Incestuous, Incorrigible Liar: the Intactivist


You may be looking at a word in the title oddly.  I’m not talking about the word “incorrigible” when I say this because that is the perfect match, and I’m not talking about the word “incestuous”, either, because that’s even better.

If you weren’t already familiar with the fictional word “intactivist”, an ugly mutation imbued with prejudice, I apologize.  I truly apologize for introducing that word to you when you could have lived without its influence.  It has an instinctively ill ring, doesn’t it?  It almost sounds like normal words were irradiated until they finally melted together into some misguided, meaningless monstrosity: “intactivist”.  To me, it has a supremacist ring for reasons I’ll explain later, but I also feel this way because it’s the nature of the supremacist to warp words into weapons as it sees fit.  It’s the nature of the supremacist to invent an elitist term for itself and its personal agenda–like an agenda which asserts that certain human beings are ‘complete’ and others are ‘incomplete’.  As such, from this point forward, that word will be contained in quotes, because it as infectious as it is informal: investigating it on any search engine, invariably, will yield an infestation of “intactivism” working its incisors just behind the front of being informative, but please, finish reading this article first.  At least give yourself a chance before it latches onto you.


When I first attended Pride March NYC in 2015, I was seeking emotional refuge from an oppressive world, just like so many other individuals who celebrate and commemorate in Pride events annually.  Unfortunately for me, and I suppose, unfortunately for you as you read this, what I found was counter-intuitive.  As opposed to finding that affirmation, I was coldly confronted by ugly face of  “intactivism” for the first time in person.  This took the form of a float brandishing an oppressively huge, melodramatic black and white banner portraying circumcised men as rape victims while protesters paradoxically cheered on top, powered by “Intact America”, whose name I also regret exposing you to and will remain in quotes.  “Foregen”, a company who openly refers to all circumcised men as “the genitally injured”, targets circumcised men with misinformation so they are misled into buying products that are based on pseudoscience and the premise that circumcised men are disabled, runs a stand in Pride Fest annually.  Unsurprisingly, gay males who are already emotionally vulnerable due to being oppressed for their sexuality fall  hook, line and sinker for this form of rhetoric which aims to make yet another case of them being sexually inadequate.  Puzzled by this parade paradox, I wrote a petition to raise awareness.  My efforts were largely ignored by the Pride NYC organizers for reasons I’ll address in this article.

Header ll.jpg

If you haven’t caught on, “intactivism” is a campaign of radical opposition of male circumcision which has adapted the word “intact” into something with a derogatory connotation, implying men who are circumcised are physically disabled.  With that euphemism, they, “intactivists”, are by default imposing that you are less complete of a human, less of a man, impaired, and literally castrated, if you are a circumcised male.  It is a wanton move motivated by the perceived stigma of being uncircumcised in certain regions and protests the prefix in the medical term “uncircumcised”, which to the simpleminded suggests that being circumcised is the default biological state.  Their theory is that if circumcision is equated with a form of harm, then uncircumcised men could be regarded as intact – unharmed – and this would in turn place circumcised men in a pitiful, inferior category which vengeful, misguided individuals feel befits them, reversing the ‘stigma’.


Of course, no amount of passive-aggressive white text will alter the fact that modification, and particularly that with an array of benefits and uses documented by many clinical studies, doesn’t coincide with injury.  Men aren’t “intact” for being uncircumcised because the word “intact” refers to harm specifically, not just change.  The word “uncircumcised” beside the word “unbroken” is a textbook false equivalence meant to mislead the average person, just like the word “modified” beside the word “mutilated”, which share the common denominator of change, but not injury.  “Uncircumcised” is still “uncircumcised” in the context of this subject, and ego, no matter how inflated, cannot escape the parameters of proper language, science and medicine.


To the literate and those who have standards, likening not being circumcised with “intactness” is not a trivial matter and presents, in fact, an array of ethical and objective errors apart from being a false equivalence.  Logically speaking, if being uncircumcised were a status of being “complete”, then part of being “complete” would have to be being uniquely more vulnerable to abnormal cell growth, arguably one of the greatest errors of evolution one could think of, as a breach in integrity of our basic building block: the cell.  A package can’t be more “complete” for being more flawed, and potentially fatally so.  “Wholeness” operates at an indirect relationship with flaw, especially where it concerns the functionality and survival of the human body or a complex machine.  Would you call a corrupted string of characters “intact” for possessing more characters alone, or would you call the corrected string of characters without that fatal error, and therefore less characters, intact?  It’s undeniable:  tumors are tissue as well.  Having more tissue doesn’t make someone intact; having unmodified tissue doesn’t even make someone intact; it’s the kind of tissue and its behavior that matters, just like it’s the context of words that matter and not just their out-of-context, blanket Google interpretations.


, pretty colors and words.  See?  The analogy-accompanied-by-visual-model game isn’t that hard, and I can play it better.  Medically, “intact” refers to castration status, and accepted synonyms of “intact” can include “whole”, “entire”, “complete”, “unbroken”, “unimpaired”, “flawless”, “unspoiled”, “unblemished”, “perfect”, “inviolate”, “undefiled”, and “unsullied”.  By omission, “intactivists” are trying to establish that modified males should be regarded as incomplete, broken, impaired, spoiled, blemished, violated, defiled, sullied and castrated because they don’t meet the arbitrary “intactivist” view of what makes men ideal, a view which is maliciously marketed to a malleable audience as objective, when it is subjective.  


None of this will stop insecure men whose ego issues are enabled by faux-activism from driving their eerily elitist delusions of grandeur, wearing their flaws like badges of honor, and even projecting their security issues onto children. Ethically speaking, it is a subjective, socially-driven, segregating move meant alienate one group and glorify another in a way that is obvious to anyone with common sense, and is similar to the use of slurs in this respect.  Uncircumcised men can even be seen widely on social media making claims that being uncircumcised not only makes the penis grow over time, but actually markedly improves the character of the individual.   What amazingly convenient myths for men who are insecure about both their lacking manhood and their hollow identity, and I hesitate to say there are any other remarks made by the part of the collective “intactivist” campaign that make their true motives any more excruciatingly obvious.

58761596_10205898984669872_7526028758503915520_n - Copy.jpg
Steven, “intactivist”, claiming that circumcised men are without empathy and compassion, unlike their uncircumcised counterparts (like the Nazis, for example)

That prefaced, if you, the reader, identify somehow with the propaganda and vernacular of “Intact America”, and are personally offended by my refusal to use ‘your’ word, my refusal to play into your ego-fueling phallus party, then I suggest you retreat immediately to your blissful smegma bubble of ignorance and stop reading now, because it’s not going to be any less incisive from this point forward.  To debate about racism with a racist who insists upon using the N-word because it is within their comfort zone to hold it as valid terminology is pointless.  To debate about antisemitism with an antisemite who insists upon using the K-word because it is within their comfort zone to hold it as valid terminology is pointless.  To debate with an “intactivist” about body-shaming who insists upon using body-shaming labels categorizing circumcised men as incomplete because it is within their comfort zone to hold them as valid terminology is pointless.  Whenever “intactivists” brandish the word “intact” in this context, they are making a premature assertion that is subjective, arbitrary, ultimately intended to be derogatory, has no place in a proper debate environment, and it shows in how it cultivates elitist mindsets in uncircumcised men.

An “intactivist” claiming that being uncircumcised results in the penis markedly increasing in size over time

Despite this, many organizations with this common denominator, such as “Your Whole Baby”, “Your Whole Body”, “CAN-FAP”, “Bloodstained Men”, “Intact America”, “Men Do Complain”, and “Foregen”, to start, will insist that their efforts are purely humanitarian and motivated by the ethics of neonatal circumcision, which involves an infant’s lack of consent as with every other aspect of its medical care and upbringing–like almost the entire human race’s choice to nonconsensually feed and raise its minors on meat and dairy despite their being significantly linked to a leading cause of death worldwide, the choice to nonconsensually vaccinate children for the greater good despite the remote chance that something could always go unconscionably wrong, and even the choice to nonconsensually to remove a child’s tonsils – which are legitimate organs, unlike the foreskin – even though statistics dictate that any surgery or use of general anesthesia can result in tragedy.  “Intactivists” isolate one aspect on the biological, nonconsensual nature of raising offspring and want it outlawed, before, for example, having a leading factor in cancer outlawed, which would single-handedly save millions of lives each year – that is their alleged motive behind the glossy glittering generality.

