Circumcision editorial from Calgary Herald

[mamabadger]

I thought some of you would be interested in this journalist's opinion of intactivism. 

Article here.

[People] should focus on making decisions for their own children, and leave other parents to do as they see fit.

If you're going to be an activist, be one for a legitimate cause. 

[anony]

Someone needs to force that lady to watch a few circumcisions live or on video, then see if she still thinks those who want to stop it are "pests."

[erigeron]

If she is really stopping total strangers on beaches and bugging them about circumcision, I agree that is annoying. (This certainly wouldn't be the only pet cause where people do that. And it's annoying no matter what the cause is.) Who knows if she is actually doing that though. This editorial was written in an extremely biased tone that makes it hard to take seriously.

[T-man's Mama]

Bans are for nuclear weapons, not for the removal of foreskins.

Maybe if we removed fewer foreskins, we'd have fewer problems with nuclear weapons. With the increased sensitivity and erogenous tissue, more men would be willing to make love not war.

And thank god there are people out there actually willing to fight against child abuse in all forms, at the risk of being considered a pest, rather than simply letting letting "other parents to do as they see fit."

[elisheva]

Originally Posted by T-man's Mama 

 With the increased sensitivity and erogenous tissue, more men would be willing to make love not war.

Hmm. I hear this all the time in the intactivist camp (and, to be clear, I'm not a supporter of RIC but I am a supporter of the Jewish bris). My DH was circ'ed as an adult and had big fears that he would experience reduced sensation as a result of his choice. Nope. Not one bit. I know other men who have said the same about their adult circ experiences.

[ma2two]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elisheva 

My DH was circ'ed as an adult and had big fears that he would experience reduced sensation as a result of his choice. Nope. Not one bit. I know other men who have said the same about their adult circ experiences.

Give it some more time.

[elisheva]

Oh really? How many years qualify? Sources, please. 

[MyBoysBlue]

Because your husband has had 20 some less years with out a foreskin then those who were circumcised as infants it is likely that he will not have the same difficulties that are documented in most circumcised men.  He will have more sensitivity then they will because the skin hasn't had as long to keratinize.  We are not technically supposed to discuss sexual function and issues on this board.  I would like to encourage you to search out the info yourself.  There are two searches you should do.  Sex as Nature Intended and Circumcision Study Denmark.

[elisheva]

No issues here! I still think it's weak reasoning - I can't FATHOM a study that could test this. 

[Honey693]

Originally Posted by T-man's Mama 

Maybe if we removed fewer foreskins, we'd have fewer problems with nuclear weapons. With the increased sensitivity and erogenous tissue, more men would be willing to make love not war.

I think most men are plenty willing to make love, regardless of what's going on with their foreskin.  At least all the ones I know.  And isn't 80% of the world intact anyway?

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by T-man's Mama 

Maybe if we removed fewer foreskins, we'd have fewer problems with nuclear weapons. With the increased sensitivity and erogenous tissue, more men would be willing to make love not war.

Originally Posted by Honey693 

I think most men are plenty willing to make love, regardless of what's going on with their foreskin.  At least all the ones I know.  And isn't 80% of the world intact anyway?

Although I would not dismiss the idea that RIC can have far-reaching effects, I think we need to be careful about giving the intact foreskin magical powers. I have heard the same kind of claims about breastfeeding: that babies who were nursed and weaned themselves would grow up to be non violent, and we would have a more peaceful society because of it, etc. Most of the wars and violent acts throughout human history were committed in societies which did not circumcise, and which universally breastfed. There are plenty of excellent reasons for not circ'ing (and for breastfeeding) without claiming it can bring about world peace. Maybe RIC is more a side-effect of a harsh or violent society than a cause. 
 

[Stardust27]

To get back to the article: It's too funny how the author sets up her own trap in the final sentence.

"Whatever happened to MYOB - and knowing the difference between that concept and activism?"

Yeah, whatever happened to MYOB as in: Cut your own genitals all you like, but leave other people's genitals alone, especially when they're helpless and not able to stand up (often literally) for their own right to a whole body?

Of course, this only makes sense if you know the difference between your own body and another person's body.

Stardust

[T-man's Mama]

Please don't take my first comment too seriously. I meant it as tongue in cheek, but should have made that more obvious I guess.

Originally Posted by mamabadger 

Although I would not dismiss the idea that RIC can have far-reaching effects, I think we need to be careful about giving the intact foreskin magical powers. I have heard the same kind of claims about breastfeeding: that babies who were nursed and weaned themselves would grow up to be non violent, and we would have a more peaceful society because of it, etc. Most of the wars and violent acts throughout human history were committed in societies which did not circumcise, and which universally breastfed. There are plenty of excellent reasons for not circ'ing (and for breastfeeding) without claiming it can bring about world peace. Maybe RIC is more a side-effect of a harsh or violent society than a cause. 
 

[hakunangovi]

Originally Posted by elisheva 

No issues here! I still think it's weak reasoning - I can't FATHOM a study that could test this. 

Here you go:  www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/    Also,of interest in comparing humans to primates:  www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/  .

You do not state how long has elapsed since your DH was circumcised, but two factors are in his favour - he had the benefit of having a foreskin for X years protecting his glans and also by the time he was circumcised, his foreskin would not have still been connected to his glans and been ripped apart as is done with an infant.  As a PP stated - Give it time.  I can tell you from personal experience that over time there is a significant decrease in sensitivity.
 

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Just a reminder: We do not allow discusion of or reference to religion in TCAC. Thanks!