Don't Lose Your Son Over It
Art Boy
Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
foul mood all day.
I had The Talk about circumcision and restoration with my mother a
few weeks ago. Mothers Day seems like a perfectly inappropriate
occasion to post the results.
Joining mom and me around the dining table were my sister and her
husband. The nieces were away.
The meeting went nothing like I expected. I expected mom to become
emotional. She did not. I expected brother-in-law to defend
religious mutilation. He did not. I expected my sister to
understand. She did not. After a couple hours she was still asking
why I don't just get over it.
My objective for the meeting was to learn what could possibly go on
in a parent's head when she says "yes."
"If it is a boy, shall we amputate traumatically a chunk of his
penis?" "Yes." Maybe mom could make me understand.
Unfortunately, the only thing I learned was the one thing I did not
want to know. She really did say "yes." I hoped she would tell me
"No, I did not authorize your surgery. They just took you away and
did you." But she confessed. She did not try to cover or make
excuses. She was the one who taught me "I don't want to hear your
excuses; I just want results." How ironic.
She did not apologize either.
After a couple hours of lecturing on the normal sexual function and
its loss to circumcision – about which I just learned at 41 – it was
my turn to ask some questions. The questions were not puff balls.
They were pointed but reasonable – designed to force a person to
think before answering.
But my sister was Hell-bent on shielding mom from any uncomfortable
questions. She objected. She prevented mom from answering. She
answered for her. She made sure I learned nothing.
Since December 1997 I have been under restoration using the T-tape
and tension method. The most interesting part of the evening was
when my sister accepted my offer to show her the patient taped and
tugged. She opined that it looked painful.
I used to have a close relationship with my mother. Now it gives me
a sick feeling in my gut just to think about her.
Everybody else is in such a rush to forgive their parents for
lopping off their sex organs. I don't get it. Somebody said "Yes. I
approve. Chop it off." Somebody shut down her sense of reason
and ignored everything else she knew about the world to make it
happen. Somebody is responsible.
"But they didn't know..." begins the standard excuse. "They didn't
think..." begins my standard response. They didn't question. They
didn't evaluate. They certainly didn't consider me.
At best, my mother acted negligently. The decision she inflicted on
me so permanently was never her decision to make, and there was no
urgency to make it. It was a decision that I never would have made
for myself, my child, or my dog. It was a decision that her intact
husband – my father – never made for himself.
It was a decision that has cost my mother the trust, the respect,
and the friendship of her son. Don't make the same decision.
Have happy Mothers Days.
----------
Art Boy
Sexual abuse begins with circumcision.
Remove the .spam.
sue_f.
In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
>
>Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
>foul mood all day.
Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
David & Colette
Sue, F. wrote:
>
> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
> >
> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
> >foul mood all day.
>
> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
Some people like to research subjects in depth. It's wholly appropriate
for expencant mothers of boys who want to fully understand how some
circumcised men feel about circumcism.
I think that some might also benefit from reading the page of adult
males who elected for no medical reasons whatsoever to be circumcised.
Many were very happy they did it. My impression, based on the
non-clinical/erotic natured photos (most of the penises were erect, many
with rings in them; the only intact penises were either flaccid or
bruised from the local shots (I think), is that there are those who have
a fetished for circ'd penises. Many were "truly happy for the first
time" (paraphrase) according to their testimonials. Fine. At least they
were able to choose for themselves.
I also highly recommend Babies Remember Pain by David B. Chamberlain Ph.
D. on the web at http://www.net-connect.net:80/~jspeyrer/babies.htm not
just for circ, but just for general reading.
You had the option of not reading it. I pretty much figured what it was
about by the thread name.
It was a very thoughful post. Thank you for posting it, Art!
--
Due to the legal conditions in my state (Illinois) I feel compelled to
state that this post is simply for informational purposes and/or to
relay my personal experience. It is not to be construed as a diagnosis
or suggestion of treatment.
Please visit the Illinois Midwives Homepage for further information as
to why I say this please visit
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510">The Illinois Midwives
Homepage</a>
Colette (mom to 2 beautiful homebirthed children,3 year old Amy)
(and one year old Jake) <--who's running and climbing, yikes!
"Nature can provide for the needs of people; [she] can't provide for
the greeds of people." - Mohandas K. Gandhi
*** mailto:lnrp...@ripco.com ***
Monika McMahan
First, let me say that I am responding to you as a 51 y.o. circed
man who has chosen NOT to circ his son (or any future sons).
Art Boy wrote:
...
> I had The Talk about circumcision and restoration with my mother a
> few weeks ago. Mothers Day seems like a perfectly inappropriate
> occasion to post the results.
Inappropriate?!? I think you got that right!
> My objective for the meeting was to learn what could possibly go on
> in a parent's head when she says "yes."
Now why in hell would you want to do that? Was it your objective to
PUNISH your mother for doing what the medical community told her was
in your best interest 40 years ago. Have you ever heard of forgiving
people for making mistakes, particularly when they are trying to help
you. Or do you just have a mean vindictive streak?
> Since December 1997 I have been under restoration using the T-tape
> and tension method.
Well, it sounds to me they missed the part that really needed the
restoration by about 3 feet!
> "But they didn't know..." begins the standard excuse. "They didn't
> think..." begins my standard response. They didn't question. They
> didn't evaluate. They certainly didn't consider me.
Stupid lie! They (she) did consider you! She listened to the best
experts available. She did what the experts told her was in your
best interest. THEY lied. She was duped. She f***ed up. Get over
it!
>
> At best, my mother acted negligently.
NO! She exercised what is called in the legal world "due diligence."
The fact that she was lied to does not diminish her efforts. You are
cruel!
> It was a decision that has cost my mother the trust, the respect,
> and the friendship of her son.
That's your decision, but it is a stupid and cruel one.
> Art Boy
The best thing you could do would be to simply decide NOT to circ any
male children you ever have. It is quite unproductive for you to
continue to blame your mother for errors of the past. I would hate to
be her, and bear the burden of having to live with a son like you!
Larry, posting from Monika's account
PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
to the very cause you claim to espouse.
Jared and Debra Richardson
Larry, I LOVE your posts! And I agree with this one wholeheartedly (even if
our circ views differ)!
I have YET to see one post on "Just The Facts." I don't give a lot of
consideration to the emotional side of circ. I want to know *medically* why
it should or should not be done. Primarily, I want good health for my son
(if I have a boy). Sexual pleasure for him is important to me too, but I
know that sexual pleasure is not a problem either way (since my husband is
circ'd) and will not compromise good health for increased sexual pleasure.
After reading the Report from the Task Force on Circumcision by the AAP
(http://www.aap.org/policy/02624.html) I still think that it's safest to
circ. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but that's my take on it.
For the record, I never read any of the circ info on mkp (nor did I see a
need to research it elsewhere) prior to e-mail correspondence with Larry
because I got tired of the bickering in the circ threads. It was Larry that
brought to my attention a level-headed, facts-oriented reason for
researching it further. If more you who believe in the non-circ cause would
present it in a level-headed, non-emotional way, perhaps more expectant
mothers would take you seriously!
I also feel sorry for your mother, Art Boy. Give her a break. She made the
best decision she knew how to make. Get a counsellor ... get some help!
Debra
Monika McMahan wrote in message <35566262...@home.net>...
Zardoz Greybeard
Sue, F. wrote:
> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
> >
> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
> >foul mood all day.
>
> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
The subject of this group is pregnancy, baby and child care. Genital
mutilation of newborn boys/men is "part" of being born according to the
most common practice in the US. Information on the long term psychological
and relationship results between a mom and her son that may result from
infant genital mutilation is exactly on topic for this group. The decision
to mutilation the boy/man is most commonly done as part of the delivery
process in the US. Infant bonding with mom is disrupted immedialty. The
anger and separation from mom continues for a lifetime. Being pregnant and
delivering a child is a big responsibility with lots of decision. Some
knowledge of the long term results of possible decisions, which Art Boy's
mom made 40 years ago, may be relevant to moms who will be asked to make
the same decision tomorrow.
This group is about pregnancy, delivery, and young child care. That is the
subject of Art Boy's post.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
MGM really has to stop.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
Monika McMahan wrote:
> Stupid lie! They (she) did consider you! She listened to the best
> experts available. She did what the experts told her was in your
> best interest. THEY lied. She was duped. She f***ed up. Get over
> it!
"Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
insensitive can you get?
Sexual violence hurts for a lifetime when you suffer PERMANENT physical
damage.
> NO! She exercised what is called in the legal world "due diligence."
> The fact that she was lied to does not diminish her efforts. You are
> cruel!
Mutilating a child is CRUEL! Spilling the blood of your child is CRUEL!
Maiming your child is CRUEL! How long will it take for moms to learn what
should be so obvious?
If you don't want to read how much and how long men hurt from the cruel and
insensitive barbarity of MGM then skip the thread.
> PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
> of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
> them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
> to the very cause you claim to espouse.
You certainly are mean and vindictive. "Get over it" indeed??????
It's wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
MGM really has to end.
Zardoz Greybeard
Michael David Jones
Zardoz Greybeard <zar...@oldways.org> writes:
>This group is about pregnancy, delivery, and young child care. That is the
>subject of Art Boy's post.
I'm a 38 year old circumcised man, and I didn't have my son
circumcised. I don't think circumcision is right.
That said, the subject of Art Boy's post was an extended whine. He
doesn't need Usenet, he needs therapy.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
A married man has so many responsibilities that he doesn't have time
to be an accomplished Scrabble player.
- Ed Andy
Nancy C Reynolds
Why is it that men who are upset over having been circumcised seem to
focus their anger on their mothers and not on their fathers? I can
understand, to some extent, being angry at both parents or at the father
who has a penis and should theoretically have a better understanding, but
why single out mothers? This puzzles me.
--Nancy Reynolds
Please post your explanation. Please do NOT send email to me on this
topic.
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
Zardoz Greybeard wrote: >>snipped a bunch of stuff<<
> Mutilating a child is CRUEL! Spilling the blood of your child is CRUEL!
> Maiming your child is CRUEL! How long will it take for moms to learn what
> should be so obvious?
>
Ummm....Hello? When will "MOMS" (emphasis mine) learn?? Aren't there
TWO parents involved? In most families I know, whether the boys were
circed or left intact, it was the DAD who made the decision. My friend
has an intact husband, and two intact sons. It was DAD who made the
call to leave them that way. I have another friend with a circed
husband. Their son is circed. DAD's choice. Another friend's circed
husband decided to leave their son intact. In our family (dad is
circed) we have one of each. DAD decided to have the first one circed,
but we did more research the second time, and decided to leave our
second son intact. My feelings, and those of most of my female friends,
is that as I'm not the one who has a penis, I'm not the one in the best
position to make that decision. In any case, it seems to me that hating
one's mother about one's circ status is rather a flimsy way to
rationalize being angry at women. Unless you were born to a single
mother, she's not the only one who made the decision. It's also rather
pointless to harbor hatred and bitterness over something about which you
have no control, nor any ability to change. Go ahead, be angry about
it. Crusade to prevent it from happening to other infants if you must.
But such bitterness as I saw in Art Boy's post isn't likely to
accomplish much of anything except giving him an ulcer.
Phan-- mom to Keith (4) and Jack (3mo)
Zardoz Greybeard
Nancy C Reynolds wrote:
> Why is it that men who are upset over having been circumcised seem to
> focus their anger on their mothers and not on their fathers? I can
> understand, to some extent, being angry at both parents or at the father
> who has a penis and should theoretically have a better understanding, but
> why single out mothers? This puzzles me.
Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who actually made the
decision?
Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who signed her name?
In my family, including sisters and aunts, it has always been moms who
decided.
In several US states it is only moms who get the paperwork to sign. When you
sign your name you get the blame.
Yes, it would be good if fathers would take a more active part in preventing
MGM.
Hurting a child is wrong -- even if it is a boy. MGM really has to stop!
Zardoz Greybeard
Hamilton
In article <6j5bag$q...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sue F. wrote:
> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
> >
> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
> >foul mood all day.
>
> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
You bet. If my son is whining about his wee wee at 41 and nursing
old grudges, I'd just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day
to 'share his feelings'. Do the words 'grow up' come to you when
you read this?
k
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
Information on the long term psychological
and relationship results between a mom and her son that may result from
infant genital mutilation is exactly on topic for this group.
Mr. Zardoz,
What about your Dad? Maybe you should be mad at dear old Dad this Father's
Day too? Wouldn't want to leave anyone out of the equation. Why is it just
Mom's fault? Circumcision was invented by males and carried out mostly by
male Doctors and patriarchal religions and cultures. Why should Mom get all
the blame for it? Where was Dad during this whole process that he gets
absolved by you?
Parents don't make these choices in a vacuum. They make choices based on the
best knowledge and understanding they have at the time. Sometimes they get
this information from sources they trust, such as doctors. Sometimes they
later learn things that in hindsight that make them question whether or not
they were the best choices and it is worrisome for them to discover this
just as it has been for you. Did you just wake up one day and decide to hate
being circumcised? If you really gave it some thought, you'd realize that
actually your Mom (and don't forget Dad too) were actually victims too.
We're all victims of our upbringing and culture.
In any case, how about just a little perspective on the issue? Plenty of
women have had unnecessary c-sections and episiotomies like have been
discussed in this NG. Of course we should try and change these things but
these women's lives and their children's are not ruined because they entered
this world through medical interventions.
Some medical interventions are necessary. What about all the preemies in
incubators being poked and prodded?
I wonder if you have you heard some of the people who are extreme advocates
of natural childbirth who make incredibly similar arguments as the
vehemently anti-circers which is to say also that any child delivered by
c-section is somehow flawed and emotionally crippled. They too claim that
the trauma of childbirth through artificial means robs mothers and their
children of a normal life. The tenor of their lament is quite similar to
yours. I view their claims with the same skepticism as I do the the comments
by anti-circers that circumcised males are sexual cripples. Based on
personal experience, I just don't buy it!
M&D
M&D
(snip)
Larry, posting from Monika's account:
PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
to the very cause you claim to espouse.
I too have come to the conclusion that circumcision is an unnecessary
intervention but it has been IN SPITE of a the anti-circers not because of
them. Your whole post was brilliant and it's a point I have been struggling
to make for some time. Do they think that we are going to be convinced by
people who have bought into the extreme thinking that that Mom and Dad got a
cheap sexual thrill out of their circumcision? And they wonder why most
people think they're bonkers.
M&D
M&D
Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
"Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
insensitive can you get?
Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
M&D
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who actually made the
decision?
Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who signed her name?
Like Dad couldn't have given it some thought before Mom even went to the
hospital. If Dad thought circ was so wrong he could have made his wishes
known to Mom and Doc. He has a mouth he could have spoken up. He obviously
didn't think it was worth the effort to think about it so that let's him off
the hook in your mind?
M&D
David & Colette
I couldn't disagree more with this! Just because something is legal
doesn't mean it's right. Conversely, just because something is illegal,
doesn't mean it's wrong.
It used to be, in effect, (judicial interpretation or lack of
prosecution) legal for husbands to rape their wives.
Since many laws are passed just for the betterment of special interest
groups, I find law has little place in many rational discussions.
M&D
M&D wrote:
>
> Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
> "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
> insensitive can you get?
> -------------
> Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
> difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
David & Collette wrote:
I couldn't disagree more with this! Just because something is legal
doesn't mean it's right. Conversely, just because something is illegal,
doesn't mean it's wrong.
------
Intentions DO matter. (They EVEN matter where something illegal is concerned
such as murder, hence 1st and 2nd degree murder). Zardoz's mother was given
advice by her doctor to do something she didn't invent out of her own
imagination. The fact that there is some question as to whether it is wrong
or right has not been settled in a legal sense therefore there are plenty of
well meaning people who think it's NOT wrong.
As opposed to RAPE which is clearly illegal and also not done with the
victim's best interests in mind. Zardoz's mother was operating as a law
abiding citizen when she took her doctor's advice as to what was considered
in the best interests of her child at that time. I think the difference
should be obvious as to the culpability he places at her feet.
M&D
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> I wonder if you have you heard some of the people who are extreme advocates
> of natural childbirth who make incredibly similar arguments as the
> vehemently anti-circers which is to say also that any child delivered by
> c-section is somehow flawed and emotionally crippled.
MGM victims are PHYSICALLY crippled, not just emotionally crippled. That is the
point of MGM, to cripple the boy/man's genitals to prevent him from EVER
experiencing normal sexual feeling. MGM is the act of cutting off the most
sensitive part of the boy/man's genitals. It is decidedly different from
c-sections in that there is no medical reason and it deliberately cripples the
boy/man FOR LIFE. MGM victims are not "somehow...crippled." They are
DELIBERATELY physically crippled.
The comparison with unneeded c-sections is valid in that it is another example
of doctors abusing parents for selfish profits.
> They too claim that
> the trauma of childbirth through artificial means robs mothers and their
> children of a normal life.
Most babies born by c-section are still healthy normal children. Boys crippled
by MGM are no longer healthy normal children. They have been deliberately
mutilated.
> The tenor of their lament is quite similar to
> yours. I view their claims with the same skepticism as I do the the comments
> by anti-circers that circumcised males are sexual cripples.
No doubt about your views. There are many in this culture who discount any pain
that happens to boys/men. Depriving boys/men of normal sexual feelings is
considered "beneficial" by many. But hacking off part of a boy/man's genitals
does result in a permanent physical loss of an important sexual body function, a
"sexual cripple" is not an unreasonable way to describe it. If someone hacked
the legs off of a child you would acknowledge that they are crippled. If someone
hacked up a girl's genitals you probably would acknowledge her as a sexual
cripple. Men who complain about hacking off sexual parts from a boy/man gets
only your scorn. It is a pretty dismal world.
