The appalling spectacle of anti-circ activists obsessing over the penis of another person’s son

Jelly penis candy

A visitor from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the most important part of the human body is the foreskin. It is, after all, the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state. The visitor might get the impression that the choice of circumcision is a fateful choice with profound implications for the rest of life. Therefore, it would probably come as a shock to our visitor to learn that circumcision is a religious, cosmetic and medical decision with essentially no impact beyond the benefit of reducing the risk of transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS.

That’s why it would be extraordinarily difficult to find a logical explanation for the anti-circ community’s involvement in a vicious divorce case, beyond a cynical attempt to hold a child hostage in an effort to drum up publicity for themselves.

As Mark Joseph Stern explains in Circumcision Armageddon:

Heather Hironimus and Dennis Nebus are fixated on their son’s foreskin. It is an obsession that has bound them together long beyond the end of their relationship. Nebus believes their 4 1/2-year-old son, Chase Ryan Nebus-Hironimus, should be circumcised for medical reasons. Hironimus believes circumcision is barbaric genital mutilation. Nebus has gone to court to get his son circumcised. Hironimus has gone to jail to prevent it. Their dispute is easily the weirdest, saddest, most disturbing battle yet in the war over circumcision.

It is profoundly disturbing on a number of different levels. First, that a mother, any mother would deprive a child of a needed medical procedure, using her child in a battle to wound a hated ex-spouse. Second, it is disturbing that an activist group would insert themselves into a bitter divorce. Third, it is disturbing that an anti-circumcision organization would acknowledge that it doesn’t merely oppose circumcision for religious or cosmetic reason, but it actually opposed circumcision for medical reasons.

Why is this an issue, let alone an issue that has drawn in outsiders:

…As part of their separation, both Hironimus and Nebus signed a formal “parenting plan” approved by a judge. One portion of this plan specified that Nebus would take Chase to be circumcised and cover the costs. At the time, Hironimus agreed to this stipulation.

Nebus put off the circumcision until December of 2013—when he saw Chase, then 3, urinating on his leg. A pediatrician suggested Chase’s foreskin was too tight and should be removed. Later, a urologist questioned that diagnosis, but agreed that Chase would benefit generally from a circumcision. When Nebus informed Hironimus of the impending procedure, however, Hironimus balked. Since signing the parenting plan two years earlier, Hironimus had become an intactivist—an anti-circumcision activist who believes the removal of a child’s foreskin constitutes child abuse and a human rights violation.

And what about those outsiders?

How did a local parenting dispute become the stuff of tabloid headlines? The answer lies in the tenacious community of intactivists who seized upon Hironimus’ plight as both a crusade and a publicity stunt. A group that calls itself Chase’s Guardians has sponsored a legal fund for Hironimus … They have quietly spread anti-circumcision literature throughout local libraries and strange, graphic, scaremongering memes across the Internet…

I reached out to the person who runs the Chase’s Guardians Facebook page, hoping to interview him for this story. He promptly sent back a link to a retort to my 2013 article on intactivists and wrote: “Sorry about your semi-functional penis remnant Marky.”

In other words, the Chase’s Guardians couldn’t care less about Chase and his medical issues. They are committed to what they believe to be the inherent sanctity of the intact penis no matter who is hurt in the process even if it is the owner of the foreskin in question. And therefore, they inserted themselves into a vicious parenting dispute, a dispute that cannot benefit Chase in any way.

The real issue here is two parents who despise each other using the body of their son to fight their battles. According to an AP story on the CBS News website:

Hironimus and her 4-year-old-son’s father, Dennis Nebus, have been warring for years over whether to have the boy’s foreskin removed. She initially agreed in a parenting agreement filed in court, then changed her mind, giving way to a long legal fight. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father.

With her legal options dwindling, Hironimus went missing in February, and ignored a judge’s order that she appear in court and give her consent for the surgery to be performed. A warrant was issued, but she wasn’t located until May 14 at a Broward County shelter where she was staying with her son.

Brought before Judge Jeffrey Gillen on Friday, Hironimus again declined to sign a consent form for the surgery, and she was advised she would remain jailed indefinitely. After the hearing recessed and she reconsidered, she reluctantly agreed to sign, sobbing as she put pen to paper.

That, of course, is not the end of it:

The woman’s mother, Mary Hironimus, said “intactivists” – anti-circumcision activists – planned to reach out to doctors around the country to urge them not to perform the circumcision.

Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said the images of a distraught Heather Hironimus signing the form to allow the surgery show how she was “bullied” into it and that she doesn’t truly give her consent.

“If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said.

But the issue here is not, and has never been, parental consent. The issue is whether a circumcision has medical benefits for this specific child, benefits that outweigh the risk of performing the surgery on a child, risks that are greater than when he was a newborn. And that question can only be answered by medical professionals, not by a band of self-appointed foreskin fetishists whose cynicism is exceeded only by their self-absorption.

1,456 Responses to “The appalling spectacle of anti-circ activists obsessing over the penis of another person’s son”

  1. Daniel Ros
    May 28, 2020 at 6:40 am #

    You are pond scum

  2. August 11, 2019 at 6:34 pm #

    What I see a 5 years old afraid of having his genitals being cut.
    And a genitally intact harpy defeding his abusers.
    Your clitoral hood should have been removed at age 5.

  3. Charlie
    March 20, 2017 at 7:28 pm #

    It was a touch humiliating, yet gratifying in some wondrous way when I learned one of the ladies in the large church I once attended, was the doctor who circumcised me as a baby. After mulling it over for several weeks, I sought her out and thanked her for doing it. She grinned and said she wished the other 2,300 plus males she circumcised would also thank her. In a mystical/religious sense, the male’s foreskin is THE “symbol of sin” in the human body. Therefore it must be cut off. Medically, there are many compelling arguments supporting it. The doctor described to me the consequences of living in a society in which males are not circumcised.

    • AnnaPDE
      March 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm #

      What are those?
      I mean, that’s where I’ve lived for the last 37 years, with lots of uncircumcised males in my family, and they don’t seem to have suffered any ill effects…

    • TLCTugger
      March 22, 2017 at 5:06 pm #

      The bible says in over a dozen places that physical circumcision is NOT part of Christianity. Informed adults can decide for themselves what will constitute the symbol of sin in their own lives.

      Thou shall not steal. Could there be a greater sin that amputating someones exquisite pleasure-receptive body parts without permission?

  4. Johanna
    February 26, 2017 at 4:35 pm #

    Perhaps you should have researched this case further before making this ridiculous post. This father fought for years, since right after a paternity suite in 2012, to have the boy circumcised because he felt it was “the normal thing to do”. This was not a “necessary” procedure, but a cosmetic one, prefomed on a four year old boy who will likely remember it as traumatic. Not nearly as traumatic as having his mother jailed and nearly removed from his life, though. You’re a jackass and a quack.

  5. Jhon Murdock
    November 30, 2015 at 11:48 am #

    One has to wonder why ex medical license holder, Amy Tuteur, would feature such a misandryst, unscientific and anatomically ignorant comment by Comrade X.
    The good ex medical license holder would know that the external, visible part of the clitoris is but the tip of the iceberg. The huge bulk of this organ is internal and concealed. Women with the tip removed are just as interested in sex and have orgasms with the same frequency as intact women. This misandryst comparison is medically anachronistic and unscientific.
    Genital mutilation is not a contest about who experiences more pain. It is an inherently evil practice that needs be ended for children of both sexes.

  6. November 30, 2015 at 11:09 am #

    “It is, after all, the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state.”

    This is because it is the only normal, living, healthy, permanently-attached part of the body that is routinely cut off of children in the United States at birth. The human body has many non-life-essential structures such as ears, fingernails and toes and folds of skin on the genitalia such as male foreskins and female clitoral hoods and labia minora. It would be possible to take any one of these body parts and link it to any plethora of possible health hazards such as infections, cancer scares, etc. These possibilities could be easily wrapped up in medical jargon creating a seemingly valid argument for routine amputation during infancy as supposed ‘preventative medicine.’ We could then continue on an endless spiral of ‘pros and cons,’ defenses of the practice, and protests.

    The fact that we readily dismiss such proposals as “routine earlobe amputation” or “labia amputation” for infants/children as ludicrous if not horrific proves that there exists some disconnect in our reasoning, a “mystical irrationality” clouding our minds, when the same thinking is applied to foreskins and routine circumcision.

    The medical profession is supposed to be based on scientific reasoning and logic, in addition to care and empathy for human rights and freedom. Therefore, the medical profession is challenged to view circumcision in the same way as it views routine earlobe amputation or labia amputation: in terms of logic and rationality and respect for the rights of all human beings of every age and for the human body in its naturally-occurring state.

  7. itry2brational
    July 9, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    You arguments are invalid.

  8. yugaya
    July 3, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

    Wow these parachuters are …scary crowd.

  9. Jhon Murdock
    July 3, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    @Comrade X “The day millions of little boys have their ENTIRE GLANS PENIS removed with rusty utensils without anaesthetic will be the day we start to take that pathetic pseudo-argument seriously….”
    The external, visible part of the clitoris is but the tip of the iceberg. The huge bulk of this organ is internal and concealed. Your misandryst comparison is anatomically anachronistic and unscientific. Genital mutilation is not a contest about who experiences more pain. It is an inherently evil practice that needs be ended for children of both sexes.

  10. Alison Mercer
    July 1, 2015 at 11:32 am #

    ummm cutting off your kids tip is stupid and simply for religious and fashion reasons. ohhh this one is real awesome. the orthodox jews who suck the babies penis after and some babies die cause ofv infection. this dr should get that. . real logical , real sound that is hey, for idiotic religious bullocks some old mancutting off babies tip and then sucking on it. you think that is necessary dr? . and yeah u can see the brainwashed snobs speaking up , real racist asses commenting. anyway , it is not normal procedure here in Canada anymore because there are no medical benefits. so if people want it they can pay for it in some provinces. honestly ,unless there are medical reasons it is pointless so yeAH, id say leave the childs penis alone.

    • Gozi
      July 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm #

      Please take a rest from the internet and take your meds.

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 10:40 pm #

      I am with Gozi….go take your ZaniBar!

    • yachty
      July 3, 2015 at 9:51 am #

      The sucking is through a straw and only ULTRA Orthodox do that BS! You are a Fcuking Canadian….says everything! No wonder you are so fcuked up!

  11. yachty
    June 21, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

    ANTI”S are all fucked up idiots! A waste of the earths resources!

  12. cosmopolite
    June 15, 2015 at 4:28 pm #

    People, please appreciate that Ms Hironimus is very grateful for the attention her ordeal has received from the intactivist movement. Ms Tuteur implies that this attention should be unwanted.

    • Nick Sanders
      June 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

      No, Dr. Tuteur explicitly states that Hironimus deliberately turned her son into a media circus and should be ashamed of herself.

      • cosmopolite
        June 19, 2015 at 4:05 pm #

        No the boy’s father and the judge should be ashamed of themselves for bullying the boy and his mother, and for hanging a Sword of Damocles over the mother. The idea that a judge would threaten to keep a mother in jail indefinitely for contempt of court, and would thus be unable to see her son in any way, unless she signed a document, is utterly revolting to me as a supporter of personal freedom, and as a person suspicious of the way that nation-states have inched towards tyranny since WWI broke out.

        The MSM is not guilty of anything here. The hoopla that elicits Tuteur’s disdain is entirely a social media thing, and one that the mother warmly desired. When one is in a battle, one values all the allies one can get. Social media is the form that vox populae takes in our time.

        • DelphiniumFalcon
          June 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

          Both parents are asshats and the judge should have appointed the kid an advocate to act in his best interest. His parents were busy using their son’s body as a fodder trying to screw the other one over.

          There are no winners here, especially not Chase.

          • cosmopolite
            June 23, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            A guardian ad litem should most definitely have been appointed. The Supreme Court of Florida may agree one day.

        • Nick Sanders
          June 19, 2015 at 11:52 pm #

          Yes, the mother desired the attention, no one has contested that. That’s half the fucking point of the outrage, so why do you keep acting like we didn’t realize it. She turned her son’s penis into her own publicity. That’s fucking disgusting, and there is no way the kid, the one whose opinion one the subject should matter, wanted a ton of strangers arguing about his damn dick. Why is this so hard to get through your damn head?

          • cosmopolite
            June 23, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            The mother did NOT desire the attention for herself and her son. She wanted both to be left alone. There is much going on here that you do not know about or fail to appreciate. Your third sentence is an opinion that is as mistaken as it is ugly. The kid has made it clear that he wants his penis left alone. The father and the judge don’t care about the kid’s opinion. That is oppressive and cruel. Why is that so hard to get through your damn head?

          • Nick Sanders
            June 23, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

            “The mother did NOT desire the attention for herself and her son. She wanted both to be left alone.”
            That blatantly contradicts your earlier claim that the attention was “warmly desired”.

            Further, when I spoke of the boy’s opinion, I meant his opinion on the attention, not the medical procedure. He’s a kid; not known for their sound medical decisions.

            Lastly, you make claim after claim, but never actually substantiate any of them.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

            I want the boy’s penis left alone; so does the mother. That does not require “substantiation”, only common sense and common decency.
            The mother would prefer that her wishes (and the boy’s) be respected. Failing that, she accepts that the matter be brought to the attention of the MSM, in order to improve the chances that her son be left alone. She does not value the media attention for its own sake.
            The father is no medical authority either.

          • Nick Sanders
            June 24, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

            I want the boy’s penis left alone; so does the mother. That does not require “substantiation”,

            No, but things like “phimosis does not exist in children”, and “the only doctor to testify at the trial said he didn’t need the procedure” definitely do.

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            You have no understanding of the difference between natural phimosis and pathological phimosis. Do your homework you lazy, mouthy ass.
            Nor have you followed the trial in the slightest or you would know that “the only doctor to testify at the trial said he didn’t need the procedure” is a true statement.


          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

            Why is it so hard to get through your head that it is wrong for a father to obsess in this fashion with how his son’s penis looks and functions. That it is wrong for a Judge to threaten a mother with indefinite jail for contempt of court, until she signs a piece of paper authorising her son’s circumcision? In other words, she was to have no custody of her 4 year old son until she does what the judge wants her to do. That was badly tyrannical. I am confident that state Supreme Courts will agree one day that what Judge Gillen did was ultra vires.
            The mother welcomed having the MSM report on this outrageous situation.

          • Nick Sanders
            June 24, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            Because the son had at least one doctor suggest that maybe, just maybe, he knows more about the foreskin of his patient than random internet commentators like you.

            Also because you keep bringing up the mainstream media, which is really odd, since you seem to be the only one doing so.

      • cosmopolite
        June 23, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

        Shame on Dr Tuteur for being unable to rise above her Jewish ancestry and think clearly about this case.
        Dr Tuteur does not know the facts of this case and hence is not qualified to emit the ugly opinion you claim she holds. You, I and Tuteur do not know if Hironimus ever spoke to a reporter. And when one feels oneself to be a victim of an injustice, one has the right to invoke the court of public opinion in order to redress the grievance. Just because the claimed injustice involves the human genitalia does not mean that it should not be spoken about in polite company.

        • Fallow
          June 23, 2015 at 10:47 pm #

          “Shame on Dr Tuteur for being unable to rise above her Jewish ancestry and think clearly about this case.”

          You must lack even a vestige of self-awareness, or maybe you’d realize why this is a hell of a weird, sketchy, inappropriate thing to say.

          • Who?
            June 23, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

            I’d add unhelpful, shallow and dog-whistling.

            C would also benefit from a thesaurus, since ‘ugly’, with all its connotations, is wearing a little thin.

            Can an opinion be hostile? I can see it might be expressed in a hostile way, or express a position hostile to the listener’s. Both of which might be true of Dr T’s opinions here, but neither of which make that opinion itself wrong or inappropriate.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 23, 2015 at 11:59 pm #

            Some people lately would consider expressing an opinion an act of terror. *eye roll*

            And wow…

            Do I tell a Black person descended from slaves to just “rise above” their Black ancestry? To stop crying as their family members get shot for no reason other than they exist?

            Maybe I should tell the Chinese to “rise above” their history with Japan taking an pillaging their people and land as recently as WWII that the Japanese tend to -still- gloss over?

            Oh, I guess I should “rise above” my Mormon heritage and just forget that my ancestors were chased out of several states before having to settle in a desert to avoid getting killed and their property stolen. And then have people still tell me to my face that I’m going to Hell and that I’m part of an evil cult and I should die as I’m bringing dinner to a congregation member.

            Man, it’s almost like historical context is important or something!

          • Who?
            June 24, 2015 at 12:48 am #

            Indeed. Australia is soon to become a place where a person is deemed to be a terrorist and to have renounced their citizenship for simply travelling to (which will likely end up being planning to travel to) certain places the government thinks are occupied by terrorists.

            Oh yes the victim or underdog is always called on to rise above, often by people who put very little effort into investigating their own behaviours and motives. Perhaps because they come from the assumption that everything they do is ‘normal’ and therefore ‘right’.

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:56 am #

            Mormonism is a really FU religion! Do you wear your special underwear? Are you a good Mormon so you insure you receive your planet and become a God?

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 3, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

            Yawn. Like I haven’t heard that one before.

            Here, let me help you.

            See now I can’t talk about the magic underwear or it ceases to have its power. Then I can’t mind control people into joining my cult and I don’t get to be Relief Society president!

            And I suppose you’re jealous that you’ll only ever receive a yacht club from your daddy but my space daddy will give me a planet if I get enough Mormon brownie points.

            Speaking of brownies my twenty five sister wives and I are baking a bazillion brownies and jello salads for the holiday tomorrow. Whoever makes the best ones gets to sleep with my husband first and have the eleventy billionth child. That’s the lucky one! But only girls, we kick those nasty boys out.

            Always make sure to choose the Sprite! Caffeine and alcohol, even one drop, turns you into a heathen that beats children, runs over neighbors’ dogs, and talks bad about women’s rights!

            Guess I should go dust my shrine to Joseph Smith now. If I don’t I might have to go to the temple and go dunk a corpse in the baptismal fountain. I’ll make sure it’s a Holocaust victim just for you.

            Go get some trolling lessons. Your technique is lacking.

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 4:32 pm #

            You are the FU Mormon! Freaks to say the least!

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 3, 2015 at 4:59 pm #

            Yup. I’m most definitely the freak here. *eye roll*

          • VeritasLiberat
            July 7, 2015 at 10:39 am #

            Delphinium Falcon, that was awesome. Plus now I know how to avoud being called as the Relief Society president.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 7, 2015 at 10:47 am #

            Why thank you! I think it goes right over his head though lol. Probably thinks all that was true!

          • yachty
            July 7, 2015 at 9:55 am #

            Considering my father has Alzheimer’s and I am his guardian. I do not think he will be buying me anything! I pay money for him! So get over your Mormon BS!

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 7, 2015 at 10:06 am #

            Apparently whatever fancy school you went to didn’t cover the literary devices called facitiousness and sarcasm.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

            There is nothing morally wrong or inappropriate with what I wrote.
            Weird is but an ugly opinion. Sketchy — so what?

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:54 am #

            Cosmo is from some 3rd world country! I wish they would ban other nationalities from posting!

          • yugaya
            July 3, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

            I tried, but it is actually completely impossible to roll eyes as hard as I have the urge to roll them now reading this comment of yours.

        • Nick Sanders
          June 23, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

          Why are you replying to the same comment twice? You clearly have nothing new or worthwhile to add.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

            Connectivity issues on my end. I live in a country where the quality of broadband is erratic.

          • yugaya
            July 3, 2015 at 5:43 pm #

            Living in distant places doth not a cosmopolite make.

          • cosmopolite
            July 4, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            Is living all of one’s life within the continental USA, and never taking a vacation out of that world, given one a perspective better than mine?

          • demodocus
            July 5, 2015 at 12:09 am #

            Glad you could afford to travel internationally. My vacations have all been inside book covers.
            BTW, I think Yugaya is from Eastern Europe.
            (ed because discus was arguing with me)

          • cosmopolite
            July 5, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

            I left the USA two decades ago. Because of advancing age and health issues, it has been 5 years since I left the country I live in. I no longer take vacations in any meaningful sense. My “vacations” are between book covers, as you say, and on Google Street.

          • yachty
            July 6, 2015 at 11:06 am #

            How old are you that you have never left the USA?

          • demodocus
            July 6, 2015 at 11:33 am #

            How poor was I as a child and young adult? The military and the peace corps won’t take me ’cause I’m a deaf, flat-footed, and wall-eyed.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 6, 2015 at 11:42 am #

            Well you see some of us don’t have mommy and daddy pay for extravagant vacations out of the country. It’s hard enough to pay for dance and piano lessons or even the basics of putting food on the table for the average family these days.

            Some of us also work for a living instead of being handed financial security on a silver platter. We can’t take off whenever we please.

          • yachty
            July 7, 2015 at 5:27 am #

            Sorry, before I was out of high school I had been to Europe, Mexico, NZ, Australlia, Tahiti, Canada, Israel and South Africa…..

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 7, 2015 at 10:10 am #

            And point demonstrated. Unless they’re a military family most people won’t see all of that before graduating high school. You don’t even understand that something like that is so ridiculously far out of the average American’s budget. It’s almost sad how out of touch with the general population you are.

