New York Observer article

[baybee]

http://www.observer.com/2009/o2/fore-skin-game

"With fewer circumcisions being performed, and a cadre of New York men hell-bent on restoring their own foreskins, you may be surprised what you unwrap on your next date, ladies!"

See link for full article (2200 words). Intact America and NORM and are mentioned, plus Wayne Griffiths, Curtis Lowrey, Jim Bigelow, Georganne Chapin, Dean Pisani, and the 30th anniversary march on Washington DC.

[jessjgh1]

Just wanted to remind everyone that the article link is a bit descriptive in nature and to be careful of quoting, commenting. The previous thread got pulled.

I was confused at times by what the writer meant by 'pro' pro circ or pro intact?
It was a bit of a shame the writer choose to use so many derogatory terms but MUCH of the article came across as positive for intactness and at least might have more people thinking about the issue before from a new standpoint (sexual sensitivity, etc).

Jessica



Jessica

[needhelpplease]

I was confused by that article. It went into detail on restoration and the dropping circ rates, but then basically said women prefer circumcised penises, and also called the dropping rates/lack of Medicaid coverage "bad news" as well as saying stuff like "anteater". It also seemed gently mocking of the restorers or maybe that was just me picking it up.

[Treece]

The article seems pro circ to me. The reason is all the negatives about uncircumcised penises. The comments, what I have read, are fairly anti.

[perspective]

yeah, one side I like the article because it really dove into the anti-circ culture and talked about stuff I have never really seen discussed in major media before.


On the downside though it uses a lot of negative terms toward the male penis.

Also the author describes the circ rate going down to be "bad" and that the movement of men who want their foreskins back is "scary". So it is negative article mostly, but with some good facts.