My scar line is sensitive to light touch It is
relatively more sensitive than my inner skin. I have always wondered whether the Ridged band feels similar to this or not. Overall, what kind of sensation does having a Ridged band provide that a sensitive scar line cannot, since I was circumcised as a child and have never experienced having one.
I’ve heard some people say that during circumcision, the remaining nerves migrate to the circumcision scar line.
Maybe that’s why mine is sensitive to light touch.
I’d like to hear about the experiences of people who were circumcised as adults.
My frenulum is intact and really sensitive. Does the ridged band feel better or different?

https://shop.spacex.com/products/presale-spacex-raptor-bell?

I'm NOT promoting SpaceX in any way but I thought this looked like a fancy restoration device. Idk.

I mean since when is amputation the recourse for a minor infection?

Since when do we amputate part of the vagina when a woman gets an infection?

We don't, because medicine has come along far enough for that to be completely unnecessary.

It's such a ridiculous line of reasoning that cutters propose completely amputating a body part to prevent an infection that might or might not happen.

You're telling me there is literally no other way to treat an STI than by amputating the foreskin entirely? What?

Then how come we're able to treat ear infections, eye infections, skin infections, cavities, without removing the body part altogether?

They don't apply their line of reasoning to anything else in medicine.

I know the research saying that uncircumcised men are more likely to get STIs is already pretty shaky, but I wanted to take their logic for a spin anyways.

---

If you're uncircumcised, then you have more nerves that yield sexual pleasure. Thousands more. Thus, sex is obviously infinitely more enjoyable. So you're going to be more inclined to seek out sex than someone who is 75% numb during sex.

More sex = more chances to get an STI.

---

It's the same way that having toes increases your chances of getting ingrown toenails. So then with their logic we should circumcise peoples toes too and remove their toenails right? 🤣

And I guess we should remove everyone's colon at birth to prevent colon cancer? Why not remove everyone's teeth to prevent cavities? Why not remove everyone's stomachs to prevent stomach aches and just use body-attached ziploc bags instead?

Why not remove ears to prevent earaches? Why not remove everyone's sinuses to prevent sinus infections? Why not remove livers at birth to prevent liver cancer?

You see what I'm getting at. The reasoning makes no sense.

---

Also I could point out how women get magnitudes more STIs and genital infections than men, but for some reason there is zero movement to circumcise them...🤔🤔🤔

(Maybe because we know it's a silly idea, and it's just the nature of genital anatomy)

---

Cutters love to point out a potential downside of having foreskin just like how in an alternate universe they would point out how the downside of toe nails in ingrown toenails.

But no one is amputating their nails even though they know for a fact it increases their risk for ingrown nails. Why?

Because the pros outweigh the cons. And it's a controllable risk. Just like STIs are a controllable risk. You can take care of your toenails, and you can have safe, responsible sex.

Circumcision is not a controllable risk. There is no getting the nerves back. Ever. Sure you may have less STIs, but that's for the same reason that a quadriplegic has less ingrown nails.

---

Like okay, you could get more STIs from having foreskin, but what are the pros?!??!? Actually being able to experience sex fully and getting to experience the greatest pleasure humanly possible??? I think I'll take my chances.

Even their most "scientific" arguments are ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/aBJhyWHnr6s

He shares everything in great detail, including the names of those responsible and how it happened.

Like with many others, he was essentially being protected by one parent, until divorce intervened.
Then hell broke loose and the usual coercion, deceit, and force were used to get him into the hands of medical staff, who then revealed how, apparently, they are actually well trained in the art of sedating and rendering unconscious an unwilling patient.

https://youtu.be/aBJhyWHnr6s?t=580

He experienced meatal stenosis and severe loss of sensitivity as a result of the procedure, as well as recurrent UTIs and even a fistula.

This is a shocking and incredibly detailed testimony that needs more attention. Vincent is willing to name everyone involved in an attempt to get some kind of justice and recognition of what happened.

