurance didn't choice my blood testing for glucose for a long time. Until the ACA many insurances didn't cover it.  When I had pre-eclampsia insurance only covered one medicine even though there were two others that Europe commonly used that didn't have one of the major side effects I was having. Every few years one of my insulins would be covered, then not, then covered again. 

The insurance experienced person with a chronic illness knows that insurance coverage may not have anything to do with medically necessity. 

That isn't too say I think circumcision should be covered. I just don't think that you can make a very informed choice based on insurance coverage alone.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

. . . and the one who is apt to be teased and tormented is the one who makes a spectacle of himself in public noticing and commenting on others' genitalia.

Furthermore, my experience is that public schools these days don't require boys to shower in the presence of their classmates as they did when I was in school.

Oh, I agree. Many kids didn't shower in the late 1980s, either, but my parents insisted that I did (thank goodness for everyone!). Most kids just sprayed on the deodorant over the sweat. But no one was going to get caught looking or commenting on a naked classmate --- you're right that that would have invited ridicule. 

My uncle was in the 1960s, and apparently, he was mocked for not being circumcised. By the coach, too (a famous Division 1 basketball coach who shall remain nameless).

Link to comment
17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's common in the United States. I'm not sure the historical origins but I've never heard of a religious reason. There's certainly a "well I want my son to be like me" aspect I suspect. However typically I think most people who do it tend to do it to help avoid infection. Once you've known someone who had a kid with an infected penis you quickly decide even if it's a relatively low risk doing something about it is worthwhile. In that regard it's somewhat like vaccines. You're not apt to really ever encounter most of the vaccined diseases yet there's enough of a chance you should vaccine your kids.

I know some argue that's a poor argument because if you clean regularly there's not much of a risk for infection. To this I can only say you can teach your kids until you're blue in the face. Yet they often will say they've brushed their teeth well, cleaned well and so forth. And at a certain age you don't exactly want to be checking there the way you might do with teeth. Yet kids, especially boys, seem quite regularly to not do what they are suppose to in hygiene. The question then becomes whether, if they are among those who don't clean well, you think an infected penis is a valid consequence when you could have prevented that until they're more mature. Even if it's just a 1-2% chance but one you can eliminate, why not do it?

I'm not criticizing any who choose differently. (Much as I am not apt to criticize those who individually choose not to vaccinate even if I think it a poor choice) I'm just explaining my own thinking and the thinking of many I've encountered.

In declaring something a “poor choice” you have thereby criticized it. 

To the question “why not do it?” considerable reasons have been offered. One of the most compelling in my mind is the unjustifiable infliction of pain, suffering and bodily defacement on one incapable of giving informed consent (hardly the case with vaccinations). We wouldn’t do it if the individual were older. Nor would we do it to a newborn girl. Why a newborn boy?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, I agree. Many kids didn't shower in the late 1980s, either, but my parents insisted that I did (thank goodness for everyone!). Most kids just sprayed on the deodorant over the sweat. But no one was going to get caught looking or commenting on a naked classmate --- you're right that that would have invited ridicule. 

My uncle was in the 1960s, and apparently, he was mocked for not being circumcised. By the coach, too (a famous Division 1 basketball coach who shall remain nameless).

I believe that requiring an adolescent or pre-adolescent to disrobe in a room full of peers borders on child abuse. I was very glad to learn, as my children approached middle-school age, that attitudes have changed and that schools by and large don’t require it anymore. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Insurance has not covered a lot of things over the years. Insurance didn't choice my blood testing for glucose for a long time. Until the ACA many insurances did cover it.  When I had pre-eclampsia insurance only covered one medicine even though there were two others that Europe commonly used that didn't have one of the major side effects I was having. Every few years one of my insulins would be covered, then not, then covered again. 

The insurance experienced person with a chronic illness knows that insurance coverage may not have anything to do with medically necessity. 