          • yachty
            July 8, 2015 at 10:28 am #

            Europe was to visit family, Mexico I live in SoCal, NZ and Australia was for vacation when I was 15, Tahiti was Vacation when I was 13, Canada was to visit my Aunt, Israel for my Bar Mitzvah and South Africa was to visit my Uncle and his family. Really not a big deal, people travel……My 7yo has been to Bali, NZ, Auz, Europe, Mexico and Fiji……

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 8, 2015 at 11:32 am #

            Yeah and that still doesn’t make it normal. Most people I know can barely afford to take time off and have enough money to visit relatives a few states over.

            You’ve led a priveledge life most of us will never know. Good for you. But realize most people won’t even be able to afford one trip out of their home country never mind eight counties and then some. And that certainly doesn’t make you better than those who can’t.

          • MaineJen
            May 28, 2020 at 2:09 pm #


          • yachty
            July 7, 2015 at 5:28 am #

            I work……

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 7, 2015 at 10:12 am #

            Did Mommy and Daddy get that job for you too?

          • yachty
            July 8, 2015 at 10:22 am #

            No….I have two companies. Sorry to disappoint………….Both are yacht related.

          • yachty
            July 8, 2015 at 10:56 am #

            Extravagant? Really? What kind of life do you lead? Sorry, but when I was a teen I received $1500 a month in allowance…..I schedule my time off and generally work until 9 or 10 into the night! You have no clue what it takes to keep it up. I don’t work 9-5, no one that owns a company works normal hours! We work when needed. I even work on vacations! Get your lazy ass off the sofa if you want more…….

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            July 8, 2015 at 11:27 am #

            $1500 a month in allowance? So $18000 a year? That’s as much as some adults make at their jobs in one year and it was just handed to you. You realize that is NOT the norm right?

            I work. I worked as a teen. I didn’t get an allowance. I didn’t know anyone who had an allowance as a teen. We had the occasional gas money that we had to ask our parents for or in my case, and we were one of the better off families in the area, my parents gave me what I needed because I also drove my sister around and did errands for my parents and generally wasn’t stupid.

            If I had a $1500 allowance a month as a teen I definitely wouldn’t have had to drop out of college to work because I couldn’t afford tuition. My story isn’t exactly unique either.

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 11:36 am #

            Ok…it is super simple. My base allowance was $500, my parents went to Vegas every other week and I received $500 each weekend they left. The rules were simple, if my friends drank or smoked pot they would stay and no one was allowed in my parents room. My Dad’s bar sat 10 and had two beer taps. That started at 14…we would empty the pool and skateboard, parents were never pissed…..They also bought me a 968 Porsche for my 16th bday…all my friends had Mercedes, Porsche’s and Audi’s….not a big deal…….Occasional gas money? I had my Credit Card…..We went to lunch in High School and it was not McDonalds!

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 11:00 pm #

            I forgot….at 19 I took some time off from school and sailed in the Carribbean for 7 months…..had a blast.

          • cosmopolite
            July 4, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

            Does living within the continental USA guarantee that one has knowledge and the wisdom to make use of that knowledge?

        • yugaya
          July 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

          “being unable to rise above her ancestry”

          How low can you go?

          • cosmopolite
            July 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm #

            Why is pointing out that someone’s thinking is limited by their family history and traditions “low”?

          • cosmopolite
            July 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm #

            Who have I hit below the belt, and how?

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 10:36 am #

      Illegal Mexicans are hardly Americans! White parents (according to the CDC) circumcise at a rate of 80%. Mexicans will never be part of my 3 son’s peer groups!

      • cosmopolite
        July 1, 2015 at 10:50 am #

        The true rate of circumcision in the USA is unknown, because no one counts circs performed in doctors’ offices. Hence the CDC cannot know what you claim it knows.
        Where did I mention Mexicans and people of Mexican ancestry?
        Your remarks are consistent with my belief that American attitudes about how the tip of the penis should look and function, are strongly influenced by snobbishness.

        • yachty
          July 1, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

          I have said the rates are higher, my neighbor is a ob/gyn and does them all in office. We are in SoCal and we don’t know anyone that doesn’t circumcise. We are somewhat snobby!

      • Gozi
        July 1, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

        If your sons are taught your attitude, then any play group you decide to exclude them from will be better off.

        • yachty
          July 1, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

          We live on the beach….there are no minorities here. No need in to worry about their play dates!

      • DelphiniumFalcon
        July 1, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

        And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exhibit B in Why Extreme Views Are Bad. Anything taken to an extreme, in this case anti or pro circ, both approach the absolute zenith of ridiculous posturing.

        There’s something to be said for everything in moderation.

        • yugaya
          July 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

          Extremism is when I can’t tell the difference between people with opposing views because they make me equally sick regardless of whose opinion I am in favour of.

    • yachty
      July 3, 2015 at 9:52 am #

      The kid was circumcised…get over it! Stay in your 3rd world country with you crappy broadband!

      • cosmopolite
        July 5, 2015 at 1:04 pm #

        I live in the First World. If I lived in the Third World, that fact would deserve your sympathy, not your triumphalist smugness.
        Circumcised or not, we are gong to hear more about the case of Chase Hironimus. He could grow up to become for intactivism what Gianna Jessen is to the pro-life cause.

        • yachty
          July 6, 2015 at 11:02 am #

          I doubt it! My 7yo knows that only the poor and minorities are not circumcised! He knows only trash isn’t circumcised!

          • cosmopolite
            July 7, 2015 at 11:44 am #

            A 7 year old child cannot possibly know what you claim your child knows. What you claim would be fact only if there were a study based on a clinical examination of a careful random sample of males of some age, much less of all ages. To include minors in such a study would probably give rise to moral condemnation. We cannot truly know what American demographics, now 7 years old, are and are not circumcised, until those boys are in their 20s.
            A blog post by a 60 year old day care worker in Las Vegas, and a magazine article based in part on discussions with high school boys in Santa Barbara, both contradict what you claim. Routine infant circumcision ceased being the norm in coastal California and in Nevada, some years ago.

          • yachty
            July 8, 2015 at 11:03 am #

            You are full of BS! White parents still circumcise in CA! The Wetbacks do not! Wetbacks make up 4 of 6 births in CA and only 1 in 6 are white! A great argument to split CA into 6 states! In SoCal I can guarantee that WHITE parents still circumcise. My best friend just took his 5 yo in to have him recircumcised because he thought it was to loose! So you have no fcuking clue what you are talking about! CA has a rate of 36%, but that doesn’t count for the circ’s done at home or in the office! My boys were all circumcised in my house….Jewish!

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 11:41 am #

            my boys were circumcised at 8 days old……What guy gets circumcised in their 20’s? You are really FU! In the USA boys get cut at 2-10 days old!

          • cosmopolite
            July 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

            What you take as an immutable given, is precisely that which we propose to change. How my penis looks and functions was not decided by my parents, but by me. I want all American men to enjoy the same consideration.

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

            Amazing how many uncircumcised men are anti…..You as re the odd man out. Go get circumcised, perhaps you will feel like part of normal society.

          • cosmopolite
            July 11, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

            I live in a nation that gave up routine circumcision a generation ago, with no complaints so far.
            Most intact men live in intact societies and so take for granted the body parts circumcision removes.
            Trust me, there are American men who detest the fact that they are circumcised.
            Growing up intact in a circumcised culture led me to ask questions about why the most sexual part of my body looked quite different, and how this difference mattered for sex. The answers to the latter question began trickling out around 1990, and are now a flood, thanks to social media. I am surprised at the number of American women who reveal in social media that they prefer sex with intact men.
            I now understand that my body is normal, and that the conventional American attitudes about male anatomy and human sexuality, are sadly flawed.

          • cosmopolite
            July 11, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

            The fact that few men get circumcised in their 20s should tell you something about how men with natural penises think.
            What is FU is the American disdain for the foreskin.
            That the typical American goyishe boy is cut shortly after birth, is a practice that I resist with all my strength.

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            Santa Barbara has a large wetback population.

          • itry2brational
            July 9, 2015 at 9:06 am #

            ^^Cutter teaching their kid racism. Classy.

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 10:26 am #

            I am not a racist…..I choose not to live with people below me.

          • yachty
            July 9, 2015 at 11:26 am #

            Really? Most people I know are well off and racist!

  13. itry2brational
    June 14, 2015 at 1:59 am #

    American circ apologists recommend doing it in the newborn to 1year period. Why the special exception for this 4!yo boy? Certainly neither the mother or father agreed to circumcise a 4yo but the duty to get it done was the father’s, so he broke his end of the agreement by not getting it done in an advisable timeframe.
    The appalling spectacle is watching “consent” be destroyed…by our own “justice” system…all to cut a boy unnecessarily. Without medical indication. Where threat of imprisonment for not agreeing to cut your own 4yo boy’s penis is used as a tool to enforce an “agreement”. Where people are literally and physically made to “agree” with/to circumcision by use of *force*.

  14. ml66uk
    June 10, 2015 at 7:05 am #

    1. The parents were never married.

    2. The foreskin is the only healthy normal living tissue that is commonly cut off. If people were cutting earlobes off children, there would be organizations against that too.

    3. This isn’t a needed medical procedure. The pediatrician called by the fataher’s legal team said that, and also said he wouldn’t circumcise the child if it was his son. That means it’s the father using the child ot hurt the mother.

    4. “essentially no impact beyond the benefit of reducing the risk of transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS”
    Almost no-one in Europe circumcises unless they’re Jewish or Muslim, yet Europeans have lower rate of all the bad stuff including HIV. There are also several several peer-reviewed papers showing downsides to male circumcision:
    Sorrells (2007)
    “Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

    Kim and Pang 2006 (255 men circumcised as adults)
    “About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”

    Frisch 2011
    “Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.”

    Bronselaer et al, 2013
    “For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity”
    Bauer, Kriebel, 2013
    “For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country’s circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S.”
    Frisch, Simonsen, 2015
    “Results: With a total of 4986 ASD cases, our study showed that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys were more likely than intact boys to develop ASD before age 10 years (HR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.11–1.93). Risk was particularly high for infantile autism before age five years (HR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.36–3.13). Circumcised boys in non-Muslim families were also more likely to develop hyperkinetic disorder (HR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.11–2.96). Associations with asthma were consistently inconspicuous (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.84–1.10).”

    5. Several national medical organizations are against routine infant male circumcision:

    Canadian Paediatric Society
    “Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
    “Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
    “After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

    Royal Australasian College of Physicians
    “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
    (almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

    British Medical Association
    “to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

    The Royal Dutch Medical Association
    “The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”

    “[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”

    German Pediatric Association
    (very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
    “Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”

  15. Tante Jay
    June 10, 2015 at 6:22 am #

    First of all: The parents weren’t married.

    Secondly: There is no such a diagnosis as “Phimosis” in a child. The foreskin is fused to the glans. It is also a genital mutilation, which is despictable by any means.

    Thirdly: Chase has EDS and is tending to keloid scarring. Circumcision WILL end in a neverending horrorstory of repeated surgeries to smooth out the scarring and probably destroy his adult sex life for good.

    Lastly: I see the cultural bias speaking out of every word. You don’t know different so it is natural to you. That it takes an immense painful surgery performed on vulnerable newborns – you don’t care because “that’s what you do”.

    For you it is “the normal thing” to do and “Heather is deprieving a necessary surgery” which is bullshit because the doctor who got asked denied the phimosis diagnosis. Chase has a normal developed penis for his age and does NOT want this surgery – he is vocal about it.

    The rest of the developed world *including* Israel is looking with utter disbelief to the United States and its treatment of a little child and his mother, who got forced under incredible circumcstances into the consent to that surgery – by a father who do not care for his own child. All he cares about is that he got cut. Period.

    Europe is not doing this to their children and for a reason – we do not have vast infections of foreskins here and we still know how to treat a boy.

    Asia with the exception of the cutterfanatics in Indonesia and Philippines is NOT cutting their boys.

    So why are you insisting that it is a good thing? Obviously without any reasearch before?

  16. kristi
    June 10, 2015 at 2:41 am #

    Ummm…..yeah Chase’s parents weren’t married….maybe the author of this crap article should do her research, before typing…..

  17. Clayton Winters
    June 10, 2015 at 2:01 am #

    Appalling. Yeah, right. The idea that a man should be able to decide for himself how much of his own penis he gets to keep is absurd…. really ?

    Let’s call circumcision what it is. We are talking about cutting off a normal healthy functional and highly erotic part of normal healthy child’s normal healthy penis. And for what ? In Chase’s case, it is because Chase’s biological father wants to hurt his ex-lover through Chase. Chase does not want this done. Chase is going to know what was stolen from him and why. Chase is going to hate his father for life. Chase is going to be psychologically and emotionally traumatized and emasculated. Chase is going to sue his father and the hospital and the doctor and Chase is going to win.

    Let’s talk about medical ethics, okay ?

    In medical ethics, we start with a problem and then research ways to solve it, preferably without resorting to surgery. But with circumcision, we start with a surgery we already do and then research what benefits we can find for it. We have found that circumcision has small value to slightly decrease the odds of rare and/or minor problems most men will never get that are easily prevented with healthy lifestyle choices and most easily cured without destructive invasive surgery by using things like antibiotics.

    In medical ethics, the burden of proof is on showing that surgery has benefits. But with circumcision, we assume there are benefits and the burden of proof is on showing that it does not. When mountains of good sound science shows that the benefits of circumcision are very thin, we dismiss that research because those scientists have anti-circumcision bias and agenda.

    In medical ethics, the burden of proof is on showing that surgery does no harm and carries few risks. With circumcision, we assume there is no harm and the burden of proof is on showing that there is. When mountains of good sound science shows that there is much harm and many risks, we ignore that science because those researchers have anti-circumcision bias and agenda.

    In medical ethics, we have a duty to understand the value function and purpose of the tissue we remove. With circumcision, we assume the foreskin has no value function or purpose and the burden of proof is on showing that it does. Biologists have studied male human foreskin and learned it is an important piece of anatomy with over a dozen different biological jobs and several sexual roles that contribute to the pleasure of both the man and his lover. That research is ignored by people who haven’t had their own foreskin since they were infants because those biologists show an anti-circumcision bias and agenda.

    In medical ethics, we are taught to have an anti-surgery bias. That’s the foundation and cornerstone of medical ethics as they apply to surgery. Surgery is to be our last resort when other, less dangerous destructive and invasive means have failed or would fail.

    We are taught to have an even stronger bias against elective preventive surgery on normal healthy patients who have no problem or special risk factor that needs immediate treatment. Foreskin is not a problem or special risk factor; all normal healthy human males are born with one.

    We are taught to have even stronger bias against surgery on non-consenting minors for whom we seek proxy consent of parents or guardians. We are taught to have the strongest anti-surgery bias of all against elective preventive surgery on normal healthy non-consenting minor patients who have no clear and present disease, disorder, abnormality, or defect in need of immediate treatment that cannot be addressed in a kinder, gentler way. That ethical bias against surgery in that situation is so strong that we never do it. In fact, it is unethical and illegal to do so. A physician who performs elective preventive surgery on a healthy non-consenting minor patient where there is no problem or special risk factor can be dismissed, lose his license, be barred from practice, be fined, jailed, and even sent to prison. Circumcision is the only exception.

    Consider this, if I had my young daughter’s DNA screened and found she had both genetic markers for breast cancer and an 80% chance to develop breast cancer in her life, I might want to get elective preventive double mastectomy to protect her from that. No reputable doctor would do that surgery on a non-consenting minor no matter how much the benefit and no matter how much I begged. He could be jailed for doing so.

    And yet we routinely perform circumcisions for dubious and small reduction in the odds of UTI’s, STI’s, and penile cancer. UTI’s and STI’s are easily prevented with healthy lifestyle choices and most are easily cured with medication and will never need surgery. The odds of a man contracting penile cancer are less than 0.001% and it almost always affects very elderly men with a long history of tobacco use. Last I checked, nobody claims circumcision prevents boys from growing old or keeps people from smoking.

    Consider that… a doctor can be jailed for performing elective preventive surgery to protect my daughter completely from 80% chance of hard to prevent breast cancer but doctors encourage circumcision to slightly reduce the odds of 0.001% chance of easy to prevent penis cancer.

    It is a truism of psychology that the reasons we think we do something are only the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of motivation is deeply subconscious and often our conscious reasons are only rationalizations to justify what our subconscious is driven to do. Is it a coincidence that circumcision, the unique exception to medical ethics where we apply those principles in reverse, just happens to involve amputating an important and erotic part of a man’s most intimate and private sexual anatomy about which our culture has many hang-ups and taboos ? Does anybody still think circumcision is rational, reasonable, and logical ?

    Now for the hard part. The only reason we keep doing circumcision in America is because doctors in denial cannot admit to themselves that circumcision was a big mistake that harmed many boys and men. Medical researchers in denial cannot admit to themselves that circumcision was a big mistake that harmed many boys and men. Parents who had their sons circumcised are in denial and cannot admit they made a big mistake that harmed their beloved children. Circumcised men are in denial and cannot admit that somebody made a big mistake that hurt them and now their penis is less than it should be. Americans in general are in denial and cannot admit their country does something so stupid, harmful, senseless, and absurd as cutting baby penis for no good reason.

    People, especially Americans, have a hard time admitting their minor mistakes. How much harder it must be to admit a mistake that brutalized generations of boys and men ? For loving parents who thought they were doing the best for their child, it must be the hardest mistake to admit of all.

    The reasons doctors and researchers and especially circumcised fathers push so hard to promote circumcision for their patients and sons, and the reason so much research gets done to prove circumcision has benefits and so little to find out the harm and risks is because people in denial practice projection. That’s why we think normal intact penis is so gross, disgusting, ugly, and dirty; that’s why we think normal intact penis is weird and abnormal. That’s why we tell ourselves “I’m circumcised and I’m just fine” and think that is a good enough reason to circumcise others. It’s all because the brutal truth is too painful for us to admit so our subconscious protects us from shame and guilt we cannot face by using denial and projection to manufacture external validation to soothe our minds by perpetuating an inter-generational cycle of socially-sanctioned child abuse.

    What is the brutal truth ? Circumcision is a brutal atrocity of sexual torture and permanent disfigurement so far beyond the imagination of most sane people that our minds literally cannot contain the horror of it. It is easier for us to cut a normal healthy functional and erotic part off of a normal healthy child’s normal healthy penis against his will when he cannot consent and pretend that a man does not have the right to decide for himself how much of his own penis he should get to keep than to the face the ugly facts about what circumcision really is.

    Circumcision is a culturally transmitted socially normalized disease of collective shared psychosis with elements of Stockholm syndrome… “I love my diminished and desensitized penis -it’s superior to normal intact fully functional penis- that’s why my son should have one like mine so he will not be traumatized.”

  18. Xandra
    June 10, 2015 at 1:58 am #

    The author of this article has not done her research on the foreskin and/or circumcision. Condoms, NOT CUTTING, prevent disease…and the foreskin protects the glans from being desensitized (keratinization) and facilitates sexual intercourse in many ways. Do your own research, people. This woman has obviously not done ANY.

  19. Pete Keay
    June 10, 2015 at 1:08 am #

    It seems the author hasn’t even familiarized herself much with this case. “And that question can only be answered by medical professionals,” she says, apparently without knowing that medical testimony in court called Chase “healthy” and indirectly recommended against the procedure, and certainly not for it. In addition, there’s no “bitter divorce” here. The couple in question has never been married.

    So not only does this article reflect an opinion filled with myths and statements contradicted by medical professionals around the world (with little exception besides a biased all-American task force), it has been written without any decent knowledge of the facts of the very case it purports to address.

  20. Kia Siven
    June 10, 2015 at 1:02 am #

    Oh and Comrade X. In USA alone over 100 babies die every year due to circumcision complications. There are surgeons in USA who get their whole livelyhood by correcting boys’ penises destroyed by circumcision. And btw. there are several different types of FGM, not all remove clitoris. It horrifies me that a person can be so cold, demanding millions of maimed kids before caring. Shouldn’t every child count? The writer here, Amy, really shows the misconception of those who defend genital cutting of children. It is not about penises, it is about basic human rights.
    I am fortunate enough to live in a country where medical community and parents view cutting any child’s genitals abusive without very heavy medical reasons and until other methods are used.Less than 6 men out of 100 000 get cut in my country/year for medical reasons. If I had a son and lived in USA, I’d be scared to visit any doctor. tRUE Phimosis is extremely rare condition…except in cutting hungry usa.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      June 10, 2015 at 8:24 am #

      That claimed death rate is a lie fabricated by anti-circ activists to fool the gullible. Looks like it fooled you.

      • yachty
        July 1, 2015 at 10:44 am #

        Fully agree, I have been to at least 50 Bris and never witnessed one complication. The anti’s say you all lies to make parents and circumcised males feel bad. Notice, most men that are anti are uncircumcised….they have the odd man out syndrome.

        • Jhon Murdock
          July 2, 2015 at 4:22 pm #


        • Jhon Murdock
          July 2, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

          I’m sure the good doctor will warmly receive your fawning, Semite allegiance. More so for the time it took away from your enormous responsibilities as commodore of the Yacht Club to address her. Yes, a very, very busy circumfetishist who somehow managed to fit in 50 Bris atrocities, to satisfy his lust for ritual pain and blood in the midst of all his exceedingly important nautical functions. The doctor will be so flattered with your comradeship.

