- Timothy
- Ephraim
- Thomas
- Theodore
- Enoch
- Christian (you may only vote for this one if you know our real last name)
- Ruttiger
- Other (please specify and include a 200-word essay explaining your choice)
Hm... Perhaps we should go with a combination of the above: Tettecro!
Not to sway your vote, but a bit of background information:
We chose S-Boogie's full name (S-Boogie Noelani Fob) with a scripture in mind--"[...] and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven" (Doctrine and Covenants 121:45). S-Boogie means "wisdom," and Noelani means "heavenly mist."
Similarly, there is a scripture and Hawaiian name to go with Timothy, which means "fear of God"--"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). His middle name would be either Wiwo'ole, which is what the Hawaiian Bible uses to translate "power" in this verse (it also means "fearless," "brave," or "bold"), or Makoa, which means "fearless," "courageous," or "agressive."
Again, I'm not trying to tell you that there's a right answer or that all the other choices are stupid or that you should vote for my first choice in order to convince Foxy J that it is the one true name for our child, but I just wanted you to know that none of the other names have a really cool scripture or Hawaiian name to go with them.
And while you're voting, snip-snip or no snip-snip?
Uhhh, clearly Weed is not cleaning his classroom. He is, instead, being the first to comment on every post you write.
ReplyDeleteI like Tim. I also really like Enoch. So, I vote primarily for Enoch. And secondarily (actually, almost equally) for Timothy with the provision that he be called Tim, because I really do like the middle-name/scripture thing. That's very cool.
And that's a yes on the snip-snip.
Weed
I like Timothy or Enoch. On middle names, I'd vote for the Makoa because I like the sound better, though I like the meaning of Wiwo'ole.
ReplyDeleteCurrrently leaning toward no on the snipping, but undecided. (Have been trying to decide whether to inflict it on my own future sons.)
I vote for Timothy Makoa too, because Tim is a pleasant and simple nickname.
ReplyDeleteI lean yes on snipping for no good reason.
I like Timothy. You could call him Timkins Fob. Or Mothy Fob. Or I suppose you could go with the standard Tim or Timmy.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's just got to be Timothy, then. (When I think of the name, 'Timothy', now, I think of the main character in the Mitford series, by Jan Karon. Actually, that makes it even more fitting, because he's extremely well read, in addition to being a just plain good person.)
ReplyDeleteTaking into consideration that Makoa is easier to spell and pronounce which will much easier on the child as he ages and has the opportunity to tell people his middle name- I vote for Makoa.
ReplyDeleteNow the first name is tougher- I like all the "T" names. Did you notice that all of them are shortenable to only one syllable? I think Theodore Makoa Lastname sounds nice (and long!)
And I say NO SNIP!! It is an unneccesary procedure that is becoming less and less popular. Worrying about who he will or won't look like doesn't matter, because by the time he's seeing other guys nude in the locker room- it'll be a 50-50 mix of snipped and not.
Think about if you were to do it to yourself today. Right now. With no anesthetic. Would ya?
I like Timothy Makoa. Do you have Hawaiian ancestry or is it just a tradition you started?
ReplyDeleteI think if you live west of the Mississipi, the numbers are still leaning in favor of circumcision. I did a lot of research before my son was born. Just ask the pediatrician and go with the baby to make sure they use anesthetic.
Woo Hoo! I'm an Honorary Fob! I am going to eat a marshmallow to celebrate!
ReplyDelete2 Tim. 1:7 is one of my favorite quotes. Pres. Hinkley said that everyone should read those words at the beginning of the day for more miracles to happen.
Very cool way to choose names, even if I am forbidden the vote for Christian.
.
ReplyDeleteI'm smitten by Theodore which means Gift of God. But if you go Hawaiian, I don't think Wiwo'ole is at all practical and I also think Makoa sounds, in English, more like its meaning that Wwoollwhatever.
Also, Theodore shortens nicely to Theo which I find to be wicka cool and if you don't use this name I'm adding it to my possibles. Also, there are many variants of the name.
AS FOR SNIPPING::::::::::::
NO! NO! NO! NO!
As Bawb said, people do it all the time but for no good reason. The odds of needing a circumcision for medical reasons are about as good as needing your pinkie finger removed for medical reasons. So why don't you cut them off at the same time? The only valid reason I can think of clipping him is if you ahve a reasonable suspician that in fifteen years he'll come out of the closet as a Jew.
Now, I am about to type words I don't often type. Leave if you get uncomfortable. I'll be typing about sex.
Disclosure: I was not clipped. It was out of vogue in Logan in 1976 and I was spared. Allefreakinlujah.
