Would the world be a better place if no one got offended?

The world would be a better place if no one got offended. Check out the statistics https://truepublic.com/statistics/the-world-would-be-a-better-place-if-no-one-got-offended-X07HBOAGJQ

I extremely disagree.

It sounds counter-intuitive but it’s far better to respect each other and still be offended than to attempt to eliminate offense all together. The overarching trait that makes humanity great is our extreme diversity. This is almost a universal in all science fiction. Our diversity is what makes us so adaptable and to survive one must be able to adapt to changing circumstances. Difference of opinion is just as much a part of this diversity and is integral to our human adaptability.

What is the creepiest thing that society accepts as a cultural norm?

Phillip J. Bialor
Phillip J. Bialor, Affected Member and Observer

I was going to simply say, Genital Mutilation, not specifying Male or Female, since in my opinion AND anatomically; both are completely unethical, destructive, and forced upon the mutilated. But since someone already pointed out FGM; then, as a member (no pun intended) of the mutilated majority of American Men, and in an effort to maintain gender equality, and dispel Misandry, I feel it necessary to point out the disgusting state-sponsored and Industry-sponsored practice of Male Genital Mutilation AKA Male Circumcision, or specifically Routine Male Infant Circumcision (RMIC).

Additionally, the condemnation, dismissal and outright gaslighting of the Intactivist movement and the feelings of those who do feel that they were violated. I was violated by the doctors and nurses who delivered me into this world. Those same doctors obtained informed consent from my parents. Under federal US law, this is actually null, since parents may only give consent to life sustaining or medically necessary procedures upon their children. Legally this is known as proxy consent. As a result only the individual can consent to any procedure upon their own body. This would ensure that the individual’s bodily integrity remains intact. Furthermore, to qualify as informed consent, the information should be unbiased and portray the pros and cons equally. Even though I question the legality of parents’ rights to consent to this procedure, assuming that parents do have the right to consent, when any health care provider, regardless of their position (Obstetrician, General Practitioner, Emergency Physician, Anesthesiologist, NICU nurses, Labor and Delivery Nurses, Social Workers, etc.), intends to obtain informed consent, ethically they must present the pros and cons of each side, showing no preference toward either. To show even the slightest preference could be considered a violation of ethics and potentially malpractice.

Providers should not expect the parents to do their own research, even in this age of the internet where the likelihood of parents having done the research already. It is universally understood that providers are experts in their respective fields and as such we have a valid expectation that we can trust any advice given to us by providers.

Parents (who regret their decision on their own or from feedback from their sons) and medical providers (who also regret their actions) have revealed in print, that consent; especially during the decade that I was born (1980s); was anything but informed. Typically this involved an extremely biased support of performing the medically unnecessary procedure with little or no discussion to the opposition for the traumatic and needless procedure. And that’s if any consent was obtained at all. It’s been recorded by some parents that they were never asked or told that their son was cut until hospital staff handed the parents their son afterthe irreversible surgery was already performed. Another blatant violation of ethics. Your son’s body is his own, as a parent he is NOT YOUR PROPERTY and you can not do whatever you please to him. And the same goes for your daughter’s.

But girls are already protected by law in the United States. Under United States federal law, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is illegal nationwide. This is regardless of any consideration of cultural or religious belief. To create some sense of balance, and since the idea of male circumcision being considered Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) in the US is blasphemy, I’ll call both circumcision, to make a point that whether it’s the same or not is irrelevant.

Where the surgery is covered by Medical Assistance (depending on the state/commonwealth) and is promoted by the National government’s disease research and prevention agency (CDC) both within the US and abroad (HIV Prevention policies in Africa) which equates to state sponsorship. And private insurance covers the surgery without question, even though they place extreme scrutiny upon medically necessary procedures that would actually save someone’s life, and of course, a baby boy can’t really protest can he? If you want supporting documentation, please let me know and I will be more than happy to provide some recommended reading.

I wanted to add a few things. First, MGM is the most common medically unnecessary surgical procedure in the US.

Second, because of independent research done by the parents, the number of MGM done is dropping and, I might add, without any recommendations or input from providers.

Third, there is a deficit in the education that doctors have received, at least in the past, where the anatomy and physiology of the intact penis is completely unknown to these doctors. This is evident in a few ways: an enervation map that I saw in an anatomy and physiology textbook did show an intact penis, but also showed that the nerves stopped abruptly where the foreskin begins. Another example is the misunderstanding of pediatric phimosis. During the surgery the provider will take a thin metal probe (like a really thin bar), insert between the infant’s head and foreskin and uses it to break the natural adhesive that keeps the foreskin attached to protect the infant’s penis. This normal attachment is called Pediatric Phimosis. Unlike the phimosis that might occur in older children or adults, pediatric phimosis is intentional, natural, and required. If the child managed to escape the knife there is still the risk of still being harmed by the provider if the provider forceably retracts the foreskin all because of a lack of education. There are even clothes or patches made instructing any provider to not retract the foreskin. The adhesive attaching the foreskin is the same adhesive that keep our finger and toe nails attached to our fingers and toes. This adhesive will also naturally dissolve once the child goes through puberty.

