Monday, April 19, 2021

Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation"

It's been a while since I've posted on this blog. I've been busy with life, but male infant genital mutilation and how deeply entrenched it has become in my home culture still pisses me off.

Infant Genital Mutilation: Is It To Laugh?
Male infant circumcision is so entrenched in American culture that joking about it is common fare. If male infant genital mutilation weren't so accepted today, people would most likely think that these random insertions of mutilation jokes in our media was bizarre. Indeed, Europeans do think it's weird to see these jokes sprinkled into American television series and sitcoms. They don't think it's funny. That's because it's not funny. It's not funny, but Americans need to convince themselves that it is, so that they feel better about what they allow to happen to their baby boys 3,000 times a day.


Why do people laugh at something as tragic as male infant circumcision?

In the words of one person:

“Sometimes people laugh when something is sad because they are trying to deflect going deeper into their emotions,” says Hopkins-Alvarez.

“This may be an unconscious process that is occurring, not necessarily a conscious one.” In other words, your mind is putting up a type of wall to combat these overwhelming emotions—and it’s totally normal.


The reason people joke about male infant circumcision is to prevent themselves from seeing it for the sad tragedy that it is. Jokes about male genital mutilation serve the same function as anesthetic; it serves to try and numb the pain. The only problem is that, even when the anesthetic wears off, the reality of a mutilated penis and missing foreskin is indelible that it stays there for life.

"A man is circumcised as a baby when he is too young to remember," some might say, in an attempt to belittle a circumcised man's feelings of resentment. "How can he remember?" A circumcised man is reminded of his circumcision every time he urinates, showers, masturbates or makes love. The question is, "How could he forget?"

Even if you "can't remember," it's still there, reminding you every day.
 
Even if he can't actually remember, the scar is there day in and day out to remind him for the rest of his life.

Ergo, these "jokes" must continue as long as a male person is alive, and as long as male infant genital mutilation continues as a "custom" or "social norm." That is the purpose these male genital mutilation jokes serve.

They've always been there...
Male infant circumcision jokes aren't new. You can look back on American media through the years, and they're there. They've always been there, but perhaps they've just happened so much that by this time it's so unoriginal the joke has become as old and worn as that famous riddle about a chicken crossing the road. They're not funny. They really aren't. Again, they're there to serve one purpose; numb Americans to what's happened to them, what's happened to their husbands and what's happened to their children.

Check out this link for a list of male infant circumcision references on American television.

In my opinion, this is part of a bigger problem of belittling and disparaging men. Along with male genital mutilation jokes, it's not uncommon to see men being hit in the balls in movies and TV sitcoms as a comical device. Violence on boys and men and their genitals is funny, violence on girls and women is not.

Male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

The Elephant-sized Circumcision Scar in the Room
I'm going to dare and say something that others dare not, because it's politically incorrect to do so, and any criticism of anyone who identifies themselves as "Jewish", however removed from the religion or from Jewish ancestry they may be (the one-drop rule), will be condemned as a "Nazi." It's already considered to be "anti-semitic" to criticize male infant circumcision as it is.

Any criticism of Jews or Judaism must be preceded by disclaimers, so here are mine:

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole.

I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

Male infant circumcision is not unique to Judaism; in the US, 80% of males are circumcised, only 0.6% or so who are Jews circumcised at a bris. It's disingenuous to paint criticism of male infant circumcision as "an attack on Jews and Judaism" when it has become such an ingrained part of American culture.

This day and age, not all Jewish men are circumcised, and not all Jewish families circumcise their children. Some of the most outspoken people in our movement happen to be Jewish. Alternative ceremonies exist, such as the Bris Shalom, for families choosing to forgo the ritual cutting. I myself am an appreciator of Jewish tradition, music and culture.

If I'm pointing something out, it's not out of hate for Jewish people, it's out of disdain for the forced genital cutting of minors and the violation of the most basic of human rights.

Commence My Pointing-Out
One thing that bothers me about male infant genital mutilation humor on television is that it seems it's  almost always written by Jewish people.

I look up sitcoms where male infant genital mutilation is a joke, Seinfeld, Sex in the City, The Simpsons, The Nanny, and there they are. It's simply no secret that a lot of writers for American sitcoms happen to be Jewish.

And, of course, most, if not all of the time, it's not merely a joke about circumcision; it has to be the Jewishness of circumcision as a plot device.

On Seinfeld, Cosmo Kramer is being asked to be the sandek (the guy who holds the baby as the mohel fillets him), on The Simpsons, Krusty's father is about to perform a bris on a baby, on Sex and the City, Charlotte is Jewish, so her boyfriend must be circumcised (they play Jewish music and everything). The list goes on and on.

It's not just sitcoms; it's movies too. Remember Ms. Doubtfire?

I remember watching this as a teenger asking myself
"What's gribenes? Why do people have moils?"

 And who could forget Robin Hood: Men in Tights?

Robin Hood: A moyel... I don't believe I've ever heard of that profession.
Rabbi Tuckman: A moyel is a very important guy. He makes circumcisions.
Scarlet: What, pray tell, sir, is a circumcision?
Rabbi Tuckman: It's the latest craze. The ladies love it!

Most Americans aren't Jewish, so they wouldn't understand half of what's going on, where for most Americans who are circumcised or who allowed this on their children it was a question of signing a consent form and not having to even be present for their child's mutilation procedure. So why is humor as it would pertain to a Jewish audience being thrust on the American public?

I think I can understand why; self-preservation.

American males are already pre-dominantly circumcised, at about 80% of US males circumcised from birth, so the idea of male infant circumcision isn't all that foreign. However in recent years, male infant circumcision as "medicine" has come under scrutiny. Indeed, there was a time in the 80's where the American Academy of Pediatrics was already advising that male infant circumcision shouldn't be done. When male infant circumcision as "medicine" is questioned, next would be the ritual of male infant circumcision as performed by adherents of Judaism. Perhaps Jewish authors think that constantly inserting circumcision as a Jewish ritual in the American psyche might inoculate American culture against the outright questioning of what is the most cherished Jewish tradition.

We must look at the history of male infant circumcision and understand where Jews are coming from.

Jewish people have been on the defensive about the ritual mutilation of male infant babies since the time of the Maccabees. Among other things, Antiochus prohibited male infant circumcision. Jews were mocked by the Greeks, where Jewish men would attempt to regrow their foreskins by stretching out the remnants. (The rabbis at the time looked down on this and thus added the "peri'ah" procedure of ripping every last bit of the foreskin from the penile shaft so as to prevent restoration; this alone is why medicalized male infant circumcision is what it is today.) Jews were feared by Europeans, and stories of Jews using gentile baby blood to make matzo were invented to slander them (blood libel). On top of all of this, circumcision was prohibited by Nazi Germany and used as a marker to find Jews during the Holocaust. It is no surprise, then, that there would be Jewish comedy writers seeking to make light of this the most contentious ritual for Jewish people in order to normalize it and make acceptable to their audiences, especially in America, where most men are circumcised anyway.