Cutting off a man's foreskin is the equivalent, in sexual terms, of removing a woman's clitoris. That's where all the excitable nerves are. Frankly, I can't even hardly see the point of having sex without it, short of procreating. What are all you circumsnipped blokes getting out of it?
I suppose one could look at this as a reason to snip--less likelyhood of discovering masterbation at an early age or something. Maybe so, but why punish poor Theo for a sin so far off? And why then deny him greater, ah, marital blessings later on in the name of a cleaner adolescence?
I actually have no idea if there is even any correlation between circumcision and morbid masturbation...that would be an interesting research topic....
Master Fob--I can tell you more about this in email if you want; I think I have sullied your blog enough.
.
ReplyDeleteOh--Timothy as third choice and Enoch as second.
I'm going to attempt to punch a hole in the Timothy argument. (Full disclosure: I just don't like that name, and I'm not particularly fond of it with Fob. I would vote for Christian, but I understand the reasoning not to as that would just be uncool.)
ReplyDeleteTimothy means "fear of God," which in scripture-speak is akin to "faith." Your selected scripture, albeit a good one, does not apply to the name. So you can't use it.
I vote for Ephraim Makoa. I offer as evidence Jeremiah 23: 3-4. "And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord."
Ephraim = fruitful
Makoa = fearless
If that doesn't convince you, then I recommend you look at Ephraim's history and you'll notice a fairly aggressive streak. However, I opt not to give you specific references as they may prove to be evidence against such a name.
If that still doesn't convince you, I put forth that this is an Old Testament year in Sunday School and you should therefore base your child's name on an Old Testament scripture instead of a New Testament one.
And if that still doesn't convince you, I put forth that lds.org is not working right now, and I had to do all this research the old fashioned way and actually crack open the scriptures. When I should be working.
Besides, Ephraim Makoa Fob just sounds cool.
On the other topic, I vote in favor of snipping. If for no other reason than the aesthetics of it. And, despite Th.'s claims, I think he'll get along just fine in the sex department with the snippage. There's still plenty of feeling down there.
Here's another consideration. Who cares about locker room comparisons? But one day, he's going to compare himself to Dad. If Dad is snipped and Ephraim is not, well, then there are going to be questions and issues. Plus, assuming you are snipped (which I don't know and there are some things that don't need to be zippergutted--is that an appropriate use of the term?), do you know how to teach him to care for his unsnipped member? It's a valid concern as Wikipedia documents a number of health and medical reasons for snippage, in my opinion.
Edgy came down to my office and said that I should vote for Ephraim. I'd have to agree that Ephraim is in the top 2 category along with Enoch. After all, City of Enoch...God's chosen...has a nice ring to it. Hmm, maybe Ephraim Enoch Fob.
ReplyDeleteI'm seconding edgy's vote (Ephraim), with Theodore a close second and Timothy a distant third.
ReplyDeletePlus edgy wrote the requisite 200-word argument in favor, which means I don't have to. . . right?
Oh, and Ephraim was good enough for Joseph of Egypt's second child, I'm sure Ephraim is good enough for your second child as well.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteRebutting Edgy:
"
On the other topic, I vote in favor of snipping. If for no other reason than the aesthetics of it.
"
News flash: There is not such thing as an aesthetically pleasing penis. I've asked around. No one I know has ever seen one.
"
Who cares about locker room comparisons?
"
Amen!
"
But one day, he's going to compare himself to Dad.
"
Is this some coming-of-age rite I missed out on?
"
If Dad is snipped and Ephraim is not, well, then there are going to be questions and issues.
"
And vice versa, of course. Especially vice versa.
"
Plus, assuming you are snipped (which I don't know and there are some things that don't need to be zippergutted--is that an appropriate use of the term?), do you know how to teach him to care for his unsnipped member? It's a valid concern as Wikipedia documents a number of health and medical reasons for snippage, in my opinion.
"
Eh. I'm not snipped. It's not that big of a deal. And ladies--wouldn't you rather know that your man keeps it clean?
In my unscholarly estimation, the only reason to clip is because one is jealous of his son's intactness. I have never known someone intact who decided to clip their son. Indeed, the very idea strikes me and other like me as wholly absurd. Perhaps the snipped have a foreskinphobia, but let me assure you: It ain't that bad.
.
ReplyDeleteOne more rebuttage:
"
There's still plenty of feeling down there.
"
Maybe for someone who was snipped at eight days. But I can't imagine cutting off the majority of my feeling. And it is a majority. I would never do it now unless it got cancerous--or I suppose if God came to my tent and said to--because it is too great a sacrifice.