That isn't too day I think circumcision should be covered. I just don't think that you can make a very informed choice based on insurance coverage alone.

Last I heard, my plan does cover neo-natal circumcision, though I wish it didn’t. I believe most elective, cosmetic surgery ought to be excluded. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In declaring something a “poor choice” you have thereby criticized it. 

To the question “why not do it?” considerable reasons have been offered. One of the most compelling in my mind is the unjustifiable infliction of pain, suffering and bodily defacement on one incapable of giving informed consent (hardly the case with vaccinations). We wouldn’t do it if the individual were older. Nor would we do it to a newborn girl. Why a newborn boy?

Calling the choice not to circumcise 'poor' seems less critical than calling the choice to circumcise unethical.  The first just expressed disagreement, while the second implies that a person who disagrees has actually done something immoral or sinful.

Link to comment
Just now, bluebell said:

Calling the choice not to circumcise 'poor' seems less critical than calling the choice to circumcise unethical.  The first just expressed disagreement, while the second implies that a person who disagrees has actually done something immoral or sinful.

I never claimed that calling it ethically questionable is not being critical. I am critical of the routine practice of neonatal circumcision, as ought to be clear by now. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I never claimed that calling it ethically questionable is not being critical. I am critical of the routine practice of neonatal circumcision, as ought to be clear by now. 

My mistake.  You seemed to take issue with Clark's view of those who don't circumcise, while your view of those who do was much more harsh and judgmental than anything he said.  It seemed like a hypocritical statement.  I'm sorry that I misunderstood your intent.  

 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that requiring an adolescent or pre-adolescent to disrobe in a room full of peers borders on child abuse. I was very glad to learn, as my children approached middle-school age, that attitudes have changed and that schools by and large don’t require it anymore. 

Scott, I think Americans are prudish to the extreme and their own prudishness makes nudity something verboten, evil, and sensual when nothing is meant by it i.e. it is the furthest thing from being sensual/sexual, etc. Nudity is often just nudity.

This idea that children going to gym and having to shower in a communal shower is a form of "child abuse" is just plain odd.  It feeds into the idea that boys and girls should hide themselves, never have self-confidence, and certainly not ever conclude that they have bodies and sexual organs just like every other human of their own gender. 

I would prefer that teenagers were taught good physical hygiene and that they showered together. This would allow them to get over the fear of their own bodies. 

We seem to support and promote the lowest common denominator rather than stretch individuals to become better, more well-adjusted humans. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Scott, I think Americans are prudish to the extreme and their own prudishness makes nudity something verboten, evil, and sensual when nothing is meant by it i.e. it is the furthest thing from being sensual/sexual, etc. Nudity is often just nudity.

This idea that children going to gym and having to shower in a communal shower is a form of "child abuse" is just plain odd.  It feeds into the idea that boys and girls should hide themselves, never have self-confidence, and certainly not ever conclude that they have bodies and sexual organs just like every other human of their own gender. 

I would prefer that teenagers were taught good physical hygiene and that they showered together. This would allow them to get over the fear of their own bodies. 

We seem to support and promote the lowest common denominator rather than stretch individuals to become better, more well-adjusted humans. 

The supreme irony here is that the young generation is in many ways more promiscuous than ever before. They (including LDS kids from active families who should know better) sext each other and have no compunctions about sharing explicit pictures of themselves electronically. And they seem completely shocked when they learn that this is a very, very serious sin. And yet, they are at the same time more prudish than ever in other ways. These same sexters would rather die than shower in front of peers in gym class, and they find the notion that that took place generations ago to be very odd. 

That's completely bizarre, but it's how it is with many.

Link to comment
Just now, rongo said:

The supreme irony here is that the young generation is in many ways more promiscuous than ever before. They (including LDS kids from active families who should know better) sext each other and have no compunctions about sharing explicit pictures of themselves electronically. And they seem completely shocked when they learn that this is a very, very serious sin. And yet, they are at the same time more prudish than ever in other ways. These same sexters would rather die than shower in front of peers in gym class, and they find the notion that that took place generations ago to be very odd. 

