Dispatches from Left Field: To Cut or Not To Cut
Image by PictFactory on Flickr
Last week I was downtown, but I missed the throngs of protesters marching between the White House and the Capitol. I’m kind of bummed too, because it would have been an interesting thing to see. According to the Washington Post, these “Intactivists” – around fifty of them – were out in defense of the most controversial part of the male anatomy: the foreskin. Their goal is to convince Congress and the President that a federal ban on male circumcision should be enacted. In fact, two of the group’s members, both twenty-one, are on a hunger strike until they achieve their ends.
According to the Post’s article, the young men are devoted to saving others from their plight. They claim that their circumcisions have caused them to miss out on “entire realms of exquisite feeling.” Instead of experiencing what’s left of their sensation, they’ve decided to sit in front of the Capitol Building until they starve or a ban is enacted. They are certainly committed to their side of the issue.
It’s an issue which I had no idea was so controversial. To hear this group talk, it seems like Congress is asleep at the wheel in letting this barbaric practice continue. But others argue in quite the opposite vein. Male circumcision, some say, is safe, promotes better hygiene, and has no negative impact. In fact, the removal of the foreskin has been practiced since Egyptian times. Yet the pruning of the male genitalia varies widely from region to region today. Across Europe, Asia, and Oceania, circumcision is relatively uncommon. In the Middle East, on the other hand, the World Health Organization reports that it is a nearly universal practice. In other parts of the world, including Northern Africa and the United States, circumcision is fairly common.
While the WHO estimates that 30% of males worldwide are sans foreskin, studies show that some 79% of American males are cut. Rates have dropped from their highs during the 1960s and 70s, but compared with the rest of the western world, are still very high. In the 1970s, the rate of circumcision was 91%, a number which had dropped to 83% by the following decade.
Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics makes the following policy statement regarding neonatal circumcision: “existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.” This statement contrasts with other western medical professional organizations, like the Canadian Pediatric Society, which recommends that “circumcision of newborns should not routinely be performed.”
It is clear that the debate has strong points on both sides. Proponents of circumcision mainly cite better hygiene as the reasoning behind the procedure. In fact, germ theory is probably one of the main reasons that circumcision is so common in the United States. In the early 1900s, circumcision was thought to decrease disease transmission rates. Studies show that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV from penile-vaginal intercourse, as well. Of course, circumcision is not the only way to prevent the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases.
Other proponents of circumcision base their decisions on religious grounds. Neonatal circumcision is almost universal in Judaism and Islam. Jewish families traditionally have their male children circumcised on the eighth day after their birth, a ritual which welcomes infant males into the covenant between God and the Children of Israel. And while circumcision in Islam is not explicitly mandated in the Qur’an, it is considered a sign of belonging to the Islamic community.
But opponents disagree. In addition to the pain and trauma inflicted during infant circumcision, they cite permanent psychological damage. They also claim that circumcision creates a loss of sexual stimulation and can lead to dysfunction in the bedroom. Their arguments also assert that as a method of reducing STD transmission, it’s less effective than other methods, such as condoms.
While there certainly are valid points on both sides of the issue, I don’t really see what all the fuss is about. I know that the intactivists believe that circumcision is barbaric and obsolete, but I honestly can’t relate. I don’t miss my foreskin. I really don’t. I don’t remember having one, I don’t remember having it removed, and so far as I can tell, I turned out all right without one.
I wondered, when I read the Post article, how the hunger-strikers knew they were missing “entire realms of exquisite feeling.” How do they know? They’re clearly used their penises without foreskins and experienced the sensation. What isn’t as clear is whether they had the opportunity to take their wangs out on a test drive with foreskins – my guess is probably not. In that case, how do they know they’re missing out?
The aforementioned article includes a funny exchange between an intactivist and a spectator along Pennsylvania Avenue. In response to a sign about circumcision’s relationship to lessened sensation, he cries “Circumcision increases sensation.” To which the protesters reply: “it causes premature ejaculation.”
Of course, no evidence has been offered to suggest that premature ejaculation is indeed caused by circumcision. After all, if almost 80% of American men are circumcised, I would think that 80% of American males would have problems in that area, and that does not seem to be the case.
At any rate, it seems that the loss of ones foreskin is essentially water under the bridge. I don’t see how it’s traumatic, especially if done when in infancy. When administered by a medical professional, pain relief can be easily administered keeping the potential for psychological damage low. And since male nudity is so rare in American society, children can be quite old before they realize that anything was even removed. In my case, having my wisdom teeth removed was a far more traumatic event in my life than the removal of my foreskin, but having four fewer teeth really isn’t all that relevant either.