I don't doubt that sex is still fine. But the snipped can only wonder what it would be like with all their nerves intact.
Th.'s comments got me thinking and researching (perhaps one day I will have a son, after all), and I found this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/LDS/
I didn't realize that the procedure was often done without anaesthesia; in fact, this site says that anaesthesia can cause a few different complications. I may be against snipping now. As for names, I like Tim, Tom, and possibly Theodore and Enoch. I'm just wary of scriptural names that aren't otherwise common and sound like they belong to an old man.
less likelyhood of discovering masterbation at an early age or something. Maybe so, but why punish poor Theo for a sin so far off?
ReplyDeleteDo you guys think Masterbation is a sin?
This is completely off topic, but I just wondered...
DO NOT CUT IT OFF! Please, for the love of all that is holy. I agree with Th. 100% on this one. Plus, I heard recently (but haven't had the time to research it thoroughly yet) that our current circumcision has nothing to do with the original Jewish circumcision. Back then, it was a simple cut in the foreskin. Current circumcision has everything to do with masturbation prevention, and I think that everyone knows it wasn't a wholly successful measure. Like I said, I haven't researched it thoroughly. In my attempt to research it, however, I did stumble across pictures on Wikipedia and so now I can actually confirm that circumcision does absolutely nothing for aesthetics. Either way, it looks like a penis.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, there really is no reason for circumcision and there are plenty reasons against. I'm 100% against.
In addition:
ReplyDeleteI just was talking to The Boy and asking his opinion. He said that he was in favor. He was shocked to find that I'm against. Then he told me about his former boss of several years ago. When he was 25, his foreskin ripped so he had to have a circumcision when he was 25, which was much more painful than a baby's circumcision.
The Boy's reasoning, then, was that it was better to remove it when the baby is young than to remove it during adulthood. I countered with Th.'s baby finger argument and said that I'd have to research it before giving a definite opinion, but that I thought the risk of problems with the procedure during infancy outweighed the possibility of injury later in life.
So he agreed, I think, and then conceded that his boss had said that sex before circumcision was much better than sex after circumcision. So there's a grapevine testimony from someone who knows.
.
ReplyDeleteDuring class I wrote out another page of arguments about aesthetics and a huge list of pros and cons (cons won, by the way), but I think the argument is over.
If you want to see it though, I'll be back here in an hour or so.
.
ReplyDeleteI'll take that as a no. For a related but circumcision-free post, head over to my house.
.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Mandi, the answer is yes. But I've already yelled enough today so I'll leave it alone.
Of all the names that you listed, I like Christian the best. Unfortunately, I don't think that it would be very kind to inflict a name like Christian Fob on your child. Enoch and Ephraim sound too holy and old testament to me. And Timothy, Thomas and Theodore... well, I just plain don't like them. Come to think of it, I really don't like any T name for boys.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that you should go with Daniel. And then Daniel's two uncles can fight over who he was named after :)
As for the snippage... at first I thought you were talking about getting yourself snipped; as in a vasectomy. I guess it really doesn't change my answer: whatever you're snipping the answer is NO. Quite frankly after listening to Th's argument, I feel like I have been cheated by being snipped. Damn you Mom and Dad!
Th- If the child does decide to become Jewish and he is circumsized he will still have to draw blood in that area as a sign of his conversion. At least if he is going the more orthodox route so snipping now wont save him later.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteReally?! That is interesting.... And it makes sense too, I had just never thought about it before.
My father is unclipped (very un-vogue in Europe where he was born) so my brothers are also unclipped. My husband is clipped, so my three sons are also clipped. (By the way, no descernable lack of sexual feeling.) To my knowledge, each of my nephews are also clipped.
ReplyDeleteI was with two of my three during the clipping--local anesthetic was used in a very sterile environment and the only thing the little guys cried about was being tied down. Afterwards, there was no apparent discomfort, it was very easy to care for, and all three are doing just fine.
This is a personal decision that each set of parents must make themselves--just don't tell anyone what you decide if you're worried about backlash. I have no strong feelings either way.
Also, female circumcision is DESIGNED to remove sensation and, with it, sexual feeling and drive. The clitoris is completely removed. It's not like cutting off the foreskin--it's like cutting off the penis entirely (something I would never recommend). Removing the foreskin is completely ineffective at removing sensation and drive. Trust me.
Actually, cardinallaw, male circumcision was performed in the late 19th century to prevent masturbation by reducing stimulation and desire (ineffective though it was). Graham crackers and corn flakes were also invented by rabid anti-masturbation types (cf. the corn flakes wikipedia article). I don't have a reference for this, but I've been told that circumcision's origins as a religious rite involved just cutting a little notch or ring from the foreskin -- whacking off the whole thing is a result of the 19th century craziness.