Male Circumcision in American Medicine and Medical Literature
It might not be that big of a problem if it were merely Jewish comedy writers writing male infant genital mutilation into American comedy, but it doesn't stop there.

The propagation of male infant circumcision as "medicine" has been a great vindication and a boon for Jews. Whereas in the past, male infant circumcision was something Jews were ashamed about and didn't openly discuss, and circumcision in and of itself wasn't openly discussed in general, save to disparage it, today it's a common procedure in the United States and it's discussed in terms of "potential medical benefits." It was first touted as a way to stop boys and men from masturbating, and it has since been pushed as a way to prevent almost every disease imaginable, from bed-wetting, to asthma, to cancer, to STDs. It is currently pushed as a preventative measure for HIV in Africa. As it is currently thought of as a "preventative measure," Jews no longer have to hide this practice and openly flaunt the fact that they circumcise their children. They're out of the closet, so to speak, and it goes without saying that they aim to stay that way.

I've already discussed Jewish authors and the Jewishness of circumcision as a plot device in American comedy, but let's look at Jewish authors of medical literature on the subject.

Look into medical literature, and you'll find that there is a disproportionate number of Jewish authors all purporting the "benefits" of male infant circumcision. Look throughout the history of male infant circumcision as medical panacea and you'll see many Jewish names.

It was Aaron J. Fink who invented the idea that male circumcision might prevent HIV transmission out of thin air; to date a demonstrable causal link is yet to be furnished. It was Edgar Schoen who steered the American Academy of Pediatrics from recommending against male infant circumcision. It's authors like Daniel Halperin who continue writing literature attempting to marry male circumcision to the reduction of HIV and other STDs. (There has yet to be a demonstrable causal link between male circumcision and the reduction HIV transmission furnished; to date, there is none.) It's Jewish directors like AAP director Susan Blank and CDC director Thomas Frieden that make sure male infant circumcision has a secure place in American medicine. (Current CDC director is Rochelle Walensky. More circumcision promotion shouldn’t be too surprising.)

The Gomco Clamp, quite possibly the most widely used instrument for male infant circumcision second only to the Mogen clamp, was invented by Hiram S. Yellen, M.D. and Aaron A. Goldstein. (Incidentally, the Mogen clamp was also a Jewish invention.)

My intention is not to accuse Jewish people as a whole. That's not it at all. As I've already said, some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish. I'm sure that most Jewish people don't give this procedure any further thought than that, it's a Jewish tradition, if a boy is born, he is circumcised and that's that. What I'm saying is that there seems to be a disproportionate group of dedicated Jewish authors with a religious conviction to defend what has been historically a problematic ritual writing medical literature and writing public health policy that affects the rest of the country and this is a serious conflict of interest.

Adherents of Judaism have a religious conviction to circumcise their male children from birth, to minimize or outright dismiss adverse outcomes from circumcision, while exaggerating its "medical benefits." This conviction is at odds with the capacity to give neutral, unbiased, dispassionate, objective information and a genuine concern for public health. Religious adherence to beliefs is a problem that in any other case is called out. Creationism comes to mind. While we point out that adherents to Catholicism writing literature on abortion and birth control is a problem, while we condemn Islamic doctors who defend female genital cutting, Jewish doctors writing medical literature on male circumcision get a free pass. Why is that?

In 2012, Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, was fired from Mayo Clinic for saying that female circumcision was recommended and even an "honor" for women. There were even calls on Change.org to have his certifications revoked.


"Female circumcision is recommended, even an honor for women."
~Dr. Hatem Elhagaly MD

In 2018, Dr Ali Selim said "We see female circumcision in the same way we see male circumcision. It might be needed for one person and not another, and it has to be done by a doctor and practised in a safe environment." For this, he has been openly criticized by various health organizations.

 

"If a parent wants his daughter to undergo female circumcision
then they should seek the advice of their doctor
as it can be necessary for medical reasons."
~Dr. Ali Selim"

When defending male infant circumcision, what it usually boils down to is "It's culture, it's religion, it's tradition," yet "culture," nor religion, nor "tradition" are ever enough to justify any sort of female genital cutting. "It's just a little piece of skin" minimizes male infant circumcision, but the same amount of flesh would never be justified to be removed in girls or women.

Compared side by side: An infant foreskin and an infant clitoris
(Female infant circumcision is a thing in South-East Asia)


I want readers to note the stark contrast and double-standards with which we judge male and female genital cutting. "Religion, custom and tradition" justify only male infant circumcision. The "little snip" narrative disappears when comparing the flesh removed side by side. Religious doctors attempting to clothe their tradition and religious believes can't pass muster this day and age. But yet, no one seems to think it's a problem when "studies" showing the "benefits" if male infant circumcision and medical policy based on them are written by adherents of a religion where male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment.
 
"I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table
on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious,
not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years
of ancestors looking over my shoulder."
~Dr. Andrew Freedman, AAP Circumcision Taskforce 2012

The Shaming of French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation"
There is not a doubt in my mind that there are a number of Jewish people in high places dedicated to protecting, safeguarding, purporting and propagating male infant genital mutilation, the goal of which is nothing more than the preservation of what is possibly their most cherished tradition.

Screenwriter Daniel Barnz is no exception.

I saw the cover picture of this blog post on my Facebook feed today, and I thought I just had to post this. I would have thought that the male infant genital mutilation joke had grown to be so unoriginal so as to be dead by now, and yet, here it is on HBO in 2021.

I decided to look up Daniel Barnz' Wikipedia page, and there it was. It always is.

Why is it that when you see male infant genital mutilation jokes it always turns out to be a Jewish person doing it?

I ask, but as I've already shown, I think we all know why.

More protection, more normalization, more promotion of male infant genital mutilation to the American masses.

The point, aim and goal of these jokes are clear.

Here, we have school girls joking about male infant genital mutilation. Oh Tee hee! How funny!

One of the girls says "I prefer circumcised to uncircumcised."

The other says "Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese?", followed by an obviously faked, obviously forced "Tee hee."

The message is clear; girls like circumcised penis, so girls watching this, have your sons circumcised. Men, you don't want to be made fun of, so insist on circumcision because "dick cheese."

