Letters to the Editor
Ms. Anthropia
Published Letters: 71 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Pathologising support for human rights?
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gams on Glass seems to like pathologise those who are unhappy with their circumcision or who work to discourage the practice. It is easier to avoid contemplation of moral issues by denigrating those who raise them.
"Actually, you display your own ignorance. People suffering from body dysmorphia of body integrity disorder of the kind in which they might be harm to themselves would almost certainly be treated by a psychiatrist, which, if you are not aware, is an MD."
You are factually incorrect. Gender dysphoria is rarely treated in terms of non-surgical aspects by psychiatrists, but rather by psychologists. There is no recognised psychiatric treatment for gender dysphoria or body dysmorphia to the best of my knowledge. I fully support the right of adults to modify their body as they see fit by the way.
"No, I am encouraging people to inform themselves NOT based upon the insane rantings of a cult-like fanaticism.
Are Europeans and Japanese cult-like fanatics for retaining their foreskins when they have every medical opportunity to do otherwise? The information anti-circumcision groups present ranges from personal accounts to peer-reviewed medical research, is that "insane rantings"?
"Radical extremism exists in even the most educated of people."
"In fact, it is your own radical self-assuredness that likens to religious freaks."
Abolitionists were decried as fanatics, so were suffragettes, so were civil rights advocates, so were consumer advocates, so are LGBT advocates, so are...
Self-assuredness in extending human rights to others is never a fault.
"I would suggest that 'missing' a body part you have no recollection of having and which has no impact on sexual health , to the point of obsession is of questionable logical merit and in fact may show deeper emotional issues, which had been projected to this particular matter."
So if I cut off a new born's arm it would not matter because it would be a body part they would possess "no recollection of having"?
No impact on sexual health?
The dried-out (cornified) epidermis of a circumcised glans is going to perform the same as a moist, protected glans of a man in his natural state of bodily integrity? The issue is not merely the ability to orgasm but the mechanics involved. I know from personal experience that there is without question a difference in sexual function. More importantly medical studies on sexual function and the role of the foreskin demonstrate the effect on sexual function.
"to restore a think sheath of skin of minimal, if any, biological need."
The only way any of your arguments stand is by denigrating and ignoring the importance of the foreskin isn't it. If you acknowledged its importance you would have to accept the profound moral issues at stake. Instead people like you talk about pierced ears and decry us as being cultists in order to rationalise your moral blindness. Again just like people who though abolitionists, suffragettes, etc. were too loud, too in your face, etc.
"I probably would not have my son circumcised, frankly. You people can't see how crazy you act, nor how deterministic and fascistic you are."
Defending the bodily integrity of a child from unnecessary surgical amputation of part of its genitalia is "fascistic"? So all of the people against female genital mutilation are fascists too by your definition?
Wow, you speak of pathologies, but your blind hatred towards activists begs a lot of questions.
-
GoG, you are either ignorant or fundamenetally dishonest
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The glans penis is NOT 'huskified' and I say from personal experience" -- Gams on Glass
A) So you are admitting to sexual contact with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, right? I have seen both up-close and there is a night and day difference.
B) The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) issued this quote in 2007: "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified,..."
They go on to cite studies for and against, but here is a group of your American doctors explicitly stating what you just denied. I used the term "cornified" myself earlier which you either from ignorance, carelessness or childishness replaced with "huskified" in your claim. In either case even doctors tasking a non-commital position cannot deny such a basic, observable medical fact.
"sexual functioning is NOT hampered, hindered, or helped, for that matter, by circumcision." -- Gams on Glass
The mechanics of masturbation are significantly affected by lack of natural lubrication and actions of the foreskin over the glans. This translates to sexual interaction as well in the opinion of many researchers. Again you are just avoiding what are effectively objective facts which refute your position.
I am not saying a circumcised man cannot masturbate, orgasm, enjoy sex, etc. but the body has been fundamentally changed. To deny that fact (and it is a fact) is immature and dishonest.