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:07 am #

            Commodore……No, to young to be Commodore! I have been going to Bris parties all my life! I take my 7 and 4yo to them. It is a good time, my 5 month old had a theme (a big deal these days).

      • Jhon Murdock
        July 2, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

        The death rate you refer to is an estimate that very likely is conservatively low. If we go by the results of the Brazilian Study, one death for every 7,500 forced infant circumcisions, we would have a death rate that is well over 200 neonates annually.
        In 2006 the CDC recorded 618 neonate deaths caused by “hemorrhage”. But nowhere does CDC mention what caused all these hemorrhages in the first place. Since you seem to be adept at detecting lies, why not look into this matter and get back to us with the truth of how many of these innocent babies died directly following and as a unique result their forced circumcisions?
        Of course, as a medical license holder, you would know that the quantity of blood loss that can kill an infant—2.3oz—is easily concealed in today’s highly absorbent disposable diapers.
        I’m sure CDC will welcome you with open arms. Godspeed.

      • Jhon Murdock
        July 3, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

        It is an estimate that very likely is conservatively low. If we go by the results of the Brazilian Study, one death for every 7,500 forced infant circumcisions, we would have a death rate that is over 200 neonates annually.
        In 2006 the CDC recorded 618 neonate deaths caused by “hemorrhage”. But nowhere does CDC mention (nor do they seem to care) what caused all these hemorrhages in the first place. Since you seem to be adept at detecting lies, why not look into this matter and get back to us with the truth of how many of these innocent babies died following and as a direct result their forced circumcisions?
        Of course, as an ex medical license holder, you would know that the quantity of blood loss that can kill an infant—2.3oz—is easily concealed in today’s highly absorbent disposable diapers.
        I’m sure CDC will welcome you with open arms. Remember, we’re waiting. Godspeed.

      • Jhon Murdock
        November 28, 2015 at 5:05 pm #

        Well, what did CDC tell you when you inquired as to how many of the 618 neonate “hemorrhage” deaths that they recorded in 2006 were preceded by forced circumcision? Surely you must be ready to answer that simple question by now. How long do you plan to keep us waiting?

    • yachty
      June 21, 2015 at 6:32 pm #

      TOTAL bullshit from the anti idiots! I have never known a guy uncut and have never known a guy with any problems! Kia you are just full of shit like the rest of your clan! You are not even an AMerican! You must be some Eurotrash….

      • Nick Sanders
        June 21, 2015 at 9:23 pm #

        Disagree with someone, think they’re stupid, call them stupid, hell call them a motherfucker for all I care, but slurring someone for a factor outside their control, and that includes where they are from, crosses the line.

        • yachty
          June 30, 2015 at 9:34 am #

          Get over it Mary! Go get Married already an don’t worry what parent select for their son(s).

    • yachty
      June 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm #

      BTW- Eurotrash, I have three perfectly circumcised boys (7yo, 4yo and 5 months) all their cousins, peers and extended family are circumcised. I have never known an uncircumcised male and more than likely won’t. I am sure some of my offshore clients are, but I just take their money and could careless about them!

  21. Yeoman Roman
    June 10, 2015 at 12:57 am #

    Tutler is so wrong about so much, it is hopeless to even begin to address her ridiculous claims.

    This is not about publicity, it is about a four year old boy, who DOESN’T want to have his foreskin removed. There is nothing wrong with it and it is his body. It is a human rights issue.

    Circumcision is medical fraud practiced for profit, at least the way it is practiced in America.

    Tuler has been a shill for circumcision for some time. The particulars of any case don’t concern her, she always has a smug spin for everything she writes.

  22. Kia Siven
    June 10, 2015 at 12:53 am #

    Hello AMY TUTEUR from Northern Europe(Finland exact). I have been asking a certain question over 15 years without any answer. Maybe you could answer this; Why so many intact boys in USA have to be circumcised due to problems but here, outside usa, in countries where circumcision is unknown, boys seem to be okay without problems. i am sure you have access to medical statistics to check this yourself. My theory is that because 100 years of brainwashing has done it’s job. Forced retraction practised and adviced by medical community causes infections. In my country no doctor or nurse would never dream of assaulting boy like that, there would be consequencies but in usa it seem to be common practise. what is your theory? why in usa foreskin seem to mean instant problems and infections and suffering?

    • yachty
      June 30, 2015 at 9:39 am #

      It is cleaner, healthier and better looking! What male wants an ugly stinky penis! A few minutes of discomfort for a lifetime of benefits. Growing up I never knew an uncircumcised guy. If there was one in the locker room he would have been the target of all kinds of crap! Even in our Military if you are uncircumcised, they circumcise you when you first enter. The only people not circumcising are Hispanics and a handful of hippies! Normal white parents (80%, according to recent CDC numbers) circumcise.

      • Julia
        June 30, 2015 at 10:23 am #

        Oh get over yourself. I must not be a normal white parent then. Maybe I’m a hispanic hippie?
        I grew up in Europe, and to me circumcised penises look weird. Wait, I actually think they all do, lol.

        Oh, and def. not stinky.

        • yachty
          June 30, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

          I am sorry you had to grow up in such deplorable conditions! No wonder you are tainted and bruised. You have all kinds of Mexican foreskin here in the USA….not so much white foreskin….Unless you want spread it on your face like Oprah and Barbara Walters…..foreskins make good anti wrinkle cream!

  23. TLCTugger
    June 10, 2015 at 12:03 am #

    Any forced intervention is ethical only if waiting for the patient’s informed consent would lead to net harm, and when less-destructive options are exhausted. Genital cutting violates ethics and human rights. Monsters do it, monsters sit on the sidelines and let it happen.

  24. Vincent Coletta
    June 9, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

    Comrade X Millions of little buys undergo forced genital cutting every year, people like myself don’t see a difference between the sex and what is wrong or isn’t. We see a person having part of their genitals removed. That is the difference between to me. I don’t how a person is wrong, I care that a person is wrong, and I don’t care what genitals they have between their legs.

  25. cosmopolite
    June 9, 2015 at 11:21 pm #

    Tuteur wrote: “The real issue here is two parents who despise each other using the body of their son to fight their battles.”

    That sentence is a very compelling reason to conclude that Florida justice is wrong, and Chase’s body should be left alone.

  26. June 9, 2015 at 10:36 pm #

    Amy Tuteur M.D. is a quack.

    • Jhon Murdock
      June 9, 2015 at 10:39 pm #

      Keep on trucking, Dude!

    • Jhon Murdock
      June 9, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

      Consider coming over to FaceBook and joining Intactivist Library. You’d make a great addition to the group!

    • cosmopolite
      June 9, 2015 at 11:19 pm #

      She is not a doctor. She gave up her licence to practice medicine a number of years ago.

      • Poogles
        June 15, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

        Choosing to not renew her license because she decided to stay home and raise her children does not strip her of her Medical Degree, so yes, she still is, and always will be, a Medical Doctor.

        • cosmopolite
          June 15, 2015 at 4:26 pm #

          She stopped practicing medicine more than 20 years ago, and surrendered her licence. Case closed.

          • Poogles
            June 16, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

            “She stopped practicing medicine more than 20 years ago, and surrendered her licence. Case closed.”

            Yep – she is a M.D./doctor who is not currently practicing. Case closed.

          • cosmopolite
            June 19, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

            She gave up her licence decades ago and so cannot easily resume practicing.

          • Poogles
            June 20, 2015 at 12:17 am #

            …and? What do the requirements for returning to practice have to do with anything? A doctor does not lose their education and ability to keep up with the literature just because they are no longer practicing.

          • cosmopolite
            June 23, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

            Practice and having an up to date licence are needed for credibility. Medicine is a trade as well as an intellectual activity.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:08 pm #

            Tuteur has not practiced medicine for about 25 years, and that means her human capital has gone stale. She also does not interact with parents, and hence she is probably unaware that the popularity of routine infant circumcision has declined in the USA, esp. among well educated parents. Tuteur has the old American prejudice that having foreskin is a mark of redneck ancestry.

          • Poogles
            June 25, 2015 at 12:04 pm #

            “She also does not interact with parents”

            Except for all the parents who read her blog, and all the ones that contact her privately….

          • yachty
            June 30, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

            The only reason it has declined is because the influx of Illegal Mexicans who do not circumcise. The CDC has a rate of 80% for white parents. I live in SoCal in a very expensive beach city and can assure you all our friends have or are going to circumcise their boys. My wife belongs to the PTA and it came up in a meeting, just so no boy feels odd man out! She also has women at the house all the time and they talk babies etc…..Our boys are 7, 4 and 5mo and all three have been circumcised. I wouldn’t be seen with a kid with a foreskin or shopping at a Walmart!

          • Alison Mercer
            July 1, 2015 at 11:53 am #

            the mentality , u are really that obsessed with being white. congrats on living in your expensive beach city and your wife being a boring(i imagine a bore, she married you) member of the pta. that is you bragging right. u would not want to be seen with A kid with a foreskin? yer a crackpot

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:35 am #

            You are the mental one! Darling it is SoCal and housing isn’t inexpensive! My wife is hardly boring! She is teaching sailing this summer to the Jrs is very active in the community. We go surfing mostly every day and generally have a great life!

          • MaineJen
            May 28, 2020 at 2:13 pm #

            OMG dude

          • yachty
            June 30, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

            I have a friend that was a Neurologist, he quit practicing and just consults now……Still considered an MD, just doesn’t operate. His cost of malpractice was $400k a year! You should see what OB/GYN’s pay!

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 2, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

            Did he give up his medical license as well?

        • cosmopolite
          June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am #

          Having a medical degree, especially one that is now nearly 40 years old, does not make one a medical doctor. Being a doctor requires occasional retraining and recertification.

          • Poogles
            June 16, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

            “Being a **practicing** doctor requires occasional retraining and recertification.”
            There, fixed that for you.

          • cosmopolite
            June 19, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

            The views on the human body of a person who did an MD, but has not practiced medicine for a quarter century, are not very valuable or interesting. Practice most definitely is required in addition to classroom work.

          • Poogles
            June 20, 2015 at 12:25 am #

            A doctor does not lose their education and ability to keep up with the literature just because they are no longer practicing. Dr. Amy continues to read and analyze new data and studies. Her views are informed, and are found to be valuable by many, many people, including ACOG (who invited her to speak at the annual meeting in 2013).

          • cosmopolite
            June 23, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

            Her views on how the tip of the human penis should look and function are most definitely not informed, a flaw she shares with many/most USA pediatricians and obgyns.
            I am very very disappointed that Amy Tuteur was invited to speak to the 2013 ACOG annual meeting. I smell political correctness.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            June 24, 2015 at 6:09 pm #

            Hey, Einstein, which is it? You shouldn’t listen to me because I stopped practicing medicine or you shouldn’t listen to me because I’m just like the majority of obstetricians and pediatricians who are practicing medicine? It can’t be both.

            You really need to keep your insults straight or it might lead people to think you are a fool.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 24, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

            According to his other comments we also shouldn’t listen because you’re a proud Jew.

            I don’t even want to attempt to start digging in that garden of wtf.

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 2, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

            Both you and the ACOG are woefully misinformed and out of date. Cosmopolite is logically correct. The male penis has never been part of the purview of obstetrics or gynecology.

          • yachty
            June 30, 2015 at 9:41 am #

            Medical text books still only show circumcised penis! This is the USA and it is the normal penis!

          • Alison Mercer
            July 1, 2015 at 11:47 am #

            you are frickin nuts dude. well maybe not nuts just racist bigoted and annoying . go admire your circumcised cock why dont u. actually u are probably jealous of the uncircucised ones. and the ones that are bigger than 1/4 inch

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:14 am #

            Sorry Alison, it is true! In the USA medical text books do not show foreskins! Go have a zanibar! Stupid cunt!

          • cosmopolite
            June 23, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            Your verbal fix does not fix the fact that Amy Tuteur ceased practicing medicine a generation ago.

          • Nick Sanders
            June 23, 2015 at 11:13 pm #

            Nor does it take away the fact that she graduated from medical school, and deserves recognition for such.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

            Once she resigned from Harvard Medical School and gave up her licence to practice medicine, she became a private citizen with an opinion.

          • Nick Sanders
            June 24, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            Not how it works.

          • yachty
            June 30, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

            She is a doctor and you work at Walmart…..

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 2, 2015 at 8:33 pm #

            And you are a brilliant communicator as long as you are speaking in Walmart. Just because you purchased everything you own there does not justify your claim to membership in the middle class.

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:10 am #

            Sorry, my little wetback, but I have never stepped foot into a Walmart! I never claimed to be part of the middle class….I have no idea how people can support on a family on less than $250,000 usd!

          • Gozi
            July 3, 2015 at 10:32 am #

            Are you aware there are people who have the same poor opinion of Jews that you have of minorities? I hope you are joking.

        • cosmopolite
          June 23, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

          What she did strips her of the right to be taken as an expert on any aspect of health care. She is merely a private citizen with an opinion. And quite ugly and hostile opinions, I might add.

          • Fallow
            June 23, 2015 at 10:51 pm #

            Um, you’re one to talk. You’ve already established that you don’t think it’s “ugly and hostile” to say that Dr. Amy is failing to “rise above her Jewish ancestry”.

          • cosmopolite
            June 24, 2015 at 6:04 pm #

            It is true that Amy Tuteur is a proud Jew. And it is also true that Tuteur’s blog has made snarky deprecating remarks about the natural human penis, remarks that are totally unprofessional from the pen of someone who claims to speak with medical authority.

          • Poogles
            June 25, 2015 at 12:02 pm #

            “What she did strips her of the right to be taken as an expert on any aspect of health care.”

            Apparently not, otherwise she would not have been invited to speak by ACOG or be contacted by the media numerous times for her expert opinion as an OB/GYN. Your opinion of her credibility is irrelevant to everyone but you.

          • yachty
            June 30, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

            You really are a hostile idiot! She is a Doctor that can write papers and books and use DOCTOR! DUMB ASS!

      • yachty
        June 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

        She is a doctor, just not a licensed practicing doctor….You are as stupid as it comes! If an attorney is not practicing or licensed you can’t take his JD away…..Have another hit of acid!

        • Jhon Murdock
          July 2, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

          Ah, yes. The good unlicensed, unpracticing doctor. Thanks for making that crystal clear.

      • Jhon Murdock
        July 2, 2015 at 8:08 pm #


  27. Vincent Coletta
    June 9, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

    Hi, am sickened over the idea that people like you and those here believe they have a say about what happens to MY body. I wish I had been left the way nature made it, sadly thanks to unethical doctors, and quack science that was known to be false when I was born my body was altered against my will.

    Human right activism like this here is about the crazy notion that men have a right to their own body. I see you have given interviews to feminist podcasts and I am aware feminism is a big support of the cause to end Genital Mutilation of EVERYONE

    Circumcision has done me no favors! I love when my wife and I partake in one of the most intimate and beautiful experiences in life, but for me it can be a very dark experience on occasion because part of my body was altered against my will. Without the mechanical lubrication provided by a foreskin, I have to use an artificial lubricant or sex would be too painful for my wife and me. Climax is not the same for me as it is for my wife or for Natural (Intact) males. They describe orgasm as a wave all over the body, while a mutilated male (circumcised) expresses it as a singular explosion (bordering on pain) from the penis. Imagine not wanting your wife to touch you as you lay crying on your back from shame and pain due to sores caused by abrasion and/or at times a complete and total loss of erection and feeling. The foreskin contains 20,000 fine touch nerves (like in your fingers) and provides protection of the glans (head) keeping it soft and sponge like, all in an effort to ensure everything works properly. My parent’s chose this painful and unsatisfactory sex life for me and my wife and I simply cannot fathom why. I would never have chosen to have my foreskin removed. Only 1/16,667 intact males will have a problem with their foreskin, 99% of which can easily be treated without surgery. One hundred and seventeen babies die from circumcision a year in the US, which equates to 9/100,000 babies that die each year from a cosmetic surgery. Men have lost their penis, glans, and suffered from deformity caused by the operation performed when they were infants. It isn’t right that these children pay the price for a decision that their parents made, a decision that should be left up to the owner of the penis. Even those who survive still have problems like mine, though they are seldom discussed.

    Elephant in the Hospital

    Learn how sex is supposed to work.

    Babies experience pain just like adults.

    How to properly care for a natural Penis.

    They didn’t tell you the functions of the foreskin, but they did lie to you and said it had health benefits. Did they also tell you it pays for their house, their cars, and their children’s college? It is illegal to sell an organ taken from a patient but they still do it.

    Foreskin for sale: $169/500µg = $338,000/g = $9,581,962/oz.

    My numbers and claims are supported by these studies:

    Dutch Medical society and their stance on RIC

    Surgeons of British Columbia

    Doctors around the world critique AAP’s circumcision opinion.

    This document outlines the deaths caused by circumcision in the US.

    All the statements made by medical organizations about circumcision, and they are cited.

    Functions of the Foreskin.

    Breast cancer kills more men than anything related to the foreskin.

    American Cancer society says Circumcision does nothing to affect cancer rates.

    Meta-analysis of circumcision research

    Circumcised men have a 450% greater chance of ED

    All the common myths about circumcision and how they are dispelled.

    Boy wants to be a girl after botched circumcision. There are many cases like this however they usually occur in infants who cannot express themselves in words.

    Cost benefit analysis of circumcision.

    US Navy Study that shows circumcision has no effect on HIV or STI infection rates.

    Circumcision is PAINFUL!

    Men upset about being circumcised against their will.

    Visual comparison of a Natural Penis versus a circumcised one. (Warning pictures of Genitals)

    Note the faces BOTH victims make. One is male, the other female.

    Three Videos of Circumcisions they are very graphic.

  28. Gozi
    June 9, 2015 at 9:08 pm #

    I just want to know where I can get some of those candy penises in the picture. ..

  29. June 9, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

    Proponents of circumcision are racist.

    “From our observations and experience in such cases, we feel fully
    warranted in suggesting the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race
    as an efficient remedy in preventing the predisposition to
    indiscriminate raping so inherent in that race. We have seen this act
    as a valuable preventive measure in cases where an inordinate and
    unreasoning as well as morbid carnal desire threatened physical
    shipwreck; if in such cases the morbid appetite has been removed or
    at least brought within manageable and natural bounds, we cannot see
    why it should not – at least in a certain beneficial degree –
    also affect the moral stamina of a race proverbial for the leathery
    consistency, inordinate redundancy, generous sebaceousness and
    general mental suggestiveness and hypnotizing influence of an
    unnecessary and rape, murder and lynching breeding prepuce. ”

    Remondino MD, “Questions of the day: Negro rapes and their
    social problems”, National Popular Review, Vol. 4, January 1894,
    p. 3-6

    “The prophylaxis of syphilis in the Negro race is especially
    difficult, for it is impossible to persuade the poor variety of Negro
    that sexual gratification is wrong, even when he is in the actively
    infectious stage. It is probable that sex hygiene lectures will not
    have the slightest effect on this type, especially when one considers
    the risks that many of our own medical students run. As regards
    personal prophylaxis, all male babies should be cgircumcised, both
    for the purpose of avoiding local irritation which will increase the
    sexual appetite ”

    Hazen, “Syphilis in the American Negro”, Journal of the American
    Medical Association, Vol. LXIII (6), 8 August 1914, pp. 463-468

    “The male Negro child, he claims, is subject to many nervous disorders
    from slight irritation. This characteristic follows him through life.
    An enlarged prepuce is assigned as the most frequent cause of
    irritation, and its removal, he believes, will lead to the stopping
    of sexual crimes and to the moral improvement of the race. ”

    for the correction of sexual crimes among the Negro race”,Maryland
    Medical Journal, Vol. 30, February 1894, pp. 345-6

    • Yeoman Roman
      June 10, 2015 at 1:00 am #

      What does Tutler say about your historical quotes? They are revealing! Circumcisers are racist…. Hummmmm…. Ugly history there.

  30. June 9, 2015 at 8:46 pm #

    “circumcision is a religious, cosmetic and medical decision with essentially no impact beyond the benefit of reducing the risk of transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS.”

    That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Tu quoque, You call us foreskin fetishists; I call you a circumcision fetishist. Circumcision surgery gets you aroused.

    The Cochrane Collaboration is an independant panel that is set up to do unbiased reviews. Here is what they had to say,
    HIV/AIDS and circumcision: lost in translation
    1. Marie Fox, 
    2. Michael Thomson

    In April 2009 a Cochrane review was published assessing the effectiveness of male circumcision in preventing acquisition of HIV. It concluded that there was strong evidence that male circumcision, performed in a medical setting, reduces the acquisition of HIV by men engaging in heterosexual sex. Yet, importantly, the review noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV. Since articles in leading medical journals as well as the popular press continue to do so, scientific researchers should think carefully about how their conclusions may be translated both to policy makers and to a more general audience. The importance of addressing ethico-legal concerns that such trials may raise is highlighted. The understandable haste to find a solution to the HIV pandemic means that the promise offered by preliminary and specific research studies may be overstated. This may mean that ethical concerns are marginalised. Such haste may also obscure the need to be attentive to local cultural sensitivities, which vary from one African region to another, in formulating policy concerning circumcision.