First of all, this idea needs to strike people as odd; a school girl of high school age has already been around the block enough times that she has a preference for what kinds of penises she "prefers."

In the United States, where is she going to find all these intact men?

Male infant circumcision rates are falling, as low as 56.7% according to the CDC, but even so 80% of men are circumcised from birth. (Men already circumcised from birth aren't all going to suddenly disappear because the circumcision rate has fallen.)

Fantasy.

And, of course, the girl who has the penis preference is a person of color.

So what's the message here?

The white girl is the stupid, air-headed inexperienced one, the black girl is the one who's the experienced slut who knows all there is to know about penises.

Like, do people not stop and think about the overt racial stereotyping that's going on here?

I'd like to bring attention to what's being said; the dialogue goes something like:

"Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese? Tee hee..."
"Isn't everyone circumcised?"
"No, they don't do it in France. But that's because they like stinky cheese."
That's not a direct transcription; I really don't want to watch this again to get the exact quotes, but the joke went something along these lines.

Historically Jews hold French people in disdain for eating pork and not being circumcised. And that disdain is showing up here. It's also blatant misinformation the American public is being force-fed. Of course, the French are not the only people who don't mutilate their boys at birth, at 70% of men in the world being intact, Jews and Muslims are in the minority. But just notice how the stab is specifically against French people and how being uncircumcised is specifically a French thing.

I thought we lived in an age where racial stereotyping and bashing an entire group of people, not to mention immutable characteristics, was supposed to be "problematic."

Just imagine a similar scenario where a girl says "Doesn't circumcision means baby boys get their dicks sucked on by mohels?"

"Tee hee... maybe Jews like bleeding baby peen..."

See how that's not funny?

Let's just imagine a reverse scenario; how would two guys discussing a girl's vagina play out?

Where a black guy tells a white guy "I much prefer a girl who's had her flaps trimmed," and the white guy says "Isn't it true that girls with large flaps get clitter litter?" And the black guy says "Yeah, girls who haven't had their flaps trimmed smell like stinky cheese."

Could you imagine the outrage???

“Objectifying women is the height of toxic masculinity!” they would say.

Something seriously needs to give HBO and Daniel Barnz a wake-up call.

We do not body-shame people.

We do not attack an entire ethnic group.

We do not joke about male infant genital mutilation.

That joke is old, out of touch, and it needs to die.

Joking about male infant genital mutilation is out of touch in this day and age; Americans aren't all circumcised; male infant circumcision is going the way of blood-letting and head trepanation. Male infant circumcision is not practiced in Australia, New Zealand, Ice Land, Norway, Finland, Sweden, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, pretty much the whole of Europe. It's not a practice in Mexico, Brazil or anywhere outside of the US in the Americas. These jokes attempt to marginalize and make fun of what is actually anatomically correct genitals. It paints a false reality for Americans and/which serves to miseducate and misinform. It's about time they stop.

Conclusion
I realize that what I'm saying is going to make me unpopular among intactivist but this needs to be said; I believe the reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we give it golden calf status, and nobody wants to speak out against male infant circumcision for fear of being cancelled as "Nazi anti-Semite." While Jewish people aren't all plotting to circumcise gentiles as a collective, it is clear that there is a dedicated number of Jewish people pushing circumcision on the American public through entertainment and medical literature, and on the rest of the world through the UN and organizations like Operation Abraham under the guise of "HIV prevention." (Circumcision does not, cannot prevent HIV, and the United States is a glaringly obvious case in point.) Edgar Schoen tried and failed to push circumcision on all of Europe. Mohels like Neil Pollock are trying to spread their tradition in Africa and in the Caribbean. Inon Schenker is taking advantage of the current UN circumcision vindication to spread circumcision in Africa.

The whole reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we treat the issue of male infant circumcision with kid gloves. Nobody wants to criticize male infant circumcision because once you do, you're Hitler. So when Jewish comedy authors write circumcision jokes, the correct response is to laugh. Maybe nervously, but yes, you must laugh. Or else. Or at least not mention the fact that joking about this makes one uncomfortable.
 
When authors of medical literature to the effect that circumcision prevents Ebola virus just happen to be Jewish, no-one better point out that conflict of interest, you Nazi.The lynchpin preventing male infant circumcision from being stricken from American medicine for the elective, non-medical mutilation that it is, is Holocaust guilt and the fear of being perceived as an anti-Semite. People are afraid to point out the confirmation bias in medical literature written by Jewish authors because that is "anti-Semitic." And this lynchpin is held in place by this steady drizzle of Jewish circumcision humor in American media.

I'm not saying that Jews are all as a collective plotting to circumcise gentiles in this country. That simply can't be true.

What I'm saying is that it's a problem that there is a number of Jewish people are using their platforms in mass media to influence Americans and consumers of American entertainment.

It's a problem when Jewish authors who have a religious conviction to defend male infant circumcision are publishing medical literature with a confirmation bias.

We have no problem ousting religious defendants of female ritual cutting from western institutions of medicine, and yet, we try to pretend like this isn't a problem that Jewish defendants of male infant circumcision are writing medical literature and American medical policy, that it isn't a problem that Jewish organizations like Operation Abraham are in Africa promoting "mass circumcision" as "HIV prevention," that it isn't a problem that mohels are outright telling apprentices to go to Africa to practice male infant circumcision on African boys.

What I'm saying is that male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

What I'm saying is that medical literature on male circumcision shouldn't be beyond scrutiny because it was written by Jewish authors.

What I'm saying is that we need to stop pretending like Jewish people filling medical literature with pro-circumcision "research" and then using said "research" to try and spread their endangered tradition to the rest of the world has anything to do with a genuine concern for public health.

It is not "anti-Semitism" to apply the same rigorous scrutiny to literature regarding male infant circumcision that we normally apply to literature regarding female infant circumcision.

As long as we, collectively, as a nation, continue to agree that we'll not apply the same scrutiny to male genital cutting that we apply to female genital cutting, the genital mutilation of males will continue.

We would NEVER allow the medicalization of FGM.

We would NEVER allow doctors to perform FGM "Because my religion/tradition/custom."

We would NEVER allow FGM "Because I'm an oppressed minority."

We would NEVER allow the joking of about FGM or making light of it in any way.

We would NEVER joke about women’s immutable characteristics, the smells and substances their vaginas produce, the fact that they menstruate every month, or other normal, healthy bodily functions.

We would NEVER shame or make fun of circumcised boys or men.

Joking about forcibly cutting the genitals of ANYBODY, making fun of French people, or ANY peoples that don’t practice infant genital cutting, or anatomically correct genitals in general is outdated and out of touch, not to mention hateful, bigoted, slanderous and racist.

