When your husband wants to have your son circumcised - and you don't

[SoCo Intactivists]

Kudos to this strong woman who did the research and protected her sons. She sets a good example for all of us. Lilli's blog is located at https://www.moralogous.com
================================



Posted 8 April 2012

A few weeks ago, I had the great pleasure to meet many of my heroes in intactivism, among them James Loewen. James has a YouTube channel called Bonobo3D where he interviews real people in intactivism, and this is his interview of me.

In this video, I discuss how my husband and I decided not to circumcise our first child. It was not a pretty process. I confronted my husband head-on, announcing that we would not do it. As you can imagine, a fight ensued. He claimed that our baby needed to be circumcised to fit in with his family. I countered that I had never seen my husband and his brothers sit around naked, comparing penises. In fact, my husband had never even seen his father’s penis. He said that the baby was his, too, and I couldn’t make all the choices. I said that my son’s body was not a bargaining chip. It was tense, and we screamed and fought. After a while, I read The Vulnerability of Men, about the psychology of why men fight so hard to circumcise their sons, and it gave me enough perspective to be quiet and leave my husband alone. As Mr. Bach says, “Men who have been circumcised have an extremely difficult dilemma. For them to acknowledge that the practice is unnecessary and harmful means that they must acknowledge a painful personal reality.”

I stopped trying to convince my husband. I realized that his anger was not mine and it was not directed at me and I didn’t have to do anything to fix it. I felt terrible for him, but I respected him as an adult and the man I loved to let him have his space to work out his feelings in his own way. I put a few articles in the bathroom for him to read at his leisure, and eventually he did come back and say that we would not circumcise our son. It took him three years and two sons for him to stop thinking that their penises looked weird, but now he is intactivist, too.
When parents disagree on circumcision, often the wife gets panicked to change her husband’s mind. For some, it’s not enough that the baby not be circumcised; they need their husbands to be thrilled about it. This is not realistic for many men, though. The truth about circumcision is a bitter pill to swallow. Not circumcising their sons means that a man has to face that he is missing part of his penis for no good reason. That’s a horrible thought, and it is natural that a man would not want to face that.

Nevertheless, sparing your husband emotional pain is not a valid reason to inflict physical pain and damage on your child. Your husband has no right over his son’s body. He had a right to his own body all those years ago, and that right was denied, but that does not mean he now has the right to hide his pain by having his son circumcised. As mothers, we need to stand firm, because in this situation, we are the only ones who can stand for the baby’s rights. If we are trying to keep our husbands swaddled in denial, who will defend our sons? Our husbands are adult men and they have the ability and the responsibility to face and deal with their own emotions. This is their process, and we can be supportive, but we cannot rush or force it. We may have to weather our husband’s misdirected anger while the painful emotions are being worked out in him, but we are strong, and we can do that. The alternative is to allow our sons to be circumcised, knowing all the while that it is wrong. If you think this is a viable alternative, read these stories of women who regret allowing their sons to be circumcised.

It is fundamentally unjust for a man to privilege his own denial and raw emotions over his son’s inherent right to bodily autonomy, but they cannot see this yet. As wives of circumcised men, we have a narrow line to walk: we need to defend our sons because they cannot defend themselves, but we also need to treat our husbands with respect and kindness. We cannot talk them out of their pain and we cannot force them to think what we want them to think. This is their journey, and it is not an easy one, but we need to trust our husbands, and be patient, and love them.

[lordbear]

The alternative is to allow our sons to be circumcised, knowing all the while that it is wrong. If you think this is a viable alternative, read these stories of women who regret allowing their sons to be circumcised.

I am fortunate in that my parents did not circumcise me at birth. I agree that parents should not make that decision for their children.

But, as a person who CHOSE to be circumcised, and is happy to have done so, I fundamentally reject the assertion that "it is wrong".

Perhaps you were merely sloppy and meant to infer that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, rather than to suggest that all circumcision is wrong.

I surmise that you feel passionately about this issue. Your username gives that away. But, while you are fighting to protect children and educate people, please don't forget to also respect the informed individual's consensual choice. Think about that in the context of, say, women's reproductive health and the current anti-abortion push coming from the Right, for perspective.

