• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Heather Hironimus Jailed For Not Agreeing To Have Her 4yo Circumsized.

Sue sue

Sue sue

Take 6
Here is a story of a mom that did not want to circumsize her son.
. Hironimus and Nebus have been warring since her pregnancy. They were never married but share custody of their child, and in a parenting agreement filed in court, the two agreed to the boy’s circumcision. The mother later changed her mind, though, giving way to a long legal battle. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father, but potential surgeons have backed out after failing to get the mother’s consent and being targeted by anti-circumcision protesters. ....
Click to expand...
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...-restraining-order-to-halt-sons-circumcision/
 
BostonBurns said:
She was all for it until she realized that she could use it as a weapon against the father. This does not strike me as a case of someone who is ethically opposed to circumcision. She's a cunt, who ran off with her kid, I hope she rots, fuck her.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the kid is now four years old and his father still wants to circumcise him. I can only see the procedure being traumatic for him at this point, and the dad's an asshat for not backing down and letting it go.
 
yeah, i can see trying to tell a 4yr that we are going to the hospital to have surgery on your weiner. my brother would have tried to kill us in our sleep.
 
I dont think the judge should impose a medically unnecessary procedures on a four year old boy. Both his parents are asshats.
 
Last edited:
Sue sue said:
I dont think the judge should impose a medically unnecessary procedures on a for year old boy. Both his parents are asshats.
Click to expand...
I agree that both parents are asshats, and this isn't directed at you personally, but your statement is a nice segue!

I do take issue with the notion with that circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure, as it does have proven benefits. Also, as a nurse who has struggled to retract foreskin and place a catheter in both uncircumcised infants and adults , I can attest to the problems that someone could have with their uncircumcised penis. What also further amazes me, is that people who would scream at the top of their lungs about how "unnecessary " circumcision is, have no problems with mutilating their baby girls by piercing their ears!

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
 
Regarding circumcision itself, while I'm not a big fan of "chicken neck", that's purely a matter of culture and esthetics. Since I would find the surgical removal of a female infant's labia minora wrong, I can't support the removal of it's equivalent in the case of a male child.

This case in particular concerns me due to the child's age. I doubt either one of the parents cares that damn much, and the poor kid's penis has become the battlefield for the personal issues of his parents.
 
@BostonBurns , nonetheless, a penis or vulva carries far more psychological weight than an earlobe. In the Golden Age of Sex (after The Pill and before AIDS) I had several unfortunate foreskin encounters, so I'm not a fan, and I know it's a hiding place for virus such as HPV, yet removal for the sake of convenience is a bit disturbing.

In this case, the child is already cognizant that his parents are fighting over whether part of his penis will be cut off. You can bet mom has explained the procedure in detail, so even if dad wins, dad loses.
 
I can see this as a lose-lose situation, right or wrong, the mom should have done what she agreed to do, as I can see this as a way she is possibly getting back at the father for whatever. My older son was not going to be circumcised, I did all that you were supposed to do, kept it pulled back, cleaned under it, etc, etc. BUT it still became tight and would make the head of his penis swell and turn purple and the doctor said it needed to be removed. It was when he was 10 months old. I don't know whether it should have been done or not, but I do know if you're going to have it done, do it when they are a few days old. It was considered surgery, he was put to sleep and had to be in the hospital for about a week. THAT was traumatic. For him and for me. IN July it will have been 35 years ago.
 
cubby said:
I can see this as a lose-lose situation, right or wrong, the mom should have done what she agreed to do, as I can see this as a way she is possibly getting back at the father for whatever. My older son was not going to be circumcised, I did all that you were supposed to do, kept it pulled back, cleaned under it, etc, etc. BUT it still became tight and would make the head of his penis swell and turn purple and the doctor said it needed to be removed. It was when he was 10 months old. I don't know whether it should have been done or not, but I do know if you're going to have it done, do it when they are a few days old. It was considered surgery, he was put to sleep and had to be in the hospital for about a week. THAT was traumatic. For him and for me. IN July it will have been 35 years ago.
Click to expand...
That's a case of necessary circumcision, I think it's called phimosis.
 
I did not know, I've always thought I failed him, that I did something wrong, or at least not right. Thank you.
 
McDanel said:
@BostonBurns , nonetheless, a penis or vulva carries far more psychological weight than an earlobe. In the Golden Age of Sex (after The Pill and before AIDS) I had several unfortunate foreskin encounters, so I'm not a fan, and I know it's a hiding place for virus such as HPV, yet removal for the sake of convenience is a bit disturbing.