That's completely bizarre, but it's how it is with many.

This dichotomy is what I was trying to communicate in part.  They think that a picture of their genitals is sexy only because it is a picture of their genitals.  Genitals are not sexy - they are just a part of the body that are used during sexual intercourse.  This perverse interest in sex organs, I think, is a direct result of a few things 1) the objective of trying to keep children from not seeing one another's bodies, and 2)  the constant barrage of marketing sex in all things.

I played sports in high school.  We always showered together and it was not a "deal".  I remember as 7th grader walking into gym the first time and knowing I needed to shower.  I was nervous, but then quickly got over the nervousness because everyone else showered also and everyone needed to get to their next class.  It teaches us that the nude body is not sexual at all times - sometimes it is just our bodies. 

We are "doing this" to this generation. Our heart may be in the right place, but we are creating a bunch of sexually perverse individuals who only see the human body as sexual. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In declaring something a “poor choice” you have thereby criticized it. 

To the question “why not do it?” considerable reasons have been offered. One of the most compelling in my mind is the unjustifiable infliction of pain, suffering and bodily defacement on one incapable of giving informed consent (hardly the case with vaccinations). We wouldn’t do it if the individual were older. Nor would we do it to a newborn girl. Why a newborn boy?

Criticizing choice != criticizing people. The clearest example of this is in politics where I might disagree with friends who favor different policy decisions but who I might respect a great deal. Or for that matter in my own family where my wife favors alternative medicine stuff that I personally find dubious at best.

I don't quite understand the consent issue since of course vaccines do hurt a baby short term. (There is a reason for the crying) For that matter when I bring my older kids in for vaccines I guarantee their fear of the needle is such that if they could give consent they'd refuse it. So that objection seems a non-starter. There are many painful things parents choose for their children because they think it's in the long term best interests of the child. To give an example my daughter had hip dysplasia and we elected to have surgery on it so she could do more activities when older like dance. She could hardly give consent when a year old. One could argue that it wasn't necessary. How is that different?

To the "why do it" the question again tends to be what probability you personally consider relevant. After all that's really the debate. How much risk is too much? Having known a few kids who had to have a circumcision as a teen due to the infection issues it seems clearly far more traumatic then than when a baby. There clearly are risks to vaccines including the flu vaccine (which I plan on getting today) but we consider the risks worth the benefits. It just seems that cost/benefit calculation isn't typically made.

I don't think in the cost/benefit calculation it's huge on one side. That's why the AAP's statement on circumcision (primarily due to effects on STDs) says benefits outweighed risks but didn't recommend it for all boys saying it should be a personal decision. It's how you personally do that cost/benefit calculation and different people with different fears and values will arrive at the calculation differently. Personally I think one should do it. But that's based upon my experience - especially seeing teens who got infected. Others, such as yourself, clearly will come to a different conclusion. To me the main argument against it - pain - is resolved by local anesthesia.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment

There is a world of difference between the medical benefits of vaccines and the medical benefits of circumcision. The benefits of vaccines are extremely clear, uncontroversial (at least to the scientifically literate), and well documented. Vaccines are enormously important to overall public health. The benefits of circumcision are minor and not as clearly proven. They also only really affect the individual and his partner.

While I don't see infant circumcision as a big deal (my parents had me circumcised as an infant, and I can't say it's really impacted my life one way or the other), comparing it to vaccination misses the mark for me.

Edited by rchorse
Link to comment
20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's common in the United States. I'm not sure the historical origins but I've never heard of a religious reason. There's certainly a "well I want my son to be like me" aspect I suspect. However typically I think most people who do it tend to do it to help avoid infection. Once you've known someone who had a kid with an infected penis you quickly decide even if it's a relatively low risk doing something about it is worthwhile. In that regard it's somewhat like vaccines. You're not apt to really ever encounter most of the vaccined diseases yet there's enough of a chance you should vaccine your kids.

