or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › I was just interviewed for an article about Circ!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I was just interviewed for an article about Circ! - Page 5

post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
As an intact man I can't speak on how it feels to be circ'd, but I imagine if it were that severe more people would complain and have a difficult time.
I will add to my previous discussion that the man circ'd as an adult had also told me that the "orgasm" was pretty much the same, and it was the actual pleasure during the act that dramatically decreased. Which is why circ'd men tend to be more "goal oriented"...race for the finish. The difference in the pleasures of the actual sex act and orgasm are much greater for the circumcised man. For the intact man, the entire sexual act is so extremely pleasurable, and the orgasm is just a cumulation of all that pleasure. It's more of a relaxed dance of pleasure, and he enjoys everything the whole time. I would think that it is similar for the intact woman as well (that's my personal experience ).

Keep in mind too, that women who are circumcised (through research) still report that they are able to orgasm and enjoy sex. Some people seem to think it's some all or nothing thing. Even type II MGM (glans/foreskin amputation), these men can still orgasm and procreate....

I think the point is, does anyone have the RIGHT to decrease sexual pleasure arbitrarily on a person? Is any genital mutilation OK as long as the person can still orgasm?

I hope that further clarifies. This is what I have deduced from years of research.
post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
I will add to my previous discussion that the man circ'd as an adult had also told me that the "orgasm" was pretty much the same, and it was the actual pleasure during the act that dramatically decreased. Which is why circ'd men tend to be more "goal oriented"...race for the finish. The difference in the pleasures of the actual sex act and orgasm are much greater for the circumcised man. For the intact man, the entire sexual act is so extremely pleasurable, and the orgasm is just a cumulation of all that pleasure. It's more of a relaxed dance of pleasure, and he enjoys everything the whole time. I would think that it is similar for the intact woman as well (that's my personal experience ).

Keep in mind too, that women who are circumcised (through research) still report that they are able to orgasm and enjoy sex. Some people seem to think it's some all or nothing thing. Even type II MGM (glans/foreskin amputation), these men can still orgasm and procreate....

I think the point is, does anyone have the RIGHT to decrease sexual pleasure arbitrarily on a person? Is any genital mutilation OK as long as the person can still orgasm?

I hope that further clarifies. This is what I have deduced from years of research.
No, no. We're totally on the same page.

But now that you said the orgasm is pretty much the same, then it makes sense. Because I was thinking that with a 75% the orgasms would be much weaker and not feel as good.

But what you said makes sense. I'm just questioning that 75% figure because it sounds so large! Just like when the HIV crap came out and they said that circ reduced the chance of HIV infection by 60%. Large percentages like that always make me raise an eyebrow.
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
No, no. We're totally on the same page.

But now that you said the orgasm is pretty much the same, then it makes sense. Because I was thinking that with a 75% the orgasms would be much weaker and not feel as good.

But what you said makes sense. I'm just questioning that 75% figure because it sounds so large! Just like when the HIV crap came out and they said that circ reduced the chance of HIV infection by 60%. Large percentages like that always make me raise an eyebrow.

Yep, the orgasm thing...that is something that I think that helps explain it more. It helps to understand that one more. Which is why the circumcised man tends to be more orgasm oriented. There's another male poster on MDS who too commented that the orgasm was pretty similar (he was circumcised as an adult) though the actual pleasure of the act was substantially decreased. Which makes sense, the orgasm originates in the brain apparently. Interesting enough, I read some research about mapping orgasms on an MRI. Women who were paralyzed from the waist down and are unable to feel sensation can still orgasm, they tested it using an MRI. The women had "thought" they were orgasming, though physicians doubted them "called it a phantom orgasm". So, they did an experiement with them using an MRI, and sure enough the same locations in the brain were lighting up just like in the non-paralyzed women. So, the receptors are present in the brain, and if they are stimulated in the right way they will eventually fire off, evoking that biochemical then muscular response we enjoy so much. Interesting huh?
post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
Once talked to a man who was circumcised as an adult, he had "no medical problems" but felt "uncomfortable" about having a foreskin and his physician was happy to lop it off. Anyhow, he said it was the worst mistake he made in his life. He said that more than half the pleasure during intercourse was gone, and that masturbation was a joke. Whole sensations just no longer existed after he was circumcised.

Twenty or so years later he discovered restoration, and was working on it for a few years. He said that he's gotten quite a bit more back, thought it's not the same it is pretty close to intact (I think he said he thinks its about 75-80% of what he used to feel with an intact penis).

And, I don't doubt it, honestly. My DH has slowly been working on restoration, and he's said several things that have coincided with this. He has whole new sensations that didn't exist before. Plus, I've noticed some changes as well.

Some people will say, circumcision decreases sensation...sure, that IS true, but it is more powerful to say even that circumcision takes away some sensations that are impossible to feel with a circumcised penis. Sad, but true : . Most men in this country want to deny it as they are circumcised themselves.
Wow! And keep in mind that his loss of sensation must be less than in men who got circ'd in infancy because they had 20+ years more of keratinization : .
Isn't that crazy that circ'd men do it to their sons?! :
post #85 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJamie View Post
Have you bothered to read this thread at all????

