Strategic argumentation

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Strategic argument > "Circumcision can cause severe, lifelong suffering, although not all circumcision leads to suffering."

Here are the reasons why Droit au Corps spent a lot of time developing this strategic slogan starting this key argumentation, which corresponds to the main Droit au Corps flyer recto-verso that we distribute at the booths. We needed a simple and easy to remember sentence that can be drawn at any occasion and in front of any audience (including pro-circ militants), and that produces the following effect: 

1 - this slogan is IRREFUTABLE (in particular thanks to the many testimonies that exist), no procirc can deny it. And saying otherwise is impossible too: "not being circumcised can cause heavy suffering, FOR THE WHOLE LIFE", since one can be circumcised at any age (where are the many testimonies that prove that one can suffer terribly from not being circumcised, and for the rest of one's life?)

2 - it has the consequence that one must be against non-consensual circumcision, especially on children, even pro-circ 

3 - it does not offend circumcised men (or their relatives, especially parents): it is very important to be able to include circumcised men in the nocirc cause, so not to stigmatize them and inflict a double punishment (being circumcised and supposedly suffering from it)

4 - it makes it possible to respond to circumcised men who claim that they are very happy with their circumcision and that they do not understand that we are against "that we are delighted that they are happy to be circumcised, but that unfortunately this is not the case for everyone, and that circumcision can even lead to suicide (the case of the young English man in Canada for example)".

This slogan is therefore the "Lethal Weapon" of the nocirc camp, easy to use on TV or radio, in confrontations with procirc: they find themselves immediately neutralized and without any capacity to retaliate. 

We could very well translate this synthetic argument of DaC into English, which would allow us to make cheap flyers for the other members of ICASM and even put the complete article on their site.

[Luke Artanis]

1) The statement "not all circumcision leads to suffering" is false. Circumcision is restraining a victim, stripping them naked, touching their genitals, penetrating their genitals with a probe, cutting their genitals, crushing their genitals in a clamp, and removing their genitals. This is sexual violence and all sexual violence leads to suffering.

3) "it does not offend circumcised men". How did you determine that? The statement greatly offends me and I am a so-called "circumcised man". (I'm a genital mutilation survivor, actually).

": it is very important to be able to include circumcised men"

Yet, by definition, the statement excludes all the victims of genital mutilation who "do not suffer from circumcision." This is a contemptible betrayal of the victims, not advocacy.

4) "it makes it possible to respond to circumcised men who claim that they are very happy with their circumcision"

No capitulation* is needed to make that response possible. One can simply teach the truth about human anatomy, in a neutral, dispassionate, scientific way, without invoking the concept of "circumcision" or ethics.

*It is capitulation to the ideology of child molesters to make the claim that "not all" of their victims suffer.

[Sophie Dallidebour]

hello to all

Luke, I hear your anger and I'm gonna try to respond.

1) There are 2 types of suffering. The physical suffering, the time of the operation and the healing process and the moral suffering that can last a lifetime. 

For the first one, you must think we're talking to other people than Americans and "modern" parents who of course will do that in hospital (I don't know if the ironic tone is good with the translation. You'll see that I like to caricature to fully express my thoughts).

These people answer: yes, Americans (Jews, Africans...) are barbarians, I'm against it, it's absolutely necessary to fight for circumcision in hospitals!

When we speak of suffering we think much more about the second one. In another message, I am going to give a testimony 

3) Thou art a circumcised man that suffereth, thou hearest that thou art not alone.

You are a circumcised man who does not suffer from it, you hear: ah well, I am one of those who do not suffer. But there are men who do suffer? How is that possible?

Or again: phew, there are men who don't suffer from it, my son might be one of them.

Tell yourself that here in Europe it's mostly not a choice of parents! They just listened to poorly trained doctors and believed them as we often do when facing a specialist (valid in all fields).

Imagine that if it is said that all men suffer from it, they (but also parents, companions) will risk hearing : 

What you are circumcised, then you suffer even if you don't know it, and then in bed you suck, and then you make your wife sick, and then your anger makes you want to hit, rape, massacre the students of your college, to plant bombs...if, if it is the fault of your circumcision.

And this interpretation will exist even if these are not our words, even if we are neutral, even if we bring scientific evidence, testimonies...

Let's let people go their own intellectual way.

For example, my husband was extremely proud to tell me he didn't cry when he was circumcised with a machete at the age of 9. A few years later he confesses to me that he has just understood that he was traumatized, that he didn't have an erection until the age of 21, that he has an anger in him that he didn't understand the origin of...  

4) There are 2 categories of circumcised men who do not suffer from it:

- Those who were circumcised as children but have no problem with their parents' choice...

- Circumcised adults (again, one should not be too focused on the American situation) who feel a real relief of being circumcised.

The parents' choice.

I'll take my case. I only see with one eye. My parents decided for me, without my consent (5 years old) an operation that was not medically necessary: a correction of the strabismus of this eye because they did not find it beautiful.

I am happy with their choice even though I don't feel natural (especially since I had other problems with my teeth: 7 healthy teeth pulled out and my legs twisted which required a correction that was not medically necessary).