> Based on
> personal experience, I just don't buy it!
Personal experience with c-sections or MGM? Probably not personal experience
with both.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
> "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
> insensitive can you get?
> -------------
> Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
> difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
Yes, it's illegal to hurt girls or women. It's considered OK to hurt
boys and men by many in this culture. Quite prejudice don't you
think. It's also illegal to mutilate the genitals of a girl, but not
illegal to mutilate the genitals of a boy. Boys deserve equal
protection under the law, but are a long way from getting it. It is
really hard to conduct a rational discussion with that much prejudice to
contend with.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy. MGM really has to stop.
Zardoz Greybeard
Hutch White
You would think that by the age of 41 you wouldn't be so self absorbed.
Christ's sake get over it and get a life. Only a fool would wreck his
family over a 41 year old operation.
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> The fact that there is some question as to whether it is wrong
> or right has not been settled in a legal sense therefore there are plenty of
> well meaning people who think it's NOT wrong.
As opposed to slavery which was legal in the US for centuries? It was OK to own
slaves because it was legal?
The question of slavery had "been settled" a couple of centuries, because it was
legal. Well meaning people bought and sold property and were entitled to their
opinions. Plenty of people thought slavery was "NOT wrong." Sheeeesh!
Being legal does not make it right. It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
Why do you have such difficulty with that concept?
Zardoz Greybeard
Hutch White wrote:
He'll probably get over it when the wound heals. His body is still missing
a functional part. It's hard to "get over it" when part of you is
missing. No matter how many times you look, it's still gone, and what's
left doesn't work as well.
Only a fool would wreck her family by hacking up her child's body.
Families do not end when the baby goes home from the hospital. Decisions
that are made will last the rest of the child's life. It is a parent's
responsibility to protect the child from permanent harm. Cutting a child
in two parts and tossing the smaller part in the garbage makes a life long
difference to the boy/man, and to his family. He will not "get over it" as
he would a wound that heals. The part that is gone will NEVER grow back.
Calling on your deity won't help, it's still gone.
It is so foolish to think that one can chop off part of their boy and he
will not notice that his life is still changed 41 years later. That is the
real tragedy of MGM, the life long deprivation of the boy/man of his normal
sexual function. Long after the blood has dried, 41 years later, he is
still missing an important part of his body. He will "get over it" when it
grows back.
Only a fool would wreck her family by hacking up her child's body.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy. MGM really has to stop.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> > Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
> > "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
> > insensitive can you get?
> As opposed to RAPE which is clearly illegal and also not done with the
> victim's best interests in mind. Zardoz's mother was operating as a law
> abiding citizen when she took her doctor's advice as to what was considered
> in the best interests of her child at that time. I think the difference
> should be obvious as to the culpability he places at her feet.
I don't recall ever mentioning the reasons my mother gave for mutilating her
children.
Intentions? If you read any textbooks on child abuse or child sexual abuse you
learn that one of the most common excuses is, "I did it for her/his own good."
Sound familiar? Lots of rapists, especially child rapists actually believe this
excuse, its in the textbooks. And, unlike genital mutilation, rape usually does
not cause permanent physical damage such that the victim can never again
physically enjoy normal sex. "For their own good"? It's the most common excuse
for child abuse. Give us a break!
Another most common excuse is "It's a parent's choice. Mind your own business."
Sound familiar?
From personal experience, being a parent and being pressured by the doctors and
nurses who wanted to mutilate my children, I know first hand how easy it is to
let them have their way. There are lots of excuses available, and it doesn't
cost anything, insurance pays the cost. But from a loving parent's experience I
also know that I could find no excuse that would justify hacking off a normal
natural part of my child no matter what "they" said.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy!
MGM must stop!
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
Art Boy wrote:
> Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
> foul mood all day.
>
> I had The Talk about circumcision and restoration with my mother a
> few weeks ago. Mothers Day seems like a perfectly inappropriate
> occasion to post the results.
>
> Joining mom and me around the dining table were my sister and her
> husband. The nieces were away.
>
> The meeting went nothing like I expected. I expected mom to become
> emotional. She did not. I expected brother-in-law to defend
> religious mutilation. He did not. I expected my sister to
> understand. She did not. After a couple hours she was still asking
> why I don't just get over it.
Thanks for sharing your story. It is sad that so few young moms can
understand the long term effects of today's decisions. Making body
altering mutilations to a boy's body is still causing harm 41 years
later, when mom would like to think it is ancient history. It is so sad
that doctors don't think about the permanent harm they do.
Thanks for sharing your story.
Zardoz Greybeard
You are right that dad's do need to take a more active part. It has been the practice for most of history to relegate childbirth and the surrounding activities to women. Fathers were barred from hospital labor rooms and recovery rooms until quite recently. Even today most men get very little information on the whole process and many women still exclude the father from what's going on. In some places like California, for instance, unmarried moms account 50% or more of children. When men tell our stories on newsgroups such as this, we are told, "Christ's sake get over it and get a life." We are called other names as well. Lots of moms still seem to think that men shouldn't be involved.
Through the eyes of a newborn mom is the whole world. Whatever happens to the baby, pleasure or pain, cuddling or severe trauma, love or anger, from his very limited perspective mom is responsible no matter who is actually responsible. But, I agree that dads do need to be much more involved.
Like I said in my previous post:
Yes, it would be good if fathers would take a more active part in preventing MGM.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
M&D
Personal experience with c-sections or MGM? Probably not personal
experience
with both.
Zardoz Greybeard
There are 2 issues at play:
1. loss/trauma
2. blame.
I can't argue with loss or trauma as it's subjective. What's not worth
thinking about to my circ'd husband is cause for major trauma to you. I'm
quite sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise so I won't bother
regaling you my personal experiences as your mind's already made up.
On this issue of blame. Life's not fair but there isn't always someone to
blame. Assume 2 people are dead. One is murdered and the other died in a car
crash. In the case of a murder there is someone to hold accountable perhaps
for a long jail term. In the other there no one to blame as it happened due
to bad weather. The victims are just as dead to the familys but no one is
going to go to jail for it. You might try viewing your mother in a different
light.
M&D
Zardoz Greybeard
Elfanie wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:50:56 -0600, Zardoz Greybeard
> <zar...@oldways.org> wrote:
>
> >Sue, F. wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
> >> >
> >> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
> >> >foul mood all day.
> >>
> >> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
> >> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
> >
> >The subject of this group is pregnancy, baby and child care.
>
> Ummm....no.
> the subject of this group is pregnancy and childbirth. Not baby and
> childcare...that goes into misc.kids
Hi Elfanie,
This concern has been raised several times before. You are probably new
around here and missed it. The m.k.p charter has been posted before and is
probably available on-line if someone will be so kind as to post the URL. Care
of newborn and young children is on topic for this newsgroup, including
"routine" genital mutilation, car seats and breast feeding. But, don't take
my word for it, go read the charter.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
Hamilton wrote:
> You bet. If my son is whining about his wee wee at 41 and nursing
> old grudges, I'd just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day
> to 'share his feelings'.
I don't doubt that at all. If your son still has a *permanently* mutilated
"wee wee" at whatever age, and if you were responsible, it is not surprising
that you wouldn't want to know how he feels about it.
But, the "old grudges" are not so old when the loss is felt every day, and
the harm is renewed every day. At age 41 most men would like to enjoy
normal sexual feelings, but those with mutilated "wee wees" still can't --
yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
> Do the words 'grow up' come to you when
> you read this?
No, they don't. When I read such insensitive responses I just see sexist
disregard for harm that's done to men, and disregard for the feelings and
losses of men.
Much of the losses inflicted on boys/men by MGM do not actually become losses
until the boy does grow up and wants to feel the normal sexual feelings as a
man. By then mom would "just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day to
'share his feelings'." Somehow moms seem to think of babies as little
children and have a hard time thinking that they are creating someone who
will spend most of his life as a grown man. Physical damage, mutilation,
done to a baby is felt every day by the man he will become.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
When the hurt done to a child causes permanent physical loss, the hurt will
still hurt 41 years later.
David & Colette
M&D wrote:
>
> M&D wrote:
> >
> > Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
> > "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
> > insensitive can you get?
> > Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
> > difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
>
> I couldn't disagree more with this! Just because something is legal
> doesn't mean it's right. Conversely, just because something is illegal,
> doesn't mean it's wrong.
> ------
> Intentions DO matter. (They EVEN matter where something illegal is concerned
> such as murder, hence 1st and 2nd degree murder). Zardoz's mother was given
> advice by her doctor to do something she didn't invent out of her own
> or right has not been settled in a legal sense therefore there are plenty of
> well meaning people who think it's NOT wrong.
>
> victim's best interests in mind. Zardoz's mother was operating as a law
> abiding citizen when she took her doctor's advice as to what was considered
> in the best interests of her child at that time. I think the difference
People used to beat their children's bare butts with fresh switches
until welts appeared. It was even common to humiliate the child by
forcing him him or her to cut the very switch herself. It was perfectly
legal at the time. So, the intent was even though to be bilblically
rooted ala "spare the rod."
Still doesn't make it okay.
There are many atrocious things that are legal. Look at toxic waste for
example. I for one, don't think the benefits outweigh the risks of the
huge amounts of toxic substances that we are using to poisen out
planets.
It's still legal in some Asian countries to use DDT and other now
outlawed substances here, and barefooted farmes spray it by hand in rice
patties, because there are no regulations.
I'm not saying more laws are necessary, because in many cases they don't
even do much good and often end up causing harm. My point is that I
don't use legality (or lack thereof) in constructing my morals and
ethical code.
--
Colette, mom to 2 beautiful homebirthed children
The remarkable 3.5 year old Amy <-- who can turn a phrase like
nobody's business,
and the magnificent 17 month old Jake <--who started talking in
sentences!
*** for email please replace bamph with ripco ***
Due to the overly repressive Medical Practice Act of the state of
Illinois, which is being used to wrongly persecute Certified
Professional Midwives, I feel compelled to state that this post is
simply for informational purposes and/or to relay my personal
experience. It is not to be construed as a diagnosis or suggestion of
treatment.
Please visit the Illinois Midwives Homepage at
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510 for further information
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510">The Illinois Midwives
Homepage</a>
"They suspended an 8 year old boy for 10 days for wearing an earring. Is
it so inconceivable that they perceived John Lennon as such a threat as
to warrant some action?" - Dave ~~~ "Imagine no possessions." - John
Larry McMahan
Zardoz:
You seem, at time to have a hard time understanding the English
language. Maybe it will help if I shout: POST LIKE YOURS DO *NOT*
HELP REASONABLE PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND A RATIONAL REASON TO MAKE A
DECISION! THE SHRILL EMOTIONAL TONE MAKES PEOPLE DEFENSIVE AND
TURNS THEM OFF! You just don't get it.
Zardoz Greybeard (zar...@oldways.org) writes:
: Monika McMahan wrote:
: > Stupid lie! They (she) did consider you! She listened to the best
: > experts available. She did what the experts told her was in your
: > best interest. THEY lied. She was duped. She f***ed up. Get over
: > it!
: "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
: insensitive can you get?
Let's see, what's the difference. Lets see, the rapist had criminal
intent. How about his mother criminal intent? I don't think so.
I think piloring a woman for making an honest mistake is FAR WORSE
than the damage she inflicted. And you call me insensitive. You
are both cruel and stupid. I repeat: You do a disservice to the
cause you espouse. You will not convince anyone with your rhetoric.
I'll bet I've actually convinced more people not to circ than YOU!
: Sexual violence hurts for a lifetime when you suffer PERMANENT physical
: damage.
What is hurting you more than the physical damage you suffered, is the
anger that you are harboring over the incident. I will promise you two
things: If you were to drop your anger, two things would happen.
1. A great pain would be lifted from your heart, and you would be
able to live your life with much more joy.
2. You would become a more eloquent spokesman for advocating
non-circ, because you would be able to understand and respond
to doubters points of view.
: > NO! She exercised what is called in the legal world "due diligence."
: > The fact that she was lied to does not diminish her efforts. You are
: > cruel!
: Mutilating a child is CRUEL! Spilling the blood of your child is CRUEL!
: Maiming your child is CRUEL! How long will it take for moms to learn what
: should be so obvious?
How many will learn from your shrill emotional rhetoric, because how many
will listen?
I will tell you a little store about my birth. I was circed, yes. I was
also delivered with forceps. The forceps slipped, cutting my lip through
to the bone, stuck me in the eye,and mashed my nose. Today I can see
mostly out of one eye (I don't have 3D vision like most people) and I
have sinus troubles on the right side so I have to sleep on my left side
if I want to breathe.
I could be bitter about being circed. I could be bitter about being maimed
by the drunk doctor who stuck the forceps in my face. Would it make my
quality of life better? I don't think so. This is what you are missing.
: If you don't want to read how much and how long men hurt from the cruel and
: insensitive barbarity of MGM then skip the thread.
Or if you don't need to know that there people who would rather hang on
to their anger and suffer through life, than to experience any joy.
: > PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
: > of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
: > them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
: > to the very cause you claim to espouse.
: You certainly are mean and vindictive. "Get over it" indeed??????
When you start calling people names that support a cause you espouse
just because they will not buy into the anger and bitterness that you
display, then you have lost it. You have lost the ability to influence
people, and you have lost credibility as a person. Look at yourself,
boy, this is the place that you are in.
: It's wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
: MGM really has to end.
I am opposed to MGM, FGM, and a whole host of other evils. However,
you are not going reach people by spewing forth the vindicatve bitterness
you typically show on this newsgroup. I feel sorry for you because
you work against yourself. I feel sorry undecided parents who read
your posts, because your rhetoric turns them off from searching out
objective scientific evidence that could support your views.
: Zardoz Greybeard
Larry
Lahall2
Ok here is a womans point of view. Please don't e-mail me. I was seventeen
when I had my son.(yes I was married and yes I am educated) I did not knoww
that it could cause sexual damage. I didn't know that they do it with out
pain medication. I did what I thought was best. No I haven't researched the
circ pros and cons. My Dh has never complained about it. I hope that my son
doesn't hte me like art does his. Just a couple of questions to inform me.
1) what about what I have heard bout non-circ and penial cancer? 2) how do
you know that it has affected you sexually. I am not asking to be sacrcstic
i just want to know.
Angie(Nick 11yrs, Sarhea 6yrs, Kaitlynn(bugg)7mths)
Zardoz Greybeard
Lahall2 wrote:
> Ok here is a womans point of view. Please don't e-mail me. I was seventeen
> when I had my son.(yes I was married and yes I am educated) I did not knoww
> that it could cause sexual damage. I didn't know that they do it with out
> pain medication. I did what I thought was best. No I haven't researched the
> circ pros and cons. My Dh has never complained about it. I hope that my son
> doesn't hte me like art does his. Just a couple of questions to inform me.
I hope not too. What many men are trying to do today is to inform young moms
about the horrors that the medical business does to save the next generation of
little boys.
> 1) what about what I have heard bout non-circ and penial cancer?
The original "study" of cancer vs. genital mutilation was done by comparing
Jewish women with non-Jewish women, without considering that race, lifestyle,
etc., might be the real factor. It turned out that Jewish women have less
cervical cancer, but mostly because of their race, diet, and lifestyle.
Likewise for men there is less cancer if you have fewer body parts but penil
cancer is very rare. Deaths, etc., from routine mutilation approximate the
total number of possible reduction from cancer. The American Cancer Society
has written asking that cancer no longer be used as an excuse to mutilate
children. If anyone would know they would. The old excuses about reducing
cancer were disproved several decades ago but are still being tossed around to
excuse MGM when there are big dollar profits to be made hacking up children.
> 2) how do
> you know that it has affected you sexually. I am not asking to be sacrcstic
> i just want to know.
According to detailed anatomical studies of male anatomy, sexually Mutilated
men have lost the most sensitive part. The part that is cut off is the part
with the most sensitive kind of nerve endings. The remaining parts have nerve
endings but a different kind. A similar kind are found on finger tips. Try
feeling something with the back of your hand. Note that you can defniately
feel it. Then feel the same thing with your finger tips. Notice how much more
clearly your finger tips can feel, shape, softness, hardness, details of
texture that the back of your hand can't feel because it doesn't have the same
kind of most sensitive nerves. That difference is what men lose when our most
sensitive sexual nerves are removed. I have discussed normal male sexual
play, "foreplay for men" with other unmutilated men, and can learn
intellectually what they can do and feel that mutilated men can not. I learn
how the physical process of sex functions mechanically with all the parts, what
is described as a "gliding" motion. The loss of the most sensitive part is
something I know because I have read male anatomy. (Most people including
doctors in this culture have not.) Normal male sexual anatomy is treated like
a disease in medical schools, something to be excised, and the scientific study
of it has been avoided until quite recently. It has only been in the last few
years that anyone cared enough about men to even look in detail at male sexual
organs. Most just hacked them off and were done with it. Finally some are
paying attention and asking what is being done to so many millions of men.
With recent anatomical information, such as about the kind of nerve endings
that are being cut off, it ought to be clear to anyone that severe damage is
being done to male sexuality.
Every man who does not have his normal sexual parts is affected by the loss of
feelings and the mechanical loss of normal gliding motion. While most men in
the US have been mutilated and can not experience it directly, we can read
about normal male sexuality and learn from other men.
