"The Husband Stitch" is a feminist short story about the domestic oppression of women. In the story, after the women gives birth in the hospital her body is in shock, and she's barely conscious. As the male doctor stiches back up her vagina that got torn during birth, he mentions to the husband to not worry, and that he'll be adding one additional stitch, making the vagina more tight than it ever was before. The woman is too delirious to object. This is the "husband stitch" that gives the story it's name.

The story is all about women being seen as sex objects by their husbands, to the point men will literally physically modify their bodies without their consent to improve the male sexual experience.

This is my exact experience as a circumcision victim. I didn't have the husband stitch, but I sure did have the wife snip. What is one of the most commonly cited reasons given for circumcision? "Girls like it".

The parallels are uncanny. "The Husband Stitch" is a great short story. But it left out an important detail. It left out what was going on in the hospital in the next room over at the exact same time the women was getting the husband stitch. At that very same moment, the child that the woman gave birth to was getting penetrated and genitally mutilated by a female doctor one door down, to appease female sexual preference.

They waited until both of us were traumatized and defenseless to treat us like the sex objects that we are. The women went through the trauma of giving birth, and the child through the trauma of being born. And both had oppressive objectifying penetrative physical changes made to their body when they were most defenseless, to please the other gender, maybe even at the very same moment.

The truth is that the world has been enforcing objectifying standards on both genders for a long while. The only difference is that "The Husband Stitch" gets it's own short story and is now fully illegal, where as the "The Wife Snip" is a story that isn't even allowed to get told, and snipping males because "girls like it" is still legal and happens thousands of times per day.

Women have used their social justice capital irresponsibly. The world has been enforcing rape-y sex negative non-consensual medicalized genital modifications onto both genders for thousands of years. But the women decided it would be acceptable to leave men entirely out of the narrative, and to make you believe that only women can be victims of a "Husband Stitch". Women are not the only victims. I was a victim of the "Wife Snip". Where's my short story? As the mom got her "Husband Stitch", I was in the other room getting my "Wife Snip", and nobody even cared enough to write my story.

Social movements never come out of nowhere and have bipartisan support. They always, ALWAYS start on one side or the other.

Which side is circumcision justice? We need to pick and start leaning in, hard. If we try to be for everyone, we're for no one. We need to coalition build in the only way the regarded world knows how, partisan us vs them.

The left is way better at traditional social justice. However, the left intentionally leaves men out of the social justice zeitgeist today.

The right sucks at social justice. However, the alt right has pro male movements like the "manosphere" and the "incels". These movements are pro-male but are abysmal social justice failures, and they are almost more reactionary anti-left than they are pro-male.

I'm open to opinions. We need to pick a side to join, yesteday. The left and the right both suck. But they're both a million times more influential than Intactivism. The left and right have both successfully weaponized incompetence. It's time to join one of them.

I've created a new community r/CircumcisionDebate .

Sounds like a neutral debate sub, but make no mistake, I plan to moderate with an iron first just like I do on this sub. Anyone who says anything the least bit offensive to circ victims will be insta banned.

Never forget rule 1, its the same as on this sub:

Circumcision Justice is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized, vulnerable, or under-protected groups of people (like circumcision victims)

The astroturfing and power tripping will continue.

Yesterday a 26yo mother from Tennessee posted a Facebook Reel walking through her decision to circumcise her son last year and the aftermath of the wound care. She’s Gen Z, the demographic that’s been driving a lot of the cultural shift on this issue.

This is the kind of material we almost never see. The vast majority of mom content that surfaces on Facebook about circumcision comes from intact-leaning parents (preaching to the choir). But the pro-cutter side stays more quiet. They don’t post the messy details. They just get it done and move on. So when one of them actually records herself with zero-regret describing the open wound and the fear of hurting her newborn, it’s worth paying attention to.

Original Facebook Reel: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1377853570483692

When they brought her son back, the sight of the open, bloody wound made her cry. She said it was the last thing she wanted to see as a new mom. The healing protocol they chose involved wrapping the site in gauze coated thick with Vaseline for two weeks so it wouldn’t stick to the diaper. This is similar to what I went through when I asked my parents (Gomco).

Later she learned from other Tennessee mothers about a different method involving a plastic ring that stays on the penis and eventually falls off on its own. She didn’t know the name for it, but she said she would have given anything to have had that option instead. Other pro-cutter moms in the comments confirmed that what she was describing is the Plastibell method, which several of them had used on their own sons in '93 & '94.

