Gays Ramp Up Intactivism
August 6, 2009 Circumcision, Humor, Sexuality
The pro-circ defenders — not unheard of in my own community — will often attempt to intimidate intactivists into silence through a myriad of tactics. To express skepticism about circumcision is to invite personal attacks and innuendos upon one’s manhood.
But there is one group who won’t be intimidated into silence about expressing their opinions on all things penis: the queers. And frankly, they probably understand the pragmatic differences between cut vs. intact better than any of us.
The adoption of intactivism by the gay community as a pressing human and child rights issue will present a formidable challenge to the powerful circumcision industry and its lobbies. Whatever dubious (and downright bogus) studies the pro-circ communities will invoke to support continued MGM, the queers will remind everyone that something tangible and valuable is being discarded. And that is, of course, the often overlooked core of the matter.
No serious person can effectively dismiss the gay community’s expertise on all things penis. And no one is going to succeed in getting them to change the general subject.
Hat tip: Male Circumcision and HIV
54 comments
I’m afraid I am going to have to challenge your assertion that gays are “experts” at all things penis. Just because they stick it in somebody’s ass instead of somebody’s vagina doesn’t make them any more of an expert than a straight guy. The physiological responses are no different.
As for “intactivism,” they are simply opposed to anything that is Biblical or religiously oriented, whether it has anything to do with sex or not. It’s just another bandwagon to hop on. I’m certainly not going to support anything that curtails my family’s religious freedom, and neither are most other people. You can exclude your kids from the covenant if it makes you happy, but you have no right to dictate your secular beliefs to the rest of us.
“Just because they stick it in somebody’s ass instead of somebody’s vagina doesn’t make them any more of an expert than a straight guy.”
I think you’re forgetting something important in that equation.
“they are simply opposed to anything that is Biblical or religiously oriented”
In a general sense, that could be true.
“you have no right to dictate your secular beliefs to the rest of us.”
Oh, OK. So I guess pro-life advocates have no rights to push their agenda either. That’s not how this country works. You vote your voice, and he can scream as loud as he wants to try and drown it out.
Compared to the mainstream Jewish community which pretends there is no cost to circumcision, and believes EVERYONE should be circumcised, I am a whisper among a storm.
Or at least, I was. http://blogs.forward.com/binte.....el-chabon/
The “cost” to circumcision is no greater than the “cost” of piercings, tatoos, immunizations (did you know guardasil has killed dozens of girls, per the CDC? But they don’t mention that on the commercials, now do they?). Cars kill people every day – as do screwed up prescriptions. There is no such thing as a perfectly 100% risk-free existence. More baby boys are harmed every day by idiots dropping them or accidentally running the bath water too hot then are “harmed” by circumcision. I get it that this is your idee fixe, but really – subjectively, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world than to take on a religious commandment that even Karaites agree is binding upon all Hebrews.
The “cost” to circumcision is no greater than the “cost” of piercing
piercing leads to hearing loss in 100% of those pierced?
there are much bigger fish to fry in the world than to take on a religious commandment that even Karaites agree is binding upon all Hebrews.
The role of Jews in ROUTINE neonatal circumcision policy and the African incursion for mass circumcision is a problem because of the religious and cultural blinders driving their passion and judgment.
DK, you are NOT alone. I myself, am not Jewish. But of all the intactivists I know (and I know many), a whole lot of them are! Love your blog, by the way. And the word Kvetch
Body piercings was what I had in mind – especially penis and belly button piercings (I have no idea if any women pierce their vulvas – if it’s possible to do it, somebody’s probably done it). They have a nasty tendency to get infected and require medical or surgical intervention.
And your claim that all or even most circumcision leads to loss of function or feeling just isn’t true. Claiming you “would be” more sensitive or whatever if you hadn’t have been circumcised as a child is a non-starter because it’s impossible to measure objectively. And any supposed “loss” in adult circumcision is just as likely to be psychological as physical in origin.
I think I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll say it again, from a woman’s point of view, more sensitivity is the last thing men need. We don’t need or want anything that’s going to take you guys from being a 5 minute wonder to being a 2 minute wonder. Perhaps God instituted circumcision so we might, maybe, just have a change at getting something out of sex besides pregnant.
is a non-starter because it’s impossible to measure objectively.