51392644_2501984296510355_870315796151140352_n (1).png

With this embellished pitch of baby welfare, they deny attacking neither neonatally (during infancy) nor voluntarily circumcised men.  Globally, more adult males than their respective cultures care to admit choose therapeutic circumcision due to naturally occurring foreskin issues like balantits, phimosis, paraphimosis, and bacterial infections.  Penile, prostate and cervical cancer are uniquely linked to the male foreskin as well, along with higher STD transmission.  The appeal to nature fallacy may disagree, but nature doesn’t always know best, as we see with rape, incest, cannibalism, and abnormal cell growth itself – all naturally occurring.  Don’t worry: I’m not criticizing uncircumcised men; I’m criticizing nature.  Hate men’s foreskin, not the men themselves.


Their claim that they are not using ad hominem against a community of people, but constructively criticizing the practice which affected them is a fine line indeed.  This is the first thing you will hear if you use common sense and question the degrading nature of their propaganda:  “We aren’t attacking you personally”; “Hate the practice, not the person“. Of course, being told that it’s not personal is an easily defused lie among many they will tell you despite being the anchor of their movement.  Allow me to explain how.

Over the years, I’ve watched them exploit every avenue conceivable – including ‘5th avenue’ – to damage the way the public perceives circumcised men.  What I’ve witnessed in the morbidly broad range of their social offenses, from misinforming memes on the internet to culturally insensitive sinage at synagogues, from sexist shaming of women to homophobic objectification of gays, from obscenely biased coverage on Youtube to sensationalism on the silver screen, from disruptive protests at hospitals to antisemitic plays at Harvard, and more, is that there is almost never any effort made to distinguish between what they claim to be talking about – a lack of consent, which is arguably moot for aforementioned reasons – and people themselves.  Allow me to give you a few examples.  Here are some quotes endorsed by “Intact America”, arguably the leading proponent of “intactivism” in no particular order:

“CIRCUMCISED? It feels like wearing FOUR condoms!”

2016-10-01 (13).png

The worst thing about circumcision is that it creates circumcisers.

“Sex without foreskin is like being colorblind.”

2016-10-01 (5).png

“Male genital mutilation is not cute.”


(from Blog Post)

And here are a few quotes indirectly endorsed by “Intact America”, published by so-called “Intactivists of the Month” they recognize for being aggressive in their body shaming:

“It looked like a mutilated monster” – John Leguizamo.

2016-10-01 (16).png

“Circumcised men are physically disabled. Take one look at how difficult it is for them to jerk off without lube & it’s cased closed” – Onision.

2018-11-17 (3).png

“Circumcision is for human garbage. If your parents did that to you, they’re fucking idiots” – Onision.

2018-11-17 (4).png

“It’s a gruesome, horrible procedure” – Mario Lopez.


Answer honestly:  Are the speakers – once again, all commended by “Intact America”, the mascot of “intactivism” – talking about a lack of consent, or are they talking about circumcised men in general?  You have the answer if your common sense is intact.  This dialogue, the vast majority of rhetoric put out by “intactivists”, targets circumcised men in general – voluntarily circumcised or not – not the topic of consent.


(from blog post).

If their claim about not demeaning circumcised men personally were true, then it would reflect in their propaganda, the main vehicle of their message.  To my knowledge, “Intact America” uses euphemisms like “harsh” and “uncompromising” to describe their propaganda, but anyone who is literate in the language used in these materials will know logically and intuitively that the intent is absolutely to inflame, not to inform.  The above statements, in reference to male circumcision, are insignificant in how they are devoid of all substantiation, logic, scientific evidence and even morality, but they are significant in how they are used as a way to discriminate against people and sometimes even protected groups in a protected manner.  Behind the front of human rights, behind children they indoctrinate into viewing other humans as less complete, they are untouchable no matter how abysmally baseless and prejudiced their ‘information’ and ‘satire‘ is.

“Intactivists” bringing children encouraged to view other humans as incomplete to their riots

There are few things more sickening than the imposition of politics on a completely unknowing and incapable child.  Sometimes we see children trained to throw away their own lives to take lives, and other times we see children trained to think more highly of themselves than other human beings.  One may translate into hatred quicker, but the principle is identical: adults making misguided mouthpieces of the defenseless.  One might say, “But, Tom!  Wouldn’t you say that a non-consensual bodily modification is pretty imposing?”–and I’d say no, not in the same way.  Premise and context are extremely important, as with the use of words like “modified” and “mutilated”.
Here’s the difference:  The act of medical circumcision is not an inherently political move.  This is an indisputable fact.  The act of brainwashing a human to irrationally resent a practice and view other humans affected by said practice as less complete, however, is inherently a political move.

“Intactivist” wearing a shirt wishing death upon that which she disagrees with while holding her son whose genitals she is publicly advertising, dressed in a shirt reading, “Circumcise this”

Doctors do not circumcise to make their patients agree with them.  “Intactivists”, however, intentionally brainwash children for their agenda so more people agree with them.  Doctors can observe this practice at the request of the parents, or at the request of adult men, with specific and well-documented preventative or therapeutic outcomes in mind that operate outside the realm of opinion.  “Intactivists”, however, are specifically inviting minors into a forum where sex and other mature subjects are debated with the intention of prematurely shaping their views before they have the emotional and mental tools to truly process and comprehend these subjects.  It’s, simply put, a gross and downright creepy form of exploitation that goes unchecked.  It is behind these defenseless humans that these sexual extremists hide, often in plain-sight.

58461367_2364399733602838_6912251951648342016_n - Copy.jpg
“Intactivists” leaving a baby in a stroller practically unattended on the corner of a busy intersection 

The use of human shields, ironically, is actually quite a common, inter-sectional practice in “intactivism”.   When these highly respectable, trustworthy parental figures aren’t pushing minors to the front lines while publicly advertising their genital status, they will use “intactivist” Jews as a way to dismiss any and all observations of antisemitic dialogue in their activism.  Of course, the anti-circumcision view isn’t intrinsically antisemitic and all sensible people welcome discourse.  I employ a secular approach specifically to deprive “intactivists” of the straw-man that distrust of the movement comes only from it being culturally insensitive–it’s unacceptable body-shaming either way, religious or not, and that much must be recognized.  However, much of their peer-reviewed rhetoric and propaganda has gone into documented antisemitic territory in addition to the blatant body shaming I have summarized for you, and they are completely, 100% unwilling to take responsibility for or admit the wrong in any of it, likely because antisemitism, of course, despises any practice that can be considered Jewish, including circumcision, and is therefore a valuable tool to the ruthless and incorrigible opponents of circumcision.  “Intactivists” can peripherally tap into a preexisting contempt for Judaism to further isolate what is widely considered one if its practices while hiding behind plausible-deniability.  Antisemitism is the vigilante of “intactivism”, it does much of the dirty-work and heavy lifting of their so-called ‘compassion’, and they are damn proud of it.


On the topic of people using Jewish as a way to rationalize unacceptable behavior, Eric Clopper, who refers to Jews collectively as “an unmasked genital mutilation cult” with “a delusion of superiority” and a “perverted tribal identity” who have a “demonstrably evil influence” on the world, insists that he is not promoting antisemitic attitudes in his play, “Sex and Circumcision”.  He says, “In terms of the anti-semitic comments, early on in my play, as a Jewish man, I noted that it is very likely that people will conflate criticism with discrimination, and if I, as a Jewish man, am not allowed to criticize Jewish culture, who is?”

An “intactivist” advertising that they had maintained multiple false profiles online, namely those of Jews, to mislead people about circumcision

In other words, despite his prestigious education, Eric makes the primitive and downright pathetic argument that his alleged religious upbringing innately justifies what he says on a subject, to the brainless applause of the entire “intactivist” community as well as his audience at Harvard.  Not only is this an insufficient and antiquated argument in and of itself, but Eric makes it abundantly clear that he disowns his background.  He is vehemently secular.  Unless he is ethnically Jewish, he’s technically not a Jewish man at all.  How easy would it be for him to get away with regurgitating antisemitism on an entire student body if he lacked the scapegoat of being Jewish himself?  Ironically, in his sanctimonious move to preach on preserving free speech and discourse, he is cowardly protecting himself and his opinion piece from healthy criticism, while discerning people, such as the select few at Harvard who refused to condone his agenda and fired him, and even myself, are condemned, harassed and threatened by the hive-minded “intactivist” community for seeing past a facade, calling a spade a spade, and holding him responsible for his zealous actions.  The truth is, his ‘constructive criticism’ can be likened with other antisemitic dialogue on the rise across college campuses nationwide, just iterated differently.

