Friday, April 26, 2024

MEDELLÍN, COLOMBIA: Circumcision Patient Murders Urology Surgeon


Feelings of revenge by circumcised men against the doctors who circumcised them are not unheard of. In fact, poetry has been written on the subject. What is unheard of, however, is the revenge actually taking place. In this post, I'm going to post about an assassination incident that happened in Medellín, Colombia, where a patient takes matters into his own hands.
What I've done is taken different reports in Spanish, translated them and posted them here to give a composite picture of what happened, what people at the scene of the crime have said, as well as what the family of the assassin had to say.

The following was taken from El Tiempo:
 Alleged assassin of urologist found lifeless in a restroom at Clínica Medellín
Urologist Juan Guillermo Aristizábal
On the morning of Thursday, April 18th, Colombian urologist Juan Guillermo Aristizábal was assassinated at Clínica Medellín, a clinic located in the El Poblado district in Medellín, Colombia. It happened at 10:30am, consultation room 908, when consecutive shots were heard on the 9th floor following a fire. He fired point blank, in succession against the specialist without saying a word.

"An armed person enters with a firearm and attacks a physician working in his consultation room who dies on the spot," Óscar Lamprea, comander of the Aburrá Metropolitan Police Force said. "The aggressor exits and seals himself up in another consultation room."

The incident the urologist's assistant wounded and is being attended at the same medical facility for a bullet wound. The woman, who has been identified as Daniela Díaz, survived the incident, is recovering and is not in any critical condition.

After the shooting, those who were on site alerted the authorities whom arrived within minutes.

"There's a fire of unknown origin. The presence of somebody in the consultation room from which smoke is emerging can be confirmed. The police went in in full force and cleared the area but did not find anyone. When they opened the door to the bathroom, they found a person with no signs of life, who would be the presumed aggressor with a firearm by his side," the official added.

Since there were no official captured suspects for this crime, many present were required by the authorities to give their side of the story. The police spoke with more than 10 persons who have been dismissed.

The following was taken from infobae: (information repeated above omitted)
Assassin of Juan Guillermo Aristizábal Identified
The murderer of the Medellín doctor has been identified as 38yo Jhon Ferney Cano González, a patient who had "unwanted results." It appears the culprit intended to burn down the clinic, and then committed suicide in one of the bathrooms of the medical center.

Cano González is said to have been suffering schizophrenia. According to Juan Camilo Arango, a friend and colleague of the murdered doctor, "We physicians are in a precarious situation because we're victims of constant death threats and extortion by blackmail, because we’re seen from the point of view of results, and not a means. Everyone wants to be guaranteed favorable results, but people forget that we're not machines, but humans attending other human beings."

Previous reports suggest that the urologist had been attacked and threatened by the same patient on previous occasions, causing the doctor to seek restraining orders to prevent Cano from accessing the clinic. Arango says this is relevant because it affirms that the patient attacked Aristizábal due to unfavorable results. He says "Memo" (short for Guillermo) had problems with the patient due to an adverse outcome, because, he argues, the culprit was a psychiatric patient who blew the negative results out of proportion due to trauma or his psychiatric pathology, and had threatened "Memo" for a long time.

It is speculated that, even though the patient signed the consent form for the procedure he would undergo, everything indicated that he presumably had a mental disorder.

"For medical ethics, you have to inform the patient about everything that could happen; the patient signs the document to indicate that he was fully informed, but with a psychiatric complication, he could have signed 50 consent forms and the patient would have still had a problem and acted on it. These consent forms are for legal purposes, where the rights of the patient are protected, but never the rights of the physician," said Arango, friend of the murdered doctor.

According to Arango, coincidentally, despite the fact that the doctors' assistants and personnel the clinic were already aware of previous threats, "His secretary was tending to a medical appointment, and a different assistant who was uninformed about the matter was at the front desk, and it looks as if this man, the one who committed suicide, the assailant, was in a psychiatric appointment. He ascended and took advantage of the moment to cause disaster."