No, it isn’t. Not anymore than it is for female genital mutilation. Look: http://www3.interscience.wiley.....8;SRETRY=0
I think I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll say it again, from a woman’s point of view, more sensitivity is the last thing men need.
It isn’t a linear thing. Nerves and motions that don’t lead to orgasm are the ones that are removed .
Avavah,
Piercings are an adult choice. Circumcision of an infant is not.
I’m not sure from your post if you’re male or female, but many men circumcised as adults report a loss. Just watch “Cut: Slicing through the Myths of Circumcision”, a film by Jewish filmmaker Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon to see a guy talk in detail about his experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4
And this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAHGFx95D80
And these guys too
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/
True, pleasure is a subjective experience. So then, how can you even propose to speak for other men about what they do or don’t feel? If you don’t feel harmed, great. But some men do and do not appreciate essentially being told to shut up and get over it.
You seem to want to speak for all women. I’m not sure why, but I’m afraid you just are incorrect. Many women like penises in their natural state- with a foreskin. And foreskin does not cause premature ejaculation. If it did, then over 70% of the world’s men would have no problem with it and most American men would be stellar. No, didn’t think so.
Regarding the God instituting circumcision thing, perhaps. But I think Mamonides had a much more likely theory.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm
“from a woman’s point of view, more sensitivity is the last thing men need. We don’t need or want anything that’s going to take you guys from being a 5 minute wonder to being a 2 minute wonder.”
That’s pretty crass, and could be misconstrued as a bullying tactic. The way people speak to David about this serious, human rights is issue is to try and make him insecure. I recall a few months ago when another commenter tried to slander him as idle rich because only such a person would have the time to think about this issue.
I for one am not anti-circumcision. I’m a staunch traditionalist. But I think DK’s POV deserves its credence. He makes a lot of very valid points that conscientious parents of baby boys ought to consider.
Studies have shown no significant difference in the ejaculation latency time (time from beginning of intercourse to ejaculation) between circumcised an intact males.
Perhaps the main reason is that their are far more important variables, such as state of mind, strength of the PC muscles, etc. Premature Ejaculation is actually a result of some of these other variables.
The nerve endings of the foreskin are similar to those of the fingertips and lips. Having fingertips and lips does not contribute to premature ejaculation either. Not all pleasure directly correlates into ejaculation latency time.
Pleasure is pleasure though, and I don’t think you can ever justify taking it away from someone else for non-medically necessary reasons. I actually find the idea that making a guy feel less to last longer to benefit women to be a very sexist idea. Imagine hearing an argument turned around the other way!
On gays being more in tune with their penis than the straight, I would have a tendency to agree with you DK. Gays are much more likely to experiment with any number of exploratory devices, methods, concoctions, pain inducers, hot or cold conditioners and electrical contraptions that most straight men would ever even consider. For them to have discovered unique qualities or feelings that can be derived from Wee Willy, would not surprise me in the least.
(Snipped from a similar topic a Jewcy..My reply)
50+ years of doing the “wild thing” with myself and others has
left me well, in my opinion-reasoned with experience. Not only have I discovered over the years that increasingly it became more and more difficult to achieve the desired feeling necessary to achieve orgasm, but orgasm inside my mate even more so. I attribute this loss of sensitivity of my organ to the loss of my foreskin soon after birth and the use of a rough hand during masturbation. The inside of a woman’s vagina being more supple than a hand, became foreign to an organ conditioned to the later.
But it does not stop there. Another thing that I have noticed over the years is the desire for more and more erotic pornographic viewing. This supplemented for the lack of stimulation I was receiving, as achieving orgasmwas becoming quite a chore. I often wonder if anyone has ever taken a serious look as to whether or not circumcision plays a role in pornography.
You know what, Ahavah? The foreskin evolved for a reason. Removing it is unnatural. You want to argue that it’s a commandment binding upon all Jews? Then you need to come up with a better reason, than, “We have this REALLY old book that everyone agrees was dictated by God, and it tells us to.”
Also, if you ask DK, he’ll tell you about the academic opinion that prior to the Hasmoneans, circumcision was a much less radical procedure than it its today.