I know some argue that's a poor argument because if you clean regularly there's not much of a risk for infection. To this I can only say you can teach your kids until you're blue in the face. Yet they often will say they've brushed their teeth well, cleaned well and so forth. And at a certain age you don't exactly want to be checking there the way you might do with teeth. Yet kids, especially boys, seem quite regularly to not do what they are suppose to in hygiene. The question then becomes whether, if they are among those who don't clean well, you think an infected penis is a valid consequence when you could have prevented that until they're more mature. Even if it's just a 1-2% chance but one you can eliminate, why not do it?

I'm not criticizing any who choose differently. (Much as I am not apt to criticize those who individually choose not to vaccinate even if I think it a poor choice) I'm just explaining my own thinking and the thinking of many I've encountered.

Boys don't need to clean it until they're older, usually. The foreskin is fused in place for many years. By the time it separates they're old enough to be responsible for their own personal hygiene.

And of course, each circumcision carries with it the small risk of serious mutilation or death. The risk of a UTI that's preventable (and easily treatable) anyway seems minor by comparison.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Criticizing choice != criticizing people. The clearest example of this is in politics where I might disagree with friends who favor different policy decisions but who I might respect a great deal. Or for that matter in my own family where my wife favors alternative medicine stuff that I personally find dubious at best.

I don't quite understand the consent issue since of course vaccines do hurt a baby short term. (There is a reason for the crying) For that matter when I bring my older kids in for vaccines I guarantee their fear of the needle is such that if they could give consent they'd refuse it. So that objection seems a non-starter. There are many painful things parents choose for their children because they think it's in the long term best interests of the child. To give an example my daughter had hip dysplasia and we elected to have surgery on it so she could do more activities when older like dance. She could hardly give consent when a year old. One could argue that it wasn't necessary. How is that different?

To the "why do it" the question again tends to be what probability you personally consider relevant. After all that's really the debate. How much risk is too much? Having known a few kids who had to have a circumcision as a teen due to the infection issues it seems clearly far more traumatic then than when a baby. There clearly are risks to vaccines including the flu vaccine (which I plan on getting today) but we consider the risks worth the benefits. It just seems that cost/benefit calculation isn't typically made.

I don't think in the cost/benefit calculation it's huge on one side. That's why the AAP's statement on circumcision (primarily due to effects on STDs) says benefits outweighed risks but didn't recommend it for all boys saying it should be a personal decision. It's how you personally do that cost/benefit calculation and different people with different fears and values will arrive at the calculation differently. Personally I think one should do it. But that's based upon my experience - especially seeing teens who got infected. Others, such as yourself, clearly will come to a different conclusion. To me the main argument against it - pain - is resolved by local anesthesia.

I didn’t say criticizing choice was equivalent to criticizing people. I understand the distinction quite well. And I would add that criticizing choice is all I’m doing when I question the ethics of neonatal circumcision. 

To your other points, surely you can see the difference in degree and scope between a simple vaccination whose preventive benefits are clear and painful, body-altering surgery, the efficacy and benefit of which has long been in dispute. Regarding the alleged relationship of non-circumcision to STDs, sub-Saharan Africa is not the United States. Nor is it Europe, the UK or Australia. Circumcision has not been linked to AID prevention in any of the four. I believe that is why, among developed western nations,  the United States stands alone in having major public health agencies and medical associations endorse routine neonatal circumcision. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Scott, I think Americans are prudish to the extreme and their own prudishness makes nudity something verboten, evil, and sensual when nothing is meant by it i.e. it is the furthest thing from being sensual/sexual, etc. Nudity is often just nudity.

This idea that children going to gym and having to shower in a communal shower is a form of "child abuse" is just plain odd.  It feeds into the idea that boys and girls should hide themselves, never have self-confidence, and certainly not ever conclude that they have bodies and sexual organs just like every other human of their own gender. 

