Matt, while some may qualify circumcision as some horrid disfiguring and emasculating mutilatation, most see it as a simple cosmetic procedure that enhances the masculinity by making the penis more exposed/visible. As such, expressions such as "snipped" or "clipped" evoke the fact that it is a very simple cosmetic procedure that is not like what the anti circ folks make it out to be.
You're quite right, SC, that attractiveness is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But seen objectively, it
is a disfigurement of the natural penis that a man was born with. And according to medical terminology, it
is mutilation. Why that "enhances the masculinity by making the penis [glans?] more exposed/visible" I don't understand. Masculinity doesn't really reside in the penis, but in the character and conscience of a man (in my opinion). And as far as sheer raunchy sexual excitement is concerned, for me (personal preference again) there's no greater pulse-pounding turn-on than seeing for the first time with a new partner the fresh sex-red head emerging from its concealing sheath. (Not unlike, in its way, I suppose, the concept behind strip-tease dancing.) That, to me, is genuinely enhanced sexual masculinity, or masculine sexuality. --But that said, I also have to add that not only can I thoroughly appreciate, and respond to, the erotic sexuality of a cut cock, but that I indeed have had just as many deep-down satisfying sessions with circumcised men as with intact ones. Ultimately, then, for me it is the man whom the cock is attached to...and his enthusiasm for the action.
You and I may agree to a great extent, then, SC--but you are completely, totally, entirely, egregiously wrong when you claim that surgically amputating an integral portion of the penis is "a very simple...procedure," a mere "clipping" or "snipping" of a bit of inert skin. It is indeed "like what the anticirc folks make it out to be," and much more--it is a serious, major invasive procedure (moreso for infants than for adults). There is so much mischief inherent in it, in fact, that no one could possibly cover it all, all of the details, in a single conversation or lecture. The harm, the ever-present danger, the disadvantages, and the counterindications are legion, but there is
not one single advantage...other than the mere subjective, psychological satisfaction that some men find in it. But don't for a moment think that there are not untold numbers of men who are anything but satisfied with having been violated and deprived of much of their sexual satisfaction without their knowledge or consent.
Let's be clear, then, on Intactivists' mission. They feel it incumbent upon themselves to actively oppose only RIC (routine infant circumcision, a.k.a. Male Genital Mutilation). We do not object to adult men's choosing the operation
for themselves, so long as they are fully informed in advance of the life-altering ramifications of that choice. Thus you and I may not be too far apart in our deeply held convictions, after all. Surely you will admonish, along with me, "All you fuckin' greedy sadopervert pedophile circfetishists: Keep your bloody hands and knives off of children's genitals!!!"