Constructive Criticism.jpg

In other cases, many argue that circumcised men expressing discontent with their status also justifies the rhetoric used against circumcision and circumcised men.  As with Eric, our affiliations don’t absolve what we say and do, period (assuming he is actually either circumcised or Jewish, which is debatable at best), but the idea of dissatisfied circumcised men justifying “intactivism” is moot for separate reason entirely.  For it to be the case that ‘abolishing’ circumcision is justified by a minority of circumcised men complaining, one would have to presume one person’s feelings as more legitimate than the next, when the claim of “intactivism” is contrary: valuing and prioritizing the individual.  Why?  Because I’m an individual as well, and my ability to point out a great deal of objective abuse on the part of “intactivists” – whether that minority of circumcised men are capable of seeing it or not – is not to be discounted, either, but it is, and has to be in order for the anti-circumcision movement to progress, as we will see abundantly moving forward in examples that prove that the opposition of circumcision mandates the undermining and stigmatization of circumcised males.  “Intactivists” are quick to claim that circumcised men who are vocal and angry about their status are not shown respect and given a fair forum for their views, but are even quicker to deny and dismiss men like myself to the point that they are effectively censored–why do think it is that you haven’t read many articles like mine?
(Do check out this one, by the way).

BK.jpgPost made by “Brother K” of “Bloodstained Men”, commended by “Intact America” repeatedly, where he comments outright that any happy circumcised man is mentally weak and in denial

When a circumcised man points out that he is well-researched on this topic, happy, confident, the opposite of the example other people are trying to set for him, and therefore objects to this pejorative portrayal anti-circumcision extremists are trying to make of his body, he is shamed into oblivion in exactly the way “intactivists” claim unhappy circumcised males are treated–called invariably”in denial” or “blissfully ignorant”, undermined, mocked, panned, his character assassinated, slandered, and none of his valid concerns seeing the light of day or taken seriously.  When an unhappy circumcised man displays a victim-complex and makes unhealthy and unscientific blanket statements about other circumcised men, he is rewarded by “intactivists” and uncircumcised men benefiting sadistically from his upset, patted on the head like a dog, and called brave.  Mind you, it is not at all true that circumcised men who are happy should have to proactively rationalize such, and it is nonsensical how due to the stigma they are expected to be unhappy by default.  The view that circumcised men have inherently been wronged, or should feel wronged, is bigoted and ignorant.  In fact, I believe the opposite should be assumed.  Here I am just illustrating a double-standard.

Outspoken “intactivist” espousing that circumcised males do not have the right to have their own opinions on their genitals

To anyone whose common sense is sound, a blaring double-standard is at play.  It becomes clear that “intactivists” don’t advocate for voices being heard so much as they advocate for certain voices being drowned out in the conversation so that voices and opinions which are more convenient for their views are heard more often–two different things.  Sadly, this is only the start of what “intactivists” employ to ensure that the majority of circumcised men are seldom heard or taken seriously in this conversation–in addition to censoring valid medical research and claiming falsely to have adequately researched the subject.

2016-10-03“Intact America” commenting, “Denial is not an option”, implying that all circumcised men who do not complain are in denial

Conversely, men bearing both firsthand experience being uncircumcised and being circumcised – voluntarily circumcised men – are trivialized as well.  The entire “intactivist” community can be seen participating in a perpetual and predictable echo-chamber of uncircumcised men on their soapboxes proclaiming how impregnable their bodies are across all social media platforms and the internet – spamming all coverage of this topic with anecdotal info and memes about foreskin, recycling the same ‘likes’,  ‘thumbs up’ and other kinds of casual corroboration endlessly for appearances – but the moment voluntarily circumcised men speak up, they are scorned.  Uncircumcised males who choose circumcision for themselves are not encouraged by the community which claims to emphasize choice, because, in a way already expounded upon, this community doesn’t care about choice as much as it cares about circumcised males not existing in the future.  Any testimony from men who’ve experienced being uncircumcised and circumcised, and have benefited from the latter, is a truth deemed a direct threat to their goal of eliminating circumcision as well as the males who have benefited from it.  “Intactivists” only respect uncircumcised men who choose against circumcision, rather than respecting choice overall, because they don’t aim for a future of autonomy; they aim for a future of uniformity, where a government first abolishes parental choice, and then personal choice, to ensure that everyone is equally unwell and unhappy.  Circumcised men aren’t allowed to be happy because misery loves company.

CC Screenshot.png

Speaking of disturbing ploys, an extraordinary amount of men who aren’t circumcised, who would hail themselves as “intactivists”, are known to impersonate circumcised men on the internet so that they have the convenient excuse to excrete just about anything they can pull out of their hats onto the debate.  Yes–they’re complaining about being circumcised…and they aren’t even circumcised.  “Intact America” states there’s “no room for denial” in reference to circumcised men who aren’t complaining–a baseless dismissal of, again, all the men who could offer counterarguments with firsthand experience alone–but incredibly, their primary testimony to this belief is simulated by wannabe provocateurs who are lying about their genital status, identity and experiences altogether.  Happy, truthful people are a critical threat to “intactivism“.

A “David J. Bernstein”- outspoken “intactivist”- who complained about being circumcised, publicly admitting that his identity was a sham, and that he was never circumcised

It’s saddening how deep this impersonation and insincerity run, in fact.  I had the privilege of speaking to Director of Technology at “Foregen”, Carter Steinhoff, when I posted a comment criticizing “intactivism” on the “Forgen” Facebook page and he sent me a private message requesting to talk over the phone.  What ensued in our messages has proven valuable.  No, I do not mean his input or opinion–those were lacking in credibility.  In one convenient conversation, he pretty much perfectly exemplifies much of the corruption I point out in the “intactivist” community and mindset.  I strongly encourage you to view this slideshow I put together where I describe his errors, but I’ll summarize here.

Mr. Steinhoff  approached me not as a representative of “Foregen”, but as an individual who was looking to enrich his understanding of this topic.  As opposed to messaging me from the “Foregen” page, he used his separate, personal Facebook page and presented as relatively impassive on the issue.  I quickly saw he had authored a poll recently on Facebook which garnered extremely skewered results – 94% of the respondents believing male circumcision should be illegal – indicating that his network was predominantly “intactivist”, which was of course a red flag for someone claiming to be open-minded.  Incidentally, amateur-hosted internet polls are not to be regarded as accurate, because they are very easy to stage.  Anyone can author a poll about anything, even something nonsensical, and create the illusion that the general public holds a particular view by targeting a specific audience–for example, an “intactivist” audience.   By creating the illusion that the collective public holds a certain view, they can persuade people without any substantiation.  So if you encounter polls where ‘circumcised men’ are expressing dissatisfaction, or an inordinate amount of ‘normal’, ‘unbiased’ people are expressing a clearly radical view, feel free to dismiss it as a work of fiction unless the source is medically reputable, and even then, question.  This actually applies to a lot ‘research’ the standard “intactivist” will claim to have under its belt.  The “Bitchy Intactivist” page on Facebook is not a reputable source of information.

Outspoken “intactivist” sharing a poll tallying in a total of 202 votes, and using it as testimony to a collective public view changing 

In any case, I also saw that he’s Facebook-friends with Eric Clopper–you know, the radical anti-circumcision guy who had a conniption when he was held accountable for making outrageous comments on Jews.  This was another red flag.  The third and least subtle indicator that Mr. Steinhoff was blatantly lying about his position was a Tweet he had recently posted:

“While the government of Iceland is deciding on whether or not boys should be allowed to be genitally mutilated, tens of thousands of American men are trying to restore their gimped penises by tugging at the left over stump. What a world.”

Do they even try?

Putting aside the self-evident depravity in this comment, which he admitted to making, it can be concluded that Carter lied about his stance to get closer to me.  If he were forthcoming about the extremism he subscribes to, then I wouldn’t have bothered to answer his message.  What distresses me without fail is how willing “intactivists” are to lie.  There’s plenty of general documentation of to corroborate my suspicions about the community itself, but for the Director of Technology at “Foregen”, a company which claims to promote medical research, to engage in such a haphazard attempt to mislead me knowing I was on the money, is very telling of the quality of information the anti-circumcision campaign brings into conversation.