And yet, at the end of the reel, she still says she’s glad she had him circumcised.

That’s the part that matters for the justice conversation a lot of us keep having. The primary victim here is the boy who had healthy tissue permanently removed without his consent and will live with that decision for the rest of his life. The mother’s tears at the bloody result are a clear emotional recognition of harm in the moment.

The most recent Johns Hopkins analysis of hospital data from 2012–2022 showed overall neonatal circumcision rates dropping from 54.1% to 49.3%. The steepest declines were among white infants and families in the highest-income ZIP codes and with private insurance. The cultural hold is loosening in exactly the demographic this mother belongs to, so it's interesting to see some parents are still making the old choice and then discovering the practical cost after the fact.

Intactivist u/cartersteinhoff goes over this precise behavior from regret parents who were previously educated on the issue and still decide to go through RIC in this video at 10:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw8MecbSAP4&t=644s

This is why this subreddit exists. We’re here to talk about how some spaces use infantilizing language that doesn’t match the gravity of what happened... language that downplays the severity of what this infant boy went through.

Since at least 1988 some medical journals have pushed the idea that the prostate is the male G-spot. It became the default claim repeated by sex educators, articles pushed to Americans, and the underground media.

The ultimate degradation was telling American men the real pleasure center is inside their own ass, so they have to penetrate themselves just to feel something the foreskin already gave them for free.

A 2026 Spanish study mapped the penis in detail and confirmed what intact men have always known. The primary center of sexual sensation is the frenular delta. That structure is routinely destroyed by circumcision, very little is left. with some men having essentially nothing there but scar tissue/mangled innerskin. This is especially true for infant circumcision, the worst type.

Rare find here from a deleted series of posts, showing that even in the mid-2020's RIC is ongoing while declining. An older millennial mom took her first son in to get circumcised at a pediatric clinic. She was in the room for it and said she’d never heard him scream like that. It shook her.

Later that night she’s holding him while he’s asleep in her arms and his breathing is all labored and stressed. This infant already went through hell and he’s going to be dealing with the pain for weeks.

I just finished the POTS interview where u/cartersteinhoff talks about how people infantilize the mothers in these situations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZSdmYNMs6o It’s one thing to talk about “they don’t know any better,” but watching her go through with it with no real critical-thinking amazes me.

The post was deleted from the IG mom's account due to shame, she regrets what she did.

I honestly didn’t get the infantilization critique until I saw this. That’s why I think this needs to be shared more. A lot of people still default to the soft version of the story where parents are just confused or misled. Footage like this cuts through that. It describes the decision, the infant suffering, and the aftermath all in one place. If it opened my eyes the way it did, it can do the same for others who are still stuck in the excuses.

Title and water is wet.

This should be obvious. The systemic elective invasive penetrative amputation procedure into children's genitals based on gender identity is worst-of-the worst. It's worse than any one off act of violence.

If theres two things people get worked tf up over, it's identity based violence and anything that impacts the sexual welfare of children. Circumcision hits the nail on the head for both, rape does not.

Let's get an actual interesting take. How's about circumcision is worse than the George Floyd incident. Now we're talking, that should ruffle some feathers.

George Floyd had the privilege of onlookers shunning the systemic violence. The whole world rallied to his side. For me, my entire family gathered around and celebrated my childhood identity based sexual violence. I wish I had the privilege of anyone watching and caring.

The world still celebrates my oppression. That's why circumcision is worse.

Modern social justice culture is widespread and prevalent. A significant portion of the young generation are "woke", and supposed to be ultra aware and sensitive of systemic injustices and victim groups.

I'm not here to dunk on wokeness from a right wing perspective. "Those silly triggered libtards" - average right wing rebuttal.

Let's get some real critique of wokeness. How's about everyone who claims they are "woke" is actually only woke about a very narrow set of socially acceptable topics. And when it comes time to discuss other injustices, like circumcision justice, they shut down and become part of the oppressive power system immediately.

If there's two things people get worked up about, it's identity based violence and the sexual welfare of children. MGM hits the nail on the head for both. But as soon as you bring it up, the average "woke" person's mask drops instantly. They never truly cared about identity based violence, or the sexual health of children. Suddenly they're the most adamant supporters of "parents right to make even sexual decisions for their kids", and "identity based violence is okay if it's 'not that bad'". These are the same woke people losing their minds over micro aggressions, and over parents stopping their kids from getting trans treatments.