And nowhere are we commanded to impose this practice upon the gentiles. In fact, I’m sure you could turn up more than a few frum rabbis who would argue that it’s forbidden for them to do it, as it implies participation in the covenant.
Big Money
From: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Snipped: “$450 million in 1990 dollars”
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/grimes/
This was just from a very quick search..These are 1990 dollars. This is what it is “really” all about.
Hafsours:
Crass? Kindly make a survey of all your female relatives and friends and ask the women their number one complaint about sex – the average sexual encounter is about 5 minutes long (some stats say 7, but wow, 7 whole minutes!). A woman takes about half an hour to be fully into it. Try picking up a few women’s magazines if you don’t have any female friends. Talk to any sex therapist. What I’m stating is simply factual truth, you can consider it crass if you like, but the men aren’t the only ones involved in sex here, thank you. Unless your partner is made of plastic.
My point is that he’s looking at it from a self-centered point of view, one that pretends sex is only about his penis and ignores the other 4 senses as if they weren’t even there. Sex is taste, touch (hands), smell, music, lighting and psychic/spiritual connection. And part of that spiritual connection is sharing a religious faith together.
DK appears to be a proponent of laws that would take away people’s religious right to circumcise their children – an unconstitutional interference in freedom of religion – for a procedure that the VAST majority of men don’t even think about as adults. The amount of complaints vs the amount of procedures is statistically insignificant, to say the least. The amount of “activism” is in no way proportional to the actual risks of the issue. If proportional “risk” was really their goal, they would have plenty of other everyday “risks” children face everday that are far more statistically significant. Their goal is ideological, not scientific.
What I’m stating is simply factual truth
But it isn’t. There does not seem to be a statistical correlation between lasting longer with or without the foreskin. However, a sliding — as opposed to thrusting — mechanism is destroyed through circumcision, as is the issue of dryness and what the foreskin does for the woman.
DK appears to be a proponent of laws that would take away people’s religious right to circumcise their children
Ending ROUTINE medical circumcision is different than making it illegal. I am agnostic on the latter issue. I have no defense for keeping it legal, but it isn’t my goal.
The amount of complaints vs the amount of procedures is statistically insignificant, to say the least.
It is hard to know what one is missing, just as if one had been colorblind since an infant.
The amount of “activism” is in no way proportional to the actual risks of the issue.
It isn’t just about “risk” — and neither is the pro-circ argument, really (the latter’s is really about money). Rather, it is about certainty. When a part of a limb is cut off, this is guaranteed to have its effects. That’s not risk. The notion that it is all about benefits versus risks is itself a red herring, as it implicitly denies any function of the foreskin. This is revealing, and disturbing.
And part of that spiritual connection is sharing a religious faith together.
I think there are plenty of people who that is not true for. I think that is your preference. Regardless, most Americans are not Jewish nor Muslim, and hospitals should not be promoting circumcision because of financial greed and perhaps religious bias from a disproportionate amount of Jewish doctors and a secular, cultural bias stemming from legacy of far-right Christians who sought to discourage masturbation.
“Rather, it is about certainty. When a part of a limb is cut off, this is guaranteed to have its effects. That’s not risk. The notion that it is all about benefits versus risks is itself a red herring, as it implicitly denies any function of the foreskin. This is revealing, and disturbing.” Wow, that was very well said DK.
What frustrates me is that I will never know what I was missing. It is not like us straight guys talk about this with each other-actually in all my years I don’t remember once the conversation coming up with any of my friends.
@Ms.Ahavah…Madam, from my experience the entire female body is an erogenous zone and your 4 extra senses are mostly female too. Man, I’m sorry to tell you has only a select few of those tickle zones, that includes your 4 extra as well…The only time that man really experiences what you describe equally with a female is when he is in pursuit of what he has yet to have. The longer the relationship lasts though, the more desensitized most men become. Men will always struggle with monogamy madam, for we were not meant to be.
“Men will always struggle with monogamy madam, for we were not meant to be.”
Is that true for your perspective, DK?
Ahava,
It appears as if you were trying to pull the woman card on me — odd since this is essentially a male issue. I myself am a woman. And I believe your comment was crass, and veering from relevancy.