Circumcision is neither medically necessary nor harmful to circumcisees. A federal ban would certainly increase the number of foreskins in America, but it might also increase HIV transmission rates. Civil libertarians would charge the federal government with sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and I have to agree. It would probably also violate freedom of religion in many peoples’ eyes. Regardless, though, no matter how long a federal ban is in coming, it won’t give these protesters their foreskins back – although the article does point out that one of the protesters has invented an apparatus which claims to do so.
I find the ruckus over this tiny part of the male body – this little strip of skin – quite outrageous. What it boils down to in my eyes is pure foreskin envy. It seems to me that the feelings of inadequacy that these anti-circumcisers claim probably comes not from the loss of their foreskins but from some other part of their psyche. Their circumcisions, however, offer them a convenient excuse. That’s no reason, however, to trample on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
“Studies show that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV from penile-vaginal intercourse, as well. Of course, circumcision is not the only way to prevent the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases.”
Since when do “less likely” and “prevent” mean the same thing?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the “intactivists” have too much time on their hands and a skewed set of priorities. However, that doesn’t change the fact that circumcision does not prevent HIV.
You are correct Hans.
Poor word choice on my part. I did not intend to insinuate that circumcision prevented the transmission of STDs. That sentence was intended to suggest that there are better ways to reduce transmission, like a condom, which while not always 100% effective does a pretty good job.
I explicitly made this point two paragraphs later, but you are correct that the sentence in question does suggest that circumcision prevents the transmission of STDs. That is not the case. The only sure-fire way to prevent the transmission of STDs is through abstinence – whether you are circumcised or not.
oh man i love a good foreskin talk. as a proud owner of his original foreskin i’d offer some (purely anecdotal, unscientific) evidence that guys with foreskins’ penises are more sensitive. and that would be the way circumcised guys seem to think that you can just grab onto the head of my dick and like, rub it and do things to it. if the foreskin is pulled back and you just whack away at it, it’s going to get raw and sore real quick, even with lube. it can handle a little more someplace warm and soft, like a mouth or ass or vagina (god forbid) but a rough hand? you gotta be gentle with that. this leads me to believe that circumcised guys penises, and my bf gets mad when i say this but i’m just gonna do it, are like, calloused or something. years of exposure to the elements i guess(ie rubbing on the inside of your pants or whatever). i mean, if my foreskin is pulled back in my underwear and the head’s just rubbing up against that cotton, it’s really uncomfortable. also it seems uncut guys precome more, which is great if you ask me.
that said, those guys will, and should apparently, starve to death. is this one of the inactivists?
NSFW BTW, but well worth a watch.
http://www.tlctugger.com/Media/TuggerDemo.mov
oh no. i abhor circumcision & am at the point where i’m not even turned on by a cut dick. foreskin is natural and erotic. i am angry at my mom for having me circumcised when my father wasn’t. i wonder what life would have been like with my beautiful foreskin going back & forth on my dick as i jerked off. god i hate circumcision. all that mutilation that’s practiced routinely in america should be outlawed. the lowering hiv transmission rates argument is rubbish.
Circumcision first became widely practiced among the non-Jewish male population of the US a little over 100 years ago. It was promoted by the health movement that equated masturbation with illness. It was believed that circumcised boys were less likely to masturbate. (Of course, this has proven to be completely false.) I may be misremembering, but I believe circumcision was promoted by Kellogg, he of the cereal fame, as part of his strict health regimen. (He also believed eating a lot of cold cereal kept boys from wanking, too.)
Masturbation didn’t die out, but neither did widespread circumcision in the US. There was a time I was upset that I had been circumcised, since we had no religious reason to do so, and I had foreskin envy. Nowadays, I really don’t give a damn. And the same goes for any potential partners. Whatever they have is what I will happily work with.
“I don’t see how it’s traumatic, especially if done when in infancy. When administered by a medical professional, pain relief can be easily administered keeping the potential for psychological damage low.”
What support do you have for a statement like this? Your opinion about this is meaningless unless you have some evidence to back it up. Circumcision is unnecessary, and that’s reason enough not to do it, whether it is traumatizing or not.
Circumcision is done for aesthetic reasons. It’s the same as cutting the tail and ears off a dog because you like the way it looks without. Would you be so nonchalant if someone had cut the top half of your ears off when you were a baby?