Fourth, I can’t speak to anything in Islam, but a number of Jewish parents are opting out of putting their sons through the Brit Milah (the ritual circumcision of Jewish boys to welcome them into the world. Instead these parents are opting for the Brit Shalom which has all the same ritual but without the cutting.

Fifth, being an Intactivist or just being against MGM does not make you an Anti-Semite. I myself have Jewish heritage and a good number of Intactivists are Jewish mothers.

Last, to have FGM be illegal, which I support, and to not also ban MGM is not only sexist, but is also a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

If any part of this was written incorrectly or if there are changes to the system that I missed please let me know.

Intact: Book & Intactivism Information – Trish Causey


FORESKIN IS NORMAL. That’s why boys are born with it. NOT having foreskin is NOT normal. Slowly, people are waking up to acknowledge the horrors of circumcision. Even Jewish parents are choosing to welcome their sons with a Brit Shalom to acknowledge their boys’ right to body autonomy.

The United States recognized girls’ right to body autonomy and granted protection from Female Genital Mutilation by banning FGM in America in 1997. However, there is no such protection for boys. How is such blatant sexism possible? Are boys not human beings as well? Do boys not also deserve to have their human rights and First Amendment rights protected? The fact that this continues clearly indicates we have still have work to do in this field of activism.

And in case you’re wondering, of course, I’m against FGM. But I’m in America where FGM is already illegal. Cases of FGM in America that are reported are dealt with via criminal charges and in a court of law — just as doctors who commit male genital mutilation on boys should likewise face criminal charges and a lengthy prison sentence.

Intact men who live in cutting cultures, such as the United States, deal with bullying at school, rejection by potential partners, and misrepresentation in film, TV, and media. Non-consensual circumcision is perpetuated by ignorance of the male sexual anatomy, cultural myths of appearance and hygiene, and the financial bonanza of selling babies’ foreskins to cosmetic companies and biotech labs — not to mention the steady income for the doctors who commit circumcision.

The main reason circumcision was promoted in America by sexophobe Dr. John Kellogg was to deny men their right to intense sexual pleasure. Kellogg thought all sex was dirty, and recommended circumcision for both boys and girls. Now, over 120 years later, America’s prudish society still has moral conflicts about sexual pleasure: shaming women who enjoy sex, and cutting boys so they lose 87% of the nerve endings in their penis and completely miss out on the sexual pleasure for which their bodies were designed.

The long history of America’s Puritanical anti-sex is also tied to the belief that intact men are less likely to conform to society’s dictates, less likely to obey authority figures, lack motivation to be productive, and are more in touch with their feelings. (Gasp!) Essentially, circumcision culture wants a society of men who are unemotional, war-like robots. Most importantly, circumcision culture wants to deny men — and their partners! — their natural ability for sublime sexual and sensual pleasure.

Check out the book INTACT: MEN AS THEY WERE BORN TO BE on GoFundMe, and please donate at whatever level you can!


#CoverRIC Would the Equal Rights Amendment make circumcision illegal?

#CoverRIC Would the Equal Rights Amendment make circumcision illegal?
Patrick Seiter via Change.org change@e.change.org
To: Me BlueAlchemy17@gmail.com
Monday, June 10, 2019, 18:33

Patrick Seiter shared an update on Please cover routine infant circumcision (RIC) in your main Last Week Tonight segment

Check it out and leave a comment:

Petition Update

#CoverRIC Would the Equal Rights Amendment make circumcision illegal?
Yesterday, Last Week Tonight’s main topic was on the Equal Rights Amendment, to which I ask: would the Equal Rights Amendment implicitly make circumcision illegal in states where FGM is already illegal? John even referenced the mutilation of children in this episode: “That’s right, that’s right. Now, if one of the children is better than the other one, the Equal Rights Amendment says you have…

Change.org is proudly funded by people like you, Phillip.

As a public benefit company, we rely on the generosity of ordinary people – rather than government funding or annoying ads. Each contribution we receive means our small team can help petition starters win their campaigns. We believe in the voice of the people – that’s why we built a platform that is a 100% independent and available for everyone to create the change they want to see.