Medical Circumcision and Brit Milah is not…
Circumcision is not rape
Circumcision is not violence
Circumcision is not dangerous
Circumcision does not ruin your sex life
Circumcision does not mean your parents didn’t love you
Circumcision is almost never the reason you’re not enjoying sex
Circumcision does not increase sales of Viagra or increase ED
Circumcision does not make someone a pervert
Circumcision does not make someone a cripple
Circumcision is not replaceable with a made up ceremony for Jewish boys
Circumcision is not to blame for everything wrong in the world
Circumcision is not on the decline
Circumcision is not used to routinely acquire foreskins for cosmetic or medical uses and never without parent’s informed consent
And until things change with presentation…
Intactivism will not succeed at changing minds.
The Case Against Intactivism 
September 11th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
Anyone who wants to discuss this issue with someone who supports the right of parents to choose circumcision for their son(s) is welcome to send a private message to my Facebook message folder.
September 11th, 2014 at 1:12 am
^^ not rape ^^
Yet it can only be done to an infant by first forcibly penatrating a sexual orifice.
^^ not violence ^^
Except when it is. Circumcisions are done legally even when there is needless pain and the cutter has no training.
^^ not dangerous ^^
Yet hundreds of boys and girls die annually and thousands are hospitalized.
^^ does not ruin your sex life ^^
Except when it clearly does. Google circumcision damage. It’s frighteningly common to suffer horrid cosmetic and functional unintended effects.
^^ does not mean your parents didn’t love you ^^
I’m not sure who claimed otherwise, but if they refuse to apologize when confronted with the facts.both their love and humanity are suspect.
^^ almost never the reason you’re not enjoying sex ^^
So you admit it sometimes is? Then why did you lie above? What is your agenda here?
^^ does not increase ED ^^
Studies claim otherwise.
^^ does not make someone a pervert ^^
Another straw man.
^^ does not make someone a cripple ^^
“Amputee” then.
^^ not replaceable with a made up ceremony for Jewish boys ^^
It’s ALL made up, silly. It is what you want it to be. The faith was much more draconian in the past, but humans have CHOSEN to drop the nasty parts. They can just keep dropping stuff until it’s ethical.
^^ not on the decline ^^
Facts trump wishes.
^^ not used to routinely acquire foreskins for cosmetic or medical uses and never without parent’s informed consent ^^
There is absolutely a fluid market in stolen body parts and just checking a box that says the hospital can do what it likes with “medical waste” IS NOT proper informed consent to the sale of the infant’s foreskin. Of course no person has authority to consent to sale of my own parts. I own my parts.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Only the owner has the ethical standing to consent to a non-therapeutic amputaition.
September 11th, 2014 at 2:53 am
Yet it can only be done to an infant by first forcibly penatrating a sexual orifice.
This is an asinine comment, designed precisely and only to make men feel raped, inferior, less than, worse, with a mutilated, non-functioning penis. The truth is, however, that multiple studies have shown that circumcision either has no effect on sex or a net positive effect.
Except when it is. Circumcisions are done legally even when there is needless pain and the cutter has no training.
‘Cutter’ How common, Ron. How asinine. Circumcisions are not legally done by anyone without training. As a matter of fact, many mohels are also pediatricians or other medical professionals, and will use a dorsal nerve block or ring block.
Yet hundreds of boys and girls die annually and thousands are hospitalized.
I’m not discussing FGM. You brought it in to this conversation, and it has no place. FGM and circumcision are only comparable in the deluded minds of intactivists. Further, the true figure is 0-5 annual deaths by circumcision in the US, which is what I discuss in this blog. It’s more dangerous to put your child in the car. It’s comparable to the very rare ‘death by vaccination’. You’re talking about something that just doesn’t happen. 0-5 deaths in over a million circumcisions makes it as common to be struck by lightening as to be killed from circumcision. Bollinger gave your ilk exactly what they needed to use as scare propaganda. The truth is far different from the picture you paint.
Except when it clearly does. Google circumcision damage. It’s frighteningly common to suffer horrid cosmetic and functional unintended effects.
