Advocacy in the UK - Page 2

[jessjgh1]

Yeah, but then if that is so Tony poses as a man of around 30/40, just had a 2nd child last year, supposedly.

[Frankly Speaking]

Yes, poses! Tony is a 68 or 69 year old fat bald man living in a small town in England. He is a retired graphic artist. Just get a mental picture of P.T. Barnum and you'll have a pretty good idea of what Tony looks like. If he's having children, they're great grandchildren.



Frank

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Islay

I will give just one name:

Jake

Those of us here who 'know' him will understand.

Ahh yes, Jake.

If ever a case of cognitive dissonance was more striking I wish not to know of it. It might even make his stance forgivable, if only he was not quite so intelligent. Far too bright to fit his lack of ethical understanding.

[Islay]

Originally Posted by Revamp

Ahh yes, Jake.

If ever a case of cognitive dissonance was more striking I wish not to know of it. It might even make his stance forgivable, if only he was not quite so intelligent. Far too bright to fit his lack of ethical understanding.

Unfortunately, he is in deep denial, as you suggest. I challenged him some two years ago to keep me updated on the inexorable desensitisation of his glans. (He chose elective circumcision.) After initially denying there was any loss, he later seemed unwilling to use his own experience and instead began quoting this, that and the other test or study to 'prove' his assertion. In other words, he had dug himself a hole and could not clamber out.

He is never impolite, never abusive or unkind.

He is not heterosexual. He has no children. He encourages circumcision, including RIC, but states that any son of his will not be circumcised at birth.

From its inception, he was the 'mover and shaker' of one of the web sites you listed.

Christopher

[aira]

From the site:

Where parents choose not to circumcise their sons at birth we believe they have a duty to provide them with the information to make their own decision when they reach their teens. We hope that our publications will aid them in carrying out this duty.

How exactly should this go?

Well son, now that you're 14, let's talk about chopping up your penis.

What?

That's right, would you like to remove any parts of your body now that you're a teen?

What the hell is wrong with you parents? Are you insane?

Oh no, we have a duty to inform you that you may want to have body parts removed, especially the most sensitive and pleasurable ones. Ya know, it makes sick internet pedophile fetishists really happy!

[Revamp]

Aira: LOL!

Originally Posted by Islay

Unfortunately, he is in deep denial, as you suggest. I challenged him some two years ago to keep me updated on the inexorable desensitisation of his glans. (He chose elective circumcision.) After initially denying there was any loss, he later seemed unwilling to use his own experience and instead began quoting this, that and the other test or study to 'prove' his assertion. In other words, he had dug himself a hole and could not clamber out.

He is never impolite, never abusive or unkind.

He is not heterosexual. He has no children. He encourages circumcision, including RIC, but states that any son of his will not be circumcised at birth.

From its inception, he was the 'mover and shaker' of one of the web sites you listed.

His use of studies certainly seems to suggest his experience was similar to your own but he is having troubles admitting it, to himself as much as others considering his behaviour.

I have actually seen him say things that are bordering upon the impolite (especially when it comes to generalisation ad hominems) if you want to know where then PM me. He was not dishing out as much as he was given though, he seems highly reasonable until you actually consider his words. He shows a total refusal to accept the basic principle of genital integrity and seems to see the notion of people having any rights over their own penis as absurd.

Well, any rights over their foreskin that is. Unless of course they want it removed...

I hold nothing at all against Jake for his homosexuality (since the notion of becoming a homophobic bisexual is a curious one) but I had heard (albeit from a highly unreliable source on this issue, Dr Tomas Stuttaford) that homosexuals had taken to getting elective circumcisions as adults as some form of cliqueish thing. I hope to the Heavens that that was as false as most of his words on this matter.

And that thing about his own son is just odd, I remember reading somewhere that he had said that he would but on the aforementioned forum when asked he was evasive so I am uncertain.

BTW he recently said that a woman posting on a Debate forum should not have to defend her "Choice" to circumcise her infant son to us.:

[Islay]

All of that and more.

All I know for certain about his sexual orientation is that he is not heterosexual.

My real concern is his circumcision fixation. The site Aira quoted from is his... and it makes me sick.

If anyone is curious about his raison d'etre they can check it out.

But for now, enough about him.

Christopher

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Islay

All I know for certain about his sexual orientation is that he is not heterosexual.

I know you said no further mention of the man but upon his Wikipedia page he describes himself as gay.

Anyway, the Gilgal Society might be small but it seems rather threatening all the same. Do you believe there to be any chance of it ressurecting RIC in the UK?

[Islay]

Originally Posted by Revamp

I know you said no further mention of the man but upon his Wikipedia page he describes himself as gay.

Anyway, the Gilgal Society might be small but it seems rather threatening all the same. Do you believe there to be any chance of it ressurecting RIC in the UK?

Not a chance in hell, James.

Christopher

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Islay

Not a chance in hell, James.

Glad to hear that you are so certain.

It's quite comforting, I suppose my concern is somewhat irrational. They just seemed deceptive enough to pull it off, just about. Although I suppose if they really were good enough to worry about I would have believed them.

[Islay]

Originally Posted by Revamp

Glad to hear that you are so certain.

I suppose if they really were good enough to worry about I would have believed them.

Correct.


Christopher

[Revamp]

In addition the head of the BMA says that he finds the procedure totally without merit and performing it upon infants is "Totally unethical".

So the chances of this hitting and then becoming the mainstream once more are fairly low from my estimation...