Kind Regards,
Bear

[SoCo Intactivists]

Greetings Bear,

Lilli's assertion about "it is wrong" refers to a mother assuaging her husband's/partner's psychological wound by violating her son's human right to bodily autonomy (i.e., having part of his body amputated without his consent).

What Lilli and the intactivists are trying to do is provide equal protection for boys and girls from any form of genital cutting or modification of their genitals, outside of genuine medical need (which is rare). What informed, competent adults want to do with their body, or with other consenting adults for that matter, is their business -- and not their parents' choice to make for them!

We want to ensure that every American adult, regardless of gender or ethnicity, has the right and the opportunity to make the choice that you made for yourself.

Since you mentioned reproductive choice, here's one way to look at the issue:
If a woman has the right to choose, then so does a man!

Hope that helps clarify things,
Intact Sonoma

I am fortunate in that my parents did not circumcise me at birth. I agree that parents should not make that decision for their children.

But, as a person who CHOSE to be circumcised, and is happy to have done so, I fundamentally reject the assertion that "it is wrong".

Perhaps you were merely sloppy and meant to infer that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, rather than to suggest that all circumcision is wrong.

I surmise that you feel passionately about this issue. Your username gives that away. But, while you are fighting to protect children and educate people, please don't forget to also respect the informed individual's consensual choice. Think about that in the context of, say, women's reproductive health and the current anti-abortion push coming from the Right, for perspective.

Kind Regards,
Bear

[podfish]

Kudos to this strong woman who did the research and protected her sons. She sets a good example for all of us. .

so having men trying to control women's bodies isn't without symmetry after all.

Obviously some men have strong feelings they were mutilated. Unlike the female equivalent, you have plenty of men, I suspect a huge majority, unconcerned or happy with the consequences. So don't freely claim the role of "protectress". It's nowhere near that obvious. As your partner's reaction shows, the meaning to any given individual can be difficult to predict or understand. I doubt he thought about its meaning to him till this controversy arose in his life. Don't be so sure where the angels stand on this one. You're just as likely to cause your son disturbance later in life by creating this separation from his male relatives as you are to find him grateful for the salvation. You're extremely unlikely to be saving him from some deep personal trauma due to the perceived savagery of the operation.

[CSummer]

Sometimes what we suspect or imagine to be true is simply mythical. A man may be unconcerned or happy with the consequences he's aware of, but I dare say he would not be at all happy if he could remember the experience of infant circumcision. Unfortunately (or not) trauma that the mind can make no sense of is almost invariably repressed - kept buried far outside of conscious awareness. If a man can re-connect with this memory, his rage may soon manifest as zero tolerance for such inhumane and unjust treatment of an infant.

Any aware parent who truly cares for the well-being of her or his child would never consent to infant circumcision. If you don't believe circumcision traumatizes infants, please read Circumcision: the Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman, MD (or just ask any man who has any real sense of what it was like!).

Clint Summer

so having men trying to control women's bodies isn't without symmetry after all.

Obviously some men have strong feelings they were mutilated. Unlike the female equivalent, you have plenty of men, I suspect a huge majority, unconcerned or happy with the consequences. So don't freely claim the role of "protectress". It's nowhere near that obvious. As your partner's reaction shows, the meaning to any given individual can be difficult to predict or understand. I doubt he thought about its meaning to him till this controversy arose in his life. Don't be so sure where the angels stand on this one. You're just as likely to cause your son disturbance later in life by creating this separation from his male relatives as you are to find him grateful for the salvation. You're extremely unlikely to be saving him from some deep personal trauma due to the perceived savagery of the operation.

[podfish]

Sometimes what we suspect or imagine to be true is simply mythical. A man may be unconcerned or happy with the consequences he's aware of, but I dare say he would not be at all happy if he could remember the experience of infant circumcision. Unfortunately (or not) trauma that the mind can make no sense of is almost invariably repressed - kept buried far outside of conscious awareness. If a man can re-connect with this memory, his rage may soon manifest as zero tolerance for such inhumane and unjust treatment of an infant.

Any aware parent who truly cares for the well-being of her or his child would never consent to infant circumcision. If you don't believe circumcision traumatizes infants, please read Circumcision: the Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman, MD (or just ask any man who has any real sense of what it was like!).

