Sunday, October 26, 2008

What is TribalBaby?

TribalBaby:  Birthing and raising children the way nature intended.  Resurrecting the lost human instincts to guide us in our choices and in our everyday lives.  Challenging and questioning "mainstream" ideas that push us further from the truth and what is good for our families.  Becoming one with our inner spirit and instinctual ways.  Giving our children the best of ourselves.  Making decisions that bring us PEACE.


WiseWoman said...

Your post was circulated to the intactivist lists by Chaz Antonelli. I posted it to my blog at
and credited him as the author.

He informed me that he got it from this site. Do you want me to credit you with authoring it or just put your link? Thanks Gloria
in Vancouver BC Canada

Latinalonestar said...

I put a newer version up today with more info and more links. I left a comment for you at your blog. You might want to change out the old one for the new one. Feel free to pass along!!! :D

Michele & Derek Moore said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeremy said...

It is always interesting to me when someone who opposes circs or is for them, brandishes their set of reports as if they are the 100% truth while putting down the validity of the other reports that don't coincide with their own beliefs. Your 500,000 number is one such finding that is at best a skewed number. Since the majority of guys in the US who are circ'd greatly out-numbers those who are not. Just like the test results that "prove" being circ'd reduces your chance of getting cancer of the penis. Sure it is only like 2% but hey it does reduce your chance of geting an already EXTREMELY rare form of cancer.

You only stated medical reasons. What about if your religion views it as needed?

To each thier own I guess. I don't remember having it done, I don't miss not having it, no reason to be upset about it.

Latinalonestar said...

Yes amputating ANY body part will eliminate the chance of that part getting cancer. Penile cancer in males is VERY rare! If your suggesting that preventative medicine warrants the removal of male foreskins at birth then we surely should remove the breast buds of baby girls at birth. Women have a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer. This TONS higher than the risk of penile cancer in men. only 1 per million intact men will get penile cancer and .3 per million circumcised men will get cancer. Amputation is a last resort for when a part is decayed, cancerous, or has been severely damaged. It is NOT preventative medicine.

You say that the majority of men in the US are circed. This may be true but the circ rate is falling like a ton of bricks and now only 56% of parents are circing their sons. Circ is genital reduction surgery. Only a consenting adult has the right to decide this for themselves.

Latinalonestar said...

By the way the pro-circ studies have been proven invalid. I'd be happy to share details if you want to talk specifics here. The only reason I don't discuss the details in this blog is b/c it would consume a great deal of space.

Jeremy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy said...

I didn't post to start an argument or be mean or anything like that. I even agree as I posted that in the future it will be more uncirc'd than circ'd boys in the US. Times change.

But when it comes to religious reasons those most likley will be the hold outs that continue to practice. Some insurances don't pay for circ's as they deem them cosmetic surgeries. My insurance did cover them and it was a choice we made for both of our sons for religous reasons.

About the penile cancer stat it isn't just in the foreskin that it occurs. Again IT is a RARE form and we both knew that lol. But the comparison of cutting off breast buds in baby girls to prevent breast cancer is kind of a stretch.

Being circ'd myself I have never had a UTI, have never been turned down for "affections" based on being "mutilated", never had a problem urinating, I have PLENTY of nerve endings that work, and to be quite honest I am not sure I would want more lol.

Never having been encumbered by a foreskin during intercourse I can't say much about it but it seems to me that have that extra chuck of skin there would make it more difficult to use a condom, more uncomfortable, and if not using one, which would be a dumb choice if not in a committed relationship, seems to me to have no bearing either way.

I have read your post about the natural lubrication under the foreskin to help the penis glide better but maybe I have been lucky and have never needed to use any artifical lubricant with any women I have been with.

I still think it comes down to society and as it is right now it is still more acceptable to get a circ than not. If we lived in another country where it was considered beutiful to have your front teeth removed, your neck stretched, and big plates in your lips, we wouldn;t think anything of it. But living outside of that society we most likely view it as horrible.

Latinalonestar said...

Hi Jeremy!
I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Part 1:

So by your post I assume you are either Jewish or Muslim, right? Those are the two religions that circ. Though muslims also circ girls too.