It is simply NOT FUNNY and it has got to STOP.

Genital mutilation is no joke. ~Christopher Hitchens

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

The Future of This Blog

 

Well, it's been nearly a decade since I started this blog.

I've tried to faithfully publish my thoughts by making at least one post monthly for nearly 10 years and now I wonder what the future of this blog will be.

The fight to end the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors is far from over, in my home country of the United States, let alone the rest of the world.

However, I do feel that the intactivist movement has made strides.

It had been nearly 15 years since I first started questioning circumcision when I decided to start this blog in 2011, and now in 2020 it has been about 24 years since, and a lot has changed.

When I first started researching the topic of circumcision on the internet in say, 1996, there were few resources on the topic, most of which were, in my view, very pro-circumcision.

Indeed, the first website that ever came up in AltaVista (Do you remember that?) was circlist.

There were, of course, also, a few organizations that opposed male infant circumcision, but I found those much later in my journey.

The topic of male infant circumcision was a lot more taboo.

In parenting forums, the bias was always mostly in favor of circumcision.

If anyone ever questioned it, they were usually shouted down by all the other pro-circ parents.

Nowadays, it's not the same.

Where I would see a parent questioning circumcision be overwhelmed by pro-circ parents, now I see more and more parents speaking out in defense leaving baby boys intact.

I used to be one of those activists who always felt the need to counter pro-circ comments on parenting forums, Facebook and other mediums, and I always felt so alone to be practically the only one speaking out.

Now, when I see nasty comments on the internet mocking anatomically correct male organs, I scroll down and I don't even have to comment; there are now enough aware parents out there speaking out.

Sadly, an increase in the intactivist voice among parents also means that a lot of parenting forums and groups have also taken it upon themselves to silence this conversation.

This is a disservice to parents and their children, because this means that parents aren't making fully informed decisions; you can't make a fully informed decision if factual information is deemed "offensive."

Since I started this blog, new organizations opposing the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors have arisen.

IntactAmerica, Intaction, and Genital Autonomy just to name a few.

The information database intactiwiki.org has been established.

The award-winning film American Circumcision was published and was even available on Netflix.

Activist Eric Clopper spoke out in a performance he gave at Harvard University; the university has effectively cancelled him and he is now involved in a defamation lawsuit against them.

Male infant circumcision is now being talked about in the mainstream, and it simply is not the taboo subject it once was.

But while more than ever, there is awareness of what's going on in American hospitals, the practice of male infant genital mutilation continues.

The practice continues because it's a moneymaker and doctors have no real reason to stop, even though, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

There is still a need to bang the intactivist pot.

For this reason, I plan on continuing to publish on this blog, although I'm sad to announce that from now on, it won't be as often as I'd like.

The sad truth is that your blogger is becoming more and more busy with life.

He is a father of three wonderful children and he works a job whose hours are increasing to support his family.

All is not lost, however; in a way, the goals of my blog are already being achieved.

As I've stated already, more and more circumcision is less of a taboo subject; there is more awareness and the topic is being discussed more openly.

Though I project my presence on this blog is going to decrease in the coming years, there are already other voices speaking out to replace me.

I'm just too busy with my job and family to keep up with any of the latest developments.

And others are already articulating my thoughts and sentiments more tactfully and eloquently than I ever could.

So with this post, I announce that I'll be stepping down, albeit not completely.

I'll still be around to post from time to time, but not as frequently as I'd like.

Up until now, I had been trying to post at least once a month, but I think that more and more, this is becoming less possible.

I'd like to thank all my readership that has followed me this far.

Do check back here from time to time, as I'll still be posting.

Who knows! Maybe I'll find something to post about every month.

I just can't make any promises.

May male infant genital mutilation disappear from American hospitals, truly, every hospital, and soon.

I pray for intactivism for one day to be obsolete, and relegated to the past, where it belongs.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Parallels: Comparing Tattoos and Circumcision

 

A while back, I wrote a post comparing male infant circumcision to rape, and I briefly touched upon tattoos to talk about the principle of consent. I'll copy/paste the excerpt here:

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument
...

The difference is consent.

There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.

It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.

Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as s/he wishes with his/her own body.


US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.


An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo


In this post, I wanted to expand on this thought just a little more, as the more I think about this, the more comparable male circumcision is to a tattoo.


Purely Cosmetic
A tattoo has no medical value; it is purely cosmetic. They are obtained as a visible marker of religious or cultural distinction, or purely for aesthetic value. Barring medical necessity (and this is extremely rare), the same is true for male circumcision. Men are usually only ever circumcised as a marker of religious or cultural distinction, or because it is thought to be more sexually attractive and/or aesthetically pleasing. Unless there is medical indication, male circumcision is purely cosmetic.
 



Aesthetic Value
Let's face it; tattoos can be beautiful works of art. A tattoo artist has skill, and a person can be a living canvas. In a certain light, circumcised penises can be beautiful. A certain aesthetic other than what is natural can be desired. As a wood or marble block can be chiseled to a desire shape, as flowers can be arranged to a desired form, the penis can be surgically manipulated to have a desired appearance. It is possible to appreciate such works of art. The circumcised male may be a willing or unwitting canvas through which a a circumcision "artist" (or amateur) can display his artistic skill (or lack thereof). In a past post, I compare male circumcision to Japanese flower arrangement.

 
A bonsai master carefully prunes a work. A circumcised
and/or tattoed man can be compared to a bonsai tree;
a living means for another's artistic expression.


Pride
A tattoo can be a source of pride, especially when a desired aesthetic value is achieved. Men or women can be the proud bearers of art created by a masterful tattoo artist. Just the same, a circumcised man can be proud that he has (what he and/or others perceive to be) an aesthetically pleasing penis.


 Men and women alike can be proud to have tattoos

Identity
In some cultures, tattoos are a source of religious or cultural identity. The Ainu people of Northern Japan traditionally tattoo the mouths of women.



Traditionally, Berber women's faces are tattooed.



And who can forget the traditional face tattoos of the Maori tribe?




In yet other cultures, tattoos mark a man as being a member of a particular group. In Edo Japan, for example, tattoos marked men of a particular trade, such as firemen and fishermen.
 

Fireman in the Edo Period

It's no secret that members of the yakuza gangs of Japan are distinguished by elaborate tattoos.

Yakuza gang member displaying his membership

That Jews, Muslims and other peoples use circumcision as a source of cultural identity needs no mention.

In Ancient Egypt, circumcision distinguished priests from the rest of the population.


