Circumcision Is A Load Of Crap, Continued

Warning: This is a sexual/medical topic. Of course, if anybody couldn't figure that out by reading the word 'circumcision' in the title, they might need to go look up that word in the dictionary, before reading...

I've agreed to blog about 'Circumcision Is A Load Of Crap' this morning, on the retmeishka blog. It's one of my favorite subjects but I'm not quite comfortable putting it on the public blog. I have to do my take on this argument, even though other people on the net have covered this subject adequately. They've done all the arguing, and I learned it from them, and from Warren Farrell before that, but I'll practice the argument a little bit.

I had a couple dreams about wearing a sweatshirt and noticing that the collar was too tight, and I looked and saw that the tag was in the front, and I was yanking on the collar to loosen it, and I had to turn the sweatshirt around backwards. By now I know what this is all about. This is something that is incomprehensible to the clueless people raised in the United States. I'm not symbolic-minded, and it would be meaningless to me, too, but 'they' have given me enough suggestions to help me understand what it's all about. It's something I wouldn't know how to do, and it has to do with secret information that I cannot, and do not, know, which they told me.

If I talked about this directly I'm sure it would be embarassing/disgusting to him since we don't know each other and are not intimate with each other.

I'm not the one who invented that symbol, and this is a Myers-Briggs thing - when I first took the test, it labeled me an INTP because of flaws in the wording of the questions. They ask if you think of 'what is possible' versus 'what is actual', and that's supposed to be an intuitive/sensing question, but a lot of SP artisans are choosing 'what is possible' and getting mislabeled as intuitives. The phrasing needs to be changed.

It was actually 'the voices' who told me, years later, that I was not an Intuitive, but an ISTP. Rule Number One: Everybody you know is an S. The end. NOBODY is an 'N.' Except a small number of people. But the test is wrongly saying huge numbers of SP artisans are 'INTJ' or 'INTP.'

Anyway, I don't like symbols, and symbols are used by 'the voices' all the time, constantly, which tells me that THEY are Myers-Briggs intuitives. Because of that, I've decided that I don't like intuitives, which is a shame. Intuitives are now stereotyped as 'People who think they're superior to you, and therefore, they create electronic mind control systems to enslave and torture you.' When I think of Rational temperaments, I think of people who are drawn to the military and aren't interested in freedom, but instead want to control everybody. Hopefully I will someday encounter a sane, healthy Rational or Idealist who doesn't believe that everybody in the world needs to be controlled and tortured.

Anyway I would be irritated about that particular symbol of the shirt with the tight collar, if it were directed at me, but it's not about me and I don't seem to mind it, so far. Anyway, the intention behind it is to give me specific instructions about what to do and how to do it, because I have no experience with it, being born in a culturally insane brainwashed country. My one experience was too brief and I did not get the opportunity to learn much.

(By the way, if the 'shirt collar' symbol is embarrassing/disgusting to him, I don't think it's as disgusting as how they told me that I smell like 'ham.' They've been referring to me as 'the ham sandwich.')

Okay, so to keep this argument focused on one topic instead of the thousands of different branches of the circumcision insanity, I will talk about 'circumcision prevents AIDS' and will postpone talking about any of the other subjects.

'Oh no! Nobody claimed that circumcision actually prevents AIDS!' they shout. 'We wouldn't want anybody to misunderstand! It would be unsafe to go out and have unprotected sex just because you had gotten circumcised! We don't want anybody thinking they can have sex with somebody who has AIDS, just because they're circumcised! That's not what we mean!'

Of course it's not what they mean. They just mean... well, what?

Being circumcised 'lowers your risk' of getting AIDS? Herpes, too?

By the way, I recall an unpleasant image that I saw on Facebook one time. There was a Facebook quiz that said, 'Which STD are you?' They showed an image of a penis (circumcised) with a ring of herpes blisters around it, directly on the location of the circumcision scar. I wonder why the circumcision scar tissue was the only place where the herpes blisters were really visible? There might have been one or two in other places, but the worst of it was all along the scar ring, and it was OBVIOUS, all the way around. There's your circumcision preventing diseases! Scar tissue seems to be especially vulnerable!