    J Med Ethics 2010;36:798-801 doi:10.1136/jme.2010.038695

  31. June 9, 2015 at 7:37 pm #

    The owner of the sex organ doesn’t want his foreskin removed. The mother doesn’t want the foreskin removed.

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that ALL MEN deserve the CHOICE to keep 100% of their natural-born sex organs? Circumcision is a violation of human rights.

    You are trying to paint us as a fringe group, but it is penis cutters like yourself who are the true fringe group when 80% of the world’s men are INTACT. Circumcision is not normal. Circumcision is wrong.

    • Daniel Ros
      May 28, 2020 at 6:59 am #

      She has no soul. She is just a part of the matrix. Look up simulation theory. People this hideous don’t actually exist.

  32. June 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

    The owner of the sex organ doesn’t want his foreskin removed. The mother doesn’t want the foreskin removed.

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that ALL MEN deserve the CHOICE to keep 100% of their natural-born sex organ? Circumcision is a violation of human rights.

    You are trying to paint us as a fringe group, but it is penis cutters like yourself who are the fringe group when 80% of the world’s men are INTACT. Circumcision is not normal. Circumcision is wrong.

  33. Melissa McCarthy
    June 9, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

    Amy you are a complete crack pot.

  34. attitude devant
    June 8, 2015 at 1:12 pm #

    Oh my goodness. I can’t believe people are still at it here. This was posted WEEKS ago.

    • itry2brational
      June 8, 2015 at 7:08 pm #

      And here you are, keeping it going! You know what’s ironic about your ‘this is old news’ complaint? This article’s opening is a word-for-word copy to one Tuteur wrote in 2009! How’s that for digging up old material!

  35. Joy Brown
    June 5, 2015 at 3:45 am #

    !!! “LOVE is the key to LIFE”. !!!

    “LOVE is the key to LIFE”. That was the word from Dr Ukaka when I consulted his powerful Love Temple. I married the wrong man; I realized that after four years of our unfruitful marriage. Everything was going from Best to Worst in our life, no child, I got demoted from work after our marriage, my husband was sacked a year after. His application for new job in various offices was constantly declined even though he was qualified enough. I was made to take care of my family with the low income I earn get that wasn’t enough to pay our rent. We keep praying a seeking for help from some people, my friends laugh at me behind because I was advised not to get married yet.It was one Thursday night that my husband woke me up and told me that has thought enough about our crisis, he said that our crisis is not ordinary and it’s beyond our spiritual level. He suggested we should consult Dr Ukaka from testimonies he showed me online about how he has been helping families. I was afraid, I don’t like evil or spell but I supported him to contact him if he can help us. We consulted him via and he replied positively after 20munites with congratulating email that he can help us but he will need our pure heart and trusts in his work if he will cast the spell on us and purify our life. We agreed to his terms. He cast the spell and told us to expect results within 5days. I waited for three days nothing happened, so I started having doubt and blaming my husband for emailing Dr Ukaka. It was on the fifth day that my husband was called for an interview and he got a well-paying work, I was prompted to a higher position. I missed my period on the 5th day and it was confirmed that I am with a baby. Things have really changed for us for good and we now have our own house and cars. I will never forget what Dr Ukaka told us “LOVE is the key to LIFE”, this word keep me going. People that laughed at us are coming close for help and I am delighted to welcome them because my family is now blessed. Dr Ukaka is a savior and man that keep to his word even when I doubted his powers at the end of the spell. Thank you great Dr Ukaka and your Oracle for helping us via and I will keep spreading this message to people in need of help. also contact him for address: ; also call Dr.Ukaka on his mobile number +2348133873774),

  36. rh1985
    June 4, 2015 at 9:23 pm #

    There is now a new fundraiser to help the mother fight to get shared custody back. Only about $200 has been raised so far. $50k was raised to try and stop the circumcision. Apparently, the intactivists don’t care if Chase is left in the full custody of a man they claim is a sick, perverted, child abuser, it’s like they don’t even care what happens to him with the circumcision case lost, he’s no longer worth their time or money if he doesn’t get to keep his foreskin.

    • itry2brational
      June 5, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

      A “NEW fundraiser” with 106 days to go and is only a few days old hasn’t met its goal. Must be hypocrisy!
      Are you seriously that desperate? You even said it yourself, “a *new* fundraiser”. Just exactly how much time do they get…according to you?

      • fiftyfifty1
        June 7, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

        Now it’s up to $262.

        • itry2brational
          June 9, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

          Now its up to $412! Only 102 days left! I wonder if posting the link here is what helped it nearly double. lol

    • Jhon Murdock
      July 2, 2015 at 8:54 pm #

      How much have you contributed to Heather’s custody cause?

  37. MaineJen
    June 4, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    There does not seem to be any place in these discussions for my ilk. I have come to realize that circ is largely a cultural and religious practice, and all things being equal, I would come down on the side of anti-circ, purely because I now see that it’s unnecessary. Like most Americans, I was unaware of what the procedure actually was until I saw it. I would not choose it again.

    But I draw the line at telling people who come down on the pro-circ side that they’re mutilating their kids, that they’re permanently damaging their kids, that they’re no better than people who condone FGM. They’re not, and it’s not the same thing AT ALL as FGM.

    That’s why I don’t call myself an inactivist. I find it hard to say that “I agree” with someone who’s so stridently trying to shame people. The circ rate in America is steadily falling as more and more people come to the same conclusion I did. The ‘battle’ is being won not by the screamers, but by the calm educators.

    • Poogles
      June 5, 2015 at 6:46 pm #

      You and me both.

    • June 9, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

      “and it’s not the same thing AT ALL as FGM.”

      That is pure enthno-centric propaganda. “What those barbaric, brown-people do way over there, is nothing like what we, civilized, white-people do over here. It’s completely different!” Except, that it isn’t.

      “In 2015 ,” he said in his judgment, “the law generally, and family
      law in particular, is still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male
      circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or
      conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM
      in any of its forms.

      “Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGM WHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.”

      -Judge Sir James Munby

      In the case of anti-FGC advocacy, the voice of “brown women”
      is almost entirely absent, literally silenced by an insistence that
      the horrendousness of the practice precludes any possible positive
      evaluation, and therefore the only valid voices are those that
      condemn FGC. All contradictory testimony is dismissed as the result
      of “brainwashing,” “false consciousness,” “fear of
      male reprisal,” “anti-Westernism”, “ignorance,” or other
      forms of willful or unwillful complicity.

    • Clayton Winters
      June 10, 2015 at 2:18 am #

      The only difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation that matters is this. We easily see through the lies foreign people tell to justify something they do that seems strange to us but normal to them. We are blind to see through the exact same likes we tell to justify what we do that seems normal to us but very strange indeed to the rest of the world.

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 10:51 am #

      Actually according to the CDC the reason the rate went down is the large influx of illegal Mexican that have a large breeding program. Whites are still circumcising at a rate of 80%……. Mexicans are filthy animals…one thing I agree with Trump on!

    • Jhon Murdock
      November 28, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

      Both FGM and MGM are painful and wrong as two left shoes. Both need to be stopped. Both sets of parents are indeed mutilating their children. So why are are you only comfortable calling the parents of the girls mutilators?
      By the way in the countries that practice genital cutting of their girls, the practice is known, and has been known for thousands of years, as female circumcision. These parents enormously resent outsiders like yourself referring to their time honored female circumcision practice as mutilation.

  38. itry2brational
    June 4, 2015 at 12:07 pm #

    “The babies’ brains responded in the same way to a poke (force 128 mN) as adults did to a stimulus that was four times stronger (512 mN).”

    Brand new research. Circ is more painful to a newborn than an adult.

    • Wombat
      June 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

      Brand new research of 20 whole people! This is great for bringing attention to the need to figure out, consider, and continue to study pain relief in neonates and infants.

      It’s not a reason to discontinue a procedure (any procedure, not just circ) that can be and is easily done with pain relief.

      This is like saying “man needle sticks hurt, no childhood vaccines!!”

      • June 9, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

        “It’s not a reason to discontinue a procedure (any procedure, not just circ) that can be and is easily done with pain relief.”

        It is a perfect reason to discontinue a painful, non-therapeutic procedure.

        British Medical Association
        “to circumcise for therapeutic reasons
        where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and

        The Royal Dutch Medical Association
        “The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that
        non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of
        children’s rights to autonomy and physical

        Canadian Pediatric Society
        “Circumcisionis a ‘non-therapeutic’
        procedure, which means it is not medicallynecessary.”

        “After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many
        paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

        Royal Australian College of Physicians
        “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia
        and New Zealand.”
        (almost all the men responsible for this
        statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision
        rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine”
        circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in

        • Wombat
          June 11, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

          I can copy and paste just as many medical and human rights bodies who disagree back at you (UN, WHO, AMA, AAP).

          But that doesn’t serve any purpose because you either disagree with them (fine, good on you even) or think they’re evil and lying for no reason. That one isn’t arguable in any realm of sanity so I won’t bother tying.

      • Jhon Murdock
        June 9, 2015 at 10:20 pm #

        Needle sticks may hurt but they don’t permanently remove any organ. There are no benefits to forced infant circumcision. No long term studies of the inherent harms and risks of forced infant circumcision have ever been done. Nor are any contemplated. This mutilation entered our society in the mid 1800s as a cure and punishment for masturbation. It is now an estimated $2Billion/yr juggernaut that is viciously fighting tooth and nail for its own profitable survival.
        Twenty or two thousand subjects makes no difference, surgical removal of organs from anyone without their consent is a Human Rights violation of the first magnitude.
        No need to discontinue the procedure, we just need to age regulate it to 18yrs or older.

        • Wombat
          June 11, 2015 at 6:57 pm #

          They merely posted a tiny study about pain, full stop.

          By that methodology, I stubbed my toe, ban end tables.

          All of your other points have been discussed left, right, back, and center – and I don’t feel like continuing to rehash with the latest one of you to be selected for immediate air-drop.

          My comment stands: pain alone, especially ~possibly increased pain indicated by a tiny study with limited methodology~ is a poor argument.

          But I’m sure you have a copy paste diatribe, so I await my Disqus notification.

          • Jhon Murdock
            November 28, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

            Naw, just surgically remove your toes, you clumsy, oafish moron. You’ll also find that you can stand much closer to the bar.
            Surgery! The only answer.

          • Nick Sanders
            November 28, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

            It took you six months to come up with that comeback? That’s sad.

          • Jhon Murdock
            November 29, 2015 at 9:16 am #

            Stopped taking your pills purge inanity? Be honest.

        • yachty
          July 1, 2015 at 10:53 am #

          There is no we! You are in Central American and not a citizen of the USA! A foreskin is not an oragan, it is a tiny piece of the largest organ….called SKIN!

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 1, 2015 at 9:39 pm #

            I am an honorary citizen of all countries, you bilge swilling, culturally biased moron. Fifteen square inches of prepuce is a HUGE loss of the most highly innervated, specialized in function (just like lips and finger pads etc.), erotic skin on the human body. And BTW, one’s foreskin is the best transplant skin to make repairs after prostate surgery. You’ve been riding the peri’ah express for so long you no longer know which way is up.

          • yachty
            July 1, 2015 at 10:38 pm #

            Please, Honorary Citizen of the World….LMFAO!

            Foreskins can be grown into 6’x6′ sheets for skin graphs. They also make a great anti wrinkle cream, Oprah and Barbara Walters swear by it! Two great uses fore a useless flap of skin!

            Did you know the UK is the biggest buyer of American foreskins? They are! They are making an injectable anti wrinkle serum from them. They are slowly going to go for FDA approval.

          • Jhon Murdock
            July 2, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

            The anti wrinkle effect doesn’t last long, just a couple of weeks so Opa and Wawa need an endless assembly line of unconsenting, helpless victims whose trafficked foreskins are always in the pipeline.
            Why do these misandrist money grubbers never think to use the foreskins of little girls in their miracle creams? The skin tissue and the net result are identical.
            The Brits, having long ago abandoned forced infant circumcision, can only rely on a small number of foreskins of foolish Jews who are not smart enough to follow the example of their host country. Better educated, humanistic and loving Jews everywhere are flocking to Brit Shalom.
            That man haters like Opa and Wawa can recruit men like you, to advocate violence against other males before they can even understand what’s at stake, or defend themselves, is beyond belief.

            Have you no sense of shame?

  39. Renee Martin
    June 4, 2015 at 2:17 am #

    Seeing women fight over a boys penis is like seeing men fight about abortion. Maybe there are some things best left to the sex that has the body parts?

    Why are anti circ people so insane (just read one of their boards to see this in action)? I didn’t circ my kid because I see it as religious, and we aren’t, but this fervor is kinda crazy.

    And misandry? LOL forever. You do realize if MEN didn’t want kids circ’d they wouldn’t be, right?

    • Maya Markova
      June 4, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

      Maybe anti-circ people are insane because a pro-circ judge imprisoned a mother indefinitely until she gave “consent” to circ.

      A lesson of history is – when people like you are imprisoned, get insane and do something before they have got to you.

      • rh1985
        June 4, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

        she was imprisoned for refusing to follow the custody agreement she signed. If the agreement said no circumcision, and she had tried to have him circumcised, she also would have gone to jail.

        • Maya Markova
          June 5, 2015 at 1:51 am #

          This cannot be proved, especially with so many commenters here and elsewhere saying that the unmarried father is a great parent because he wants to do the normal thing for his son, and the mother is a freak foreskin fetishist (and so are all who defend her).
          BTW, the same father didn’t implement the signed agreement for 3 whole years, but nobody went after him. Maybe the judge is not as much a circumcision zealot as a vicious misogynist. I’d be interested about whether his earlier decisions reveal some gender bias.

          • rh1985
            June 5, 2015 at 3:31 am #

            I don’t see many people saying he’s a great dad. Even people who are not against infant circ, were saying he should just let it go at this point because of the child’s age. For the record I am not impressed with the parenting skills of either mom or dad and I feel sorry for this kid stuck with two parents who can’t co-parent at all.
            who would have gone after him in that time? the court doesn’t check on custody situations unless there’s a CPS case or one of the parents complains to the court that it’s not being followed. it would be hard to look into the judge because family court cases are sealed and they only end up in the news if a parent goes to the media…
            I honestly think the mother started out with completely wrong legal arguments and I have no idea if it was a bad lawyer or she became more morally opposed after the case drew attention and intactivists got involved, because unless her lawyer was the worst lawyer ever she was initially only concerned with the medical risk which hadn’t changed from 2-3 years ago.

    • June 9, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

      You do realize if WOMEN didn’t want their DAUGHTERS circ’d they wouldn’t be, right? Or, are the women, as usual, unaccountable because they’ve been brain-washed by the all powerful patriarchy?

      What level of insanity is required to result in an obsessive compulsion to cut away normal, healthy erogenous tissue from a vulnerable child?

    • Jhon Murdock
      June 9, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

      But these men want their boys to have a bald headed penis, just like daddy! And this is a lot easier than confronting the terrible truth of what their parents forced on them. Big can of worms.
      You do realize that if the women of the world who are circumcising their daughters didn’t want their daughters circed, they wouldn’t be, right?
      Misogyny!!? LOL.

    • Clayton Winters
      June 10, 2015 at 2:20 am #

      By your logic, Renee, the only people who get to decide whether we should circumcise or not would be men who still have their foreskins. I wonder how that would go down ?

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 10:55 am #

      You are cool, but your kid will hate you!

    • Jhon Murdock
      November 28, 2015 at 5:55 pm #


  40. itry2brational
    June 4, 2015 at 1:18 am #

    “circumcision is a religious, cosmetic and medical decision with essentially no impact”
    A procedure with no impact is one you don’t do. Why are people like you in such a fuss over cutting a boy’s penis if your advocacy has “essentially no impact”? Circ has had NO IMPACT on the “transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS” in the US. If it has, if you can show that higher circ rates in the US has translated into lower “transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS” then do it.

    You don’t have the faintest clue what you’re talking about.

    • June 9, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

      Proponents of circumcision are either incapable or unwilling to understand the difference between efficacy, i.e. results in a clinical setting, and effectiveness, i.e. results in a real, world setting.

      • Jhon Murdock
        June 9, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

        Oh they know all right. They just don’t care.

  41. Speaksvolumes
    June 1, 2015 at 3:36 pm #

    1. Circumcision is genital mutilation. Period.
    2. Claims of HIV protection are exaggerated.
    3. Unnecessary and catastrophic injuries.
    4. Circumcision takes away a person’s religious rights.

    • Wombat
      June 2, 2015 at 4:57 am #

      4. Banning circumcision does too.

      And I really – purely personally – hate the religious argument for circumcision because I am unabashedly unreligious and think religion as a whole is pretty darn silly (though I respect that some don’t and as long as they don’t infringe on others more power to them), but damn – the contradiction in that one is obvious.

      Here’s a novel idea: let’s regulate medicine based on medical facts, and if someone’s private religious views dictate that they do or don’t do a procedure, they can apply those on their own, within reason. Argue the reason if you must (and clearly, you are) but just saying that it takes away religious rights is silly as all get out.

      • Speaksvolumes
        June 2, 2015 at 11:29 am #

        orced to permanently bear religious or cult symbols, especially when they may not identify with it as an adult. Many will not follow their parent’s religion into adulthood, and thus should not be forced to bear their guardian’s religious symbols on the most private areas of their bodies. However, once of consensual age a man should be allowed

        • Wombat
          June 2, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

          A child should not be kept from wearing the permanent religious symbols, especially when the symbol is a medically accepted as safe and reasonable minor cosmetic procedure. The majority of children do keep their parent’s religion, especially if they are observant/conservative enough to be modifying their body in their most private, only visible to god, areas.

          Again, I’m not even a believer but if you’re arguing from religion you might want to follow what they actually believe. I’m A-OK with not arguing from religion at all though, as I’ve already stated.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

            Then would you support some levels of FGM for Muslims if it meant that the clitoris would not be entirely excised?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

            Is FGM an accepted, safe medical procedure done by doctors? Where does the line for religious freedom in body modification fall? If you’re against infant piercing, is it ok if they’re Hindu or Fulani?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

            No – because I’m against doing a permanent cosmetic procedure or one for potential medical reasons to anyone without their consent.

            If FGM was performed in sterile conditions by trained physicians in a hospital setting and was an FGM Level IV classification (as designated by WHO), would you support it?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

            A doctor doing surgery that just happens to be in the genital area? No, I’d rather the baby suffer and/or die. It’s not FGM if it’s being done for medical reasons, and we’re floating off to cloud cuckoo land if you really can’t see the difference.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

            I didn’t say ‘if it was being done for medical reasons.’

            I said would you support FGM (as a religious/cultural/ritual practice) if it was done without the full excision of the clitoris and was performed in a sterile environment by a doctor?

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:27 am #

            What if their clitoris just falls off, and the parents decline to reattach it, is that FGM?

            That’s the point the hypotheticals are getting to in this conversation.

          • June 9, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

            You’re actually just devolving into an argument composed entirely of red-herrings.

          • Wombat
            June 11, 2015 at 6:54 pm #

            You look like a super rational dude that I totally want to have a discussion with:

            Also, the sound of parachutes is overwhelming.

          • Robert Howard
            June 2, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            Yes, it is in some places. Look at Indonesia.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:48 am #

            I’m seeing the instructions for symbolic scratching in 2010, which still isn’t good but is also not remotely comparable to removal of parts. It’s a religious or at least quasi-religious government, they do lots of other messed up human rights stuff too, all across the globe. That doesn’t inflate sarin gas to an “accepted, safe method of punishment or execution” so it doesn’t really fulfill that here either, imo.

            Even with that backtracking it appears to be mostly still done by Islamic, non-medical organizations or lay midwives, who this blog has already established may be necessary in some countries but still aren’t doctors. I suppose it’s a step up from doing it in a shed with a shaman, but it’s still hardly a medical procedure.

          • yachty
            July 1, 2015 at 11:02 am #

            Circumcision in the USA is Secular, 80% of males are circumcised and 80% of white male babies are circumcised everyday!

          • Wombat
            July 2, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

            TIL there are only white men. Read stats before you parachute into a month old+ conversation to copy paste them maybe.

        • SporkParade
          June 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

          Judaism isn’t a religion.

          • yachty
            July 1, 2015 at 11:01 am #

            WTF are you talking about? Judaism is the original Monotheist religion! Jews are the chosen people by Gd!

          • SporkParade
            July 1, 2015 at 3:37 pm #

            We Jews have a religion, yes, but at the end of the day, we are a tribe more than anything else. Without understanding that, then nothing about the religion makes any sense.

          • yachty
            July 1, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

            Hebrews are the people and Judaism is the religion. All though in this day and age both are grouped as Jew/Judaism.

          • Jhon Murdock
            November 28, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

            Chosen? More like singled out!

          • yachty
            November 29, 2015 at 7:51 am #

            You need to learn your place! You are hispanic and here to serve us!

        • yachty
          July 1, 2015 at 11:00 am #

          Circumcision is not religious in the USA! I was born and raised in SoCal and have never known a guy that was not circumcised! I have heard of women tossing uncut guys out of bed!

          • Speaksvolumes
            July 1, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

            Judging by your other comments, I think it’s safe to say you’ve used up your daily quota of exclamation points. Go have a lie down and come back when you’re well-rested. LOL

          • yachty
            July 3, 2015 at 9:37 am #

            Sorry……you are on point.