Indeed, to distinguish one group from the other has always been the point of male circumcision.

A Botched Job
Sometimes, a tattoo doesn't quite turn out as intended by either the tattoo artist or the person getting a tattoo. Sometimes the tattoo can be "saved", and sometimes it just can't be, or is even made worse, and a person has to live the rest of his life with an ugly tattoo on his or her body.

 
Sometimes tattoo botches can be salvaged, but not always.
 
The same can be true of male circumcision. Sometimes the doctor screws up and cuts off too much or too little skin. The scar may not be perfectly circular but uneven, or may even have horrific stretch marks where too little skin was left. At times, so much skin is removed from the penis that skin with pubic hair rides up the shaft. It is not unheard of for children to undergo circumcision "correction" surgery; that is how some doctors make their living. Sometimes adult men can go in for "correction" too. But other times, there is just nothing a doctor can do to "fix" a problem that should have never been caused in the first place, and a man has to live with a botched circumcision job and a deformed organ for the rest of his life. There will be no pride for him.

Oppression and Shame
Tattoos can be used to oppress people. I've already talked about the example of Nazi Germany tattooing Jews at a concentration camp.


The arm of a Holocaust survivor with an ID number tattoo

Historically, slaves were branded with tattoos across many cultures. The bible outlines that Jews circumcise their slaves (Genesis 17:12, 13) .

In some cultures, circumcision is used as a tool of oppression or humiliation. In Africa, for example, some tribes are very strict about their male members being circumcised, and if for whatever reason, a male is found to have skipped the circumcision ritual, he will be paraded along the streets, publicly humiliated and circumcised. In addition, members of a circumcising tribe will forcibly circumcise male members of a rival non-circumcising tribe as a sign of dominance. Tribes known to do this are the Kikuyu and Bagisu tribes.

In the Bible, Jews would circumcise their enemies as a sign of dominance and/or retribution (Gen. 34:14-17, 25-26, 1 Sam 18:27). In some Islamic countries, non-Muslims have been forcibly circumcised and forcibly converted to Islam. Forced circumcisions as part of forced conversion to Islam have continued to this very day.
 
Therapeutic Value
Sometimes, a tattoo can serve therapeutic purpose. In the event a woman loses a breast to cancer, a skillful tattoo artist can create a nipple where one would be for aesthetic purposes, for example.


This "nipple" is actually tattoo

Perhaps a person suffered an accident and is left with a horrific scar; a tattoo artist can creatively hide the scar by tattooing over it with something more aesthetically pleasing.

This elaborate tattoo hides a scar

Sometimes men do develop problems where circumcision is surgically indicated. It is rare, but sometimes men do develop phimosis, and a man may or may not choose to get circumcised. (Not all phimosis cases warrant surgery, and it is possible for a man to live with phimosis for the rest of his life.) So yes, sometimes circumcision may actually serve a medicinal purpose.

The Difference is Consent
For the most part, tattoos are cosmetic alterations. They can be aesthetically pleasing and a source of pride. There's nothing wrong with getting a tattoo, if indeed, that's what a person wants. A person should be free to get as many tattoos as they want, so long as they understand the risks involved, as it is their body and their choice. Most would agree, however, that there is a problem when a person is forced to get a tattoo. Parents in the US have gone to jail for tattooing their children, as well as for modifying other parts of their bodies and rightfully so. The German concentration camp tattoo is an example of forced tattooing that is all too familiar. In addition, there are actually some cultures where children are forcibly tattooed as part of culture or religion.



A Copt child being tattooed, for Christ of all things

The same is true of male circumcision. For the most part it is a cosmetic alteration. A circumcised penis can be a source of pride, especially when the results are as intended and aesthetically pleasing. There is nothing wrong with getting circumcised, if indeed, that's what a man wants and he fully understands the risks. A man should be free to be circumcised, as it is his body and his choice.


A boy being forcibly circumcised in Indonesia

The problem is when a boy or man is forced to undergo circumcision. Even when there is a medical problem that necessitates surgery (again, very rare), a man gives his consent fully understanding the implications of the procedure. A boy or man who is forcibly circumcised must live with consequences, aesthetically pleasing or otherwise, for the rest of his life, if indeed he survives the ordeal; death is one of the risks of forced male circumcision, whether performed by a trained professional in the hospital, or an amateur shaman in the African bush.

Conclusion
I end this post with my mission statement:

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

As with a tattoo, getting circumcised should be the choice of the person whose body is in question. If forcibly tattooing a person is a problem, because it violates that person’s basic human rights, then the same is true of forcibly circumcising a person.

My body, my choice.

Getting circumcised should be a man’s choice; forcibly circumcising a boy or man takes that choice away.
 
Related Posts:
REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation 

Random Thought: Is Circumcision Human Ikebana?

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

ALABAMA: Mother Busted for Tattooing Son

LAS VEGAS: Parents in Hot Water After Giving Baby Zelda Ear Mod

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Poetry Corner - To Me
 
External Links
Wikipedia Tattoo Article

Wikipedia Forced Circumcision Article

Los Angeles Times - 'Purified' in the Name of Allah (Christians forcibly circumcised in Indonesia)

BBC News - Kenyan men in hiding fearing circumcision (from circumcising tribes)

Sunday, November 8, 2020

Straight From Facebook: Inside the Circumcision Room

 

The 2020 elections were rather stressful and I'm so glad they're finally over. That said, I don't really feel like going into an elaborate post, as that takes a lot of time and thought, so I thought I'd merely copy/paste a post I saw on Facebook, which is perfect the way it is anyway, complete with demonstrative photo. I'll keep my own thoughts to a minimum.

This was posted on a profile called "Brother K."

 


INSIDE THE CIRCUMCISION ROOM of a large pediatric office. The circumcision board (#1) is leaning against a defibrillator (green case #2) to restart the baby's heart when it stops during the circumcision, and a suctioning canister (white container with tubes #3) to suction out the vomit when the baby pukes during the circumcision. The mom described a large table in the center of the room with a low overhanging light to illuminate the circumcision board during the penis surgery.

The mom told me, "I went to my baby's two month app and they put me in the circumcision room. The moment I walked in and saw the board I said oh my God you do circumcisions in here that’s terrible. She just looked at me and said yeah we do them.

"They even have a crash cart. I could see the defibrillator. And that is what the [circumcision] board is leaning against. They had this huge bed in the middle with the light above it. The light was low. You could tell it was focused for the penis area. It was so disturbing.

"On the shelves they had a bunch of equipment and labeling. Like Vaseline, and gauze things like that. I felt so sick just being in there. I couldn’t even pay attention to the nurse's questions. I could just feel the presence of all of the bad shit.

