J. Tammaro spotted this "intactivist" in Copley Square this morning, urging people to vote against circumcision, even though there are no circumcision-related ballot questions in the works for the 2016 ballot.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
(No subject)
By aldos
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:07am
[img]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/arresteddevelo...(27).png[/img]
What is this, a picture for
By anon
Fri, 10/02/2015 - 7:39am
What is this, a picture for ants?!
Who do we thank for this "tip
By dd808
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:29am
Who do we thank for this "tip"?
I work in Copley and see
By ZachAndTired
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:31am
I work in Copley and see these people out there every few weeks on my way home. Seems like a pretty strange cause to get this passionate about.
Protesting the pinning down
By Robert Paulson
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:45am
Protesting the pinning down of newborns and removing parts of their sex organs for religious/aesthetic reasons in a modern society isn't a worthwhile cause?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LfLvqfh2GMM/TCo6ztOoXII/...(2).JPG
i have never met a guy who
By mikex617x
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:13pm
i have never met a guy who wished he could turn back the clock and stop his circumcision from happening. protesting it seems like a foolish platform for a normal person to have... only a pedo would be so concerned about baby dong.
Such people do exist
By lbb
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:53pm
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but there are men who feel pretty strongly about this. I know that most people consider it a jokey topic, but it isn't a joke to everyone (not even getting into the, ah, accidents that happen sometimes during circumcisions, resulting in more than the loss of a little bit of skin).
How many have you asked?
By anon
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:58pm
I find that really hard to believe. Most likely, you have never actually talked to anyone about their circumcision.
I actually have talked about this topic with quite a few guys over the years, and it's pretty common for them to wish they were uncut. I'm one of them.
Hello!
By Suldog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:01pm
My name is Jim; some folks call me Suldog. Now that you've met me, feel free to recant your post.
Most guys aren't going to talk about their circumcision. It's past history, nothing can be done about it, so why discuss it? However, if I am asked if a child should have it done, I will vehemently argue against it, as will some others, I'm sure.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
please explain why you would
By mikex617x
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:38pm
please explain why you would undo the procedure? what ill effects did it cause you? or is this some sort of sovereignty-of-the-body thing?
Ban it on babies
By anon
Fri, 10/02/2015 - 6:25am
Circumcision is NOt the problem - it's doing it to children that is the problem. Make them wait until the child is an adult and let the adult choose whether or not they want to be circumcised.
Performing this on infants is barbaric and it amazes me that hospitals still do it (to children)!!!
I'm circumcised and proud of it
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 2:47pm
Or at least I'm not ashamed of it. And it wasn't done for religious purposes (though if I ended up going the Judaism route, it will be easier.)
Most guys don't talk about it since most guys don't remember what was going on with their lives when they were a month old (and yes, I do know it is done earlier than a month.)
There is nothing medically wrong with circumcision, and as long as I have a functioning penis, why should anyone care about the decisions my parents made back in the day?
Nothing medically right about it
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:09pm
In fact, it has nothing to do with medicine at all. Except for the fact that any surgery involves risk of complications ... medical complications that aren't necessary for a newborn to risk.
You have never met my husband, then
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:07pm
Or my kids, who have thanked us repeatedly for not foisting compulsory, non-consenting cosmetic surgery on them.
I also wonder how long it will be before a family sues for the right to have their girls mutilated because it is legal for boys to be circumcised.
I would also like to see it banned from insurance absent valid medical indication. That got rid of much of the practice in Canada, as it is entirely cosmetic.
"Or my kids, who have thanked
By Lmo
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 10:51pm
"Or my kids, who have thanked us repeatedly" Really, repeatedly?
Resident Gay Guy here
By cybah
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:18pm
Wow.. and the resident gay man on Uhub I'll say..
I'm cut. I'm glad I was cut. And I'm glad many other guys are cut.
However, for me its about a hygiene issue. I can't tell you how many times I've gone down in a guy and they've had 'cheese' or a strong fishy odor down there. I know it's gross to think about it, it's true. Some guys don't understand the meaning of "Personal Hygiene", especially if they are uncut.