If you ask them what they mean when they say that circumcision lowers your risk of getting STDs (nowadays, they call them STIs, sexually transmitted infections, but I grew up hearing STD, so I'm more in the habit of saying that), they will be evasive about it. 'What should I DO?' someone asks. 'Should I go out today and get circumcised?' Which is what people have been doing ever since this brainwashing campaign began. Adults have been going to the doctor and getting circumcised, in a brainwashed panic, to portect themselves against getting AIDS, as though merely having a foreskin will give you AIDS even though you're not having sex with anybody. As though the AIDS virus breeds directly within the foreskin itself, spontaneously.

If you go to a doctor and say 'What should I do?' they 'might recommend' that you get circumcised because it 'lowers your risk.' I don't really know how to explain this. (That's because it's insane, and it has no explanation.) They are going to use those evasive, meaningless phrases.

Maybe it lowers your risk of getting beaten up by envious guys who notice that you're enjoying sex more quickly, easily, painlessly, and intensely than they are.

If you asked the doctor to explain: What if two groups of people are having unprotected sex, with somebody who definitely has an STD ('Oh, that experiment would be unethical! We can't do that experiment. We have to just observe real people and gather the data from their histories, which isn't as good as a real experiment.'). And one group is circumcised, and the other group is not. (Are males and females both circumcised? In Africa, both males and females are circ'd... and that's also the continent with the highest rate of AIDS. Hmmmmmm.) So in these two groups, are you saying that the circumcised group WILL NOT catch STDs, and the uncircumcised group WILL catch it?

That tells people: Yes, get circumcised, and then go out, and freely have sex with whoever you want, and don't bother checking if they have a disease, because you're protected!

Don't they understand, those are the conclusions that real-world people draw, whenever they cannot do critical thinking? Most people can't do critical thinking well enough to fight back against the circumcision beliefs on their own, unless they have a very strong authority behind them counter-brainwashing them to say no, over and over again. Real-world people are saying, 'If I have a foreskin, I'm gonna die. So I'll get it cut off. Yayyy! Now I'm protected against AIDS! I can live my life without fear! I'm gonna live to be eighty and AIDS-free and I'm gonna have fifty different sex partners and I'm not gonna bother to worry about whether they have diseases or not!' This is what real-world people are thinking. Don't the doctors know that?

Everything I've seen suggests to me that the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, as in, a 180 degree reversal, like saying gravity pushes objects up into the sky, which is why nothing can stay on the earth, and why the entire planet is bare and nothing lives here.

I would say: Circumcision might even CAUSE you to get AIDS. In Africa, they circumcise females in the village with dirty tools that have been used on a whole group of girls at once. I can't think of a better way to pass AIDS from person to person, than cutting their skin with a bloody knife that's been used on ten other people before them. I don't know how they circumcise males in Africa, but I think I read one description where they had a similar ritual, bringing the boys out into an isolated part of the forest, where they would be made into men, and so they probably do it to a whole group of them at once, the same way as girls.

The 'reddest' part of the world map is Africa, where the rates of AIDS are highest. Africa is also the place where the rates of both male and female circumcision are highest. It doesn't look like it's preventing anything. They've been getting circumcised there for thousands of years, both male and female. AIDS is caused by something else entirely - not by sex, probably, but by something else, like reusing needles. Or else the scar tissue is more vulnerable, and it IS transmitted by sex, when the circumcised females bleed because of the difficulty of penetrating the fused scar tissue of their former labia.

I had said that other people on the net had argued this subject thoroughly. I have a different style of argument, wandering and example-filled. I could also go at the direction of 'When's the last time the government told you the truth about anything?' Fats are bad for you, no, carbohydrates are bad for you, no wait, they're good for you, no, they're worse than fats, no, protein is good for you, don't eat any fats or carbohydrates, don't eat too much meat, no wait, eat lots of meat as long as it's low-fat meat. Meanwhile, all these popular fad diets come and go and they change every year. And they're in all the ladies' magazines and on television, and the celebrities try each one, and of course, they regain all the weight later on, because obesity isn't caused by what you eat as an adult - it's caused by giving infants soy formula, and things like that. Or psychiatric drugs.

I wish I knew how to explain this, but I know for sure it's wrong whenever I imagine confronting the doctor directly: 'Should I get circumcised? After the circumcision, can I go have unprotected sex with my wife who is dying of AIDS right now? Can I have unprotected sex with strangers, without asking them about their diseases?' The doctor's response would be shock and horror: 'Of course not!' he would shout. 'That's unthinkable! Nobody means to imply that! It's merely a Risk Factor! It lowers your risk! That's all!'