General anesthesia is used to facilitate the forced circumcision of older boys.

Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivists/comments/1w1e06z/evidence_that_even_modern_professional_medical/

I was listening to one of the Intact Again podcasts (these guys are doing amazing work) and heard some implication that Christians are required to circumcise. We are not. IF Christians are circumcising it is most likely because of medical misinformation, cultural norms or aesthetic preferences.

Here's the part where I speak specifically to my fellow Christians.

We are no longer under the law of Moses. Jesus has taken on ALL of our debt. There is nothing we are required to do to be sanctified for eternal life - what more could we do than what Jesus has already done. In fact, the Bible explicitly tells us that circumcision is of NO USE to believers in Christ. Galatians 5:2 - ...if "Christ will be of no value to you at all" if you accept circumcision as a requirement for salvation. I hope that clears things up.

Now go and cut no more.

I can remove if it's not relevant idk. I bet a penis could read Braille.

I would like to adress here something that happened to me when I was a young boy, something painful and shameful to many, something that many consider normal medical practice, but in fact this is a genital violence against men: forced retraction of the foreskin.

The foreskin naturally detaches from the glans with time and patience, forced retraction is done in order to hasten this process at the cost of the boy's feelings and privacy. The pediatrician told my parents it was needed and instructed them, they, believing it was needed, performed such brutality, and I suffered for no real need... the pain is unbearable, you scream, you cry, yet it doesn't stop, people don't stop imposing such violence on you.

So friends, bear this in mind when having kids or talking to people who have boys, this genital violence is unecessary, painful and embarrassing. No boy should have to endure this, and the fact that I don't see more people speaking about it is sad and revolting.

Who else got DM'd by him? Help me report him so he gets a little nappy, time-out break

Imagine I dress up like the Playboy Bunny or the Easter Bunny, hop down the street, grab some random adult, drag them into a ridiculous themed dungeon, and spend ten years turning them into a loud, obnoxious macho caricature who thinks he’s Conan the Barbarian. I mess with their identity, their personality, their whole sense of self. I basically manufacture a cartoon character.

Then I turn around and say, “Well, look at him — he’s an obnoxious Conan wannabe, so everything I did is totally fine.”

Everyone would instantly see how insane that logic is.

But that’s exactly the kind of logic society uses on boys. We force a gender role on them from birth, we alter their bodies without consent, we raise them with less empathy, we pressure them to act “tough,” and then we blame them for the traits we programmed into them. Circumcision is just one early example of how male autonomy gets dismissed — not because boys deserve it, but because people assume they’ll grow into “macho idiots” who don’t need care.

The point is simple:
Just because society creates a certain kind of man doesn’t mean the treatment boys get is justified.

Genuinely ive had so many debates/arguments with mainly women who get offended when you try to label baby costmetic circumcision as what it is, mutilation. Theyll have no solid stance on mgm but asoon as you call it mgm its like they go into fight mode like circumcision is a contest about what is worst, and how fgm is mutilation and how circumcision isnt, and not that theres different levels of mutilation and mgm is the male equivalent to fgm cause it is..

Its genuinely concerning.

Hi, I wanted to share my personal experience and hopefully help people, victims affected like me. :)

I discovered this practice when I was a teenager, a young man going through a terrible winter in a terrible mental state. It has broken me in ways I know I can’t fix, I’ve developed shaking from the semantic trauma and anxiety. One of the worst things I’ve ever experienced along with the endless thoughts about it. I have suffered like so many other boys and men.

But in other ways I have learned to minimize and mitigate the anxiety and shakes!

One thing I wanted to share that might help other men who are struggling with the insane stress of this topic is helping yourself by stepping away.

I have learned to step away from the discussion on this topic because I know it’s pointless to try to discuss this with both women who have 0 frame of reference/understanding or empathy and with men who are defensive and dismissive, as I’m sure so many men have experienced .
This issue is as big as our society, our individual lives are on a micro scale, small.

