Sunday, May 31, 2009
American Males: Damaged by Circumcision the Anti-Circs Say
If you're circumcised like me, then when the anti-circ foreskin lovers spout this bullshit (excuse the language) about us being damaged, you can't help but wonder what they're drinking. Check out this youtube video of a circumcised dude who left his son wtih a filthy foreskin. He's a so-called "intactivist" who marched on Washington (all ten of them) to protest "genital mutilation" of males in America. What do you think of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fofyk2MK__M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unlike yourself, he is both sane & wise!
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous foreskin-lover who is reduced to name-calling! Why is it that the anti-circs always reduce everything to a personal attack? Oh, yes, that's right. They don't have the facts to back up their positions. And when the facts support circumcision, all you can do is try to smear the proponents of a healthy, clean-cut society.
ReplyDeleteAnd "foreskin-lover" is not name-calling? (cf "n_____-lover"), as is "filthy foreskin". Look in the mirror. Anonymous is right, Greg Hartley is both sane and wise.
ReplyDeleteThe case for circumcision is so much more complicated than cleanliness. I'd go so far as to say that when people go on about cut cocks being cleaner, they are either consciously or unconsciously trying to hide their own inner knowledge of far more subtle reasons. Maybe to start with, look at the Moslems, for whom circumcision at or before puberty is more or less mandatory, as in the title to your blog. Part of the reason is cleanliness, probably driving from the desert environment from which the religion started (though I understand there's no mention of it in the Koran), but far more important are first that it is a ritual indicating that a boy is becoming a man, and also that it initiates him as a member of a circumcised tribe.
ReplyDeleteAn argument that those who wish to promote circumcision must never make is the one that a foreskin is an unnecessary bit of skin, more or less as if God made a mistake when he designed us. The point is that it is a bit of relatively insensitive skin which protects a sensitive one. This came to me in my own experience a bit ago. I am a keen runner, and when I can I like to run nude in the local woods, and in places have to run through undergrowth and the odd thistle etc., and I realised that when doing so I instinctively put my hand in front of my cock as I ran to protect it. When I do the same run with running shorts on, I dont have to do this, and I realised that I wouldn't have had to when I was nude if I hadn't been circumcised. The foreskin provides protection, and indeed it was only when some guy many years ago (about 5,000 I guess) invented trousers that circumcision became practical.
I wonder too whether there isn't a "tribal" element which favours circumcision in the US. At present the US is a large and relatively coherent tribe conscious of it's predominant position in the world, and one of it's tribal signs is circumcision, which grew as US power grew during the last century. Maybe it was the same with the British Empire a hundred years earlier. where also circumcision became increasingly common. As the empire declined, so did the circumcision rate -are the two connected? Maybe too far-fetched, but as I said at the beginning, I believe that with a thing like circumcision, behaviour either of individuals or of societies is far more subtle than most people will admit.
Hugh7, to suggest that "foreskin-lover" is the equivalent to "nigger-lover" is ludicrous. As far as I know, 'foreskin' is a perfectly acceptable English word even if it's an undesirable body part. The word 'nigger' is mostly perjorative, although I know it's much more acceptable among my generation and younger kids as in "hey, nigga, wassup" and all the hip-hop music that uses "nigger" in a non-racist context. Still, to suggest that foreskin-lover is equal to nigger-lover makes no sense. Anyways, anti-circumcision advocates like you do love the foreskin, right?
ReplyDeleteJamie, thanks for an interesting post. The case for circumcision that I make is, essentially, a health-related one. And on that score the evidence is overwhelming. Still, I accept the argument that at the creation (evolution) of man, there may have been a purpose for the foreskin when we ran naked in the jungles. But that disappeared centuries ago.
Your comment about the decline of circumcision (both in the British Empire and America) corresponding with the decline of that country's global power is fascinating. I never thought of it that way. You are suggesting that pro-circumcision advocates are trying to hold onto a manifestation of that power. I don't buy it, but it's curious indeed.