It's merely a risk factor. But the RESULTS of that study are not being interpreted as 'risk factors,' they're being interpreted as 'Oh my god! I've got to run out and get circumcised right this instant or I'll get AIDS!'

If I can't go out and have sex with AIDS-infected strangers (I say 'I' meaning 'a hypothetical male,' not myself), and if I'm in a country like the USA where I've already been circumcised, yet they still tell me I shouldn't go have sex with random, diseased strangers.... then what's the point? Why bother getting circumcised? You still have to avoid unprotected sex. You still are at risk. You still have to stay away from sex with AIDS-infected people. But, in some mysterious, vague way, you have a 'lower risk factor' invisibly protecting you in some magical way. But you still have to live your life as though that 'lower risk factor' isn't there.

But maybe, they say, uncircumcised people are more willing to do risky things, like have unprotected sex. (This is a different argument, and they've changed the subject. Most people wouldn't notice that they had changed the subject.) Maybe if you have a foreskin, you tend to be more careless, and you avoid wearing a condom.

But I thought we were talking about two groups of people having sex with AIDS-infected people, one group circumcised, the other not, and both groups without a condom? I thought this whole discussion was 'without a condom?' Why are we talking about condoms now? I thought NOBODY was wearing a condom, in our unethical imaginary thought experiment?

Okay, so we admit to changing the subject. It's a new subject now. We haven't answered the first subject yet, but oh well. This resembles a real conversation that a normal person would have with a brainwashed doctor. In the real world, the doctor will change the argument without really proving or disproving anything in the previous argument, and won't be aware that he/she has changed the topic. They'll have this vague cloud of ideas and it's all part of it. That's how most real people think.

So, let's pretend it's a new subject now. New subject! We're talking about the likelihood that a circ'd/uncirc'd person will behave in a more risky way in adulthood.

And I still haven't gotten to the 'letting the person choose' argument: circumcising in adulthood, or forced circ in infancy? Mandatory, or voluntary? During discussions with the voices, about this topic, I had originally given a weak argument, saying it was okay for an adult to 'choose' to get circumcised. But they told me to emphasize strongly and absolutely: No circ for anybody at any age for any reason. And I decided, I agree with that. It's NOT POSSIBLE for an adult to 'consent to' or 'choose' circumcision, because of all the lies, brainwashing, and disinformation about this subject. Libertarians always say: protect against force and fraud. Fraud is described as a type of force. When you lie to somebody, you force them to act upon incorrect information. Fraud and lies and disinformation are everywhere in the talk about reasons to circumcise.

So adults cannot 'choose' to get circumcised based on real truths, because the truth is hardly ever available to them, hardly ever emphasized strongly enough, hardly ever slammed into their brains enough: the truth is, this body part will NEVER GROW BACK. When you remove it, you can't change your mind. You can't put it back on later if you don't like the new way it feels afterwards.

If a person lived alone on a desert island, it wouldn't occur to them to chop off part of their genitals, just for the heck of it. The idea has to come from somebody else, from cultural brainwashing, from some self-torturing lunatic who created this idea in the first place. 'Hey! Wonder what happens if I cut this off! Wow, that's horrible! I'll convince everyone else to do it too! Misery loves company!' So this practice isn't something that a person just thinks of, on their own, for their own benefit.

It might be true that a circumcised person takes longer to ejaculate. This is because they feel a greatly reduced intensity of pleasure. Why would I WANT a guy to enjoy himself LESS? The argument goes, because supposedly a woman wants him to 'last a long time' so that 'she' can enjoy herself. From my own experience, I find it tiring, boring, painful, irritating, and frustrating to just lie there having vaginal intercourse for half an hour, with the guy thinking that he HAS to give me a vaginal orgasm through intercourse alone. Maybe this is fine for people who can't bring themselves to do cunnilingus. (Yes, this blog is partly for my sexual topics that I'm not going to talk openly about on my public blog.) If you can't do cunnilingus, then it might seem like vaginal intercourse is the only way to give a woman an orgasm, so the solution is, of course, to chop off the most sensitive part of your penis so that you can last longer. That whole approach is totally wrong to me. But it's what they're thinking, it's their rationale.

So, making a guy enjoy sex LESS is one of those 'sacrifice the male in order to help the female' situations. Warren Farrell wrote about that phenomenon.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about AIDS, not about delaying ejaculation. But hey, wasn't I just saying that this is a whole vague cloud of ideas all together, and nobody really notices whenever you fail to prove your previous argument, and you just move on to the next argument and avoid proving anything?