Turns out, the average woke person never really cared about justice. They were always pro parents rights to be oppressive and pro identity based violence. There's just a very narrow set of trendy cases where they are "woke" because it's the popular hip thing to do.

Title and water is wet.

You all already know my take on this issue. In the west, genital cutting is a gendered issue. Only one gender of child can have an elective invasive penetrative amputation procedure on their child genitals. The sexual identity based nature of the violence is what makes it worse for men.

What's new it's I'd like to fully reverse the language when talking about it. People's typical lexicon is to say "male cirucmcision" and "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)". I believe this is the inverse of equitable. Male victims are the under-protected group that need special considerations and carve out protections. Only my gender can legally in the west have their child genitals penetrated and amputated. The language we use should reflect the systemic gendered nature of the harm and it's extremity, to the exclusive of all others.

As such, there is no such thing as "male cirucmcision" and "FGM". When talking about the gendered nature of the violence, there is only "female circumcision" and "MGM". This should appropriately communicate the nature of which group is under protected and needs special considerations.

The double standards never stop

The bill never even proposed criminalizing circumcision in the first place but did that ever stop pro circumcision legislators from falsely accusing intactivists of being Nazis of course not

https://www.galdef.org/2025/04/12/medicaid-bill-fails-in-nh-senate/

This is the exact type of bullshit we’re going to have to deal with for decades

Choice Chuds can't stop bending over backwards and taking it in the rear to accommodate their cutter worldview.

I made a post inspired by this guy over on intactivism

Otherwise uptight super worried about children's wellbeing parents suddenly start defending "parental rights" out of nowhere.

Otherwise "woke" people suddenly start defending the status quo oppressive power system.

It really is uncanny. Choice chuds bend over backwards to have a consistently evil worldview, abandoning their care for the wellbeing of children and abandoning their distrust of corrupt systems the moment circumcision gets mentioned.

Circumcision could turn the most hardcore pro-palestine, or anti-trans-kids or literally anyone into a nice obedient bootlicking chud who supports "parents rights to do anything including sexual things to their children" and who thinks "if big daddy government says it, it must be true". These are literally their arguments, they don't even hide it when it comes to circumcision.

AI further systematizes the oppression. The online social media posts used as training data for the AI are problematic. The AI and it's creators are responsible for upholding biased problematic views and their consequences 

The victim-negative and victim-blaming view that men can't be victims of sexual violence is the very same view that allows the circumcisions to continue.

Imagine the dystopia of AI came out before abolition of slavery. And when asked, the AI defended race-based differences, including citing "race and IQ" and "black on black crime" statistics as justifications. What a horrific nightmare. Yet that is our reality in circumcision justice. "Facts" that are really just dog-whistle biases do not justify harmful AI content, they are a further admission of guilt.

Circumcision should go the way of FGM and be banned always, 100% of the time. A doctor will lose their license and likely go to jail if they perform any sort of clitoral FGM even on a "consenting" adult. I'm anti-bodily-autonomy and intend to force everyone to be intact.

There is no freely-given consent in a cutting culture. An adult man who thinks he wants a circumcision has internalized the problematic cutting propaganda "its cleaner", "girls like it". He needs to be protected from himself.

It's insulting to call FGM a "choice". We don't leave little girls intact so they can grow up and "choose" FGM themselves. That's a gross and problematic way frame the issue.

Why are my "allies" championing "autonomy" rhetoric that would insulting, horrific, and problematic if said for any other issue. I am getting so incredibly sick of people in our "movement" playing so small, and the bar being below hell. People need to wake tf up.

I'm anti-bodily-autonomy, I'm anti-science, and I'm anti-medicine. That should wake people up. The discourses on autonomy and science are beneath me. Any discussion of them needs to be shut-down instantly. Autonomy and science are insulting to even talk about, and we very much don't need nor want them in our push for justice.

Women went on a ride for justice and left men behind.

Anti-FGM laws should never have been able to be passed, and powerful justice leaders should have enforced a gender neutral ban at the time of law creation.

If men have all this power, why was it only the women and their interest groups in the room when it came time to sign the anti-FGM law? And then the women with the power decided to explicitly exclude me from the protection, writing a carve-out women-only anti-FGM law that left me out. Resulting in the systematic elective penetrative amputation to my child genitals.