From this point forward, our exchanges largely consisted of me starkly confronting his community and him failing to address specific points, subsequently changing the subject.  If you read the document I prepared, you see how chronic this is.  In the “intactivist” community in general, a refusal to be held accountable for error is observable.  When criticized on the ethical and technical clarity of their agenda, “intactivists” will usually pivot into the use of shock-value or fear-mongering rhetoric.  Here’s an example.  If I were to say, “Gay men shouldn’t be targeted in Pride March just because you disapprove of circumcision”, they would say something like, “You lost your virginity to a knife.”  When I said, “This phone call would be a monologue of your opinions on the foreskin, and less about my input on how the ‘intactivist’ agenda is morally lacking,” Carter asked, “Do you find FGM in any way acceptable?”


I believe most “intactivists” know full-well the scope of error in their damaging rhetoric and misinformation.  It’s not that they are somehow unaware of the nature of their own literature, but rather a matter of plowing full steam ahead until their lack of standards no longer matters and they’ve accomplished their goal.  The belief that the ends justifies the means is a ruthless, dangerous mentality to have to say the least, and they are readily comfortable with the public accepting something as truth even if it is a total lie.  Unfortunately, the average person may not be prepared to see through such fabrication.


One mantra “intactivists” aim for the public to accept despite being a myth is their sensation argument.  They assert that circumcision removes most of the sensation in the penis and that the foreskin can contain anywhere up to 150,000 nerve endings.  These ideas stem from Paul Fleiss, a money-laundering, fraudulent doctor who warped a 1932 paper written by Hentry Bazett in a manner that violated scientific method to support his biased view.  In fact, concessions have shown that many cornerstones of “intactivism” come from studies that are subject to some form of bias.  Regardless, the resulting gross exaggerations are what you see lobbied on “intactivists” signs, dilated in print just as they are distorted in truth.


(from blog post).

In actuality, multiple areas on the body are more receptive to fine-touch sensation than the foreskin, according to the nature of Meissner’s corpuscles.  It has also been studied that temperature sensation plays a greater role than fine-touch sensation.  Furthermore, sexual sensation is highly subjective overall, fluctuating autonomously among both circumcised and uncircumcised men.  When “intactivists” by default discredit the account of circumcised men when it comes to sex by saying that circumcised men “don’t know what they’re missing”, they are wildly erroneous for multiple reasons.  They have made unsupported claims of the amount of fine-touch receptors in the foreskin, they have lied that the foreskin is the most sensitive zone of the male body, they have lied about how sex and stimulation work, and they have generalized the highly subjective terrain that is pleasure and even perception itself at everyone’s expense.  If a circumcised man were missing sensation “intactivists” are unable to prove missing, sensation which arguably plays a lesser role in sex than temperature sensation he fully retains, then he would have the reference of more sensitive areas of his body notwithstanding, and therefore would know exactly what he was working with, despite his experience being unique and not something any “intactivist” could so authentically understand and preach on.  Yet, circumcised men are dismissed and objectified in this way constantly at the price of all common sense and truth.  “Intactivists” are quite literally prepared to ignore the way perception itself works so only their accounts matter.

(from blog post).

Another commonly ingested illusion is that circumcision was implemented in the US to prevent masturbation.  Just like the previous pitch, this is a distant refraction of one point and becomes less and less accurate every times its told, much to the convenience of those who uphold no commitment to veracity.  John Harvey Kellogg, the creator of Corn Flakes cereal, publicly discouraged masturbation and proposed the idea that circumcision could curb it.  Because “intactivists” don’t employ critical thinking and have no concept of correlation not implying causation, they assumed that because a public figure espoused this idea at the time, he and his view were solely responsible for circumcision becoming generational.  The real reason circumcision became generational in the US was because a considerable volume of troops from World War I were therapeutically circumcised due to hygiene-related injury and elected for the same in their newborn sons, resulting in the promotion of its preventative hygienic benefits – much more plausible.  Outside of the dirt-vortex-rabbit-hole of misinformation that is how “intactivism” distorts everything, that isn’t so far-fetched, now is it?


They also use his perspective, however, as a way to punctuate their view that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, because they presume part of his hypothesis was if sexual pleasure was reduced, then masturbation rates would drop.  Not only was Kellogs’ perspective totally baseless, but “intactivists” often blame excessive masturbation and even diversified sexual practices on circumcision–a total contradiction among many they make, like claiming that smegma is indispensable to lubrication while also claiming it is ‘innocuous’ and easily removed, or claiming the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis while also claiming it serves as a shield to an area that is more sensitive to damage, or claiming that happy circumcised men are “blissfully ignorant” or “don’t know what they’re missing” while also claiming that they are overtly psychologically harmed by their status to the point that it interferes with debate, or claiming that the glans of a circumcised penis is irreparably desensitized and cauterized while also claiming that circumcision-reversing products reverse this state, or claiming that American studies suffer from cultural bias due to the prevalence of the practice in America while also claiming that studies from other countries don’t suffer from cultural bias due to the prevalence of the practice in those countries, or claiming that men who complain about circumcision should be heard while also claiming that men who complain about foreskin should not be heard, or claiming that ending the stigmatization of certain male genitals is essential to “intactivism” while also claiming that the stigmatization of certain male genitals is essential to “intactivism”, and the list goes on, and on, and on, because a weak, superficial argument can turn on a dime.


(Image credit)

So, whether or not you agree with the reasoning of those who put their lives on the line for your country and your rights, you should at least agree how indisputably stupid “intactivist” reasoning is in order for them to not only enigmatically attribute a massive cultural change to single person just because he existed at the time, but to use his puritan premise as a way to promote one of their own points.  In fact, “intactivists” would likely regard Kellogs himself as a “pedophlic circumfetishist“.  “Intactivists” are quite literally prepared to promote the philosophy a “pedophilic circumfetishist” provided it will afford their precarious falsehoods a single prosthetic leg to stand on.

2016-10-01 (12).png
“Intact America” describing advocates of circumcision as “pedophilic circumfetishists”

On that note, let’s talk amputees.  Quite a leap, I know, but don’t take this as pointless provocation:  “intactivists” are quick to equate circumcised men with amputees.  The senseless idiocy behind this one is that the foreskin has been “amputated” from the body during circumcision.  Medically speaking, amputation refers to the surgical removal of major limbs, not vestigial tissue, and therefore doesn’t describe circumcision, by definition, but like many of their other moves, where this lacks in weight, it makes up for in being a low-blow: amputees are not the only Good Samaritans undeserving of “intactivist” exploitation.  Rape survivors and the disabled are also lumped into the ‘victim’ community of circumcised men–grotesque insults to all parties involved.  This tactic, though senseless, succeeds at instilling an irrational victim complex in circumcised men, associating their status with disability, and stirring hysterics.


So, to tally, “intactivists” will readily ignore the way reality itself works, will follow in the philosophy of presumed psychopaths, will capitalize on tragedy and will even trade a tooth with an entire leg in the pursuit of conglomerating a campaign, but will they pay the ultimate price – life itself – in order for their opinion to reign supreme?  The answer is, unequivocally, yes, they will pay in blood in the pursuit of ‘peace’, just not in their own.


(from Blog Post).

Jonathan Conte committed suicide after a long battle with mental illness and a corrosive camaraderie with anti-circumcision organizations, who immediately cannibalized Conte for his demise, turning the unconscionable and the unnecessary into a mere means of stigmatizing other circumcised men on social media.  The moment he failed to recuperate from the mental illness they capitalized on,  the moment, oh-so-coincidentally, he had enacted what they projected onto him and became a perfect example of everything they espouse in one morbid package, and the moment he could no longer serve them, they used his carcass as a way to punctuate.  Since the incident, the entire “intactivist” community has spoken on his behalf to reinforce their fabrication, adding insult to the injury they inflicted.  David Reimer also killed himself, and the aforementioned organizations would omit many relevant factors that contributed to his untimely end and blame it on his circumcision as well.  If it pays to say this, I will not follow in their heartbreaking, unnecessary demise, and I will use my voice, contrarily, to help preserve the inner voice and rightful mental autonomy of other men who are prime targets of this parasitism.