It’s only frighteningly common in intactivist propaganda literature. Especially when there are multiple intactivists, like “David J Bernstein” who are false profiles, designed (and supported by other intactivists) to spread the propaganda of ‘circumcision harm’. He was frighteningly effective.
I’m not sure who claimed otherwise, but if they refuse to apologize when confronted with the facts.both their love and humanity are suspect.
Puh-leaze. Ron, you have a vested interest in men feeling broken by their circumcision. You profit off of their manufactured pain. This pain wasn’t manufactured by their circumcision, but by intactivists, including you, who spread myths that are unfounded regurgitation of propaganda. Parents who circumcise their children do it because they think that’s what is best for their child. The fact that they ‘confront’ their parents with silly propaganda and pain that only existed after they ‘researched’ circumcision suggests a strong negative somatic response. Before they ‘researched’ circumcision, many enjoyed sex, and their penis, just fine. After being spoon fed lies, telling them they’re damaged and ‘join this movement, we’re here to ruin your self esteem, and oh, buy my product, it will ‘fix’ what was ‘stolen’ from you’. Fucked up, Ron.
So you admit it sometimes is? Then why did you lie above? What is your agenda here?
I’m sorry, what? Ruining your sex life is a very different thing than a slightly diminished sensitivity, but ‘greater satisfaction’ as reported by at least 2 studies. Probably more. What is my agenda? My agenda is to expose you and your fanatical ‘familiy’s’ lies, the pain you spread, the lives you ruin by sucking them in and spitting them out feeling broken and abused.
Studies claim otherwise.
No they don’t. They show that ED is effectedby obesity and it’s associated issues, like diabetes, rather than by circumcision. Further, drugs like Viagra are sold mostly in first world, rich, countries that can afford to buy them. That have the ability to simply acquire them. And because they’re covered by many insurance companies, easy to get.
Another straw man.
Throwing around logical fallacies without demonstrating how they are, doesn’t exactly help your case.
“Amputee” then.
Thanks. I appreciate you demonstrating that you have a vested interest in psychologically damaging men by making unfounded claims. They still have a functional penis.
It’s ALL made up, silly. It is what you want it to be. The faith was much more draconian in the past, but humans have CHOSEN to drop the nasty parts. They can just keep dropping stuff until it’s ethical.
Just because you don’t believe, doesn’t make it true. You are unable to prove that G-d doesn’t exist. Therefore, your claims that it’s made up are specious. Just because a very few people, especially ‘Jews’ who never practiced or believe they’re somehow half Jewish, or people who claim Judaism because their grandmother was a Jew, and claim that they’re influencing a huge change in Judaism, doesn’t make it true. They’re a teeny tiny portion of the religion.
Facts trump wishes.
Facts, hmm? Like the NYT article claiming a decline to 32%? Hilarious that’s been debunked for so long but still widely claimed, especially by people who know better, but want to pressure parents to choose what they chose, out of conformity, which they commonly mock. Hypocrites. Further, different data say different things. For example, Brian Morris found a decline of 6% from the 1970’s to today. The CDC actually found an increase. It just depends on what data you look at. Even if it is on the decline, the studies that claim this show a decline of 5-6% since the 1970’s. Not exactly an overwhelmingly positive response to your intactivism, Ron. See, here’s the thing. You guys exist in an echo chamber on the internet. There’s a false inflation of numbers, with so many intactivists making multiple profiles. But, when you go to protests, there’s only a couple of people there. Most decline to get up from their keyboard warrior position, or if they do, it’s to passive aggressively leave cards in pockets, or on bottle racks or whatever. Or they call peoples work, harass people through email or private message, or threaten them with death, mutilation or rape. You have an artificial sense of just how many intactivists there really are, because of your internet echo chamber. You have an inflated sense of exactly how strong your position is, because of your echo chamber. You have an artificial sense of ‘common facts’ because of your echo chamber. The average American doesn’t even know what intactivism is.
There is absolutely a fluid market in stolen body parts and just checking a box that says the hospital can do what it likes with “medical waste” IS NOT proper informed consent to the sale of the infant’s foreskin. Of course no person has authority to consent to sale of my own parts. I own my parts.