Yeah people need to clean and take care of it, but I know some guys who have excessive skin, and even after a few hours after a shower and being trapped in your undies.. that smell and cheese can re-appear. And then of course, the guys who don't clean well.... ewww :)
From this point of view.. at least in gay world, it's a toss up. Many like uncut and many do not. It all relative to who you ask and the audience you are asking it to. Some people say uncut is more sensitive (and I can second that from personal experience with other men), but cut guys will say the same thing. So again. It's a wash.
However, I know three different guys who had reconstructive surgery to bring back the skin. And I know two guys who had circumcision as an adult.. you want to talk about painful? It's very painful (*watches every guy in the room grab their crotch with a look of pain on their face*)
Someone asked above why you would want to undo it. From what I was told by the three different guys who had it done.. most said it was about sensitivity down there. But one said it was a 'liberating' to do so.
If I had a child, would I want him cut? Yes I would. But for me, it's more about cleanliness than anything else.
(and wow this post just made me look like a big old whore.. but I do speak from a lot of experience with men)
Question for Cybah
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:24pm
Do you honestly think a blowjob is safe sex?
In other words, intact or not, shouldn't a casual encounter involve a condom?
As my mother used to say, and now I say as a mother: "If you can't be good, BE SANITARY!"
Really don't wanna answer that
By cybah
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:35pm
I really don't wanna answer that Swirl. Because the term 'safe sex' is relative to who you ask. If you ask someone in the medical field, yes they are going to tell you to use a condom for oral.
But for most gay men.. you are liable to get dirty looks if you say "please wait let me put a condom on before you blow me". Only because most gay men I know won't have oral sex with a condom on. You lose most of the feeling with a condom on.
Can you define 'safe sex'?
By JPNative617
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 6:44pm
Oral sex is considered a pretty safe sexual act. Even without a condom oral sex is very low risk for all STD's and close to zero for HIV.
TMI
By merlinmurph
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 4:44pm
just sayin'
oh i know
By cybah
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 5:56pm
but I can bring alot to the conversation about cut vs uncut :D I have a lot personal experience.
You don't speak for me honey
By Chuck
Fri, 10/02/2015 - 7:31pm
I'm gay, too, and you, my friend are an embarassment to to my community. Perhaps your negative experiences with intact men are the result of your slumming with low rent pieces of trash? Maybe you're such a gross and nasty bear that only dirty pigs will have anything to do with you, thus your negative experience.
Wow..just wow! I thought I liked you until I read this ignorant diatribe.I expect more from "My People".
Get out the popcorn!
By Markk02474
Fri, 10/02/2015 - 11:00pm
For this fight! Maybe Cybah wasn't doing his favors in the tea room where the boys could wash.
maybe you should
By cybah
Mon, 10/05/2015 - 7:56am
Sounds like you need to get the stick out of your ass.
Ignorant? ha! Embarrassment? really? Not everyone sits home on Friday nights and watches reruns of Sex in the City while downing a tub of Ben and Jerry's.
Sounds like someone is jealous because some of us are getting some while others (you) are not.
Thats becasue
By Marco
Fri, 10/02/2015 - 1:34pm
they have no idea what those extra thousand nerve endings feel like. Can't miss what you never had....
Oddly
By Michael
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:34am
That guy's getup has me craving KFC.
(It's been at least a fortnight. Damn you Col. Sanders!)
Saw two other protesters
By Sally
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:38am
with these same signs a few weeks ago at DTX. The back of one sign said "Don't cut baby penis." It was kind of bizarre.
More graphic protesters
By adamg
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:38am
In front of the BPL.
Sorry but why is this just making me laugh?
By Sally
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:51pm
I won't make any middle-school level jokes but good heavens...the bloody crotch--really? If this is the biggest worry these guys have...I have never met anyone who regretted being circumcised or seemed to be suffering in any way because of it. Comparing it to any kind of FGM is plain ridiculous, unless you can find some poor fellow who had the end lopped off or maybe the whole thing sewn shut.
See Posting Entitled "Hello!", Above
By Suldog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:19pm
Insofar as comparisons, I only do so because I think BOTH practices are hideous. One is usually more so (although there have been many cases of botched circumcisions. Some, in earlier days before total understanding of the psychological implications, were resolved via reconstructive surgery and the raising of the boy child as a female. For instance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
one practice is rooted in
By mikex617x
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:40pm
one practice is rooted in preventing women from enjoying sex, the other comes from goofy religious and hygiene concerns, but does not, by design, prevent sexual pleasure. they are not in the same ballpark, the same league, sport or universe.
