Nerdy Show Prime: The Pen15 Club

So there I was, editing this very Dick Episode, listening to this lady spout off about anti-circumcision, when I just started freaking out. Ask Cap, I was texting him left and right about this interview as I was listening to the crap streaming out of this lady’s mouth… texting him arguments against her points, things that I wish that I could have said had I advocated to be on for this episode. Now, as a preface, I don’t completely disagree with anti-circumcision arguments and in the interest of full disclosure I’m cut. But the arguments this lady was making is truly why this movement is slow going and most people find what these “Intact Activists” say is absurd. Here is what I would have said had I been on the show that night, I wonder what her responses would have been:

Female circumcision is the same as Male Circumcision:
Nope. Cutting off someones clitoris is not the same as penile circumcision. Completely removing a sexual stimulator-to where a woman cannot feel any sort of sexual pleasure is not the same as removing a section of a man’s penis. Some women cannot achieve orgasm without sexual stimulation of the clitoris. A lot of men don’t have foreskin, but that doesn’t affect their achievement of orgasm. How is that the same thing? If you want to establish that we’re holding to a double standard, you have to actually compare concepts or things (body parts) that are alike. A clitoris and a foreskin are not alike, the removal of one is completely damaging and is the mutilation of an organ, the other could be argued unnecessary, but does not at all mutilate or damage the organ or its function and stimulation. So no, female circumcision is NOT the same as male circumcision, its not a double standard–because they can’t be compared. If male circumcision meant you were lopping off the head of the penis, then you’d have a case.

“Jews only make up 2% of the population.”:
So because Judaism only comprises 2% of the population, that means we shouldn’t care about their religious views and beliefs, you know because they’re a minority? And even if they made a fuss about it, it would be so infinitesimal in comparison we shouldn’t care?

Concerning San Fran potential ban of circumcision:
Quote: “Would be unconstitutional.” What? Wasn’t this country founded on the basis of respecting religious freedoms? I know that its become a contested point during these times, but the separation of church and state exists for a reason–you know, so bigoted religious majorities can’t cast out, put upon, regulate, legislate, or discriminate against religious minorities. Oh yeah, that’s right, minorities don’t matter. Sorry,I forgot.

Again on the subject of Judaism, “Its often brought up by people who have no vested interest in Judaism who have no knowledge.”
Wait. So does this mean that people who aren’t of a certain religious group or ethnicity even shouldn’t be concerned about the rights of others? Should straight people not care about gay rights because, well, there aren’t that many of them, and since I’m straight I don’t know much about a gay person’s habits, and thus I shouldn’t advocate for them?

And also, based on her own argument, this chick shouldn’t even be in charge of this organization. Why? BECAUSE SHE DOESN’T HAVE A FUCKING PENIS!

Later in the interview she talks about how we’re “talking about human rights” in regards to people keeping their “normal bodies” and etc. So I guess that the term “human rights” only applies when it suits her agenda? And I suppose that same term can’t be applied to the “human right” of religious choice and beliefs… Oh right, sorry.

And let me just pull out a quote. “And people are always looking to justify mindless customs.” What? Wow. Is this woman an anti-Semite (okay I know that’s reaching, but seriously? Mindless!)?
On the subject of pleasure, now I can’t speak from experience, because any sexual experience I’ve had has been while I’m circumcised. But. I took a Sexual Behaviors class in college, where this topic arose…heh heh… and one male student in class actually had a procedure that removed his foreskin–for medical reasons. And he described that sex was actually more pleasurable WITHOUT foreskin. He didn’t go into details, but that’s what he said. Obviously one guy’s opinion doesn’t make it scientific fact but it just pisses me off how she spouts off about how having foreskin is so much more pleasurable than not having it. How would she know? Isn’t sexual pleasure subjective according to all sorts of variables: partner, experience, attraction, etc. So can that truly be an argument for foreskin? Because here’s at least one guy’s opinion to the contrary.

In response to Oral’s question about parent’s rights in regards to medical treatments (which was a valid point–vaccinations and so forth), she then talks about how we don’t allow Jehovah’s Witnesses to not allow blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists to deny health coverage when their child is in danger. Yep. She’s right. Those are protections put into place to save lives. And then she’s equating it to circumcision. Wait… You’re equating the choice to get your child circumcised, to withholding a life-saving blood transfusion? So, circumcision is a deadly practice that should be banned by the government!? Seriously? Thank you so much lady, because I didn’t know that thousands of people die every year from circumcisions, you know, like how they do when they don’t receive medical treatment, or blood transfusions—thanks for clearing that up, I must really be behind in my medical journal reading.

And then at the end Cap gives her an awesome quote from Arthur C. Clarke that wholly addresses and embraces her point of view about anti-circumcision, and then she has to go and correct it and make a point out of its inaccuracies. Fuck you lady.