Sure, all those evil Jewish doctors stealing poor defenseless babies foreskins, with the ignorant ‘consent’ of the parents. Just a picture you want to paint for yourself, as opposed to facts. Is there a ‘fluid market in stolen body parts’? Probably. Almost certainly, even. That has nothing to do with legally acquired foreskins for the production of fibroblasts, which was described in my newest blog post.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Only the owner has the ethical standing to consent to a non-therapeutic amputaition.
Again, an opinion. Foreskin is comprised of the nerves and cells that are also on the palm of your hand. Sure that’s sensitive, but it’s not sexually sensitive. Your fetish for the foreskin creates a psychosomatic effect. Without that fetish, an objective observation of the sexual sensitivity of the foreskin shows that it’s just not that sexually sensitive. The frenulum, which is more commonly left nowdays, and the glans are the most sexually sensitive parts of the penis.
Thanks for trying, Ron. Thanks for demonstrating my points for me.
September 12th, 2014 at 3:31 am
I say infant circumcision can only be done to an infant by first forcibly penetrating a sexual orifice.
You say: “This is an asinine comment” and then completely side-step the question of whether someone could feel raped by forced genital cutting. Arguing while chasing the topic around some ever-changing perimeter is boring. You’re going to lose me.
I say circumcisions are done legally even when there is needless pain and the cutter has no training, which is of course 100% true. I don’t know if your side-step this time is because you thought I meant 100% of the time? California law expressly allows for any sort of circumcision by anyone, and proper pain management is required only in a few European locales.
I say hundreds of boys and girls die annually.
You say this isn’t about FGM. That’s sick and wrong to think there shouldn’t be equal rights for all genders but fine. Hundreds of boys die annually.
^^ the true figure is 0-5 annual deaths by circumcision in the US ^^
I’d love to review your sources on that. ZERO? In what year can you not find a few deaths in the paper, not to mention those that never see the light of day.
^^ It’s comparable to the very rare ‘death by vaccination’ ^^
Regardless of whose butt that might be pulled from you know that’s silly. A medical intervention may be ethically forced on someone without their own informed consent when waiting for their consent would lead to harm, and when less destructive options have been exhausted. Infant circumcision fails this test decidedly. Most vaccines pass with flying colors. 100% of circumcisions cause the loss of the foreskin and its functions.
>> Bollinger gave your ilk exactly what they needed {117 dead US babies per year} <> Before they ‘researched’ circumcision, many enjoyed sex, and their penis, just fine. <> ‘join this movement, we’re here to ruin your self esteem’ <> your fanatical ‘familiy’s’ lies, the pain you spread, the lives you ruin by sucking them in and spitting them out feeling broken and abused. <> It just depends on what data you look at. <> they call peoples work, harass people through email or private message, or threaten them with death, mutilation or rape. <> an objective observation of the sexual sensitivity of the foreskin shows that it’s just not that sexually sensitive. <> Thanks for demonstrating my points for me. <<
Actually, I addressed each of your points. You side-stepped mine.
September 12th, 2014 at 7:52 am
Yes, yes, yes. You just decimated my points. Please, kiddo. I didn’t side step shit. You didn’t ask if someone could feel raped, you said circumcision is rape. That’s just such a bullshit comment, an opinion comment, that makes no sense and requires total intellectual dishonesty and the most flexible of verbal acrobatics to twist it into such. Could a man feel raped by his circumcision? Sure, after intactivists tell him he should. Other than that? Is it something that would just spontaneously happen? Maybe, if there was some psychological pathology.
I thought the US was the only place that circumcised? LOL. If you want to make some claim about California law, please, feel free to cite your source, so I can examine the veracity of your claim.