Sorry, It's no laughing matter...
By JPMom
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 8:32pm
when you've seen it botched, as I have, even to the point of sex-reassignment surgery. It's just NOT necessary to take that risk on a perfect, newborn baby boy. And, it's not a universally accepted practice, even in developed countries. Heck, it wasn't even common in the USA pre-World War II.
However, even though I am opposed to routine male circumcision, I wouldn't equate it with FGM either.
Well, of course.
By Sally
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 9:48pm
There's nothing funny about any botched surgery on anyone but the sight of a grown man acting out what looks like a seventh grade girl's menstrual nightmare to protest male circumcision IS funny. And of course there are risks to any surgery but the positives seem to outweigh the risks. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/2...
Very funny headline!
By JPMom
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:42am
However, it is a medically unnecessary procedure, in most cases, and not without risks.
Meh
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:47am
I had the snip-snip as did most of my friends. No one got sick or hurt.
I don't see what the big deal is. I'm just as happy to have had the operation done (as an infant).
People say there are no side effects
By Michael
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:54am
I couldn't walk for a year :(
When did you have it done?
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:01pm
I haven't been keeping up on the research other then knowing this procedure is almost universal done to Jewish infants.
Also as an infant
By Michael
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:02pm
'twas meant as a joke.
ha
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:08pm
I'm still looking for that spot on the ceiling where they said someone wrote gullible.
*WHOOSH*
By ZachAndTired
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:03pm
*WHOOSH*
Oddly Enough...
By Suldog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:11pm
... there are also lots of women who were victims of genital mutilation who will gladly perform the same on another female.
( See "Who Performs FGM" )
No bullshit - if you are just fine with having had the operation performed on you, good for you. Me? I would have liked having the opportunity to decide for myself, thanks.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
But...
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:17pm
If I was going to have it done I'd want it to be done as an infant and infants can't make decisions. It's not like ear piercing or a tattoo.
Unlike FGM I believe this should be left up to parents and their [board certified] doctors.
Like I Said...
By Suldog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:26pm
... and I honestly mean it - If you have no problem with it having been done to you, fine. I am not as happy about it having been done to me. I have to say, however, that if you think it's LESS than an ear piercing, I'm a bit incredulous.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Sometimes Evolution Needs A Push
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:52pm
You're just so much better off. Foreskins are just plain disgusting. And since the invention of pants they have become wholly superfluous.
So...
By lbb
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:05pm
...why don't we remove infants' appendixes and wisdom teeth?
On the one hand, it's rare to have problems as a result of the surgery. On the other hand, it's rare to have problems if you don't have the surgery. In that case, doesn't it make sense to not have the surgery unless it seems warranted in the individual case, and especially to refrain from surgery on infants and children without a clear medical need?
Non-Invasive
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:22pm
Removing those things, and its hardly clear the appendix is superfluous, is a little more involved.
Surgical removal of an organ covering
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:12pm
That's non-invasive?
Um ... I take it you never took pathophysiology.
Yeah
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:57pm
Of course it's more involved then ear piecing which is why it should be done shortly after birth if at all. (Ear piecing can be done once the child grows old enough to have a say.)
To say the child should be given the choice is the same as saying it shouldn't be done -- by the time the child is old enough to choose the risk of the procedure increase. It's like saying the child should have the choice between breastmilk and formula.
It's fine if you're opposed to it. I'm just annoyed at people who demonize it and the parents who make the decision.
High costs for the medical system
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:15pm
Circumcision is, put bluntly, a profit center for hospitals. They get to do a whole bunch of medically unnecessary work and get paid for it by insurance.
In Canada, when that full insurance subsidy of cosmetic surgery for infants was removed and parents were asked to pay out of pocket, a lot of them though a lot more deeply about what their choices were ... and didn't do it.
Your journalistic pun skills are a cut above the rest!
By Felicity
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:43am
Saw this dude and another guy at Dewey Square a few weeks ago.