I hope this answers your questions.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
You seem, at time to have a hard time understanding the English
language. Maybe it will help if I shout: POST LIKE YOURS DO *NOT*
HELP REASONABLE PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND A RATIONAL REASON TO MAKE A
DECISION! THE SHRILL EMOTIONAL TONE MAKES PEOPLE DEFENSIVE AND
TURNS THEM OFF! You just don't get it.
Perhaps you might read the post by Michael on this thread. His opinion is certainly different. Oh well, to each their own opinion as long as they aren't hurting children. There is nothing "reasonable" or "rational" in mutilating children. People who mutilate children are not acting reasonable nor rational. It is wrong to hurt a child no matter what your excuse, and no matter how many times you shout about it.
Michael writes:
Nevertheless, I applaud you, and Don, and Grace, and the others who withstand insults and accusations on a daily basis for what you believe in. The slippery slope crowd may attack you and sling mud and insults, but rest assured you are reaching many people out there who thanks to what you guys post have questioned these practices and their indiscriminate use for the first time in their lives.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
MGM must be stopped.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> There are 2 issues at play:
>
> 1. loss/trauma
> 2. blame.
You left out responsibility, which is not the same as blame.
> On this issue of blame. Life's not fair but there isn't always someone to
> blame. Assume 2 people are dead. One is murdered and the other died in a car
> crash. In the case of a murder there is someone to hold accountable perhaps
> for a long jail term. In the other there no one to blame as it happened due
> to bad weather. The victims are just as dead to the familys but no one is
> going to go to jail for it. You might try viewing your mother in a different
> light.
The car crash is a good hypothetical example. When someone drives a car the
driver is responsible for the crash even if he/she didn't mean to kill anyone.
Maybe the driver didn't check the tires (defective equipment), or wasn't paying
attention, or skidded in the rain and snow, or just accidentally killed
someone. The driver is still guilty of negligent homicide or vehicular
homicide. The driver is *responsible* even when they aren't to blame. When
someone gets behind the wheel they accept responsibility for driving the car
safely. Likewise when someone births a child she accepts responsibility for
the care of that child. If the child is mutilated while in her care, because
she signed her name to accept responsibility, then she is responsible. The
victim of the car crash are just as dead no matter what the driver's intent, and
the boy/man is just as mutilated no matter what the mother's intent. It's not a
blame thing, it's responsibility.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
MGM really has to stop.
Zardoz Greybeard
Grace Boockholdt
In article ABE7...@oldways.org, Zardoz Greybeard <zar...@oldways.org> writes:
}Nancy C Reynolds wrote:
}> Why is it that men who are upset over having been circumcised seem to
}> focus their anger on their mothers and not on their fathers? I can
}> understand, to some extent, being angry at both parents or at the father
}> who has a penis and should theoretically have a better understanding, but
}> why single out mothers? This puzzles me.
}
}Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who actually made the
}decision?
}
}Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who signed her name?
}
}In my family, including sisters and aunts, it has always been moms who
}decided.
In most of the discussions I have had with pregnant mothers...
they left it to their husbands to "decide". They (the mothers)
merely signed the form based on THAT decision made by the
fathers.
}In several US states it is only moms who get the paperwork to sign. When you
}sign your name you get the blame.
I don't agree.
}Yes, it would be good if fathers would take a more active part in preventing
}MGM.
Most of them HAVE had an active part in making
the decision.
Grace Boockholdt
***Disclaimer: The views expressed hereinabove are mine alone and not
necessarily those of my employer. Fragile: Do not bend, fold, spindle or
mutilate. May be hazardous to your health. Not recommended for children.
Do not purchase if seal has been tampered with. Not responsible for direct,
indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect,
error or failure to perform. May be too intense for some viewers. Batteries not included. For recreational use. An equal opportunity employer. Some settling of contents may occur during shipping. Use only as directed. No
other warranty expressed or implied. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Slightly higher
in California. Keep away from fire or flame. Any rebroadcast, reproduction,
or other use of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Please keep your hands and arms inside the
car while ride is in motion. Any resemblance to real persons, living or
dead, is purely coincidental. Contestants have been briefed before the
show. Do not write below this line.*** :)
Grace Boockholdt
In article C...@world.std.com, na...@world.std.com (Nancy C Reynolds) writes:
}
}Why is it that men who are upset over having been circumcised seem to
}focus their anger on their mothers and not on their fathers? I can
}understand, to some extent, being angry at both parents or at the father
}who has a penis and should theoretically have a better understanding, but
}why single out mothers? This puzzles me.
Unfortunately, the mothers get the "blame" because it is
the mothers who sign the form. In my experience in talking
to hundreds of mothers who were pregnant at the time
a decision was made, it was the mothers who deferred the
decision to the Dad--"I left the decision to my husband--
after all--he has the penis so I figured he should know".
I believe in most cases, it is, in fact, the Dad who makes
the decision...but it is the mother who signs the form.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 11059812...@dial034.vanderbilt.edu, hami...@DNVN.com (Hamilton) writes:
}In article <6j5bag$q...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sue F. wrote:
}
}> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
}> >
}> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
}> >foul mood all day.
}>
}> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
}> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
}
}
}old grudges, I'd just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day
}you read this?
Do the words "understanding and compassion" not come
to you when you hear of someone else's pain? I take it,
then, that you feel the same way towards a small but growing
number of adult women in countries that believe in FGM who
are also angry about being genitally altered? They are, after
all, someone's adult daughters?
Grace Boockholdt
In article 3AA7...@home.net, Monika McMahan <mmcm...@home.net> writes:
}First, let me say that I am responding to you as a 51 y.o. circed
}man who has chosen NOT to circ his son (or any future sons).
}
}Art Boy wrote:
}....
}> I had The Talk about circumcision and restoration with my mother a
}> few weeks ago. Mothers Day seems like a perfectly inappropriate
}> occasion to post the results.
}
}Inappropriate?!? I think you got that right!
And Art Boy thinks his circumcision was perfectly
inappropriate. His feelings are real to him and valid
for him...regardless of whether or not you understand them.
}> My objective for the meeting was to learn what could possibly go on
}> in a parent's head when she says "yes."
}
}Now why in hell would you want to do that?
And what, pray tell, is wrong with trying to *understand*
someone's motivation?
}Was it your objective to
}PUNISH your mother for doing what the medical community told her was
}in your best interest 40 years ago. Have you ever heard of forgiving
}people for making mistakes, particularly when they are trying to help
}you. Or do you just have a mean vindictive streak?
Was this paragraph of yours an example of anything other
than a mean vindictive streak? Look--I understand you.
I, too, do not feel it is fair to punish parents of yesteryear
who were duped by the doctors or during the time when
"they" just handed you your son back *after* just doing
the procedure. BUT...there are two sides to consider
here. The decision made has and does affect the individual
upon whom the procedure was done. It is a *permanent*
alteration. The individual has every *right* to feel angry
about it. Others (the majority) have simply resigned to
"well, what's done is done, I don't remember having it
so no big deal". These people also have a right to feel
as they do. But regardless of the reaction...permanent
alteration of an individual's genitals has occurred. And
that person's feelings ARE valid--and should NOT be
discounted.
The individual male's feelings or future opinions were
not considered at birth...and now you come along and
outright discount his opinions and feelings about what
happened to HIM. The reason for his post was to prevent
this kind of loss between parent and child to happen
yet again. What is so hard to understand about that?
}> Since December 1997 I have been under restoration using the T-tape
}> and tension method.
}
}Well, it sounds to me they missed the part that really needed the
}restoration by about 3 feet!
So much for compassion, eh, Larry? You condemn Art
Boy for "punishing" his mother...and here you are punishing
him for feelings that are real to him.
}> "But they didn't know..." begins the standard excuse. "They didn't
}> think..." begins my standard response. They didn't question. They
}> didn't evaluate. They certainly didn't consider me.
}
}Stupid lie! They (she) did consider you! She listened to the best
}experts available. She did what the experts told her was in your
}best interest. THEY lied. She was duped. She f***ed up. Get over
}it!
And perhaps one of the ways for him to "get over it" is to
try and prevent another son from feeling as he does. Ever
think of that, Larry?
}> At best, my mother acted negligently.
}
}NO! She exercised what is called in the legal world "due diligence."
}The fact that she was lied to does not diminish her efforts. You are
}cruel!
As are you here in your judgment of Art Boy. As for her
being lied to...I agree with you.
}> It was a decision that has cost my mother the trust, the respect,
}> and the friendship of her son.
}
}That's your decision, but it is a stupid and cruel one.
Perhaps...but children...even adult children have lost
trust respect and friendship of their parents for far
less than permanently altering the genitals of their
children.
Just think about it, Larry--you are being just as cruel
to Art Boy...based on the *feelings* YOU have about his
story. And yet somehow it's ok for you to "punish"
him with your cruelty. But when Art Boy does the same
thing with his mother--that's "stupid and cruel". Pot...
Kettle...Black.
}> Art Boy
}
}The best thing you could do would be to simply decide NOT to circ any
}male children you ever have. It is quite unproductive for you to
}continue to blame your mother for errors of the past. I would hate to
}be her, and bear the burden of having to live with a son like you!
The best thing he could do is educate others as to possible
feelings a circ'd at birth male can have--so that other males
don't feel as he does; so that other mothers don't feel the
loss of their son's trust and respect.
}PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this.
It could be some other mother's son. Art Boy was circ'd
in an era where virtually all males were cut...so you'd think
"Hey...what's the big deal--everyone's cut?" And yet....he's
this angry. Already the circ rates are dropping nation-wide
and in the western states, the fact is that there are more
infants being left intact than cut. Now just how do you think
the cut boys will feel as they see more and more guys who
are whole?
}This is the kind
}of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
}them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
}to the very cause you claim to espouse.
Really? Interesting. I was originally pro-circ. I was originally
exactly like Art Boy's mother. I originally believed that circ
was "what was best for males". I originally thought that
circ was "part of the birthing process for infant males". As I
type this 12 years after first considering circumcision (when I
was 5 months pregnant with my first), I am disgusted by my
own complacency and naivete'. I was given a packet of information
about circumcision by my birthing instructor--who did not discuss
it in class but only said, "Please take the time to read this." I did.
The packet included all the medical facts. It also included
anectdotal information from circ'd men. Some were unhappy,
but resigned to "the fact" that what was done they can't do
anything about. Others were VERY angry. It it was precisely
these articles that *woke me up*. These are *individuals* who
have feelings and very real and valid feelings. They DESERVE
to be listened to. No one listened to their screams of objection
at the time of the cut...they DESERVE to be listened to NOW--
regardless of whether or not they are shouting their anger.
I thought, "My gawd...that could be this child I am carrying now."
Then I thought, "Now how would *I* feel if it happened to me?"
And I could feel the rage...and was *startled* by it. It is
*compassion FOR* others that made me KNOW that routine
infant circumcision was wrong. It was the anger of these
courageous *individuals* that made me *understand*.
Helen Arias
In article j...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com, "M&D" <M...@no.spam> writes:
>Zardoz wrote:
>Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who actually made the
>decision?
>Could it be that most of the time it was the mom who signed her name?
>Like Dad couldn't have given it some thought before Mom even went to the
>hospital.
But it's MOM who generally signs the consent form. I agree though, that
Dad should be held just as accountable.
If Dad thought circ was so wrong he could have made his wishes
>known to Mom and Doc. He has a mouth he could have spoken up. He obviously
>didn't think it was worth the effort to think about it so that let's him off
>the hook in your mind?
Good point.
H.
Helen Arias
In article 11059812...@dial034.vanderbilt.edu, hami...@DNVN.com (Hamilton) writes:
>In article <6j5bag$q...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sue F. wrote:
>
>> In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
>> >
>> >Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
>> >foul mood all day.
>>
>> Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
>> misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
>
>
>You bet. If my son is whining about his wee wee at 41 and nursing
>old grudges, I'd just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day
>to 'share his feelings'.
"wee wee"?
Do the words 'grow up' come to you when
>you read this?
Actually, yes they do.
H.
>
>
>
>
>
>k
Grace Boockholdt
}insensitive can you get?
}Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
}difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
Hmmmm. Did you notice that FGM is against the law and RIC
isn't? A difference worth noting in order to understand the inequity
between the sexes of our children.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 44...@visi.net, Edward and Phantom MacLennan <the8...@visi.net> writes:
}Zardoz Greybeard wrote: >>snipped a bunch of stuff<<
}> Mutilating a child is CRUEL! Spilling the blood of your child is CRUEL!
}> Maiming your child is CRUEL! How long will it take for moms to learn what
}> should be so obvious?
}>
}
}
}Ummm....Hello? When will "MOMS" (emphasis mine) learn?? Aren't there
}TWO parents involved? In most families I know, whether the boys were
}circed or left intact, it was the DAD who made the decision. My friend
}has an intact husband, and two intact sons. It was DAD who made the
}call to leave them that way. I have another friend with a circed
}husband. Their son is circed. DAD's choice. Another friend's circed
}husband decided to leave their son intact. In our family (dad is
}circed) we have one of each. DAD decided to have the first one circed,
}but we did more research the second time, and decided to leave our
}second son intact. My feelings, and those of most of my female friends,
}is that as I'm not the one who has a penis, I'm not the one in the best
}position to make that decision. In any case, it seems to me that hating
}one's mother about one's circ status is rather a flimsy way to
}rationalize being angry at women. Unless you were born to a single
}mother, she's not the only one who made the decision. It's also rather
}pointless to harbor hatred and bitterness over something about which you
}have no control, nor any ability to change. Go ahead, be angry about
}it. Crusade to prevent it from happening to other infants if you must.
}But such bitterness as I saw in Art Boy's post isn't likely to
}accomplish much of anything except giving him an ulcer.
I agree that in most cases, it is the Dad who actually
"makes the decision" and the mother signs the form.
As for Art Boy's bitter feelings...it may come from
believing in the "mother's instinct to protect her
child from harm" like a mother bear. If a child--
or even an adult believes this...and he feels that
the mother didn't "protect her young from harm",
I can understand the anger. I also agree with you
and Larry (and a few weeks ago, with Mary) that
40 years ago...the parents were only doing what
the medical profession was telling them was best.
The point is...we're talking about TODAY...NOW.
We know that routine infant circ is not necessary.
We know that RIC alters the normal function of
the penis and of sexuality. That cut males can
still function and enjoy sex is not at issue--the
point is whether or not unnecessary alteration
should occur on infants. We know that RIC is
a violation of an individual's right to choose.
We know that some males are very angry about
it...and more and more are coming forward saying
so. Now what? As Mary pointed out a few weeks
ago...the INTENT of these parents was to do what
was best--just like mothers taking Thalidamide
did not think that they were harming their children.
BUT...as I told Mary--now that we know these things...
why do we continue to do them?
Helen Arias
In article j...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com, "M&D" <M...@no.spam> writes:
>Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
>"Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
>insensitive can you get?
>-------------
>Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't?
And so, you determine what IS and ISN'T a valid emotion by
what is legal and what is not?
A
>difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
In order for a rational discussion to ensue, one should firmly
grasp the idea that emotions CAN run high when discussing the
violations against one's body.
Give it a try.
H.
Grace Boockholdt
}Larry, posting from Monika's account:
}PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
}of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
}them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
}to the very cause you claim to espouse.
}I too have come to the conclusion that circumcision is an unnecessary
}intervention but it has been IN SPITE of a the anti-circers not because of
}them. Your whole post was brilliant and it's a point I have been struggling
}to make for some time. Do they think that we are going to be convinced by
}people who have bought into the extreme thinking that that Mom and Dad got a
}cheap sexual thrill out of their circumcision? And they wonder why most
}people think they're bonkers.
Don't paint us all with that broad brush of yours.
I have never called a circing parent a child abuser or
mutilator or one who "got a cheap sexual thrill out
of" circumcising their sons.
Grace Boockholdt
In article q...@edrn.newsguy.com, Sue F. writes:
}In article <6j57tv$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Art says...
}>Today is Mothers Day. I will not be celebrating. I expect to be in a
}>foul mood all day.
}Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
}misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
His post was most definitely ON topic. Circumcision
IS part of this NG's charter.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 2930...@news.mci2000.com, th...@ddress.spam.blocked (Michael) writes:
}Dear Art Boy,
<deletion of very compassionate response to Art Boy
for brevity only.>
}I'll give you some examples of how I've coped with my outrage over
}being sexually mutilated at birth by a society that values mutilations
}highly (and not just mutilation of little boys, but mutilations of
}many other kinds). When I told my mom how I feel about my mutilation,
}she gave me all the "reasons" for circumcising boys that were are
}already so familiar with. The hole thing has absolutely no importance
}to her. My feelings about the whole situation don't matter to her.
}But then she also doesn't mind that she had episiotomies with each one
}of her births, even though that type of mutilation is also, like
}circumcision of newborns, too widely practiced in this country and
}usually unnecessary. She also went and got a hysterectomy the moment
}her doctor told her she needed one, even though the second doctor she
}got an opinion from told her it could wait another 15 or 20 years.
}And since the time she got her hyst., many other ways of treating her
}condition have come out. Her condition just wasn't so bad and it did
}not warrant surgery. But she did it any way. So you see, to someone
}like her, there really is no reason for us grown men to be "whining"
}about our mutilations, even though to us it's not such a light matter.
Michael, I am a very vocal intactivist. My sons are intact because
routine infant circumcision is unethical. My husband is a surgically
altered male (circ'd at birth). I had an *elective* hysterectomy in
1990. My choice. There was nothing "technically or medically wrong"
with my uterus. The only purpose for that piece of "equipment" is
to make babies--and I was done (having had 2 healthy sons). I
did not consider my elective hysterectomy as anything trivial.