So, the idea was that I must strongly state: nobody gets circumcised, not male nor female, at any age for any reason, and it cannot be viewed as 'your responsibility' or 'your choice' or 'your own mistake' if somebody does it as an adult. If somebody chooses to do it as an adult, they should be viewed as a victim of society's lies and brainwashing, instead of being viewed as a responsible adult who made a bad choice. They will go the rest of their life believing something that isn't true. They'll believe they circumcised themselves for this or that reason, to prevent AIDS, to prevent cancer, to prevent a bad smell (and by the way, it's exactly the same as the smell of an unwashed female), to please their wife, whatever. (Or to please their husband, if they're Africans circumcising females.) They'll go the rest of their life believing a lie, and so they cannot be viewed as a responsible adult who did it for a good reason. Maybe they BELIEVE it was a good reason, but logical arguments and real-world observations go against that.

There's something else. What about ... and this is hard to explain. What about choosing different pathways, different values? What I mean is, suppose all of the lies were really true. Suppose circ really prevents AIDS even if you go have unprotected sex with someone who you KNOW is infected. Maybe, in that case, you might still want to avoid circ anyway. Maybe you just say, 'Fine, I will just avoid having unprotected sex with AIDS-infected people.' The end. Are they saying that merely having a foreskin gives you AIDS? Even with abstinence? Bzzzt, the whole argument is insane. It's impossible to think about. Just noise. Let's imagine you're now free to have unprotected sex with ten different AIDS-infected people, and you won't catch it from them. Wonderful! Go have fun. But no, I decide that I'd rather not. I'd rather keep my foreskin, because it makes sex more enjoyable. I'll just avoid having unprotected sex with lots of disease-infected people. I'll have the best of both worlds: enjoyable sex, and also, no diseases! So... why get circumcised?

Yeah, this turned out to be a very long rant. Oh well, that's what retmeishka is for. I wrote that on the 'about' page, that this is where I'll put my book-length monologues about sexual topics.

I am starting to think that these brainwashing campaigns are intentionally designed to KILL anybody who's foolish enough to believe what the government tells them. If you're foolish enough to believe in killing Iraqi civilians because the government told you to, then the government wants you to go over to Iraq and they'll violate your contract and end up keeping you there for seven years (at risk of death the whole time) after promising that you were only going to stay for six months - which, I heard, is really going on. They kept extending their stay. Maybe not THAT long, I'm not sure how long. But it's like it's intended to kill anybody who believes the government. Same goes for the AIDS thing. If you believe what they tell you, then you go get circumcised, which makes you MORE vulnerable to AIDS, and then you foolishly run around having unprotected sex with multiple partners because you believe you're invincible now! It really is like a campaign to kill everybody who obeys/believes the government. Or a campaign to kill black people in Africa, which is where the campaign is mostly targeted. And that's just as offensive. Or more offensive. (I think they want to kill any military-minded guys who might possibly cause trouble here in the USA by protesting or fighting against the government. So they move them all out of the country, to where they can't do any kind of rebellion back at home.)

I hate these days where I have to go in to work early in the afternoon. I wake up, and can't do anything useful. And I'm still sick from the mold - the wind was blowing really badly last night, which blows the mold out of the ceiling where the sink above me was dripping through the floor and rotted it all out. I didn't know how bad that was until the landlord removed the ceiling tile, attempting to help, after I complained about mold under my own kitchen sink. When he took out the ceiling tile, I saw it. The floor above is totally destroyed underneath that sink. The landlord said that he would like me to move out because he expects that this problem will continue even though he removed the moldy shelf under my own sink, and also the moldy ceiling tile under the sink in the apartment above. (I know, that was random and confusing and disorganized. There are two moldy sinks: 1. my own kitchen, and 2. the apartment above me, which dripped all the way through the floor and into my ceiling tiles.) When the drafts blow through the walls and cracks of this house, it blows the mold fumes out. And I didn't believe it was mold, for a long time, until just recently. But now I'm sure. That's what made me sick at McDonald's too: that back sink with the lid over it, where water collected and got moldy.

So all I can do is write, for hours, on mornings like this.

I promise... I have to promise this, that it won't always be this way and that I'm going to get this fixed. I won't have to do unproductive things, or just write in journals for hours and hours because I can't do much else.