For my resistance to their extremism, I, myself will probably be targeted at some juncture.  It is true that “intactivists” have employed physical stalking as a way to jar those who disagree.  They have made credible threats of violence on the internet.  They have even advocated for terrorism being expressed in the name of their ideals.  However, I wrote the petitions and speak unabashedly on this issue specifically because I know I am the public antithesis of the pitiful example they are so desperately trying to set.  I know I diffuse their mayhem by default, just by expressing myself in the manner I have and by being myself.  Knowledge is power, after all.


As a vegan of a decade, I find it brutally ironic that “intactivists” would dare suggest that I have violent inclinations due my healthy body or my pediatrician who continued to be my friend and intellectual father figure as I grew up, or suggest that modern violence can be attributed to circumcised men when mostly all the brutality of human history occurred between uncircumcised gluttons.  The Greeks–aficionados of foreskin–gored one another for casual entertainment.  To my recollection, circumcision wasn’t exactly a fad among pedophilic Nazis, and Europe, predominantly uncircumcised, certainly didn’t proactively prevent genocide.  Asian cultures which similarly condemn the idea produced some of the most sinister humans the world has ever known.  Even if I were a history major, and I could dedicate this entire passage to listing uncircumcised figures of human history who raped and ravaged the planet specifically because they viewed themselves as superior and other humans as incomplete or inferior, I still wouldn’t make the mistake of attributing their deeds and derangement to their dongs–and yet, “intactivists” get away with correlating crime with my genital status.  I think it’s safe to say that they get away with a lot…


a lot. 

Israel, the Jewish state, by extreme contrast, is the beacon of peace of the Middle East, and is one of the most technologically and scientifically inclined nations on the face of the Earth despite being a recognized state for less than a century and enduring constant globally-condoned terrorism.  Israelis and Jews have maintained their place at the forefront of curing cancer, in fact, while “intactivists” and similar company contribute a social variant of cancer by corroding the truth, or perhaps some faulty “Foregen” gadget that could pass as a rudimentary BDSM device.


The truth is, if we were to statistically scrutinize Jews–the harbingers of circumcision in the tunnel-vision of “intactivism”–we would find something socially unacceptable not in the way it would incriminate Jews, but in the way it would passively paint everyone else.  Jews survived enslavement and multiple genocides by the hand of others over the course of thousands of years, yet uniquely flourished enough to grace the same greedy, traitorous planet of humans with innovation and privileges which continue to be abused by those who are foaming at the mouth in their fetish to gnaw on the hand which feeds them.  Google, which “intactivists” abuse to spam, harass and impersonate medical professionals, was invented by Jews.  Smartphones “intactivists” rely on wouldn’t exist without Jews.  Computers with Intel chips they publish their prejudiced propaganda from wouldn’t exist without Jews, and neither would social media platforms like Facebook or website hosting like Wix.  USB drives “intactivists” use for delivering their discrimination on the go wouldn’t exist without Jews.  While “Intactivists” abuse forms of communication they themselves did not even create to spur division and obsess over happy peoples’ genitals, Jews successfully preserve one of the most ancient languages in existence, a language of evident perseverance, patience, prosperity, and peace, while single-handedly progressing all of humanity.  Zoom out and you see that whatever Jews have been doing for a long time, it has worked.  Which can be seen from outer space:  foreskin, or Jewish accomplishments?


As the sole author of this article, as someone who belongs to three minority groups, as someone who not only deals with but derives direction from the diverse disease of discrimination, I find it even more ironic that they would dare suggest my communication skills and ability to relay my feelings are inferior to those of men who are praised for being idle, self-indulging mouthpieces so inept socially, so devoid of an identity and so caught up in their stagnant, rancid Napoleon complex that they have to hail themselves as “intact” for being nothing more than utterly globally average–likely below average in certain respects.

Little penis.jpg

As a multidisciplinary artist with strong retention, I find it incredible that they would dare suggest that my amygdala was “stunted” at birth.  I’d like you to test your mettle with such a claim by perusing my work at my website.  Rest assured, I have a lot more in common with the animal and symbol of memory that is the elephant than the scavenging rodents who try so hard to secure its trunk like a trophy, and yes, let’s just face the elephant in the room already: a bonafide giant would not preoccupy itself with the aesthetic of the precipice of its gargantuan horns because they’re huge and get the job done in general, perhaps to the problematic envy of diminutive creatures, such that they ban together and take it down to make themselves feel more comfortable–or at least, try.  There is power in number and mystery loves company, as I was sure to note earlier.  Truly, it can’t be said enough.  If soap and water were such a common practice among those who aim to mar beauty and outlaw medical practices, then male public restrooms would be much nicer, and half of Europe wouldn’t have been wiped out by a measly rat once upon a time.
As a prime target of their prejudice, as someone who stands up for the moral high ground despite hordes upon hordes of hive-minded people blindly swarming to bring me down into the misery of their company, I find it despicable that they would attempt to assassinate my character–my character, despite their corruption, their cheapness, their quantity:  everything that makes them the epitome of all the rot they try and project onto men in my position.  They have no standards, no sympathy, no empathy, no eloquence, no intelligence, and no integrity; they are the exploiters of children, rape victims, the disabled, sad and happy people alike, and yet by them and their brainwashed following I am first to be called a pedophile, a rapist, a bigot and a bully–all for being morally aware.


Allow me to be proactive.  I knew full-well when I chose to author this in an exceptionally acidic tone that it would be taken out of context and exploited, that my indignation would be conflated with confusion, denial, and a general undiplomatic, irrational, us-versus-them contempt towards progressive people.  I also knew those ‘progressive people’ would mostly fail to reach the end of this article and fail to do their research on my former writing, in which I take on, by extreme contrast, an imploring approach, prevailing upon those whose integrity I was mistaken to trust.  With their refusal to read, listen or learn, which will be demonstrated by how quickly they take my palpable criticism and project pity onto me personally like they do many other men who are mentally impervious to their lies, I hope to exemplify how dishonest they truly are.


However, this begs the question: why does this matter so much to me?  Why do I seemingly fixate on this issue if I am content with myself?  If I am so confident, if I am so sure, then why do their antics ruffle my feathers–or, in this case, massive red locks–so?  In case you missed it, that was supposed to sound pretentious.  It’s a question I receive a lot, from those who shame me, from those who sympathize with me, and most importantly, from myself, and just like this article, there is a gradation of different elements to this question, none fully black and white; values of life “intactivists” and their “non-color-blind-males” have evidently lost the ability to perceive altogether.  For those who deserve my attention to detail I will illustrate each one.  For those who display an absolute disregard for it, no dimension will matter–I will continue to be an empty husk in their eyes–but then again, presumably those individuals stopped reading about five thousand words earlier.  Thanks for sticking with me thus far, by the way.  We’re about halfway through!  Please endure this philosophical blurb.


Being confident doesn’t mean you can’t hurt.  Being confident means being able to admit when you’re hurt.  I have recognized that something has not only made a concerted attempt to harm me but has clearly succeeded.  My quality of life and certainty have been compromised in a manner that is the rite of passage of those who are truly thoughtful–not those who hail themselves as “intact” for being idle pawns–but those who are truly thoughtful.  Now that I’ve defined how I am confident, it’s time to clarify what has hurt me before these statements begin to sound a little too ironic for my taste.


You see, there are many dishonest people who try their absolute best to falsely prescribe pain to me, who author propaganda which specifically tries to speak for me, over me, and to completely drown out the truth that I am bringing to the surface.  There are many passive-aggressive, subtly sadistic people who attempt to overwrite my experience, to assign me a generic, submissive narrative, to try their very best to whitewash and ablate my identity, and censor my criticism.  I have not been injured by circumcision.  Circumcision will prevent me from suffering horrific, nightmarish injury when I am old and weak, a fate I am so fortunate – in a world full of profusely unhappy men – to narrowly avoid.  Here’s what I’m brave and strong enough to do:  I’m brave enough to, against all odds, stand up against a form of discrimination which which thrives from the very action of draining people of their truth, hijacking other causes and minority groups to turn already oppressed communities onto themselves, and bombarding vulnerable individuals into submission,  and I’m strong enough to peacefully and productively write for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours in the face of hordes and hordes and hordes and hordes and hordes of ruthless, arrogant bullies who are all the recipients of unfair propaganda and who are all not above making depraved emotional attacks, all while documenting and illustrating the hatred which these cowardly individuals work to endearingly euthanize.  I’m brave enough to look “intactivism” in the face for the ugly lie that it is, and strong enough to formulate a way to resist it–without massive private donations, without hateful individuals who execute my wishes, and without a majority group behind me.  “Intactivists” do NOT comprehend what bravery or strength are because they have never had to employ either one being in greater number and they cannot dictate what it means for ME to be strong, much less for MEN OR PEOPLE TO BE STRONG.


