Summations Only

Jazzns writes: Here is where we have a difference, Jazzns. I think my feelings are that even earlobe piercing should be up to the owner of the ear. And that should be at the time they have the ability & understanding to give consent to it.The only infant external body modifications that I might accede to are things like fixing cleft palates and the like - procedures that fix things. I suppose there still are parents who believe they are "fixing" the penis somewhere out there. But not very many, I would think.

Jon asks: Defending the right to perform an action is giving consent to perform that action. You are standing by, doing nothing, while you let them do it. You are being silent. You argue that they should have that perceived right rather than have me or bluegenes or Panda take away that perceived right. This is a false dichotomy. We argue that your perceived right DOES NOT EVEN EXIST and never did. We cannot take away what does not exist. Nobody has this right except the owner at that time in the future when he is old enough to have the ability and understanding of what it's all about. For example, even a boy - say 8 years old - is still too young to make that decision for himself. Maybe by voting age or something like that - then he can go please the ladies in his certain way if he likes (so Oni's argument would hold no water anyway).

Jazzns writes: True. One step at a time. I do recall school girls being terrified that their moms might find out they got their ears pierced, because back in that day, they were not considered to be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. I don't know what today's consensus line of allowable body modification is. Yes: 1,000,000 > 1,000 > 1. But they are still all > 0.

Ringo writes: Exactly. Yes, yes. I agree. So let's just wait until I reach age Y. How about NONE OF THE ABOVE? Why does anybody have to make the decision for me? Why can't the whole shebang just be postponed until I reach age of consent Y? Anytime you can wait with nobody really getting hurt, you should wait until the individual, upon reaching the age of consent Y, can make the decision for himself. There is no need to make any decision when the individual is still only an infant.

jar says: But there is no parental "right" here. You cannot restrict something that does not exist.

The voice from the Dark Side of the Moon still argues: Oni, you can believe all that on your personal experience - and I wouldn't doubt that, for you, it works. And when you reach the age of consent, you can have that procedure done to get more of your BJ's, along with any tattoos & pierced jewelry all through your penis you want. No one can stop you once you reach the age of consent. Your BJ argument does not address those still too young to consent. People too young to be able to consent are, probably by definition, too young to have BJ's. Maybe now we have the beginnings of a workable definition of that age, Y, ringo mentioned.

ringo asks: ...well, I, for one, would truly miss it now!- nate

Ah, there were things I wanted to say in a summary. But then I was sidetracked. So I have now decided to make a 1-sentence summary below. Meanwhile, this came up recently with rather serendipitous coincidence (not):An Age of Consent for Circumcision? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.comMy summary:I still think an age of consent is the correct way.