Clint Summer

hey, I'm the last one to claim that anyone fully understands what makes them feel or believe as they do. That doesn't imply that a chain of reasoning that starts with "hey, let's assume that xxx is true, 'cause it's theoretically possible" ever leads to a conclusion you should take particularly seriously. So I can't say I'm impressed by the leap from "I dare say..." to "..circumcision traumatizes infants" especially when it leads to an accusation that people who dare say they disagree with you are either unaware parents or don't truly care for their infants. That doesn't have even the slightest touch of offensive, judgemental self righteousness, does it???

[pbrinton]

I have to say that I come down on Clint's side in this. Does anyone seriously believe that newborn infants do not feel pain? I don't think that the idea that cutting off a body part (especially one that contains an unusually high concentration of nerve-endings) without anesthetic might be painful is a particularly theoretical one, and it has been well established that our conscious minds "forget" experiences of extreme pain. It is also hardly controversial to assert that these episodes of pain, though not consciously remembered, do leave their marks on us. If you do indeed believe that the operation is painless, would you consent to undergo it without anesthetic as an adult?

Under these circumstances it would seem that putting an infant through this irreversible experience would require a very strong belief that doing so is of overwhelming benefit to him, and that this benefit would be lost if the operation were delayed. Otherwise why not leave the decision until he is old enough to decide for himself? I have not seen any rationale that I find persuasive.

The ones I have seen are hygiene, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and saving the child the embarrassment of being "different". I do not see where any of these reasons require such urgency that the child cannot be left to make his own decision. In addition any surgery of any kind carries risks (and remember this "operation" is often carried out by people without medical training; one traditional method actually involves biting off the foreskin, which has been known to transmit the herpes virus to the unfortunate child).

In my opinion this practice amounts to forced genital mutilation and should be banned. What people choose to have done to their bodies when they are old enough to choose for themselves is up to them.

Under the circumstances the assertion that parents who agree to subject their children to this practice are uncaring seems to me to be quite justified. I do not feel your pain, though I do feel your child's.

Patrick Brinton
(grateful to have been left unmutilated)

hey, I'm the last one to claim that anyone fully understands what makes them feel or believe as they do. That doesn't imply that a chain of reasoning that starts with "hey, let's assume that xxx is true, 'cause it's theoretically possible" ever leads to a conclusion you should take particularly seriously. So I can't say I'm impressed by the leap from "I dare say..." to "..circumcision traumatizes infants" especially when it leads to an accusation that people who dare say they disagree with you are either unaware parents or don't truly care for their infants. That doesn't have even the slightest touch of offensive, judgemental self righteousness, does it???

[lordbear]

I guess there is a lot to be said on both sides of the fence, but something deep down inside tells me that mutilating your infants genitalia is not a good thing. I was circumcised a week after birth. My mother told me that the numbing agent didn't work and I screamed uncontrollably for hours. I now have a permanent birth mark across my penis that makes it look dirty. The doctor also cut too much skin off which caused pain from an erection during my teen years due to the stretching of the skin. I have to think if mother nature put it there, there must have been a reason. If I had, had a say in the decision, I would have declined the operation.

Oh dear! That sounds awful. And traumatic. And rare. I am sorry it happened to you. My anesthesia worked, my penis was mildly sore and ouchy for only a few days after the procedure.

A problem with these conversations is 'absolutist language'. Some people omit, in thought and in word, any qualifiers. They leave the implication of ALWAYS and NEVER where saying things like generally or often would soften an otherwise militant posture. If one wants credibility and respect for one's position, weave some acknowledgement of what other people see into the words - they will listen to yours more readily.

Another problem is inflammatory words. Mutilation carries the connotation of pain and trauma. Whereas modification would be a fair choice of words to describe the experience for some who may not be traumatized. To be clear and fair about this would require much greater effort and care in the way we talk about it. But, it's a lot to ask an extremist to temper their words. (some, let's be honest, kind of get off on the hysteria and conflict)

I did not experience the kind of pain you did. My anesthesia worked. Post-op was not bad. He did a good cut job. All is well and I love my penis. I do NOT have an lingering trauma, no matter how much some people want to insist that I do. Some say I don't know - it's repressed, deep in my psyche - What arrogant bullshit. I have spent most of my life spelunking my innards. I know where my demons lie. There are none in my glans, thanks.