Do you believe that Africans, Bedouins, etc. have a right to come here, scrape off a woman’s clitoris and inner labia, and sew her shut? If you do, you’re a nutbag. if you don’t, then quit telling David he has ‘no right’ to interfere with your religious freedom. Human interest comes before religious freedom.
Now why in the world would you want to put poor DK on the spot like that HalfSours….lololol? That is a “very” tough question for any man to answer. Maybe I better clarify something real quick in defense of all men…Notice I said “most” not all and “struggle” not succumb..lol There, I feel much better now.
All of my friends (male and female) who have been with both intact and cut men infinitely prefer intact. They have assured me that I’m not missing out on anything by never having been with a circumcised man and I would never want my husband to chop off part of his genitals even if circumcised was “better” from a woman’s perspective. If non-medically-indicated circumcision was illegal in hospitals and for doctors to do without the person himself being 18+ and requesting it himself then there would still be ways for Jews and Muslims to circumcise for religious reasons (something I’m personally against, but I accept that it’s a part of their beliefs and that a law against religious infant circumcision would not be constitutional).
From my perspective – my husband lasts plenty long (no two-pump chump here!) and I have absolutely no complaints hygiene-wise or sex-wise. I wouldn’t change a thing.
Non-medically-indicated circumcision of a minor should first not be covered by any insurance company or medicaid program – that would be a great first step that wouldn’t infringe on anyone’s rights! In fact, it would be a wonderful way to stick up for the right of the newborn baby boy to a whole body – just like the right for newborn baby girls to a whole body. I would have been cut just like my brothers had I been unfortunate enough to have been born a boy. Why? To “match” my father even though baby/child penises look completely different than adult penises. It is not a valid medical procedure when no medical association in the world recommends it without there first being an actual medical indication (medical indications for male circumcision are <1%). There is nothing conservative or minor about performing prophylactic surgery on someone as an infant.
~B.
No, Betsy. A Jewish boy has to be circumcised on the 8th day of his life and a Muslim boy has to be circumcised at age 13. What and hafsours are doing is elevating what YOU define as “human interest” over what other societies have defined as their interest for thousands of years. It’s a bunch of Euro-centric crap right out of racist anomial catholicism. Western culture must be “better” because it’s “scientific” and white, while those poor brown natives are just ignorant yahoos, right? Science does not have all the answers and never will.
Science does not have all the answers and never will.
Right – we have to turn to a 3,000 year-old set of Bronze Age myths for that.
This old man predicts that there will come a time when these “have to’s” in our society are going to be taken to task on what can only be described as abuse of their children. I’m not talking just about circumcision either; there is a whole host of problems that need to be addressed. I’m an atheist though, so that makes me biased against religious indoctrination and most assuredly growing intolerant of ignorance and apathy in an age of such scientific enlightenment.
Catholicism doesn’t oppose circumcision, neither does general European culture.
As far as gays are concerned, a gay friend of mine had a circumcision as an adult. He told me it was pretty common among the European gay scene as it was considered more sanitary (gentlemen, if you’re not cut, you must clean yourself underneath the foreskin as well – every day), and he also reported increased sensation (in detail while I was having dinner, I might add). So that would be the only person I know that has got experiences to compare and did not undergo circumcision out of religious motivations.
Male circumcision somatically equals to the removal of a woman’s labia. While this per se will not greatly decrease the quality of sexual sensitivity, an important protective function to the clitoris is lost.
My bf and I had a conversation about this the other day; he stated that now, as an adult, he wouldn’t go for a circumcision if he weren’t cut already. To him, the cons would outweigh the pros.
Men are indeed inclined to polygamy to widely spread their seed; that’s why women need clothes. Varying outfits / styles suggest to men they’ve got different lovers – men are simple like that. A well-filled lingerie chest of drawers adds to that effect. (BTW, babies always resemble their fathers more during the first three weeks after birth; that’s nature’s way of assuring men of fatherhood and getting them to care for their offspring.)
babies always resemble their fathers more during the first three weeks after birth
really? where did you get that info?
I read that a longer while ago in a scientific essay. I’ll have to see if I can retrieve it somewhere.
