If Intactivism is to counter Pro-circ, then...

[Appalled Observer]

Then Muslims and and the other peripheral cutters are exempt from the argument.
It's just struck me (slow brain, sorry) that Muslims and the rest cut because of tradition and religion only. Furthermore, their sexuality is less developed than average in the West. By that I mean, their sexuality is regarded as a smaller part of their whole than in the West, and anything broader in scope than the regular duties are regarded as sinful. May be a bit condescending, but true I think.
That being the case, they would have no reason to be concerned with issues of "comfort", "better", "orgasms" and all the other offered reasoning as to why circ is bad for good sex.

I personally have no intention of trying to convince a Muslim that he should stop cutting his kids, when his kid (although having suffered the procedure) probably won't grow up to miss it, or be concerned about its forced removal, or its effect on his sexual function in adulthood. To a Muslim (and the other minorities that do it) it would be a non-issue, and if it's one to them then it's one to me. Muslims and the other peripherals are not Pro-Circ...they couldn't care less whether others do it or not. So they're exempt from the Intactivists' argument.

Brain lock...I'll be back with an edit

[intact]

muslims stand for the vast majority of cutting worldwide, so getting under their skin is a big win. cutting in the US pales in comparison, when something like 70% of people worldwide mutilated are kids to muslim parents.
and yes, some of them like the fact that cutting messes up the sexlife, but in my experience, the majority are normal people too, and there are quite a few intact muslims these days.

main problem is getting the information to them.

[mark85]

There are Muslims in Western culture.

[peterpink]

Originally Posted by Appalled Observer

Then Muslims and and the other peripheral cutters are exempt from the argument.
It's just struck me (slow brain, sorry) that Muslims and the rest cut because of tradition and religion only. Furthermore, their sexuality is less developed than average in the West. By that I mean, their sexuality is regarded as a smaller part of their whole than in the West, and anything broader in scope than the regular duties are regarded as sinful. May be a bit condescending, but true I think.

When you say that 'their sexuality is less developed than average in the West', I think it would be more accurate to say that 'their sexuality is more repressed than average in the West'. Having said that Christians also repress sexuality. Sexuality is a part of most humans that needs to be expressed, if it is repressed sexual needs break out in unacceptable ways. In recent times examples of this have been exposed in the Roman Catholic Church, Jewish Communities and within monasteries - despite efforts to cover up what has been going on for centuries. I recommend Darrel Ray's new book 'Sex and God - How Religion Distorts Sexuality'. It is a real eye-opener and everyone should read it. Even atheists will be surprised at how much of our sexuality has been damaged by religious teachings.

Circumcision gives the circumciser power over another human's sexuality and therefore their life's fulfillment.

[z726]

My advice would be to avoid the religious stereotyping. There have been restorers here of both Muslim and Jewish faiths, and I'm also aware a number of outspoken intactivists in both camps. We're all human and do share common interests, you know.

To say that anyone circumcised "probably won't grow up to miss it, or be concerned about its forced removal, or its effect on his sexual function in adulthood" would be to ignore the majority of men posting on this website. Obviously we're not exempt from the argument, because we're part of the group making it in the first place.

As for sexuality being more or less "developed" - forget that one, too. Western culture has seen its fair share of sexual repression. This was the very reason circumcision was originally introduced to most of the USA and England, long before either country had any significant Muslim or Jewish population.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by peterpink

Sexuality is a part of most humans that needs to be expressed, if it is repressed sexual needs break out in unacceptable ways. In recent times examples of this have been exposed in the Roman Catholic Church, Jewish Communities and within monasteries - despite efforts to cover up what has been going on for centuries. I recommend Darrel Ray's new book 'Sex and God - How Religion Distorts Sexuality'. It is a real eye-opener and everyone should read it. Even atheists will be surprised at how much of our sexuality has been damaged by religious teachings.

Circumcision gives the circumciser power over another human's sexuality and therefore their life's fulfillment.

Oooh, you're onto something there peterpink. Thanks for that post, and I'm real tempted to buy that book now.

[peterpink]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Oooh, you're onto something there peterpink. Thanks for that post, and I'm real tempted to buy that book now.

You can see Darrel talking about his book here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/damon132...e=results_main

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by peterpink

You can see Darrel talking about his book here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/damon132...e=results_main

Damn, you beat me to it. Was gonna leave this link to a vid, but I guess it's included in your link. Will take a good look now. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp_L4yvOZCM

[scotty]

Originally Posted by peterpink

Circumcision gives the circumciser power over another human's sexuality and therefore their life's fulfillment.

There was a video I just saw the other day on this site or from a link on, can't remember where, but there was a rabbi who was proud to brag that circumcision is to "control lust." What the fuck!!!!!

[admin]

Originally Posted by Appalled Observer

they would have no reason to be concerned with issues of "comfort", "better", "orgasms" and all the other offered reasoning as to why circ is bad for good sex.

Whether or not a whole group can be said to feel that way, there are people who just aren't sex-intensive. They will never be persuaded that the degree to which sex is better intact warrants rocking the status quo.

I think with such people we can only point out that changing another person's body without rational informed consent is violation of that person's basic human rights. And when they say "so what" we have to make it illegal to do so (as with FGM), and then (unlike what we've seen with FGM) we have to prosecute a few of the motherfuckers.

-Ron