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!

 

All extremists scare me, so where do I draw the line?

At some point in every activist’s life, he/she must decide if it’s worth continuing to support their cause.  The only thing I’ve ever felt strong enough about supporting is intactivism, which is someone who is against routine infant circumcision (RIC).  The only place I fight for this cause is on facebook and twitter, though I hardly ever use twitter anymore.  The circumfetishists on there became too much for me to handle, so I had to give it a break.  Well, now I’m about ready to give facebook a break too.  Why?  Because I have learned the hard way that just because you agree with a big group of people on one cause doesn’t mean you agree on everything.  I have also come to the conclusion that when someone takes anything to an extreme, they have more than just a few loose screws in their head.  I have never considered myself an extreme intactivist.  I don’t attend public demonstrations or pester people in hospitals or the like.  I merely try to help convince ignorant people that what they think they know about circumcision is wrong.  That alone is enough to be called crazy or a hate monger along with many other vicious names.  People don’t want to be told that they’re brainwashed, even if admitting it might save future generations of men and their relationships.

I won’t go into detail on why RIC is wrong, since I’ve detailed it plenty on this site and don’t feel the need to beat that dead horse.  But when fighting intactivism means I have to deal with ignorant people who support their own extremist causes, I should probably back away.  I will give a few examples of what I mean, since two major ones come up quite often, and a new one just came to light today.

First let’s start with the intactivist who unfriended me on facebook last night.  She posted a photo of a mostly naked woman who was heavily tattooed.  I find that very unattractive and nothing anyone says will ever convince me that it’s anything but ugly.  Though it is HER body, so it’s her right to mess it up as much as she wants. It’s also my right to not look at her ugly body, which could actually be quite beautiful in it’s normal and natural state. After all, I stand with other intactivists about leaving babies whole as they were born, no alteration needed.  If they choose later on to mess it up, while that’s sad, it is THIER choice.

But the thing about the photo that made me comment instead of hiding it, so I wouldn’t have to look at it further, was an asinine comment across the side of it that basically said that if tattoing was fully understood it was actually a religious act that made the person closer to God and more beautiful and whole.  Gag worthy in my opinion, since that is exactly what pro-cutters say about circumcision. So I posted “Sounds a lot like an argument for infant circumcision.”  Well, the chick got offended and told me to remove myself from her page. This surprised me for several reasons. First, the fool could have unfriended me her lazy self. Second, I was right, but she couldn’t acknowledge that, since she is an extremist tattooer, and lastly, she is the one who initially requested the friendship since she felt we had something in common: intactivism.  I have had to unfriend several intactivists over the last year, all for differing levels of extremist behaviors that I couldn’t stomach.

I like to think of myself as moderately open minded about what people do, but I will never accept any form of extremist activism.  Since I started with the tattoo, I will continue with that.  I don’t have any tattoos.  I personally don’t really like the thought of letting someone with a sharp needle and ink permanently mar my skin, but I would never hold it against someone if they did it.  A few here or there?  Whatever!  But if that person takes it to an extreme and has tattoos all the way up their arms and neck and chest and/or back?  I doubt I could look at them without curling my lip, because that person has some type of mental problem that they are trying to fill with tattoos.

Breastfeeding is another hot button topic, and another reason I have unfriended FB friends, and I’m sure I’ve lost a few for the same reason.  I try not to be vocal on FB by anything other than intactivism, but every once in awhile I can’t avoid it.  The first thing that will set me off is when someone says, “you can’t support breastfeeding and then say but. It’s all or nothing”  Um, yes you can, and no it’s not.  I support breastfeeding, and I nursed my son for as long as I could, but (yes, a very big BUT), no one has the right to think that just because they have milk in their tits that they can make others around them miserable.  Many people don’t like seeing it in public, but extremist breastfeeders don’t care.  They feel that if you don’t want to see it, then there is something wrong with you. They refuse to acknowledge that the breast is sexual. They are only there for a baby.  That’s another thing that will set me off.  If that is true, why do we have them most of our lives? If they are only for a baby, shouldn’t they only form when we have a baby and then go away afterwards?  If you do the math and breastfeed two children for a total of 8 years, and you die at the age of 80, that’s only 10% of your life that you used them for their “only”:purpose, and that is an extreme. Most women might only nurse for 6 months, so that wouldn’t even be 1% of their life. So I guess you should slap away your husband any time he wants to play with them or suck on them during sex?  Really?