"The nurse was waiting behind me when I took the photo. Then they took me to a smaller room. A standard size exam room. I started crying when I told the doctor I never wanted to be in that room again. The doctor didn’t even know the board is called a Circumstraint. He said he called it a papoose [board]. I told him I know that it is called a Circumstraint.

"These people act like I’m crazy for being against this abuse."
_____
NOTE: Thanks to three American nurses who have confirmed the names and purposes of the devices in this photo.

 

Oh for the day when these superfluous rooms are eliminated from hospitals.

We need to stop euphemising the forced severing of the foreskins from babies as "male infant circumcision" and start calling it what it is; infant male genital mutilation.

Unless there is genuine medical indication to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting minor, and let's just be honest with ourselves, there never is, doing this to a child is purely cosmetic, plain and simple.

In addition to violating a healthy, non-consenting person's basic human rights, it's also a needless risk; the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical procedure, any risk above zero is unconscionable.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be eliciting any kind of "choice" from parents.

That this woman was made to wait in this torture chamber out of a horror movie, no, that these rooms exist at all, is despicable.

These rooms need to be eliminated from hospitals yesterday.

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Parallels of Opposition to the Metric System and Male Intactness in America

 


This post was touched off by a YouTube video created by YouTuber, Adam Ragusea. Adam is a cook, and he talks about his look into the curious phenomenon of Americans resisting the adoption of the metric system. This is relevant to cooking, because in the US, most recipes are geared toward the imperial system of cups, teaspoons and ounces.

 

 

Adam Ragusea, cooking YouTuber


It must be noted that, at least officially, America is supposed to be a metric country. Our leaders had been trying to coax the country onto the metric system as early as the 1800's. In 1975, Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act, which declared metric as the preferred system of the United States, and the U.S. Metric Board was created to implement the conversion, however Americans have tenaciously clung to the Imperial system of weights and measures to this very day.


Your blogger can attest to this, as growing up, he learned to use inches, cups and pounds in school, all the way through college. Math was a b**ch. Perhaps if my institutions had used the metric system, I might have experienced mathematics differently?


As I watched this video, I couldn't help but see parallels between our tenacious bias against the metric system, and our stubborn opposition to anatomically correct genitals.


For this post, I'm going to highlight different excerpts from the video (scroll to the bottom of this post to see it), and comment on the similarities between our attachment to male infant circumcision and our insistence on the the imperial system in this country. I just think the comparison is too obvious to ignore.

 

The video opens:

"Americans refuse to use the metric system because they’re an arrogant, insular people with an instinctive distrust of all international customs and institutions. They’re also an ignorant, lazy people who refuse to change their ways, even when their ways are demonstrably inferior."


Replace the words "use the metric system" with "leave baby boys intact" and the above statements remain true. Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles to convincing American parents to let their baby boys keep their foreskins is the fact that they see it as some kind of foreign, external infringement. Perhaps the resistance to allowing baby boys to stay intact is precisely the fact that globally, 70% of males are not circumcised; this instinctive distrust of all international customs and institutions deems intactness as beyond consideration. They are ignorant and lazy and would rather stick with what they know and refuse to change, even when it can be demonstrated that male infant circumcision has no benefits, or worse, has needless risks.


The video continues:

"It's more complicated than that. Differences between people are the result of their circumstances, at least as much the result of anybody's intrinsic qualities, and I recon that, had any other people been in the unique circumstances of the industrial era United States, they probably would have resisted metrification too. From a historical perspective, this does have more to do with industry than it has to do with cooking or anything else."

 

I feel the same may be true of male infant circumcision. Some intactivists tend to come down hard on parents who have allowed doctors to circumcise their children, but the fact of the matter is that, put in the same circumstances as circumcising parents, most people would probably choose to have this done to their children.

 

 

American parents are likely to be told by doctors who circumcise
babies routinely that circumcision is the best course of action
for their children. They're likely to be told that circumcision prevents
HPV, HIV and penile cancer. So why not?


Your blogger confesses to you that prior to looking into male infant circumcision, he was planning to eventually get himself circumcised and have his children circumcised because it seemed to be "the thing to do as an American" at the time. Being told that having a foreskin will give a man STDs, cancer and AIDS, and that the women in his life would surely reject him, who WOULDN'T want to do this to their kids?


In recent years, I have stepped back from criticizing parents who have allowed this to happen to their children, because I think it's unproductive, and really, the fact is parents do what they see as "best" at the time. A common adage you will hear among intactivists is "parents who know better, do better." American parents simply don't know any better, and it's not their fault that the unique circumstances that they are in lead them to allow their children to have part of their penises chopped off. Let's continue with our video.


Ragusea went to the University of Georgia to consult with Dr. Stephen Mihm, a historian specializing in the subject of standards. When asking him what system Dr. Mihm uses in his kitchen, he replies:

 


"I would say I'm 'bilingual' in terms of my measurements. I use cups, but I also have a gram scale, and I toggle back and forth pretty readily depending on whether I'm using an American cookbook or a European cookbook." 
Ragusea comments:

"Who says all Americans are 'monolingual?' People who don't realize that America now has way more people from way more different places in it. But, I digress"


This is an interesting point, because the fact is that, up until now, doctors have gotten by being "monolingual" in the sense that, they only ever learned about and to deal with anatomically deficient male genitals. The only thing they really ever learned about foreskins in school was how to cut them off, and to treat their presence as a medical condition that had to be treated with surgical correction. However, as more people come to America from other non-circumcising countries, as more conversation about circumcision, foreskin and intactness happens, as more Americans begin to open their eyes and refuse circumcision for their children themselves, doctors, more and more have to learn to deal with anatomically correct male genitalia. They have to realize that America now has way more people from way more different places in it. But, I digress.


Ragusea then asks:
So why does Dr. Mihm think America still hasn't gone metric?


Dr. Mihm responds:

"It's a question that Thomas Jefferson was probably the first to ask, back in the 1790s, because it was during the French Revolution that the metric system was invented. Jefferson was a big fan of the French, and actually seriously contemplated for a while the idea of nudging the nation onto the metric system, but it was very hard to do because one,  it was a revolutionary thing and it was politically fraught, there were a lot of people who didn’t like the French, so they kicked the can, basically, in the 1790s, and they decided instead to go with the existing set of measurements that they had inherited from Great Britain."