      • itry2brational
        June 7, 2015 at 12:10 am #

        “4. Banning circumcision[“takes away a person’s religious rights”]
        No it doesn’t. You don’t actually have a right to cut other people just because you want to. Universal human rights override religious and every person is owed bodily integrity. This is a major moral failing of circ apologists.

        “I respect that some don’t and as long as they don’t infringe on others more power to them”

        You don’t respect boys having their bodies infringed upon by others. Non-medically indicated circ performed on a boy is unquestionably both a human AND a religious rights violation: every boy has the right to conscience and to choose NOT to be permanently altered. Every human has the right to bodily integrity. No parent has the right to impose their religion by carving away part of their child’s body. More universally, No person has the right to impose their religion by carving away part of someone else’s body.

        • SporkParade
          June 7, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

          If that’s true, then why do I know so many people who feel that the Soviet Union violated their religious rights by denying them the ability to be circumcised as infants? Or do you prioritize human rights solely according to your own personal prejudices?

          • itry2brational
            June 7, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

            Says the person basing their argument on their own personal experience and prejudice. Irony.

          • SporkParade
            June 8, 2015 at 1:05 am #

            It’s not ironic. You’re the one arguing that other people’s cherished cultural traditions need to be wiped out of existence because they involve a benign modification of the human body that you personally find distasteful. Do you feel the same way about Australian aboriginal scarification? That tribe in the Amazon where boys become men after a ritual involving being bitten over and over by bullet ants? Or are you like those Europeans who can only be bothered to give a damn about animal rights when it means banning kosher and halal slaughter?

          • June 9, 2015 at 10:23 pm #

            ” You’re the one arguing that other people’s cherished cultural traditions need to be wiped out of existence because they involve a benign modification of the human body that you personally find distasteful.”

            So, are you ok with the ritual nicking of girl’s clitoris(FGM WHO type IV), a procedure that is far less invasive than male circumcision? It is part of the cherished, cultural tradition of Malaysia. The rate is ~90% of women. Those poor families would find their religious freedom infringed upon in America.

            2015 ,” he said in his judgment, “the law generally, and family law in particular, is still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or
            conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms.

            “Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGMmWHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the
            significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to
            significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.”

            -Judge Sir James Munby

        • Wombat
          June 9, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

          I’ll just quote myself elsewhere here:

          “If it’s ok for religion though, why shouldn’t it be ok for anyone else to do “just because” either? You wouldn’t let someone abuse a child or cut off an arm because it’s part of their religion.

          I am not an intactivist and I don’t like the religious argument. The only reason it is ok is because I think the procedure is safe and not harmful. If someone doesn’t, I don’t see how they can bend to religion on it. But that one has always baffled me, tbh.”

          My point was SpeaksVolumes is severely misrepresenting the religious position. If you’re going to do that, just don’t bring it up. More than fine with that – I agree that bodily autonomy, medical procedures, and everything else can be settled without remotely involving religion, and are often better off to do so. But if you’re going to try to use a religious tentpole, you don’t get to invert it just because.

          Also, if you’re going straight to “unquestionably”, I’m not sure why you’re in a discussion format.

      • June 9, 2015 at 10:13 pm #

        It is against my faith to be circumcised. Someone forced me to be circumcised. My religious freedom has been permanently violated by non-therapeutic, neonatal circumcision.

        • Wombat
          June 11, 2015 at 6:58 pm #

          It’s against my faith to listen to you. Thus, I stop/don’t do so, not ban you.

    • Tiffany Aching
      June 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

      Wow ! I’m so impressed by your bulletpoints ! must be true because it comes in bulletpoints.

      • Speaksvolumes
        June 2, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

        I’m open to arguing each point. I didn’t want to leave a wall of text. So come at me.

      • June 9, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

        Just like the WebMD bullet points that circumcision proponents frequently site? I’m sure the bullet points that support your previously held beliefs would be quite impressive to you.

      • Jhon Murdock
        June 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

        Bite the bullet(s), Ms Retching.

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 10:57 am #

      All your points are such BS!

  42. Stephanie
    May 30, 2015 at 7:10 am #

    This is an elective surgery. I had my son done because I was told that foreskins were gross and dirty. I regret it immensely, but I am not going to beat myself self up over it. Unless there is a medical reason to do this procedure, insurance should not cover it. Doctors should not perform it on a minor without a medical reason. To me this is not about the degree and differences between male and female circumcision. The latter is a gross human rights violation for sure. This is about the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. A male should be able decide if he wants to keep his foreskin or not. Not his parents or anyone else. There is no reason to cut off a healthy part of the body on a MINOR because it might reduce their risk of cancers or STDs. There is never a logical reason to cut off any healthy part period. Bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom are not just the purview of females. Males deserve to have control over their bodies as females. Any other stance is sexist and hypocritical. I was ignorant with my son and if I could go back and change it I would. I doubt it will be a major issue for him, but I will apologise profusely if it is. I was ignorant and did not know any better.

    • Wombat
      May 31, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

      The problem with that is where’s the line between healthy and unhealthy? Uncomfortable? Painful? Gangrenous? “I’m sorry, the skin around the head of your penis isn’t quite rotting through yet, we need to wait”.

      Some parents circumcise on advice of a pediatrician. Is that enough, full stop, or does he or she have to give a good enough reason? It’s just really close to various other limits on otherwise perfectly acceptable medical procedures for moral reasons. It’s unfortunate that some children have problems or other issues come up that need to be or are much more ideally solved while they are still children, before they legally can consent, but the alternative is not to ignore everything until they’re 18.

      Also, for some people reducing the risk of cancer is absolutely, positively, a worthwhile enough health benefit for an optional piece of themselves. Preventative double mastectomies and such. If you knew your daughter had a 90%+ chance of getting breast cancer, and you could avoid that entirely with removal of her breast buds + reconstruction later in two very minimally invasive surgeries, some people would say you are wrong to -not- do so. We’re moving towards that becoming more of a reality, btw, so that might be a bit of an over the top hypothetical atm but it hardly will be for long. The circumcision argument is less cut and dry at the moment but again, where’s the line?

      • Valerie
        June 2, 2015 at 3:33 am #

        With regards to cancer- I tried to calculate the numbers once, and it looked like you were much better off cutting off an infant’s ears to reduce skin cancer (it’s common location for it) than his foreskin to reduce penile cancer. Nobody would advocate the former- we say “use sun screen,” “wear hats,” “check your moles,” etc, but somehow a small decrease in an already rare cancer is a justification to remove a foreskin (from an infant, who could get himself circumcised at any point in the intervening 60 years or so).

        My personal feelings about circumcision is that since it became widely adopted as an (ineffective) anti-masturbation measure and that theory of disease is no longer popular, the medical community tries really hard to come up with medical reasons to justify continuing to do it routinely (but really only in the US), while many parents choose to do it simply for cosmetic reasons (“to look like his dad”). Under no other circumstances do we cut off the completely normal, healthy, functional parts of infants (inflicting painful surgery and recovery, risking complications, infections) for a small probability of benefit. Heck, if FGM were safe, medicalized and practiced on infants, I’m sure somebody could find some correlative benefit at a p value of .05 (I’ve been editing grants all day). I mean, really, to prevent UTIs? The rate in males with foreskins is still less than that in females, who are treated by less extreme measures. To reduce STI transmission? Same pattern- males can reduce STIs the same way females can, by safer sex practices and vaccines (and I’d have to check, but I think it is still easier for a woman to get an STI during p-in-v intercourse than a man with a foreskin). The only thing left is problems of the foreskin, which can often be treated by less severe measures (eg, stretching, see, or just “good hygiene,” which pretty much means tell your son to try pulling it back in the bath/shower and rinse underneath when it’s comfortable to do so as he gets older.

        Although I support therapeutic circumcision on a child (it sometimes is the best answer), elective circumcision on anybody who makes the decision themselves, and I can imagine a religious significance, I really cannot wrap my head around why anybody else would want to circumcise their infant. I’m not in favor of banning it, because outlawing a medical procedure makes it harder for a person who may be suffering to get one, but I do think the information given to parents (and repeated by the general public) is very weirdly biased, with statements of potential benefits without any effect size (‘reduces UTI rate,’ leaving off ‘… starting from roughly half of that of a baby girl’s’). They also tend not to appreciate that foreskin serves any function at all (protective, sexual), and is the most sensitive part of he penis to fine touch. It seems to me like cutting off parts of baby’s genitals is a pretty extreme thing to do, which should require some pretty strong benefit (and yeah, I’d grant religious sacrament as a benefit, if that’s important to your family). It’s like we have in our heads that a foreskin is just a ticking time bomb that is going to explode and give your son and his partner HIV/cancer/UTIs/smegma/funny-looking-penis/HPV/intractable phimosis and it’s going to have to be removed anyway, so we might as well do it now before it’s too late. What is the actual lifetime risk of death/chronic pain by foreskin such that a circumcision is desired (by the penis’s owner)? There are whole countries that do not routinely circumcise and have rates under 1% (eg Japan, Iceland according to wikipedia), which is much less than the rates of breast cancer (something like 1 in 8 in the US)- maybe you are on to something with the breast buds.

        oof, wall of text. too much caffeine.

        • Wombat
          June 2, 2015 at 4:21 am #

          Breasts can be important and have a function too. Doesn’t mean people aren’t willing to happily get rid of them to try to avoid cancer.

          I’m not saying that circumcision should be as routine as it is, or even that it should be routine at all (I’ve said that multiple times throughout the comment thread, but unfortunately skipped it here). Merely that taking the option entirely off the table, or demonizing parents who take advantadge of it (especially on advice of a urologist) is wrong.

          My parents cut out part of my feet when I was only 13! It sure sounds evil that way, huh? They were functional enough (I could stand) and there were alternative, less invasive treatments (like orthotics, that were not working well enough for various reasons – just like stretching for many). Yet they took the advice of my pediatric ortho anyways. To hold circumcision to any other standard is wrong.

          And yes, the cancer argument may be weak at the moment. It may forever remain weak. But we underestimated a lot of women’s breast and ovarian cancer risks for a long long time. And besides, there was absolutely hyperbole there for a reason. At what point -can- you remove a non-essential part of your child? If intactivists want to legislate this (not saying you do, but some certainly do) they need to be able to answer that question.

          And while most of your post was quite reasonable, I’ll say that the difference between ears and a foreskin should be pretty clear to anyone considering the removal of either. More reduction in risk, maybe. Massively more harm, absolutely. You can’t play the numbers game in just one or the other.

          • Valerie
            June 2, 2015 at 12:20 pm #

            I think we’re in violent agreement- the way you and your parents treated your feet is the same way I would treat the foreskin of my son (if I had one)- if there is a problem, get it checked out by a doc. Try the less painful/extreme treatments first. Do what needs to be done to maintain quality of life.

            I’m not suggesting anywhere that parents should let their children live in pain for their ideologies. I’m not demonizing/body-shaming anybody- I just really don’t understand why people do it to newborns- why it’s the “normal” thing, and why people perceive such a great benefit to it and don’t see it as extreme.

            And as for ears and foreskin- no, they aren’t the same, but I don’t see how it’s “massively more harm.” How so? The outer ear is largely cosmetic. Because it would look different to a casual observer? Because you have ears and can relate to them? I mean, I probably wouldn’t miss them if mine were removed at birth. You can still hear without outer ears, and besides, deaf people live lives just as full and complete as those who can hear. I’m being a bit silly- I mean, ask an intact man if he’d rather keep his ears or his foreskin, and I’d guess he’d say “ears,” but answers may vary. In any case, cutting off a parts of a person who cannot give consent decades before a tiny risk of cancer is not how cancer is treated or prevented under any other circumstance. It makes no sense to me that people use it as a justification.

          • Jhon Murdock
            November 28, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

            Did your parents get a second opinion?

      • yachty
        July 1, 2015 at 11:07 am #

        Yet in Mexico, Central and South America, penile cancer makes up 1/3 of male cancers! The only families that circumcise there are the wealthy and Jewish families!

        • Daleth
          July 1, 2015 at 11:39 am #

          Um… no, it doesn’t. Penile cancer is extremely rare, on the order of 1/250,000, and there is no country on earth where it makes up anywhere near 1/3 of male cancers. Please go look up the statistics on a reputable website and get informed before posting again.

      • Jhon Murdock
        November 28, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

        For a surgical procedure to be medical, there must be a medical reason for it. The medical reason(s) is always clearly stated in the diagnosis. No diagnosis, no disease, no surgery. That’s where you draw the line.

    • yachty
      July 1, 2015 at 11:05 am #

      Your son will thank you! My 7yo knows only the poor and minorities do not circumcise……He knows he is a cut above!

      • Empliau
        July 1, 2015 at 11:19 am #

        AAAND let’s all welcome our latest Poe.

  43. Speaksvolumes
    May 29, 2015 at 1:56 am #

    To paraphrase the title:

    “The appalling spectacle of anti-FGM activists obsessing over the clitoris of another person’s daughter.”


    • Wombat
      May 30, 2015 at 6:57 am #

      The foreskin is the clitoral hood… something that, especially if done at birth (not at puberty as forced FGM is in many cultures) a girl could easily adapt to and do just fine/still have a pleasurable sex life. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The clitoris and labia (common forced FGM targets) would be more like removal of the glans and scrotum… something NO ONE is advocating without severely important medical reasons, and really not even then.

      • Speaksvolumes
        June 1, 2015 at 3:27 pm #

        Would you support a change in the law surrounding FGM if only the clitoral hood of newborn baby girls was removed?

        Apart from the rare cases when this is performed for medical reasons, would you support it for religious or cosmetic reasons?

        • Wombat
          June 2, 2015 at 1:10 am #

          I guess you didn’t bother to read my other comment: I’m not insanely in love with routine circumcision as a matter of course or religion, but I am not ready to jump ship and completely remove the option – especially in the face of medical advice – either.

          Intactivists often/I’d even say mostly want the option wiped off the table entirely.

          And someone killing someone who threatened them can, amazingly, be either murder or self defense. No reason a hoodectomy can’t be ok in some cases and still FGM in others.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 11:42 am #

            The UN recognizes several types of FGM, from a simple pin-prick to full clitoral excision. Yet all types are outlawed in the West. What is the difference between using a needle on an infant’s ear and using a needle on an infant’s clitoris?

          • Dr Kitty
            June 2, 2015 at 12:02 pm #

            Clitoral piercings on consenting adults are legal in the US and UK.

            Cosmetic labiaplasty is legal in the US and UK, even though it can involve removing similar amounts of labial tissue as FGM.

            So…procedures very similar to some types of FGM are not outlawed.


          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 12:17 pm #

            “Consenting adults.”

            I also have no problem with consenting male adults choosing circumcision for themselves.

            Can we please stay on the topic of circumcision being performed on infants?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 5:37 pm #

            I’ll ask again: Should it be illegal to pierce the ears of an infant or toddler?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

            Yes, I think so.

            Now I’ll ask again – should it be legal to prick the clitoris of a newborn baby girl with a needle?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

            Have you ever posted on any posts about ear piercing outside of these few comments? Or are you focused on the penis, as the original post states?

            And it totally depends, as I’ve said more than once. A priest/iman/elder/etc doing it outside a medical arena in order to disfigure and enforce purity? Nope. To numb the area before a medical procedure? Sure! It’s amazing how the world isn’t black and white.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:58 pm #

            Am I required to post on everything I consider a human rights violation in order to advocate specifically for one? Who died and made you the arbiter of where I focus my attention?

            I think it’s disgusting that you support pricking a little baby girl’s clitoris with a needle, by the way. Thanks for admitting where you stand on that.

          • Who?
            June 2, 2015 at 7:19 pm #

            So you don’t support giving baby girls local anaesthetic should it be medically indicated-which is what Wombat was proposing?

            Thanks for admitting where you stand on that.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

            * I edited my comment. I misread what he wrote.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:21 am #

            If you’re against it to the point of making it a law, then yes. If you’re not against it to the point of making it a law, then don’t circumcise your son and move on.

            What’s not to get here?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 7:34 pm #

            Do you think it should be illegal to pierce the ears of an infant or toddler as a cosmetic or cultural practice?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

            So where are the intactivists banning ear piercing before 18 (or hell even 21, there’s evidence the brain isn’t actually done at 18)?

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

            Yay, 1 out of 100s. And yet intact america and the other, much larger and more organized groups constantly refuse to comment on in (in part because they’re FB based and you can see how many of their members often do pierce their children pre legal consent) despite bringing it into the argument by comparing circumcision to things like body modification.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

            Here’s #2:


            I mean – do you want me to keep posting links to orgs that support this cause? Because I can if you want.

            Look, you’re the one who brought up ear piercing and attempted to use it as a “gotcha!” against me. I’m opposed to it.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:39 am #

            Man babycenter! They have threads on UC too, does that mean that’s now an accepted and supported, even laudable position?

            I didn’t attempt to use it as a “gotcha”, I made a comparison. You’re the one adding a narrative here (lol).

            The point is that the intactivists aren’t actually concerned with bodily autonomy of infants and children, they’re concerned with baby penises, for whatever reason, and willing to make any and all comparisons in order to make that work. Including to body piercing, despite refusing to address that as an additional issue of bodily autonomy.

        • Wombat
          June 2, 2015 at 1:12 am #

          Regardless, my main point was that comparing the clitoris to the foreskin in this context is laughably over the top, alarmist, and factually incorrect. Do you discount that?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 12:06 pm #

            Yes, I discount that. In both cases you are interfering with the genitals of infants by permanently altering their genitals without consent.

            A pressing medical need for a circumcision on a baby boy is the only ethical reason for conducting one. This is not the reason for routine infant circumcision in the U.S. and Canada.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 5:21 pm #

            Define ‘pressing medical need’ and then I will let you write that law. I never argued in favor of routine circumcision (as I have already shown you, more than once), and to imply I did is wrong.

            And the foreskin is not the clitoris, functionally or biological equivalent. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. If you can’t make your point without mis-stating the facts, perhaps there’s an issue with your point?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

            Pressing medical need like phimosis or anything that interferes with the normal functioning of the penis. Phimosis, by the way, rarely occurs in infants.

            The clitoris and the foreskin are both structures of the genitalia of human beings. I realize they are not the same; obviously because one is only present in females while the other is only present in males. They also serve different functions. However, they are both parts of the genitalia of human beings that are removed without consent from infants. One procedure is illegal; the other isn’t.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:10 pm #

            What about recurrent infections? Are tubes in ears wrong? They can often cause complications, and technically you can just treat the infection each and every time and/or change massive lifestyle factors. They even have some (minimal) medical debate! Uh oh everyone doesn’t agree, it must be wrong.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:37 pm #

            Again, if there is a pressing medical concern, then I am for the procedure. In the case of a recurrent infection there is a valid case.

            You cannot proactively remove healthy tissue because you assume the potential for recurrent infections. You might as well argue that all infants should have their appendixes removed because they *might* get infected.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

            Since a baby without an appendix would be just fine, with no real change in quality of life, you may not support doing it routinely but at the same time can you really say that a parent doing so is wrong (barring anesthesia issues, since those don’t apply with circumcision/it is perfectly possible to do under local anesthetic)? Sometimes an appendix is removed prematurely when the patient is already having another surgery (because unlike the foreskin, there’s a major access issue there). Is that mutilation? Morally reprehensible? Why not?

            How many infections is enough to be considered recurrent? My argument was originally “If you want to draw a line and stop this procedure, you’d better be damn ready to define the line to a suitable legal standard (since intactivists usually want to criminalize it to)”.

            If “medical issue” is a good enough reason, does just having your pediatrician say “It can cause issues, it’s not dangerous, it’s your choice” count? Why not? That’s what we do with lots and lots of other surgeries (hell most other surgeries are vastly more dangerous), and that’s the context that most ‘routine’ circumcisions are done under. And if that isn’t good enough, what exactly is? If it requires five infections, what if little Billy only had 4 but the 5th one might kill him because he had other medical concerns? Does the doctor need to go to court over that, really?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 7:14 pm #

            Yes! Of course it’s morally reprehensible to pre-emptively remove an organ from an infant’s body and place them at risk for complications or even death through surgery for the sake of a *potential*. If that wasn’t the case, why aren’t you arguing that at birth all babies should have their appendixes removed?

            How many infections? That’s something for a physician and the parents to decide. Note: in this case, there is already an existing condition i.e. recurrent infection. The child is not being circumcised in the anticipation of a *potential.*

            Most routine circumcisions are done for cosmetic reasons, religious reasons, and cultural reasons. The physician saying it “can cause issues” had better have a more convincing reason than that. The parents who would circumcise their baby boy on that statement alone have not done their due diligence in determining why they should permanently alter their baby’s genitalia on something so vague.

            What other ‘lots and lots’ of surgeries are you referring to that are performed at the same rate of circumcision that are done for the sake of potentialities to healthy tissue?

            Circumcision also is dangerous. Over 100 baby boys die each year as a result from circumcision and circumcision complications.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:36 am #

            Again, I said “barring surgical/anesthesia issues” since the foreskin doesn’t have those. If the baby is -already having lifesaving abdominal surgery-, since I apparently need to spell this out, would a parent really be wrong to remove their appendix?

            I’m not arguing it because of surgical and anesthetic issues, obviously, as I already stated (more than once even).