When asked as to whether the medical facility knew about this case, Arango said "I know that the situation in which we live in this city and in the rest of the country is one of much insecurity. I imagine that the administration knew what was happening, and, as far as I know, this person was being attended here in the psychiatric department at this institution. I don't know where they could have failed."

Juan Camilo Arango, friend and colleague of the urologist alleges that the assassin was a "mental patient, and that he was at the clinic for a psychiatric appointment, but another news report says differently; in this report by El Paíz, Jhon Ferney Cano actually sat in the waiting room, waiting to be called.
According to the Secretary of Security for the city of Medellin, after being called by doctor's assistant Manuel Villa, he approached Daniela Díaz, attacked her and immediately headed for consultation room 908, where 58yo urologist Juan Guillermo Aristizábal would be working. Cano shots and the doctor died. It was then he locked himself up in the consultation room and lit it on fire.

The police arrived and attemped to convince him to turn himself in, but he refused, and minutes later, the men in uniform enterd by force. They inspected the room full of smoke and found Cano in the bathroom, sprawled dead on the floor with the revolver he used by his side.

The incident, which happened in the tourist district of El Poblado de Medellín, generated panic in and out of the clinic, which was evacuated in order to resolve the situation.

Friends and family of Aristizábal allege that this assassination was entirely preventable. They say that the doctor already knew Cano and had him referenced as a dangerous person. According to the urologist’s friend and colleague, the assassin had been a patient of Aristizábal until a procedure went wrong. Arango affirms that Cano suffered psychiatric problems he never overcame.

"He exaggerated probably due to a trauma or his psychiatric pathology and he threatened the doctor over a long period of time. There were many death threats that were taken to the authorities," Arango said. Arango has a plastic surgery practice on the 7th floor of the building where the assassination happened. "He was a patient with psychiatric problems and his scapegoat was Dr. Aristizábal."

Aristizábal practiced as a urologist at Clínica Medellín for over 25 years. He graduated from CES University, specializing in health and located in the capital of Antioch, where he also gave classes in neurology and semiology. He would play the drums on his free time. He was married to María Isabel Trujillo, with whom he had two children, Paulina and Miguel. Another doctor from the same clinic told El Colombiano that he would remember him as "an excellent person and great friend."

The subheading on a different report by Noticias Caracol reads "An affront to all medicine." It is this report where we finally learn that the patient was unhappy with the results of a circumcision.
The crime was "an affront to all of medicine in this country." says Arango. "Quite simply we doctors have been put on a tier of gods, and we're not gods, we're human beings. Medicine is not science, medicine is the art of interpreting signs and symptoms, which are different in each human being. It needs to be clear that we are human beings attending other human beings. We are not robots. We also suffer, cry, we stay up late worrying about the problems our patients have, and to be a doctor we have to have much human quality, and people are not acknowledging this; they're stigmatizing us and we're always in danger. I've personally had to face grave situations."

I'm not sure if my readers can read between these lines, but, to quote Queen Gertrude from Shakespeare's Hamlet; "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Arango really wants to pin Cano as a "psychiatric patient," but this is a fabrication, and when you put together that both Arango and Aristizábal operate on healthy patients, (Arango realizes plastic surgery, and Aristizábal profits from circumcision) it becomes clear that Arango is no stranger to fending off disgruntled patients with adverse outcomes, and his guilt is doing the talking.

In a different report, where news outlet El Colombiano has gone to the family of the assassin, who say that although he did have appointments with Aristizábal, Cano was no "psychiatric patient."
Pictured: Assassin Jhon Ferney Cano González

Family members of Jhon Ferney Cano narrate that he was the youngest of 7 siblings, lived with his brother Alexander Cano in the same room, and tended to talk extensively about the difficult situation he was facing, and how he suffered constantly due to the adverse medical outcome of his medical procedure.

