Tag Archives: circumcision

Equal rights for all?

Posted on by
Reply

Have you ever had one of those days where everything pissed you off?  Well, I’m having one of those days.  I can’t even feel good about helping in my intactivst endeavors, because all the other crap keeps getting in the way.

I guess it all boils down to that it’s Genital Integrity Awareness Week, but that’s being overshadowed by the US Congress hearing the pros and cons of same sex marriage.  One of the strongest voices in the intactivist movement was there, and when asked why he was demonstrating about RIC, he said that 99% of the intactivst movement agreed with the LGBT movement.  I have to admit that this offended me.  How dare he speak for the rest of us?  So only 1% of intactivists are against it? Where did that statistic come from?  I can tell you where. He pulled it out of his butt.

I personally don’t want to be tied to a group that I not only don’t agree with or support, but that has absolutely nothing to do with stopping routine infant circumcision.   The LGBT movement cries that they want equal rights, but they already do.  They have the exact same rights that I do.  We all can feel free to marry a member of the opposite sex. They merely want special rights.  They want to rewrite the definition of traditional marriage and destroy the concept of a true family forever. For those of you who want to disagree with me? That’s fine, and it’s your right. Just like it’s my right to voice my opinion here on my own blog.

RIC isn’t just about a person’s rights (or lack thereof) though, but so much more.  It’s about strapping an unwilling victim down and letting him scream in terror and pain as someone with a scalpel skins his penis.  Yes, skins it.  The foreskin amounts to most of a baby’s penis, especially since it is too small for any doctor (or whoever performs this procedure) to safely estimate how much to remove.  No one can know how that penis will grow or how much skin it needs to allow that growth.  And they don’t care.

If the LGBT community wants to use this same argument for equal rights, again, they do have the right to their whole body. They can misuse it as much as they want.  They can poke holes through it, tattoo it, and modify it to their heart’s content, just like the rest of us.  We intactivists merely want to grant baby boys that same right, when they are old enough to decide.  And if that baby boy grows up to be gay, he will still have the same rights to mutilate his own body as every other human does.  He just shouldn’t expect special rights.

Why do I disagree with same sex marriage?  Because it wasn’t so long ago, before the introduction of politically correctness, doctors and psychologists were honest about what homosexuality is…a dysfunction.  My husband studied it when he took anatomy and physiology, and he still knows it’s a dysfunction. In his own words every gay person he ever dealt with had some childhood trauma.  I won’t go into detail, since I would hate to start a virtual riot, but granting the right for anyone to marry anyone else is acknowledging that their dysfunction is acceptable, and that is a dangerous road to travel.  It can and will lead to worse things.  Let them have their civil unions, living wills and power’s of attorney, which gives them just about the same things married couples have.  And believe me, married people do not get tax breaks.  If I had filed separately this year, our total refund would have been higher! So stop using that as another red herring.

Let them do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, but I fear living in a society where it’s allowed to be made public and exposed to not only me, but also my son.  That would be the beginning of the end of our way of life.  And shit trickles downhill!  Everyone will suffer for it.

The bottom line is that I can no longer associate with a movement who thinks that we should also support same sex marriage. So I will no longer call myself an intactivist or associate with those who do.  This is tragic and sad, since I will forever oppose routine infant circumcision and those who support it.

 

 

My email response to Douglas S. Diekema, MD, Circumcision Taskforce

Posted on by
1

For anyone following the AAP’s new stance on infant circumcision and the rest of the world’s doctors’ critique of it, one of the taskforce members, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, responded, seemingly on his own, with his own twisted version of events.  You can read that here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2013-0081.full.pdf

This response so thoroughly sickened me that I had to write him, and here is the email I sent this morning to the address mentioned at the above link:

To diek@u.washington.edu
Subject culturally biased
Date Tue, Mar 26, 2013 07:23 AM
Mr. Diekema,

Yes, I deliberately left off the doctor in your title, since I only address people I respect as such. I just wanted to express my disgust at your ridiculous response to those many doctors from around the world that basically gave you and the rest of the circumcision taskforce a virtual slap across the face. The lot of you needed to be put in your place after changing your stance in August of last year. And for you to respond
that just because parents are starting to get educated and leaving their sons intact means YOU have reason to be unbiased? Well, that is just a load of…BS to put it nicely. Do not use the new statistics to fuel your perverted and/or greedy desire to mutilate newborn male genitals.