            If it’s something for the physicians and the parents to decide, that is already the current framework. If you’re ok with the current framework but against circumcision, you just don’t circumcise your own children, and maybe share information. So clearly, that’s not enough. What. is.?

            What if the physician doesn’t have more of a reason , what happens to him? What happens to the parents? Fines? Jail? Kid taken away?

            Lots and lots of other surgery would be most other routine, non-emergent procedures that are done on the same basic advice of a pediatrician: These are the risks, these are the benefits, it’s your choice. That’s exactly “It can cause issues, it’s not dangerous, it’s your choice”. As I said most other procedures are more dangerous.

        • Wombat
          June 2, 2015 at 1:13 am #

          And to be fair, this comment wasn’t in the exact same thread, but it is only one up: Some parents circumcise on advice of a pediatrician. Is that enough, full stop, or does he or she have to give a ‘good enough reason’? It’s just really close to various other limits on otherwise perfectly acceptable medical procedures for moral reasons. It’s unfortunate that some children have problems or other issues come up that need to be or are much more ideally solved while they are still children, before they legally can consent, but the alternative is not to ignore everything until they’re 18.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

            You’re arguing that the field of medicine is some monolith that never evolves. Physicians used to think lobotomies were a good idea, too. The AMA is the only medical body in the western world that still recommends routine infant circumcision. That should tell you how the rest of the global medical community views it. The only doctor to testify in this trial said that the procedure was “medically unnecessary.” He also said that it prevents penile cancer and the spread of STIs. If you’re okay with removing healthy tissue from infants to prevent potential, not actual, complications or infections, then you are not arguing for the reason of medical necessity.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm #

            I’m actually arguing that a legitimate doctor knows more about what is good or not good for their patient than some stranger seeking to legislate a perfectly viable medical procedure being performed on someone else.

            I said nothing about time-travel and arm chair quarterbacking from the future with the benefit of decades of medical knowledge.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

            I’m not talking about time-travel either. Right now, the only medical body in the western world that supports routine infant circumcision is the AMA. The rest of global medical community is either neutral or does not recommend it. You’re discounting the majority held view of the international medical community.

            You’re against routine infant circumcision, right? So am I. So what are you arguing for? I’m also for circumcision in the case of a pressing medical need. The rate at which those cases occur is minimal and no where near justifies the rate at which circumcision is currently being performed.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

            You were talking about time travel with lobotomy. But if we can revise our post histories whenever we want in the face of evidence, mine is now ponies, unicorns (they’re different ok) and kittens. Yay!

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            No, I was talking about how medicine advances over time, both in knowledge and ethics. What was once considered an acceptable treatment for afflictions like depression are now regarded as barbaric.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

            Yes, and circumcision is only considered barbaric by those with an axe to grind, similar to abortion or other medical procedures that are acceptable to some and not others. So circumcision isn’t remotely comparable to lobotomy yet (I won’t say it never will be, because there’s absolutely no way to no that) therefore bringing it up is comparing it to armchair quarterbacking from the future.

            Medical knowledge evolves. We change our recommendations. Sure. The recommendations on circumcision have absolutely changed over the years. Just because you and some other laypeople think they haven’t changed enough does not invalidate them.

            Medical organizations also disagree usually on a lower level, matter of degrees type argument. Again, laypeople should not be the deciding factor in which one we ultimately go with.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

            We’re already at the stage where circ is being questioned as ethically unsound and medically unnecessary in almost all cases. That’s how something is eventually regarded as barbaric; people questioning the practice. It’s not just laypeople questioning or discouraging the practice; it’s medical professionals, including the majority of the international medical community.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:30 am #

            Two of the biggest medical bodies in the country who’s rate you have an issue with != almost all cases.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

            We’re arguing because A. you think FGM and circumcision are equal, full stop. B. you’re advocating medical regulation in the face of medical advice, and while you personally may not be against circumcision entirely, you’re certainly siding with people who are.

            I can have a problem with the factual basis of your statements without disagreeing with you entirely. Again, it’s crazy how the world isn’t Black and White!

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

            I think FGM and male circumcision are equal in kind, not in degree.

            Cutting off a hand is worse than cutting off a finger, but they are both still mutilations.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

            Except you’re comparing cutting off a hand because you stole a goat to cutting off a finger because it’s broken, bent, not responding to other treatments and you’re better off without it at that point.

            Sure those are similar in some ways, but it requires a lot of eye covering and ear plugging to make the comparison work.

            It’s also kind of insulting to the dude who lost his hand over the goat.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

            What are you talking about? A goat?

            I’m making a comparison. You’re adding a narrative to it for some reason.

            It requires no eye covering or ear plugging. Cutting off body parts is mutilation. There are differences in degrees, but they are all still mutilations. If you are cutting off healthy body parts without someone’s consent, for a medically unnecessary reason, you are violating them.

          • Wombat
            June 2, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

            Let’s talk about the AMA too. The only thing I can find, even searching intactivist sources, is that they voted against (procedural/philosophical vote, btw) a CA ballot initiative banning circumcision and punishing doctors who perform them. They also repost/cite the AAP findings on circumcision, so perhaps that’s what you mean? And while stopping short of recommending it as a routine procedure, the AAP does strongly support access to circumcision, including financially through health insurance. They also find benefit in it.

            So the AMA is hardly the only organization ok with circumcision. In fact, it looks like some of the biggest medical organizations in the US are ok with it. Are they all wrong? Do we stop listening to them on anything else since they’re ~obviously swayed by non-medical facts in this case (if that was actually true we’d better!)~.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            This is the AMA’s stated position:

            “The American Medical Association (2013) states, “There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. “Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients.”

            “The AMA supports the general principles of the 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: “valuation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction”

            Why did you ignore the part where I pointed out that the international medical community is either neutral or does not reccommend the practice?

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:29 am #

            Why did you ignore the part where that’s exactly what I described the AMA/AAP recommendation as?

            Since you’re reducing these comments to just repeating your questions over and over while ignoring mine, two can play that game!

    • Wombat
      May 30, 2015 at 7:01 am #

      Also, clitoral hoodectomys are sometimes done for medical reasons, such as tightness or (in adults) reduced sexual stimulation. Would a parent be wrong to elect to remove or reduce their daughter’s clitoral hood because it was causing pain or interfering with urination – on advice of a doctor – rather than trying stretching that may be extremely uncomfortable and may or may not work, or even just waiting and seeing?

      They can also be part of a vaginal rejuvenation, but as an elective surgery for at least surface level consenting adults, that’s a separate conversation.

      Edit: And just for the record, while my personal views on circumcision really don’t actually matter, I will put them out there to avoid the inevitable “you just want to justify mutilating your kid” type replies: I don’t have kids yet. I’m not insanely in love with routine circumcision as a matter of course or religion, but I am not ready to jump ship and completely remove the option – especially in the face of medical advice – either. I am legitimately unsure of what I will do for my own child(ren) should I have a boy. Most likely medical advice + input of daddy, but I cannot say that 100%.

  44. Ardea
    May 29, 2015 at 1:41 am #


  45. Robert Howard
    May 28, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    This article is so far off the mark on so many points it’s barely worth reading. Of course it’s the only body part with organizations out to protect it, because it’s the only one we routinely cut off for no reason! (BTW, I’d say the clitoris/labia is right up there in countries where they’re regularly removed)

    “it would probably come as a shock to our visitor to learn that circumcision is a religious, cosmetic and medical decision with essentially no impact beyond the benefit of reducing the risk of transmission of serious sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS.”

    Thank god you no longer practice medicine because you have no clue what you’re talking about. No impact? It completely changes the mechanics of sex, causes meatal stenosis in nearly 10% of circumcised boys, removes thousands of fine-touch nerve endings, exposes the glans to a life of desensitization, results in 4.5 times the rate of ED. And if it’s so good at preventing STDs, why is it that the circumcision happy U.S. has far higher rates of virtually every single one over European countries where circumcision is virtually unheard of?

    As for Chase’s Guardians, I think it points more to the fact they didn’t want to talk to the guy because he apparently made an unfavorable article about intactivists. Why would they want to do an interview with someone who is obviously against their cause?

    And please remove all references to medical need in this story – the lone doctor to testify at the trial said there is NO medical need, and he would not do it to his own son at this age.

    • Jenny_from_da_Bloc
      May 28, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

      Who are you to say Dr. Amy should remove all references to medical need from her article? She is a doctor and is qualified to give medical advice and her opinion on medical matters. Circumcision has been proven to prevent the spread of STIs and HIV, as well as proven hygiene benefits and for some men it is a medically necessary procedure. This whole movement is ridiculous and the time spent arguing and promoting circumcision as genital mutilation is ridiculous.You should should also post a reference to your stats about “nearly 10% meatal stenois” because I can’t find any legitimate research or stats on that number. The one point I do agree with is at this point, if it was my son I wouldn’t circumcise him at the age of 4 almost 5 either, because surgery is traumatic and painful

      • Robert Howard
        May 28, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

        Because the only doctor to testify at the trial said there was no medical need. Therefore, there was no medical need. Duh.

        • momofone
          May 28, 2015 at 7:51 pm #

          I must admit I was on the fence, until I read your cogent and well-worded argument, “Duh.” How could one resist that kind of sound reasoning?

        • Jenny_from_da_Bloc
          May 30, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

          This whole case is about two stupid people who are ruining their child’s life to spite each other and people like you contribute to this poor child’s suffering. There can be medical needs for circumcision and likewise, no medical need for circumcision. Do you know if this doctor examined the child or just stated that most circumcisions are not performed based on medical need? No, you don’t. You should probably waste your time on a site where people are going to believe this intactivist garble. no person involved in this case has ever considered the child, that is a fact. Just because something is stated does not give it credence.

      • Robert Howard
        May 28, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

        • Megan
          May 28, 2015 at 6:25 pm #

          So one study of just over 300 boys showed an incidence of around 7% in your citation. That hardly equates to a rate of 10% across the board. Here is a study of over 1.4 million circumcisions showing a total adverse event rate of less than 0.5%.

          I’m inclined to trust a study with an n=<1.4 million than one with just over 300 confined to one pediatric practice in rural Wisconsin (meaning the same doc or the same few docs did all of these circs).

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 6:48 pm #

            *n= >1.4 million

          • fiftyfifty1
            May 28, 2015 at 7:23 pm #

            Yes, I would say that the true number is nowhere near 7.5 %. In my 15 years of practice, I have NEVER had a boy that has needed a meatal revision.

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 7:59 pm #

            Me either. Never once. You’d think if one in ten boys was having this complicating one of us would’ve seen it, no?

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 8:00 pm #

            *Complication. Aargh! I hate autocorrect!

          • PrimaryCareDoc
            May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am #

            I agree. I have about 1000 adult male patients, and I can’t recall a single one giving me a history of having needed a surgery to correct a complication of circumcision.

            I will say I’ve had 3 patients that needed to be circumcised as adults. One for BXO, one for an early squamous cell carcinoma of the penis, and one who was paralyzed and having difficulty self-cathing because of his foreskin.

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 8:40 pm #

            Was meatal stenosis measured? It’s generally not counted as a complication because it doesn’t present immediately.

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 8:51 pm #


            Another small study, but over 10%.

          • fiftyfifty1
            May 28, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

            LOL. Did you read even the abstract? This study is not done in infants but rather follows boys who were circed as children because they *already had problems*. It occurred in Sweden, one of the magical lands where boys supposedly never need circs because circs are never needed. Yet the study had no trouble finding 117 boys in just one year, in just one hospital, who did need circs ( for all the problems that I have written about upthread that all the intactivist commenters doubted were real issues). Of these boys (boys who had suffered urinary retention with ballooning, recurrent flesh infections of the penis and chronic scarring phimosis among other problems), some them had problems after surgery such as need to go back and stretch the urinary opening.

            The study also looked for possible psychological scarring due to the procedure but failed to find any. The conclusion of the study was this:

            “There seems to be no reason to fear psychological disturbances due to circumcision.”

            Thanks for the link Robert!

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

            That’s exactly what I was going to say: the complication rate for circs done in response to a problem is bound to be higher by virtue of the fact that there were problems, some that leave scarring or adhesions themselves, and the fact that the population would be older. Even the study I cited showed a complication rate 10- to 20-fold higher in older boys. But that is not the same as routine circumcision because older boys usually get circs for a problem.

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

            From the abstract:

            “Rates of potentially serious MC AEs ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.10-5.43) per million MCs for stricture of male genital organs to 703.23 (95% CI, 659.22-750.18) per million MCs for repair of incomplete circumcision.”

            Stricture of male genital organs ought to include meatal stenosis (and only 0.76 per million!)

            And though I’m sure you’ll discount our experiences, as we said below, fiftyfifty1 and I have yet to see meatal revision needed in our 23 years of combined experience as physicians. I haven’t even seen a case of meatal stenosis once and I practice in America where circumcision is very common. Surely if as many as one in ten had this complication we would’ve seen it, don’t you think?

          • Megan
            May 28, 2015 at 10:18 pm #

            And just a funny aside, autocorrect tried to change meatal stenosis to “meatball stenosis” which I found humorous. No sometimes feel like my phone is out to make me look really silly!

    • DelphiniumFalcon
      May 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

      You know I always see the mechanics of sex argument and I really don’t see where it’s coming from. As far as I can tell, circumsiced men still enjoy sex immensely. My husband does. I make sure he does. Because there are other ways to please and tease that don’t involve all attention on the penis the entire time.

      I get the feeling sometimes that this loud blaring of it causing sexual issues is just a mask for the real reason which is that maybe they or their partner is just really bad at sex.

      Oh but the foreskin can massage the clitoris and gives more pleasure! Dude, I’m going to need more than a piece of loose skin rubbing against me to get me off. Be a big boy and put your fingers down there. Be attentive and responsive to her. You can do things with your fingers that you could never do with your penis. Unless you have a bionic vibrator penis but we’re not supposed to alter the sacred peen, right?

      Seriously. Fingers. Use them. if more women knew what band geeks can do with their fingers, there would not be a single guy, lesbian, or bisexual going without a girlfriend and sex. Because damn they have some dexterity!

      Penis in vagina is not going to be satisfying enough for a majority of women and don’t start spouting bullshit about how vaginal orgasms are mature orgasms and therefore better. That’s Freudian theory that’s been tossed out a lot time ago.

      Female pleasure in sex does NOT have to come from the penis. The fact that you’re so focused on the penis during sex regardless leads me to believe that a lot of these men aren’t exactly attentive lovers. It goes back to that sex is penis in vagina and what gives a woman pleasure isn’t sex, it’s “foreplay” and it’s an obligation to get out of the way as soon as possible to get to the “real” sex. As long as this attitude persists, the mainstay joke of comedians about the elusive female orgasm will continue to thrive. I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s pretty damn sad. I seriously feel bad for the women I know that think orgasming one out of every five to ten sexual encounters is normal while the man orgasms every time. We still have a LONG way to go.

      • Cobalt
        May 28, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

        In my personal experience, there is NO perceivable difference in sexual function, performance, or pleasure between circumcised and uncircumcised partners. None.

        • Roadstergal
          May 28, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

          I have identified many studies that confirm that personal experience, which also matches mine.

          What’s funny is that I used to be more ‘meh’ about circumcision – not a big deal to me. The intactivists kept yelling at me to do some research, and the more I did, the more I found myself trending towards preferring it. The difference in risk to me might not be big, but it isn’t nil, and as you say – no negative effects on sex.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 28, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

            I am actually rather neutral on the matter most of the time. However when the intactivist start Operation Overlording into threads they weren’t invited to and start spouting their twisted statistics and making demands I crawl out from under my bridge.

        • Valerie
          May 29, 2015 at 4:43 am #

          For the male sexual experience, foreskin makes a difference. I didn’t know this until I talked to men (not intactivists, but people I know in RL) who were circumcised as adults, who are really the only kind of people who have experienced both. Masturbation was now like “squeezing a hotdog”- what used to feel good didn’t work. Even after months of recovery, the sensations of sex were just different and not as pleasurable. I understand this isn’t everybody’s experience and therapeutic (or cosmetic, religious, etc) circumcision has it’s place, but it annoys me that people claim that circumcised and unaltered penises function identically and feel the same to their owners- that foreskin is inconsequential except for it’s potential risks. It does have sexual functions, but ones people won’t know to miss if they had their foreskins removed at birth.

          • Wren
            May 29, 2015 at 6:34 am #

            Don’t you think there might be a difference between the effects of removal as an adult and removal as an infant?

          • May 29, 2015 at 7:13 am #

            It’s one of the reasons I’m an only child. My father was not circumcised as an infant, and had phimosis. He married my mother in 1937, but they were unable to have full intercourse because of the severe pain erection caused. For 5 years they suffered in silence. In that era it was deeply shameful to discuss sexual problems, and, to be frank, both my parents were rather ignorant of what sexual experience ought to encompass. Finally they consulted a doctor for a fertility workup. He discovered the problem while attempting to get a sperm sample from my father. Shortly thereafter Father underwent circumcision, but it was traumatic enough that he then became impotent. In 1943 he was drafted, and spent the war years in China. When he came home he and my mother finally had a completely normal sexual relationship at last, but, since Mother was now slightly over 40, she had little hope that she’d get pregnant. I was born in1946; Mother began the menopause when I was three.

            So sad; such a waste of such a large part of their adult lives.

          • Kelly
            May 31, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            My husband works with a lot of older men in the medical field and said he has seen a lot of men who were not circumcised and were not cleaned properly had a lot of problems with it adhering to the penis. While it does not happen to all, it is another point in a reason to do it.

          • deafgimp
            June 1, 2015 at 1:07 am #

            If not cleaning is causing adhesions, wouldn’t the obvious solution be more cleaning, and education about cleaning rather than straight to circumcision?

          • Cobalt
            June 1, 2015 at 7:20 am #

            Depends on the individual. If someone produces enough smegma that they’re needing to shower twice a day to stay clean and prevent complications, they might well prefer a permanent solution. Individual tolerances and preferences vary widely.

          • Wren
            June 1, 2015 at 4:22 am #

            I’m not sure not cleaning properly is a reason to circumcise any more than not brushing properly is a reason to pull all teeth and replace with dentures.

          • Cobalt
            June 1, 2015 at 9:33 am #

            Not being able to easily clean them properly is a reason to pull wisdom teeth, preferably before they deteriorate.

          • Wren
            June 1, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

            Easily clean properly isn’t the same as clean properly. In most cases, a penis is accessible, while wisdom teeth may not be.

            I do have a few friends in the US who have had doctors try to retract the foreskin on infant or toddler boys to check all was ok, which really is a problem. (For those who may not know, the foreskin generally does not retract at that age and forcing it can cause problems.) There are still areas where lack of knowledge, including cleaning properly, may be an actual issue.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 4, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

            I can’t tell with 100% certainty from the original post but if they’re referring to men in like skilled nursing or hospice I could see it being an issue.

            A lot of things in more intimate areas like bed sores, scrotal skin infections, anal fissures, vaginal infections and so on might go on for a while before someone catches it for a lot of reasons. Sometimes, especially in dementia wards, patients get physically combative if they try to do something they don’t want, like lift up the gown to take a peek underneath to make sure everything’s okay under there. The patient is more likely to get hurt than the nursing staff so they may try asking about any issues down there and they may say no. But with dementia or Alzheimer’s that answer will always be suspect.

            Then the weird smells start and it’s off to the doctor and the wound clinic and the questions of “Holy hell, how did THAT happen?”

            Sometimes its outright neglect and sometimes the patient doesn’t ever bring it up.

            Not in support of routinely circumcising adult men in hospice or skilled nursing facilitiesfacilities or anything like that but I can see how those types of injuries could happen.

            More often though it’s scrotal issues and not penis in my anedcdotal and small sample size experience having to register the wound clinic accounts.

          • Valerie
            May 29, 2015 at 11:31 am #

            How could we ever determine that? I mean… you could do something like scan brains during sexual stimulation of men before and after non-therapeutic circumcisions and compare that to men who were circumcised at birth to see if their brains adapted to look like men before circumcision. Not sure anybody has ever tried something like this.

            My understanding (which isn’t first hand) of the biggest differences is that men with foreskins tend to glide the skin back and forth vs rub and the sensitivity of the glans is higher when it’s protected in a foreskin. These things probably aren’t different based on when the circumcision took place.

            But yeah, you can’t really miss what you don’t remember having.

          • Wombat
            May 30, 2015 at 6:48 am #

            This is a good reason to counsel men who are looking at adult circumcision (and they already do, a lot). But there is something to be said for what you don’t know won’t hurt you, as childish as that sounds summed up that way. Someone who has been circumcised since birth knows how to get pleasure and masturbate just fine with what they have. Especially if the circumcision was done for a medical reason, not just cosmetic or religious, that would be more than acceptable outcome in other cases of infant and childhood surgeries. Why shouldn’t it be here?

            And to be more glib: a young adult might think their vestigial tail is really really cool. They might even find use for it. It’s not dangerous, and doesn’t cause harm if you’re careful, avoid certain activities, and take care of it properly (otherwise, it can be really easy to get infected or cause other issues). Why -aren’t- parents wrong for deciding to remove it? It might seem silly, but the logic has to go both ways, or you’re just fixated on the penis, imo. And just for the record I say that as someone who’s not crazy about routine circumcision but doesn’t like removing the option, especially against medical advice either. I have no idea what I will do for my own child(ren) yet, if I do have a boy. Most likely doctor’s advice with fiance’s input, but I can’t at all say for sure.