Ahava: >The amount of “activism” is in no way proportional to the actual risks of the issue. If proportional “risk” was really their goal, they would have plenty of other everyday “risks” children face everday that are far more statistically significant. Their goal is ideological, not scientific.
Like most religious nuts, you’re projecting. You accuse DK of an ideological agenda, but you, of course, don’t have one. You only have the babies’ best interests at heart. Riiight.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my right-wing ultra-Orthodox brother yesterday, in which he assured me that news agencies like CNN were biased and radically left-wing, and that all liberals are brainwashed. The irony was apparently lost on the poor fellow, and I neglected to mention that perhaps, just perhaps, he was projecting, and he was far more brainwashed than anyone on the left side of the spectrum.
HEY Ahavah,
You know how they say of the holocaust, “They came for the communists and I said nothing because I was not a communist…”
WHERE THE HELL where you when the ALREADY took your right to be Muslim and have your daughter’s clitoral hood pricked in accordance with your beliefs, or when they ALREADY took away your right to be a Jehovah’s Witness and deny your child blood transfusions based on your beliefs, or when they ALREADY took away your right to be a snake handler and involve your children in your sacrements?
Sorry to break it to you, but when a religion commits a barbaric atrocity against children, there is precedent for constitutional government action to protect the child.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. You know the truth, and should be ashamed of lying that amputation of a sense organ which includes over half a male’s sensual pleasure receptors has no effect on his intimate experience. You would sound more credible saying people with one eye poked out see just fine.
And I thought this religion of yours had an edict against lying.
I KNOW it has one against stealing, as in taking healthy normal body parts without getting informed consent. And I know it is said to have been handed down hundreds of years AFTER the covenant of the 8th day. So why not just drop it, like the stoning of disobedient children and adulterers, the avoidance of menstruating women, and the marrying-off of raped virgins to their attackers? It’s so embarrassing to see you cling to this one stupid human rights violation when you have let all those other stone-age rites slide.
Sarah/froylein: ^^ Catholicism doesn’t oppose circumcision, neither does general European culture. ^^
Europeans tourists I’ve met are shocked that we allow babies to be cut routinely.
And you might want to read “Cantata Domino” – affirmed by popes about every hundred years since 1442, wherein it says circumcision “can not possibly be practised without loss of eternal salvation.”
Menstruating women are still avoided and raped girls get married off to the offender, unless he’s already married, in certain circles as well. Mo hasn’t yet managed to stone me though.
BTW, the commandment doesn’t say that you must not lie but that you must not bear false witness, i.e. deliberately give false testimony in a courtroom situation (as any courtsystem has to rely on the sincerity of its witnesses).
Ron, may I ask? Do you produce / sell those foreskin restoration products or did you provide the link just because?
“A Jewish boy has to be circumcised on the 8th day of his life and a Muslim boy has to be circumcised at age 13.”
Or, what? He’s not Jewish (or Muslim)? He will go to hell? I didn’t think Judaism or Islam believed in hell. He will be shunned from his community? How? He’ll be denied food and shelter? His family will abandon him? The community will abandon his family?
WHAT is it?
Caroline,
I don’t understand those who claim to speak on behalf of both Islam and Judaism…but I will try to take the side of the Jews for the sake of your penetrating question. Give me a couple of days. It will hopefully be its own post.
“What and hafsours are doing is elevating what YOU define as “human interest””
Yes, discussing concepts in ideology based on personal perceptions is kind of how debate works. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a debate, would it?
“It’s a bunch of Euro-centric crap right out of racist anomial catholicism. Western culture must be “better” because it’s “scientific” and white, while those poor brown natives are just ignorant yahoos, right?”
OK, you really believe that? Answer this please, should people be allowed to come here and perform female circumcisions?
Ahavah wrote Western culture must be “better” because it’s “scientific”
Sometimes science is the best measure we have, at least to the point where when science directly contradicts a superstition, we generally prefer science.
I see no reason to attempt to pull the victimology card on this one. Particularly when there isn’t really an argument. Many commentaries were quite clear that circumcision was taking away something quite useful sexually.
The root of the word “to circumcise” is the same as “to oppress.”