I'll be honest and say that I need to do my homework, because I don't know that there was ever any push to make America "intact." As far as I know, quite the opposite, historically, American doctors such as Edgar Schoen have worked hard to make circumcision the norm. What is on par with our adaptation of the Imperial system is the fact that circumcision as medical practice was inherited from Britain, as the popularization of circumcision was due in part to the Victorian Era, when masturbation was seen as socially unacceptable, and doctors, physicians and quacks were pushing ways to stop men and boys from masturbating.
 


 
I will say this, however, that, at least currently, it seems Americans continue to be resistant to anything foreign, and that a lot of resistance to leaving children intact stems from this idea that we ought to resist foreign practices. Many Americans still dislike the French (Freedom Fries anyone?), and we resist things like nationalized healthcare because "Look at the Brits! They've got public healthcare and yet look at their crooked teeth!" (And yet we cling to the British Imperial system... hrm...)
 
 
French fries, booooo!!!
 
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why male infant circumcision continues in the US is simply conformity and cultural inertia; doctors would rather go with existing standards and knowledge of male sexual health that they’ve inherited from their immediate predecessors, who in turn inherited it from a distant Victorian Britain.


"Dr. Mihm says the *French* were pretty resistant to Metric too, at first. For decades, it looked to US authorities as though metrification was a global failure. By the time the American government revisited metrification again in the 1860s and 70’s, when they began to legalize the use of the metric system, something very momentous had happened; the United States had industrialized. Railroads, precision manufacturing, machine tools all require very precise mechanics that rely on units of measurement, mainly the inch. The entire industrial base had been “tooled up” in this old, antiquated system of measurement. So when metric advocates started pushing for metrification, the industrialists of the countries opposed it, and they had various rationalizations for it."


The machinery of the 2nd industrial revolution had already been built to work on one system, and, according to Dr. Mihm, industrialists didn't want to have to re-build them. The key opposition in congress and technical journals came from engineers. 
 
And this, I believe, is something to note. The US government had already begun to legalize the use of the metric system, except cultural inertia is a powerful force, and the momentum had been in favor of the imperial system for a long time, making it difficult to actually change. I see this as a foreshadowing of any government action in order to halt the practice of male infant circumcision; even if the government did intervene, the practice of routine male infant circumcision has been entrenched in American culture for about a century now, so much that it may be a while before we see any signs of a return to anatomically correct male organs.

 

 

American tape measures tend to have both inches and centimeters,
but inches and feet are much more prominent.

 

The fact of the matter is that, actually, no respected medical organization in the world recommends male infant circumcision based on current medical literature. Not even the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 
As early as the 1970’s, the American Academy of Pediatrics was beginning to move away from the practice of male infant circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Fetus and Newborn had issued a statement saying that there were "no valid medical indications" for performing circumcisions on newborns. As expected, the statement was met with objection from certain physicians, namely those who performed and advocated for the practice.
 
In 2012, the AAP "Taskforce on Circumcision" tried to argue that “the medical benefits of male infant circumcision outweigh the risks,” but this claim could not be substantiated within the policy statement itself. In the same statement it was written that The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.
 
The reality is that American medicine has been “tooled up” to circumcise male infants to the tune of 1.3 million babies a year. Male infant circumcision has been normalized in American medical schools and textbooks. Doctors are made to learn to circumcise and treat only circumcised males, while they are conditioned to treat the presence of anatomically correct organs as a medical condition that must be “treated” with circumcision in and of itself. Hospitals have invested in circumcision equipment, from circumstraints, to sound-proof walls, to clamps and circumcision kits.

 



Pictured: Mogen and Gomco infant circumcision clamps
Circumstraint child restraining device


 

When and if advocates of anatomically correct male genitals and genital autonomy finally succeed in getting measures to decouple male infant circumcision from American medicine, they will no-doubt face opposition and backlash from pediatricians and OB/GYNs, who have vested interest in the system continuing as it is; they will have various rationalizations for it. They will be the key opposition.
 
 

 

But all is not lost; let’s continue with the video:


Britain was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, who also had machinery they didn't want to have to rebuild. They also had an instinctive distrust of the French; the metric system was opposed in Great Britain too at the time. Some fell back on the absurd pseudo-science that they had invented, about how the inch is “divinely prescribed” in nature, “which is why you can see it in the designs of the great pyramids of Egypt.” (Which of course is not actually true.) They resisted it well into the 20th century.


The push to circumcise boys and men originated in Victorian Britain, who had also adopted male infant circumcision as a general practice. In America, where the practice continues today, advocates have used absurd pseudo-science about how male infant circumcision has been divinely commanded by God, how men from circumcising peoples don’t masturbate or contract sexually transmitted diseases. (Which of course is not actually true.)

By the 1950s/1960s, Britain was de-industrializing. What had once been a key part of its economy, had started to fall away, and it did so earlier than the US, and it did so much more fully. In contrast the US in the mid 20th century, was the undisputed industrial heavy-weight champion of the world, the American captains of industry did not want to reconfigure their assembly lines, and congress generally did whatever the captains of industry told them to do.


And here too we can see a glaringly obvious similarity; male infant circumcision had begun to fall away from British, Australian and New Zealand medicine, and it did so much more fully, to the extent that male infant circumcision is virtually non-existent in public hospitals in these countries. In contrast, in the last century, the US boasted “being at the forefront of medicine,” and American captains of medicine are loath to reconfigure American medicine, and our government generally does what the captains of medicine tell us to do.

 

 

Late American male infant circumcision enthusiast and evangelist, Edgar Schoen
Made the chair of the American Academy of Pediatric's Taskforce on Circumcision in 1989,
this man alone may be solely responsible for male infant circumcision's survival in the United States.
 
 
The video continues:

The Brits also had much closer ties to the metric world, perhaps by virtue of being much closer to the metric world. Americans were more geographically isolated, and also, exports had historically been less important for the US; the domestic market was the primary driver of growth, unlike Japan or Germany, where the export market was where it was all at.

 
The Brits also have much closer ties to Europe, which is basically intact, quite possibly by virtue of being geographically much closer to them. This is just my opinion, but I feel American doctors may think of American medicine being “the most advanced,” and so they may feel their views on male genitalia to be “more correct” than that of their European counterparts. Geographical isolation from the rest of the industrialized world, where male infant circumcision has been abandoned as a general practice, may have led to this delusion that medical knowledge on male genitals is the most correct, when in fact, American medicine has been left behind in this regard.


Indeed, the big reason the US resisted metric in the mid-20th century, may simply have been that we could. The US has had the luxury of being the world’s largest economy, and as such, can effectively operate according to its own rules.

 

Bingo.