As to your experience, sy52, I support and honor your path to making sense of things. It makes sense, from where you are coming from, having had a very negative experience, that you feel that you would choose differently given the chance. Interestingly, I don't know that I would come to the same place that you have. I don't think that pain should always be avoided, for example. And I don't assume that the result of a given episode of life will be the same each time. In your next life, you might have a competent doctor and the anesthesia works.

My position is that intactivism has an important place in the conversation. But, like any other dialog, we do best when the hyperventilating voices are reminded to slow down and breathe. :)

Namaste, Blessed Be and all that. :)
-- Bear

[SoCo Intactivists]

sy52's experience is not rare at all. It is typical of circumcisions/genital mutilations done on infants.

Bear, you need to understand that you made a choice as an adult to have this procedure done to you. You were able to be put under general anesthesia, something that cannot be done to a baby, or have local anesthetic injected -- and then be able to verbalize if you felt anything before they started cutting.

After the operation you were able to manage your pain and make yourself more comfortable by taking pain meds, asking for stronger meds if needed, or soaking in a sitz bath. You could also apply topical analgesics to your wound area. A baby or toddler can do none of these things.

A child is not capable of giving informed consent. A child, particularly an infant, is not capable of making sense of what is being done or of intellectually dealing with the resulting pain.

When Victorian doctors first started doing circumcisions on boys c. 1880s to try to keep them from masturbating (which did not work BTW), they were done on older boys and even teenagers. They felt the pain, they certainly remembered it, and they often did not want it done and therefore had to be tied or held down. Inspired by a certain circumcising culture present in Europe and north America, these geniuses started inflicting it on boys under a year old to take advantage of "infantile amnesia" ie that most people do not consciously remember things occurring before they acquire spoken language around age 2.

Turns out this was wrong, too. We may not conscioulsy remember things from this time frame, but we do unconsciously remember in the form of images, dreams, and emotional/psychological blockages. Separate posts on this issue to follow.

You also had the benefit of having the procedure done after you had your puberty and your penis was fully grown. There is a HUGE difference between infant/child circumcisions and those done in adulthood. (Literally: 1-3 inches in length and about 30% in volume.)

[Just a few days ago Dr. Paul Tinari PhD, a research epidemiologist in Canada and victim of child genital cutting posted a video of his lecture on the effects of male circumcision on female health & sexual response. It includes graphic information about the physical harm and the alteration of the adult sexual response caused by childhood, especially infant, circumcision. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHLyVWlzTY ]

Altering a child's genitals is a mutilation in every sense of the word and by every parameter. It is a violent injury that leaves the body part unable to function normally. It is something inflicted on a person unable to prevent it or defend him/herself. Genital cutting on children cultural customs are designed to interfere with the bond of trust between parent and child and to reduce adult sexual pleasure and interest in sex. As author and anthropologist Leonard Glick put it, "genital cutting on children... is evil." It is a form of sexual assault, and the victim is reminded of this assault every time he or she touches or looks at his/her genitals.

Again, keep in mind that your adult experience is very different from what most American men went through when this was done to them without their consent in infancy.

Oh dear! That sounds awful. And traumatic. And rare. I am sorry it happened to you. My anesthesia worked, my penis was mildly sore and ouchy for only a few days after the procedure.
...
As to your experience, sy52, I support and honor your path to making sense of things. It makes sense, from where you are coming from, having had a very negative experience, that you feel that you would choose differently given the chance. Interestingly, I don't know that I would come to the same place that you have. I don't think that pain should always be avoided, for example. And I don't assume that the result of a given episode of life will be the same each time. In your next life, you might have a competent doctor and the anesthesia works.

My position is that intactivism has an important place in the conversation. But, like any other dialog, we do best when the hyperventilating voices are reminded to slow down and breathe. :)

Namaste, Blessed Be and all that. :)
-- Bear

[lordbear]

I did misspeak to say that Sy52's experience was rare. I was thinking of something else when I typed that. My mistake.

I'm tiring of this conversation because Intact Sonoma's agenda, filters and assumptions are getting in the way of them seeing and hearing what I am saying. Assumptions and stock responses are taking over. For example, I never said I was an adult when I had the procedure.