You should have left it at “let the parents decide”, but to go on and use lies
and manipulated data to back your agenda is beyond disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. You and the rest of the taskforce need to rethink why you want to push this barbaric procedure on the innocent. Is it only for the money, or can you not deal with the idea of future men having something that you never had the chance to keep? I was able to protect my son from men like you, and it is my hope that eventually all sons will be
afforded the same protection…and respect.

I sincerely hope that someday soon, you and the rest of that taskforce of yours will follow along the same path as other circumcision proponents such as Vernon G. Quaintance. I look forward to that day with a big smile on my face.

Judith

If he responds, I will post an update, but I strongly encourage everyone to also email their outrage at this man for continuing to not only promote RIC but continuing to lie about its benefits as well as how being intact is more dangerous. Just by doing a simple search, it is easy to discover why the majority of this planet does not perform this unnecessary and risky procedure on their infants.  Again, SHAME on your Douglas Diekema and the rest of the circpervs on the AAP circumcision taskforce!

Pro-choice means you support a person’s choice!

Posted on by
Reply

Ok, get ready for a vent, because here comes a big one.   A few days ago I friended a fellow intactivist on Facebook to help her out with a debate over a photo she posted that said, “Pro choice does not mean pro abortion”.  This inspired the pro-life people to attack her, so I thought I’d help her out, since I’m pro-choice.  I’m also anti-circ, since I AM pro-choice, meaning I support a person to make their own personal choice about their own body.  That means a woman has the right to choose abortion, even though I might not agree with that choice. It should still be her choice to make.  Just like I support pro-choice with circumcision, meaning that if a male wants a circumcision, that is HIS choice, not his parents’.

Pro-choice also goes with breast feeding. If a woman wants to use her breasts to feed her children, that is her choice.  The same if she chooses not to. So how can someone who claims to be pro-choice with a woman as far as aborting a life inside her, but she isn’t pro-choice if that same woman won’t even try to breast feed?

I agreed with this silly bimbo on two of these three things, but since I dared disagree with her on her page about condemning women who either gave up breastfeeding or didn’t want to try, she not only unfriended me immediately, she sent me a nasty message and blocked me.  Talk about an extremist.  This woman is on the nutter side of scary.

OK, end vent!

 

Foreskin is NOT gross!

Posted on by
3

I haven’t written in awhile about this, but I’m feeling a bit disgusted, and the best way to vent is to write about it.  I am sick to death of hearing from ignorant people how gross it is to not be circumcised.  I still don’t talk to that bimbo ex-friend of mine who said that having foreskin is ugly and gross.  Anyone who would say that has no idea what a foreskin is or how it works.  Since I bathe/shower, change and help him use the potty, I see my son’s penis every day. Not once in the four years of his life have I ever thought it was gross or funny looking, and definitely not ugly.  Since I see it more often than my husband’s penis, I have to say that it’s startling to see my husband’s.  Why?  Because I shouldn’t be able to see his glans while he pees or showers.  That should only come out if we were having sex.  No one but the guy I’m having sex with ever gets to see what’s between my legs, so why should it be different for a man? It shouldn’t be.  My son is four years old, and I have never seen his glans (head of the penis).  I probably won’t unless he becomes retractable while I’m still caring for him, which is possible, but I’m not worried about it. Because like I said, only the person you’re having sex with should see your sexual organ.  So that privilege is reserved for someone my son won’t meet for many years.

Someday (in the distant future I hope) there will be some lucky gal who will excite my son and see his glans for the first time.  It is also my hope that she won’t be like the shallow bimbos I encounter on Facebook who think his foreskin is a turn off.  If she is, I can only hope that I have instilled enough confidence in him to kick her to the curb. After all there will be plenty of smarter women out there who will appreciate his body the way he was born…the way nature intended him to be.