Having had the surgery "anyway" as you say about your mother,
does not mean that I would force my children to have unnecessary
procedures done to them. Neither would I believe that any other
woman "should also have a hysterectomy" just because "it worked
for me". I believe in individual choice--especially in circumstances of *elective* procedures. If either or both of my intact sons wishes to be circumcised, I will arrange for it to be done...regardless of MY opinion
on the matter.
I applaud the rest of your post, Michael--just wanted to
point out that just because a woman chooses a "non-urgent"
hysterectomy, that doesn't mean she is casual about surgeries
done to others.
P & A
M&D
All the things I could respond to on this thread, but I am too shocked by
your words below!! I never thought I would see that come from you. I am
sorry that none of us "anti-circers" were able to say anything to help you
on this decision, but IN SPITE of that, I am happy to hear this.
You started out so much for circing, that I can not help but be surprised.
I think that your change says alot about you as a person, and as a parent.
I know that so many of us are offensive to you, but the fact that you could
put our personalities aside and come up with the decision you did gives me
hope.
Most of us will continue to post on this, much to the irritation of many.
The fact that we may have given a push towards your own research is what
keeps me going. It is people like you that show a complete turn around
that make me want to keep discussing.
Thank you for your honesty--IN SPITE of us!!!
Andrea
---
> I too have come to the conclusion that circumcision is an unnecessary
> intervention but it has been IN SPITE of a the anti-circers not because
of
> them. Your whole post was brilliant and it's a point I have been
struggling
> to make for some time. Do they think that we are going to be convinced by
> people who have bought into the extreme thinking that that Mom and Dad
got a
> cheap sexual thrill out of their circumcision? And they wonder why most
> people think they're bonkers.
>
> M&D
>
>
>
>
Dard M. Mason
zar...@oldways.org,NewsGroups writes:
>But, the "old grudges" are not so old when the loss is felt every day,
>and
>the harm is renewed every day. At age 41 most men would like to enjoy
>normal sexual feelings, but those with mutilated "wee wees" still can't
>--
>yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
OK, I swore I'd never enter this thread....but I guess I'd like to
share something. I was born in the early 50's 6+ weeks
premature.....the doctors felt that I was too frail to survive without
being placed in an incubator. My parents consented and I was placed
into an incubator, where I received 100% oxygen for the first few weeks
of my life. This was common practice at that time. Several years
after I was born, it was discovered that premies given pure O2 seemed
to have a rare eye condition called Retrolental Fibroplasia, which
results in permanent damage to the infant's eyes. I was one of those
babies, have horrible eyesite, and need to wear THICK
"Coke-bottle-bottom" glasses to see. Had I been given a lesser
concentration of oxygen, my eyes would not have been effected. When I
found out that my eyes were ruined in the incubator, I went through all
sorts of emotions.....but I never once blamed my parents.....why??
Because, given the knowledge that they had at the time....they made,
what they thought was the best choice for me. My parents (my mother
died in 1962) and I are grateful that I survived....many premies back
then didn't.
This brings me to my point.....I am affected every minute of every day
by a decision that my parents and my doctors made. My "handicap"
effects almost everything I do. What was done to me, is obvious to
everyone I meet.....my glasses are thick, ugly, and generate lots of
unwanted questions. I have heard lots of friends of my young daughter
ask her about my glasses and also hear them make fun of me frequently.
This really upsets her and I try my best to explain this to other
children.....but kids can be cruel. But, I just don't dwell on
it......I don't blame my parents and I learned to cope. I guess on
some level I can sympathize with you, but for the most part....I find
your whining offensive. I know that sex is a vital part of most normal
people's lives...but personally I think that if you found someone to
help you work through your problems and learn to deal with your extreme
rage, you could learn to enjoy sex.
Just my opinion,
Dard..........Mom to the infamous Brianne Kaylie
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <EsswM...@world.std.com>, na...@world.std.com (Nancy C Reynolds) writes:
>
>Why is it that men who are upset over having been circumcised seem to
>focus their anger on their mothers and not on their fathers? I can
>understand, to some extent, being angry at both parents or at the father
>who has a penis and should theoretically have a better understanding, but
>why single out mothers? This puzzles me.
>
>--Nancy Reynolds
>Please post your explanation. Please do NOT send email to me on this
>topic.
>
I have asked myself the same question. I wonder if that is because women
have been always associated with childbearing issues and were the
responsible ones in that area while men traditional role was bringing money
back home. I surely hope that changes in the next generation, and if there
is anything to be grateful for or to ask for an explanation, that both
parents will be considered equal.
Maria
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <355729...@visi.net>, Edward and Phantom MacLennan <the8...@visi.net> writes:
>Ummm....Hello? When will "MOMS" (emphasis mine) learn?? Aren't there
>TWO parents involved? In most families I know, whether the boys were
Yes, and unfortunately society did and still does to some stend hold the
mother ultimate responsible over child bearing issues :(
>circed or left intact, it was the DAD who made the decision. My friend
Yes, but aparently mother are expected to be the ones that have only
the child interest at heart. I desagree on that one. I think both parents
should have the child interest at heart and try to be the less biassed
possible
>second son intact. My feelings, and those of most of my female friends,
>is that as I'm not the one who has a penis, I'm not the one in the best
not the father, at least not the baby's penis
>position to make that decision. In any case, it seems to me that hating
>one's mother about one's circ status is rather a flimsy way to
>rationalize being angry at women. Unless you were born to a single
>mother, she's not the only one who made the decision. It's also rather
I agree on that one. Both parents should be thanked or asked. If one
consents ro the other wishes is just as responsible, so prices and blames
should me shared. We are together on this.
>pointless to harbor hatred and bitterness over something about which you
>have no control, nor any ability to change. Go ahead, be angry about
>it. Crusade to prevent it from happening to other infants if you must.
>But such bitterness as I saw in Art Boy's post isn't likely to
>accomplish much of anything except giving him an ulcer.
Probably you are right, but that does not invalidate those feelings.
> Phan-- mom to Keith (4) and Jack (3mo)
>
Maria
Maria Garcia Pastor
Don, Zardoz, I just want to sum myself to other people that has shown disgust
for your personal attacks to one another. I have myself found very often
some of Zardoz posts do not do much good for the anti routine infant circ
cause, bitterly emotional and so on, but that does not invalidate the way
he feels and it might make someone think "what if my child ends up this
angry at me? Will I feel reassured enough that his anger is unjustified or
will he have a point and I will have to deal with guilt".
May be not, may be most of the people around her is turned off by his posts,
but I think they give light to a side of routine infant circ that is often
ignored, and have a place in this discussion, even though I have myself
withdrawn from them several times in spite of my strong anti-circ feelings.
Then it comes to Don. I find his posts lacking of all emotion over the issue
and very, very good at stating facts. He shows understanding over those
parents that did circuncide and surely is going to be more prompt to be
listened for that. I have been always amazed of the knowledge and references
Don used to keep in some directory in his computer...and always wondered
how he managed to have it all organised so he could find it when he needed
(with envy I must admit). I think he's done a lot for the cause and could
keep on doing a lot.....
if you stop this attacks. It is clear you (Don) do not share some of Zardoz
views, and so be it, but I think there is place and room for both. I found
reasonable that you stated so here and there to make a point, but before
you used to focus in your own posts, in your own arguments....there has
been a while where I see hardly nothing else coming from you that it is not
a response to a Zardoz posts, and saying very little to the point that I am
not sure anymore if you are the same Don I remember. I have seen people
posting questions or old beliefs that required references back and looked
for your respones with anxiety, to read and learn. I hardly find any anymore
Please stop it :'(
Maria
Sandy Morris
>It was a decision that has cost my mother the trust, the respect,
I am sorry for your pain and I do understand. No one can give you
back what you lost. But like any abuse victim, you can't let it rule you.
You have to work through all your feelings of pain and anger so that you
can go on living with what you do have.
No one can tell you whether or not you should forgive your mother
(and father). You still have a lot of work to do as far as getting through
all this, so you may not be able to be around your mother until you do.
But there are some things you might want to think about. I don't know
your parents, but in all likelihood, they really did think they were doing
what was best for you. That's what good parents do. They use the
information they have available to them and try to make the best
decisions they can. Even good parents make mistakes. You said you
once enjoyed a close relationship with your mother. That tells me that
she must have been good to you in many other ways and would not
deliberately try to harm you.
Having said all that, I hope that expectant parents will choose to spare
their sons the pain that you and many other men and boys have had
inflicted on them.
Sandy
Sandy Morris
>Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
>misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
As most circumcisions are performed on newborns, I don't understand why
you consider if off-topic.
Sandy.
Zardoz Greybeard
Maria Garcia Pastor wrote:
That is a good question Maria which deserves some thinking and a decent answer.
When my oldest son was born (the oldest is now 22yo -- that would be 1975 ) the concept
of allowing fathers to participate in the birthing process was a whole new idea for the
"medical" business. Fathers of my generation had to literally force our way into labor
rooms and delivery rooms to be with and support our wives. And at first we fathers who
forced the change were far fewer in number than the DH's who are spoken of frequently
here. Expectations were different before that time. Our mothers and fathers expected
that birthing was a woman's thing, in which men didn't participate in at all. Our
fathers were shunned and closed out during the whole experience. It was probably another
abusive practice by the medical business. With a caring husband there the doctors have
to justify actions at a time when a woman may not be able to make rational decisions.
One of a DH's jobs it to protect the mom (and the child) from predatory and abusive
doctors and hospital employees. It was different before my generation of fathers forced
our way in with the encouragement of our wives. The change did not come easy. I was
confronted with scowls of disapproval by nurses and doctors, they had no provisions for a
DH to be present, not even a chair. I was asked "Don't you have something else to do"? by
a disgruntled nurse who was unused to allowing men, fathers, into her turf. My sister
and her husband followed the old procedure which was still prevalent in their small town.
When men today blame mom it is likely that it WAS only mom who was involved, while dad
was excluded from the whole process. The change happened when our sons were born, but
when a man who is now 41 was born his father most likely had been closed out of the whole
process. The change has been for the better, judging by my experience and the
descriptions on this NG from moms who's DH supported and helped them. When your son is
grown he may likely find that both parents were taking responsibility. When Art Boy was
born, when I was born, that was just not the way things were done.
Keep in mind too that even today a huge number of moms don't have a DH around. In
California more than 50% of moms are single. The percentage is less in other places but
still a significant portion. The son may blame his father for not being there, but mom
(who also has "choice" as an option in the US) is most often still making the mutilation
decision as well.
I hope this answers some of your question. Things have changed for the better, and they
still need to change more.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy.
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
I have discussed normal male sexual
play, "foreplay for men" with other unmutilated men, and can learn
intellectually what they can do and feel that mutilated men can not. I
learn
how the physical process of sex functions mechanically with all the parts,
what
is described as a "gliding" motion. The loss of the most sensitive part is
something I know because I have read male anatomy.
You know even though nothing's been cut off I could get REALLY depressed if
I sat around comparing myself to Cindy Crawford and Christy Brinkley. Men
comparing penii - my God - talk about fish tales. Oh no, men never
exaggerate. <G>.
Stop comparing yourself to other men. I thought you posted that you have a
wife and children, hopefully healthy, so there's no reason why you can't
have a satisfying sex life.
How does your wife feel about this? You look at yourself and you see damaged
goods. It doesn't have to be that way. Life's too short. DH doesn't see
himself that way (thankfully) and neither do I.
M&D
M&D
The driver is still guilty of negligent homicide or vehicular
homicide. The driver is *responsible* even when they aren't to blame.
When
someone gets behind the wheel they accept responsibility for driving the car
safely.
What about placing some blame on mother nature for the bad weather which
precipitated the accident? What if there was just some debris in the road or
a deer crossing suddenly that caused the driver/car to lose control? It
could happen to anyone, even you. What if your a child had a brain tumor and
died? You can blame God or mother nature or whomever you feel is responsible
for seemingly random occurrences but it doesn't change the outcome. Again,
life's not fair.
You feel you've been injured but there isn't anyone who's
going to be going to jail for it so you might as well drop your anger, it is
of no use. Apparently your mother is aware of your unhappiness and now she
to live with that fact. What other "pound of flesh" would you like to
extract from her?
M&D
M&D
P&A wrote:
You started out so much for circing, that I can not help but be surprised.
I think that your change says alot about you as a person, and as a parent.
I know that so many of us are offensive to you, but the fact that you could
put our personalities aside and come up with the decision you did gives me
hope.
You've probably confused my devil's advocate
approach with me being pro-circ. Not since I've been in this
newsgroup have I been pro-circ. I don't find it inconsistent for me
personally to not be in favor of RIC and still find a majority of
anti-circers intolerable. I haven't found your posts to be offensive but in
general I just can't stand self-righteousness. I'm the same way when it
comes to flames about how long one should breastfeed and all the other
issues parents struggle over.
As for men being angry at their mothers, well Kaczinski hated his parents
and so did the Menedez brothers. There's millions of reasons for people to
hate their parents. Every decision we make effects their lives. Children who
hate their parents can be unjustified and irrational in their hatred too.
M&D
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> Stop comparing yourself to other men. I thought you posted that you have a
> wife and children, hopefully healthy, so there's no reason why you can't
> have a satisfying sex life.
This is like telling a rape victim to "stop complaining and have a satisfactory
sex life." Your insensitivity to men and men's hurts is so common in this
culture. <sigh> Insensitivity and lack of concern for boys/men and boy's/men's
hurts is how MGM continues while FGM is abhorrent.
Boys deserve equal protection with girls. Boys and men hurt too. It's a shame
you can't understand that.
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> As for men being angry at their mothers, well Kaczinski hated his parents
> and so did the Menedez brothers. There's millions of reasons for people to
> hate their parents. Every decision we make effects their lives. Children who
> hate their parents can be unjustified and irrational in their hatred too.
So Lizzy Borden (sp?) took an ax to her mother and her father. So that proves
nothing. There is an appalling lack of sensitivity to the pain of those who have
been deliberately mutilated by parents. Violent sexual attack on little
healthy children, cutting up their genitals and spilling their blood, is very
offensive to those who oppose blood shed. Declaring that the victim of
violent sexual mutilation is "irrational" for being upset about the damage that
has been done is just another way of denying the feelings of boys/men. It's a
shame that so many can't understand that boys/men have feelings too.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
MGM really has to stop.
Zardoz Greybeard
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> What about placing some blame on mother nature for the bad weather which
> precipitated the accident? What if there was just some debris in the road or
> a deer crossing suddenly that caused the driver/car to lose control? It
> could happen to anyone, even you. What if your a child had a brain tumor and
> died? You can blame God or mother nature or whomever you feel is responsible
> for seemingly random occurrences but it doesn't change the outcome. Again,
> life's not fair.
This is a good analogy. What part of mother nature is responsible for cutting
off part of a boy's genitals?
Mother nature (or God or whomever according to your religious beliefs) would
seem to be responsible for a healthy normal boy, but mutilations done thereafter
would seem to me to be the *responsibility* of someone else. If there is a real
malformation, injury or illness then that is just the luck of the draw. When
there is deliberate maiming of a healthy and normal child that is not mother
nature's doing.
Life is not fair enough by itself, as you point out, without knife happy people
making it worse.
> You feel you've been injured but there isn't anyone who's
> going to be going to jail for it so you might as well drop your anger, it is
> of no use.
Your are right again. It is many years too late for me or ArtBoy or any of the
other hundred million mutilated boys and men in the USA. When anyone hurts
babies, by the time they grow up and can complain it is ALWAYS too late for them
to make any difference in their own lives. The damage has already been done.
But it is not too late to save the next generation of healthy little boys who
come complete with the equipment that mother nature gave them. Anger is of no
use for men who are already maimed for life, but may be of use in saving the
next generation of men. Parents have been getting away with sexual violence
against boys for a century because babies are too weak to refuse, and it is
always "no use" by the time they are big enough. But that does not change the
violence that was done to the child in any way. How about trying some sympathy
for those who have to live a lifetime without normal feelings and functions.
How about trying a little sympathy for the victims of genital mutilation, even
if it's boys instead of girls? Boys do hurt too, and men do as well.
Some of us think it's time that someone is "going to jail" for mutilating
children. Violent sexual child abuse is a crime in the USA, and only by fiat
has MGM not been prosecuted. Several law professors have written articles
stating that hacking up the genitals of a child is within the statutes for
assault and battery as well as criminal child abuse. Only because (so far) no
one has successfully prosecuted a male child mutilator are they not going to
jail. Anyone doing FGM would go to jail, and boys deserve equal protection
under the law. Only the anger of men will start putting those who hurt boys
behind bars where they can't hack up their next victim. There is now a cash
prize offered for the arrest and felony conviction of child mutilators:
"http://www.oldways.org/SaveTheBoys"
> Apparently your mother is aware of your unhappiness and now she
> to live with that fact. What other "pound of flesh" would you like to
> extract from her?
When a mother (or anyone) has hacked off part of her child and tossed part of
him in the garbage before he was old enough to run there is nothing that can be
done to bring back what was stolen from him, nothing that can restore his
missing parts. His "pound of flesh" has been hacked off and discarded with
yesterday's trash. There is nothing that can be "extracted from her" that will
ever change that. By the time the boy grows up and learns what has been done to
him it is too late for the child mutilator to make amends.
