Letters to the Editor
Gams on Glass
Published Letters: 284 Editor's Choice: 6
-
You are the decider
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just about enough... the likening of circumcision to slavery or homophobic violence is patently absurd.
The glans penis is NOT 'huskified' and I say from personal experience and discussions with countless men and women to whom I have spoken, sexual functioning is NOT hampered, hindered, or helped, for that matter, by circumcision. Perhaps as a fixated dogmatist it had not occured to you that you are seeking counsel from the choir.
The likening of yourself to Europeans and Asians who keep their foreskins... no, they are not radical fanaticists because they have foreskins. But, you might note that the board is scarcely full of enraged belgians screaming at the top of their lung (Oh, the humanity!)
As I said, I likely would not circumcise my child, mostly because it would seem to be a waste of time and energy and be pointless. Really, I don't but hardly ever think about circumcision, although I do take great issue with dogmatists pushing their agenda on others. ONe need only take a brief perusal of 'Intactivist' sights, which I did last night, and have some months or years ago... full of inane rantings, including one by a 'natal and child psychologist' babbling on about memory regressions to childbirth and subconscious scars.... insanity. IN addition, one had a message board on which people were dispatched to fight the fight on online message boards such as this one. Pure hysteria.
-
TexLib and The Artist known as funny signs
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make a fairly impassioned plea, with which I have no real problem. Admittedly, I think of your idea of the penis as being a way to establish a complex personal identity as hippiish hokum, but for to each their own; I myself am far too cynical. I'll find my identity quite fine thanks: I'm okay, you're okay.
I will acknowledge that the organ, no doubt, has great psychological weight, but that equally explains my thought that the anti-circumcision agenda is overly weighted with psychological fixation that, on a rational level, exceeds its merits.
That 1/3rd or more of the world's men seem to function, for cultural reasons, quite nicely sans the foreskin would seem to indicate it is not the tremendous evil some have made it out to be. And that the WHO nor any other international health organization takes great exception here, is failly indicative. For those saying FGM and slavery were once not recognised, you would be right. The difference is that this is not 1850, nor 1950. Indeed, nor has Dr Spock been so riled up, as I found reading such an intactivist site last night; he said it was unnecessary... hardly a radical rebellion from the patron saint of all thing infant.
But, do those cultural reasons make sense? Not especially, hence I would lean against bothering to have my child circumcised. Probably, circumcision will find its way out of general practice -- not because a radical sect of people rallied against it, but because: why the fack bother.
----
The artist known as funky signs: I am the tough guy. It was not I who stormed the message boards decrying the practicioners of male circumcision 'barbarians' not the uncircumcised penis 'disgusting'... it was the other side who started getting rile up.
As for me, I have had these conversations as someone who has had relationships with males and females as well as had friends who have had to make their choices on circumcision. Perhaps 'countless' may be a general overstatement.
And anyway, why would you accuse me of being obsessed? This is the topic. A previous Intactivist accused me of wanting to be ignorant. But if I have some knowledge I am obsessed -- The old turnabout, eh?
-
Anonymost recent
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope that does not refer to me... I had stated in a previous post: "... most noted form of female circumcision remove part of the clitoral area..."
So, I am aware of multiple types (the scraping of the hood sounding pretty horrific to me). But the term FGM most frequently refers to removal of labial or clitoral skin and no 'pin prick' as another posted stated above.
-
any mous
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep, that's probably true..... although, as can be noted, not all female circumcision removes flesh. Those types range from intentially desensitizing the clitoris, to making a tiny incision on the hood region for who knows what religious region (as it would have no impact at all.
-
Signs of the times
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As far as demonizing others, I can only imagine you are refering to my suggestion that some people may need psychological help.
And indeed, I DO think that is a fully functioning man is determined to go through yet ANOTHER unnecessary procedure to restore the foreskin, then, yes, his problem is psychological, not revolving around his foreskin.
For all the merits of NOT circumcising (of which, I still say "why bother" is the most powerful), the individuals arguing in favor of that perspective are chock full of freakshows and aggressors who clearly see themselves as the front of some new revolution in human perspective. This, I think is WAY overboard. In fact a goodly number of the Intactivists seem to think there is a cabal of pro-circumcision fanatic out there, fabricating pro-circumcision studies. There is no such cabal.
Perhaps there are merely some health benefits AND downsides to the practice. Indeed, in reading, some doctors usggested that uncircumcised men over 40 suffered statistically significant increase in several disorders and infections -- I apologise I do not recall; lest I am accused of having done a bit of investigation and being obsessed myself, I will leave that to another time.
But bullying people, calling them barbarians and savages etc. will not help the cause. And now that I have been thinking about it since the last post, I don't think many men would like to have someone refer to their glans penis as a 'dried husk' as one particularly 'engaged' advocate did... and in fact I am sure this will win over few souls and foreskins.