I am a circumcised man. It’s not something I think about... | News | Coagulopath

I am a circumcised man. It’s not something I think about at all. I don’t feel violated, or mutilated, or “incomplete,” and I actually think that to describe the issue in those terms is sensationalistic.

It’s hard to find neutral, uncoloured information about circumcision, to say the least. Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that it’s a useless flap of skin over the penis, hundreds of millions of men have had theirs removed without issues, and that if it’s a source of psychological trauma for you, you should stop being so shallow.

Truth be told, I would register a “neutral” on the issue, except that the anti-circumcision types are so strident and unreasonable that it’s impossible for me to even sit on the fence. They freely lump male and female circumcision in the same category and place equal judgement on them both (because they’re totally the same thing), try and turn it into a civil rights shriekfest about how men are oppressed and downtrodden by women or Jews or whatever, and introduce utterly bizarre red herrings into the discussions (like saying men were supposed to have foreskins and we’re violating what nature intended blah blah blah…do any of these people shave in the morning?!)

Most annoying of all, they use drama and imagery as a debating crutch. Discuss the issue with the hardcore elite and they’ll throw buzzwords at you like “mutilation” and “child torture” in lieu of  arguments. They’re as nice to be around as those hardcore anti-abortion guys who have seemingly replaced “abortion” with “baby murder” with Mad-libs. “Oh, so you support MURDERING BABIES?! It’s nice to know that gun owners get prosecuted while BABY MURDERERS get off scot free! So, have you MURDERED ANY BABIES today, BABY MURDERER?!”

That’s why I refuse to associate with anti-circumcision activists. If they had a leg to stand on, they wouldn’t need to play rhetorical games.