Personally, while I oppose circumcision, will not circ any son of mine, and try to convince my friends pregnant with boys not to circ, I would be fully and totally AGAINST any such bill, and indeed any such bill would be totally unconstitutional. (Religious freedom ring a bell?)
Let me ask you this. Are you opposed to female circumcision? For the sake of religious freedom this practice would be okay to preform. So why is it against the law to preform female circumcion? And yes I've been following very closely on this thread.
post #86 of 106
Thread Starter 
Just heard that Gary's email has been flooded by people who are both in support and up in arms over the article. For some reason, it's been pushed up to the top spot on the website again.

And, on a more personal note, the young man (he is 19) who bought a car from me a couple of months ago called me today to tell me he saw the article in the paper. He just called to tell me THANK YOU! He said he's intact and appreciated hearing my story.

My mother has gotten several emails, some positive, some negative; my husband got a thumbs up at a meeting at work; my sister had phone calls from irate friends ("How dare she say I MUTILATED my son!!!"); the birth center is thrilled for the plug.

Thanks, all for the great discussions and the support. Please feel free to sticky this, or whatever to help the cause!
post #87 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheBrink View Post
I think the article was awesome. Great job, Amanda!

I'm the other anti-circ mom quoted there (Nancy Moses). Like Amanda, I don't feel that I was completely and correctly represented, but I think he did a good job. I wish more of my complete quotes had been included, not just pieces, but I understand that's how it works.

Anyway - I'm just so glad to have it out there as a conversation starter!
Nancy Moses, you deserve some credit for this too. Thank you.

"Nancy Moses, a friend of Mann's, arrived at the same outlook while pregnant with her first child, who turned out to be a girl. Four years later, Moses gave birth to a son, John, who is now 2 and, as Moses proudly states, not circumcised."

"I think I always knew that I found circumcision odd, creepy and cruel, even," said Moses, 31. "But it wasn't until I was pregnant that I knew how horrible it would be if someone hurt my baby. And imagine if I was the one to allow that."
post #88 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
But now that you said the orgasm is pretty much the same, then it makes sense. Because I was thinking that with a 75% the orgasms would be much weaker and not feel as good.
I don't have any way of knowing, and my case wouldn't be a "normal" one, but I would say the my botched circ and re-circ easly cost me 85% of sensation initially and that has probably increased to 95% in the last 3-4 years. The orgasm itself, not bad. But getting there........

I appreciate the efforts of the OP and understand where she is coming from. It's a start to an issue that I, sadly, don't expect to see resolved in my lifetime.

But make no mistake about it, I want it outlawed. If a female's genitals are good enough to be protected by federal law, then so are a male's. There's no consititutional right or inherent freedom to mutilate a child's genitals. I believe in a consenting adult's right to do what they want to their genitals by their own choice, but NOBODY...not my parents, or ignorant doctors, or some religion....had any right to slice up my penis without my permission.
post #89 of 106
There was an article about FGM in our city's newspaper. I wrote a letter to the editor about my feelings on Male Circumcision. It was published and won letter of the week . Two years later, I get a phone call from a producer making a documentary on circumcision. She wanted an interview. Keep the letters going to the editors and it will snowball from there.


_____________________________
Serena wife to Nic. mom to DS1 , DS2: and DD:
post #90 of 106
Cool, Serena, thanks for sharing that. You throw a small pebble out into the pond and the ripples make bigger and bigger rings. . . and, "poof" cutting has ended forever, everywhere.
We're all part of the solution.
post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by baybee View Post
<<(Religious freedom ring a bell?)>>

Religious freedom does not permit child abuse. There was a case of a
Native American group who practised a tradition of biting teen aged boys
on the arms. It was a part of a religious coming of age ceremony. They were reported and it went to court. They had to stop the practise.

If there was a religious group that advocated animal torture or child sacrifice, none of that would be allowed. It's estimated that 200 baby boys in the U.S. are sacrificed due to genital mutilation every year. This is why we need to end it. All the beautiful traditions of religious ceremonies which welcome new members of the tribe can be kept. Cutting kids' genitals has no place in today's society.
That was really well said!
post #92 of 106
Here's what Van Lewis (of the Ashley Montague Petition) wrote to the Ledger:
(he gave me permission to share it with this forum)