No really is this just about
By Samuel Murphy
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:44am
No really is this just about what was/is a standard medial practice or the only remaining outlet for antisemitism?
FGM is a serious issue
By anon
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:59am
FGM is a serious issue because it isn't done for medical or aesthetic reasons and has serious life altering consequences. For males it's a meh issue usually used by antisemites to literally be dickheads.
HPV is now established as the cause of cervical cancer
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:27pm
At one time male genital mutilation was defended due to lower rates of cervical cancer for the partners of Jewish men without knowing why.
We show our sexual, racial, and cultural bias by attacking African female genital mutilation as primitive and barbaric while defending the practice for white, European-based, Jewish male victims.
except for one key difference
By Malcolm Tucker
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:46pm
Circumcision is usually performed in a hospital by a medical professional when the male is an infant. The men I know who've been circumcised are still very capable of enjoying sex. Female genital mutilation, however, is usually performed in secret, in unsanitary conditions, and in such a way that the best case scenario results in a woman deriving no enjoyment from sexual intercourse. That's after she grows up, of course: female genital mutilation is performed on girls no older than 15, in most cases, as a "rite of passage."
Institutional genital mutilation makes it OK?
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:23pm
Some might argue that abortion in a clinical context does not make that OK either.
Circumcision results in diminished sexual enjoyment (for the man) resulting from desensitization of the constantly exposed glans. The receptive partner may also have an opinion.
Just admit that circumcision is an archaic cultural tradition (just as FGM ones in Africa) with no rational justification.
look at you, talking about "no rational justification"!
By Malcolm Tucker
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 2:19pm
Look, I'm an atheist, so I don't see any reason to carry on with old religious practices of any kind - but I also see that, in most cases, circumcision is far less harmful than female genital mutilation.
Nice try with the abortion red herring, btw.
(How can a man know if circumcision led to diminished sexual enjoyment if it was done when he was a baby? What's he comparing it to? Do you boys really talk about the varying degrees of ecstasy you experience in your tips?)
Sometimes, yeah
By Jeff F
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 2:39pm
I'm a nerd, and have a notable number of weird nerd friends. We often talk about stuff like this. On one email list of which I'm a member (!), this topic was discussed at length (!) a couple years ago.
Although the self-reported frequency of coitus and ejaculation did not differ significantly between the circumscribed and uncircumscribed (about 40-50 men commented on the thread), as a group, the uncircumscribed men anecdotally reported greater sensitivity - which might mean greater pleasure during sex. About half the circumsized men said they did not have their sons circumsized (or would consider not having it done, if they were to have sons). None of the uncircumsized men said they had or would have a son circumsized.
Hard to say just how much bias was present in this informal survey, but there ya go.
interesting!
By Malcolm Tucker
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 2:46pm
It's hard (wink, wink) to be objective on the subject, no doubt, but that's interesting to note. I've known a few circumcised guys who claimed that they were more sensitive than their uncircumcised cohorts - but I tended to dismiss that claim, because how would they know.
Someone should do a study.
Not to get too detailed but...
By Sally
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 3:32pm
Can't the "sensitivity" issue go either way? Meaning--greater sensitivity doesn't necessarily equal greater pleasure. I honestly just don't see how you can compare since you can really only experience one or the other, unless you're one of those rare guys who goes in for it at age 35.
if any post called for getting too detailed, it's this one
By Malcolm Tucker
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 4:16pm
That's true: sometimes sensitivity means pain instead of pleasure, but that could be for reasons other than whether a man is circumcised or uncircumcised. I imagine the guys who've had it done later in life are the only ones who'd be able to offer an actual comparative analysis of what it felt like before, and what it feels like now. Since most guys are either going to be cut or uncut all their lives, however, I wonder how possible it is for them to evaluate whether they think they have it better or worse.
Well
By boo_urns
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:09pm
I really wasn't going to participate in this discussion, but someone else said that "pants make the need for foreskin obsolete." Actually, with that, and your comment above, the difference is likely that of a level of callousing, to an extent. The glans is very sensitive and by exposing it, it's going to endure friction that wouldn't naturally happen with the protection of the foreskin. Thus, the uncircumcised male is likely to have maintained a higher level of sensitivity due to that protective skin. The regular exposure, even to fabric, is going to cause some level of degradation in sensitivity, hardly (heh) to say that it's really detrimental to any measurable extent. But, let's be honest. Even if a guy is circumcised much later in life there still is the absence of all of those years without the protective skin around the glans. Still not going to be a fair comparison.
