Denial

[calngavinsmom]

I participate on another board that has a debate format. The pro-circers there are offended by the terms "intact" or "whole" when used in reference to boys who have not been circumcised. They are insistant that their boys penis' are intact eventhough they are circumcised and therefore missing their foreskin, and so not "intact".

I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around this logic. Has anyone else encountered this when discussing circ with others? Such a wholehearted passion that there is nothing missing after a circ when there so obviously is?

People have to know that in order for their child to be circumcised that someone is actually going to cut part of his penis off right? Which in turn whould result in said penis no longer being whole.....right....logically speaking?

Oh my, I think I will turn in from the debate boards for tonight. Sometimes my head just aches

Thanks for listening,
Tara

[Revamp]

Failure to accept the reality of the situation is what it seems to be to me. Probably just people so consumed by the lie about it being exactly the same as the appendix.

[the_lissa]

I don't understand that either.

[Mewsin]

I don't get it at all. I said the same thing to my sister and she said to me, "You make is sound like something is missing on my son." umm well there is. Truth hurts sometimes.

[MommytoB]

So true and so confusing how can some people realize that nothing is missing after or taken away after circumcision ?

So then maybe that is why they get the 'defensive' of seeing it as us stating their 'son is 'damaged' , deformed , mulitated kids ?

[Revamp]

They are convinced that the foreskin is of no more consequence than, say, the tonsils or appendix. I doubt that you would say that someone who had had those removed is not "Intact" so from there perspective their boy merely had some superfluous piece of tissue that served only as a risk removed, nothing of any importance.

[QueenOfThePride]

Sadly, most pro-circ people do NOT believe that the FORESKIN IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE PENIS.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride

Sadly, most pro-circ people do NOT believe that the FORESKIN IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE PENIS.

Yep, not only that but most people I know don't understand that the foreskin makes up around 50% of the skin of the penis...most don't seem to understand that there are different levels of circ either...and they all seem to think it is just a little snip . Just a complete lack of knowledge.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride

Sadly, most pro-circ people do NOT believe that the FORESKIN IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE PENIS.

???

I suspect that they do... They just regard it as an negligible part.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Revamp

???

I suspect that they do... They just regard it as an negligible part.

Maybe some do understand, but it does seem like most of the people I know just think that it is a flap of skin which is attatched to the end of the penis. Nearly all think that it is just a flap of skin, like an earlope or skin tag or something. Sad they've not read or experienced an intact man, so they don't understand the anatomy or how the foreskin works at all.

[Kathryn]

I've had people try to get me to say that I wouldn't call their son intact if he skinned his knee because they see it as the same thing.

[phatchristy]

On another note....I sometimes do call the intact penis a "natural penis"...I don't think they could argue against that one as it is a definite that their son was born that way.

Some women, once I started referring it to that way, actually then started to ask me to use the word intact again....because referring to my son's penis as natural....well...it sort of obviously states that their circ'd son's penis is "unnatural." Which they would of course HAVE to admit!

A friend, who is as anti-circ as they come, actually was on a debate board with me and she actually got EVERY person on the board to acknowledge that circumcision by definition was genital mutilation.
After a thorough explanation of what it was and what the definition of mutilation was. I thought that was a real turning point for those in the group.

I have found that sometimes sharing what people in other countries think of what people in this country do to their sons as being horrific in the way that people in this country think of female genital mutilation as being a strong point as well. Several women then admitted to them it was a cultural thing, and the acknowledged that had they not been conditioned to only experiencing circ'd penises they would think differently.

[Christine&men]

Well, maybe for them it is natural/intact/normal.

See, in Africa there are societies where they file down the front teeth, or the women wear rings around their necks (and wouldn't be able to support them without the rings), or what about women in corsets in the last century, squishing their internal organs in "unnatural positions", or boys who have to get tattoos with less than clean instruments (nail on end of stick-type) to become men?

I am soo glad I don't live in any such society... But for their mindset it is natural/normal. And I don't think I can ever understand it.

One would think we have evolved enough to stop it, but I guess, we have not .

So, let's continue to tell people about how it really is!

[jessjgh1]

Christy,
THose are all great points. In my experience (and opinion) those types of arguements work especially well when one has cultivated a relationship with the person/group and already has established a level of respect, open-mindedness, etc.

I can honestly say that I questioned circumcision because after hearing a little bit about it I realized that it had to cause pain. Before that I hadn't really thought about it and somehow, stupidly thought that it was just like cutting off an extra flap of skin. Now, of course, that doesn't even make much sense at all. So I understand how people can think that the foreskin and removal is just 'simple'.

Not anymore.

Jessica

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

Maybe some do understand, but it does seem like most of the people I know just think that it is a flap of skin which is attatched to the end of the penis. Nearly all think that it is just a flap of skin, like an earlope or skin tag or something. Sad they've not read or experienced an intact man, so they don't understand the anatomy or how the foreskin works at all.

I had heard the flap argument and it just seems bizarre to me, perhaps it stems from having an intact penis and thus getting a good deal more experience.

Anyone who calls it a "Flap" should be told firmly that it is far more similar to an envelope.

[QueenOfThePride]

Originally Posted by Revamp

Anyone who calls it a "Flap" should be told firmly that it is far more similar to an envelope.

I like to call it a sleeve.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

A friend, who is as anti-circ as they come, actually was on a debate board with me and she actually got EVERY person on the board to acknowledge that circumcision by definition was genital mutilation.
After a thorough explanation of what it was and what the definition of mutilation was. I thought that was a real turning point for those in the group.

I suspect that if they were asked if a young girl who had her inner labia and clitoral hood removed to permanently expose her clitoris were intact, they would answer "No, she is not, she is genitally mutilated." But that would be the closest comparison visually to male circumcision. This fact is not lost on them, they just want to stay in denial so they don't have to face the fact and that circumcision is a dieing trend that they just can't let go.



Frank

[QueenOfThePride]

Originally Posted by Revamp

???

I suspect that they do... They just regard it as an negligible part.

No, really, they don't. I've participated on circ debate boards for two years. Many pro-circ'ers do not believe the foreskin is part of the penis. They will say that a circ'ed penis is whole, complete, and undamaged.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride

I like to call it a sleeve.

I did too until I actually retracted...Once you see it on the inside you realise it is actually a lot more sealed than one of them, there is no way of entering the rest of the shirt, to stretch the methaphor.

I never actually realised that there was a sort of skin barrier beforehand.

Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride

No, really, they don't. I've participated on circ debate boards for two years. Many pro-circ'ers do not believe the foreskin is part of the penis. They will say that a circ'ed penis is whole, complete, and undamaged.

Well...What do they thing it is a part of?

*baffled*

[QueenOfThePride]

Originally Posted by Revamp

Well...What do they thing it is a part of?

*baffled*

*equally baffled*

Cognitive dissonance?