You keep speaking to me as if I do not understand the problem or as if I disagree with the basic objections. I think I have made it clear that; a) I HATE the idea of infant circumcision. b) Circumcision can be a choice and that should be respected. I also cautioned against unnecessarily inflammatory word choices. The rest of your rant is misdirected as a response to me. Maybe you just used my posting as a platform...

Good day,
Bear

[SoCo Intactivists]

Assumptions and stock responses are taking over. For example, I never said I was an adult when I had the procedure.

You did indicate that it was a choice made rather than having it made for you by parent/guardian, so you must not have been a young child. It did indeed *sound* like you had it done as an adult.

You keep speaking to me as if I do not understand the problem or as if I disagree with the basic objections. I think I have made it clear that;
a) I HATE the idea of infant circumcision.
b) Circumcision can be a choice and that should be respected.

Wonderful to hear item a) and with you on item b) provided it is a choice by the adult owner of the body in question making an informed choice, just like a nose job or a vasectomy.

I also cautioned against unnecessarily inflammatory word choices. The rest of your rant is misdirected as a response to me. Maybe you just used my posting as a platform...

Hmmm... there's some truth to the latter. And your observation about taking a deep breath is a good one.

Thanks and Blessings!

[CSummer]

podfish wrote: "That doesn't have even the slightest touch of offensive, judgemental self righteousness, does it???"

Perhaps - and it may have more than the slightest touch of raging against ignorance (all quite futile, I'm sure).
So much human suffering has come from trusting "authority" figures rather than our own common sense, intuition or the experience of our peers.

"As soon as you trust yourself
you will know how to live." - Goethe

hey, I'm the last one to claim that anyone fully understands what makes them feel or believe as they do. That doesn't imply that a chain of reasoning that starts with "hey, let's assume that xxx is true, 'cause it's theoretically possible" ever leads to a conclusion you should take particularly seriously. So I can't say I'm impressed by the leap from "I dare say..." to "..circumcision traumatizes infants" especially when it leads to an accusation that people who dare say they disagree with you are either unaware parents or don't truly care for their infants. That doesn't have even the slightest touch of offensive, judgemental self righteousness, does it???

[lordbear]

I am feeling better 'heard'. Thank you.

I can see now why you made the assumption that I underwent the procedure as an adult. You subscribe to the idea that minors (persons under 18) are not capable of consent. Your mind interjected that into the conversation and thus led you to make an incorrect leap of logic. Tricky stuff, eh?

I'm not going to tell you the specific age I did undergo the procedure because I am not at all interested in being told what you think you know such that you invalidate my experience. I am my own person with my own self-knowledge - your studies and anecdotes are valid for the people they apply to. I advocate for accepting and respecting that humans are complex, amazing and unique. One size does not fit all, including the exceptions to what you have adopted as belief.

-- Bear

[meherc]

Aren't you people tired of this topic yet? It seems like it's been going on forever. I am going to state my very politically incorrect view: I love the look and feel of a circumcised penis. I haven't seen my circumcised lovers having any less pleasure or intensity than my uncircumcised ones. They all seemed pretty damned happy. Please don't make any assumptions about the state of any of my boyfriend's organs if you know me or them. I had my son circumsised because it was important to his father. You can do what you want but please stop insisting that your way is the right way. Maybe I just fall in love with a lot of Jews.

Kudos to this strong woman who did the research and protected her sons. She sets a good example for all of us. Lilli's blog is located at https://www.moralogous.com
================================



Posted 8 April 2012

A few weeks ago, I had the great pleasure to meet many of my heroes in intactivism, among them James Loewen. James has a YouTube channel called Bonobo3D where he interviews real people in intactivism, and this is his interview of me.

In this video, I discuss how my husband and I decided not to circumcise our first child. It was not a pretty process. I confronted my husband head-on, announcing that we would not do it. As you can imagine, a fight ensued. He claimed that our baby needed to be circumcised to fit in with his family. I countered that I had never seen my husband and his brothers sit around naked, comparing penises. In fact, my husband had never even seen his father’s penis. He said that the baby was his, too, and I couldn’t make all the choices. I said that my son’s body was not a bargaining chip. It was tense, and we screamed and fought. After a while, I read The Vulnerability of Men, about the psychology of why men fight so hard to circumcise their sons, and it gave me enough perspective to be quiet and leave my husband alone. As Mr. Bach says, “Men who have been circumcised have an extremely difficult dilemma. For them to acknowledge that the practice is unnecessary and harmful means that they must acknowledge a painful personal reality.”