In this case, the child is already cognizant that his parents are fighting over whether part of his penis will be cut off. You can bet mom has explained the procedure in detail, so even if dad wins, dad loses.
Click to expand...

The American Academy ofPediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
Click to expand...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

It's not just done for the fun of it, that is a complete misconception, and liking it to female genital mutilation is unfounded.

Regarding the legal battle. The mother already psychologically damaged the child, I don't think that circumcising him now is an option. However, I'd be damned if I'd let a crazy lunatic, who psychologically damaged my child's mind, and used him as a weapon against me to walk away as, "the winner," as she is clearly mentally unbalanced. Firstly, we don't know the whole circumstances, or whether the kid has an accompanying condition such as hypospadias, and surgical correction is inevitable or preferred in his circumstance. There seems to be something that's compelling the judge in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypospadias

However, I don't think this is about the kid's dick anymore, nor should it be. In my opinion, from what I can glean from the limited information, is that this woman is a manipulative control freak, at the very least, and pathologically unbalanced is not outside the realm of possibility.
 
Agreed, but given the child's age unless medically necessary, it should be his own decision later in life. I also agree she has probably terrified him with the idea that his daddy wants to hurt him, so to go through with it now would be emotionally damaging, and confirm his mom's poisonous words. Typically it isn't the father that pushes for this to be done, so I have to wonder if dad is Jewish and is motivated by faith.
 
My father was circumcised in his late 60s after a stroke when personal hygiene became more complicated for him. I was a bit shocked when he told me about it. I think it was TMI. Only Jews tend to have it done here, unless there is a medical reason for it, like phimosis or repeated infections (which most men would not get simply from not being circumcised).
 
Abroad said:
My father was circumcised in his late 60s after a stroke when personal hygiene became more complicated for him. I was a bit shocked when he told me about it. I think it was TMI. Only Jews tend to have it done here, unless there is a medical reason for it, like phimosis or repeated infections (which most men would not get simply from not being circumcised).
Click to expand...
I think here in the states it is a common expectation to have infant boys circumsized regardless of religion.
 
I had my son done when he was a week old. It was simply a matter of keeping him clean for me. I didn't want to run the risk of him just not keeping himself clean when he was too old for mommy or daddy to clean him but too young to do the job right for himself. On another note, sorry for being gone so long. My little girl fell out of a tree a couple of days ago and knocked out a permanent tooth on a tree root. The hospital here apparently doesn't have an emergency dentist on call and I had to wait until the next day to get her seen. Naturally, HER dentist was closed and I went crazy trying to find a dentist to see her but I finally found one and the tooth was put back in. Thank God! Back to the subject, I don't see any reason why she would have backed out but I also don't see a reason for this to be a legal issue. Seems like she is using her child as a weapon against dad and dad is using a judge against mom. Lose-lose for this kid.
 
My sons are uncircumcised but that was a discussion their father and I had before birth, and we agreed to not do it together. They're both our children, and so it was a joint decision.

Isn't that how adults do things?
 
@BostonBurns, I also meant to explain my labia/foreskin analogy. More anatomically correct to say the foreskin is the equivalent of the clitoral hood, for one. Second, I knew a guy who was circumcised in his twenties. He felt he had less sensation, once he got over the initial hypersensitivity of his glans. I don't have a penis, so what do I know? We need someone with a foreskin to educate us. Any volunteers?
 
cubby said:
I did not know, I've always thought I failed him, that I did something wrong, or at least not right. Thank you.
Click to expand...
For it to be that tight when growing so quickly, he could have lost circulation completely requiring amputation. Rest assured you made the best possible decision.
 
I had both my boys circumsized at a day old ..there is so many different problems that can go wrong later in life..why chance it..

A man about 15 years ago sued his parents because they DID NOT circumsize him and at 27 the skin closed where the head could not come out ..and he had to have it done..I would feel like crap if that happened to my boys.. I'm glad I had it done.. And both my boys are glad they had it done as well.
Jmo
 
BostonBurns said:
I agree that both parents are asshats, and this isn't directed at you personally, but your statement is a nice segue!

I do take issue with the notion with that circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure, as it does have proven benefits. Also, as a nurse who has struggled to retract foreskin and place a catheter in both uncircumcised infants and adults , I can attest to the problems that someone could have with their uncircumcised penis. What also further amazes me, is that people who would scream at the top of their lungs about how "unnecessary " circumcision is, have no problems with mutilating their baby girls by piercing their ears!