Equal rights for all genders? Well, when boys grow a vulva, clitoris, vagina and labia, then I suppose we can call it equal rights. When the procedures are the same and the outcome the same, then we can discuss equal rights. As it is, they’re not the same, and they’re not equal. As a matter of fact, I’m 100% sure that you’re ’14th amendment’ cases will be thrown right out of court, with much mirth and laughter. The only people who think they’re the same is intactivists, and even then, not all intactivists think they’re the same. Hundreds of boys don’t die annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/risks.html
http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html
http://thecircumcisiondecision.com/circumcision-death/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full
As far as finding a ‘few deaths in the paper’, there are many times that you intactivists falsely, without an autopsy or even a medical degree, attribute a death after a circumcision to a death from a circumcision. Simply occurring close to the time that something happens doesn’t mean that that something was the cause of death.
And really…I’m sorry, but what? Deaths from vaccinations are incredibly rare. So are deaths from circumcisions. I know whose butt you pulled your figures from, mine come from the CDC, meta studies (that aren’t underpowered, or methodologically flawed…Oh Bollinger. Anything you see with his name on it is bullshit), and of course, those evil evil Jews at the AAP. Isn’t that what you guys are saying? The AAP took the stronger stance favoring circumcision because it’s all packed up with Jews and therefore they erroneously took a stronger stance? Right? Whose racist? I’ve seen so many anti-semitic statements come from intactivists that it rivals Inglorious Basterds. Yes, circumcision removes most of the foreskin. Of course, with the new trend of looser circumcision, some of those mythical, magical and mystical ‘functions’ of the foreskin remain! HUZZAH!
Don’t you have some ‘restoration devices’ to sell, through maladaptive, manipulative, psychologically damaging, self-hate causing salesmanship? Don’t you have some men to convince to resent and hate their parents, and their body? Don’t you have some lies to tell about how broken and ruined for life these men are, and how they will never be able to enjoy sex, or their partners enjoy sex with them? You have a vested, monetary interest in telling men they’re broken and mutilated. You have a vested, philosophical interest in psychologically hurting men. I’m here telling you and them, and the mothers whose names, faces, phone numbers, and photos are shared around the internet for harassment and threats, and the men who once had no problems with themselves and are now filled with self-loathing thanks to intactivism, and the mothers who are filled with regret for doing what they thought was right, out of love, and who tell their children they should resent and hate them for it, that what you guys are doing to them is WRONG. Intactivists’ manipulations are WRONG. You guys are wrong about the science, and wrong how you engage in your advocacy.
If you think that circumcision is a cause worth fighting for, fine. Engage in advocacy. But not how you are. Validate your facts, examine them with a critical eye to find what might be wrong with them before you believe them, stop trying to emotionally manipulate and damage men, and for fucks sake, quit threatening violence, or allowing others to threaten violence. And before you say you don’t do such and such, I’m using you generally there.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:10 am
Hey, another pedophile. Too bad America tolerates torturing baby boys.
Try that on a big boy and see what happens.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:44 am
Lol same old same old. Try to be a smidgen more creative.
September 9th, 2014 at 7:00 am
Couldn’t you have titled this ‘Female Circumcision Is Not’?
September 9th, 2014 at 7:09 am
Nope. I couldn’t have. Because it wouldn’t be true if I did. But that’s a nice misguided attempt at comparing two non comparable things, sweetie.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:09 am
Really? Oh, I think it would be equally true. We disagree, clearly. Good day to you, though.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:13 am
That’d because you’ve bought into a pack of lies that no intellectually honest person takes seriously.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:14 am
Are there really that many circumcised women in England?
I trashed your comment because it adds nothing to the conversation. We aren’t talking about your imaginary circumcised girlfriend or FGM. Your attempt to ‘shock’ me into changing my mind is transparent. If you think FGM and male infant circumcision are comparable then you are firmly in need of a good A/P class.
September 8th, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Well written!
September 8th, 2014 at 5:30 pm
I saw this posted in one of the groups the other day and thought of you.
A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.
PMID 15534340 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
September 8th, 2014 at 8:55 pm
LOL if Brian Morris published a paper saying the net gain was 828.42 and a gain of 15.30 years per 1000 would you buy it? Van Howe is biased and his work is about as believable as Aviva Romm on homebirth or vaccines.