The hunger strike came as a complete surprise to most of the movement. Doesn’t every movement have its extremists? We remember Emily Wilding Davison (who ran in front of the King’s horse at Ascot in 1913) and we now all agree that women should have the vote, but was it really a cause worth dying for? We forget the many suffragists (the “-ette” came later to distinguish the activists) who worked tirelessly but conventionally – and probably more effectively. Those two guys on the hunger strike were talked out of it on the fourth day btw.
I think it’s long overdue that we stopped cutting parts of baby boys’ penises. It’s actually the most sensitive part that gets cut off too. That’s right, the foreskin isn’t just there to protect the glans; the inner foreskin close to the corona is way more sensitive. Even for a circumcised man, the glans isn’t the most sensitive part of the penis. It’s usually the scar line, or the frenulum in the rare cases that was left intact.
You might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.
RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
“After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.”
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision – guidance for doctors
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It’s worth remembering that no-one who wasn’t Muslim or Jewish would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim “will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists.”
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.
News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy’s mother another $500,000.
Circumcision is not universal among any religious group. Commonly practiced, and universal are two very different things.
jewsagainstcircumision.org
jewishcircumcision.org
http://www.quran.org/khatne.htm
Freedom of religion applies to the individual practicing it. It does not extend to the right to cut a non-consenting individual’s body. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that all people have a right to body integrity.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
“I don’t miss my foreskin. I really don’t. I don’t remember having one, I don’t remember having it removed, and so far as I can tell, I turned out all right without one.” People born blind and deaf say something very similar, but that’s no excuse to go blinding or deafening babies. As for not remembering it being done, they sure as hell know at the time. That logic would make drug-rape all right, as long as he wore a condom.
“if almost 80% of American men are circumcised, I would think that 80% of American males would have problems in that area”. She didn’t say it invariably causes premature ejaculation every time, and the evidence is anecdotal. (The only people who did any hands-on :) experimentation in that area were Masters and Johnson who made a point of not studying the foreskin.) But removing 20,000 specialised nerves must cause a reduction in feedback, and hence control.
“When administered by a medical professional, pain relief can be easily administered”. It can be, but good pain relief (three injections two hours before the operation) is too much trouble, and babies get only token pain relief, which wears off in a few hours, while urine in the wound stings for about a week. The pain relief they give is more to placate parents than to protect babies.
“Civil libertarians would charge the federal government with sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong” – on the contrary, civil libertarians should logically stand up for the right of the individual to decide for himself which parts of his own body he wants to keep. There is already a federal ban on the most trivial, sterile and anaesthetised cutting of any part of a minor female’s genitals (never mind what they do in Africa). Equal rights means the same for boys.
“this tiny part of the male body – this little strip of skin” – 15 sq in, 100sq cm, hardly tiny, if it’s allowed to grow to its full size.
“That’s no reason, however, to trample on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.” Parents have no right to make a “medical decision” to cut any other healthy non-renewable part of their son’s body off, and no part at all of their daughter. What’s so special about the foreskin?
This is such a non-issue. First of all, male circumcision in no way compares to female genital cutting, and it is insulting to females to make that comparison. Males can still derive a tremendous amount of pleasure from a circumcised penis. But the entire purpose of female genital mutilation is to take pleasure away from females and to reduce them to mere chattel for men. No one in the US cuts off boys foreskins in order to turn them into chattel. The anti-male-circumcision activists in the US owe the females of Africa a huge apology for having the audacity to compare their situations.
Your foreskin is gone. It’s not the end of your life, nor the end of your sex life. If you have foreskin envy simply date guys who have one. I would be willing to bet if you had a foreskin, the issue of your partner’s circumcision or noncircumcision would be completely irrelevant to you. You only eroticize it because you didn’t grow up with it. It is therefore exotic to you. Wanting to be exotic is not a physical health issue.
The sensitivity issue is no longer a matter of opinion. The foreskin contains 75% of the erogenous nerve endings of the penis. It is comprised of the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis each a unique and purposeful structure. It is not a “strip of skin” as this article suggests.
I am very thankful for my foreskin and believe it is my basic human right to keep it regardless of my age (ie: 8 days/weeks/years/decades). Doctors are afraid to speak out against circumcision because they become targets of religious groups. It’s like speaking about abortion in terms of polarity.
