The collateral damage of circumcision

[SoCo Intactivists]

From a recent event in Washington, DC:
An example of genital cutting on children doing what it was intended to do, namely break the bond of trust between parent and child. On male children in particular, it is intended to break the bond between mother and son, which is why it is done in warrior/militaristic cultures... like ours.

Hurt egos, the collateral damage of circumcision
[posted 4 April 2013] Every discussion of circumcision brings hurt feelings. Parents, especially mothers, who defend their decision to circumcise their children. Men who are just fine and wouldn't want to have an "anteater flapping around" or a "dirty elephant trunk." Women who find the "uncircumcised" penis to be "gross".

And of course intactivists get also angry, because they have looked into circumcision deeper and found it to be a gross violation of human rights.

Even before looking at any evidence, it makes sense intuitively that cutting part of the sexual organs would have a detrimental effect to sexuality. So how is it that in our Western society, circumcision of males gets a free pass, while everybody and their grandmother will tell you that female circumcision (or FGM) ruins female sexuality for life?

In fact, most people who defend circumcision today, ignore that in the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria referred to it as the "excision of the superfluous pleasure", and in the XII century Moses Maimonides declared that "Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment". Both philosophers in fact supported circumcision, but they were aware that circumcision had sexual effects.

In the XIX century [1800s], physicians attributed a myriad of diseases to the vice of masturbation, and "found" that Jews were "immune to masturbation" (M.J. Moses, 1871), thus starting the practice of circumcision in English speaking countries, which, at least for the next 90 years would be known that circumcision reduced sexual pleasure - but this was seen as a positive effect.

It is enlightening to read this paragraph:

"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.

...

Yes, that really is the doctor's name. Read the rest at
https://circumcisiondiaries.blogspot.com/2013/04/hurt-egos-collateral-damage-of.html?zx=e214470c64a0e317