I would prefer that teenagers were taught good physical hygiene and that they showered together. This would allow them to get over the fear of their own bodies. 

We seem to support and promote the lowest common denominator rather than stretch individuals to become better, more well-adjusted humans. 

I reject the insinuation that there is anything pathological or unhealthy about children being shy or modest when faced with a mandate to undress in the presence of peers. I repeat, I’m glad public schools (at least where I live) no longer require it.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say criticizing choice was equivalent to criticizing people. I understand the distinction quite well. And I would add that criticizing choice is all I’m doing when I question the ethics of neonatal circumcision. 

To your other points, surely you can see the difference in degree and scope between a simple vaccination whose preventive benefits are clear and painful, body-altering surgery, the efficacy and benefit of which has long been in dispute. Regarding the alleged relationship of non-circumcision to STDs, sub-Saharan Africa is not the United States. Nor is it Europe, the UK or Australia. Circumcision has not been linked to AID prevention in any of the four. I believe that is why, among developed western nations,  the United States stands alone in having major public health agencies and medical associations endorse routine neonatal circumcision. 

But of course for vaccines we have to distinguish between the benefits to the individual and then the benefits in aggregate of everyone being vaccinated. If most people are vaccinated it's quite arguably there really aren't huge benefits to being vaccinated since it's so remotely unlikely I'd catch the disease. (Speaking here of low incident diseases like measles not high incident diseases even with vaccines like the flu) So I think you're conflating two issues. What's good in general versus what's good for the individual. (Again I strongly advocate everyone getting vaccinated, but let's at least be honest about the cost/benefit calculation)

While the United States is not Africa, I'm not sure that invalidates the indication of the benefits. But perhaps I'm just missing your argument. Are you saying you think Africans are biologically different in this regard or are you arguing there's a behavioral difference? I rather doubt my kids will be breaking the law of chastity, but if in the unlikely scenario they do I'd like them to have a bit of time to repent without big consequences of disease. In the same way I vaccinated my girls with HPV vaccine. Is it a huge factor? From the data I've seen it's significant in high risk groups but minimal in low risk groups except for HPV. But it's still a benefit.

Regarding circumcision and STDs in the west, what studies are you referring to? (Or is this an argument from silence?) I'm aware of a single meta-study on HPV that found little effect and argued given the HPV vaccine it wasn't worth doing. However there are contrasting studies with much more data. (See "Circumcision and non-HIV sexually transmitted infections" for an overview of the data as of 2011) That same paper lists the data as of 2011 for non-HIV STIs as well. So I think it's relatively well known that M. genitalium is an issue in developing countries with circumcision helping a great deal but less of an issue in countries like England where there's little effect. I think the case for HIV is pretty well established at this point so I'm surprised you'd disagree. We can debate the cost/benefit but the benefits seem overwhelmingly established. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rongo said:

The supreme irony here is that the young generation is in many ways more promiscuous than ever before ... And yet, they are at the same time more prudish than ever in other ways. 

 

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This perverse interest in sex organs, I think, is a direct result of a few things 1) the objective of trying to keep children from not seeing one another's bodies, and 2)  the constant barrage of marketing sex in all

We are "doing this" to this generation. Our heart may be in the right place, but we are creating a bunch of sexually perverse individuals who only see the human body as sexual. 

These observations exactly match my own.

I remember my own parents, who appear wiser and wiser in my estimation with each passing year, pointing out what they saw as the correlation between perversion and prudishness. I didn't see it that much then, but it has come to the fore for me now, especially after having spent nearly a decade serving first as the Young Men president and then as the bishopric counsellor responsible for Young Men. And it's finally starting to appear in the academic literature here.