There was a post on Facebook the other day, asking if we thought a certain guy was sexy, would it make him less sexy to find out he was intact.  Naturally this is a stupid question, and I was afraid to read the responses and come across a bimbo who said yes.  But can you imagine thinking what a hottie Hugh Jackman is and then going, “Oh gross, he isn’t circumcised?”  Or “That Colin Ferrell used to be sexy until I found out he’s got a foreskin!” Really?  Because I can’t visualize any hot blooded woman kicking either of those men out of their beds.

Foreskin is NOT a flap of skin that needs to be removed.  It is a layer of skin (yes SKIN, the stuff that covers our entire bodies) that is highly innervated and sensitive and helps protect  the penis and aid it during sex.  Like the rest of our bodies, it must be cleaned daily, especially before sex.  Is that really so difficult?  To clean yourself before sex?  Shouldn’t a woman do the same? Heck yeah!

For those of you who say you have done educated research but still decided to mutilate your baby boy, that is a blatant lie.  There is no way you did valid research or watched a circ video or read the long term effects or risks and still decided to do it.  You probably read the pro-cutting propaganda on the AAP website, which is run by a bunch of men who are financially and emotionally vested in keeping this barbaric ritual in practice.  Or you visited medicirc dot org or circinfo dot net and read their lies and exaggerations.  Nothing that any of these sites say make it OK to circumcise an infant, who can do nothing but scream while the most sensitive part of their body is sliced into.

It all boils down to one simple thing.  Even if there are minor benefits to circumcise, they are all rare things that circumcision will POSSIBLY PREVENT.  It won’t totally eliminate it of course, even if the benefit truly exists. But for those of you who refuse to believe that circumcision does nothing but harm the child as well as the man he grows to become, let’s look at what you think it does, shall we?

1. Reduces UTI’s.  Not true, but let’s assume it does.  Little girls get more UTI’s than cut little boys.  Should we perform surgery on them too? Or just give both sexes antibiotics?

2. Reduces penile cancer. Not true and even the American Cancer society has now admitted that on their site.  But let’s assume it does.  Removing the foreskin would only reduce the chance, not eliminate it.  So should we remove breast tissue from little girls to prevent them from getting breast cancer, which is more common in males than penile cancer?  Of course not.  Should we perform any other surgery as a means to prevent something?  Like removing a baby’s appendix so they won’t need to get an appendectomy?  Or removing a baby’s tonsils, so they wont’ need them removed when they are older?  Removing any organ will prevent it from going bad later in life, but that doesn’t make it right…unless it’s medically necessary.  Removing an infant’s foreskin is RARELY, if ever, medically necessary.

3. Reduces STD’s and AIDS.  Not true, but let’s say it is.  Even those biased African studies showed that the men who were cut were given condoms and educated on safe sex.  They were told to always use condoms. The intact men were not given condoms or education, and they were having risky sex with people who had HIV. So chances were good they would get HIV.  So was it really the circumcisions that reduced the HIV, or was it the guys wearing condoms?  Even the people pushing for the circumcisions are telling the men getting cut that they still need to wear condoms. So why cut them to begin with?  Just tell them that they can keep their foreskins if they always use condoms, since they will have to use them anyway.

4. It’s my religious belief.  No it’s not, but let’s say it is your belief that you must force your religion on your child.  Shouldn’t he be able to wait until he’s old enough to make his own decision about which religion or God he wants to worship?  Shouldn’t it be HIS sacrifice/covenant to make?  Your right to practice your own religion ends where another person’s body begins. He has that same right to practice his own religion.

5. He should look like his father.  No, he shouldn’t. No two penises look alike.  Are you going to glue hair on your baby son’s penis or stretch it to make it the same size?  If his father has tattoos, will you tattoo your son?  If they have different eye color, will you put contacts on your baby? Or dye his hair to match?  Of course not.

Well, hopefully I’ve made a few valid points and made someone rethink their own ignorance.  But it will always amaze me that someone must be convinced not to do unnecessary surgery on their infant, instead of the other way around.  If anyone created circumcision today, they would be thrown in jail.  Anyone who practices it should be.

Abortion and circumcision are not the same thing, folks!

Posted on by
Reply

I now have my tenth lame excuse for why people choose to circumcise their sons.

10 ) I’m pro-life, not pro-choice.