"He never told me that this is action he would take. I’m in disbelief and I keep telling myself that this is all just a bad dream," said his brother Alexander, shocked by the news. "We as his family want it to be known that we are as shocked and surprised as the doctor’s family."

Recently, Cano's family found a 362-page-long text file on Jhon's personal computer, where he narrates his suffering due to a circumcision, with which he justifies the medic's homicide. The document was protected with a password that after various attempts, the family was finally able to decipher.

Marcela Cano, Jhon's 2nd sister, said he had a lot ahead of him. He studied 4th semesters of electrical engineering and enjoyed activities such as basketball, and collecting guitars.

"We never expected it would all end this way for him," they shared. "The lack of medical help was due to a series of manipulations on the part of the first doctor who attended him. Initially, he was able to get appointments by way of his EPS, but then, after facing long delays, he chose to go to a private doctor." This is how he arrived at Aristizábal's office.

"It was a misdiagnosis and a bad procedure, together with lack of information that provoked two and a half years of continuous pain," said one of his sisters. Jhon did go to many psychiatric and psychological appointments, although he was not a psychiatric patient before. On the contrary, psychological care was recommended to rule out that his problem was mental.

Jhon's text file narrates that he was medicated with various antidepressants. After investing much money in treatment without any success, he felt abandoned by the medical system.

The problem with the uorolgist started when he tried to confront him for the consequences of the surgery. "This isn't going to stay the way it is," Jhon told the doctor. After the threat, the doctor reported him and Jhon was summoned to the prosecutor's office.

"His search for help at other urological consultation offices in Medellín was not fruitful, as the doctors he encountered didn't want to incur any responsibility for the poor procedure" said one of his sisters.

The physical pain that Jhon would experience was not taken seriously by various physicians, who attributed his woes to mental problems, his family said. Even so, "He insisted that his pain was real and that it increased every day." After telling his brother Alexander his symptoms, he sought medical help in different places, but he faced the same evasive answers.

"It started with a pain in his penis, specifically in the urinary meatus, located at the tip. After his first revision at the EPS, they told him his pain was of mental origin, even though he insisted it was physical and it increased every day, even going as far as feeling it in his spine." This is what his brother said regarding Jhon's symptoms.

At first, Aristizábal did not consult Jhon directly. Instead, Jhon first sought help with Aristizábal's teacher, who referred him to Aristizábal after deciding to retire. According to his family, in one appointment, it was determined that John suffered anxiety due to the pain, but he also expressed feelings of revenge.

In his last days, his state deteriorated notably; he stopped eating, he became withdrawn and wouldn't say a word. It is unknown how he got the firearm he used in the crime, although it is speculated that it could have been through a past acquaintance. The whereabouts of his cell phone are unknown.

"We tended to talk late. One night, he told me the pain began as he tried to sit down; he felt a sudden pain in his back that radiated to his organs and nerves of his spine until reaching his penis. He tried to find help at various medical departments, even dermatology," the family said.

"He lost more than half of his sensation, and he could no longer be with any woman; he left his girlfriend and would not sleep. He was always repeating that he needed to get revenge. He told us, and a psychiatric doctor also kept a record. Despite filing complaints, there was negligence on the part of the Prosecutor's Office. We tried to talk to him, but he remained resolute even after the settlement hearing. That day, the doctor offered 5 million in compensation, but John didn't accept it on advice from his lawyer," his brother said.

“On psychiatric observation records, the psychiatric department wrote "expresses desires of revenge." The Prosecutor's Office already knew there were threats, but was negligent. Even though we all tried talking with him, he had already made his decision and he had a clear goal. We never thought he'd actually go through with it. Jhon said that the pain was as if there were a beehive at the end of his penis all day long.”

The family's one claim was their demand for his medical history. They comment that Jhon, in his intention to seek treatment from other places, asked for his medical history, but he was told that it had all been destroyed, and that, apparently, it no longer existed at Clínica Medellín.