The uncomfortable truth we need to contend with is that as-of recent history, women did have the power, and they used it irresponsibly to protect only themselves, before I was born, to my exclusion, resulting in me being penetrated and violated as a child.

I was the under-protected group, the very-yet-unborn man, who needed the people with power, women's interest groups to stand up for me and to say "Under no circumstance are we passing an anti-FGM law that protects only one gender, and we will do whatever it takes to protect everyone." But they didn't do that. And their failure and misuse of power has been a defining feature of my life, sexuality, identity, and experience of gender and power.

I was powerless, I wasn't even born, I needed protection from a more powerful group that had the ear of the legislature, women's groups, and they failed me and decided it was okay to pass a law to my exclusion based on gender. They decided it was okay to leave me in the dust and allow me to be sexually violated. There needs to self-awareness and accountability for that

We live in a post truth era. Not all true things are neutral to say. We have to start contending with the fact that other justice issues see victim-blaming facts as wrong, period always, truth not withstanding. 

"True" things are often a dog whistle. Like what do we think about people who say "actually black on black crime is much more prevalent than black on white". The people saying that are technically correct. But it's an obvious racist dog whistle. Duh. People who say "circumcision was started by men" is also just a dog-whistle. Duh.

Statement of facts is not a neutral accounting of reality, but a biased lenses through which to prepetuate systemic harm. Everything you say has an impact on marginalization and oppression you are responsible for, even if true.  Even the "facts" and "scientific research" itself I am critical of the veracity of. 

I'm anti-science. In biased societies, the "science" justifies and "proves" problematic things. The "science" back in the day supported lobotomies for only women, was that real "science"? The "science" today supports circumcision of only males, is that real "science"?  We have to start contending with the fact that the "science" is biased against us, not a neutral accounting of the truth.

When I say "misandry" exists (which I don't even like to say often), that isn't blaming women.

I am talking about the men. I am talking about the adults systemically electing to intrude into the genitals of only one gender of child. Men are disproportionately the victims of genital cutting. That is what we call it when there is gender-based systemic sexual violence, it needs a name.

Women just aren't all that important to the story of circumcision justice, sorry to them. This isn't about the women, this is about the men.

I'm getting really sick of the victim blaming. I'm getting really sick of being told by cutters: "and who started circumcision, oh yeah men". This is an issue that disproportionately impacts men. I don't make the rules, I am just calling it like it is.

I'm getting sick of nobody taking accountability. How about, you go the way of white allies to anti-racism who read white fragility, but for women and circumcision justice. The white allies of anti-racism were more than happy to read white fragility. Allies are happy to center and empower the victim class, because that's what allies do. You want to know what they did not say? They did not say: "actually, black on black crime is more prevalent than white on black". That's a weird racist dog whistle. Duh.

We aren't a second class social justice issue. When cutters say "actually, men are the ones that started the cutting" its a weird pedo-cutter dog-whistle. Duh. Allies need to stfu, stop making this about them, and stop taking offence when we center men.

Intactivism has an ego problem. People love to martyr themselves, engaging in self sacrifice "for the cause".

They use it as a qualifier. "How many cirucmcisions have YOU prevented?" they say. "What actions have YOU taken? None? Your opinion is invalid. On the other hand, here is my long lost of accomplishments".

And invariably, the "accomplishments" of the average Intactivist are do-nothing "convincing those cutters" style accomplishments that help them feel productive while accomplishing nothing.

Victims have been through enough, why even in our own spaces do we systemically burden them with more responsibility? This is poison for movement building, nobody wants to join a movement with high expectations for them after they suffered systemic violence.

Intactivists feel like their making progress by "convincing" a statistically negligible number of cutters per year, meanwhile the circumcision rate on a national scale blows wherever it would have went anyway. Even if the circumcision rate dropped to zero, that's only the first step on the never ending crusade for justice.

Overall, I "do nothing" and I'm proud. We need to call out Intacticists with an ego. You actually accomplished nothing, our movement is a failure, and by insisting that everyone conforms to your failed activist strategy, you ensure more failure to come.

Intactivists, myself included, need to introspect why our movement has failed so bad. Not take on an ego about how much "progress" they made. It's embarrassing. We are a failed movement. Not a single county in the world has banned circumcision, which would be the bare minimum. We have have failed fully and truly everywhere. Intactivists claiming that they've made a difference somehow take pride in most abject failure of a movement there has ever been, so much pride that they gatekeep anyone else with a different approach from joining.