Ok, so maybe I’m exaggerating slightly here, since that wasn’t the exact reason given, but that is what it boils down to. Whenever a group of people discuss infant circumcision, there is always at least one lemming who asks the dreaded question. “Are you against abortion?” If you reply that the two don’t have anything to do with each other, this person will get into a fight with you about it. Not only does this completely change the topic of the debate, you can’t win no matter what answer you give. If you say you’re pro-life, you might take the wind out of their sail, but they will still fight you on the circumcision topic, and if you say you’re pro-choice, you’re now a hypocrite because you would “kill” a baby but think having their penises mutilated is wrong. I actually don’t even like to answer the abortion question, since what a woman chooses to do with and to her body isn’t anyone else’s business, and I certainly won’t get in a fight with her about it, BUT once that child is born and no longer a part of her body, then the gloves come off. That child now has rights that should not be infringed upon. The problem with circumcision is that someone wants to do something awful to someone else’s body without his permission. Why is it different if we changed the he to a she? Can you imagine the outrage of that statement if I had actually said, the problem with circumcision is that someone wants to do something awful to someone else’s body without her permission?

If a person calls someone a hypocrite because she/he is pro-choice but is anti-circumcision, then how is it not hypocritical to be pro-life but think it’s perfectly OK to torture a new born baby? That baby has the rights until he is born, and then he loses them when it comes to bodily integrity? How does that make sense? That person is a hypocrite. So the next time any of you get on a high horse and call someone a hypocrite because they believe a woman has the right to her own body, just remember you are a hypocrite because you feel that babies have rights but only until they are born.

Here is another great example of how anyone who thinks they are pro-life or pro-choice is a hypocrite if they are pro-circumcision: http://www.holisticmomma.com/2011/12/11/abortion-and-circumcision/

Bullying, suicide and circumcision

Posted on by
4

I unwittingly came across another lame excuse new parents use for circumcising their baby boys. Unfortunately, this one came from someone I actually know IRL. Suffice to say we are no longer friends.

9) With all the bullying in high school and teenage suicides running rampant, I refuse to paint a bulls-eye on my son’s forehead.

It’s amazing how this kind of thing can escalate. I innocently posted a few links on her FB wall a few days ago, merely telling her that I didn’t know what she had decided but that she shouldn’t think it had to be done, and that maybe the links would help. That was it. She either hid or deleted the links, since they were off her page a few hours later, but she didn’t say anything to me. I didn’t post anything else on her wall, and I thought it was over with. Today, she posted some nasty comment about how she was amazed how people could be so blind about real issues with our society. I didn’t know if she meant me, so I vaguely responded, “Yeah, and it’s worse when people turn a blind eye to issues that are easily avoided.” After all, I didn’t want to rock the boat if she was talking about something else. Thing is, she was talking about me, and immediately responded with #9 above.

I was taken aback, but before I could even respond, one of her other friends jumped in and commented how this yet to be born baby boy wouldn’t have to worry about killing himself when he was 15 or being a 40 year old virgin or looking on youtube for a video on how to give himself a circumcision. My blood started to heat at this point, and I hadn’t said anything about circumcision yet (other than the two links I posted a few days ago). Apparently, these two very ignorant girls (barely out of high school) must have been talking about my links and were stewing about it over the last few days. I responded that at least if a teenager decided he wanted a circumcision, it was his choice since his parents didn’t take that choice away from me. At this point I was called a “damn liberal”. The mom to be then posted a very long comment that I stopped reading less than half way through, but it basically said she thought it was gross not to do it, and that she thought it was ugly if it wasn’t done, and that with all the bullying in school, he would be picked on, and that it happened at her school, blah blah blah. I told her that fewer parents were cutting their boys now, so that it was entirely possible that her son would be picked on because she cut him, and I reminded her that she had met my intact son, and did she really think he had a bulls-eye on his forehead. Does she honestly think her son will be spared bullying and/or suicide if she circumcises him? If she had done research, she would find the many boys out there who contemplate suicide because they were circumcised. It just boggles the mind what people come up with to justify this horrible abuse to their baby boys.

Anyway, this nonsense went back and forth until the other gal jumped in and told me it was one thing to have an opinion but another to force my view down someone’s throat, which I never did. I told both of them that I would never bring it up to either of them again, especially the pregnant one, since it would be too upsetting to know that she was so ignorant and refused to do the research. I then unfriended both of them and will never speak to either again.