September 8th, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Very true, but I would qualify it by saying “Medical circumcision” to distinguish it from barbaric tribal practices in Africa that are highly damaging, leaving behind them a trail of emasculated, infected and distressed (and sometimes dead) young men, and which actually spread HIV. A distinction not often made by the intactivists who lump all forms of circumcision together.
September 9th, 2014 at 7:51 am
Stephen, don’t confuse Paper with details and minutia, she likes to brush only in broad strokes. A ping back, which I am sure Paper will not approve, leads to a nice critique of her post (you could probably find it with google). The last time this happened, rather then taking up the challenge presented by rational, competent, and constructive criticism, she just disappeared her post (which you can also probably find too).
September 9th, 2014 at 8:07 am
Hey, Choose Intact. Glad to see you finally ‘playing in my sandbox’. Your critiques, well, some are legitimate complaints, others are just weird arguments against things I’m not saying. I’m sure you’ll screen cap and copy this for a brand new post as well. I’m not interested in a silly little blog war. That’s why I deleted my post to you. It was a mistake to write it. A mistake I won’t make again. It’s too bad that you don’t bother to clarify what I’m saying with me, and instead attempt to refute your misunderstanding of my points.
If you are, in fact, interested in an actual dialogue, lets make that happen. If you just want to continue attempting to start a stupid blog war, I’m not interested. Sorry.
No, I won’t let pingbacks through of your silly attempts to antagonize me. Again, not interested.
If you are, let me know, and we can start a dialogue. I have your email, and I’ll send you one through a sock email of mine. We can clarify our issues with each other, and perhaps work them out. If you’re interested, you can even guest author some posts.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:15 pm
It’s probably important to start out with the fact that I am not Tony from “Choose Intact”. I do read his blog but I am not him so he’s not the one playing in your sandbox. I can’t be sure but I think I can see why he won’t play in your sandbox.
Your suggestion to, “screen cap and copy this for a brand new post as well.”, seems to be in a pejorative tone as if such a tactic should be beneath a respectable blogger yet you’ve employed that same tactic in 6 of your last 12 posts, if my count is right. Why wouldn’t someone who was going to criticize a public blog post take a screen cap especially when the blogger is *known* to redact posts because of a “mistake”?
Of course, you don’t elaborate on what this “mistake” is but I think the “mistake”, such as it was, was attempting to engage with someone who you thought would be just another push over, providing more grist for your little mill. Instead what you got was exactly what you were allegedly looking for, someone who, while advocating against circumcision, publicly criticizes and condemns the extreme tactics that you cite. Worse than that what you also got was someone who, as I noted earlier, presented rational, competent, and constructive criticism of your assertions along with a compelling and articulate case against circumcision. Is that what you consider antagonism?
Instead of taking on that challenging poster, one who pretty closely represents what you believe is the needed change of the ‘intactivist’ presentation, you redact the post and call it a “mistake”. I can only guess this was done with the hope that it would all go away so that you could continue shooting fish in a barrel. Otherwise you would have engaged perhaps pointing out those arguments you didn’t make or the ones that were misinterpreted, clarifying them.
Too much work I suppose, too much risk as well. Which makes your final statements all the more puzzling. In paragraph three, your suggestion that you want a dialog is belied by this silly concern about a “blog war”. What exactly are blog cross posts if not dialog? I can only assume that whatever the “dialog” you want full editorial control just in case. Now I, of course, can’t speak for Tony, but why do you suppose anyone would agree to that when they both have their own blog to reply on and know your history?
September 10th, 2014 at 1:22 am
You know, Joe, there was a time in which I might have believed you. As it is, I’ve seen so much distasteful behavior from intactivists that it’s almost impossible for me not to believe the worst of the majority of them. But, for your benefit, you can pretend I do.
Lets get started, shall we?
Your suggestion to, “screen cap and copy this for a brand new post as well.”, seems to be in a pejorative tone as if such a tactic should be beneath a respectable blogger yet you’ve employed that same tactic in 6 of your last 12 posts, if my count is right.
