Foreskin Pride

I live in Indianapolis, Indiana and yesterday (June 10th) was the date of our annual Gay Pride celebration. I enjoy going with my husband, my brother and his wife, and whomever else we can drag along with us. It’s always a good time and quite family friendly – which I think most people don’t expect.

Speaking of things unexpected, this year I ran into someone who might be considered something of a celebrity in the restoration community. His name is Ron Low ( INFO SITE HERE ) and I first learned of him only after beginning my own restoration efforts and only as the inventor of the TLC Tugger ( click here to learn about that ) – which I’ve written about and linked to before. But he’s clearly more than just a guy who came up with a means for men to restore their foreskin. He’s an intactivist – someone who speaks against circumcision publicly.

As with many other Gay Pride fests, there are a number of vendors present – organizations who pay a fee in order to access space inside the fest for the purpose of setting up a booth of sorts and gaining visibility to the gay community and its supporters during the festival. Ron Low had a booth set up for “Foreskin Pride” and employed the rainbow colors of the Gay Pride flag.

He was also one of the few vendors there who actually left his own booth (it was manned by others who were there with him) and went into the festival to actively seek interactions with fest goers. He had in his hands a small stack of what might be called pamphlets, although it was really more like a card – thin paper stock, though, printed on both sides. You’ll see that here.

This approach surely gained the intactivist cause DOUBLE exposure. People wandering around from one direction might encounter his booth where volunteers were stationed to answer questions and educate people and Ron himself, away from the booth, might encounter those coming from a different direction from which point he could place a card into their hands, speak to them directly, and put a face to the cause – showing everyone a normal guy and not some “weirdo,” fringe personality.

When I saw Ron, I immediately recognized him and started making my way to him – dragging my husband and family with me in the process. He was absolutely approachable and quite friendly – ever ready for a photo op, as you can see here, and which I took advantage of! (Not the best pic of me, but whatever)

Ron Low and Me

My sister-in-law, who will be giving birth to her first son in August, was very clear (and immediately so!) that when my nephew was born she WOULD be having him cut. She referred back to a man she’d dated before meeting my brother and how he was uncut and “his cock looked like one of those tube worms you see at the bottom of the ocean.” I expressed my disappointment and sadness, but tried to do so without bringing the mood down too much or being too confrontational – after all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, right? Arguing with her right there and trying to shove intactivist literature down her throat in the middle of a Pride event would have been unproductive, to say the least. But I digress.

Every year at the Indy Pride event there is a booth for foreskin restoration. I don’t know exactly when this started but I can attest that it’s been the case for at least the last few years. This is the first time I’ve seen (or at least the first time I’ve recognized) Ron as being present, too. It’s a fantastic boon to the Indy area to have him attend and I hope our Pride event (as well as any other fests these guys could have a presence at!) continues to present foreskin restoration to the masses as well as education about how terrible and unnecessary circumcision is.

Thanks for reading!

3 thoughts on “Foreskin Pride

  1. You should tell her that if she had her son cut that you would be calling CPS immediately and preparing to sue her doctor. This is not a joke, and you should have also told her that vaginas are none too pretty either but mutilation is not the solution.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jason – Thank you for the comment! I appreciate your passion. While you and I definitely agree that mutilation is not the solution, neither is shaming nor guilting people. The saying, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” is no less true today than when it was thought up.

      Telling my sister-in-law that I’d be calling CPS on her would – quite literally – only inflame an already terrible situation. A far better, more practical, and the most productive solution is exposure and education. People need informed. They need exposed to the insane truth of circumcision and they need informed on how unnecessarily cruel it is. They don’t need brow-beaten and they don’t need people yelling in their face.

      When I engage in intactivism, I want people to walk away from me with an experience they chew on for a while and information that makes sense to them. I don’t want them to walk away from me filled with emotionality and wanting to forget everything I said. nor do I want the experience of interacting with me to overshadow the knowledge they need to internalize.

      If you actually care about getting through to these kinds of people, then you would do well to take this approach and also give up the practice of entertaining others with your uncontrolled emotions and empty threats.

      And eye for an eye usually just results in blindness – offending those who are offensive just adds to the pile of dysfunction.


      1. I start out with the gentle education approach. But, if it appears that someone is not taking me seriously, I HAVE called CPS and police about some cases. Definitely not an empty threat from me. I have filed a criminal complaint about my own preputial amputation, filed a tort claim against the US Navy and filed a case in federal court. Lately I reached out to the Inspector General. Like Jason says, this IS a serious issue. If someone was saying that they were going to get a girl “circumcised,” you wouldn’t tell them that you have to report that?! They are going to go away chewing for a while either way. They are going to walk away knowing that there are men like me that TRULY do hate that they were cut as babies. I normally agree with the “eye for an eye” results in blindness idea, but, we’re not talking about retaliation, we are talking about protecting children. Not offending anyone, just stating what I HAVE to do. My conscience requires that I do. I’ve signed papers in the past requiring that I report child abuse – this IS child abuse. There is NO law (that I have found) that permits this practice. I challenge EVERYONE that says “it’s the parent’s choice” to identify the law that gives it an exception to sexual assault and battery of a minor – no one has in years of doing that. It’s an assumption that started many decades ago because people believed the US Constitution permitted it because of religious freedom – that’s upside down because religious freedom belongs to the individual (mine was stomped on as an infant). Just because some doctors said that it’s beneficial does not automatically mean that it is permitted. No one challenged it in court, so it hasn’t actually been determined whether it is legal or not. Just because it is a medical practice to amputate a body part does not make it legal to do so when the part is normal and healthy.

        Thanks for writing your blog article. Ron Low is a great guy!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s