Destroying Intactivist Arguments - Editorial

Yeah, thanks mom!?! Who Cares???

God, why did you click this article? Don’t you know that circumcision is the long lost, third topic that’s never discussed (right behind religion and politics). You shouldn’t even be taking about it… seriously? I’m circumcised, yeah. What are you going to do? I don’t care, but you know who does? Intactivists. Stupid as Onision with more logic overlooks than Vegan Gains, intactivists (in general), along with the like of feminists (I’ll be getting to them), believe in the “fair” treatment (or in other words, over glorification) of those who were “lucky” enough to have a foreskin. Oh, and did I mention that, if you’re like me, a poor, “disabled”, individual, you’re just simply unfit to be a member of the male sex. Wait, what? Instead of stooping to their level (I’ll be reacting to some of their comments in a future post), I’m going to lay down some of their, least to say, horrible arguments for my impairment, circumcision, and see just why they make no sense.

For now, were going to take on three big arguments. The first: circumcised people are sexually inferior to those that aren’t. This rumor stems from the observation that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the make body (which is wrong, that honor goes to the meatus (or head of the penis)). Other claims made in favor of this statement: circumcision makes the penis unusably dry (not true, it’s dry whether or not the foreskin is present), and circumcision makes the penis smaller (only if you count that whole 1/16th inch of skin loss where the foreskin use to be). What’s more to say? I just shot these three statements out of the park. Don’t believe me? Where’s my research? Just Google it and you’ll find tons of articles that are purposely suppressed by intactivists, and yet available at a moment’s notice, knocking these statements out of the skies.

The Second: Circumcision is mutilation. Not sure where this started. “Mutilation” is not a word I would use to describe a surgical procedure, especially one with as little effect as this one has. Look up mutilated penis, vs. circumcised penis, and you’ll get very different images. If you want to know what a real, barbaric practice looks like, look no further than Foot Binding, a process involving the breaking of bones in the feet, impairing the person from walking permanently, all for the sake of beauty. Say what you want about its effectiveness, but there is no denying that circumcision does have health benefits, and definitely doesn’t make it impossible to live life normally.

The Third: Circumcision is sexual assault. Hold on their, champ! Sexual assault? Now, I do understand the reasons the practice may be considered wrong, unnecessary, or unfair, and to be true, it is, but sexual assault? Now, I didn’t ask to be this way, but much like using the word “mutilation”, to describe circumcision, sexual assault doesn’t seem to fit either. With all the things that sexual assault entails, rape, abuse, and whatnot, this is what you pick to campaign for? As with before, look up circumcised man, vs. sexually assaulted man, and you’ll get two very different pools of results. I didn’t ask to be circumcised, and, much like I didn’t ask to be a boy or girl, black of white, who cares? Playing the “victim card” is just plain stupid here. It’s a type of prejudice, and neither side should be trying to make the other look better or worse.

The Final Statement (bonus): I paraphrase here “People with foreskins make better men overall”. You know what people don’t ask successful men: are you circumcised, or not? Why, you ask, my dear readers? Because it doesn’t FU***NG MATTER! Are intactivists Nazis, picking the most random characteristics from people (blonde hair, blue eyes), and naming them the master race? Why should it matter? Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that there are absolutely no benefits to being circumcised, and absolutely no drawbacks to being uncircumcised. What then? Who wins? Could it be neither, because no one cares? Saying that those with foreskins are much better off than those without is sexist, because you’re judging ones capability based on sexual features, especially when said sexual features don’t really matter during life at any point. As I said before, the foreskin is an aesthetic feature, and whether you have one or not, it does not matter, because much like race, or sex, or class, and every other prejudice there is, it is wrong and close minded to judge someone based upon their appearance alone. Like I said in the Vegan Gains article, you can’t ever trust someone who speaks in absolute, and that goes for intactavists. When they create a falsified over glorification of one side, and a falsified senseless ridicule on the other, it should be setting off alarms in your head that they can’t find ways to argue properly, and maybe don’t know what they’re talking about.

Thanks for reading everyone! I know, I know, this is a shorter article than usual, but after looking around on the Internet, seeing all this crap posted there, I had to say something. If you liked the content in this post, I encourage you to leave a like, and even if you didn’t, you can still always leave a comment (help add to the conversation).  And for those who are regular viewers, have no fear, the Donald Trump political analysis will be coming out tomorrow, in its fullest, to go along with the already existing one for  Hillary Clinton, up on my website. See you tomorrow!