It’s so weird to me, Joe, that you seem to make the exact same point, while missing or twisting my point, in the exact same way. It’s probably just the weirdest of coincidences. Now, see, you may notice there are very few, if any (I’d have to go back and see what my previous incarnation was doing) blog posts on here, and most certainly not multiple ones from the same blog, where I go through and, line by line, for the entirety of the blog, and grammar police or debate what I think someone meant to say. As for screen caps, absolutely I use them. I screen cap everything. I also am not as seemingly offended by or crow triumphantly about (in 2/2 blog posts about lil ol me so far, no less. Probably will continue mentioning it in every blog post, and I have no problem with that. It helps me to dismiss him/you more readily) deleted blog posts, Facebook posts, comments, or any other deleted comment where the person feels the interaction was a mistake. We’ll get to how you’re wrong on the motivation in a sec.
Why wouldn’t someone who was going to criticize a public blog post take a screen cap especially when the blogger is *known* to redact posts because of a “mistake”?
Jeez, Joe, you seem to be following me just as closely as Choose Intact is. I wonder why that is. Or why someone who is just so truthy, the truthiest of truthy, is so selective about which blog posts of mine he copies and pastas. Is that because he’s cherry picking for minutia to comb through? Or, if he were as honest and objective as he claims, then why is it those same screen caps of the very same inappropriate behavior this blog has always been focused on, do not make it into those same screen caps of my blog he posts? And I have no history of deleting posts. I have deleted exactly one post.
Of course, you don’t elaborate on what this “mistake” is but I think the “mistake”, such as it was, was attempting to engage with someone who you thought would be just another push over, providing more grist for your little mill. Instead what you got was exactly what you were allegedly looking for, someone who, while advocating against circumcision, publicly criticizes and condemns the extreme tactics that you cite. Worse than that what you also got was someone who, as I noted earlier, presented rational, competent, and constructive criticism of your assertions along with a compelling and articulate case against circumcision. Is that what you consider antagonism?
Boy you are quite the fan of Choose Intact. You really think highly of his abilities. And his intelligence.
Here’s the thing. I have respect for him as well. Not this silly little attempt to start an inter-blog war, no. I have no interest in that. The mistake wasn’t because he’s just too much for me, rather, it’s because I have respect for him that I’d like an actual dialogue. What do I consider antagonism? I consider the fact that he’s mentioned me deleting a post, which I’ve not hidden, I wrote about it on my own blog, 2/2 of his last posts about me. This is obviously a game to him, one he feels he has won. I have no interest in that. If he feels that he somehow uses different tactics, (which I disagree, I see much in the way of cherry picking, goal post moving, red herrings and other fallacies, although I’ll say that he’s at least not threatening anyone’s life or harassing his ex’s family, or asking for pictures of baby penises) then he’s not who I’m talking about. See, when the ‘reasonable’ people are working under the same umbrella as the crazies, they either need to accept a broad brush or they need to find a new name for themselves, or for the crazies. Because guess what? People are going to remember you as the loudest voices representing you, which is the batshit insane people like Brian Herrity, Brother K, Hollie Redinger, David J Bernstein/Christian Wimmer and all of their various personalities and alts. See, personally I’d take those fuckheads on before I bothered taking on the people like me, because in the end, getting rid of their ilk, or putting distance between you, would be a favor to the movement. But of course, if your sacred cow is being attacked, you absolutely must come to it’s defense.
As to his ‘compelling and strong’ case against circumcision (My goodness, does he know you have such strong feelings for him?) I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen the same claims made the same way. Sure, there’s a couple of little bones thrown out. His claiming that his posts says something the average person most certainly wouldn’t read into them, for one. His graciously agreeing that circumcision isn’t rape.
This comment, by the way, is as far as I’ll go in playing this moronic game. Which isn’t, by the way, that your intelligence is just too huge and hard for me to take in. It’s that this is a distraction from what the true purpose in this blog is, which isn’t to answer Choose Intact or any of his fanboys. If he feels that he isn’t engaging in those tactics discussed, then, again, I’m not talking about him.
