SALON: Men on [being] cut

The actual title to this piece in Salon doesn’t make any sense because the story is about men being circumcised as infants when they had neither the power to make the decision nor resist the assault. It’s more of the View from Nowhere although to be fair the piece purports to give voice to men rather than to speak for them through a report. Still it could have been done better and more fairly.

Men on making the cut [dead link]


The circumcision debate gets heated even without introducing the question of whether it should be legal — but activists in San Francisco are doing just that. Earlier this week, Bay Area “intactivists” submitted a ballot proposal that would ban the practice on boys under 18 and slap violators with a fine or jail time. The man behind the measure argues that circumcision is an “excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable.” Beyond that divisive rhetoric, there’s an important question — one that I decided to bring to men: How do you feel about the decision your parents’ made for you at birth?

About David Wilton

fronterizo, public defender, intactivist, gay
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to SALON: Men on [being] cut

  1. KOTFrank says:

    I like that Tracy writes this last paragraph:
    “The truth is that the San Francisco anti-circumcision bill has a
    minuscule chance of passing constitutional muster, should it even make
    it onto the ballot and get voters’ approval — but the divisive
    ethical questions will no doubt remain. There is common ground here,
    though: This conversation hits on that basic sexual fear — that we
    aren’t normal, that other people might be having better, hotter,
    sexier sex. That fear isn’t unique to cut or uncut men, or even to men
    in general. It’s a reminder of just how fundamental our sexuality is
    to our personal identities.”
    I would add our efforts will have gotten intactivism in the dictionary.
    Not to mention all those wised up parents-to-be choosing not to cut.

  2. Tony says:

    I’m always fascinated how reporters regurgitate the “it isn’t constitutional” without bothering to think. Sure, some bring in a stupid attorney who will mouth the usual nonsense. But that’s predictable when you ask “Why is this unconstitutional?” rather than something more intelligent like “How could this (or any law affecting religious practice) pass constitutional challenge?” But, nope, the Constitution isn’t about rights. Thus, anything is fine, as long as it’s been done for a long time.

Comments are closed.