Extremist breastfeeders don’t even care if other nursing mothers don’t like public nursing, since they will attack their own cause if anyone dares to disagree with them.  They’re like cannibals, and they always go for the kill.  They actually scare me more than any other cause, so I try to stay the hell out of their debates, which is why I’ll unfriend the worst offenders.  Life is hard enough without complicating it with a bunch of loonies who want to nurse their kids until they lose all their baby teeth.  Enough about that.

The final one is the newest one, which is an offshoot of intactivism, and that’s sad to say.  Why?  Because even intactivists don’t always agree. How could we, since many are extremists, and I am afraid of all extremists, remember?  Well, there is a guide to let men know how much foreskin they have, and the scale goes from 1 (none) to 10 (too much).  No one should want to be a 1 (extreme), and it makes sense that no one should want to be a 10 (opposite extreme) either.  I commented stating that, and a guy wrote back that if he was gay, he would want to be 10, since it would be easier for him to “dock” with another gay guy.  Sorry, but you’ll have to look that up, since it’s too gross for me to even want to discuss.  As usual an extremist would naturally want to go to the extreme for their cause, and that’s scary.

It does remind me of a 4th extreme and that’s something that is apparently called ear gauge   For those who don’t know, that’s when someone decides that merely have pierced ears isn’t enough, so they get gauges to make the hole bigger and bigger and bigger. I guess they will eventually want to put a damn plate in there, so they can hang with the natives, but I find it ugly…like I do with all other extremes.  Since that is exactly what an ear gauge is, an ugly extreme of ear piercing, which is something I fully support.  These gauges are just another form of body modification for people who aren’t happy with their bodies and think messing them up will make them feel closer to God or make them more spiritual or some other hokey thing they’ve dreamt up in an attempt to fill the mental problem they suffer from.  But again, we are supposed to let these crazy people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Again, the only pain it causes me is having to look at them.  And won’t that be hard if everyone does it?  That would be a very frightening world indeed.

So the bottom line is that I’m not sure how much longer I will be able to stay on facebook.  People are getting stranger every day, and I just don’t know how much more of dealing with that I can stand.

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.

Mothers, do not leave circumcision decision to the fathers!

Why do I say this? Because I used to feel this way. I had done some research before I had my son. Before he was born, I felt I should let my husband decide on the circumcision, since he is the one with the penis. He is circumcised, so his natural response was that he wanted our son circumcised. I asked why he felt that way, and he didn’t have an answer. Of course this conversation was before I had become an intactivist and had done all the research I have since done. I now know that infant circumcision can permanently alter a baby’s brain. He can lose his ability to feel emotions and might even become a violent man. Circumcised men lost something when they lost their foreskin, but they don’t know the extent of what they lost. When a cut man wants his son cut, it isn’t so the boy will look like him, it is so he will feel like him. After all, what two penises look alike? What man really knows what his father’s penis looks like? And wouldn’t the child be more likely to notice that his father’s penis is bigger, and it has hair on it?

This horrible practice makes for a violent cycle of abuse that will continue until someone stops it. In our family I was the one who stopped it, and it is up to the mothers who are married to cut men to make the ultimate decision. Do not let your husbands decide on circumcision, since it is usually impossible for them to make an objective assessment. Of course this doesn’t include the men who are victims of botched circumcisions or those who are enlightened and realize the damage done to them. Those who were cut as babies never had their foreskins, so unless there are problems how could they be objective? Of course there are exceptions to this, but they are rare.

If your husband was circumcised later in life, his opinion might be less swayed by psychological issues. I say might because it is still possible his parents didn’t know how to deal with an intact child and forcibly retracted his foreskin. This has been proven to cause most if not all problems that ultimately result in children/men getting circumcisions later in life. The foreskin on a child who has yet to reach puberty should not be retracted by anyone other than the child himself. His penis is meant to be an internal organ until the foreskin detaches itself from the glans (head). Anyone who forces it back (no matter who tells the parent to do this, even a doctor) can tear the foreskin, causing infections and adhesions. Just leave it alone. Your son playing with it will eventually get it to loosen so that he can someday retract it all the way.

Let’s say your husband didn’t have any issues with forcible retraction but was one of the rare men who either had a tight frenulum or overly long foreskin, so he chose to circumcise himself as an adult. The best argument a woman can give to a man like this is to remind him that he chose that surgery himself, and shouldn’t his son be shown the same courtesy? Just because your husband had these issues does not mean his son will. Who is to say he won’t have a short foreskin, so removing any of it could result in painful erections or pulling skin from his pelvis to make up for what he lost.