Instead of taking on that challenging poster, one who pretty closely represents what you believe is the needed change of the ‘intactivist’ presentation, you redact the post and call it a “mistake”. I can only guess this was done with the hope that it would all go away so that you could continue shooting fish in a barrel. Otherwise you would have engaged perhaps pointing out those arguments you didn’t make or the ones that were misinterpreted, clarifying them.
I’ve offered to engage with him via email. If he truly wishes to engage in a dialogue with me, then he can actually dialogue with me. I have no interest in a public pissing match/epeen contest. That is boring and aside from the point. I’m glad that he finds me and my blog so interesting, flattering, really, but the point of my blog wasn’t, isn’t, and never will be, about an inter-blog pissing match, contest, war, whatever you want to call it. As it is, it’s a hobby. One I’d love to take on full time, and one that would be easy enough to take on full time, as some people don’t learn from their mistakes. I suppose I don’t either, as I’m sitting here, early in the morning, hacking out this worthless reply to you. I need you guys both of you, all of you, to know this. You can’t change my mind. I used to be an intactivist, I looked at all the same evidence you have, I continue to look at the evidence, and I have yet to see anything to convince me. If something convincing comes out, then I will change my mind. Even then, even were I to change my mind on circumcision, which I think has some benefits, some risks, and the same can be said for not circumcising, I still would not embrace a group of people that call another group of people (who truly believe they are making the best decision for their son) cutters. I would still never ever embrace a group of people that think it’s ok to stalk, harass, list names and addresses, plan to protest funerals and feature on their crazy little websites and databases, anyone who makes a different choice than they do. That is not goddamn OK, and if you think that my fucking rare time to myself should be spent in a pissing match with your hero (or you), you’re wrong. That’s why this is a mistake, that’s why that post was a mistake, and that’s why I won’t be making that same mistake again. If either of you are interested in an actual dialogue, you can post here, state you’re not interested in your comment being published, and leave your email address.
Too much work I suppose, too much risk as well. Which makes your final statements all the more puzzling. In paragraph three, your suggestion that you want a dialog is belied by this silly concern about a “blog war”. What exactly are blog cross posts if not dialog? I can only assume that whatever the “dialog” you want full editorial control just in case. Now I, of course, can’t speak for Tony, but why do you suppose anyone would agree to that when they both have their own blog to reply on and know your history?
That’s odd. You seem to be speaking for Choose Intact through the rest of your comment. How odd.
There’s no risk, Fellow Traveler. This blog has little effect on my real life. What it is, is beside the point. I haven’t quite developed the ability to just ignore the things that aren’t worth my time or that are beside the point. An actual dialogue is worth my time. that’s why I’ve said that I’m willing to open up an email dialogue with Choose Intact. Perhaps I should lay out some bait? Engage in your tactics? Oh he’s just not good enough, he’s too scared, it’s too much work and risk and I’m just too rational, competent and offer too constructive of criticism for him? Is that what I should do? No, I think not. I think I’ll leave the invitation, and if he’s actually interested, then we can engage in an actual conversation. I’m happy to have it. I’ve left him and other intactivists an open invitation to write a blog post. I wouldn’t edit it, they’re welcome to copy and save their post. The only thing I want first, is a real dialogue. Not a public pissing match.
I have no history of editing another bloggers posts. I have deleted one post that I admitted I deleted (and I’m not sure, because I haven’t tried to compare timestamps, but I think I even admitted I deleted it before Choose Intact put his post up. I certainly admitted it before I saw his post, though he either didn’t see it or he felt it was more expedient to try to use it to ‘prove’ my lack of integrity, as you are, which I find beyond hilarious) and it was a post I wrote. If that’s a history? You have a low bar. A very very low bar. But please, continue to bring it up, again, it makes it easier for me to dismiss you.
*OH SHIT I EDITED THIS POST TO ADD A / SO THAT MY ITALICS DIDN’T ACCIDENTALLY GO ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM OF MY POST! OH, AND ADDED ‘OF YOU’ TO A SENTENCE. I ALSO ADDED AN ITALICS TO A BOLD, AND ADDED THE WORD EMBRACE AND CAPITALIZED AN I.