I stopped trying to convince my husband. I realized that his anger was not mine and it was not directed at me and I didn’t have to do anything to fix it. I felt terrible for him, but I respected him as an adult and the man I loved to let him have his space to work out his feelings in his own way. I put a few articles in the bathroom for him to read at his leisure, and eventually he did come back and say that we would not circumcise our son. It took him three years and two sons for him to stop thinking that their penises looked weird, but now he is intactivist, too.
When parents disagree on circumcision, often the wife gets panicked to change her husband’s mind. For some, it’s not enough that the baby not be circumcised; they need their husbands to be thrilled about it. This is not realistic for many men, though. The truth about circumcision is a bitter pill to swallow. Not circumcising their sons means that a man has to face that he is missing part of his penis for no good reason. That’s a horrible thought, and it is natural that a man would not want to face that.

Nevertheless, sparing your husband emotional pain is not a valid reason to inflict physical pain and damage on your child. Your husband has no right over his son’s body. He had a right to his own body all those years ago, and that right was denied, but that does not mean he now has the right to hide his pain by having his son circumcised. As mothers, we need to stand firm, because in this situation, we are the only ones who can stand for the baby’s rights. If we are trying to keep our husbands swaddled in denial, who will defend our sons? Our husbands are adult men and they have the ability and the responsibility to face and deal with their own emotions. This is their process, and we can be supportive, but we cannot rush or force it. We may have to weather our husband’s misdirected anger while the painful emotions are being worked out in him, but we are strong, and we can do that. The alternative is to allow our sons to be circumcised, knowing all the while that it is wrong. If you think this is a viable alternative, read these stories of women who regret allowing their sons to be circumcised.

It is fundamentally unjust for a man to privilege his own denial and raw emotions over his son’s inherent right to bodily autonomy, but they cannot see this yet. As wives of circumcised men, we have a narrow line to walk: we need to defend our sons because they cannot defend themselves, but we also need to treat our husbands with respect and kindness. We cannot talk them out of their pain and we cannot force them to think what we want them to think. This is their journey, and it is not an easy one, but we need to trust our husbands, and be patient, and love them.

[lordbear]

Aren't you people tired of this topic yet? It seems like it's been going on forever..

That's because you're a modern American. :)

We have lost the ability to engage in meaningful conversation and debate for the amount of time needed to actually come to appreciation and respect for other points of view, resolution of conflict, connectedness and, I think importantly, understanding. If it's longer than a tweet or a YouTube video, many people tune out, or even become annoyed. That's a very real problem for a society.

I am grateful that WaccoBB has some people that will actually go back and forth for more than one round of epithets and pontifications. :)

Have a great day!
-- Bear

[podfish]

I am grateful that WaccoBB has some people that will actually go back and forth for more than one round of epithets and pontifications. :)

we're good for lots of rounds of epithets and pontifications...

["Mad" Miles]

And this isn't the first go around in Waccovia on the Dick Cutting tip!

Just search the archive. I would but I'm tired of the engines clunkiness. I weighed in there, which is why I haven't participated here.

My bottom line? It's a decision for the parents to make. It's nobody else's business. No matter how passionate, concerned and outraged one is, or what one thinks about the issue.

Medical procedures are the bailiwick of parents, in consultation with medical professionals.

When the parents disagree? That's also their business. I've never been married or fathered a child. But I suspect that in a marriage where the parties can't work out a disagreement over something like this, they probably have some other insurmountable problems.

Which would also be their business, and nobody else's, except for those the individuals want to bring into the conflict, and hopefully it's resolution....

It's fine to trumpet ones opinions. But as has been ably pointed out in this thread, projecting intent, motivation, ignorance and various other characterizations on those who choose to have their infant sons circumcised? Well, that's projection. Often based on ignorance posing as superior knowledge of the subject. Highly presumptuous. Talk about an "invasive procedure"!

Anybody else see the parallels between this "controversy" and the Anti-Vacc hoorah?

[SoCo Intactivists]

I'll be "tired" of it when boys and girls have equal protection and equal rights to make their own decisions about the configuration of their bodies, especially their genitalia.

