This is posted as written, with no edits. Any submissions are welcome though I won’t post vitriolic rants with vile language or threats. Simply leave the post you’d like me to post in the comment section and write ‘guest post’ or ‘reader submission ‘ or something similar somewhere visible.
I think we are all aware of the tactics employed by the intactivists, they are certainly vocal enough to ensure we all know exactly what they think. But what about the rest of us? Shouldn’t we have a voice too, why don’t we speak up for the right of parents to choose, or those that fully support circumcision. I guess the truth is that for most of us it really isn’t that big a deal. Intactivists like to claim that some men are unhappy being circumcised. I don’t doubt that, there are posts on the web that show some men are unhappy. But we must remember that they are small in number, most men who are circumcised are happy with it. They are happy with their parents’ choice. So should we stop circumcision because a few are unhappy? No, just as everything else in a democracy, the majority makes a decision and circumcision is a perfectly legal parenting decision. Why not wait until the child is old enough to make a decision? There is a claim that it is painful for an adult. It is probably painful for the child too, but they won’t remember it. I am sure that most men are glad they don’t have any memory of their circumcision. There is also a good argument that it heals quicker in an infant. So it heals quicker and there will be no memory, we’re good to go… right? Wait, here comes another intactivist argument, circumcision totally desensitizes the penis (or according to a comment I read recently, it weaponizes the penis…. Wtf? Weaponizes? What does that mean?). The truth is that most men only know their circumcised state, so have no reference. Well, again most men seem happy with what they have, and again the democracy rules. What about those that are circumcised as adults? What do they say? It seems that most of them are happy to be without their foreskin. In both cases they report happy and fulfilling sex lives. But if we can’t rely on the evidence from the largest group of men, because they have no reference, who can we ask? Well in America most men are circumcised, so what about the women? What do they say? Of those that have experience of both circumcised and uncircumcised, most will either say they prefer circumcised, or have no overall preference. Only a small percentage will say they prefer an uncircumcised man. So what about another claim from intactivists that it ruins sex for women too, well they would be voting for uncircumcised if that was the case. Even in the UK, which is not a country where circumcision is common, women have been known to prefer a circumcised man. So another claim that doesn’t add up. Jews, Muslims and some Christians perform circumcision as a religious requirement, something that has happened for thousands of years. Would it still be required if circumcision was the debilitating action the intactivists claim? No. The religions would have adapted to remove the requirement. After all, it wouldn’t be good for the population as a whole if procreation was almost impossible as they like to claim. So it comes down to a choice for the parents, and as I stated at the beginning, it is a perfectly legal choice for parents to make. Intactivists like to say that the boy should be free to make his own choices, but parents have a duty to care for their offspring. The other choices they make have a much bigger impact on what that boy becomes as an adult. Feeding can affect development, schooling will affect knowledge and social skills. The parent’s attitude will have an impact on the person they bring up too. All of which are more important than a small piece of skin. What do you do if you have (or will) circumcise your son? Well, make sure you are happy to talk about it when the inevitable questions arise. Be able to give good reasons why you circumcised him. That might mean researching and understanding the benefits of circumcision, or it could be that it is required for religion. He will understand that it was done for good reason, not just because the doctor said it was a good idea. That way it won’t be something for him to worry about, and it will be forgotten, just part of life. Another large part of the intactivists tactics is to deny the many studies that have taken place into the benefits of circumcision. They claim the evidence is flawed, the studies are flawed, the medical organizations that publish them are biased towards circumcision. Really? I doubt these large medical organizations are trying to brainwash us into circumcising. They risk losing all credibility if they cannot back up the studies, would it be worth it? Finally when they cannot persuade parents that their arguments are right, they start the personal attacks. Why do this? If they genuinely wanted to stop parents circumcising their sons they should go to the law makers, governments, these large medical orgs and persuade them to outlaw it. But they know that they cannot change the law, their arguments are not strong enough for that, as I have shown. So instead they go after the vulnerable new mother (mostly they attack the women, not men) telling her that she has harmed her child. So we are back to the start again, gone full circle. Do most circumcised men feel unhappy? No, they are perfectly fine being circumcised. So it is definitely not a problem and should (will) remain a parent’s choice to make.