The problem with saying that it should be okay to circ in the name of religion is that we already recognize that removal of female foreskin is a human rights violation. If you are of a religion that circs females you are SOL in our nation. A few years ago someone agreed to circ a baby girl and is still sitting in jail today. Why? B/c we have classified ANY alteration/reduction of the female genitalia as a human rights violation. Why should the foreskin of a male be any different. In fact you can not alter a single part of a child without medical reason EXCEPT the male foreskin. What makes the male foreskin so special that it is the only part that can legally be removed for non-therapeutic purposes?

The problem with the "when in Rome" argument. Based on this argument then you would say that if I moved to Africa I can circ my baby girl. There are many places there where circ is the norm for girls. The women there will tell you that it doesn't reduce their sexual pleasure, that it is cleaner, and that they are glad they are circed. The only reason some women have spoken out against it is b/c

A) it was done to them at an age where they can remember the pain and they know what their genitals were like in the unaltered state and
B) some victims of the rarest, most disfiguring form of female circ have come forward.

The fact is that the circ we perform in the US on our boys is more severe than most forms of female circ. Many men have come forward saying that they were violated but in our culture we tend to say, "just suck it up" when it comes to male issues. We live n a very "girl-power" culture. However over 200,000 men are currently undergoing a multi-year process to restore SOME of what was taken from them at birth. NORM is the National Organization for Restoring Men. There are also some cases where men have sued the doctors who performed a circumcision on them as infants. These men have won their cases. So you see, things are not always as they appear.

As for your statements about the intact male: Having an intact husband I can answer many of your concerns.

Latinalonestar said...

Part 2:
Condom Use: Across the board condom use is HIGHER with intact males. This has been confirmed by multiple studies This is b/c the cell composition of the foreskin is the same cells that you would find in the finger tips and lips these cells enhance sensation. This is why reading braille with your fingers is easier than if you tried to read it with another part of your body, like say your elbow. The foreskin enhances the sensations making men have more control. There is an area of the foreskin called the ridge band that gives ejaculate control. Which is why intact men are less likely to suffer ejaculatory dysfunction. Also circumcised men will on average suffer from erectile dysfunction 7 years sooner than intact men.

Trying to explain to a circumcised man how a foreskin feels is much like trying to explain color to someone who only sees in black and white. The interesting thing is that after men restore non-surgically they almost always say the same thing. They say, "when I was circumcised I thought sex was great, the greatest in fact. I couldn't imagine it feeling any better. Now that I have restored it is like night and day. I have more control and the sensation is totally different. I had no idea what I was missing and I can't imagine how it would feel to have may natural foreskin back."

The foreskin is a double layered tissue that glides along the penile shaft. When the penis becomes erect it "grows" into the foreskin however there is still some slack to aid in gentle gliding motion. If you rub your index finger on the back of your hand you can see how the skin moves with your finger. This is how a foreskin moves during intercourse. Condoms to not interfere with this movement as a properly fit condom will glide along with the foreskin. Now take your index finger and rub the palm of your hand. You will notice that the skin does not move. This is how intercourse is with a man who is circumcised. It is more abrasive, especially for the woman. This changes the entire dynamic of sex from a gentle rocking motion to a jarring, pounding motion. Intercourse with intact persons will be closer together and more of a rocking motion. The man will not have to withdraw so far as with a circumcised man. is a great place to see actual images of this in action. Caution: it is graphic so don't check this out at work! ;)

Going back to what I said about condom use being more frequent with intact men. This could shed light on why the USA has the HIGHEST rate of STD transmission of any developed nation. And the circ rate of sexually active men in our country is very high, as only in the last couple decade the rates have dropped significantly. So the circ rate is TONS higher in the US and we have the HIGEST rate of STD transmission. 1 in 3 Americans has an STD. Hmmmm??? Two reasons for this:
1) Circumcised men are less likely to use a condom, as I said before.
2) Circumcised males are less likely to show symptom of STD but NOT less likely to catch an STD. Asymptomatic men will infect many partners and not even realize they are carrying an STD unless a partner tells them.

So there are many layers to this issue as you can see. While I don't agree people have the right to circ a boy OR a girl for religious reasons, religious circs compose a very small minority of circumcisions in our country. Genital modification is very much a human rights issue which crosses beyond, religion, race, sex, class, age, culture, tradition or nationality. This said, I would be pretty darn happy if it was illegal for non-religious circumcisions, as this would protect most boys and give them the right to decide about the function and appearance of their sex organ.

Our Journey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.