All that can be done is to stop the violence against boys and men so that the
next generation of men will not have to live their entire life without ever
knowing what normal sexual feelings actually feel like.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if everyone else does it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you get away with it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you pay someone else to use the knife.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you make spurious medical excuses.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
(keep repeating)
MGM really has to stop!
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
This is like telling a rape victim to "stop complaining and have a
satisfactory
sex life."
Depending on the severity of the rape, most women do get over it. I have a
friend who was date raped and she has gotten over it and she does have a
satisfactory sex life. She talked about it in the beginning but now she
probably only rarely if ever thinks about it. The recovery process for a
more violent rape with physical injuries I'm sure is much harder. A woman
would only be continuing to hurt herself if she didn't try to overcome it.
Anyway, no one intentionally harmed you. At worst they were misguided in
their beliefs. A rapist's primary focus is not the "benefits" afforded the
victim?
I've never met a woman that wanted to be raped but I have met men who've
chosen to be circumcised. Yes, they chose it as adults and some even extol
it sexually. Once upon a time Zardoz had a great sex life (I'm guessing) and
then he read some medical studies courtesy of the same professionals who
brought us circumcision and he decided that actually he didn't enjoy sex at
all. I wouldn't put too much stock in their studies either. Why don't you
trust your own body? Do you need medical studies to confirm or disprove for
you the existence of pleasure?
M&D
M&D
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> Zardoz wrote:
> This is like telling a rape victim to "stop complaining and have a
> satisfactory
> sex life."
> --
> Depending on the severity of the rape, most women do get over it. I have a
> friend who was date raped and she has gotten over it and she does have a
> satisfactory sex life.
That points out one of the major differences between genital mutilation and
rape. Most rape victims do not suffer life long physical damage that prevents
them from ever physically getting over it. Genital mutilation victims do suffer
permanent physical damage and can never physically "get over it." No matter how
much counseling or therapy, etc., a mutilation gets the best he can do is to
learn to live with the disability. He can never have a *normal* sex life
because he does no longer has *normal* sexual parts.
> She talked about it in the beginning but now she
> probably only rarely if ever thinks about it. The recovery process for a
> more violent rape with physical injuries I'm sure is much harder.
Your friend recovered from her physical injuries? Another difference.
Permanent physical injuries are not "recovered" from, they are only at best
learned to live with. It's all the more emotionally devastating when the
perpetrator intended to cause those permanent physical injuries. That is the
primary purpose of MGM after all.
Another difference in this culture is that there are legions of psychiatrists,
psychologists, and counselors for rape victims. There are crisis centers, hot
lines, all manner of emotional and physical help. I don't know of a single
psychologist who is available for men who are victims of MGM. Most
psychologists are part of the medical establishment and promote violation of
men. I even talked to a psychiatrist who said she "specialized in men." She
could not understand the concept that a man who is recovering emotionally from
violent sexual mutilation would have any reason to need psychological help.
Such counseling for men is beyond the realm of understanding in much of the
psychological business.
Even if appropriate psychological counseling were available in some areas,
physical damage that does not recover will permanently prevent a mutilated man
from ever having a *normal* sexual experience. That is after all the primary
purpose and the universal outcome of MGM.
[Note: According to at least one book on the subject (I don't have it handy)
most psychological education today is so devoted to care of women (over 95% of
the customers) that a psychologist who wants to help men can not get appropriate
training.]
> Anyway, no one intentionally harmed you.
That is largely debatable. Intentionally cutting off part of a person's
genitals to deprive the man of normal sexual feelings may not be "intentional"
harm, but it is hard to understand how it can be viewed as a benefit by any
rational person. Likewise a good percentage of rapists, especially for
statutory rape, insist that they intended to benefit the victim.
> At worst they were misguided in
> their beliefs. A rapist's primary focus is not the "benefits" afforded the
> victim?
The difference in perception seems to be mostly based on the sex of the
victim. Women are deliberately hurt, men are deliberately cut up and mutilated
and permanently damaged, but it's "for their own good."
> I've never met a woman that wanted to be raped
I have. It's also one of the most common themes in women's romance fiction.
Gone With the Wind is the most popular novel of all time. But, that's
"imaginary rape" as opposed to actual rape. Imaginary MGM may be far better
than actual MGM as well. I knew one young woman who used to hang aroung a
secluded area because she had been told she was likely to get raped if she went
near there. It does take all kinds.
> Once upon a time Zardoz had a great sex life (I'm guessing) and
> then he read some medical studies courtesy of the same professionals who
> brought us circumcision and he decided that actually he didn't enjoy sex at
> all. I wouldn't put too much stock in their studies either. Why don't you
> trust your own body? Do you need medical studies to confirm or disprove for
> you the existence of pleasure?
Your personal criticism notwithstanding, there is a difference between whatever
sex is left after genital mutilation and *normal* sexual feelings. Someone said
that "there is no such thing as bad sex." That is probably true. In Somalia
where women are severely mutilated they report that "of course" they like sex,
doesn't every woman. But, they will never know the same level of feelings that
you feel because their most sensitive parts are gone. Likewise men who are
mutilated "of course" enjoy sex, but since their most sensitive parts are gone
will never feel the *normal* sexual feelings.
One widely published recent survey showed that mutilated men tend to want more
deviation in sex, apparently out of the lack of full satisfaction with regular
sex. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, one of the best know writers on FGM speculated that
mutilated women seem to want more sex than normal women, perhaps because they
never get fully satisfied. She also speculated that the current perception in
the US about men always wanting sex may be related to a similar phenomena where
the majority of US men never are fully satisfied either.
It's not that mutilated men don't enjoy sex, but that they never are able to
experience the kind of pleasure that unmutilated men feel. It has been described
by men who have experienced both as like black and white instead of color. In
the days before color movies or TV were available lots of people enjoyed black
and white. But color is so much better. It's described as sound without vision,
not unpleasant, but not the fullness of pleasure that one might otherwise
enjoy. Black and white sex is good, of course, but what are we missing?
Depriving someone of such pleasure for their whole life is a terrible thing to
do to anyone. It is hard to imagine why anyone who cares about a child would do
that to him? It's easy for you who are not mutilated, and feel all your normal
natural feelings to say that it is no big thing, but would you willingly give up
most of the feelings you enjoy? Perhaps your belittling of men's feelings is
just the cultural prejudice against men. FGM is illegal in the US. Boys/men
deserve equal protection under the law.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
MGM really has to end.
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D
P&A wrote:
You started out so much for circing, that I can not help but be surprised.
I think that your change says alot about you as a person, and as a parent.
I know that so many of us are offensive to you, but the fact that you could
put our personalities aside and come up with the decision you did gives me
hope.
-----
You've probably confused my devil's advocate
approach with me being pro-circ. Not since I've been in this
newsgroup have I been pro-circ. I don't find it inconsistent for me
personally to not be in favor of RIC and still find a majority of
anti-circers intolerable. I haven't found your posts to be offensive but in
general I just can't stand self-righteousness. I'm the same way when it
comes to flames about how long one should breastfeed and all the other
issues parents struggle over.
As for men being angry at their mothers, well Kaczinski hated his parents
and so did the Menedez brothers. There's millions of reasons for people to
hate their parents. Every decision we make effects their lives. Children who
hate their parents can be unjustified and irrational in their hatred too.
M&D
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
It's not that mutilated men don't enjoy sex, but that they never are able to
experience the kind of pleasure that unmutilated men feel. It has been
described
by men who have experienced both as like black and white instead of color.
I haven't met anyone that said walking was better after they lost a leg but
I have met a man who said that sex was better after his adult circumcision
and he's not the only one to make that claim. That's why I never thought
circ was a big deal. I'm more concerned about possible surgical mishaps.
I've heard that color blind analogy before and if it were so true every man
circ'd as an adult would be confirming it just as everyone who every lost a
leg could confirm the difference. Without a leg a person would need a crutch
to walk or they would have to hop. The difference is unrefutable. However,
men circ'd as adults are not all telling the same story. Doesn't that tell
you something? Just maybe it's subjective?
Far be it from me to tell you to stop holding on to your anger or try and
convince you that you're not sexually crippled. The brain is the most
powerful sex organ you have and if you want to think you're damaged well
then you've accomplished that goal. Go on keep harboring that grudge against
your mother.
M&D
Grace Boockholdt
In article 1...@news.fgi.net, "Lahall2" <lah...@ctnet.net> writes:
}Ok here is a womans point of view. Please don't e-mail me. I was seventeen
}when I had my son.(yes I was married and yes I am educated) I did not knoww
}that it could cause sexual damage. I didn't know that they do it with out
}pain medication. I did what I thought was best.
How could you know or think what is "best" if you
"didn't know" anything about it, as you admit above?
}No I haven't researched the
}circ pros and cons.
Then you couldn't have known "what is best".
Even with other surgical procedures, people will
research it--get second opinions. Not doing so
for circ is negligent.
}My Dh has never complained about it. I hope that my son
}doesn't hte me like art does his. Just a couple of questions to inform me.
}1) what about what I have heard bout non-circ and penial cancer?
There is no correlation. Circ'd males also get penile cancer.
The foreskin...or lack thereof is irrelevant. Multiple partners,
unsafe sex, smoking are among the major factors of contracting
penile cancer...not whether or not a foreskin is present.
}2) how do
}you know that it has affected you sexually. I am not asking to be sacrcstic
}i just want to know.
Thousands of exquisitely sensitive nerve endings are
cut off--never to be restored or replaced. How can
less ever be "more" or even the same/equal as far as
sensations? I don't know about you...but I'm an intact
woman. I know that my labia is very sensitive. I also
know that a lot of females experience labia excision
(and more) in female genital mutilation. They can no
longer feel pleasurable sensation from that area.
So...I'd say that that is being "affected sexually".
Grace Boockholdt
Ok...I'll ask you the same thing I asked Larry (he sent in
his own story about forceps delivery): If parents and/or
doctors were still allowing pure oxygen to be given to
preemies--in light of it's affects, such as yours, do you
think you'd be trying to educate the masses about such
dangers? And if people blew you off, "I find your whining
offensive. Get a real life. Sorry you suffered--get over it.
What's done is done--if you can't move on, you have a
screw loose. Everyone I know who had preemies had the
same procedure and they were fine. There's really no big
deal, so shut UP."--how would you react--especially if
this was an important an issue to you as circ is to Zardoz?
Grace Boockholdt
In article 3...@ocean.cup.hp.com, mcm...@cup.hp.com (Larry McMahan) writes:
}Zardoz:
}You seem, at time to have a hard time understanding the English
}language. Maybe it will help if I shout: POST LIKE YOURS DO *NOT*
}HELP REASONABLE PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND A RATIONAL REASON TO MAKE A
}DECISION! THE SHRILL EMOTIONAL TONE MAKES PEOPLE DEFENSIVE AND
}TURNS THEM OFF! You just don't get it.
You just don't get it, Larry. The screams of the infants
were ignored and now people still refuse to listen to the
emotions of these men. It adds insult to the pain they
already feel. People like you continue to refuse to listen
to them...regardless of how they present their pain. They
do end up being shrill or shout...only to have people like
you shout back with the above. The thing that upsets them
the most is the lack of understanding and compassion.
They get, "Grow up. Get a fucking life. Quit your whining.
Anyone upset about this has a 'screw loose'."
Like it or not...emotion DOES play a very real role in
this whole equation of circumcision. It's all well and good
for you to say you want a rational reason to make a decision.
Great. I, for one, have provided many rational reasons AND
references to back me up and, have many times done so
withOUT ANY kind of emotion to the post--"Just the facts, M'ame"
and I STILL get blasted with "Get a fucking life".
The point is...if people are defensive about it (circ'ing),
it would seem *logical* for them to take a look at it--ask
why. If people feel guilty about something...they ought not
do it again.
}: > Stupid lie! They (she) did consider you! She listened to the best
}: > experts available. She did what the experts told her was in your
}: > best interest. THEY lied. She was duped. She f***ed up. Get over
}: > it!
}
}: "Get over it" They used to tell rape victims "Get over it." How
}: insensitive can you get?
}Let's see, what's the difference. Lets see, the rapist had criminal
}intent. How about his mother criminal intent? I don't think so.
}I think piloring a woman for making an honest mistake is FAR WORSE
}than the damage she inflicted. And you call me insensitive. You
}are both cruel and stupid. I repeat: You do a disservice to the
}cause you espouse. You will not convince anyone with your rhetoric.
}I'll bet I've actually convinced more people not to circ than YOU!
Perhaps you have...but your above example is no better than
anything Zardoz has posted. In essence, Larry--you have used
the very same tactic Zardoz uses--you've been emotional and
you have called people names. Have you really "lead by
example", Larry?
Do you even see how emotionalism DOES play into this?
You have let your emotions take over and now you have
acted in the exact manner of which you deplore. And this
occurred ONLY by your being upset at Zardoz's "style".
And yet you cannot even phathom that these men are
upset about far more than the way someone posts!
}: Sexual violence hurts for a lifetime when you suffer PERMANENT physical
}: damage.
}What is hurting you more than the physical damage you suffered, is the
}anger that you are harboring over the incident.
This is probably true. But what about the *continued*
lack of understanding? All they want to do is to prevent
yet another son from feeling this way. They have tried to do
so by sharing their stories--to educate. They get in
return "Grow up, get a fucking life (or get a real life),
there must be something more wrong with you if you
feel this upset". The anger comes also from the
*continued* disregard of their feelings and their
opinions. Their feelings and future opinions were
not considered at birth--they were non-entities.
Now that they are adults--they are continually
ignored. Heck...I certainly can understand that kind
of anger.
}I will promise you two
}things: If you were to drop your anger, two things would happen.
} 1. A great pain would be lifted from your heart, and you would be
} able to live your life with much more joy.
} 2. You would become a more eloquent spokesman for advocating
} non-circ, because you would be able to understand and respond
} to doubters points of view.
Good point...and I agree with you. However, how, then
would you explain the SAME kind of response to posts
that ONLY posts "the facts"? Y'see, Larry--those responses
come from guilt--an emotion--so even if JUST THE FACTS
are posted...the guilt/emotion is still a feeling some people
feel. And then it is THEIR emotions that come into play
and they have to lash back. Emotion--like it or not--
DOES play a very important role in this circ equation.
Take routine tonsillectomies for example. Used to be
done at the slightest inkling of a problem. (At least there
was a problem that existed BEFORE the procedure was
recommended--unlike routine circ--all you have to be
is a healthy male for it to be recommended--sheesh!)
Then the medical profession discovered, "Gee--the tonsils
are NOT "useless" tissue *after all*! Well--no more routine
tonsillectomies because we now know that the tonsils play
an important role in the immune system." Larry--answer me
this, wouldja? Where were the emotional outcries from the
"parental rights" contingent? Did you hear anyone cry, "FOUL!
Hey! You're taking my right as a parent to make this decision
for MY kid! MY tonsils were removed and I like it just fine!
If I want MY kid to be tonsil-less like me--that's MY right.
Besides, it's more healthy to be without soar throats all
the time! So let's just have it removed so it won't be a
problem later!" Sounds pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?
Just as ridiculous as the very same sentiments with regard
to circumcision. And....the reason there was no emotional
outcry against the cessation of routine tonsillectomies is
that there really is no emotional attachment to the tonsils
as there is to the male penis.
The medical profession made a mistake about tonsils--
but was able to say so and stopped doing routine tonsilectomies.
The medical profession has also found that the foreskin
is NOT just "useless skin", but rather, that it plays an important
role in the male's sexual sensations. True--those who are
cut can still enjoy sexual sensations--but then again...those
who had tonsillectomies can still swallow. :) But...since there
is an emotional attachment to the penis...it would be quite
difficult for the medical profession to say, "Gee--the foreskin
is valuable after all...sorry to all you guys who were routinely
cut for...apparently as it turns out--no good reason after all."
If that were to happen, Larry...and if you are a cut male...just
how emotional would you be about learning that? Oh--sure...
there would be millions who would say, "Oh, well...live and learn--
let's move on". But I'd venture to say that there'd be a lot of
pissed off (pardon the pun) cut males out there. So--
would it be fair to tell them "Grow up! Get a fucking (real) life.
If you're upset about this...you have a screw loose!"
}: > NO! She exercised what is called in the legal world "due diligence."
}: > The fact that she was lied to does not diminish her efforts. You are
}: > cruel!
}
}: Mutilating a child is CRUEL! Spilling the blood of your child is CRUEL!
}: Maiming your child is CRUEL! How long will it take for moms to learn what
}: should be so obvious?
}
}How many will learn from your shrill emotional rhetoric, because how many
}will listen?
How many listened to the shrill screams at the time
of the cut? How many listened when stories were shared
in a calm manner? How many listened when only FACTS
and REFERENCES were shared? How many people are still
perpetuating circ even after doctors have said it's an UNnecessary
procedure? Y'see, Larry--the frustration--i.e., *emotionalism*
comes from the perpetuation of circ in the face of logical and
emotional reasons not to. You and others are angry and
frustrated that Zardoz *continues* to post in the style he
does. You and others write in with emotional and cruel
posts complete with name calling--just like Zardoz has.
Gee...and yet you all can't understand that you are acting
just like he is.
As Mary pointed out...INTENT. In her post about what
used to be given to pregnant women for morning sickness
which later turned out to cause deformities, if you knew
that and heard that other mothers *continued* to use
the drug ANYway...wouldn't you also be emotionally
frustrated?--enough to even shout, "What--are you
NUTS? What the HELL are you DOING!" And if you got
tripe back like, "Well... my mother used it and her mother
used it and her sisters and her cousins and all the mothers
in the neighborhood used it and their kids were fine...so what's
the big deal", would that be an outrageous and ridiculously
inane reason in your mind and wouldn't you still want to
say, "STOP THIS NON-SENSE!" Even Mary understood this.