As Bear pointed out, you "love the look and feel" of the circ'd version because that's what you are accustomed to, like most women of your generation. (Guessing from your photo that you were born in the mid-1950s.) Basically this is the result of a savvy marketing job. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, and nobody is saying otherwise.

One of the most insidious effects of genital cutting on children is that the adult the cut child becomes has no experience with the intact version, and the cutting society sees the cut version as normal and the intact version as gross or undesirable. It does not matter if they are cutting boys or girls, the effect is the same. It even has a name: minimizing language.

Some women report no difference between an intact and circumcised lover. Lots of women DO find a significant difference, and most of these women prefer the intact version. Common sense and medical science tells us that when the structure of a body part is changed, then so is function.

This woman certainly noticed the difference and makes her preference clear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBTC-e4QgFI&t=2m11s

As far as your son goes, it is his body and his decision to make as an adult. Modifying a child's body to meet another person's needs (you and his father in this case) is a violation of medical ethics and of the child's human right to bodily autonomy. And that's the bottom line of this issue and perennial discussion.

A significant contingent of the intactivst (anti-circumcision) movement is Jewish men who are not at all happy about what was done to them and question the motives and rationalizing perpetuating it. Here's an excellent essay by one of them:
https://www.drmomma.org/2009/12/my-s...ual-abuse.html

BTW did you have your daughter circumcised? In some cultures that is considered a desirable look too. Curiously, the western world does not seem to have any problem telling those who practice female genital cutting that it is wrong and they should stop doing it, yet we do exactly the same thing to boys think it is somehow OK.

Genital cutting on children, either boys or girls, is a violation of their human rights. Violating human rights is wrong! Wrong is wrong, and I am going to pass judgement on that, just like abolitionists judged slavery and civil rights activists judged segregation.

Aren't you people tired of this topic yet? It seems like it's been going on forever. I am going to state my very politically incorrect view: I love the look and feel of a circumcised penis. I haven't seen my circumcised lovers having any less pleasure or intensity than my uncircumcised ones. They all seemed pretty damned happy. Please don't make any assumptions about the state of any of my boyfriend's organs if you know me or them. I had my son circumsised because it was important to his father. You can do what you want but please stop insisting that your way is the right way. Maybe I just fall in love with a lot of Jews.

[meherc]

"Some women report no difference between an intact and circumcised lover. Lots of women DO find a significant difference, and most of these women prefer the intact version. "
I could just as well say lots of women Do find a difference and they prefer the circumcised version. This is just silly.

I'll be "tired" of it when boys and girls have equal protection and equal rights to make their own decisions about the configuration of their bodies, especially their genitalia.

As Bear pointed out, you "love the look and feel" of the circ'd version because that's what you are accustomed to, like most women of your generation. (Guessing from your photo that you were born in the mid-1950s.) Basically this is the result of a savvy marketing job. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, and nobody is saying otherwise.

One of the most insidious effects of genital cutting on children is that the adult the cut child becomes has no experience with the intact version, and the cutting society sees the cut version as normal and the intact version as gross or undesirable. It does not matter if they are cutting boys or girls, the effect is the same. It even has a name: minimizing language.

Some women report no difference between an intact and circumcised lover. Lots of women DO find a significant difference, and most of these women prefer the intact version. Common sense and medical science tells us that when the structure of a body part is changed, then so is function.

This woman certainly noticed the difference and makes her preference clear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBTC-e4QgFI&t=2m11s

As far as your son goes, it is his body and his decision to make as an adult. Modifying a child's body to meet another person's needs (you and his father in this case) is a violation of medical ethics and of the child's human right to bodily autonomy. And that's the bottom line of this issue and perennial discussion.

A significant contingent of the intactivst (anti-circumcision) movement is Jewish men who are not at all happy about what was done to them and question the motives and rationalizing perpetuating it. Here's an excellent essay by one of them:
https://www.drmomma.org/2009/12/my-s...ual-abuse.html

BTW did you have your daughter circumcised? In some cultures that is considered a desirable look too. Curiously, the western world does not seem to have any problem telling those who practice female genital cutting that it is wrong and they should stop doing it, yet we do exactly the same thing to boys think it is somehow OK.

