Let it have its ears!

I'm not married and I don't have any kids, and, as such, I don't have opinions on raising children. I have OPINIONS on raising children.

Today's OPINION is about circumcision. It just seems like this topic has been coming up (so to speak) a lot lately, always in conversation with other women who aren't married and don't have children.

Except for one argument with my mother, who has children. She was shocked and disappointed that my views were so extreme.* But, as for the rest, we all have extreme views. I am strongly opposed.

I am sure that's a big surprise. The simple reason is, I don't believe that unnecessary surgery should be performed on infants. Unnecessary surgery on someone who is not only too young to make an informed decision, but who is also too young to make (or at least communicate) an uninformed one.

People either strongly agree or strongly disagree with that. I have not heard anyone say that she'd leave it up to the kid's father, who, after all, might have more insight into the situation.

Because people have such strong opinions, I never really try to change their minds. But I also think that, if "unnecessary surgery on an infant" doesn't do the trick, I don't really see the point in continuing the argument. To me, that's the only argument you need.

But today I have some time on my hands:

1. "It lowers the risk of HIV transmission/cancer/other horrible condition."

I am not trying to be funny when I say that I kind of want to have my appendix taken out just so I don't have to worry about it anymore. I have a friend who almost died because she didn't know she had appendicitis. If there were a way to have my appendix out for free with local anaesthetic, I would be all over that.

Most people look at me like I've lost my mind when I say this. Some people think I'm onto something.

But imagine I'm saying the same thing about a newborn baby: "Isn't she cute? We've scheduled her appendectomy for next week. Of course it will hurt, but it's healthier in the long run." I hope you would call child protective services.

2. "I don't like foreskins."

Speaking of calling child protective services... To be fair, I think that what they mean to say is:

2a. "Girls don't like foreskins."

Honestly, I hope this is true. I do not want my kids to be sleeping around! And I especially do not want them sleeping around before they're 18, at which point they can get whatever surgery they want in order to facilitate the sleeping around.

3. "But it will hurt later. If you get it done when they're babies, they won't remember the pain."

But it's not like it's something they'll need to get done eventually and therefore it's best to get it out of the way when they won't remember it. It's optional, and by having it done when they're babies, you're taking that option away. It's like giving your kid a bunch of tattoos because they might want them someday.

So, for the record, I am opposed. Honestly, I would want it to be illegal but for the fact that a lot of people would get it done underground.

I didn't address any religious arguments because it's not my place to do so. Also because nobody I've discussed this with is religious. Anyway, I think it's a change that needs to be made within the religious communities (Jewish, Muslim, I don't know of any others) that do it. For a not-so-good parallel, I'd find it weird if a Jewish or Muslim person questioned the practice of baptizing infants, but I'll listen to Christians who question it.

If you read the Bible (another Lent thing I'm doing), it's easier to understand why Jewish people continue this practice. It's more significant than I had realized before reading the Bible. I haven't read the Quran, so I can't really comment.**


* I didn't ask you this at the time, but what did you expect from someone who is opposed to dog ownership? I mean, I am not really known for my grasp of complexity and nuance, nor my acceptance of practices that I decide are unnatural.

** If I had a minute for every time I said this, I'd have read the Quran by now. No joke.

Vampire readers: feel free to weigh in

Because I know everything, I've concluded that, if I made movies then they'd either be about 10 minutes long or really, really boring. It would look something like this:
1. protagonists meet and fall in love
2. they arrange to be together then go on with their lives

Or this:
1. protagonists don't fall in love because it's inadvisable
2. they go on with their lives

I know this because during movies I tend to say stuff like this:
"He should just bite her and then they could be vampires together."
a few minutes later...
"Okay, he should wait four years, then bite her, so she can buy alcohol for them."

Yeah, so, I watched "Twilight" yesterday. I have to say, I liked it. I wonder if so many people hated it because it was so popular. I do kind of wish that it was either a dark and serious movie or a romantic one, and not trying to be all middle ground. What I mean is, the film is too dark and depressing for you to feel happy at the end, but at the same time I was left wondering why anyone wouldn't want to be a vampire. A less serious film would be mindless fluff, but there is a place for mindless fluff in the world.

A more serious film would have focused more on positive and negative aspects of vampirism. Do more recently-changed vampires shy away from eating people because they remember what it's like to be human? Is it that older vampires grew up during a time when there was less respect for human life? Or is it just a coincidence that the non-human-eating vampires in the movie tend to be younger? I thought it was interesting that they would kill an evil vampire but not evil humans. What's with all the self-hatred? Why hide from humans? Why not just be like "hey, we're vampires but we only eat animals. Unless you bother us. Is that going to be a problem for you?" I would like these questions answered.

So I guess my main complaint about Twilight is that it isn't X-Men.

I also wanted to say something about how you shouldn't sneak into your girlfriend's house and watch her sleep, but that sort of implies that it's ok to sneak into other people's houses and watch them sleep, or to sneak into your girlfriend's house for reasons other than sleep-watching. My actual advice is, don't sneak into ANYONE'S house.

It's uter-us, Marge, not uter-you

I decided that I was going to try harder to understand other people for Lent. This mostly involves forgiving people who I know, as I have been amazingly unforgiving, but I'm also trying to be more understanding in general. So, while this post is pretty judgemental (hey, we're just ten days in), it is based on an honest question.

I'm putting this thought into writing because it's been bothering me for a really long time:

I do not understand people who need to have biological children.

Is that just me being weird again or do other people feel this way too?

I do know that it's not really my business. And I can understand wanting children.

I even understand wanting biological children because I understand loving somebody so much that you want to create a child together because you're sure that anything you create together will be awesome. But, in the land of unicorns and rainbows where I apparently live, you would also love that person enough to be like, "let's not put you through thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars worth of uncomfortable-at-best and dangerous-at-worst fertility treatments that may or may not work."

Personally, I would not want to stay married to someone who was pushing me to go through any unnecessary medical procedures.* He wouldn't want to stay married to me, either, so I guess that's win-win. It depresses me, though, that you'd marry someone who needs biological children so badly that your only options would be unnecessary medical procedure or divorce. I think that I deserve better. I think that everyone deserves better.

Incidentally, the church is opposed to both divorce and fertility treatments, so, from a religious standpoint, what are you supposed to do in that situation anyway?

But I'm being really sexist in assuming that women don't choose to go through these treatments of their own accord. Tons of women do. I can't even begin to understand them.

Adoption has financial strain and disappointment, too, but it doesn't affect your physical health. I suppose that's where I draw the line.

Other people draw the line somewhere else, and they have the right to do that. I just don't get it. Is it biological? Social? Do I have low self-esteem because I don't feel that I need to be copied?


* So it occurs to me that at some point I should discuss this with potential suitors. Third date seems reasonable. Over dinner I'll just be like "so if we get married and it turns out that I can't have children I have no intention of doing anything about that. Also, the bump on my nose is here to stay."**

** This footnote is intended to be humorous, but it is also based on an honest question. How does one bring that up? Or should I just stop trying to interact with people because they will never live up to my standards?***

*** ...which would be exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. Obviously, I have got a ways to go.