What did I learn from this? That I will keep my intactivism online with ignorant people I do not know. It is a whole other beast when dealing with people you know and consider friends. Because I can never be friends with either of those gals again. How could I, when they think my son is gross and ugly?

What’s your reason for supporting infant circumcision?

Posted on by
Reply

The hardest thing about being an intactivist is having to listen to the lame excuses and reasons people come up with for why they support circumcising their baby boys. The following are not in order of importance or relevance, merely written in the order I remembered them:

1) I might as well do it when he’s a baby, since it will have to be done eventually.

Of course the first response to hearing this one is “What? Why? Where did you get that lame idea from?” Yes, I have actually heard this reason. It seems that some people truly think that if they don’t circumcise their baby that something will go wrong later on, forcing them to subject their son to it later. This woman said that all her nephews had to be circumcised between 3 and 5 years of age due to problems. When I mentioned that the reason was they were probably all forcibly retracted, the response was, “Well, of course, because the doctor told my sister that she had to practice pulling it back every day to loosen it.” What amazes me the most about this is that neither she nor her sister put 2 and 2 together and realized the foreskin retractions were causing the “medically needed” circumcisions. Not that they actually were medically needed though, since there are non-surgical ways of dealing with torn foreskins or foreskins that are too tight, but that takes talking to a foreskin friendly doctor or doing research. And I have come to the conclusion that people who support infant circumcision are allergic to doing research. They seem to believe whatever BS their doctor feeds them and don’t require second opinions. No matter what a doctor tells you about retracting a boy’s foreskin, if they tell you to do it they are all WRONG. Only the boy himself should be the one to retract, and only when it has detached from the head of his penis (which can take until adolescence)!!

2) He’ll get more UTI’s if I leave him intact.

This myth got started when a guy named Wiswell performed a study and published his findings that circumcised boys were 10 times less likely to get a UTI than an intact boy. Of course he didn’t clarify there was actually only a 1% difference between the two groups. Meaning that 100 boys would need to be circumcised to prevent just one boy from getting a UTI. That is also ignoring the fact that little girls get far more UTI’s than intact little boys, and we don’t circumcise them to prevent infection. And referring back to my response to #1, forced retractions cause most if not all of the infections that lead to UTI’s. The foreskin actually protects the penis from infection, so taking away UTI’s caused by forced retractions would most likely shift the totals so that cut boys got more infections than intact.

3) There will be less chance of my son getting HIV and other STI’s when he’s older, if I cut him as an infant.

First, let’s set aside the very creepy notion that something needs to be done to an infant to prevent him from getting sexually transmitted diseases. After all, no baby will get an STD. Only sexually active adults/teenagers get those. If you’re so worried about your son not being careful of who he sleeps with or how many people he sleeps with when he’s older, than maybe you can discuss circumcision with him when he can decide for himself. After all it’s his body, not yours.

Second, and most important, it has not been proven that circumcision protects anyone from getting an STD. Those African studies were funded by circumcision proponents whose bottom line was going to be in their favor, no matter the outcome. They manipulated data, stopped the studies early, and left out necessary facts in order to come up with that much hyped 60% decrease.

4) His father is cut, so he should be too.

If his father had a missing arm, would you amputate your son’s arm? If he has tattoos and other modifications, will you do the same to your son? Of course not, so why change the one thing that neither of them will ever compare?

5) His father has a penis, so I’m leaving the choice to him.

If the father was circumcised as an infant, he has no idea what he is missing. And it has now been shown that infant circumcision permanently alters (damages) the brain. So while your son (and his father) won’t actually remember his genitals being sliced off, his body and brain will always remember it. This one event that happens so soon after a baby is born can make a man violent, or it can totally shut off his emotions. He can feel resentment toward all women and might even become a rapist. Cut men cannot be objective about circumcision, so the fact they have a penis is no reason to leave this decision to them. No, not all men have these issues, but they COULD! You don’t want your son to be one of those affected, right?

6) It’s best to circumcise a baby, when he is too young to feel the pain.

