Open letter response to Brian J Morris & Mayo Clinic

Mr. Morris,

Your collaboration with fellow circumfetishist Thomas Wiswell in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article has inspired numerous postings, rebuttals and outrage on Facebook.  I’m not angry for the simple reason that I don’t expect any better of either of you.  Though it  does amaze me how two older men have dedicated their lives to either skinning or wanting to fantasize about the perpetual skinning of baby penises.

Having addressed this open letter to only Brian, since I don’t know much about Wiswell other than his obsession with circumcision, I will keep my further remarks directed to him.  I have read your comments on Facebook as well as in articles you regurgitate again and again online.  You call those of us against RIC foreskin worshipers.  This is probably the craziest thing you can call us, since we don’t worship anything. We merely try to tell doctors to put their knives down and leave the defenseless babies alone.

I can’t wrap my mind around why you are so obsessed with infant circumcision, other than you are just creepy and it turns you on.  Because honestly, what do you get out of making sure all men will have ED and calloused penises at your age?  Since surely you suffer from both of these and are bitter.  Is that why? You can’t stand the idea that there are men out there who can enjoy sex more than you can?  There is a psychological disorder for that, you know?  I’ve even referenced it in one of my many articles, but I”m sure you know all about it.

But that’s not why I am writing this letter.  I wanted to let you know why I am an intactivist, since you clearly have no clue why women and mothers like me are fighting against men like you.  I don’t have a foreskin fetish, since I think I’ve only seen two in my whole life: my father’s when I was very young and my 5 year old son’s (I hope that irks you that he is intact, I really do).  If any man has had one since I’ve been sexually active, I don’t recall, and my husband of nine years is cut.  So I can’t say which I would prefer to be with, since I don’t know if I’ve even been with an intact man.  I’ve certainly not inspected all of them, especially when I was younger and less bold.

So my intactivism has nothing to do with my sexual preference.  Not only that, but it’s damn creepy for a woman to want her son to be cut or not based on her own sexual desires.  Why then, did I want him to remain intact?  That’s a good question, and not something that has an easy answer, so I will summarize.

I was raised thinking that all men were circumcised as babies.  I thought the foreskin was a flap that went over the penis and prevented normal function.  I truly thought it was a little snip and believed all the lies that went along with it.  It surprised me the first time someone from another country told me that he couldn’t imagine letting anyone cut off his foreskin.  I couldn’t wrap my mind around that discovery. So not everyone did it? How was that possible?  I can only assume I didn’t know my father was intact during this brainwashing, or I thought that sex was difficult for him and my mother, and I certainly never asked.

I was then linked to an article written by a man who was very unhappy with his circumcision.  He didn’t even know that was the problem until someone told him about restoring his foreskin (weights on his penile shaft skin, forcing it to grow to cover the glans), which was taking him a couple years.  He reported going from not being able to ejaculate during sex, no matter what position he tried, to having renewed sensory pleasure that blew his mind.  I could no longer keep my head in the sands of ignorance and I started doing my own research, and the more I found, the more disgusted I became with myself…and the more disgusted I became with you.  You were always at the forefront of the myths and lies spread about boys remaining intact.  As soon as one of your lies were disproved, you’d publish a new lie.  The cycle appears endless, at least until you finally die, I suppose.  And no, of course that isn’t a threat, but luckily you’re not a young man, and everyone dies of old age.  You are getting a bit long in the tooth, as they say. :)

Fast forward a few years to finding out I was pregnant with a boy.  I knew circumcision was wrong, but I was married to a cut man and didn’t want him to think he didn’t have any say. Suffice to say I wasn’t as researched then as I am now, 6 years later, or I would have flat out told him that it would not happen.  But then I asked him what he thought, and of course his response was he wanted his son to look like him.  I gave him a small bit of info on it, and he said we would ask the pediatrician after our son was born.  Luckily, we got an educated and compassionate doctor who basically told us that “although it cuts down the chances of UTI’s in the first 6 months, there were no other benefits.” He also told us that he didn’t like to do them and that the foreskin was put there for a reason. That was enough for my husband, who responded, “then we won’t do it.”  I was relieved!  Since then, I’ve given him enough information that he finally admits that it’s wrong to do it to any baby, himself included.

So although you have no business knowing any of this information about me and my family, I wanted you to know, so you will know that you are as ignorant about women like me as you are about the BS benefits you spout about RIC.

Shame on you for choosing such a hurtful and horrible agenda as your life pursuit.  If there is a hell, there has to be a special place for those who like to hurt children and babies.

Judith

Circumcision is NOT just a little snip

I saw something on Facebook today that made me shudder and cross my legs…and I’m a woman.  I can only imagine what a man would do when/if he saw it.  Won’t know though, since someone (probably a pro-cutter) reported it and it was yanked off the site.  Here is an enlargement of the report, which shows a small version of the photo:

foreskin

You’re actually lucky you only get to see it small. The larger version (which you can view by clicking on the above photo but do so knowing it might upset you) showed the bloody detail of the inner foreskin a bit too much. It hurts to look at it, even though I wasn’t the defenseless baby that this was sliced, ripped and crushed away from.  The inner foreskin is not skin but a mucous membrane that protects the head of the penis.

You want to know what really bothers me about this and the whole infant circumcision debate?  No one wants to read or hear about monstrosities done to babies.  If the normal Joe or Jane heard about someone torturing a baby or sexually abusing one, he/she would be horrified, right?  That is the normal response to something so heinous.  But you try to tell them that subjecting a baby to circumcision is the same thing, and they look at you as if you are crazy.

Guess what pro-cutters? We aren’t the crazy ones.  YOU ARE!

Equal rights for all?

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

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!

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!

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!

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

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?

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

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’.