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
Click to expand...
My child's years are not pierced. That won't happen until she asks for it.
 
Do not compare a baby getting their ears pierced to circumcision. You can get a babies ears pierced almost always pain-free and safely. A little hole in their ear isn't going to put them in a state of deep depression or despair. It's how you get your babies ears pierced. Most idiots will go to the nearest girly shop they can find and get their babies ears pierced with an ear piercing gun which can't be sterilized. This can lead to extreme infections and disease. It's much safer to ask a doctor to do it since they can sterilize the needle. You can also give a baby acetaminophen or ibuprofen before the procedure so they barely feel anything more than a pinch. If they have an allergic reaction there will be a rash that indicates they're allergic, and it can quickly be undone. Even with that, using surgical steel or 14 karat gold jewelry can prevent this.

A two month olds immune system is developed enough to handle an infection of a medium degree generally, nothing cruel or horrible is occurring, and as long as a stud is being used the babies hole shouldn't stretch.

Besides, they can close back up. Infection usually occurs quick if the baby has a negative reaction to it. Let's say the baby has earrings in her/his ear for a month, it won't take that long to close up. If they have a negative reaction it's usually noticeable in a week, and at worse a month.

I could go on and on, but my whole point is regardless of the fact we aren't giving the child a choice it shouldn't be compared to circumcision for they are two VERY different things. One brings a huge amount of pain with an abundance of things that can go wrong. Not only that, but it can cause severe depression within someones adulthood. Circumcision is also permanent, ear piercings are not generally unless they're worn for a few years.
 
Last edited:
Agnosic said:
Do not compare a baby getting their ears pierced to circumcision. You can get a babies ears pierced almost always pain-free and safely. A little hole in their ear isn't going to put them in a state of deep depression or despair. It's how you get your babies ears pierced. Most idiots will go to the nearest girly shop they can find and get their babies ears pierced with an ear piercing gun which can't be sterilized. This can lead to extreme infections and disease. It's much safer to ask a doctor to do it since they can sterilize the needle. You can also give a baby acetaminophen or ibuprofen before the procedure so they barely feel anything more than a pinch. If they have an allergic reaction there will be a rash that indicates they're allergic, and it can quickly be undone. Even with that, using surgical steel or 14 karat gold jewelry can prevent this.

A two month olds immune system is developed enough to handle an infection of a medium degree generally, nothing cruel or horrible is occurring, and as long as a stud is being used the babies hole shouldn't stretch.

Besides, they can close back up. Infection usually occurs quick if the baby has a negative reaction to it. Let's say the baby has earrings in her/his ear for a month, it won't take that long to close up. If they have a negative reaction it's usually noticeable in a week, and at worse a month.

I could go on and on, but my whole point is regardless of the fact we aren't giving the child a choice it shouldn't be compared to circumcision for they are two VERY different things. One brings a huge amount of pain with an abundance of things that can go wrong. Not only that, but it can cause severe depression within someones adulthood. Circumcision is also permanent, ear piercings are not generally unless they're worn for a few years.
Click to expand...
Dude, you know as well as I that if an adult is depressed because his foreskin was cut off when he was a day old, then that dude has psychological problems on a monumental scale, all of which are completely unrelated to his dick.
 
BostonBurns said:
Dude, you know as well as I that if an adult is depressed because his foreskin was cut off when he was a day old, then that dude has psychological problems on a monumental scale, all of which are completely unrelated to his dick.
Click to expand...
That's not always true. There has been studies on psychological issues in adulthood due to circumcision from psychological research. You will not find the same for a baby getting their ears pierced correctly. A hole that's less than a cm is not going to cause you self-image issues. Let's say it did, its easily fixable. Circumcision can not be fixed. I respect your opinion if you still disagree, but I can't fathom the two even beginning to be comparable.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...9/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

http://www.circumcision.org/confessions.htm

These links also have sources within them if you read through them. If you don't consider those reliable then we will simple have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
@BostonBurns

My ex was circumcised at one day old. Too much skin was removed.
Every erection was painful and left his penis with a constant sore spot.

I do not support this procedure on infants. The child ahould Be allowed to make that decision at a later age.
In rare cases it could be medically necessary but not all and certainly not enough of a problem to make it a blanket decision to circumcise every male.

Also
Ear piercing and circumcised are not comparables. The skin can not be restored Like pierced ears csn simply have the earrings remived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top