Caroline, Islam not only has a concept of hell, it’s described in terms that would make an evangelical faint. If you’re curious, consult Wikipedia.
As for the Jewish position(s), I’ll wait until DK has time to write a separate post about it, then I’ll weigh in.
(If I’m not already in hell at the time, which will undoubtedly make our friend Mohammed very happy!)
Judaism has got a concept of hell, and mockery is one of the sins that’ll get you there.
At least I’ll be in good company.
Hafsours,
There is no biblical nor koranic commandment for female circumcision – so the issues are apples and oranges and trying to conflate them serves no purpose.
As for the cuttings and piercings of numerous other cultures, including African, Austrialian aboriginal, native north american, south american, and so on – these aren’t any of my business nor any of yours. Imposing your cultural beliefs, which are not “scientific,” on others is imperialism, plain and simple.
“Science” is a joke – are eggs bad for you? The “scientists” of the egg council say no, the “scientists” of the vegan conferation say yes. Global warming? Industry “scientists” say no, Greenpeace “scientists” say yes. There hasn’t been any such thing as unbiased objective “science” in decades – “scientists” find what they are paid to find or ideologically predisposed to find.
Claiming that religiously required circumcision is harmful has NO other source than a disdain for minorities and religious ethnic cultures of all kinds by the “enlightened” West that thinks imperialism and exploitation are their “god-given” right.
Ahavah- I have a quick question.
If I was to start up a new religion tomorrow complete with a book of commandments and if in that book of commandments was the requirement that all followers from the age of three had to have their left nipple removed, would you accept that?
“Science” is a joke – are eggs bad for you? The “scientists” of the egg council say no, the “scientists” of the vegan conferation say yes. Global warming? Industry “scientists” say no, Greenpeace “scientists” say yes. There hasn’t been any such thing as unbiased objective “science” in decades – “scientists” find what they are paid to find or ideologically predisposed to find.
David, I wouldn’t even bother. I’ve learned there’s no arguing with this level of denial.
“these aren’t any of my business nor any of yours. Imposing your cultural beliefs, which are not “scientific,” on others is imperialism, plain and simple.”
They aren’t any of my business in the same way that rape in Africa isn’t my business. Or genocide for that matter.
“so the issues are apples and oranges and trying to conflate them serves no purpose.”
Conflating the issues? Bully for you that you get to draw the line in the sand of where the two issues depart from one another. I see a strong parallel.
And why do you keep talking about science? Did I say anything about science?
Jeff,
This point: “There hasn’t been any such thing as unbiased objective “science” in decades – “scientists” find what they are paid to find or ideologically predisposed to find.”
Is actually quite a poignant one, and one that DK has made himself when discrediting the pro-circ scientists.
halfsours,
That politics is allowed to preempt, tweak, and eclipse sound scientific research does not change the fact that there is scientific method.
We can choose whether to look at things objectively or not.
When it comes to circumcision, Jews have–as a group– proven as dishonest as oil men on global warming, and right-wing Christians on macro-evolution.
Of course there is scientific method. I think Ahava’s point (frankly her only good one on this topic) is that science isn’t failproof, for various reasons — a large one being corporate sponsorship.
How many times have you heard flip-flopping on whether of not chocolate is good for your skin or not? At least twice I recall the Time Science section coming out with a study that directly contradicts earlier findings.
Halfsours, I’m not aware that there is any corporate sponsorship of the anti-circ movement. There is, however, vested interest in maintaining circ as the status quo.
Also, there is a world of difference between the evidence for whether or not chocolate is good for your skin, and the evidence for whether or not evolution is a fact (and, for that matter, whether or not the earth revolves around the sun). When one is dealing with an evangelical or a hard-core frummie, it’s impossible to get past the bias; it’s all the same to them.
“I’m not aware that there is any corporate sponsorship of the anti-circ movement. ”
I’m not suggesting there was, I was speaking generally. Although common sense dictates that for every movement there’s a counter-movement, and funding usually follows. Anti-circ is relatively new in America, so I’d give it a few more years before teh ews have that to contend with.