Parents who choose their son's C are not bad parents, they choose because they believe it's what's best for him.

For adults, there are those who convert and are happy to belong to a community, those who had a real medical problem and are relieved.

Above all, we don't all feel the same way. You must be familiar with this study on Russian Jews who immigrated to Israel and were circumcised as adults. The majority depicts a degraded sexual situation but not all of them and some say it is better afterwards.

Sorrells also says about his sensitivity study that there were significant differences between the men even though there was a strong tendency.

Remaining benevolent is the ONLY way we can make ourselves heard by all (or almost all) and admit that some are doing well does not devalue the situation of those who suffer from it.

On occasion it would be necessary that you discuss with JC about the illusion of ego. When you have understood this principle, you are lighter.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Sophie Dallidebour]

Here is the testimony of a man I know who says he does not suffer at all from his C. We talked about it several years ago and he supports me in my commitment.

We wanted some testimonies from men who do not suffer from their C to illustrate our argument and show that we are listening to all the circumcised.

I was not ready to publish this testimony at the time because of the mistakes he made. Today I see things differently and I am going to propose it to the publication of DaC. (with the necessary precautions for mistakes)

To situate the character on the sexual level I can add this point. 

The day after his first time, the girl announced to the whole school that he sucked!

He thought : well maybe, but then I'm going to become a specialist in female pleasure. So he had experiences with several hundred women.

He says that he has always been more concerned about the pleasure given than the pleasure received.

Important clarification: he kept his brake on.

"I was operated on for phimosis. Usually this pathology is due to the fact that mothers or fathers regularly have to remove the foreskin of the child in a bath so that the mucous membranes of the child are not "welded" with the glans. 

Here, therefore, nothing to do with a religious practice in my case. My parents were, like me, atheists.

 

The surgeon who performed this operation was not very professional and I had to regularize his work with a cutter and bandages (not very painful but hyper vascularized as a place) when I was about 22 or 23 years old. 

[Sophie: he's talking about a bridge of skin that he cut himself]

 

Personal feeling = My brake is much more sensitive since it is exposed. I have never experienced any pain or lack of pleasure from this procedure. Hygiene wise, the glans is dry and the absence of foreskin has allowed me to be less germ-bearing during coitus which can contaminate the vaginal flora of my companions. Men often carry fungus, without realizing it, if the cleaning of the glans & foreskin is not done, there is a high probability of transmission of germs to the vaginal flora with complications if not treated.

 

Felt by my companions = In the foreplay phase, they all loved the softness due to the dryness of my glans, when touching and fellatio. My urino-genital system has no smell.  In the coitus phase, I don't think a partner can feel the presence or absence of a potential foreskin. The fact that the dryness directly provokes a better control of the management of my rise in pleasure, allowing me to make my partners enjoy one or more times without ejaculations on my part.

 

I have recently learned that surgical interventions (of religious or medical origin) aiming to circumcise, remove the nerve centre that is the brake. I don't know the pain and frustration of a man being in this situation. It must be hard to live with not taking pleasure in a sexual act."

[Sophie Dallidebour]

Brake = frenulum

[Kyle Schlegel]

The last 7 words of the slogan make the entire slogan refutable- and worse, disagreeable for most people here.  

• Presuming that you are focused on the harm aspect;
  • "can" is a semi-limiting catch-all.  
    • It leaves open the potential for all, or some, and avoids saying "all."  
    • It implies that only some circumcision is harmful
      • We can disagree for now whether this is useful and true 
  • "but not all" is a destructive catch-all.
    • "Can" already communicates that potentially 'not all.'  
    • The only definitive statement you are comfortable making is "It is completely possible that we're 100% wrong here about cutting."
      • Saying NOT all, means NOT ALL. You are making a definitive concession that closes the possibility that all cutting is harmful.
    • Analogy: "I will try to make 100 people happy today, but also maybe zero and definitely not more than 100." 
      • Why not just say "I will try to make 100 people happy today." 
      • It leaves open that even if you try, maybe you'll fail and get 0, or perhaps millions.  Maybe you'll get 100, but aren't guaranteeing it.  Going further to say "definitely no more than 100" is the equivalent of adding "but not all."

What is the concern- that someone will prove that our slogan is false by saying that they weren't harmed?  I say we build responses to this claim, rather than concede before we start.  

Us: Circumcision is harmful!
Guy: "I wasn't harmed!" 

Us: "How do you know?"

...

Avoiding the fight isn't our goal.  Starting the fight is!  We will have opposition, and attempting to avoid or suckle our opposition doesn't make sense to me.

Concessions and limitations made in an effort to avoid at all costs the potential interpretation that we've made a statement that could be false is a losing mentality.  We WILL be accused of being false, even if every single comment we ever make is true.  Going the extra mile to solidify that we will never make any strong statements ever being accused of being wrong forfeits the strength of our conviction.  All genital cutting is WRONG.  Forget about harmful.  It is not wrong because it causes suffering, it is wrong because having your entire body is RIGHT.   Not just "a right."

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:39:23 PM UTC-5 Sophie Dallidebour wrote:

Brake = frenulum

[Kyle Schlegel]

Is this slogan being proposed for use in a highly oppositional context?