Genital cutting on children, either boys or girls, is a violation of their human rights. Violating human rights is wrong! Wrong is wrong, and I am going to pass judgement on that, just like abolitionists judged slavery and civil rights activists judged segregation.

[meherc]

Somehow my original reply got lost in the ether. Any one who knows me knows I relish conversation so if you are making your assumption about me, you are not dealing with facts.

That's because you're a modern American. :)

We have lost the ability to engage in meaningful conversation and debate for the amount of time needed to actually come to appreciation and respect for other points of view, resolution of conflict, connectedness and, I think importantly, understanding. If it's longer than a tweet or a YouTube video, many people tune out, or even become annoyed. That's a very real problem for a society.

I am grateful that WaccoBB has some people that will actually go back and forth for more than one round of epithets and pontifications. :)

Have a great day!
-- Bear

[SoCo Intactivists]

Certainly one could say that, and it would be true for a certain demographic for reasons previously described.

But what women prefer is not really the issue. Whether or not it is acceptable to have your child's genitals altered to match a parent(s)' preference, regardless of the reasons for that preference, is the issue. the assertion of the intactivists is that it is not acceptable and a violation of the child's human rights -- regardless of the child's gender.

"Some women report no difference between an intact and circumcised lover. Lots of women DO find a significant difference, and most of these women prefer the intact version. "
I could just as well say lots of women Do find a difference and they prefer the circumcised version. This is just silly.

[lordbear]

Meherc previously wrote:
meherc wrote:
"Some women report no difference between an intact and circumcised lover. Lots of women DO find a significant difference, and most of these women prefer the intact version. "
I could just as well say lots of women Do find a difference and they prefer the circumcised version. This is just silly.

Certainly one could say that, and it would be true for a certain demographic for reasons previously described.

But what women prefer is not really the issue. Whether or not it is acceptable to have your child's genitals altered to match a parent(s)' preference, regardless of the reasons for that preference, is the issue. the assertion of the intactivists is that it is not acceptable and a violation of the child's human rights -- regardless of the child's gender.

HAHAHA Ooooaky. If what women prefer is not the issue, then why did YOU bring it into this conversation?! Because, at the time, you were trying to build a case for why women only like cut because they've been brainwashed or never had a chance to experience an alternative. Which is a specious position.

What this looks like to me is that you are building a weak argument, based on all kinds of stuff, and when someone shoots holes in a part of your argument, you deflect that and re-double your efforts elsewhere. This is the most common failure in "argument" and looks pretty silly from where I am standing.

-- Bear

[lordbear]

As Bear pointed out, you "love the look and feel" of the circ'd version...

I don't think I said any such thing. Please take care with attributions.

...you "love the look and feel" of the circ'd version because that's what you are accustomed to, like most women of your generation. (Guessing from your photo that you were born in the mid-1950s.) Basically this is the result of a savvy marketing job. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, and nobody is saying otherwise.

Actually, you are saying otherwise. You are telling another adult that what they think must be because they are unaware and or have been manipulated to subscribe to a particular physical ideal. That invalidates their opinion.

Yes, I know that what you are saying is supported by research and evidence. I've studied many of the same articles. But scientists and professionals don't make sweeping generalizations and they definitely don't tell an individual (that they have not examined) how they tick. Most people find misdirected armchair psychology to be arrogant and offensive.

Humans vary in their response to all manner of physical variations. Beyond that, it's academic masturbation to impune a person for having a preference or attraction to some supposedly 'false' or artificial ideal. Humans experience life through their enculturated eyes and minds. You can't separate them. So, even if I was brainwashed to think cut is prettier, I still think that. I still have that physiological response. Merely informing me that I was told a lie won't make me see things differently.

All that said, I still think that children should not be nonconsensually modified. The upside of that would include that more penises would be left 'natural' and more lovers-of-penises would eventually find both to be normal. And, for sure, people would have preferences. But, there is NO INHERENT value in the source of the preference.

Stop telling people what they think and why they think that. While the statistics may be that you would be right, it's just a rude way to go. And when you are wrong, or when the person whom you leveled your analysis at thinks you're wrong, you've lost any hope of getting that person 'on your side'. So, figure out whether your goal is to educate and advocate, or if your goal is shame and punish.

Regards,
Bear