The myth that babies don’t feel pain was discounted ages ago, so it’s amazing people still use this reason. The fact that it’s so painful is why many of the awful things mentioned in #5 happen. Torture will forever change the person it’s done to, and that is what strapping a baby’s arms and legs to a restraint and then ripping, tearing, crushing and slicing half the skin from his penis is. It’s torture, and it’s usually done without any type of pain relief. Anesthesia cannot safely be used on such a small baby, and the numbing agent they use is not given enough time to take affect before they start. So for those of you who think it’s just a little snip that is over in a minute, most circumcisions can take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes, and the baby is in constant pain the entire time. That is unless he goes into shock to protect himself. At least if a man decides to circumcise himself, he is given anesthesia and then strong medication to deal with any pain afterwards. Babies pee and poo in their diapers, which gets into the wound the entire time they healing, and they can’t be given paid meds.

7) Intact is gross. Circumcised is just so much nicer looking and cleaner.

Over 70% of the world’s population of men are intact, and they and their women manage just fine. Ever wonder why women seem to prefer Latin and European lovers? It’s because they are intact, so they are better in bed. The foreskin not only protects the penis, it also enhances the sexual pleasure for both the man and the woman he has sex with. Women in the US are basically brainwashed to think that cut looks better, but it’s just what we have been conditioned to accept. Those who have had lovers of both cut and intact, prefer intact. As far as it being gross? Smegma is a natural lubricant excreted from the genitals of both men and women. The best way to keep intact genitals clean is by washing them daily. Women can stink just as bad as men if they don’t bathe. Intact men are no exception. Retracting the foreskin is extremely fast and easy, and men don’t have any problems doing so to clean their bodies.

8 ) Circumcision is healthy and safe.

Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, of baby boys who have died from their circumcisions (most of which are not reported). Their deaths might be listed as cardiac arrest, blood loss, infection, etc., but they all would not have died without the unnecessary surgery that was done on them. It is a risky, painful, unnecessary and totally cosmetic surgery that is performed on non-consenting babies that CAN cause their deaths. Don’t believe the hype created by the circumcision fanatics who want the whole world cut. They minimize the risks, which is why it is so hard for us intactivists to convince badly informed parents that circumcision is nothing more than medically accepted child abuse.

I think that is all I can stomach for now, though that is not all the reasons I have heard. If I feel up to it later, I will tackle the rest another time. Hopefully this will help open some eyes and get people to re-evaluate their reasons for doing this injustice to their innocent baby boys.

Activists support World Health Organization recommendations only when it suits them

Posted on by
2

As a mother of an intact three year old, I have tried to do what is best for him. I breastfed him for the first 4 months of his life. I learned more about circumcision and realized how horrible it was, so I kept him intact. It actually wasn’t my right to mutilate his penis in the first place, since it is his body and his choice. We did the whole co-sleeping thing for the first 4 months as well as letting him sleep with us later on when he wanted to. I didn’t do all the attachment parenting stuff, but I did what I was able to do. Parenting isn’t easy, and kids don’t come with instructions.

I don’t think I visited the WHO’s website even once during all my research while I was pregnant and during the years that have followed my son’s birth. The site is basically comprised of just the opinions of a few people, and who is to say that any of it is backed by fact or science? Why do I bring this up? It just hit me today that activists like to point out recommendations made by the WHO, but they discount them when they don’t agree with them.

To give an example I will reference two hot topics: circumcision and breastfeeding. While I am only passionate about fighting circumcision, I have unfortunately gotten involved in a few heated debates on breastfeeding. Not because I don’t agree with it, because I do, but because there are activists who will attack everyone who doesn’t agree with their extremist views on the subject. This even includes other breastfeeding mothers. Apparently, the WHO recommends breastfeeding until the child is at least 2 years old or longer. Because they put the “longer” in there, extremists can interpret that for as long as they want, even up to 6 years old. When I researched breastfeeding, I found the more doable goal of 6 months, since that is the most important for the baby’s brain development and growth, and even the WHO agrees with that time frame. But again, who came up with that 2 years? As far as I know it could be a group of extremist breast feeders who want all women to be like them. Yes, there are many studies on the subject, but who is to know if the same people did all of them?