I opened with my experience at Pride March NYC for a reason.  In more ways than one, it all originates from there, that basic premise, albeit so poorly expressed in many US marches, a bitter betrayal I will not so easily forgive: pride.  Pride means a lot.  “Intactivism” crudely reduces pride to a penis or to circumcision status ultimately, but pride, like many words and ideas “intactivism” relentlessly, routinely rapes, has a more canonical origin.  It’s often associated with ego, which, while commonly misunderstood for confidence alone, stems from the system of ego in the brain, where the ego mediates our impulsive desires with the moral center, the super ego.  With this, we’re ultimately able to balance our feelings and needs with those of others.  Instead of raping people to satisfy our own needs, for example, we (hopefully) consider the feelings of our potential partners.  ‘Pride’ can teach us a lot about valuing ourselves and others.


When I witnessed homophobia and antisemitism from a young age, I realized the sheer volume of people who were mindlessly saying and doing unspeakably cruel things to satisfy their own feelings blindly without taking into consideration those of others.  It was infuriating to feel like I was being attacked for someone else’s benefit, but I became even angrier when I saw others subjected to the same, and had little choice but to participate even at my own expense, because the thought of other people who were less equipped to stand up for their dignity than I was getting hurt at rest was arguably an even greater violation.  This, despite being painful, is a privilege “intactivists” and their supporters sadly lack and may never know… For this reason alone, for possessing an intact moral center, an invaluable part of the brain, I am regarded as lobotomized by an aggressor which lacks the ability to similarly employ empathy, driven purely by an archaic hatred dominating every social conflict of human history: the unregulated fear of those who are different.

Antisemitic graffiti in France cemetery, from NY Times article 

Forget the notion for a moment that torment serves a perceived greater good.  It’s gone; it’s incinerated; let every example of the contrary cited in this passage–no, every character of every word in this passage be an entire nuclear detonation upon the idea that they are doing what they are doing to be compassionate, to be constructive, out of a conscience.  Once surface-level of their campaign is gone, once the piles and piles of precipitated, impacted propaganda, intellectual pollutants and debris are cleared away, what remains?  For some reason, even though peeling away paper should have been so much easier than that, people far sooner forgot how to see past a facade.  Fathom for a moment that people can harbor ulterior motives while operating under the guise that they know–or can even conceive of–what is best for those around them.  If nothing else at all, that’s the purpose of this entry: to help you understand that just because people present as human rights activists, does not mean they are.


“Intactivists” celebrating the death of AIDs researchers on downed Malaysian Airlines flight that killed 298 people in 2014

There are many ways I can substantiate that “intactivists” don’t care about babies, adults, humans, and much less bodily-integrity in general.  I can spend hours and thousands upon thousands of words in a futile effort to convey an ever-growing, inbred hatred for a callused majority which doesn’t have the mental capacity to process any of it.  At the end of the day, the parts of the brain which impel us are indispensable to identifying the intolerance of “intactivism” amid such ingrained illusions.  When I see an uncircumcised man calling me a “delusional mutilated man with a dysfunctional penis“, I know instantaneously as someone with an intact brain that it is driven by primitive fear of the unfamiliar, not by love.  When I see a woman passive-aggressively saying to me, “I feel sorry for you… You will NEVER know what you are missing and your sex partner will suffer along with you,” I know instantaneously as someone with an intact brain it is driven by primitive fear of the unfamiliar, not by love.  When I see a mother and self-proclaimed “intactivist” saying,  “If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with my son because he’s intact, then I’m grateful for that.  I’m grateful he’s not gonna marry some stuck up bitch“, I know instantaneously as someone with an intact brain it is driven by primitive fear of the unfamiliar, not by love.  When I see groups of mothers saying,  “To all the mothers who respect their son’s right to his whole body and to all of the regret mothers who were brave enough to face their mistakes, Happy Mother’s Day!”, I know instantaneously as someone with an intact brain it is driven by primitive fear of the unfamiliar, not by love.  When I see hundreds or even thousands of people publicly supporting comments of this nature, and when I see entire organizations cheering this on, I know instantaneously, as someone with an intact brain, that it is driven by primitive fear of the unfamiliar, not by love.  No endearing font, tone, delivery, or rhetoric will  disguise the malicious intent in calling circumcised men “not whole” from the mentally intact.  Those whose brains are intact will immediately identify this verbiage as harmful and nonproductive, period.  “Intactivism” requires having an incomplete brain–or at least, a kind of thinking that is incomplete–and it is driven by primitive fear, not love.


The “intactivist” fear or rejection of the unfamiliar in and of itself strives for uniformity.  “Intact America” is a title which quite literally advertises and romanticizes the complete and utter whitewashing of circumcised men in America, and it isn’t inconspicuous.  A play backed by “Intact America” illustrated a ‘utopia’ where circumcised men don’t exist: where all men are the same in this respect.  This is, by principle, a nightmare.  Uniformity, in any context,  for reasons that I should not have to explain in this day and age, is chillingly antiquated.  It pains and frustrates me indescribably knowing that “intactivists” have hijacked communities, such as my own LGBT community, and my own Jewish community, to further a shallowly-veiled agenda of uniformity that contradicts everything progressiveness has worked towards.  Their perspective, upon my own people, is no less than a social AIDS, where people are exploited, infected and eventually unable to recognize the same hostile, destructive rhetoric which plagues them.


It should be a no-brainer that HIV, and everything which tends to encourage it, does not have the gay community’s best interests at heart–or anyone’s for that matter, as half of the HIV-positive community is in fact female.  Yet, despite all common sense and despite decades of death and suffering, the enemy manages to wriggle its way in and disguise itself perfectly in hosts who not only clear the air of important history, but vilify those who employ the common sense necessary to being healthy.  Inconvenient truths, nowadays, are considered politically incorrect, such that it is easier to censor them, or alternatively, bring everyone else down into a reality of pain and misfortune to level the playing field, rather than confront underlying issues.  Being wary of someone’s HIV status is considered shallow and all efforts are being made to whitewash the importance of HIV transmission prevention.  Rather than prioritizing prevention, people are normalizing transmission under the guise of rectifying a ‘stigma’, the same way circumcision is being condemned to comfort men who aren’t circumcised.  Similarly, informed men and women who are aware of the link between uncircumcised males and HIV prevalence or other issues pertaining to their partners are utterly stigmatized at the expense of the safety and wellness of everyone in the LGBT community facing an epidemic–and everyone else for that matter.


Speaking of no brains, Alan Cumming, whose name I sorely regret even mentioning but am obligated to for the purposes of this article, practices previously described prejudice against other males because of an elitist view of his own body,  groped by “Intact America” and turned against his own community, albeit in a manner ‘undetectable’ to him.  He says unabashedly, “I, unlike the vast majority of American males, have not been genitally mutilated.  I have a foreskin. I am intact.”  “Intact America” says, “I am thrilled that Alan has chosen to openly support Intact America and advocate for the rights of boys and men to their whole, natural bodies.” Alan may shame actively circumcised men by calling them “mutilated” and by endorsing the absolutely discriminatory, unbelievably puritan and supremacist notion that they are not ‘whole’, legitimate humans, Alan may have chosen to engage in rhetoric that is acutely worse than anything he’s faced in his entire life specifically because it hides behind the scapegoat of human rights, but he is in denial of the fact that society itself will always be incomplete without diversity…and he, himself, is less complete than he would personally fancy.  Among many other men in his position, he so blatantly, so obnoxiously, so desperately, so childishly strives for a pedestal and ego-boost, even at the disposal of innocent people, to feel more complete because he is dearly lacking in some capacity and cannot come to terms with it.  Children are the perfect ploy for men like him.


“Image creator: JAMES DIMMOCK. Copyright: COPYRIGHT — 2017 ©CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.” No copyright infringement intended.