There is no good reason to remove a baby’s foreskin. Every argument the pro-cutters use to persuade parents to cut can be disputed. UTI’s are not decreased that much, if at all. Forcible retractions account for more UTI’s than the foreskin itself. if a child is left alone, his chances are the same as any cut boy. STD’s? Really? Will your boy be having sex, or should that decision be left until he’s older when you can tell him to use condoms and not sleep around? The surgery might be more invasive the older he gets, but the older he gets the less likely he will need or want to be circumcised. The thing that most new parents seem to have a hard time grasping is that circumcision is not natural. It is not needed or necessary. It is harmful, painful and totally cosmetic surgery that you are subjecting your newborn baby to.

Circumcision can interfere with maternal bonding and could lead to his resentment of all women. Just remember that when a baby is born, he doesn’t know or care who his father is. His whole world revolves around his mother. So if he is hurt so soon after birth, his mother let it happen, no matter who ultimately decided on the circumcision. The mother will take the blame. And even though that boy will grow to become a man without the actual memory of that torture, it is permanently etched in his body and brain.

All parents want their kids to be happy, and they want the best for them. Prove it by starting your son’s life off the way you would start off your daughter’s. Take both home intact, the way they were born, and the way they were meant to remain. One last thing I wanted to add is that this post does not mean that men should not have a say in what is done to their sons. I’m only trying to say that a woman who does not want her son cut should not just wash her hands of the whole decision and let her cut husband make the final decision. If you let your son be circumcised, and there are any of the above mentioned problems, you WILL regret it the rest of your life. Nothing can happen to an intact boy that will make you regret your decision to keep him whole. Yes, he might have problems or infections, but they won’t be any more severe than what could happen naturally to an intact girl. All I ask is that a woman opposed to circumcision needs to fight for her son, since he cannot fight for himself.

The evolution of activism

I was looking over a few of my older posts and stumbled upon this one: http://awesatious.com/2010/09/different-levels-of-activism/

I wrote that over a year ago, and I have to admit I’ve changed quite a bit since then.  I’ve done more research on the foreskin and circumcision, discovered the revolting truth that there are circumfetishists and realized that no matter what you tell some parents, they will still mutilate their infant sons.  I guess you can say I was naive when I wrote that article.  I truly felt that since it was pretty easy to open my eyes to how barbaric infant circumcision is, I thought it would simply require me to post a few links on how awful it is, and parents would realize they didn’t want that for their sons. Guess what? I was wrong.  You can post numerous links. You can tell them that more babies die from circumcision than they do from SIDS or from drop down cribs.  You can tell them it might interfere with their child breast feeding and/or bonding with them, or that it will permanently alter their brain. They can be told their son might grow into a violent man or be unable to process emotions.  Their son might have sexual problems or might even be unable to enjoy sex.  You can tell them all of that and STILL get the response, “Well, he’s my son, not yours, so why don’t you mind your own business?”

While I can still say I’m not fanatical about intactivism, I’m not innocent of name calling.  Though I do try to impart my wisdom in a nice way, the insults thrown at me do bring my back up, and I do fight back.  At that point it is no longer me against an ignorant parent who needs valuable information.  It’s me against a stupid person who can’t see reason. It’s me against a sexual child abuser.  At that point the gloves come off.

Why is it so important?  Because as one article I read during my extensive research into the atrocity that is infant male circumcision stated, the ratio of violent sex crimes in the US have risen in direct proportion to the ratio of sexually active circumcised men.  If you cut your son, and he grows up to be a rapist, THAT affects everyone.  Of course not all circ’d men become violent, and that is not what I’m saying, but I’m pretty sure that if someone looked into it, most rapes and murders are done by cut men.  Not all, most. Men whose first memory was of being strapped down and mutilated against their will as they fought to be free and screamed for their mothers. Men who have no idea why they feel such hatred toward other people (especially women).  Their mothers should have protected them, but they didn’t.  The same mothers that I try to inform against circumcising, who tell me to “STFU and mind your own business”.

I’m sorry, but it IS my business.

Ad hominem attacks on circumcision fetishists?

I’ve seen this too many times to let it slide any longer. The circumcision fetishists on twitter continually use the phrase, ad hominem. I think it is their pitiful attempt to make themselves look smarter than they actually are, but it basically means they are being attacked and their delicate feelings hurt. For those majority who don’t use or even know what this phrase means, it is basically when someone uses unrelated character flaws in an attempt to win an argument. When I call these perverts, who sexually enjoy babies being circumcised, circumcision fetishists, they cry “ad hominem attacks”.