I would warn today’s parents that your son will be able to go online and see what information was available to you. You won’t have the same excuses my parents generation had like “everyone did it”, “they told us it was necessary”. About half of today’s American boys are being cut and it’s still dropping fast. Don’t make a decision your son can’t unmake. If he wants the surgery he can have it. If he wants his foreskin back he’s out of luck.
I may not have a penis, but I am entirely against circumcision. Male or female, it is unnecessary, non-consensual mutilation. It is a human rights violation.
To Hugh7:
There are so many things wrong with your claim that female genital mutilation is trivial.
The way I see it, this issue only arose because women were getting the spotlight, and once again men have to jump in and claim a place on the stage. This is BS. Women’s mutilation is a serious issue. Mutilating their genitalia takes away virtually all their sexual sensitivity. It simply is not so for men. If it were so, I would know it. I love my penis just fine, thank you, and it does what I need it to do, with no decrease in function.
Whenever women’s issues come to the fore, men suddenly get nervous and have to jump in and try to take back the microphone. God forbid men don’t get the spotlight once in awhile. When will men just learn to shut up and let women have their issues without trying to horn in and retake the stage?
Kyle: If you think there’s a fundamental difference between female circumcision and male circumcision, then try convincing the people that cut their daughters. There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself, as well as labiaplasty and breast operations, as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision.
Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. One just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it’s the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy’s foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 22 boys died of circumcision in Eastern Cape Province last year.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don’t even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). “The rape of innocence: One woman’s story of female genital mutilation in the USA.”
Nowadays, it’s illegal even to make an incision on a girl’s genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don’t boys get the same protection?
If people are serious about stopping female circumcision, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don’t (and they get furious if you call it “mutilation”). The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than hypocritical cultural imperialism.
I disagree. And again you prove my point about men trying to grab the spotlight from women. Thanks for backing me up.
you are worng Kyle it was a mother of 3 who started this movement for change to protect children and there are other mothers who are involved a lot of them have seriously damaged children. So thats hardly men jumping on the band wagaon?
Those who work internationally in this area condemn both practices as it would be discriminatory just to protect females.
Its is totally insulting of you to say you cannot compare male and female genital muilation when we have international conferences on both and many of us involved have children whose lives have been ruined by male circumcision.
You need to find out what is going on and you will learn that you are wrong.
Fine. I’m wrong. Am I also wrong not to think of myself as damaged goods?
If the anti-circumcision crowd are really serious about this issue, may I humbly suggest a much more effective solution? Sue your parents. Lobbying congress for a law is not going to go anywhere, and will run a great risk of religious discrimination (and, no, female genital mutilation is NOT religious, it’s cultural).
But if a lot of you guys missing your exotica go ahead and sue your parents, maybe future parents who have no religious motivation will think twice before having their boys circumcised. If you are really serious about this, you will gladly alienate your parents to get your point across.
Frankly, you will never be able to get me to see the equivalence of a surgically removed extraneous piece of skin done on a male in a Western hospital to a barely prepubescent girl getting slices by a butcher knife in a filthy hut in Subsaharan Africa. That you cannot see the difference is telling.
Kyle,
No one is trying to call you “damaged goods”.
Second, suing parents is pointless because most likely, they weren’t informed and were only doing what they thought was right. Doctors are another story. They have known for years that circumcision is harmful and unnecessary, yet few have dared buck the system. Some people have had success suing them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCT6YkDlXnQ
(yes, Mr. Stowell did win his case)
Not all doctors are sheep, though. Dr. Dean Edell is openly for leaving the baby intact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg
and so are these guys
doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
Finally to your last point. No, of course you don’t see the similarities between male and female genital cutting because as Americans, we do have the image that all female cutting is with dirty tools in a dirty hut by people intent on making women chattle. However, this is not often the case. If you look at journal articles studying why women want their daughters cut (yes, women are the biggest proponents of the procedure), the reasons they give are not dissimilar to those given for male circumcision- “aesthetics,” “fitting in,” and “cleanliness/health”.
I am an American woman, fortunately never cut, and I am vehemently against both male and female cutting. The idea that just because one form may be “worse” than another we should only be against the “worst” forms is ridiculous to me. I applaud men who care about womens’ rights, but no more so than any people who care about the rights of children and the helpless.
Nicely stated, Matt. The anti-circs are turning a blind eye to the growing array of medical evidence that makes circumcision even more desirable than ever. Whether it’s a psychological problem on their part or not, the consequence is the same: fewer males with the protective benefits of circumcision. The truth is that it is time to consider mandatory circumcision of all males as a sound public health measure.
http://mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com/
It should be neither mandatory nor forbidden. The whole argument is trivial.