When 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries published an article in the AAP Pediatrics publication, rejecting and thoroughly dismantling the AAP's 2012 policy statement which tried to claim that "the benefits outweigh the risks of male infant circumcision," their response was defensive apprehension and petulant self-justification. Up until now, the US has had the privilege of claiming to be at the “forefront of medicine,” and as such, can effectively waive aside any criticism.


It's rather like language. Are so few Americans so multilingual because we're just a bunch of dummies? No. It's because, as a result of British and then American global hegemony, you can get very, very far in this world, only speaking English, so most of us simply don’t have to learn another language.


Why are Americans so in the dark concerning anatomically correct male genitals? I posit that because of British and then American global hegemony, you can get very far in this world only knowing what you learn in American medical school. Most Americans simply don’t have to learn, or more appropriately, aren’t educated in in anatomically correct male genitals.


It can be argued that Americans become dummies as a result of this, because we never acquire the cultural competence that you can get by learning someone else’s language.

 
Yes, Americans have become “dummies” as a result of this, because we never acquire the knowledge you can get by learning about how other countries treat male genitals.


This maybe gets at why post-industrial America continues to resist metric; it’s the privilege of hegemony. It makes you lazy. And then when the hegemony begins to slip, it makes you resentful and paranoid. It turns you into people view the metric system as a form of global governance that undercuts American sovereignty, and it’s among such folks where opposition to the metric system is primarily concentrated in the US these days.

This.


Perhaps Americans continue to resist reintactification because of the privilege of hegemony. “American exceptionalism” has made us so lazy that when the hegemony begins to slip, it makes us resentful and paranoid. It turns us into people who view normalizing intact male genitals as a form of global governance that undercuts American sovereignty, and it’s quite possibly among such people where opposition to reintactification is primarily concentrated today. 


Also with our tradition of federalism, there’s a lot of ideological opposition to the kind of centralized government regulation that it can take to move a society off of the standards to which everyone is accustomed.


This is probably the biggest reason why there is an opposition to a ban, and why even if such a ban were to be instated, it would never actually work.


And yet, without any heavy-handed government action at all, lots of Americans have been quietly adopting the metric system for decades now. Scientists and medical professionals almost exclusively use metric on the job anymore.


When our doctors write a prescription for a pain killer, they don’t go “Absolutely not! I insist that you measure this in grains and drams.”


Pharmaceutical companies and druggists realized, and they were right, that the metric system really did have serious advantages, because of its precision and its scalability in the powers of 10. Which are the very same reasons why a lot of people who work in industry in the US have been adopting metric too, in particular pastry chefs. They love the precision that you can get with smaller units of measurement. 


Dr. Mihm reckons the US customary measurements will end not with a bang but with a whimper, as more and more Americans just kinda peel off to metric on their own.

 

And yet, without any heavy-handed government action at all, lots of Americans have been quietly leaving their children intact for decades now. It can’t be said that medical professionals have abandoned the practice of male infant circumcision. Far from it; there is still resistance. But what *has* happened is that male infant circumcision rates have seriously dropped, from upwards to 90% of infant males being circumcised in the 1980s, to 56% in the 2000’s, if figures from the CDC are to be believed.


It would be nice to reach a reality where medical professionals all agree that cutting off parts of infants’ genitals is a bad idea, and though we aren't exactly there yet, I do think that more American doctors are quietly moving away from circumcision than before. As more intact men move to America, as more American parents decide to leave their children intact, American doctors will have no choice but to become educated on anatomically correct male genitals. It is my opinion that male infant circumcision in the US will end, not with a bang, but with a whimper, as Dr. Mihm says about the Imperial system, as more and more Americans just kinda peel off from circumcision on their own.


While there is a plurality of viewers in the US, the majority of viewers (of cooking channels) are somewhere else, affecting how creators make content; no doubt American creators can feel global influence in how they think and communicate in measurements. 


What cooks and content creators do online as we speak, sharing recipes and copying  and making the food, is driving the very globalization that a lot of Americans find threatening, Americans on the political right AND left, though perhaps for different reasons.


Globalization is, on balance, a good thing because it allows us to enjoy each other’s food.


These are comments that Ragusea makes regarding cooking, but I believe they can be applied to medicine as well. Before the advent of the internet, the US, as well as other countries, were isolated and limited to their own closed worlds. I think that, as we become globalized and people view more and more content outside of their own countries, people will become more and more aware of each other's practices and attitudes towards sex and male genitals.
 
 
As the world becomes more and more connected,
awareness of the issue of genital autonomy and
normalization of anatomically correct genitals in
the United States will become inevitable.

 
While in the US, the majority of men are circumcised (something like 80% or so), 70% of men globally have unaltered, anatomically correct male organ. No doubt American physicians must feel global influence in how they think and communicate regarding male organs. They can't just continue to publish information that ignores the foreskin, and pathologizes its presence. There's going to be push-back from physicians and medical organizations in the rest of the world where men are intact.

What's more, it is inevitable that the general American public will become aware of the contrast between American medicine and global practice regarding anatomically correct genitals and male infant circumcision.Through the internet, Americans as well as people in non-circumcising countries are being exposed to content such as medical literature, webpages, blogs and online videos. Awareness and enlightenment are simply inescapable.
 
In recent years, there has been an increase in online users sharing sexually activity publicly for all to see. Mediums like Chaturbate, PornHub, (now essentially defunct) Tumblr, and others have made it easy for people around the world to display how both anatomically correct and surgically altered male genitals work up-close and personal, and for others to observe them. People are able to see men masturbating and having sex with their partners. The mechanics of the presence and lack of a foreskin are observable to anyone. Europeans are becoming aware of the American practice of circumcision, and Americans are becoming more and more aware that having a foreskin isn't this other-world thing. There comes a point where people simply can’t feign ignorance any longer. No doubt non-Americans will comment on the lack of a foreskin, and Americans, and non-Americans alike, are going to be forced to talk about it.
 
People in European countries will become more and more aware of medical practices in the US, and Americans will become more and more aware of how intact males aren’t falling dead in the streets. American physicians will have to learn to deal with and accept intact patients and parents who do not want to have their children circumcised.
 
 Dr. Mihm reckons the US customary measurements will end not with a bang but with a whimper, as more and more Americans just kinda peel off to metric on their own.

 

I sincerely hope that the same will be true of male infant circumcision.
 
That's it for my commentary on American attitudes toward the metric system, and how this compares to American attitudes toward intactness.



 

Related Posts:
AAP: New Statement Over-Hyped by US Media?

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected
 
PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine
 
Edgar Schoen Showing His Age
 
EDGAR SCHOEN: America's Circumcision Champion Dies
 
The Circumcision Blame Game