To clarify this situation, these sickos support circumcision because it is their sexual fetish, so they will support any bogus statistic or study that other circumfetishists comes up with solely because they don’t want their fetish to go away. After all if all circumcision is made illegal, they can only fantasize about the babies being tortured, they can’t know it’s being performed any longer. And the majority of men who grow up with their intact penises will eventually shove these perverts down where they belong, in their own sick underground where they can trade ancient videos of this barbaric practice.

So when I and other intactivists say the reason these guys are in support of circumcision is because they have a sick fascination with it, that is NOT an ad hominem attack, because it is VERY related to the argument at hand. Again, do your research before you speak (or type), fetishists.

How infant circumcision affects everyone!

I’ve had to deal with a lot of ignorant people on twitter. Besides the usual arguments for circumcision, the one that stands out the most is this one, “it’s my child, not yours, so mind your own business.” I’ve heard this one so much that I decided to write a rebuttal to it. I’m going to tell you ignorant parents who think this the reasons why it’s my business as well as everyone else’s.

Due to the fact that infant circumcision has wormed its way into the American culture, most doctors are not taught about the foreskin. That means that they don’t know how important it is or how to care for an intact baby boy. Medical books have diagrams of the human penis without a foreskin, as if all males are supposed to be born that way. People are so painfully brainwashed against the foreskin, they have begun to believe it is a birth defect that needs to be removed as soon as possible.

All that makes it really hard for the doctors who are trained on what the foreskin is and does to educate others. The loudest voice is usually heard, and those ignorant voices incorrectly tell parents to retract their babies’ foreskins and clean under them. This can lead to permanent damage, not to mention unnecessary UTI’s. Parents of intact boys are having to send information to their boys’ daycares in fear they will damage their sons, due to the vast amount of ignorance in today’s society regarding the foreskin.

Most of the girls of this generation wouldn’t recognize an intact erect penis if they saw one, but many of these sexually active females will shun a man if they admit they aren’t circumcised. Other men will pull back their foreskins to hide them from their lovers, so they won’t be shunned (yes, it is possible for a man to fool a woman in this way, especially since so many women are ignorant of what the foreskin is). These girls ARE ignorant, and they will eventually grow up and might eventually realize their mistake. A man should not be judged by his foreskin status, and it should definitely not be a prerequisite of dating them.

So let’s go back to a man/woman on twitter telling an intactivist that it isn’t her/his business what is done to someone else’s baby. If that same person had proof that someone was beating their child, should they mind their own business, or call child services? If you knew a child’s life was in danger, would you mind your own business, or would you call the police? We intactivists know that a baby could die, or suffer from severe complications from this sexual child abuse, so we get involved and try to stop it. The same as we would if we thought a parent was beating that child or trying to kill him.

Another way it is our business is that the more ignorant people who continue to think it is their choice to have their innocent sons cut and mutilated, the longer the ignorance will exist in the medical community about the proper intact care and importance of the foreskin. Which will result in more and more intact boys being harmed during their doctor well visits. This will also perpetuate to future generations of women thinking there is something wrong with intact men, not to mention affecting other parents’ children who will someday become your son’s spouse. Doesn’t that person have the right to be with a whole man, not one who had something very important taken away from him solely because his parents refused to listen to the facts?

So the next time any of you pro-cutters mouth off to an intactivist that it isn’t any of our business, now you know why we know it IS our business!

How I became an intactivist

People have asked and others might wonder how I became an intactivist (against infant circumcision) or the right to bodily integrity. So I will give you a summary of my progression from someone who fully supported circumcision to someone who now sees it for the genital mutilation that it really is.

I was raised in a culture that takes it for granted that all men are circumcised. My mother circumcised my brother, my sister circumcised both her sons, and I had every intention of circumcising my future sons. I never looked it up or questioned what it was, merely assumed the foreskin was a flap of skin that covered the head of the penis. I believed that it was merely a piece of skin where dirt and germs festered and was very hard to keep clean. I don’t remember anyone saying it was healthier or that cutting would cut down the risk of STD’s. I suppose the intactivist movement wasn’t strong enough for the pro-cutters to have to create those lies yet.

One day about five years ago I saw an article about a husband and wife who went to court because the mother wanted her boy circumcised due to constant infections, but the father didn’t want it done. I couldn’t understand why they were fighting about it, or why the father didn’t want it done. I felt that the jews practiced it for good reason and didn’t see the reason why anyone wouldn’t want to be circumcised. Well, after i posted the article and my opinions, I got quite a few responses from people who were against cutting. One man was from another country, and he couldn’t imagine letting anyone circumcise him, and that he never had any problem keeping clean. I still wasn’t convinced, since I felt so strongly that the cut penis was more hygienic. I even responded to the guy and told him that.  His last comment was he would never let anyone do that to him.