}I will tell you a little store about my birth. I was circed, yes. I was
}also delivered with forceps. The forceps slipped, cutting my lip through
}to the bone, stuck me in the eye,and mashed my nose. Today I can see
}mostly out of one eye (I don't have 3D vision like most people) and I
}have sinus troubles on the right side so I have to sleep on my left side
}if I want to breathe.
}
}I could be bitter about being circed. I could be bitter about being maimed
}by the drunk doctor who stuck the forceps in my face. Would it make my
}quality of life better? I don't think so. This is what you are missing.
Very good example, Larry. We now know that forceps delivery
is quite dangerous...even though it was commonly used at one
time. Larry, how would you feel if forceps deliveries were still
common today? Would you want to educate parents about the
dangers of forceps delivery? And if people shouted to you,
"Get a fucking life. Mind your own fucking business...I'll decide
what the hell kind of delivery is good for MY family, thank you
very much. All my relatives and all my neighbors had their babies
delivered via forceps...it was quick and easy and there were no
problems, so just shut UP!", basically calling you an idiot--you
haven't a clue as to what you know, tell me, Larry--how emotional
would you be? Would you also want to be shrill and shout, "You
could be maiming your child for LIFE!"? I, for one, would certainly
understand your anger, Larry. And I would be right there with
you being "anti-forceps".
And if these people told you, "Stop being so angry, Larry.
There's a better way of saying your point"--even though no
matter HOW you said it--you still get "get a fucking life"
responses...how easy would it be for you to shake off that
anger? While I can agree whole-heartedly the point you
are trying to make about one's style of delivery (of posts--
not of delivering babies), I also understand the emotional
aspect involved in debates such as these.
}: If you don't want to read how much and how long men hurt from the cruel and
}: insensitive barbarity of MGM then skip the thread.
}
}Or if you don't need to know that there people who would rather hang on
}to their anger and suffer through life, than to experience any joy.
Or...who continue to do bad things in their ignorance which
tends to get the knowledgeable people pretty upset...
Don't forget...even if the only picture you see of Zardoz
is being angry about circ...that doesn't mean he doesn't
have a happy life. Same with me. While I post almost
exclusively about this subject, I have and do post about
other subjects...and I have a real and fruitful and happy
life.
If I were to base my opinion of you only upon the posts
I've seen lately from you on this subject, that opinion would
be that of an emotional and angry person. You have been
vindictive and cruel in your posts to Zardoz. Does this mean
that is the kind of person you are in general? I think not...
at least I would give you the benefit of the doubt. Why is
that difficult to reciprocate?
}: > PS: I see no productive purpose for posts like this. This is the kind
}: > of mean and vindictive tripe that turns off reasonable people and keeps
}: > them from considering non-circ as an option. You are doing a disservice
}: > to the very cause you claim to espouse.
}
}: You certainly are mean and vindictive. "Get over it" indeed??????
}
}When you start calling people names that support a cause you espouse
}just because they will not buy into the anger and bitterness that you
}display, then you have lost it. You have lost the ability to influence
}people, and you have lost credibility as a person. Look at yourself,
}boy, this is the place that you are in.
I haven't seen you do much better with Zardoz's post, Larry.
You, also, have been emotional and called him and Art Boy
"stupid and cruel". Should we say that you have lost credibility
as well? Your points are valid--regardless of your emotion.
The point is...same with Zardoz and Art Boy.
}: It's wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
}
}: MGM really has to end.
}
}I am opposed to MGM, FGM, and a whole host of other evils. However,
}you are not going reach people by spewing forth the vindicatve bitterness
}you typically show on this newsgroup.
I hope my explanation of how a person like Zardoz gets
this angry is helpful. Larry, if your opinions were constantly
put down and ridiculed--even though you are knowledgeable,
would that not also get you *more* angry? The forceps
analogy works well--substitute you for Zardoz and circ
for forceps delivery. You know the dangers of forceps
delivery. You wish to educate. You get the same treatment
Zardoz gets when you post about the dangers of forceps
delivery. You feel the cause is a very important one, so you
continue to post...only to get more of the same treatment.
Pretty soon, the tenor of your post takes on a shrill tone...
you may even call parents ignorant and stupid. I, for one,
would understand your reaction. Perhaps you can understand,
then...Zardoz.
And, Larry--believe me...I agree with your point about
style and delivery. Since Sheryl wrote in about my style,
I have made a point about changing it a bit. I asked Sheryl
and others off-line whether or not they noticed the change.
Sheryl and others have noticed the change...and said they
appreciated the change. So...I understand the validity of
your points, Larry. But don't admonish Zardoz about his
name-calling and emotional style by doing the same thing
he does. :)
}I feel sorry for you because
}you work against yourself. I feel sorry undecided parents who read
}your posts, because your rhetoric turns them off from searching out
}objective scientific evidence that could support your views.
I feel sorry for people who don't look into the realness of
the emotionalism of circ. It CAN be quite devastating.
When I hear of men telling stories of how they learned
at age 4 or 5 about circ, I think, "My gawd...what child
at that age can *rationalize* what they are feeling?"
They may never talk about it--which can mean that they
internalize those feelings. When a child internalizes feelings
he does not understand...it can manifest later INTO something
that is quite UN"reasonable"....including hating their parents.
If people/parents don't see this...then they just might be
setting themselves to experience Art Boy's situation--were
the son no longer trusts his parents enough to have a
relationship with them.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 2...@niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk, pas...@venus.ebi.ac.uk (Maria Garcia Pastor) writes:
}
}In article <355729...@visi.net>, Edward and Phantom MacLennan <the8...@visi.net> writes:
}>Ummm....Hello? When will "MOMS" (emphasis mine) learn?? Aren't there
}>TWO parents involved? In most families I know, whether the boys were
}
}Yes, and unfortunately society did and still does to some stend hold the
}mother ultimate responsible over child bearing issues :(
}
}>circed or left intact, it was the DAD who made the decision. My friend
}
}Yes, but aparently mother are expected to be the ones that have only
}the child interest at heart. I desagree on that one. I think both parents
}should have the child interest at heart and try to be the less biassed
}possible
I agree. But...perhaps the real reason that moms are being
put on the carpet here is the "mother bear syndrome". People
believe that a mother would protect her young with her life.
Sometimes, the realization that "my mother didn't protect me"
is enough of a devastating thought as to cause these men to
feel betrayed and to loose trust...and if this kind of realization
is felt when the individual is 4 or 5--as I have heard some men
share their stories...what child at that age can rationalize that
the mother was told this was really "the best for the child"?
}>pointless to harbor hatred and bitterness over something about which you
}>have no control, nor any ability to change. Go ahead, be angry about
}>it. Crusade to prevent it from happening to other infants if you must.
}>But such bitterness as I saw in Art Boy's post isn't likely to
}>accomplish much of anything except giving him an ulcer.
}
}Probably you are right, but that does not invalidate those feelings.
AGREED! Thank you, Maria!
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <35586607...@oldways.org>, Zardoz Greybeard <zar...@oldways.org> writes:
>Maria Garcia Pastor wrote:
>> I have asked myself the same question. I wonder if that is because women
>> have been always associated with childbearing issues and were the
>> responsible ones in that area while men traditional role was bringing money
>> back home. I surely hope that changes in the next generation, and if there
>> is anything to be grateful for or to ask for an explanation, that both
>> parents will be considered equal.
>>
>> Maria
>
>That is a good question Maria which deserves some thinking and a decent answer.
>
>When my oldest son was born (the oldest is now 22yo -- that would be 1975 ) the concept
>of allowing fathers to participate in the birthing process was a whole new idea for the
>"medical" business. Fathers of my generation had to literally force our way into labor
Well, I understand the reasoning, but I found it to be much more of a lousy
excuse to say that fathers were *excluded* of all birthing process than that
one you find lousy excuse that parents were given the wrong advice from those
who they believed knew better so they thought they were doing the best for
their children.
It would not matter the father was or was not there. If the father never
opposed he consented, so prices and punishments should be shared.
In any case I do understand anger and frustration, but I also understand
that in those days parents did not know any better.
someone has mentioned that at the present is often the father who holds the
decission. I have heard often the argument "because his daddy was". The
woman consents so she holds the same responsability in my opinion. Do not
look for excuses
for those fathers of 40 years ago if you want to put the blame on the parents
put it on both (not that I would in any case)
Maria
Zardoz Greybeard
M&D wrote:
> I've heard some refer to circumcision as sexual abuse. Is that for the mere
> fact that the uneeded operation is performed on the genitals?
Your constant belittling of men's feelings gets rather old after a while. The
cultural lack of consideration that men have feelings and rights too is obvious.
When a mere handful of girls (count them on your fingers) is mutilated in the US
there is a huge public outcry and the Congress of the United States gets
involved. But a million boys suffering similar fate is belittled. It's not
worth getting upset about. The sexist bigotry is rampant. Men's bodies are not
our own. We can be cut up at will by mom if she chooses and most will defend
her, after all she is a woman. The mere fact that boys are being cut rather
than girls does not make it any less abusive even if the culture (and you) can
not understand that abusing boys is also wrong. It is wrong to hurt a child,
even if it is a boy.
> I feel that the man who did it is more
> pathetic than evil and I don't waste any time thinking about him or the
> incidents.
Do you still have physical injury that will never heal? Do you have parts of
your body that will never function properly because you were deliberately
maimed? And yet if a man who has suffered permanent physical maiming of his
body and life long loss calls his mom "pathetic" or anything else you and others
just call him names. The cultural prejudice against boys makes violent sexual
abuse of boys by hacking up our genitals into "a parent's choice" while the
thought of doing similar harm to a girl gets and act of Congress. Someone is
"pathetic" all right.
> Spending months or years wallowing in victimhood out of
> proportion to the occurrence was not something I chose to do.
Good for you. Do you still have physical injury that will never heal? Do you
have parts of your body that will never function properly because you were
deliberately maimed? It is real easy for you to say, but I'll bet if were one
of the women who's genitals were hacked up you would be one of those who
demanded immediate action by the Congress, and got it. Your disregard for men
and men's feelings is apparent, and expected in this culture. One of the most
difficult parts of trying to end MGM is to teach people that boys are people
too, and that boys/men do have feelings and rights.
It is not about wallowing in victimhood. It is about saving the next generation
of children from violent sexual attack and mutilation. Why can you not
understand that.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if everyone else does it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you get away with it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you pay someone else to use the knife.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you make spurious medical excuses.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
M&D
Zardoz wrote:
It is not about wallowing in victimhood. It is about saving the next
generation
of children from violent sexual attack and mutilation. Why can you not
understand that.
I just prefer to call it an unnecessary operation rather than a "violent
sexual attack," I think it's more helpful in creating dialogue. I think
there's a difference between losing a finger and losing a whole arm. I
wasn't trying to belittle you it was my misguided attempt to ..........? I
give up (exasperation time for me).
M&D
Cassandra of Troy
On 1998/05/11 David & Colette <lnrp...@REMOVEripco.com> wrote:
>M&D wrote:
>>
>> Zardoz and his rape comparison below:
>> [snip, if you'll pardon the expression]
>> Hmmmm. Did you notice that rape is against the law and circ isn't? A
>> difference worth noting in order for rational discussion to ensue.
>I couldn't disagree more with this! Just because something is legal
>doesn't mean it's right. Conversely, just because something is illegal,
>doesn't mean it's wrong.
Thank you, thank you, for posting this. I was going to stay out of this
thread (too controversial for me -- HA!! ;) but what you wrote is so true,
and too important to pass up.
>Since many laws are passed just for the betterment of special interest
>groups, I find law has little place in many rational discussions.
I used to think lawyers were intelligent people. Surely many of them are.
But when you think about it, their job is to be STUPID!
Laws are made by ordinary people, who have managed to get elected to
legislative office. How do they get there? Does the process in any way
enusre that they'll do well at making law? Does it promote quality in
legislation? No way.
All the economic interests band together to put pressure on legislators to
give them what they want. The ultimate in pressure is to control the
outcome of elections. And while there are indeed many competing well-heeled
interests, one thing is certain: money controls the process. You can be
sure that your legislators owe a lot to SOME wealthy person or group.
The idea of what law should do has gone way overboard, too. People see
some of the laws being passed, and they get ideas for even more dumb laws.
America at this time is a place where personal responsibility is out of
style; everyone wants to turn to gov't & social structures to solve their
problems. And those solutions are making problems far worse than we'd have
ever imagined ...
I saw a Libertarian congressional candidate posting recently, with this in
his sig:
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughtta be a law!"
He sure hit that right on the head. There ought NOT be so many laws!
OOTC: this really does tie in with a lot of birth issues. Look at the
wide variety of stupid laws about homebirth. Those laws were financed by
the AMA, to protect physicians' economic interests. Another thing: hospital
birthing promotes Big Brother's interests in making sure every new human
gets appropriately recorded and catalogued.
(Thanks for giving me the opportunity to sound off! :)
Soundly yours,
Cassie
(PGP public key available by finger)
Cheri
Ummm.......excuse my ignorance.....what is Circ and Irc?
Jon Levy
Ok, this will never work but I'm going to try anyway.
There seem to be at least a few of us with some interest in understanding
the scientific research on this issue. I would love to get a thread going
on that. The big unknown in this area, from what I can tell, is what
actual effect infant circumcision has on the adult sexual pleasure of
circumcised men and their partners (either female or male). There seems
to be a lot of speculation and anecdote but no science that I have seen.
Can anyone out there cite any research on this issue that has been
published in respected peer-reviewed journals? In addition to the
results, I'd like to know the methods used since I have never been able to
think up a really good study design to get at this question.
For whatever good it does to ask, I'd really appreciate it if people did
not post information for which they cannot cite peer-reviewed journal
articles. I totally respect other people's rights to discuss this issue
in different ways in other threads. Please respect the fact that some of
us want to discuss it this way.
Thanks.
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Levy (jl...@uic.edu)
School of Public Health
University of Illinois at Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Crowe
Thank you Jon, this is just what I am looking for too.
My wife and I are expecting and we have learned that we will have a son. I
refuse to permit an operation on a newborn without a good reason. I have
always been of the "opinion" that circumcision is nothing but popular belief
and a very good way of making a living for some. Now that I am more that
"poor victim", I am forced to look at the FACTS and make a decision in the
same manner that is expected in my profession -according to the facts-.
Considering that many men feel slighted by this procedure, not much evidence
exist to warrant not performing a circumcision on an infant. My gut feeling
is that if ill intended, men general would have long ago dispelled this
attack on their member. That is only what I believe.
On the other hand, much of the support for circumcision leaves me with
questions. http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon/G_Weiss/Perspective(F)/
This site offer much substantiated information concerning infant
circumcision. If you browse the pages you will note the studies (for
example cancer and STD's collation with foreskin are done in Africa) are
done in place where social/cultural beliefs as well as hygienic practices
are different than in the West.
Another popular belief is that men with foreskin are prone to committing
violent acts, and that there is some sort of relation between - foreskin,
hormones and violence or aggression. I really would like to see a study
that proved that and was able to show figures for a cross-section of the
population. So don't dare come back with that unless you can prove it.
Reduction in the cases of UTI is cited as another reason to remove the
foreskin. Personally I had many UTI's as a child and youth and I had been
circumcised as an infant. This does not hold water with me since I was to
control my UTI with my diet. I also do not want to imagine how awful it
would have been if I was un-cut.
I found a really good report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
1996; 154(6): 769-780
( http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm ). Even though it
offered many citations of reports and findings, it was middle of the road
and no conclusion was made. Stating that circumcision "appears" to reduce
the occurrence of X, Y, Z. But no research is available on the opposite
scenario.
The only thing that I can find that is keeping me from giving in and letting
the circumcision shoe drop is the presence of pain. These letters,
http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol%2D155/issue%2D5/0507e.htm "Circumcision without
tears" outlines one of my major concerns about the discomfort of my newborn
son. The pain factor and the medical professions lack of addressing this
issue seem to be the only real arguement that I have. Personally I would
like to read any phycology reports that my be around on this aspect.
What I would like, is to come back and see that others have posted
discussion and answered to my question -IS THERE A GOOD REASON NOT TO BE
CIRCUMCISED?- with either print or electronic citations. I do not want any
religious, opinionated, moral or ethical discussion. Please, just medical,
scientific, or news media facts.
Thank you for your time. I would also like to as the author of the original
post to keep me informed if he happens to find any other group that will
"play fair".
Sean Crowe
Toronto, Ontario Canada
Jon Levy wrote in message ...
Lahall2
Circ= circumsion irc= internet relay chat.... two totally different
things.
Cheri wrote in message <355A39...@netmcr.com>...
Julie Misa
Lahall2 wrote in message <6j822q$jhc$1...@news.fgi.net>...
>Ok here is a womans point of view. Please don't e-mail me. I was seventeen
>when I had my son.(yes I was married and yes I am educated) I did not knoww
>that it could cause sexual damage. I didn't know that they do it with out
>pain medication. I did what I thought was best.
I think that you are probably like quite a few other parents who chose to
have their son(s) circumcised. By and large, parents do what they think is
best for their children. And, unless you make a conscious effort to
research the circumcision issue (at least here in the U.S.), you are not
likely to find solid information. I didn't know much of anything about
circumcision until a few years ago. I even grew up believing that boys were
born circumcised. Issues like pain management and potential harm from
circumcision? Didn't give them a thought, didn't know they existed.