          • Valerie
            June 4, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

            We exchanged some comments earlier, but I realized I didn’t hit send on this one:

            >But there is something to be said for what you don’t know won’t hurt you…

            Yes, but the same can be said to justify truly horrible things (eg. sexual abuse when a child is too young to remember). We must have another standard for what is acceptable to do to children, because this does not help us differentiate.

            >Especially if the circumcision was done for a medical reason, not just cosmetic or religious, that would be more than acceptable outcome in other cases of infant and childhood surgeries. Why shouldn’t it be here?

            Scars are acceptable outcomes of therapies, but giving a child a scar on purpose wouldn’t be. If a child has a tragic accident where a limb is crushed beyond repair, amputation is a life-saving surgery. But of course it is not OK to perform an amputation on a healthy infant. The fact that something is suitable to live with in cases of necessity does not validate doing it on purpose.

            >Why -aren’t- parents wrong for deciding to remove it?

            I think most intactivists would be against strictly cosmetic surgery- the whole “bodily autonomy” thing is part of the ideology. If it’s something can be left alone and isn’t causing a problem, why bother going through a painful surgery and recovery, risking infection and side effects, etc? I’m guessing vestigial tails can cause physical problems with posture, sitting, etc, but I don’t know. I think people talk more about circumcision because it happens so often in the US. Vestigial tails are rare.

            >or you’re just fixated on the penis, imo

            Basically, yeah the cause of “intactivists” is the genitalia of infants, and those who are most at risk of modification are baby boys (and intersex). But they didn’t start it- it’s reactionary to the promotion of circumcisions for every male child. I mean, I don’t think a person vocally against routine circumcision is any more fixated on the penis than those who gather the whole family together to watch the ritualistic removal of the foreskin of an infant.

            … but yeah, we seem to agree on most things. I’m not for banning infant circumcision, but I don’t understand why people do it, and I think the post-hoc justifications are pretty bogus. I understand it’s part of a religious/ethnic identity (I don’t personally have one) for some people, which I can appreciate (I support religious liberty), but beyond that, the medical arguments seem totally insufficient to me to justify doing it routinely.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:18 am #

            If it’s ok for religion though, why shouldn’t it be ok for anyone else to do “just because” either? You wouldn’t let someone abuse a child or cut off an arm because it’s part of their religion.

            I am not an intactivist and I don’t like the religious argument. The only reason it is ok is because I think the procedure is safe and not harmful. If someone doesn’t, I don’t see how they can bend to religion on it. But that one has always baffled me, tbh.

            And I am sorry, but I really have a hard time believing that any intactivist would keep their kids vestigial tail. Because their OB/Pediatrician would advise removing it (why not, it’s safe and easy and avoids issues) and they don’t tend to question medical judgement outside of their specific area of ‘expertise’.

            The scars/outcome of surgery was in reference to medically advised circumcision mostly, as stated – something a lot of intactivists want rid of or severely regulated. But even if it was cosmetic, so? Most of the actual cleft palate repair is internal. We fix the kids face so they won’t be a target. Ear pinning is a thing, with about the same recovery and risk of circumcision. Where are the intactivists out their raging against that? They may be reactionary on circumcision, but that’s no reason not to be reactionary on other issues of bodily autonomy of infants and children, if that’s actually what they’re really concerned about. I question that it is their sole motivation, in the slightest.

            As for what you don’t know won’t hurt you, we disagree on circumcision being a truly horrible thing. A medical procedure done by a doctor (I’m not for mohels at all) isn’t remotely comparable to child abuse.

            But as you said, we agree on a lot and I’m perfectly ok with leaving it at that.

          • Valerie
            June 6, 2015 at 1:47 am #

            I’m not keen on justifying things by religion either. I mean, there were recently those stories in New York of children contracting herpes encephalitis from a mohel performing the oral part of the circumcision, and I think that’s awfully tragic. There have also been several deaths of children of Christian Scientists. We’re pretty liberal with what we allow people to do to their children in the name of religious liberty in America. However, a lot of religious people see attacks on circumcision as attacks on faith, regardless of what their faith is. I’ve seen people respond to any criticism of circumcision as intolerant to Judaism. I don’t see it as an incorrect argument- that religion isn’t a great justification to anything that we wouldn’t allow otherwise- but it is a more polarizing argument and one that is less likely to be heard. I’m more willing to grant that circ serves a religious purpose- one that I am unable understand because I am not a spiritual person. Also, frankly, antisemitism real, with a pretty horrific history, and I’d hate to add to legit feelings of persecution by advocating to take away part of their identity. I do see harm in that.

            … Otherwise, I guess we mostly just disagree on what intactivists think, which is really an empirical question neither of us can answer.


          • Cobalt
            June 1, 2015 at 7:40 am #

            Excluding circumcisions done when there were already problems with function, is the sensation really poorer or just different? Having to change your “go to” masturbation techniques (for any reason) is difficult, especially if you’ve spent a few decades in a particular groove. Men circumcised as infants learn methods not involving foreskin from the beginning, it would probably be just as difficult for them to suddenly have a flap to deal with.

            The major functions are identical. The finer details may not be identical, but are equal overall (in the absence of disorder-and there are more disorders associated with foreskin than with its removal and absence).

          • Valerie
            June 1, 2015 at 9:57 am #

            I’m female and do not have any personal experience with this- I can only report what I’ve heard, and they definitely said “better” not just “different” with foreskin, and the adjustment was pretty major. There are biological reasons why this may be the case- for example, results may vary, but the glans becomes less sensitive due to constant exposure. Also, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis to fine-touch. I would be quite displeased if something happened to make my genitals permanently desensitized, as well. I’m not sure what you mean by “major functions”- if it’s just a tube for urination and ejaculation, sure, but if you consider pleasure sensation a role (which I do), that judgement is purely subjective. Some men are quite happy with their circs, therapeutic or not, especially if it’s solving painful problem. Some men might not feel desensitized or might prefer to be able to “last longer.” Some men regret having a circ- maybe I have a biased sample.

            In any case, I don’t think it’s correct to make value comparisons about sex with and without a foreskin unless you are speaking about yourself. I hear this both from the side of “intactivists,” who sometimes use body-shaming and inflammatory language (“mutilated”) to say intact sex is better, and from pro-circ advocates, who tend to trivialize the role of foreskin in male sexual experience to say it’s all the same. It’s not important to everybody, but it is critical for some individuals, and I don’t like how it’s dismissed.

        • Wren
          May 29, 2015 at 6:45 am #

          As with most things, YMMV. Personally, I’ve found some difference between circumcised and uncircumcised with regards to sex, but the differences between partners is greater than the differences between circ’d and uncirc’d.

      • Robert Howard
        May 28, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

        Your experience and claims are irrelevant. The mechanics of sex are changed by the removal of the foreskin. It’s fact.

        • DelphiniumFalcon
          May 28, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

          Ah yes. A nuanced and well worded reply! Bravo! And oh pardon me I had forgotten my place. No matter what I say, papers I post, or anecdotes I tell they are irrelevant because I don’t have a penis. People without penises aren’t important in the world. Unless they’re suddenly useful to the penis crusade and then their issues are paraded about. But their issues still not as bad as what happens to penises. They’re only useful for highlighting the -real- issue. My mistake.

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

            Not even close to what I said. It’s a fact that the mobile skin system of the penis is removed. The mechanics of sex are indeed changed. Did I claim that in your experience, there was no problem getting a man off? No, I said the mechanics of sex were changed and they are.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 28, 2015 at 5:40 pm #

            The rest of your replies, especially regarding FGM and using it as a tool for your argument and nothing more, speaks volumes on your feelings about women I assure you.

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

            No, you just read into it what you want to.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 28, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

            Imagine that! Not that I see anyone else here who would do such a thing.

            The lack of self awareness is -astounding-.

          • Wombat
            May 30, 2015 at 6:43 am #

            So different sex isn’t sex at all? Fuck anyone not born your version of ‘normal’, huh? You have to have sex with your hands and mouth because you’re paralyzed and it feels best that way? POOR YOU, regardless of how you feel about it.

            Sorry, but heard this weak, fake-caring rationale all too many times before.

          • Robert Howard
            June 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

            Try reading for comprehension. I said none of those things.

          • Wombat
            June 6, 2015 at 12:09 am #

            You said that the mechanics of sex are changed, and framed that as a negative. So anyone who’s mechanics are different is automatically at a disadvantage in your view.

            It may not be what you thought you meant, but it is in fact exactly what you said.

      • AllieFoyle
        May 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

        Why can’t men have an opinion on their own bodies without it being sexism? I don’t get it.

        • DelphiniumFalcon
          May 29, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

          They can. They often do. I’d be surprised if they didn’t think about their bodies a lot especially from a fitness standpoint because women don’t have a monopoly on the body image issue. Men are held up to looking like extras in 300 and those men had ab definition airbrushed on. It’s not attainable for the average body. A lot of men have self esteem issues related to their appearance too. It really sucks and I think it’d be great if men were more vocal about it because I agree and support them in that fight. They don’t need to be an accessory to the female campaign against digital retouching to unattainable standards because while the techniques are similar in editing they are not the same. Their issue is complimentary to the female issue and I wouldn’t dare step in and tell them what to think about the issue or use it to further my own agenda. I wouldn’t tell a man that he’s being hurt by the male models on magazines and when he says “Not really” start screaming about how wrong he is and he just doesn’t know he’s a victim so shut up and support my views. It’s dismissive and disrespectful.

          But intactivists throw out any and all research or anecdotes from other men that don’t agree with the narrative they’re trying to tell. Telling other men to shut up about being happy with their body image including their circumcised penis because they don’t know they’re victims doesn’t really do much to help end the body shaming issues present in the world. Or to have men feel that their opinions are being validated.

      • Katie Jenkins McCall
        May 29, 2015 at 6:49 pm #

        Anecdotal. Sorry. Your logical fallacy is fallible.

        • DelphiniumFalcon
          May 29, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

          Like your belief that you’re not causing or have caused severe harm to women who put their trust in you to deliver their precious children safely?

        • Speaksvolumes
          June 2, 2015 at 7:47 pm #

          Her reasoning: It doesn’t matter if a man loses the full spectrum of sensation on his penis because sex is all about female pleasure.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 4, 2015 at 1:09 pm #

            Yes. That is exactly what I’m saying. It’s not like we have a cultural meme about the elusive female orgasm or anything like that. Mutual pleasure is apparently being focused only on female pleasure

      • June 9, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

        You’re a dumb, selfish bitch who thinks the issue is about YOU. It’s not about YOU, dumb bitch. It’s about MEN deserving to keep 100% of our penises and experience all the pleasure nature intended!

        • fiftyfifty1
          June 9, 2015 at 7:57 pm #

          Ah, another reasonable, rational intactivist.

        • DelphiniumFalcon
          June 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

          Yup. I’m a dumb selfish bitch because I think women deserve pleasure too. For pointing out pounding at the vagina and focusing only on the penis doesn’t really satisfy women. Stuff that might actually please a woman if you dared try it.

          Don’t forget to shame me for not telling my husband that he’s a mutilated freak that will never experience sex like he’s supposed to. That I love every bit of him, even the parts he hates. For seeing him as something more than his sexual organs and married him for his intelligence and personality. The fact that he’s a very considerate lover was just the cherry on top of an already confident, kind man with fantastic wit.

          I didn’t circumcize him. He doesn’t care that he is and I don’t either. I accept him and would accept him cut or uncut or disabled. I chose a man, a very good one, not a strip of flesh.

          So please continue to call me a selfish bitch for not considering my husband’s foreskin to be the most important part of him and singing his praises as a lover despite his “disability” in lovemaking.

    • Megan
      May 28, 2015 at 10:32 pm #

      “CONCLUSION: The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.”

      “CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present study which represents the largest survey worldwide on male ED using the IIEF as a validated instrument, it could not be confirmed that the prevalence of ED is increased in men following circumcision. Sexual satisfaction of men in this study was independent of the presence of the prepuce.”

      • DelphiniumFalcon
        May 28, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

        Also they keep touting that x thousand of fine touch pressure nerves. I decided to do some research on that. They’re called Meissner’s corpuscles.

        You know what else has a huge amount of those Meissner’s corpuscles? Finger tips. It’s the type of nerve ending that allows us to differentiate fine details like the raised dots used for Braille.

        Maybe the foreskins does have a lot of those. But so does my big toe and it’s not especially arousing when that’s touched.

        Arousal seems to have a large mental component and not just mechanical it seems. Shock of all shocks.

        • Speaksvolumes
          May 29, 2015 at 1:34 am #

          But you acknowledge that Meissner’s corpuscles are highly sensitive. The mental component to arousal working in tandem with highly sensitive tissue results in pleasure. Why would you want to remove that potential sensation for pleasure from someone’s genitalia?

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 29, 2015 at 11:06 am #

            A highly aroused state still doesn’t make someone touching my big toe sexy and pleasurable.

            There’s also that there are seven different kinds of receptors in skin that relay touch. Depending on the person there’s more or less of the different types.

            If every guy wanted the kind of sensitivity intativists put on a pedistal there wouldn’t be a market for those sensitivity dulling gels.

            Because while we have certain commonalities not everyone is the same. The intactivist tactic of ignoring everything that doesn’t fit their ideal is ridiculous. How many people have said they or their partners don’t feel a difference and frankly don’t care what was or was not done to them as an infant? And then because it doesn’t fit your victim narrative it is “irrelevant.”

            Instead of trying to fit everyone in the same box why not celebrate the diversity that makes humans so adaptable? Take some advice from the Beatles and “Let It Be.”

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 1:57 pm #

            There’s plenty of people who get off sexually on having their toes sucked. The penis is specifically an erogenous zone. The touch receptors on the penis are directly linked to sexual arousal and pleasure, including the foreskin.
            Not every guy wants the kind of sensitivity of being intact. That’s a perfect argument for why sexually active adult men can choose for themselves to get circumcised. It’s also a good argument for producing gels to dull sensation. It’s not an argument to remove the foreskin from infants.
            Men who are cut are free to feel however they want about what was done to them. What they can’t do is use their opinion as justification for imposing the same procedure onto others.
            It’s ironic you cite “Let It Be” while arguing for the right to cut off foreskins.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

            …you’re still commenting on this? I practically forgot this was here days ago. Go find another place to play.

            You really haven’t figured out my modus operandi with you guys yet, have you? Let me help you.

            Clip clop, clip clop, who’s that clip clopping across my bridge?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

            Wow. Total failure at a cogent rebuttal. Nice job proving you don’t have a valid argument. I didn’t realize there was a time limit on responding here. Taking a few days between responses doesn’t seem excessive to me, but it’s nice to know that that’s your go to trump card to avoid an actual response. Well done.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 2, 2015 at 2:06 pm #

            Aaaaaaand point. You’re missing it. It was fun to troll you guys for a while but now it’s just boring and I moved on. Hope your flounce sticks.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

            Oh, so you’re a troll. Okay.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 2, 2015 at 2:48 pm #

            Jeeze, finally.

            I admit I like to troll intactivists when they come parachuting in spouting bullshit. Or anyone else spreading poorly researched and twisted “facts”. Anti-vaxxers, home birthers, hardcore lactivists, doesn’t matter. I may only have a passing interest in the subject on some of these, like intactivism, but it’s worth pretending to be hard core against them just to see you guys blow up. You honestly take this shit that seriously that you throw temper tantrums online about it?

            Why not go volunteer somewhere to spread awareness instead of spewing vitrol all over the internet? I hate animal abuse and that elders in retirement homes get ignored. So I’m training my rescued shelter dog to get her canine good citizen award so I can take her to the homes and cheer up a lonely senior’s day. What are you doing besides acting like the giant dick you revere?

            I’ve been on the internet a long, long time. My patience for people like intactivist was shot before I even got my driver’s license.

            If you insist on showing up on territory that is obviously hostile to your ideology, don’t go crying about oppression when you do the same to people who show up in your neck of the woods saying circumcision has a purpose.

            Hypocrisy appears to be a defining trait of the intactivist movement.

            And yeah I’m a hypocritical bitch at times. I have no illusions of being well loved online. At least I have the self awareness to admit it.

            Edit: Also fighting back against this stuff is a stupidly fun game of mental gymnastics. I’m not even pro routine circ.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 3:17 pm #

            Cool story bro.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 2, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

            Old trolling meme is old.

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

            Yep, well, you’re certainly a bitch.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 2, 2015 at 8:14 pm #

            Your feelings appear to be a bit overly sensitive. Perhaps, according to your logic, they should be circumcised?

          • Speaksvolumes
            June 2, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

            Nah, I’m just agreeing with your earlier self-evaluation.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            June 4, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

            Hey we can agree on something! There is hope for humanity yet! I don’t agree with your stance but I do wish you well and all that. No reason two people wwithjth dissenting opinions have to be assholes to each other all the time, right? Have a good day. 🙂

    • Megan
      May 28, 2015 at 11:31 pm #

      Also, There’s a lot of reasons for why a population has a certain rate of STI’s and circumcision is merely one factor, but:

      • Megan
        May 28, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

        Oops, I inadvertantly included a study in there on UTI. I guess that’s just a bonus…

        • Robert Howard
          June 5, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

          Of course, that UTI study and the one on penile sensitivty are both authored by Brian Morris – a man known to have an insane infatuation with circumcision who spreads his bias around like butter. He is NOT a medical doctor, and all of his “studies” are meta-analyses where he picks and chooses his figures to make it seem like there are zero risks and so many benefits that he actually suggests all men should be circumcised.

          As for the HIV study – the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.4%. That 38-66% reduction is off of that figure for an actual reduction of .15-.24%. In other words, you would have to circumcise 500-1000 men to prevent one case. And that’s if you belileve those figures which were obtained from trials in Africa on adult men apply to infants in the U.S. who most certainly are not having heterosexual sex.

    • Speaksvolumes
      May 29, 2015 at 1:31 am #

      Hear! Hear!

  46. Lil' Kitten Girl
    May 28, 2015 at 11:49 am #

    Thank you!

  47. May 28, 2015 at 3:04 am #

    Here’s the thing. No one will ever care about female genital mutilation the way they do male circumcision. Despite stating over and over again that I’m anti-circ, explaining the differences between the two, and stating that one wrong doesn’t make a right, it’s still the goddamn dick that anyone gives a single fuck about.

    Do any of you have a google alert for female genital mutilation? How about the thousand upon thousand of deaths that occur due to it following infection, a child bride having her mutilated genitals ravaged by the full-grown husband, or childbirth?

    I’m not saying you’re a fuck for caring about the “lesser” of these two things. I donate money to animal charities, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about burn victims or whatever, that was just where my heart was beckoned and I totally understand that. But by COMPARING the two and talking like them like they’re equal, you are being the fuckiest first-world fuck to have ever fucked.


    Good day. You may commence the stone throwing and butthurt x-posting to MRA forums.

    • DelphiniumFalcon
      May 28, 2015 at 11:17 am #

      Marry me.

    • Robert Howard
      May 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

      Plenty of people care about FGM. That’s why WE BANNED IT in 1997. You’d be hard-pressed to find an intactivist who isn’t against FGM as well. We bring up circumcision more because it’s still legal for some ignorant reason.

      • fiftyfifty1
        May 28, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

        “You’d be hard-pressed to find an intactivist who isn’t against FGM as well.”
        Against it on paper sure. But actually giving a damn, no. An intactivist who actually gives a damn about FGA is what you would be hard pressed to find. Annie is right.

        • Maya Markova
          May 28, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

          I’ve been talking to students about FGM for years before becoming an intactivist. Actually, I’ve never thought I’d become one. Mr. Nebus and the judge made an excellent recruitment campaign.

        • Robert Howard
          May 28, 2015 at 1:39 pm #


          • May 29, 2015 at 2:13 am #

            Even while talking about FGM all you could focus on was penises. Even after my assurance that I’m against male circumcision, you had to parade your facts in about how awful something I’m already against is.

        • itry2brational
          June 7, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

          I suppose you’re the arbiter of what will count for people actually giving a damn? What’s your standard? What criteria are you using? Can you demonstrate that every circ apologist here “gives a damn” about FGM? How? Then lets apply your standards to every circ apologist here and see if THEY “give a damn about FGM”.

      • May 28, 2015 at 1:49 pm #

        People have been COMPARING them as though they’re the same, which is my argument.

        • Robert Howard
          May 28, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

          Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. Google “subincision” and tell me that’s just fine and dandy. In Indonesia, girls have a small piece of their clitoral hood snipped off with scissors in a surgical setting. Compare those two and suddenly the “They’re not the same thing!!!!” argument gets flipped around.

          • Fallow
            May 28, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

            You guys bring this thing up a lot, and keep not really answering why you aren’t screaming constantly about FGM, the way you scream about circumcision.

            If you have to cite (possibly) the least version of FGM as a direct comparison to male circumcision, then maybe you should think about how that sounds to other people. You’re essentially admitting that FGM as a practice is a lot worse than circumcision.

            Because you KNOW that the practice of FGM isn’t just confined to a clitoral hood snip. You know very well that when a girl has her genitals sawed off with a piece of metal and thatched together, that we’re talking about a procedure that has far outstripped anything you believably can say about male circumcision. So you have to look to the least version of FGM, so you can say, “SEE, SEE they’re the SAME THING sometimes”.