Finally, someone who I considered a friend at the time directed me to a website about a man who was so upset about his circumcision that he was working on restoring it. I was flabbergasted, but I visited the site and read his story. I thoroughly enjoyed it. He was funny and educational, and that first seed of doubt got planted in my mind. I didn’t do anymore research until I found out I was pregnant a few years later, and it was a boy. I asked my husband, who is cut, what he wanted. The consensus of other new moms was that the man should decide, since he has the penis. My husband said he wanted our son cut. I asked him why? He didn’t have a reason other than he was, so his son should be as well. I said that wasn’t good enough. Knowing I was determined, but still not sure, he said we would ask my son’s pediatrician what he thought.

So a few more months went by. I might have done a bit more research, but I can’t remember much until my son was born and we took him to see his pediatrician. Hubby and I asked the doctor if there were any medical benefits to circumcision. He replied that there weren’t any other than a slight decreased chance of UTI’s in the first six months. He also admitted that he didn’t like doing them and that boys were born with a foreskin for a reason. So it was decided that my son would remain intact.

It was shortly after that huge decision that I began doing more research. I stumbled upon Penn & Teller’s humorous youtube video, which shed more light on how wrong the procedure is as well as expanding on foreskin restoration. There is nudity and foul language, and it also shows a baby being circumcised, but I would recommend it for all new parents to watch before they hand their infants over to a man with a scalpal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6QI5IoWP50  and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFn0Uuc2OBo

One of the things I have discovered since I became an intactivist is that there are people out there who go out of there way to convince parents they are stupid unless they cut their sons.  These guys are called circumfetishists and lurk on twitter, where they do searches for anyone who types the word circumcision.  The more I followed these guys, the more disgusted I became over the whole pro-circumcision crowd.

So that’s it in a nut shell.  That is my journey on how I went from an ignorant woman to an educated intactivist.  By the way ladies, when a man is erect, you probably wouldn’t even know he is intact.  They look very similar. Well, except the cut penis will look dry and calloused!  :)

If I can admit I was wrong about circumcision, you can too!

There should be no debate about circumcision

I recently saw a satire on Facebook about how wrong circumcision is. The gal posted something like there should be a debate on drunk driving, with both sides being given equal consideration. That everyone should judge the pros and cons and respect everyone’s opinions. Why is that related to the circumcision debate? Because neither one should be a debate. Both are wrong for a variety of reasons. Sure, you can give pros to drunk driving, but every one of them can be debunked, the same as with the pros for circumcision.
1. It’s my car and my right to drive (ignoring the fact it’s against the law)
2. It’s cheaper than getting a cab (unless you get pulled over)
3. At least if I’m driving home, I’m not in a bar getting drunker (who cares if you should have been at home drinking instead of in a bar)
4. It’s not my fault if some other car gets in my way, and I hit it (forget the fact you were driving on the wrong side of the road)
5. I didn’t crash because I was drunk. I crashed because I was tired (gray area especially if it was 2 in the morning)

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. Hopefully! Drunk driving is illegal, but it wasn’t always. It had to be made illegal after enough people died to make the law necessary. Circumcision isn’t illegal now, but I don’t think it will stay that way. It’s unfortunate that enough boys will have to die or suffer before lawmakers do the right thing, but it will eventually be against the law.

Another thing I wanted to touch on. I follow the #i2 posts on twitter, and I have read a few comments that troubled me. I’ve done a bit of research about it online and wanted to clear up a misconception that many people have (or might have). Intactivists are NOT all homosexuals. Lumping everyone in one category isn’t only ignorant, it’s downplaying the importance of how wrong circumcision is. Besides, I’ve visited plenty of sites to know there are plenty of gay men who prefer cut men. I definitely don’t know (or care) what the percentage is, but I just wanted to make sure I stated the FACT that the motive behind the #i2 campaign has absolutely nothing to do with giving homosexual men more to play with during their sexual proclivities. The only thing that we intactivists want is to ban routine infant circumcision and to give all males the right to genital integrity. What those males choose to do with their intact whole bodies is completely up to them, and it’s none of anyone else’s business.

I say all that as a woman and a mother of an almost three year old intact male. Again there wouldn’t be a debate about circumcision if all males had the right to genital integrity. HIS BODY, HIS RIGHT, HIS CHOICE!!!