I know that from fighting against the atrocity that is infant male circumcision, the proponents yell pretty loud and have many connections. After all, their biased and bogus findings are on the WHO’s recommendation for circumcision. Anyone who has researched those studies and read the results and looked at the graphs knows that 60% decline in HIV due to circumcision is total manipulated hype, but there it is in black and white on a supposedly reputable organization’s website. So again I ask you, if they can post rubbish to recommend circumcision, how does anyone know they aren’t posting rubbish to recommend breast feeding until the child is a toddler or older?

On top of that it is hypocritical for an activist fighting against circumcision and for breastfeeding to use the WHO recommendation for one and discount the other. If you use a site to back your argument, you can’t ignore that site when it also posts rubbish. As far as I’m concerned, if a site will post rubbish to back something as horrid as mutilating genitals, then nothing they recommend means a damn thing. Just sayin’.

Stupidity abounds in the pro-circumcision camp

Posted on by
2

It’s that time again for another venting post. I used to try to convince myself that the people who were for circumcision were merely ignorant, and that all it would take would be a civilized conversation and directing them to a few good links and a video of the procedure. First, it is hard (if not impossible) to have a civilized conversation with someone who likes to mutilate baby boys, and second, it seems that it isn’t merely ignorance fueling that desire to maim. It is pure unadulterated stupidity. I fell in the ignorant camp about 5 years ago, when someone convinced me to do a bit of research on circumcision. I had believed it was just a useless flap of skin that got in the way and needed to be removed. I believed that the babies didn’t feel anything, so it was better to get it over with then. If those were the reasons everyone agreed with circumcision, it would be very easy to persuade them otherwise. Just watching a video of it lets you know it’s not just a flap of skin. Visiting a site like circumstitions.com, intactamerica.org or norcirc.org and reading up on what the foreskin is and does should also be enough for anyone who doesn’t want to watch a video (though no parent who is unable to watch the procedure should be able to subject his/her son to it). But it isn’t that easy, so the reasons must run deeper than mere ignorance.

There are girls out there who blatantly say they would never give an intact guy a blow job. No one can really pay much attention to stupid comments like that though, since many girls might never give a cut guy a blow job. That isn’t something that a lot of women will want to do unless/until they meet the guy they fall in love with. Then you pretty much want to do almost anything to make him happy. Though would those girls be more relieved when they learn that sex is better with intact, and that those men are less likely to even want a blow job because they don’t need that extra pressure? Cut men need it, since they enjoy it far more than actual sex. After all, the mouth is tighter than the vagina, so their poor mutilated desensitized penises can feel more in a mouth. That might also explain why more cut men do anal sex (other than the gay men, of course, who have no choice but to use oral or anal) than their intact counterparts. An intact penis is designed to have sex with a woman’s vagina. They are two pieces of a puzzle that give both partners more pleasure together than apart.

There are other people who insist that male circumcision cannot be compared to female genital cutting, but there are many similarities. Yes, the extreme case of FGM is far worse than the standard circumcision, but they are very similar when dealing with a botched circumcision, especially those that lead to amputated penises or death. I would think death caused by male circumcision is far worse than any type of FGM that leaves the woman alive. You can disagree with that if you wish, but life should always be valued more than death.

Anyway, I have already covered FGM vs MGM in another post, so I won’t dwell on it here, but it does bring me to another example of stupidity that I have encountered. There are some people (hopefully only a few this stupid) who don’t think that a baby losing his penis in a botched circumcision is considered amputation. They don’t agree that the foreskin is an organ that can be amputated. Worse than that, they don’t agree that the penis is an appendage that can be amputated. So if a boy loses his penis, they don’t think it was amputated. I don’t know what word they would use to call the removal of the penis, but what does it really matter when you’re dealing with this level of stupidity? I’m certainly at a loss and cannot continue any type of conversation once I realize I’m talking to someone this stupid. See that is the difference between ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is merely lacking education. Once informed, that person is no longer ignorant. You can’t fix stupid, though. You can only hope that person never breeds.

Let’s talk about sex!