As for the tribal nature of circumcision, yes, I think there is that in cultural traditions of all societies. The United States is a circumcised society, which is why the anti-circs are having such a tough time. But, again, I think the most compelling reason to circumcise all boys is good health, not societal traditions.
The case against circumcision is a health one circumcision amputates a part of the body and it is irational to suggest otherwise. If good health was a reason to circumcise babies why is it rare in Europe which has a great health care system not motivated by profit like elsewhere. Free healthcare for everyone can hardly include a proven health hazard which was why the practice was stopped in the UK decades ago. You suggest on your blog you are an academic who likes a good debate I find it unusual that you don't challenge the academics who are aware of the function of the foreskin both here and elsewhere. I am sure they would find it extrememly disturbing that you are publically suggesting the removal of parts of male childrens genitals.
ReplyDeleteLinda is with nocirc. Her stance is predictable. But as a woman she should be concerned with cleanliness. Circumcised males are cleaner. There is no mystery why. The foreskin gives pathogens a place to hide. It's disturbing that someone disagrees with "cleanliness is next to godliness" yes soap and water can be used. But uncircumcised males cannot be guaranteed that they will wash. Women deserve clean, circumcised males.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you persist in referring to foreskins as "filthy". Entirely inexplicable, that. Either you have some peculiarly intimate knowledge of the father's parenting (not to mention the boy's retraction status) or you are stating that foreskins are inevitably & inherently filthy. Either claim is curious.
ReplyDeleteForeskins are filthy? Obviously you have no experience with foreskins.
ReplyDeleteI have running water in my house and I know how to use it. Skin back in the shower and rinse. I am clean and there is no odor. So much for your circumcised cleanliness.
"Women deserve clean, circumcised males."
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of crock of BS is this? I'm sorry, but equal rights extend to BOTH genders. A woman has no right to forcing a man to get rid of anything from his body, for any reason, (Barring a VERY good one, which circ usually lacks good reasons) anymore than he does of hers.
There really is no argument. If its illigel to cut parts off baby girls then baby boys should have the same rights. It's sad we live in such a ****ed up world that madness like this continues.. America thinks it's modern AHHAHAHAHA!
ReplyDelete"What do you think of this?" :
ReplyDeleteI think he is a right man and you are a shit !
I am someone who has never been able to feel normal sexual pleasure due to a circumcision that seems to have gone wrong. It is not worth the risk to destroy a humans sexuality, to curse them with an eternal itch they can't scratch, to deny a most important thing that makes us human - sex. At first women think it is great that I have hours of stamina, but eventually they all tire of trying to give me an orgasm and the relationship eventually fails, dozens of them so far. Granted some people who are circumcised come out fine and have a normal sex life, but there are some who become utterly destroyed. Is it really worth the risk to condemn someone to this living hell? I have tried everything so please spare your suggestions. Even tried foreskin restoration and alternative stimulation but that has proven impossible. Please don't continue to mutilate our species for a minor cosmetic change. I would die happy if I could feel sex just once in my life and would give all my worldly possessions for that experience, even my soul(if there is such a thing). Death will be the only release I get from this torture.
ReplyDeleteI feel similar to anonymous Sept 13, 2010 2:13pm, but I have never been able to even get as far as he has. I can't have sex with a woman at all. My penis is deadened so much that it doesn't work for me. At least he has been able to have girlfriends and can have sex with them, if to no avail. I can't even begin. All I can do is masturbate. It is so humiliating, and would have been so preventable, just by my parents saying NO to circumcision.
ReplyDeleteWell you can have your foreskin restored through tugging methods. I am six months in and it feels amazing. I feel bad for any man who has not at least attempted restoration. It is a lot like seeing without color, you cant appreciate what you never had in the first place.
ReplyDeletealso it add quite a lot to girth and my GF is thrilled about that.