Link to comment

I think the change in locker room shower behavior comes from a loss of innocence, probably stemming from society’s sexualization of the body at a younger and younger age coupled with the resultant judging of bodies (both ours and others) to see how they measure up to societal standards. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the change in locker room shower behavior comes from a loss of innocence, probably stemming from society’s sexualization of the body at a younger and younger age coupled with the resultant judging of bodies (both ours and others) to see how they measure up to societal standards. 

I actually think both sides of this phenomenon feed into each other. What you've written here is exactly right, but at the same time, the development of hyper-privacy also facilitates the surging sexualisation of everyone, including the young. Growing up, I shared a bed with my brothers, bathed with my mum, and showered with my dad and my brothers. With eight of us sharing one bathroom, it was nearly always in use by multiple people at once, and the door was seldom closed. My high school had no doors on the toilet dividers. We showered together every day. When I went to uni, I slept half a metre away from a roommate. The four of us in our flat treated the bathroom as a communal facility. I showered with hundreds of other students after my lap-swimming sessions at the pool. And so forth.

In such an environment, there just wasn't any space -- physical or mental -- to be sexual. I don't want to be explicit, but if internet porn had even existed in my world, there simply would have been no 'private' place to use it or to engage in its common companion. With no privacy in university accommodation, bringing a woman home for the night simply wasn't an option (which, if you think about it, was a protection to more than just the two people). And so forth.

In such a social world, privacy was reserved for married couples specifically because sexuality was reserved for married couples, and at the same time, sexuality was able to be reserved specifically for married couples because privacy was reserved for married couples.

Historically, socially conservative societies have had very good reasons for promoting the communal over the private. Privacy enables behaviours that people feel they need to keep hidden.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

While the United States is not Africa, I'm not sure that invalidates the indication of the benefits. But perhaps I'm just missing your argument. Are you saying you think Africans are biologically different in this regard or are you arguing there's a behavioral difference?

 

No, I said nothing about them being biologically different. What an odd notion.

What I did was to point out that lack of circumcision has not been shown to correlate to lower incidence of HIV in developed nations -- such as the UK, the nations of Europe and Australia -- where circumcision is not common.

To put it another way, why isn't HIV skyrocketing in these developed nations where they don't commonly practice circumcision if circumcision is such a determinative factor in preventing AIDS? And isn't  the U.S. much more like Europe and the UK than it is like Africa in terms of it being a developed nation? So even if one accepts arguendo that circumcision helps prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa, what justification is there for applying that to the developed nations of the Western world, including the United States, when the same correlation has not been shown in those nations?

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This dichotomy is what I was trying to communicate in part.  They think that a picture of their genitals is sexy only because it is a picture of their genitals.  Genitals are not sexy - they are just a part of the body that are used during sexual intercourse.  This perverse interest in sex organs, I think, is a direct result of a few things 1) the objective of trying to keep children from not seeing one another's bodies, and 2)  the constant barrage of marketing sex in all things.

I played sports in high school.  We always showered together and it was not a "deal".  I remember as 7th grader walking into gym the first time and knowing I needed to shower.  I was nervous, but then quickly got over the nervousness because everyone else showered also and everyone needed to get to their next class.  It teaches us that the nude body is not sexual at all times - sometimes it is just our bodies. 

We are "doing this" to this generation. Our heart may be in the right place, but we are creating a bunch of sexually perverse individuals who only see the human body as sexual. 

What is being missed in these response posts is a recognition of the rights of children in their tender adolescent and pre-adolescent years not to have to undress in front of peers and strangers if they feel uncomfortable in doing so. And no, I don't accept the notion that recognizing that right and accommodating it is making them sexually perverse.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is being missed in these response posts is a recognition of the rights of children in their tender adolescent and pre-adolescent years not to have to undress in front of peers and strangers if they feel uncomfortable in doing so. And no, I don't accept the notion that recognizing that right and accommodating it is making them sexually perverse.

I think the issue is that the majority of kids didn’t used to care about undressing in front other kids, but now the majority do.

That’s a change that’s interesting to consider.  What do you believe is causing it?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...