HuffPost interviews intactivist

Great he spoke up and spoke out! I just have two bones to pick, but otherwise, great he had the courage to be interviewed.

First is the notion that his being gay gives him a greater appreciation/understanding abt the topic than straight men have. Ludicrous. Owners of penises regardless of sexual orientation all experience the sensations of using said penises pretty much the same way (using physiology as the measuring basis, since one can never really understand how others experience anything due to "the problem of other minds"). So if losing parts thereof affect one type of said owner a certain way, it'll affect other types the same way, provided the type definition doesn't create a substantial class distinction. And in this case, it doesn't. Besides, if he's gay and thinks straight men can't understand penises like he does, but himself can't understand penises the way straight men do, then just how does he have in his own mind a basis for comparison? That is, how can a gay man understand how both a gay man and a straight man experience penile sensations, but straight men can only understand how straight men experience them? Can't have it both ways. It just don't add up. But as I said, I think he's wrong about it from the get-go. Any owner of a penis can understand the simple reasoning: Skin loss from the penis entails loss of sensation from it. One need not be gay, straight, bi, or anything else to get that. One need not even be male to get it, either!

Second, he seems to be singling out his own religious tradition for the offense on his person. He mentions it's hard to forgive the Jewish people, etc. Well, it may be tradition in Judaism to circumcise infant males, and one with a lot of emphasis, but circumcision is about the net results: was the infant/boy circumcised or not? Many infants who are not Jews have been and still are being circumcised. Religion may not be a factor, but it's still happening. So regardless of "why", the forgiveness issue applies for anyone who was circumcised regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Besides, other religious groups with circumcision in their tradition include Muslims and Coptic Christians. Men in these groups could also call out their religious affiliations, but it'd do no good, really. What needs changing isn't the religions but the tacit notions of acceptable behavior toward infants/minors. In both mainstream Islam and Judaism, there are still laws "on the books" that are no longer observed or enforced since standards around acceptable behavior have changed. The religion didn't, but behavior has. That's all that's needed here. And same goes for secular behavior. Plenty of countries/provinces/states/etc. all have laws still technically in effect but go unenforced because they've outlived their acceptability or applicability. Same phenomenon. So I see it less as a matter of needing to forgive the Jewish ppl (and BTW, at his bris, was *every durned person* of Jewish faith, or even most, present and cheering on the MD or mohel?) and more a matter of letting go the resentment for one's own sake ("Ah, Grasshopper, forgiveness is a gift to oneself, not the transgressor. The wise man forgives, but does not forget, since by forgetting, he fails to learn."). But with an awareness of circumcision's harm, he can work to get it stopped, and if he forgives the personal offense on his person, it frees up more energy in a man's psyche to allocate toward the cause of eliminating the practice of circumcision.

And with all that said, I need to go back to sticking needles into my little MD doll, the one with the sign around its neck reading "MY EVIL CIRCUMCISOR" in all-cap red letter, letters I wrote in my own blood! Arggghhhh!!!! :)

Sh!t, if you don't laugh, you'll cry/scream/both. My strategy for emotional survival as I deal with MR issues is a generous application of ironic humor. Life's a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. Well, of course I feel. But I think, too. With MR issues, I find myself choosing to think a lot.