Glen of “CAN-FAP” (which is another derogatory title designated to imply that circumcised men are incapable of masturbating) takes great pleasure in talking about his genitals, too. In fact, just like other anti-circumcision entities who use a blaring inter-sectional approach to appeal to diverse audience while trivializing as many causes as humanly possible, Glen descended upon Pride March, where he broke the law to repeatedly publicly expose himself to onlookers–whether they were adults, or minors–so people would know that he loves his foreskin.  He was banned from the march for repeatedly violating the law, claiming that the march had censored his ‘freedom of expression’.  It’s very important, you see, for such uncircumcised men to know that other people know that they aren’t circumcised.  It’s an ego-fueling fetish in the place of a healthy recourse.  So, they break rules, fabricate, and force their way onto others with whatever means necessary to fulfill this quota, and due to being brought into an entitled mindset (by those who bitterly resent circumcision and raise their children to view other human beings as incomplete, for example), they victimize themselves when suffering the warranted consequences of their actions, because they are completely without the bits necessary to understand that what they are doing is excessive and unreasonable.  A Napoleon Complex is when overly aggressive, social domineering behavior compensates for one’s being small or lacking in some capacity.  A man can demonstrate this making overwhelmingly bigoted statements in an effort to distinguish himself, or simply by proactively flashing people on the street.

Napoleon Complex.jpg

Looks pretty small if you ask me – the confidence, I mean.

Love and logic are missing in “intactivism” and those who drive it, including such volatile and misguided uncircumcised men, who are missing indispensable pieces to being competent, complete individuals due to how they were brought up and conditioned by elitist views…  As an intact, complete, whole, man, I can’t help but feel bad for them. Circumcised men are not missing any pieces by comparison and we need to rethink the stigmatization of circumcision for this reason.  Let’s rethink circumcision stigmatization.  Rethink body-shaming.  Rethink uniformity. Rethink the exploitation of valid minority groups like the LGBT community. Rethink HIV promotion.  Rethink penile, prostate and cervical cancer promotion.  Rethink indoctrinating children who can’t develop their own opinions into blind prejudice.  Rethink the confusion and lack of compassion that men like Alan Cumming and Glen encompass.  Rethink incomplete thinking.  Yes, let’s rethink incomplete thinking.



In most ways “intactivists” choose to express themselves, it can be seen that not only do actions speaker louder than words, but inferred that the very way they process information is incomplete.  Integrative complexity refers to the ability to accept more than one perspective as legitimate and then survey each perspective to draw a conclusion.  The opposite of this could be self-righteousness, the unwillingness to acknowledge other perspectives, and therefore the inability to develop a more informed, moderate view.  The hallmark of low interpretative complexity, in fact, could be extremism, where  ‘uncompromising‘ groups portray their opinions as impregnable and those of others as poor, or, say, a result of “denial” or another arbitrary factor that easily dismisses anyone’s credibility.  We’ve already established this–to “intactivists”, an opposing view, no matter how logical, educated, or compassionate will be pegged as insignificant in comparison, or in words even more demonstrative of their character, a “gigantic load of cognitive dissonance and trollish bullshit“–but this is the truth: the average person, when it comes to this subject, has confused passion with premature thinking.  “Intactivists” aren’t passionate in their activism; they are premature in their activism.  Everything they do and say, whether they are improperly using words to put themselves on a pedestal, producing medical misinformation to the public, or even calling upon physical violence, operates on the principle that it is all inherently justified, that only their view is justified and worthy of being lobbied.


For the reason that “intactivist” propaganda has a consistent format–passive-aggressively shaming circumcised men–and that the whole of “intactivist” organizations, as well as their supporters, stand proudly behind this propaganda, it is not generalization, in this case, to speak of them collectively.  So, Georganne Chappin, two-faced, slimy queen of sanctimonious, single-minded, incestuous, sexual body-shaming slugs, can size herself up all she wants when she belittles individuals like myself, but in actuality, despite of her prestigious education, not unlike Clopper, Carter, and the many other self-appointed ‘experts’ on the fetish of “intactivism” , she is nothing but a sub-human-level thinker who will utilize any means of persuasion necessary for all standards of science, sincerity, self-esteem, self-care and sex to dissolve into her view of how society should be, all because she, and they, lack bits and pieces necessary to sense how sour their own secretions are.  Yes, I just said that.  “Intactivists” are unable to see the error and hatred in their own ways because the lack the parts necessary to doing so.  Their holier-than-thou, ethically-inclined dialogue is nothing more than an attempt to compensate for how morally unaware they are, how basic they are, and I am sick and tired of this blatantly obvious fact being overlooked.



This is what hurts me.  I am confident, I have standards, my mind and body are whole, unlike self-proclaimed “whole” male “intactivists”, and therefore this issue is intolerable to me.  “Sticks and stones” is an asinine dismissal of the of the fact that “intactivism” relies on damaging critical thinking and individuality.  Attributing my anger to projection, denial, or in any manner making this matter micro in the face of the overwhelmingly observable fact that it is macro is ignorant.  “Intactivism” is a campaign of prejudice which exploits a lack of critical thinking to accomplish its goal, and this is a problem for anyone whose mind is intact, because it is regressive.  In the process of explaining why this movement hurts me personally, I’m also saying is that this movement should hurt you personally as well, because regardless of the subject matter at hand or your stance on it, “intactivism” relies on the destruction of common sense and critical thinking, very important parts of your society, if you care to live in one which isn’t dominated by flat-earthers, parents who would feed their children crystal shards before allowing them to be vaccinated, or simply unhinged males who murder in the name of foreskin.


Would you be comfortable living in a society where a form of uniformity, mental and physical, is policed?  Would you be comfortable living in a society where all circumcised men are pitied?  How many men do you know for whom you want the best would be unnecessarily made to feel poorly about themselves due to the normalization of body-shaming propaganda and rhetoric?  Are you a mom who made an informed decision for your son?  Would you want your son, despite your best efforts, to be bullied, not only by other kids, but unnecessarily by the media itself?  Do you have a partner who is circumcised?  Do you want the person you admire and care for so deeply, the person you know best, to be portrayed falsely in the media by blind, bitter strangers?  Are you part of a minority group, like the LGBT community?  Do you approve of human rights being cheaply hijacked to disguise prejudice, prejudice you have dealt with all your life?  Do you approve of your diversity being trivialized by those who claim to identify with it?  Do you have a male friend who struggles with depression?  Do you think it’s wise or fair for unqualified individuals to add an irrational concern to his list of grievances?  Are you a doctor?  Have you dedicated your entire life to helping people, only to be slandered in recent years for your view of preventative medicine?  Are you a woman?  How do you feel being defamed for your sexual preferences and practices?  Do you think it’s fair for women to be called shallow or sick for being cognizant of the reality of yeast infections or cervical cancer?   Are you a rape survivor?  Would you really want your aggressor likened with a doctor?  Are you, by any chance, an amputee?  How would you feel if there was a campaign which aims to make the entire leg or arm you lost less valuable than the foreskin?  Would you truly surrender your arms and legs, or your penis, before your foreskin, like “intactivists” claim on your behalf?

28782683_1894944327214358_1775850082888230882_n (1).jpg

The “intactivist” movement, in its alleged pursuit of diversity, bodily-integrity, bodily-autonomy, and wholesome morals, functions to deprive people of what it rightfully theirs in order to accomplish its goal, stealing something from every community it fashions itself to whose legacy it claims to comprehend.  When encountering truth, they lie.  When encountering pride, they defile.  When encountering diversity, they whitewash.  When encountering choice, the force.  When encountering something that is valuable, such as an entire leg or arm, they do their best to detract from it to portray circumcised men as disabled, injuring everyone in the process.  It is incredibly redundant but still worthwhile to remark that the irony of the “intactivist” title, despite being in plain sight to those who have the equipment to detect it, is extraordinary.   By default, they are trying to inscribe the notion that circumcised men are incomplete.  Telling people they are incomplete in any capacity, and especially collectively, is an innately divisive attack.  However, this attack is incognito, and that’s what makes it so incisive.  It pains me that this is the reality, but sometimes the truth is difficult to swallow:  “Intactivists” are working to take away parts of other people and establish a society without those parts so that their view of what makes men complete can exist without opposition.  They are semi-literate liars loosely hidden behind the front of love.


As both love and literacy become lessen in our society, more and more people will buy into lies, both age-old and new.  No matter how many clinical studies are conducted, or how much common sense is employed, if a lie is told enough by enough people, namely those who are extremely loud and extremely afraid (like uncircumcised males who are threatened by the uncomfortable truth of circumcised men being less likely to endure a flawed and less-then-perfect future, such that they have to literally portray themselves as “perfect” in order to be content), it can be accepted as true.  The same applies to someone exposed to toxic, two-faced rhetoric for too long: they might eventually accept an image of their body projected by ill people as their own, when they are something else entirely.