> No I haven't researched the
>circ pros and cons. My Dh has never complained about it. I hope that my son
>doesn't hte me like art does his.
Just my opinion, but I believe that chances are slim that your son will hate
you because you and your husband chose to have him circumcised. Who amongst
us knows even one individual in real life who hates his parents because he
was circumcised? I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, but rather that
it seems rare.
Furthermore, for as sympathetic as I am towards those who regret having been
circumcised, I have a hard time fathoming how this one issue could make or
break a parent/child relationship. When I hear of cases like Art Boy's, I
can't help but suspect that there's more to the story than just the
circumcision issue. Could the circumcision itself have become the focal
point for other contentious issues?
> Just a couple of questions to inform me.
>1) what about what I have heard bout non-circ and penial cancer?
There are some good resources on the web that address this issue. The
medical aspects are not my strong suit, but I'll take a stab at your
question. As I understand it, at one time it was believed that circumcision
was a prudent measure in the prevention of penile cancer. However, the
methodology for the study supporting this assertion was flawed. It is also
helpful to remember that cancer of the penis is an old man's disease, and a
relatively rare one at that. When you consider the potential complications
of circumcision, they outweigh the highly questionable benefit of preventing
penile cancer. It's simply unfortunate that this medical misconception
persists; well-meaning parents could easily be convinced to circumcise their
child on the weight of this consideration alone.
2) how do
>you know that it has affected you sexually. I am not asking to be sacrcstic
>i just want to know.
I hope that someone else answers this question from a personal perspective.
All that I can add is that I've heard from men who suffered from a botched
circumcision that certainly affected their sex life (problems such as
too-tight erections, loss of sensitivity, embarassment over letting another
person see their penis, etc.). Furthermore, the foreskin does contain
sensitive tissue and nerve endings that may well enhance a man's sexual
experience. It also serves to cover and protect the glans of the penis.
Plus, the foreskin aids in the natural movement of the penis during
intercourse; this can help cut down on the need for artificial lubricants.
Good questions! I hope that someone else will take some time out of the
flame-fest to lend their perspective to you.
Julie
>Angie(Nick 11yrs, Sarhea 6yrs, Kaitlynn(bugg)7mths)
>
>
>
Grace Boockholdt
In article 1895...@news.nas.com, see.a...@end.of.post (Don M.) writes:
}On 12 May 1998 13:35:59 -0000, Sandy Morris
}<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
}
}>>Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
}>>misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
}
}}As most circumcisions are performed on newborns, I don't
}}understand why you consider if off-topic.
}}
}}Sandy.
}
}
}Perhaps because a 41 y.o. is no longer a newborn.
But it could teach a parent expecting a son--or who
delivers a son, just how far-reaching that decision to
*unnecessarily* amputate a healthy and sensitive part
of his genitals can be.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 406...@news.nas.com, see.a...@end.of.post (Don M.) writes:
}On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:02:06 -0600, Zardoz Greybeard
}<zar...@oldways.org> wrote:
}
}>There is an appalling lack of sensitivity to the pain of those who have
}>been deliberately mutilated by parents.
}
}toward parents who circumcise. It also demonstrates "an appalling
}lack of sensitivity" with regard to the many ramifications
}involved in the issue of neonatal circumcision. It isn't a black
}and white issue.
And your posts to Zardoz demonstrates an "appalling lack
of sensitivity" towards his pain...which is real to him--
regardless of whether *you* think it's "reasonable".
While I understand your point--the other side of this
must also be considered. The parent *may* have had
"reasons" to have the son circ'd--or, in the case of those
done 30-40 yrs ago, it was simply done. That is what
the parent will focus upon. The individual (child or adult)
has a different point of view--and that may be one of
"how could you not have protected me from this harm?"
because, in essence, the *individual* feels he has been
harmed--regardless of whether you or others feel that
those feelings are "reasonable".
People (children and adults) feel that the role of the
parent is the "protect the child". I do not find it
trivial or unreasonable for an individual to feel *betrayed*
by learning about what was done to his genitals, in much
the same way more and more women who've been subjected
to FGM are beginning to learn AND to speak out about.
Regardless of the "intent" of the parent--whether it be
well-meaning or whether it was done out of ignorance,
the child/individual is reacting to the "my parents didn't
protect me" aspect...and that *can be* emotionally
devastating inasmuch as this is a very basic relationship--
that of parent and child.
}"Art Boy" demonstrated "an appalling lack of sensitivity" by
}confronting his mother on Mother's Day at a family gathering.
}
}>Violent sexual attack on little healthy children, cutting up their genitals
}>and spilling their blood, is very offensive to those who oppose blood shed.
}
}Parents generally oppose "cutting up their genitals," "spilling
}their blood," and "blood shed" [sic]--unless they honestly
}believe that there is an overriding benefit for the child.
It has been established that many parents don't even
bother to explore or research the matter of circ. If it
were any other surgery, when it's recommended, they
would still get second opinions, ask questions and
*as a last resort* decide to have the procedure done.
Not so with circ in many cases.
}>Declaring that the victim of violent sexual mutilation is "irrational" for being
}>upset about the damage that has been done is just another way of denying
}>the feelings of boys/men.
}
}It is a matter of degree, Zardoze.
Your deliberate mangling of his screen name is yet another
example of your "appalling lack of sensitivity", Don. Should
we add an "e" at the end of your name, "Done"? Why not let
your points stand on it's own merits, Don--without resorting
to this kind of immaturity. I know you're better than this.
}When an adult man who has
}undergone a "normal circumcision" (one without an adverse
}outcome) whines about it for years and years, he sounds
}"irrational" to the average person.
Sort of like when slaves used to "whine" about their
freedom during a time when the "average person"
saw nothing wrong with slavery--that slavery was
"normal"?
}>It's a shame that so many can't understand that boys/men have
}>feelings too.
}
}It's a shame that you are unable to think in terms other than
}black and white, not realizing that most people do understand
}that "boys/men have feelings too."
}
}There is a big difference between having feelings and behaving
}hatefully toward a parent because a parent, in the child's mind,
}made a mistake with regard to circumcision.
Adult children have stopped talking to their parents
for far less than permanent body alteration, Don.
}>It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
}
}Not necessarily. Not necessarily when there is some benefit to be
}derived that seems more important than the hurt.
}
}>MGM really has to stop.
}>
}>Zardoz Greybeard
}
}It would probably stop a lot sooner if it there weren't so many
}fanatical anticircers putting out bad information.
Or procirc'ers putting out myths.
Laurel
If you are looking at Vernon's site then I suggest you keep researching.
Run Vernon and Weiss' name through Deja News and read about the
controversy for yourself. Check the dates on the studies. If you don't
want any religious, moral, ethical arguments - whatever... then take
logic. The onus of proof for any cutting is on those that want to cut not
those that want to leave good healthy tissue alone. Keep searching the
net... you got snagged on a pro-circ site.
Ask yourself - What do you know about the value of the foreskin? Do you
know how it protects the glans, how it operates during intercourse? Do
you know the difference between infant versus adult circumcision? I can't
give you references and medical quotes so you will have to dredge the web
for yourself. I know that the most compelling information that really got
my attention was learning about the VALUE of the foreskin. I formerly
thought is was some stupid flap of useless skin.
Laurel
formerly pro-circ from a family of cutters
mother of an intact son
Sean Crowe <harc...@globalserve.net> wrote in article
<6jdmdj$hbu$1...@titan.globalserve.net>...
Maria Garcia Pastor
I would advise to run a search in MEDLINE. You can search in there from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
Run a search on circumcision and you will get plenty of papers on the issue
to keep you entretained for a while.
Regards
maria
Zardoz Greybeard
Helen Arias wrote:
> >You bet. If my son is whining about his wee wee at 41 and nursing
> >old grudges, I'd just as soon he didn't show up for mothers day
> >to 'share his feelings'.
>
> "wee wee"?
>
> Do the words 'grow up' come to you when
> >you read this?
>
> Actually, yes they do.
>
> H.
Hey good answer Helen. LOL ;-)
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
MGM really has to stop!
Zardoz Greybeard
Dard M. Mason
gra...@wolfclan.corp.sun.com,NewsGroups writes:
> Ok...I'll ask you the same thing I asked Larry (he sent in
>his own story about forceps delivery): If parents and/or
>doctors were still allowing pure oxygen to be given to
>preemies--in light of it's affects, such as yours, do you
>think you'd be trying to educate the masses about such
>dangers?
However, my response was directly to "Art Boy" and made no mention of
Zardoz or his "type" of crusade. I was attempting to put something
into perspective for "Art Boy" and made no comments about RIC or it's
implications in today's world.
> And if people blew you off, "I find your whining
>offensive. Get a real life. Sorry you suffered--get over it.
>What's done is done--if you can't move on, you have a
>screw loose. Everyone I know who had preemies had the
>same procedure and they were fine. There's really no big
>deal, so shut UP."--how would you react--especially if
>this was an important an issue to you as circ is to Zardoz?
Since I wasn't saying this or even remotely like this.....and didn't
direct my comments to Zardoz or anyone but "Art Boy" I don't think I
should have to defend what I said in any other context. I was making
NO comments on RIC as it is performed today, just trying to discuss
handling something that was done many years ago and how it has affected
my life. Since, I am roughly the same age as "Art Boy" and had a
life-altering proceedure done to me as an infant....I thought I'd share
a personal experience and compare it to "Art Boy's" to see if he (or
others) could possibly see the situation a bit differently.
I will not be placed into the middle of this fight. What I was
discussing, in the context it was written, doesn't have anything to do
with the RIC battle.
Dard...............Mom to the infamous Brianne Kaylie
Sandy Morris
On 1998/05/12 Zardoz Greybeard <zar...@oldways.org> wrote:
>much counseling or therapy, etc., a mutilation gets the best he can do is to
>learn to live with the disability. He can never have a *normal* sex life
That's right, but it is important that he does learn to live with it if he is to ever
find happiness. I'm not trying to say that he should never think about it or mourn
for what he's lost. Just that he work on those feelings so that he can go on living
without it being such a major factor in his daily life.
I am sorry that certain people here have been invalidating your feelings. No one
has the right to tell you how you should feel about it.
>Your friend recovered from her physical injuries? Another difference.
>Permanent physical injuries are not "recovered" from, they are only at best
Rape and other abuse victims do not 'get over it' just like that. In fact, they
may never completely recover. It takes quite a bit of work to get to the point
where it doesn't affect them so much as to interfere with their daily lives.
>lines, all manner of emotional and physical help. I don't know of a single
>psychologist who is available for men who are victims of MGM. Most
The same could be said for male victims of spousal abuse, male rape victims, etc.
It is true that men are expected to suffer alone (or rather don't suffer--"just grow up").
Unfortunately, I don't expect to see those things changing soon.
Sandy
Zardoz Greybeard
Don M. wrote:
> On 12 May 1998 13:35:59 -0000, Sandy Morris
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >>Me too, after reading this off topic post. This group's title is
> >>misc.kids.pregnancy not 41 y.o. men angry about their own circumcision.
>
> }As most circumcisions are performed on newborns, I don't
> }understand why you consider if off-topic.
> }
> }Sandy.
>
> Perhaps because a 41 y.o. is no longer a newborn.
Thanks for clarifying this Donald. From your post I learn that if a newborn
baby writes to this ng about being mutilated as part of his birth process
then it is on topic. But if a boy grows up and learns to write, use a
computer, and about what happened to him and then writes to this ng it is off
topic. Glad you clarified that. I was somewhat confused. I thought that the
relevance of the topic is about pregnancy, childbirth and care of young
children and is independent of the age of the person writing. Now I
understand that if a man grows before he writes about his birth it's
off-topic. Thanks for the clarification.
[Could it be that Art Boy is "off-topic" because Donald does not think he
deserves to be that upset by the mutilation that was done to his body?
Naw...Donald wouldn't let that influence his explanation.]
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it is a boy
Zardoz Greybeard
I think she probably meant "RIC" or Routine Infant Circumcision -- the
deliberate mutilation of the sex organs of Healthy Normal male children
done as a "routine" part of being born. But the "routine" mutation
of boys/men is an abomination and barbaric deviant practice. Equivalent
mutilation of girls is now a felony crime in the US. Boys do not get the
same level of cultural understanding of the pain and deprivation that boys/men
suffer from genital mutilation. Boys deserve equal protection
under the law.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if everyone else does it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you get away with it.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you pay someone else to use
the knife.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you make spurious medical excuses.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's done by mom.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if it's a boy.
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
It is wrong to hurt a child!
(keep repeating)
Jon Levy
Maria,
Thanks. That is an excellent suggestion and I actually have done that a
number of times since I have an academic interest in this. There has been
a lot of research on things like infant UTIs, differences in pain and
expense at different ages, protection against STDs, and protection against
penile cancer. However, there either is almost nothing on effects on
sexual pleasure or I just have not figured out the right search to run.
If you or anyone ever finds the right search, please let me know what you
did.
Thanks again.
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zardoz Greybeard
Ok, this will never work but I'm going to try anyway.There seem to be at least a few of us with some interest in understanding
the scientific research on this issue. I would love to get a thread going
on that. The big unknown in this area, from what I can tell, is what
actual effect infant circumcision has on the adult sexual pleasure of
circumcised men and their partners (either female or male). There seems
to be a lot of speculation and anecdote but no science that I have seen.
The appeal to "scientific research" has long been a red herring tossed out by baby mutilators to justify the bloodshed of HEALTHY NORMAL children
The scientific research has conclusively proven that HEALTHY NORMAL boys are HEALTHY NORMAL boys.
The scientific research hs conclusively proven that amputation of the breasts of girls would greatly lower deaths from breast cancer, but for girls people can understand that amputation of babies parts to prevent future problems is unethical.
The scientific research has conclusively proven that amputation of a babies feet will prevent ingrown toenails, foot cancer, reduce incidence of broken legs, and reduce skin cancer because of the reduction in skin area, but nobody is so stupid as to believe that foot amputation is an ethical thing to do to a healthy normal baby.
Scientific research demonstrates that girls who get urinary tract infections can be successfully treated with antibiotics. Amputation is NOT a viable or ethical preventative for possible future infections.
Scientific evidence also shows that the "medical" business makes billions of dollars cutting up HEALTHY NORMAL little children. (Estimates posted on various newsgroups range up to three billion per year but may be only closer to one billion per year.) Scientific evidence shows conclusively that a single knife happy baby cutter can make an extra $10,000 or more per year without finding a single new customer. Medical trade mags such as OBGYN News run articles on how to make money cutting up little HEALTHY NORMAL children. That is the only scientific research that the "medical" business really cares about.
Likewise it is equally unethical and equally stupid to amputate a part of a HEALTHY NORMAL boy child based on some possible further reduction in rare cancers or reduction of infections. The American Cancer Society has asked that cancer stop being used as an excuse to cut up HEALTHY NORMAL little children.
Scientific research has conclusively proven that HEALTHY NORMAL boys are HEALTHY NORMAL boys. Being born male is NOT a disease that needs immediate surgical intervention.
The medical community and religious fanatics who look for excuses to cut up HEALTHY NORMAL children have looked for spurious "scientific evidence" for a century.
The spurious claims of "scientific research" used to justify mutilation of innocent little healthy normal children needs to be named for exactly what it is, a pack of lies used to justify the psychotic ritual mutilation of the sex organs of little children. It does NOT justify cutting up a boy's sex organs any more than similar excuses do not justify cutting off any other part of any other child.
Starting a thread to discuss "scientific research" on ritual child abuse
only perpetuates the lies, fallacies, fictions and excuses.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you claim "scientific research."
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you make spurious medical excuses.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you claim "scientific research."
Laurel
There are several references at the end of this article that are likely
good leads for your Medline searches.
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/1997:Mothering/ It is Dr. Fliess' article
from Mothering Magazine. I think a researcher did some work to determine
the kinds of nerves on the foreskin vs the glans... ?
L
Jon Levy <jl...@uic.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96.980514...@tigger.cc.uic.edu>...
> On 14 May 1998, Maria Garcia Pastor wrote:
<snip>
John Pritchard
Sean Crowe wrote:
>
> Thank you Jon, this is just what I am looking for too.
>
> My wife and I are expecting and we have learned that we will have a son. I
> refuse to permit an operation on a newborn without a good reason. I have
> always been of the "opinion" that circumcision is nothing but popular belief
> and a very good way of making a living for some. Now that I am more that
> "poor victim", I am forced to look at the FACTS and make a decision in the
> same manner that is expected in my profession -according to the facts-.
>
> Considering that many men feel slighted by this procedure, not much evidence
> exist to warrant not performing a circumcision on an infant. My gut feeling
> is that if ill intended, men general would have long ago dispelled this
> attack on their member. That is only what I believe.
>
> On the other hand, much of the support for circumcision leaves me with
> questions. http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon/G_Weiss/Perspective(F)/
> This site offer much substantiated information concerning infant
> circumcision. If you browse the pages you will note the studies (for
> example cancer and STD's collation with foreskin are done in Africa) are
> done in place where social/cultural beliefs as well as hygienic practices
> are different than in the West.
Here is another site you may find interesting.
http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/brianm/circumcision.htm
major deletion
>
> Sean Crowe
> Toronto, Ontario Canada
>
> Jon Levy wrote in message ...
> >Ok, this will never work but I'm going to try anyway.