ReplyDeleteAs to aesthetic concerns, it baffles me that people would disparage body modifications like piercing and tatoos, but then argue for a supremely personal (and functionally impairing) /surgery/ on infants on grounds that it'll make them "fit in".
.
ReplyDeleteLunkwill--I was hoping you would show up.
I want to talk about the social thing since it's something I never hit before and Savvymom just reminded me about it.
I'm perplexed that the social argument holds water. Who cares what other babies look like? Who cares what other boys look like? I really have a hard time believing there are that many times people will ever notice. And of those times, why would anyone care?
(Obviously, looking here, people do care. But this is about themselves or their child. Why care about thy shower neighbor?)
I just.... I don't understand it.
I was naked in the junior high shower almost everyday after PE. I don't really remember, but the only ones scarred into my head were cut. But I don't remember feeling weird or conspicuous or spiteful of my parents....
Ah. Is that it? Are we worried about our sons hating us? I know I would be if I cut mine. Do others fear that wrath for not cutting?
Anyway, I've been naked in Korean bathhouses with Koreans and Americans. I don't remember if they were clipped or not. I probably noticed but it was never important enough to remember--let alone mention.
And the same with the few other locales I've been naked with other men. It was never an issue.
Where are these social contexts where it is so vital to match the other boys?
And, assuming this concern is one focused on adolescent angst, is he going to feel the same when he's a grown up and can form his own opinions on the subject?
Master Fob, Edgy doesn't like Timothy simply because it isn't iambic.
ReplyDeleteThank you Cardinallaw for making the point about female circumcision. The comparison was really bothering me. Male and female circumcision ARE NOT THE SAME. Some women cannot reach an orgasm without stimulation of the clitoris. After a quick look, I can't find any verifiable instances where a man without a foreskin could not reach an orgasm.
Would you ask the snip-snip question if you had to do it over again?
.
ReplyDeleteActually, at the risk of being hated, let me comment again.
First, yes, the difference between male and female circumcision is great and important to understand. But there is evidence that American women who have lost their clitoris do to, say, cancer have been occassionally able to experience orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone. It is not the same sort of orgasm (apparently women have dozens to choose from) but it is possible.
And the issue isn't how different they are, it is that they are alike at all. Every right-thinking person who has stopped by here is, I am sure, appalled by the idea of damaging the female sexual apparatus. So why not the male? I don't understand the double standard.
No doubt it is all part of some vast conspiracy.
.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course he would.
What other blog post on anyone's blog has engendered so much ferocious debate and so many words in recent memory? I can't think of any.
.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, Master Fob, now we're going to need to know (at some point) your reasoning behind you all's final decision.
When do women lose a clitoris to cancer? I have never heard of that?
ReplyDeleteI repeat, some women (not all women) cannot reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Research has found that some women don't have pleasurable feelings from g-spot stimulation. I would put a link, but it's a bit graphic, and I feel like I'm pushing my personal limits for decent conversation with people I've never met. Anyway, the two proceedures cannot be equivocated.
Dude . . . 37 comments . . . Cool.
ReplyDeleteWhew...I wouldn't DREAM of offering an opinion on any of these topics at this time...
ReplyDeleteSo, as far as the name goes. One of my bestest friends is named Enoch, thus I like the name. Also one of my bestest friends has his full name in the same manner as if you were to name him Christian, and it has done really well for him. Though it is a much different name. So i like Christian for that simple fact.
ReplyDeleteAs for snipping, i think you should have done whatever I had. I actually have no idea which one I have. I don't really care and if i did, I sure don't remember it, so if it was painful I have no idea. And don't anyone go explaining what the differences are, currently I like remaining ignorant and have no plans to change any time soon.
I can't believe there are people still trying to make ANY kind of comparison between circumcision and female genitalia mutilation (and no, it is NOT female circumcision - that term implies that it is a similar procedure, and it's not). At best this procedure does far more harm than (a successful) circumcision. At worst (infibulation, performed on girls around six, without anesthetic, who are then sewn shut until marriage) it is a gross carving up of a child's body in order to trap her within a system that deems her disempowered and unworthy of pleasure. I KNOW I'm being really adamant about this, but (while I think cirumcision is unnecessary and causes a child pain for no good reason) there really is no comparison between the two.