Leila (and Kyle), I would never say female genital cutting is trivial because I am bitterly opposed to all involuntary genital cutting. I said “Never mind what they do in Africa” only to make sure we were comparing apples with apples: minor, anaesthetised, sterile genital cutting in the US – totally illegal for girls, at parents’ whim for boys. That’s the double standard. I am of course opposed to the barbarities in Africa on girls – and on boys: 35-40 boys die in Eastern Cape Province every year from circumcision, and it can’t get much worse for them than that. When you consider the human right to ownership of one’s own body, all are abuses, all must end.
Kyle: “no decrease in function”? What are you comparing it with?
Kyle said: “Sue your parents”
Dude, it’s happened. And I would do it in a heartbeat. But in general the statute of limitations runs out before a male – surounded by similar mutilated males his whole childhood – realizes his profound loss and ties it to his mutilation.
William Stowell filed shortly after reaching majority and was awarded thousands for a circumcision performed perfectly well, based only on the fact that neither he nor his parents gave informed consent to have a valuable body part amputated. Google it.
I wish people would pay attention and stop changing the subject when the FGM comparision is made. EVEN A PIN-PRICK, amputating nothing, is illegal for girls. Just tell me why boys don’t deserve equal protection. Don’t talk about disease because there are studies proving mutilated women get AIDS less frequently, and there is actually NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel’s) that endorses routine circumcision.
The male foreskin is exactly as vital to a male’s full sexual experience as the clitoral hood and inner labia are to a woman’s. If she has the right enjoy natural normal sex, so do I. YOU don’t get to decide what someone else’s lifelong sexual speed limit will be. I want it ALL, not just what you decide is enough.
95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise. Foreskin is normal. People find beauty in what they’re used to. They’re going to have to get over their fixation on mutilated genitals, though.
^^ is this one of the inactivists?
NSFW BTW, but well worth a watch.
TuggerDemo.mov ^^
As a matter of fact, yes. That’s me and I was there in DC. I didn’t blame circumcision for war or deforestation. I simply told people that foreskin feels REALLY good. It’s HIS body and HIS decision.
Guys with botched infant circumcisions commit suicide.
Guys with excesive infant circumcisions develope suicidal depression.
Guys who had their G string nerves severed at infant circumcision develope erectile dysfunction.
Guys whose infant circumcisions were traumatically painfull develope delayed PTSD’s.
Put them all together and you get suicide/mass murdering terrorism.
Infants don’t get sexually transmitted disseases.
You pro infant sexual cutting people are purposefully being misslead by people who want to justify their religious convictions of ritual covenant forced male infant prepuce sacrifice. This is the cornersone foundation block that if it collapses, so does the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beleif systems along with the control it gives to the Cabala Witches over men.
Ladies you realy aught to stop teaching men to hate themselves before it’s too late.
Fred Rhodes:
You’re blaming male circumcision on women? You’re claiming that women are teaching men to hate themselves?
Honestly?
Very useful information for breast reduction. Thanks for sharing this.
Leila, Women are the creators of men. Women can exsist without men, but it’s extinction without women. The sacrifice of the infant masculine prepuce started as punishment by our mothers/creators for ignorance on mans part as to who is realy in charge here. Cabala is the worlds oldest feminist religion and works by the manipulation of words(curses and spells) to get reactions out of men. I realize that not all women are evil witches, but those that are, they influence other weak minded men and women. Of cource, this could all be part of my circumcision induced paranoid delussions.
I’m also claiming female genital mutilation is a side effect from forced infant male prepuce excision.
Hey Matt, just to refer to your final paragraph – you sure managed to simplify a very complex issue. “Foreskin envy”? What are you even talking about? A HUGE number of intactivists are intact males and women. What do you suppose – in your infinite wisdom – pushes them to perservere so strongly? I’m a woman and have been against MGM for a very long time, long before having my son who, thank god, was allowed to benifit from my research and keep his foreskin.
Also, “That’s no reason, however, to trample on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.” I always enjoy this argument from pro-cutters…how simple it muct be for you to completely wave off the rights of these children, the ones whose bodies are being modified, while at the same time try and defend these parents “rights.” If you don’t see the irony there you are clearly missing the editorial skills to be writing on this topic. Oh, and this is NOT a “medical decision” – lets get that straight right away – this is cosmetic. PERIOD.
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your what youre saying.
Nice one. Have a look at my blog. Maybe you could contribute a little to it?
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days