If this issue triggers you, like it does to me, help yourself and step away from it!
Your health, sanity and soul are worth SO much more man. YOU are more important than the endless suffering through debates that get no where.

Be kind to yourself, and your mind and body, so that you may live a longer and healthier life, despite all you’ve been through. :)

I hope my words and empathy can calm, help and give courage to you. Please save this post for when you need and share if you think it will help others.
I just wanted to share what I’ve tried and I hope it helps you too. You deserve it. 💙

Circumcision should not be treated as a routine cosmetic procedure for infants. It permanently alters a child’s body without their consent, and most major medical organizations outside the United States agree it is not medically necessary for the vast majority of boys. Conditions like phimosis usually resolve naturally as children grow, and true medical cases can be treated conservatively before surgery is ever considered.

If a family has a deep, sincerely held religious requirement, that’s a different category — but cultural habit, outdated medical tradition, or cosmetic preference should not justify removing healthy tissue from a non‑consenting infant. Parents deserve accurate information about normal development, hygiene, and alternatives so they can make informed choices instead of relying on outdated assumptions.

Circumcision rates have been declining in many parts of the U.S. for decades, and most European countries never adopted routine infant circumcision at all. As more people learn the actual medical facts, they’re realizing that routine circumcision is not necessary and should not be presented as a default option.

• Circumcision primes males for violence through a violent act, desensitizing him to future pleasure. He is primed for future, robotic work and warfare. Sex is less sensual and more forceful. The baby is met with arbitrary blood and violence on his first day on earth.
• It immediately takes away agency. His removal of agency and the rationalizing that it "wasn't that bad" makes it more acceptable for him to do the same onto others in the future.
• It brands the male as belonging to others first, not to himself. For some cultures, circumcision is literally branding like that seen in livestock.
• It signifies his body is imperfect, immediately altering it, and arguably priming him for future issues of body dysmorphia and self-acceptance. Or it feeds the ego, with circumcision signifying that he is part of an exclusive 'club.'

This is the amicus brief that the Genital Autonomy Collective filed in support of the plaintiffs in Hadachek v. Oregon.

I want to open with something blunt:
People can get as upset with me as they want — feminists, activists, critics, whoever. They can hate the idea, despise the satire, or think it’s in bad taste. But they also get to rest comfortably knowing one thing: these surgeries are not routinely performed on them. They are not at risk. They are not the ones being altered without consent. Many males in this society cannot say the same.

Now, onto the actual point.

I want to raise a topic that’s uncomfortable, but important for activism: the role of satire and parody in exposing cultural double standards around genital surgeries.

We live in a society where male circumcision is treated as normal, routine, and even “funny” in media. Meanwhile, cosmetic surgeries on female anatomy — labia reduction, hood reduction, “tightening,” etc. — are treated as taboo, shocking, or something only whispered about. The contradiction is obvious: both are forms of altering natural anatomy, yet one is normalized and the other is treated as disturbing.

I’m not arguing that anyone should undergo these surgeries. I’m saying that satire can highlight the hypocrisy. When people recoil at a parody skit about labia reduction, it forces them to confront a simple truth:
If this feels wrong for adults, why is cutting boys considered harmless?

Dark humor, when used responsibly, can expose the absurdity of cultural norms. Parodying cosmetic female surgeries — without being explicit, sexual, or degrading — can help people see how strange it is that male circumcision is treated as “no big deal.”

Art, parody, and satire have always been tools to challenge harmful traditions. Maybe it’s time we use them more boldly in intactivist spaces.

To close this the same way I opened it:
People can be furious at me for saying this. They can call it tasteless or provocative. But they also get to live with the comfort of knowing their genitals will never be altered without consent. Many males in this society never had that luxury.

Curious what others think:
Is there a place for dark satire in activism, or is it too risky?
Can parody help people see the double standard more clearly?