ReplyDeleteI think someone needs to say it:
ReplyDeleteThere is an obvious difference between those commenters who are c'd and those who are not, and I would venture to say that it correlates with why I'm in support of it. Those who are c'd generally say "uhh, I vote such-and-such" and it's done. Those who aren't find it to be a much more controversial topic. This leads me to believe that those boys who are c'd generally feel more comfortable with their status, and those who are not feel some need to defend their status. Which implies discomfort and bespeaks a long personal process of acceptance of status, and then a vehement need to validate that acceptance by overwhelming promotion of said status. It's as simple as this: all guys that I've known who are c'd have viewed themselves as the norm. All guys that I've known who aren't have viewed themselves as the exception of the norm (their personal comfort with that arrangement notwithstanding). At least 'round these parts. Oh, and my grandpa wasn't, and then medically needed to be in his 70's (this happens frequently, at least within my locus of experience) and it SUUUUCKED for him.
I'm maintaining my anonymity so I am not lynched. *presses enter then walks away from the computer with hands in pockets, whistling, as if nothing has happened*
I'm late.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't met me, but many on this list of comments have. I also am 100% AGAINST snipping. I am uncut myself.
Additional detail here that you may not want to read follows.
I'm unique--I was GOING to be circumcised but apparently it wasn't "big enough" and so the doctors didn't even make it an issue, and I'm uncut. However, my foreskin is not "full size". It's a different one. (Anyone sensing how coincidental that I was born with some extremely unique sexual appendage, when I've got a unique approach to sex? I'm seeing the humor).
There is a small part of the inside of the foreskin that really doesn't like being touched. The closest thing I can think of is when you get road rash and it's not bleeding, but the skin is almost gone and about at the verge of bleeding. It hurts to stretch it in just the wrong way. As I understand it, a circumcised male is much more sensitive in that area, and has more of that type of skin exposed. (Case in point: circumcised males need lotion if they're going to masturbate. Uncut do not. Maybe I shouldn't have included this. Oh well.)
To be fair, I'll admit that I can't think of any man who is circumcised who wishes he weren't. However, I love my foreskin. I'm glad I have it, and can see it has a purpose. I don't know why anyone would remove it. Just because uncut men have fine sex lives doesn't mean that it's not nicer to have one.
SO! I'll be vote # 73 for keep it.
Um, nice to meetcha, Fob. =P
To anonymous and Toasteroven, then, let me be the first person you know to be unwillingly cut.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to officially announce that I don't intend to talk about this anymore. Perhaps ever again.
Phew.
.
ReplyDeleteI know, I know--it hasn't even been an hour. But a couple things have been bugging me.
First, Absent, I am sorry. I didn't read your first comment on the subject close enough. But since others have brought it up now as well, let me say that I never equated male and female circumcision--I compared them. There are similarities (both involve purposefully damaging genitals) even though, yes, they are in no way equal. I never said they were.
Second, Anonymous, I think the reason we uncirced are so vehement is because we see the foreskin holocaust for what it really is and refuse to stand quietly by while the slaughter continues. It has nothing to do with feeling uncomfortably different. I may have felt that way in junior high (though honestly, I don't remember), but I never then wished my flap off.
Lunkwill is by no means unusual, either. There are entire societies of people like him.
Please, please, let this be my last comment.....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWow! Not to change the subject from the last ~39 blogs, but I wanted to say that I really like Ephraim, too. I thought of it after I 'voted', not remembering that it was even a choice.
ReplyDeleteBut then, is there a nickname for Ephraim? 'Ephraim' sounds kind of formal without a nickname, unless maybe he goes by a middle name - ?
Ethan, which you didn't mention, but would obviously be a prime candidate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I understand why Arwen is off the list, but why not Aragorn?
Of the names you do have down, I'm going for Theodore, so long as he is never, never called Teddy or Ted. It scans so nicely with your last name.
(Timothy does too, but it's always sounded sort of four-year-old to me, and eventually Baby Fob might want to turn five.)
(don't tell Queen Zippergut I said that last thing.)
Ephraim and Enoch are just a little too prophet-in-the-wilderness and Thomas is, let's face it, a banker. Maybe a tax attorney. Not a writer's child, though.
Ruttiger is my second-place vote, because it would be a beast to live up to, but man, if the kid could live up to it . . .
p. s. oh, by the way, no circumcision, duh; I had arguments in mind as I started to read all this, but then Th. sort of covered WAAAYYYYY more than I even had any idea about, specials with the li'l bundles of nerves guys, so . . . yeah. Just leave the little honker alone.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Melyngoch.
Don't snip it, man. Really. Also, in my experience, it seems that men do loose sensitivity and, as an unwillingly-circumsized man's wife, I see that it sucks for him and I wish his folks hadn't. Like so many here have already said, a little extra skin or not it's still gonna look like a penis.
ReplyDelete