"I thought this article on the decreasing popularity of circumcision (among
adults; 100% of babies have always vigorously opposed it) was very
thoughtfully and competently done. I do wonder why people who want equal
genital protection of the law for all children, not just for girls, were
called "militant", though. It seems to me that supporting the constitutions
of Florida and the United States, and ALL children's moral and
constitutional rights to be protected equally from medically unnecessary
genital alteration (circumcision, cutting, mutilation, whatever you want to
call it is ok with me; there is no word bad enough for it in my book) and
from the permanent damage and further risks - including death - to which we
subject all children we circumcise, without their lawful, informed consent,
should be called "fair" or "patriotic" or "law-abiding" or "intelligent" or
"humane" or "loving" something like that. "Militant" comes from the same
root as "military". The military is society's organ of violence. Calling
intactivists "militant" accuses us violence. But it is not intactivists who
are doing the violence. We are the ones opposing violence. It is the
circumcisers who are committing the violence, sexual violence at that,
against babies, for crying out loud. Circumcision is where sex and violence
first meet, and marry. Call the mutilationists "militant", not the people
trying to stop them from committing their unnecessary and despicable
violence against babies. Pick on somebody your own size, circumcisers. Leave
babies full-sized, not circumcised. We kill some children by circumcising
them. I have a long and incomplete list of names of children and others
killed by circumcision. What are parents trying to achieve by circumcising
their children that's worth risking their children's lives for? Does anybody
know? To me it's a great mystery. Despite minor glitches like the "militant"
word choice, however, this article was by far better than most of the trash
I've read in the U.S. press on the subject over the last 40+ years. Thanks,
Mr. White."

Foreskins are for KEEPS!
post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyboys View Post
Just heard that Gary's email has been flooded by people who are both in support and up in arms over the article. For some reason, it's been pushed up to the top spot on the website again.

And, on a more personal note, the young man (he is 19) who bought a car from me a couple of months ago called me today to tell me he saw the article in the paper. He just called to tell me THANK YOU! He said he's intact and appreciated hearing my story.

My mother has gotten several emails, some positive, some negative; my husband got a thumbs up at a meeting at work; my sister had phone calls from irate friends ("How dare she say I MUTILATED my son!!!"); the birth center is thrilled for the plug.

Thanks, all for the great discussions and the support. Please feel free to sticky this, or whatever to help the cause!
Amanda - Rob reports that this was the main conversation at the church office yesterday. The old ladies are worried about Zain - saying that it wasn't fair to him to be so public about this. Rob assured them that 1) Zain is just fine and 2) You'd never agree to the article without checking with Zain first.

My "odd, creepy, and cruel" quote upset my family. I think they (mother and sister) felt personally attacked for their choices. I'm past the point of personal with them. They are both done having babies. It's such a bigger picture than that!
post #94 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenagirl View Post
There was an article about FGM in our city's newspaper. I wrote a letter to the editor about my feelings on Male Circumcision. It was published and won letter of the week . Two years later, I get a phone call from a producer making a documentary on circumcision. She wanted an interview. Keep the letters going to the editors and it will snowball from there.


_____________________________
Serena wife to Nic. mom to DS1 , DS2: and DD:

Way to go!!!! Great job.
post #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by baybee View Post
<<(Religious freedom ring a bell?)>>

It's estimated that 200 baby boys in the U.S. are sacrificed due to genital mutilation every year.
I think that's supposed to be 200,000?
post #96 of 106
Oh, I meant the number who die as a direct result of circumcision.
post #97 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheBrink View Post
Amanda - Rob reports that this was the main conversation at the church office yesterday. The old ladies are worried about Zain - saying that it wasn't fair to him to be so public about this. Rob assured them that 1) Zain is just fine and 2) You'd never agree to the article without checking with Zain first.

My "odd, creepy, and cruel" quote upset my family. I think they (mother and sister) felt personally attacked for their choices. I'm past the point of personal with them. They are both done having babies. It's such a bigger picture than that!
I definitely spoke to Zain. In fact, he was so wonderful about it. He said, "Well, maybe another mom will choose not to do it from this."

He also asked for no pic, and I thought that was totally reasonable!

I can see how your mom and sis would be upset. But, you're so right. This wasn't about them. At all. And, did your mom really make the choice in full awareness? My mom said that there was no mention at all to her when her boys were circed.
post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyboys View Post
I can see how your mom and sis would be upset. But, you're so right. This wasn't about them. At all. And, did your mom really make the choice in full awareness? My mom said that there was no mention at all to her when her boys were circed.
Mom says she had no idea. But, it seems like she could have. I mean, she went against the grain and figured out how to nurse preschoolers. You'd think she could have asked some questions. And my brother was the 3rd child - so she was already deep in the parenting thing at that point - LLL, etc. I don't know. Odd.
post #99 of 106
I thought Amanda was great on the video, which is very, very good for our cause. In general the article was about as good as we are going to get from the mainstream media. They have to worry about backlash, both religious and non-religious. We all need to respect each other's perspectives. Fundamental intactivism has its points, but is likely to turn off a number of parents who will then just go ahead and circ. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. We can't save the entire world in one day. But we can chip away at the mountain one article and one person at a time. Eventually the mountain will no longer block our view. In my estimation it is particularly important to appear reasonable right now when any day we may expect one or more physician's organizations to recommend universal circ because of the AIDS studies. Our increasing emphasis on the damage caused by circ will be much to our favor. While the sexasnatureintendedit site is a bit strong, after having reviewed it in detail, I think it is correct as to the function of the foreskin and its importance to both the male and the female. This is where we need to be placing the emphasis IMO.
post #100 of 106
Dave2GA
Always appreciate your input on these forums. Thanks for all you do to
help end the suffering.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › I was just interviewed for an article about Circ!