Ugly Duckling.jpg

Self-image is delicate and can be influenced by external factors.  I, myself, suffered from anorexia nervousa partly because of a large volume of external dialogue portraying me a certain way.  Even though I wasn’t overweight–in fact, I was extremely lean–I eventually accepted lies being pushed in me in large volumes me as true and perceived them in the mirror.  People who were heavier and unhappier than I was managed to convince me that it was the other way around…so I stopped eating, as they laughed, cheered, celebrated, and ate to their hearts’ content at my expense, knowing they had validated the misery in their company, knowing they had convinced me that somehow, despite the obvious, they were better off.  I would express these irrational feelings in ways I felt were productive but were unhealthy and did not have my best interests at heart.  To recuperate without intensive clinical treatment, I had to not only see past these factors, which are elusive in nature, but see past my own conditioning.  I had to look in the mirror at an illusion fabricated by other people and tell myself that the image before me was false.  That takes an incredible amount of willpower for anyone, especially when the enemy, the very parasite which has prescribed this image, wriggles about in the background, whispering that it’s wrong to protest a lie.  It’s a a parasite that can only survive in delusional people…and sometimes in cursive.


There is power in number and no shortage of people projecting their illness onto the perceived easy targets of circumcised men.  This is mostly why “intactivism” has succeeded: people being conditioned by a message falsely prescribed to them by masses of unqualified, unhappy people.  Gas-lighting is their oxygen, only sane when others are made to feel or portrayed as insane.  In one single statement, an uneducated, unqualified person (“intactivist”) can suggest to the impressionable that circumcised men have had their lives jeopardized, that they have been raped, that they are all victims of trauma, that they are survivors of tragedy, that they are unhappy with their status, and most importantly, that they should be unhappy with their status–all to distract from the reality.  “Intactivists” do not see, they do not hear, they do not support, they are not sorry, and circumcised men, as well as everyone else caught in the crossfire, deserve better.  They deserve better accurate, fair representation–not the morbid, melodramatic, malign “intactivist” portrayal.  They deserve to have their examples observed, their voices heard, their efforts supported, and they deserve more than an immeasurable apology from the immature, selfish, petty scammers falsely dubbed as activists–an apology they will not receive, because if there is one thing unique individuals know, it is that the likes of antisemities, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, other committed bigots, and “intactivists”, cannot be reasoned with.


Circumcised men are not “survivors“.  They are not “decent“.  They are not “fine“.  They are not “managing“.  They are not lacking, they are not making lemonade out of lemons, they do not have occult fetishes, and they do not have Stockholm syndrome.  They do not match any of these descriptions as a whole because there is simply no innate negative factor in being circumcised that would warrant any of it.  Do you want to know how?  The reason this is, is because, incredibly, the way anti-circumcision, anti-diversity, anti-science, anti-medicine, antisemitic bigotry – however you want to call it – views circumcised men, has never been, is not, and will never be, anything more than an opinion, an abstract thought, a biased view, a narrative some close-minded, twisted people have spun to appease their own detachment from reality.  Let’s face it: common sense makes it clear that the anti-circumcision view simply doesn’t originate from genuine concern for any community, much less the actual subject of circumcision: circumcised males.  It’s a cultural thing, nothing more, nothing less.  Anti-circumcision extremists are completely unwilling to accept the reality that most involuntarily circumcised men, and most voluntarily circumcised men, are happy about, comfortable with or otherwise not appreciably impacted by their status, just like many uncircumcised men are with their status, and any belief of otherwise is purely in the realm of fiction to them, because it’s too painful for them to reject the regressive values they were brought up with.  Talk about being strong enough to “end the cycle”– uncircumcised males certainly do not meet the mark.  As for cultures which don’t frown upon circumcision, well, they’re literally among the happiest places on Earth.



More objectively — that is, outside the realm of delusion–  most circumcised men present as the polar opposite of a victim, and for good reason.  We don’t have to call ourselves “intact” in order to feel valid or special (though we might in order to protest the malice in those who do).  Our confidence doesn’t operate at the expense of anyone else’s.  As the adage goes, it speaks for itself.  Perhaps this is why “intactivists” have to scream so loudly to drown a minority group out: we simply exude in a way that I suppose uncircumcised men preoccupied on this subject don’t relate to.  Men foaming at the mouth who bark up trees would never comprehend the notion of quiet confidence: standing tall (even at 5’10), and declaring that you won’t be taken down so easily.  It seems uncircumcised males fail to meet this mark, as well, being that they not only attack, but do so in gross number.


No matter how profuse the sea of smoke and mirrors become, no matter what platforms reflect the endearing image of misinformation onto their impressionable audiences, no matter how many people open their arms to the Trojan horse (though not so ‘Trojan’, as we’ve established) of anti-diversity which clearly aims to cleanse society of men who are circumcised and is using human rights as a feeble excuse as they blatantly attack men who chose circumcision themselves and men who, bottom line, are happy, quality will remain important.  It is still important to help fortify the willpower and presence of mind needed for some important people–that is, those who can help spur change–to find their way out of the elaborately yet carelessly constructed house of mirrors that is “intactivism”: the only human rights movement I’ve witnessed whose wholesome claims are perfectly juxtaposed to its horrific counterpart image.  Unlike racism, homophobia, sexism, and antisemitism, “intactivism” thrives not from blind bigotry, but in an environment where morals have been flipped upside-down so that people confuse one thing with the other.  Just this once, I ask you to close your eyes to open them.


This might seem counter-intuitive since I’ve devoted a mighty, opaque wall of text specifically to informing you about their existence (and then inserted one of my modeling photos for good measure), but look at it this way.  When I ask you to close your eyes, I’m not encouraging you to become complacent and ignore, as this is what lands us in avoidable situations: a lack of awareness.  As the adage goes, those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.  I tried turning my back years ago before accepting the severity of this invasion and how it would, for example, take places like Pride March–the ultimate back-stab.  I’m encouraging you to concertedly deprive them of their weapon – confusion – by shutting out the unnecessary and irrelevant. You can passively reclaim what they have taken from you – the things which they need to be perceived as activists – to prevent people from being used as mouthpieces, to shut them down.

Dark Room.jpg

You can continue to describe men who aren’t circumcised as uncircumcised, since the prefix in that word was never meant to imply that circumcision is the default, as opposed to falsely describing them as intact, which puts circumcised men in a category they are not: impaired.  If you’re a circumcised guy, you can describe yourself as intact in protest of how vague and socially-driven that term in this context is.  It would certainly upset a lot of simpleminded people…and just maybe, in their simplicity, they would begin to fathom the magnitude of what they have started from little dose of pain.  If you’re a circumcised guy, you can remind people when this conversation arises–oh, and it will–that you continue to benefit from the preventative medical aspects most of the world’s men do not have the privilege of, and are apparently quite angry about.  You can remind those men that their majority opinion, that any majority opinion, does not innately take precedence over fact.  The world was never flat, after all, and it’s not impossible for many people to be in the dark. You can take pride in, dare I say, being special or unique, so special, in fact, that everyone in the room – a room full of ducks – is insisting that you’re less-than.  You’re not.  You’re part of medicine.  You’re part of science.  You’re part of the future.  You have a bright future.  You have personal and public attributes that most men don’t have.  You know what?  They should be thanking you, if anything–not shaming you for liking yourself, or for refusing to be held in total darkness for their appeasement.


The worst thing you could possibly do to them is the best thing you could do for yourself and for society: love and question. Do just that.  Advocate for yourself, take Pride in yourself, love yourself, honor yourself, be yourself, be happy, question what you hear and see, and they will whither and rot because they never once, no matter how much they insisted, used these values in their campaign or had your best interests at heart. “Intactivism” is comprised of incestuous liars who hide a prejudiced agenda behind human rights rhetoric which they tailor to as many communities as possible.  It is, on a principle, conceptual level, no different than others forms of hatred we are already acquainted with, like homophobia, sexism, antisemitism racism, despite ironically latching onto and thriving in those very communities, for the reason that it can hide behind a claim of human rights or progressiveness.  Our communities are better off – healthier and happier – without it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s