“there is a world of difference between the evidence for whether or not chocolate is good for your skin, and the evidence for whether or not evolution is a fact”
Yes, and? Who was speaking about evolution? Or ‘fundies’?
Anti-circ is relatively new in America, so I’d give it a few more years before the ews have that to contend with.
There is no need for corporate sponsorship of the anti-circ movement, except as a human rights initiative. However, the profit in harvesting foreskins is a massive market, as well as the cottage industry and the profit for the procedure itself.
It is the depraved side of capitalism. Human amputation for profit.
Yes, and? Who was speaking about evolution? Or ‘fundies’?
I’m referring to Ahavah, who seems to be what I also referred to – a frummie.
She didn’t bring those things into this discussion. Be fair. To always bring those tow topics into unrelated discussions weakens your POV, in my eyes at least.
I am being fair. Go back and read it again – science is a joke, there’s been no objective unbiased science in decades. You brought up chocolate; I’m saying there is a difference between research that’s funded by a trade organization, which is arguably biased (if not frivolous), and legitimate, worthwhile science. Evolution is a fair example; the frummies (and their evangelical cohorts) decry it constantly, but it’s supported by a century and a half of multi-disciplinary research. They always say their opponents have an “agenda” – scientists, liberals, atheists, etc. Everyone has an agenda, except for their gedolim. They’re unbiased.
She didn’t mention evolution. She mentioned eggs and global warming. Frankly — and don’t project on me for this — she makes some fair points. If you don’t think they’re legit, fight her on those. Save the evolution for another discussion.
[...] This post was Twitted by MC_HIV [...]
froylein: I once read that first born children resemble their fathers more strongly than other children do, and that Nature engineered this to bond fathers to their children. Sure enough, I am the spitting image of my father (fortunately not in personality) and my eldest daughter takes after me in many ways.
As far as I can determine, intactivism is a grass roots movement. It has two branches: angry men, and kind mothers. Being an intact male, I relate much better to the latter.
Circumcision per se is not controversial; it is circumcision performed on infants at the insistence of parents, on medical grounds that don’t survive careful scrutiny, or for faith reasons even though an 8 day old cannot have a meaningful faith.
I do not have a clear sense that Jewish doctors urged the USA to adopt routine infant circumcision. The USA upper middle class fell in love with baby circ at a time when few American gynos and pedos were Jewish, and those that were Jewish were German Jews not strong in faith.
A blatant ethical problem is that until 5-10 years ago, all brises and all hospital infant circumcisions were performed without a prior shot of lidocaine (invented 1950 or so). 1oo million American baby boys had their foreskins and frenulae snipped without any anesthesia whatsoever. When I discovered this fact in the 1980s, my belief in the humaneness of American medicine took a big fall.
I am flattered that some of you have posted praises of the sexual merits of the foreskin using language more glowing than the language I prefer to use. But I heavily discount all testimonials from men. I have a bit more time for what women have to say, but keep in mind that a woman who has had Biblical knowledge of a half dozen or more men of each kind, without condoms, is playing with fire. I believe that condoms make the foreskin irrelevant.
Over the past 10 odd years, I’ve read several hundred anonymous posts by authors claiming to be women who have had intercourse with both kinds of men. Some praise uncut in moving terms. But truth is, women’s opinions are all over the map, from “if a prospective date tells me he’s uncircumcised, I drop him from my social life then and there” to “an affair I had in college with a Latino or European student was THE turning point in my sex life. I can only climax with an intact man.” For my spouse, cut/uncut is not a big deal. She dislikes circ only because it hurts babies and is medically unnecessary.
Gay men are more sophisticated about the foreskin than straight men, not by virtue of what each gay man has (which is only one of the two flavours) but by getting to play with both kinds of men.
Let me add that foreskin fetishism is definitely a player in the USA gay scene. Gay men talk a lot about penis details among themselves. The foreskin permits two forms of relatively safe sex: docking, an activity that quite a few gay men find hot (and that is probably safer than other forms of gay sex), and intercourse between the thighs, which European gays value.
I am not gay at all. I am very traditional in my belief that humans should marry and reproduce. But I have noticed a large proportion of Ashkenazi surnames among the leaders of gay activist organisations. This fact is on a collision course with bris.
Leave a Comment