Posted on by
4

So far I have discussed in detail how circumcision can affect a newborn baby boy as well as the psychological implications on them when they grow into men. I have avoided discussing the sexual aspects and ramifications of circumcision but would like to touch briefly on that subject now. As I have said in previous posts, I don’t know if I’ve had sex with an intact man. All I know is that my husband is circumcised, so that is my most recent experience. The man from my past who may or may not be cut was over 20 years ago, so that’s a distant but pleasant memory.

While I will not be explicit and give every detail of my personal sexual experience, I will give examples of stories I have read mixed in with my own anecdotes. So be forewarned that this should not be read with children present.

Since circumcised penises have been normal and expected throughout my sexual history, it never occurred to me that I was missing out on something…but I was and probably will for the rest of my life with a cut man. Is it all bad? No, of course not. My husband and I have had some really good sex, some much better than others. The point is that it would be much better had he been left intact. Sex was definitely better in the beginning of our relationship than it has been the last year or so. Of course his age and loss of sensitivity could have a lot to do with that. Is it so strange that while the USA has one of the highest circumcised rates in the world, we also have the highest percentage of men on Viagra?

It was only a few years ago that I realized that women could have internal orgasms. Of course they are nearly unheard of with cut men, but apparently are quite common with intact men. The gliding action of the foreskin rubs against just the right spots and takes women to their peak faster and more often. Ever heard of multiple orgasms? If you’ve only been with cut men, you’ve probably never experienced one without the help of a vibrator.

Circumcised men can only feel pleasure in and around the head of their penis. Having lost half their penile skin and all those enriched pleasure nerves, they can only feel pleasure at the scar, the glans and what is left of their frenulum. Since the tightest area of a woman’s vagina is within the first two inches, many cut men furiously pump close to the surface to get that necessary friction. What they don’t seem to realize is that this does next to nothing for us women, and it can hurt, especially if they pull out too far and clumsily try to ram back inside. Talk about killing the mood.

Many women claim it’s more intimate making love to an intact man, since his full body can make contact with the women he is having sex with. Cut men pull back so they can get a good grip and position for their lunge and parry, and this causes a separation and distance between the lovers. Intact men can take their time, build up a rhythm and drive their women crazy with desire. Cut men are like a locomotive, building up steam, pumping faster and faster until all they can think of is to keep up just the right pressure to get them to climax. They can’t help it though, since they were robbed of the important part (foreskin) of their penis that allows them to pace themselves and enjoy the sex itself almost as much as the climax, AND to make sure the woman enjoys it too.

Men don’t realize how many times women are left feeling cheated after sex. They finish before the women reach their peak. Cut men can’t help that though, since they don’t have their foreskin, which allows them to slow down when they need to without stopping the pleasure, allowing their women to catch up and even pass them by. Cut men either have trouble reaching climax or get there too soon. If they have enough experience, they might be better at holding off on their pleasure until she has hers, but is it experience or loss of sensitivity?

I think there is a fine line between the two for circumcised men. The older a cut man gets, the more keratanization has occurred to his penis. This means that the remaining pleasure nerves he has are becoming tougher as he ages. This means that it takes even more pressure and friction for him to reach climax. For some men it means they cannot orgasm no matter how hard they try. Is it no surprise why cut men prefer oral sex to intercourse? It appears from my research that intact men are more likely to prefer the opposite, since they do not require the extra oral pressure to achieve climax.

So while I’m normally telling mothers not to circumcise their babies because it alters their brains forever and/or could make them bitter or violent men, this goes out to all you women who post on twitter that you want nothing to do with an intact man. For every man you reject because he is whole, you are cheating yourself. Not only could he be Mr. Right, he probably would treat you better than a man who may or may not have deep seated resentments of all women. Believe me, cut men can stink too if they don’t shower before sex. If you’re so worried about having sex with an intact man, take a shower before hand. I’m sure he won’t mind you washing his willy! And believe it or not, the skin on his penis can be just as clean as the skin on his lips. Do you make your men brush their teeth and gargle before you kiss them? Then why make them jump through hoops before sex? If you’re going to judge them for what’s in their shorts, it’s doubtful you know them that well, so use a condom. That way it doesn’t matter how clean it is, and intact men are more likely to wear them. Cut men don’t like to use condoms, since it cuts down on what they can feel. Think about that one the next time you turn down a cute guy.