As far as my stance on the issue, I see it as a largely unnecessary procedure in places like the US. We are generally pretty clean (but there are exceptions, yes), and we have the proper channels to teach hygiene to our kids. But I don't really care much about the debate so much as I'd probably just refuse it if I ever have kids/boys.
Personally, I find these protesters to be funny for other reasons, although I think their motivations are like in the paragraph just above this one and nothing to do with anti-Semitism. And if they are, well, f them.
Additionally
By anon
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 1:29pm
in female genital mutliation, the labia are removed and then fused into one scar tissue organ such that the urethra and vagina empty out of one hole, and the hole remaining is not stretchy enough to accommodate intercourse or birth. Female genital mutliation renders the bulk of the reproductive system seriously damaged, by making menstruation, intercourse, and birth incredibly painful and dangerous.
Circumcision does no such thing: men who are circumcised can use their penises the same as men who are not. It does not damage the function whatsoever.
Try This
By Suldog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 4:25pm
My circumcision was "perfect" (in the words of the doctor who performed it, according to notes made by my mother in a baby journal she kept.) I'm married, happily. I'm able to enjoy sex. I orgasm often and readily. However, go to Google and put in "botched circumcision", then click "images".
You will, if you have any compassion whatsoever, be sickened by what you see. And if you can look at some of those photos and still be in favor of this operation being performed on a routine basis on infant boys, with even the possibility of something like what you've seen occurring, then... well, you are what you are; I won't belabor the obvious.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I'll take you're word for it
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 5:37pm
rather than risk not being able to unsee those images. Good point - stuff happens.
Weak Argument
By BostonDog
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 7:56pm
If you search google for "botched medical procedure" for any operation you'll find plenty of stories and graphics to make you lose your lunch. Plenty of people get serious infections from pieced ears too but as a percentage of total piercing it's so small as to not not make people avoid it.
What would be useful is real statistics about these procedures preformed in the US and the infection/mishap rate. It would also be good to see some hard numbers on the number of men who aren't circumcised and get various infections in that region that non-circumcised men do not get.
Cosmetic surgery
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 9:16pm
You don't need strong arguments to NOT perform cosmetic surgery on a newborn.
You need strong arguments in order to perform surgery on a newborn that is not medically indicated.
Those strong arguments are not there. Cosmetic surgery is not worth the well-documented risks of anesthesia and poor surgical outcomes. It doesn't matter how small those risks are, given that the procedure is unnecessary.
The "burden of proof" here is simply NOT on those who refuse unnecessary surgical procedures on newborns. It is on the back of those who claim that it should continue.
No one is put under general anesthesia
By Sally
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 9:52pm
to get circumcised. And it is not strictly cosmetic. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/2... It's up to the parents, clearly, and heavily influenced by religion and culture, but calling it "cosmetic" isn't accurate.
Any anesthesia
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 10:06pm
On a newborn, any anesthesia carries risks.
If I cut off the earlobes of a newborn because of my personal superstitions, you would call for my head. Why is it different because those superstitions are far older and shared?
Still unnecessary. Period. The rest is just shaky justification inflating extremely small risks of things happening when circumcision isn't employed, while downplaying the very real risks of unnecessary surgery on a newborn.
This is a massive waste of health care dollars. Full stop.
Also consider this
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 5:11pm
The very legality of circumcision for boys could become a legal wedge to force the legality of female genital mutilation.
As the courts seem fond of rulings that force non-assenting boys to submit to circumcision (even though the credentials of any surgeon who performs such a forced unnecessary operation on a verbally non-assenting minor can be revoked), this sort of lawsuit will eventually be brought and may prevail due to precedent.
Maybe
By Paula Mickevich
Thu, 10/01/2015 - 12:39pm
Maybe it's anti Muslim... They are the largest group to be circumcised... Muslims, Jews, and Americans. Most of the rest of the world I don't think has majority circumcised.
Pages
Add comment