            Whenever you say “well, sometimes FGM is worse, but MOSTLY NOT, AND BY THE WAY DICKS”, you are writing off the suffering of uncountable women as nothing worth mentioning. As unfortunate anomalies. As something that’s just not worth talking about as much as the dick. People can see how mean-spirited and selfish this attitude is. Sorry that you’d rather we all ignore that, but it’s impossible.

            And then you’re evading the discussion of why you care less about FGM
            than you do about circumcision. Intactivists, as a culture, STRONGLY
            come across as people obsessed with foreskin. FGM is only brought up by
            intactivists I’ve seen, as a rhetorical tool. Not as something they give
            a shit about, in the end. But as an attention-grabbing, insulting,
            godawful ploy. All the women who have suffered under FGM deserve better, than to have a bunch of privileged men daring to compare the suffering
            of FGM to male circumcision. Daring to act like the toxic misogyny that produces FGM, is in any way comparable to the illogical-but-not-hateful cultural forces that have kept circumcision around.

            And you know what? If you’re really out there fighting pro-FGM people, then you’d better do a better job of advertising it. Because Annie’s description up there is EXACTLY how you people come off to the rest of the world. FGM can’t be that high on the intactivist priorities list, if no one has any clue they give a shit about it.

            Maybe intactivists are squawking too loudly about dick for us to hear the quiet peeps they make about FGM? Or maybe the MRA contingency among you squashes all hint that FGM is even worth discussing, because it happens to women? I don’t know. But if you want anyone to believe you people give a shit about FGM, you intactivists better start LOUDLY walking the walk. And if you don’t give a shit about FGM, stop expecting anyone to care what you say about circumcision.

            I am against circumcision myself, but I will never be able to take people
            like you seriously. Because to all appearances, dick IS the only thing you care about.

          • Cobalt
            May 28, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

            Bravo. Integrity demands consistency (and honesty), and the intactivists have neither.

          • Maya Markova
            May 28, 2015 at 2:54 pm #

            I think, however, that wide publicity and discussions about Hironimus’ case, though hardly optimal for the particular child, may influence similar cases in the future. We all here communicate in English and are more or less interested in our opponents’ arguments.
            A similar discussion about FGM would be empty talk. Most people doing or approving it don’t read English to begin with. Besides, there is the religious issue. Many of them would consider us inferior and wouldn’t want any of our opinions.
            Once, an opponent accused Dr. Amy that she cares only about providing pain relief to Western women, instead of making it accessible to Third World women. However, talking about the latter wouldn’t make it happen.

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 28, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

            We have some really, really good posts today. Very good points!

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

            Actually, I did answer in a different comment – FGM is already illegal here and in countless other countries. And there’s not much I can do to stop people breaking laws in other countries. Circumcision is legal and routine here. And I can help change the laws in my own country.

            And I’m not denying that it’s horrible, but you are denying that it’s not always the scraping off with a rock and sewing shut kind of thing. And you’re acting like those cultures don’t also cut their men, too. BTW – the clitoral hood removal is exactly analogous to male circumcision, but it’s vastly less invasive, and it’s also not the least severe form of FGM, but don’t bother accepting that, or that ALL forms of FGM are illegal in the U.S., including a simple pinprick to draw a drop of blood. That would take your mind off “OMG THEY”RE BRUTALLY HAKING BITS OFF HER AND SEWING HERE SHOUT!QWEJ:!!@#!!”” EHRMAHGERHD!!!”.

            You also obviously aren’t aware that those same cultures that practice the more brutal forms also cut their males much more brutally, too. You obviously didn’t look up subincision, or you wouldn’t be arguing that circumcision is much less horrendous, since it’s not the only form of MGM. Some places, you get to lose your scrotal skin or the entire penile skin system, but let’s pretend that doesn’t exist either, because then we’d have to accept that it’s not better for men, that’s it’s pretty much the same everywhere, that ALL genital mutilation is a fucking crime against human rights, and that it ALL needs to stop. And if you’ve never heard that from an intactivist before, then you haven’t been listening beyond the “some types are less extreme”.

          • fiftyfifty1
            May 28, 2015 at 7:32 pm #

            “the clitoral hood removal is exactly analogous to male circumcision, but it’s vastly less invasive”

            If it’s exactly analogous, how is it “vastly less invasive” than penile circ?

            ETA: not that it matters anyway. As the WHO points out, they have given a name to clitoral hood removal (Type 1a) but in real life it is almost never practiced, because IN REAL LIFE almost all FGA (types 1b-III) involves at minimum cutting off of the glans of the clitoris.

          • Robert Howard
            May 28, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

            Because much less tissue is removed, and the foreskin isn’t ripped from the glans by probing it.

            Type III only occurs 10% of the time according to the WHO. But again that’s beside the point, because I’m not the one arguing that severity makes a bit of difference, and if you people would actually read what I wrote, you’d know that.

          • fiftyfifty1
            May 28, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

            If how much tissue is removed is important to you, then having a circ done as an infant rather than as an adult will make sense to you, as the structure is much smaller in infancy, thus less tissue.

            But more importantly, once again, I have to ask why you keep trying to downplay FGA to make it seem just like male circ. It is true that the WHO says that type III (removal of the clitoris, hood, and all labia with the raw edges sewn shut to the diameter of a match stick) only occurs in 10%. But the WHO also goes to pains to emphasize that Type 1a (removal of the clitoral hood only, the procedure exactly analogous to male circ) is a largely theoretical type of FGA because it is hardly ever done in real life. IN REAL life, almost all FGAs (type 1b, II and III) CUT OFF THE CLITORIS, not just the hood.

          • May 29, 2015 at 2:15 am #

            Yeah, its rarest form. When you want to make a valid point about the comparison, just say subincision. You are being intentionally inflammatory to people who are already in agreement with you but don’t want to admit it because you’re being so awful.

          • Robert Howard
            June 5, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

            *sigh* Because every time anyone mentions FGM (and it’s usually pro-circ people who do it) they always have to scream about how it’s not the same thing and FGM is horrible and done with rocks and they sew them shut and blahblahblah when in reality that’s hardly the most popular version, and they ignore the fact those societies also cut their men often in equally horrible ways. The simple fact is it isn’t a fricking contest. All genital cutting is wrong and needs to stop.

          • June 5, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

            Can you see how it can be seen as offensive, though?

        • itry2brational
          June 4, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

          Guess what? They don’t need to be the same to be EQUALLY wrong.

          • June 4, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

            Guess what? THEY AREN’T EQUALLY WRONG.



          • itry2brational
            June 5, 2015 at 12:47 am #

            “FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION KILLS THOUSANDS OF GIRLS AND WOMEN.” Proof? How many in the U.S.? How many baby boys die from MGM? In the U.S.?
            “CIRCUMCISION, WHICH IS ALSO WRONG, DOES NOT” …have to be the same! That’s right, they don’t have to be THE SAME across the board to be equally wrong.

            What makes you think that changes anything? Nobody cuts a child’s genitals without feeling their reason is justified. In EVERY case of FGM or MGM the parent’s reason was for the good of the child. Better known as the ‘good intentions fallacy’.

            Do you care about women who suffered far less severe circumstances? I bet you do, strange boys and men don’t get equal consideration.
            Here again you’re arguing for sameness. “WHEN” this *same* scenario is met for a man/boy, then and only then will you give it equal consideration. That’s a poor justification for being arrogantly inhuman toward boys and men.

          • June 5, 2015 at 2:47 am #

            UNICEF, WHO, Red Cross, United Nations, etc.

            I am still against circumcision. Read the original post which you’re arguing against, because the facts haven’t changed.

            If I cut someone’s dick, that is assault. If I cut it off and they bleed to death or subsequently die of infection, that is murder because those results are foreseeable. Murder is worse than assault.

            “Here again you’re arguing for sameness. “WHEN” this *same* scenario is met for a man/boy, then and only then will you give it equal consideration. That’s a poor justification for being arrogantly inhuman toward boys and men.”

            Our justice system targets men, and especially those of color, and I’m dedicating my life (and hundreds of thousands of dollars) to helping them. I used to visit college campuses and explain to boys and men how to have safe sex, date safely, check their genitals for cancer, and feel adequate about themselves. At this very moment, my overworked boyfriend is sleeping while my also overworked ass does his laundry because I love him and want to make his, a man’s, life easier.

            But no, I’m just in it for pussy power because I don’t agree with you.

    • itry2brational
      June 7, 2015 at 8:09 pm #

      Annie, you trollish contrarian, nit picking moron. You’re projecting your OWN double standard on intactivists. Its the “goddamn dick” that’s being cut while the “goddamn pussy” is fully protected. The child genital mutilation in question is taking place in the intactivist’s OWN country, not a foreign one, that’s why the activism is more focused on boys. Girls are already protected by LAW, what activism do they require in the US? None. Somehow you’re anti-circ but are unable to catch that glaring double standard and hypocrisy. I don’t buy it.

      Your outrage is even more fake and misplaced than Tuteur’s. You’re more concerned with intactivists “talking” than with the literal cutting(and promoting the cutting) of baby genitals, which you claim continuously to oppose as if its supposed to mean something. It doesn’t.

      • June 7, 2015 at 8:31 pm #

        Yes, I am concerned with intactivists talking, because they’re ill-natured trolls who turn people away from the cause. Do you think that people standing in the middle of the road are going to veer towards the ones calling them heartless baby-cutting monsters, or the calm, non-name calling pro-circumcision crowds?

        Your ilk are emotionally immature and that’s why banning circ is taking so long. People don’t want to be connected to an irrational movement; same reason why animal rights are never going to happen, despite the good intentions and being on the correct side of history.

        My argument was and always has been the comparison between the two. I’m against that, because intentionally threatening lives in order to be made into chattel by the thousands is worse than taking away something pleasurable far before the age of consent in order to protect silly religious rules that any teenage boy will break anyway.

        • itry2brational
          June 8, 2015 at 6:39 am #

          Anne, yours may be the most ill-natured comment(s) so far, its part of your schtick…how many f-bombs? You just named-called, while complaining that intactivists name-call. You think what you’re doing is HELPING intactivism?
          “the calm, non-name calling pro-circumcision crowds?”
          That’s not Tuteur, you or her loyal followers. You’re certainly not calm and you name-call like crazy while complaining about it(like Tuteur). Ad hominem is the most common tactic.

          The person who said “fuckiest first-world fuck to have ever fucked” is saying “Your ilk are emotionally immature…” Hypocrisy much? Robert Howard has been calmly, without name-calling, dismantling you, btw.

          “People don’t want to be connected to an irrational movement…”
          Christianity. Islam. The GOP. Tea party and libertarian. Most people connect themselves to irrational movements. If youre anti-circ, why are you helping the circumcision movement, literally right – here?

          You’re against one very particular argument you claim very few intactivists make so you feel justified in trashing ALL intactivists? That’s not enough to make someone turn coat and join cutters like Tuteur, literally helping her/them.
          Cutters lie about the alleged “benefits” of MGM but you’re more outraged over a perceived false equivalence argument? BS. Nothing about you adds up.

          • June 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm #

            Actually, you’re the one here to change minds. I’m here to comment and read; I know that face-to-face discussion and pressuring lawmakers is where I’ll do that. If you read other comments, you’ll see people in the middle of the road as far as circumcision state their disgust at the tactics used by “anti-cutters”.

            Myself, read any of my comments on any subject and you’ll see that they’re much the same. I’m trollish and don’t take myself at all seriously.

  48. Maya Markova
    May 27, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

    I cannot see why a parent can stop even life-saving treatment for his child but cannot reconsider his decision upon a cosmetic surgery with alleged benefits that, according to an earlier post by Dr. Amy herself, are trivial in First World countries.
    I must disclaim that I am an intactivist, but this is not most important here. I am strongly pro-vaccines, but if you must jail and handcuff a mother in order to vaccinate her child, I’d say, leave them alone!

    • Montserrat Blanco
      May 28, 2015 at 2:43 am #

      Actually at least in the few countries in Europe where I have practiced medicine you can not stop life-saving treatment to your child. If a doctor thinks a particular procedure is absolutely necessary for the child’s wellbeing he/she can perform it and then inform the judge or if there is enough time you first inform the judge, get a court order and then perform the procedure. You do not have the right to refuse a life-saving blood transfussion or a life-saving surgery just because you gave birth to that particular child. I do not know how it works exactly worldwide or in the USA but as far as I know it is very similar.

      • Maya Markova
        May 28, 2015 at 4:26 am #

        The law allows both strategies, and often courts find the subject too sensitive and allow the parents have it their way. E. g. Hungarian doctors did not give a “Jehovah’s Witness” infant a needed blood transfusion and resorted to unproven alternative treatment to appease the parents (Lakatos L. et al.”Bloodless” treatment of a Jehovah’s Witness infant with ABO hemolytic disease. J Perinatol. 1999 Oct-Nov;19(7):530-2.). In the USA, Amish parents refused hemotherapy for the leukemia of their minor daughter Sara Hershberger. As far as I know, she is still in good condition, but in Canada, a First Nation girl named Makayla Sault died in the same circumstances.

        • Montserrat Blanco
          May 28, 2015 at 11:21 am #

          As far as I know the parents of Sarah got their way despite a judge ruling agaisnt them and designing a guardian for their daughter, so, yes, you do not have the right to do whatever you want to your child but yes, sometimes not everybody does what the courts tell them. It was still agaisnt a judicial order that they refused treatment for Sarah.

          I have no idea about the other two cases.

      • DelphiniumFalcon
        May 28, 2015 at 11:28 am #

        In the US if a child is brought in to an emergency room and a parent isn’t present the doctor can make a choice to treat and almost all will if it’s a life or death situation. ER can use what’s called implied consent. Since they’re presenting to the ER it can be implied that they want treatment.

        However if a parent is there and denies life saving treatment, that’s when it gets muddy. Don’t quote me, but at that point if the doctor feels that the child will die or there’s a significant chance of morbidity the hospital social worker can get involved to assess what’s going on and why a parent is denying treatment.

        I haven’t ever seen the latter happen in life or death situations. I have seen parents deny consent to treat for minor issues, especially if it was a teenager brought in for med clearance by the police as when we hand the phone to the teen to explain why they’re there (we can’t say because of privacy issues) that’s the first the parents are hearing of them possibly participating in criminal activity.

        • Montserrat Blanco
          May 28, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

          Ir works pretty much like that in Spain. If a child appears in the ER you treat them. If parents are there they should consent. We have had problems with Jehova’s witness and blood transfussions. That is why the law says clearly that you can not decide in such cases even if you are the parent because the child’s right to live is higher than the child’s and parents right to refuse a particular treatment. That is a very clear situation but probably something like chemo for a non curable cancer or stopping life support for a child that will have life long dissabilities might get muddy. We do have of course complete patient autonomy for capable adults.

    • demodocus
      May 28, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

      The mom reconsidered, the dad still thinks the child should be circumcised. I gather neither parent has a majority vote.

      • Maya Markova
        May 28, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

        Therefore, I think that things should have been left as they were, unless a clear medical necessity emerged.

  49. demodocus
    May 27, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    Poor child. Junior high is gonna be hell on him. Unless, of course, they homeschool. Then the first person at his first job who doesn’t like him…

  50. Gretta
    May 27, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    Yes! That’s what I thought! The parents can’t possibly see that the very argument itself played out in the public eye is most likely more damaging than whatever the decision is with this poor child’s genitalia?!

    • Maya Markova
      May 27, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

      The father apparently does not give a damn about the child’s well-being, and the mother maybe fears that giving in to the bullying of an abusive ex is a very bad precedent.

      • Nick Sanders
        May 27, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

        I don’t think we are reading the same story.

        • Maya Markova
          May 28, 2015 at 1:09 am #

          Of course we are not.

          • Nick Sanders
            May 28, 2015 at 1:38 am #

            Then perhaps you should comment on this one instead?

          • Maya Markova
            May 28, 2015 at 4:31 am #

            I am commenting on the story of the Florida mother Heather Hironimus and her son, abused first by the biological father and then by the court.

          • May 28, 2015 at 5:00 am #

            Coming soon, on Lifetime Movie Channel…

          • Nick Sanders
            May 28, 2015 at 11:13 am #

            And you have evidence of this alleged abuse? Because simple circumcision is not abuse.

      • Cobalt
        May 28, 2015 at 6:29 am #

        If the mother was so concerned for the child’s welfare, she would have had the circumcision SHE AGREED TO done in early infancy instead of violating the parenting plan and gambling on its enforcement, then calling fringe activists and the media to publicize her poor decision-making skills and her son’s genitals, and then kidnapping the kid and going into hiding.

        The fact that the father is also concerned more with “winning” than with the child’s welfare doesn’t absolve her of any of her own disregard for the child.

        • Maya Markova
          May 28, 2015 at 7:15 am #

          I guess, when she signed that paper, she didn’t give much importance to circumcision. (I was about to write, “…she thought circumcision was in her son’s best interest”, but then remembered that she insisted that the father paid for it.)
          The father dragged the issue for 3 years, then decided to enforce this topic of the parenting plan. Meanwhile, the mother had changed her mind.
          When I had my first child, I was convinced that formula was not good for him and tried to exclusively breastfeed for weeks, though I hadn’t enough breastmilk. Now, I think I have caused unnecessary suffering to my baby, and I regret. So I sympathize with the mother as another mother who has made an honest mistake.
          Parents may change their mind now and then and still be concerned with their children’s welfare.

          • Cobalt
            May 28, 2015 at 8:00 am #

            Insisting he pay for it just means she wanted him to pay for it, and if it was more important to him to have the circ done, that is totally fine. When it wasn’t done in very early infancy, that was the time for her to either pay for it herself and recover the money (if his financial responsibility is in the parenting plan, she can enforce that) or go back to court to compel him to either have it done or agree not to do it. She waited just as long as the father did to take action on the issue, and then disregarded a court order, called the media, handed the publicity to fringe activists to intimidate the doctors, kidnapped the kid, hid him in a shelter, and pretends none of the trauma she is causing her child is her fault. She’s not a victim, she’s victimizing her son the same as the father is, if not more.

            And the outcome differences between electively circumcised and uncircumcised in the absence of medical need are negligible. The differences in outcomes between a diet of insufficient quantities of breast milk and a healthy amount of formula are huge, quite possibly actually life and death.

          • Maya Markova
            May 28, 2015 at 8:29 am #

            If you want the other parent to pay for something regarding your child, this means that you do not care about that thing. If you care, you do not wage court battles about who will pay, you get the thing done. And when the father did not move his finger, the mother naturally thought that he did not care, either. Your suggestions about everything was the mother’s job, frankly, make little sense to me, but maybe this is because I am not familiar with parenting through court’s mediation.
            The people you are calling “fringe” are fringe only in the USA. In Europe, where I live, they are mainstream.
            As for the baby-feeding issue, the scientific literature available to me at that time stated that supplementing with formula increased the risk for insulin-dependent diabetes by bovine albumin in formula cross-reacting with pancreatic beta cells and triggering an autoimmune reaction. Also, Dr. Spock and other authorities stated that it is no big deal if the infant is malnourished and that will make him suck harder and stimulate the glands to produce enough breastmilk.
            So, when my opponents now talk about the alleged benefits of circumcision, I think of the alleged benefits of exclusive formula feeding. Been there, done this.

          • momofone
            May 28, 2015 at 9:33 am #

            “If you want the other parent to pay for something regarding your child,
            this means that you do not care about that thing. If you care, you do
            not wage court battles about who will pay, you get the thing done.”

            There are plenty of examples of things parents share costs for, or one parent carries the cost alone. It doesn’t mean the parent requesting does not care. Some examples are education, medical expenses (insurance/medications/etc.), other activities such as camps and sports. Many people do go to court to have those agreements established as part of divorce or other custody proceedings (as in this case). Expecting the other parent to contribute to the costs of caring for children is not unreasonable. By your argument, if someone asks the other parent to bear part of the cost of their children’s education, the requesting parent must not want his/her son to be educated.

          • Maya Markova
            May 28, 2015 at 10:59 am #

            In my country, the non-custodial parent is just ordered by the court to pay a certain sum per month for the benefit of the child. The sum is typically too small, and many fathers after the divorce stop paying even it to the mother, but mothers in this situation have told me, “As long as I can work, I don’t give a damn about his money, and I am glad that he is out of our lives.” Now, I understand this very well.

          • Cobalt
            May 28, 2015 at 9:43 am #

            I find it hard to believe that the behavior of Intact America is mainstream in Europe. There is a FaceBook page dedicated to this child’s penis. That’s not mainstream anywhere.

            These parents started fighting before the child was even born. They came to an agreement on circumcision, she gambled on whether or not it would be enforced instead of actively pursuing the path of least trauma for her son. This fight didn’t come out of nowhere after years of peace. She knew, and chose her own pride and vindictiveness over the child. She’s crying victim to save face because her bet didn’t pay off and now she’s making sure the child is the biggest loser.

            And when people talk about the alleged benefits of forgoing circumcision, you don’t think of the alleged benefits of exclusive breastfeeding? That organizations dedicated to a promoting a certain choice, instead of child welfare, might not be the most forthcoming about different choices?