> >
Major deletion
John Pritchard
Laurel wrote:
>
> If you are looking at Vernon's site then I suggest you keep researching.
> Run Vernon and Weiss' name through Deja News and read about the
> controversy for yourself. Check the dates on the studies. If you don't
> want any religious, moral, ethical arguments - whatever... then take
> logic. The onus of proof for any cutting is on those that want to cut not
> those that want to leave good healthy tissue alone. Keep searching the
> net... you got snagged on a pro-circ site.
>
> Ask yourself - What do you know about the value of the foreskin? Do you
> know how it protects the glans, how it operates during intercourse? Do
> you know the difference between infant versus adult circumcision? I can't
> give you references and medical quotes so you will have to dredge the web
> for yourself. I know that the most compelling information that really got
> my attention was learning about the VALUE of the foreskin. I formerly
> thought is was some stupid flap of useless skin.
>
> Laurel
> formerly pro-circ from a family of cutters
> mother of an intact son
Taylor's work, while dealing with *facts*, takes a mechanical view of
the foreskin and fails to recognize physical and subjective differences.
Subjective experience is difficult to quanitify.
In any case, here is an earlier exchange on this topic.
From: jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard)
Newsgroups: misc.kids.health,misc.kids,misc.kids.pregnancy,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Circumcision FAQ [1/1]
Date: 7 Apr 1997 20:15:34 GMT
Message-ID: <jpritcha-070...@ts1dl25.escape.ca>
In article <1997Apr6.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com mercial.email (Geoffrey T.
Falk)
wrote:
>[ HYPERTEXT AT http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/parents/FAQ/ ]
>Frequently Asked Questions about Infant Circumcision
> Compiled from various sources by Geoffrey T. Falk (g...@math.rochester.edu)
>
>
> # What is circumcision?
>
> Circumcision is the surgical removal of the sleeve of skin and
> mucosal tissue that normally covers the glans (head) of the penis.
> This double layer, sometimes called the prepuce, is more commonly
> known as the foreskin.
>
> Parents are encouraged to read as much as possible about circumcision.
> They should make themselves aware of the complexities of the
> circumcision procedure itself. Speak to your doctor about the
> step-by-step procedure. If possible, ask to observe a circumcision
> at your hospital, so that you will know fully what is involved.
>
>
> # What is the foreskin there for?
>
> The foreskin has three known functions: protective, sensory, and
> sexual.
>
> During infancy, the foreskin is attached to the glans and protects
> it from urine, feces, and abrasions from diapers. Throughout life,
> the foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from
> trauma and injury.
Most mature intact men have some degree of permanent retraction and some
have total permanent retraction. This raises the question as to the
need, or even the desirability for adult males, of such protection.
If protection is to be introduced as a factor, then considering the
great
variation in normal foreskins, we must conclude that some intact styles
are better than others. We must classify intact styles as to their
effectiveness in this area.
> Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure
> and control [19]. The sexually sensitive areas are: The frenulum
> (a membrane at the front of the penis); the frenar band (that serves
> to pucker the foreskin closed when the penis is not erect, and runs
> all the way around the penis when it is erect); the inner foreskin
> layer, and the glans.
The author SPECULATES that the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure and
control. To the extent that the foreskin helps retain excessive
tenderness, the foreskin reduces the ability to control and may make
control virtually impossible. If the foreskin is very loose, it will not
be stretched and thereby activated during coitus and it may actually
play
a very minor role, perhaps even a negative role.
> The foreskin provides ample loose skin for the penis to occupy when
> erect. Warren and Bigelow described some of the physiological
> functions of the foreskin in sexual activity. [1]
The function during coitus can vary. It can move forward and backward
over the glans, thus providing a vaginal masturbatory effect. It can
remained rolled up behind the corona of the glans and thus protect the
more sensitive areas of the penis from direct vaginal stimulation. It
can fully retract along the shaft.
> The foreskin is a movable skin sheath for the penis during intercourse,
> reducing chafing and the need for artificial lubricants, and allowing
> the glans and foreskin to naturally stimulate each other.
A tight foreskin moving on an excessively tender glans can actually
cause
chafing. The female provides the lubrication. A permanently exposed
glans
will be tougher than one permanently covered and it will be less chafed
or
damaged during intercourse with insufficient lubrication.
And finally, at least for the moment, let's look at your comment
regarding the Maden report. "The Maden study (an ongoing study of penile
cancer at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle) observed
that
37% of penile cancer cases occurred in circumcised men." This is a
partial
truth. It also says "Relative to men circumcised at birth, the risk for
penile cancer was 3.2 times greater among men who were never
circumcised." (Few if any preventative measure are 100 per cent
effective.) And this from the man whose signature motto is "I conceal
nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive not to lie in a
negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy." Tsk, tsk, tsk.
What
would Leo think now?
snipped
>
>
> The information in this FAQ is not meant to replace the care and
> advice of your pediatrician.
>
> REVISION 4.92, DD/MM/YY = 29/07/96
>
> --
> I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
> not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
> PER US CODE 47.227, UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS WILL BE BILLED $500/ITEM
> Geoffrey T. Falk <g...@math.rochester.edu> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
J.P.
P.S. I just saw your latest revision. Did I notice that FINALLY there is
some recognition of the differences in foreskin length - and dare I add,
differences in foreskin function?
Jon Levy
First, did I predict this or what?
As to the substance, I am not going to get drawn into this line of ranting
and counter-ranting and I hope no one else will, either.
Mr. Greybeard, you clearly feel that circumcision, especially neonatal
circumcision is a terrible thing. At least part of your reason for this
position seems to be that it causes great damage to the sexual functioning
of adult men. Fine. If true, that is clearly a very strong argument
against circumcision. In fact, if you can make that argument convincingly
in this forum, I can pretty much assure you that you will prevent some
number of new parents from having their newborn boys circumcised in the
near future. Since I think that is something you very much want and I
think you must realize that some of these parents are only going to be
convinced by solid science, it seems to me that you have a strong
incentive to make your case with scientific evidence. Therefore, please
do one of the following:
1) Present some citations to scientific studies appearing in respected
peer-reviewed journals.
2) Say that the scientific evidence does not exist. This would not
constitute a statement that circumcision does not harm men's sexual
functioning. All you would be saying is that as much as you wish science
had been able to support what you believe to be true, it has not done so
yet. There is no shame that.
3) Say (either explicitly or by default) that you don't care whether there
is scientific evidence because it would only be relevant if you wanted to
convince people and actually prevent circumcisions and that is not your
goal.
Please give some thought to which of these you choose. Your next message
probably will determine whether most of this group ever reads any future
messages from you. If you choose #1, you will have a large audience and
probably prevent some circumcisions. If you choose #2, you will win some
respect and at least some of us will read your future messages, although
not the ones in this thread. If you choose #3 (especially if you do it
by refusing to even address the issue), I suspect most of us will go back
to automatically skipping anything with your name on it. Therefore,
before choosing that option, admit to yourself that the blood of any
number of future circumcisions that you could have prevented will be on
your hands and that is a price you are willing to pay for the selfish
pleasure of screaming into the wind.
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Boyd
In article <6jctlc$j...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, "M&D" <M...@no.spam> wrote:
> I've heard some refer to circumcision as sexual abuse. Is that for the mere
> fact that the uneeded operation is performed on the genitals? Then what of a
> medically indicated circumcision? What if a boy received a dog bite to the
> foreskin and he needed a circumcision to repair it (it's happened). Is that
> sexual abuse too?
I think that you can probably decide. Suppose that you were in an accident
and were unconscious. No next of kin is available for consultation. What
procedures would you you think that it would be appropriate to perform on
you? Obvoiusly, only those which repair or minimize damage. Circumcision
to treat an injury is legitimate medicine. Circumcision done for any reason
other than to treat disease or injury is assault. And because there are
often sexual or hostile underpinnings to parents' desires to circ,
circumcision is sexual abuse.
> As for sexual abuse, I have some personal experience. I was molested on a
> few occasions by a family friend. Extent of the abuse varies and everyone's
> situation is different. Some people have issues of fear, trust and violation
> that they really need help dealing with. In my case there weren't many
> issues and for me personally I felt that it would not help me to sit around
> in group therapy going over it. I feel that the man who did it is more
> pathetic than evil and I don't waste any time thinking about him or the
> incidents. Spending months or years wallowing in victimhood out of
> proportion to the occurrence was not something I chose to do.
But at least you the satisfaction of knowing that people sometimes go to jail
for this sort of thing. Circumcisers run free.
-seric
CandyBors
>
>Circ= circumsion irc= internet relay chat.... two totally different
>things.
She probably meant RIC, which stands for Routine Infant Circumcision
Candy
(and Isabel and Peter)
**********
Meet them at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/park/1906/
**********
CandyBors
In article <6jdmdj$hbu$1...@titan.globalserve.net>, "Sean Crowe"
<harc...@globalserve.net> writes:
>What I would like, is to come back and see that others have posted
>discussion and answered to my question -IS THERE A GOOD REASON NOT TO BE
>CIRCUMCISED?- with either print or electronic citations. I do not want any
>religious, opinionated, moral or ethical discussion. Please, just medical,
>scientific, or news media facts.
>
>
Sean
I'm sorry this isn't a strictly a medical or scientific fact, but remember that
the US is the only country in the Western world that carries out routine
circumcision. Presumably if there was any benefits to it, other countries
would have cottoned on to this, and be doing it to. In fact, the opposite has
happened. Most other Western countries *used* to circumcise babies, realised
it was pointless, and stopped.
In fact, it is just a non-issue in the UK and Europe. When I was telling my
husband about the circumcision threads, I had to explain what I meant - he's
never even heard of circumcision, and didn't know what it was. Never having
seen a circumcised man myself, I hope I explained it right! <g>
One study I do know, although I may have got the figures wrong. Studies show
that circumcision halves the risk of UTI in boys. Sounds great, til you
realise [and this is the bit where I'm not sure of exact figures, but I'm sure
someone else will be] that something like only 2 boys in 1000 ever suffer from
a UTI, so you're carrying out surgery on 1,000 baby boys to prevent a UTI
(which can be easily treated with antibiotics anyway) in just 1 of them.
Personally, I wouldn't have thought it was worth carrying out surgery on
infants to prevent something so trivial and so rare. It would probably be a
better use of time removing all babies' appendixes and tonsils, disease of
which can make you ill.
Anyway, lets hope this thread stays as reasonable and rational as the posts I
have read so far. Its a big improvement on name-calling.
Zardoz Greybeard
First, did I predict this or what?As to the substance, I am not going to get drawn into this line of ranting
and counter-ranting and I hope no one else will, either.Mr. Greybeard, you clearly feel that circumcision, especially neonatal
circumcision is a terrible thing. At least part of your reason for this
position seems to be that it causes great damage to the sexual functioning
of adult men. Fine. If true, that is clearly a very strong argument
against circumcision. In fact, if you can make that argument convincingly
in this forum, I can pretty much assure you that you will prevent some
number of new parents from having their newborn boys circumcised in the
near future. Since I think that is something you very much want and I
think you must realize that some of these parents are only going to be
convinced by solid science, it seems to me that you have a strong
incentive to make your case with scientific evidence. Therefore, please
do one of the following:1) Present some citations to scientific studies appearing in respected
peer-reviewed journals.
By "respected" you mean validated by the very people who have been hacking
up innocent little children for a century. Those people (???)
are no longer "respected" by MEN who are learning just what scumbags they
really are. In fact most cockroaches get more respect than baby mutilating
the scum in your business. One friend recently traveled more
than 2,000 miles to desecrate the grave of the baby mutilator who had cut
him up but didn't live long enough for one of his sacrificial victims to
come knocking. No, Jon, those whom you ask for "peer-review" are
NOT respectable nor respected. The lies they have published for a
century are the problem, not the answer. "Respectable" people do
not sacrifice little healthy normal children in sadistic blood rites, nor
accept those who do. The fox is not the "respected ...peer-review"
committee to ask about how to protect the chickens.
2) Say that the scientific evidence does not exist. This would not
constitute a statement that circumcision does not harm men's sexual
functioning. All you would be saying is that as much as you wish science
had been able to support what you believe to be true, it has not done so
yet. There is no shame that.
The United Nations International Accord on the Rights of a Child declares that ALL children have inalienable human rights to be secure in their bodies and to be free from cruel and inhuman torture. That all the "scientific" information you need to stop torturing children and cutting them up. The cruel and inhuman torture of little children by genital mutilation can not be justified by pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo no mater how many times lying scumbags publish it and pat each other on the back in "peer-review" committees as the blood money keeps rolling in. There is no shame in saving children. There is no respect in violent sexual child abuse by sacrificial sexual blood rites. There is no respect for those who justify spilling the blood of healthy normal innocent little children. There is no respect for those who murder 50 to 300 boys each year by sacrificial blood rite. There is only international condemnation.
3) Say (either explicitly or by default) that you don't care whether there
is scientific evidence because it would only be relevant if you wanted to
convince people and actually prevent circumcisions and that is not your
goal.
The "scientific evidence" is that cutting a child into two parts and tossing out (or selling) the smaller part is a violation of international accord on the rights of children and permanently deprives men of our rights to OUR bodies. The lies that scumbag child abusers have published for years and years are irrelevant.
You start by asking for "respected" peer review. The medical profession stands in disgrace. You have no concept of respect. Violent sexual child abuse is a despicable act for which no perpetrator may be respectable. If you want respect, or the "medical" business ever wants to regain the respect given to the average dog, you will STOP THE VIOLENCE against little children. Your current post shows your total lack of understanding of the real issues involved.
Angry men from coast to coast are demanding that violent sexual child
abuse of male children stop. Only by joining the campaign to STOP
THE VIOLENCE against boys and men will you be respectable. Sacrificing
little children in violent sexual rites is abhorrent inhuman torture of
little children that violates international ethical standards.
Those who either do or support such violence against children belong in
prison with the rest of the violent sex criminals. See the reward
for their arrest and conviction at "http://www.oldways.org/savetheboys".
Please give some thought to which of these you choose.
I choose to stop the violence against boys and men. I do not
choose to participate nor to respect those who justify bloody violence
agains children, even if only boys are the sacrificial victims. Boys
are people too. Is there some problem with that concept that you are not
intellegent enough to understand?
Your next message
probably will determine whether most of this group ever reads any future
messages from you.
Most of this group reads my messages. Some, like you, who support violence against children do not. But, you use words like "respected" with no concept of the amount of respect that a cockroach would get. Child sexual abusers are NOT respectable.
I suspect most of us will go back
to automatically skipping anything with your name on it.
You may choose as you like, but already there are teams of lawyers and
angry men choosing test cases to sue doctors and medical institutions for
willful malicious malpractice sexual abuse of children. There are international
funds raising money for the legal and political battles to save children
from the scum who cut them up. Can you imagine the cost of settling a hundred
million lawsuits for deliberate malpractice? I have heard that malpractice
insurance refuses to pay for deliberate malpractice. You in the "medical"
business could be in real trouble. How much does even ten thousand
dollars times a hundred million men add up to Jon? Just wait.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Levy (jl...@uic.edu) School of Public Health University of Illinois at Chicago --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The School of Public Health sounds like a doctor training center.
Do you train "doctors" to torture little children in violation of international
standards of conduct? Do you yourself mutilate children? Have
you? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Will
you answer my questions?
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even if you make spurious "scientific"
excuses.
Larry McMahan
Zardoz Greybeard (zar...@oldways.org) writes:
Zardoz, Please don't post in html. Many of us don't use a browser as a
newsreader, and getting to to display the text is a pain in the neck.
And don't ask me to read new with a browser, that's even more of a pain.
: Jon Levy wrote:
: > Ok, this will never work but I'm going to try anyway.
: >
: > There seem to be at least a few of us with some interest in understanding
: > the scientific research on this issue. I would love to get a thread going
: > on that. The big unknown in this area, from what I can tell, is what
: > actual effect infant circumcision has on the adult sexual pleasure of
: > circumcised men and their partners (either female or male). There seems
: > to be a lot of speculation and anecdote but no science that I have seen.
: The appeal to "scientific research" has long been a red herring tossed out by baby
: mutilators to justify the bloodshed of HEALTHY NORMAL children
I agree that pro-circers have made claims that were based on faulty data, or
were scientifically unjustifyable, but that is a far cry from saying that
looking at the scientific research is a red herring.
If you are going to convice normal objective people, facts are the best way.
There are no facts better than good, provable scientific research.
: The scientific research has conclusively proven that HEALTHY NORMAL boys are HEALTHY
: NORMAL boys.
Fine. I will accept this claim at face value. Now, I ask you. Cite your
sources. In other words, publish me a bibiligraphy, that is a list of the
scientific studies that have proven these claims.
For my self, I see a lot of rhetoric on BOTH sides of the controversy, and
damn few provable claims.
I, for one, would like to see a few!
Larry
Zardoz Greybeard
Jon Levy wrote:
> 1) Present some citations to scientific studies appearing in respected
> peer-reviewed journals.
Here is another answer for you Jon. The only "respect" that child mutilators
deserve is the respect they get at the end of a good stout rope. Sexual violence
against little innocent children is one of the most despicable crimes one can
imagine. Lots of folks would come out to see the hangin'.
As for "peer-review," a committee of mutilated men is "peers" for sexual violence
against (young) men. Rapists are not put in charge of "peer-review" committees at
rape crisis centers. Violent child abusers are NOT peers of the victims.
It is wrong to hurt a child -- even a boy
Male Genital Mutilation really has to end.
Zardoz Greybeard