The unfolding of this story, with the death of the doctor at the hands of Jhon, has left deep pain and emotion across many families and all of the community. While Jhon's family seeks answers and his medical history, the pain and suffering also experienced by the doctor, and other people affected by this tragedy cannot be ignored.

This was a difficult post to write because as I read these reports, I don't know what side to take. On the one hand, murder is murder, and I want to feel sorry for the doctor and his family, but on the other hand, I can't feel sorry knowing how evasive he was actually being. His "friend" is trying to help cover for him by trying to label the assassin as a "mental patient" and it's disgusting. If Jhon’s family is correct, other doctors didn't want to touch him because of how badly the procedure was screwed up.

Questions arise. If, as Aristizábal's friend insists, the assassin had a record of "schezophrenia," what is the reason he was not first referred to the correct department instead of asking him to sign an informed consent form? Why did the doctor receive that form as "legit" if it was known that, allegedly, the patient didn't have full faculty? Would this not have been taking advantage of an impaired patient to obtain a sham consent form?
Was the patient actually fully informed of all the risks of adverse outcome?

Was there actually a medical necessity present warranting surgery? Or did the doctor sell John a bill of goods?

While it's true that patients can exaggerate and raise false claims, doctors also have to cover their own asses, and it is clear here that the doctor's "friend" seems worried that the patient may indeed have had a legitimate claim. There has to be a reason why he seemed intent on writing him off as a "mental patient." On the one hand, doctors do need to be protected. On the other, so do patients. Charlatans and grifters do exist, and where liability can be waived by signing a consent form, a patient can be screwed over if he was in fact, not actually fully informed, or worse yet, misinformed.

The friendly doctor here is trying to paint the situation such that doctors are "victims," but the situation is a lot more nuanced than that. Doctors who are treating sick patients, patients who have clinical indication for treatment and surgery have nothing to fear. Patients must understand that an outcome may not be favorable. But when it comes to doctors operating on the HEALTHY, the situation is rather different, because a patient who faces an adverse outcome has gone from a healthy state, one where he is not facing a problem at all, to a state were there is now an iatrogenic problem that wasn't there in the first place, and there are reasons why doctors who perform circumcisions may not be fully informing their patients as to the negative outcomes, namely that they reap profit from the procedure.

If this man was fully informed, he should have understood what he was getting himself into. On the other hand, it is problematic if doctors are in a position where they can perform surgery without fully informing, or even misinforming their patients of adverse outcomes, and be immune to lawsuits having obtained a sham consent form from patients.
While I can't condone men shooting the doctors who circumcise them, laws do need to change, but not in the may Arango hopes; it's patients who need to be given the power to sue doctors who didn't fully inform them. Doctors need to be absolutely sure their patients understand the ramifications of surgery to alter normal, healthy tissue. If it can be proven that a patient was not fully informed of an adverse outcome, or that he was deceived in a court of law, patients need to be awarded damages. And, if they are left in a situation where doctors can get away with performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, patients are being defrauded, it should be of no surprise if patients decide to take matters into his own hands as this one did.

One often hears that the complications of male circumcision are "next to none," but this is only what is said. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics conducted an extensive review of the whole of medical literature regarding the topic of male circumcision and concluded that the medical benefits are "not enough" to recommend the procedure for all infants. Furthermore, they concluded that "the true incidence of complications after circumcision remain unknown.", and it must be asked "Why?" It must be asked, in a reality where the true incidence of complications after circumcision are unknown, how is it even possible that parents and patients can be making informed decisions? When patients and/or their parents sign a consent form, what does it actually mean? Well, in this story we see a glimpse.

When there are adverse effects, medical organizations are loathe to acknowledge them and treat them as if they didn't exist. Doctors and hospitals would rather say it's "mental" than to admit that a problem is due to the procedure they're making money from. 

Doctors and hospitals keep deferring and passing the buck, hoping the problem goes away. Often the only recourse patients have is to give up and suffer in silence, or, in worse case scenarios, act out as the young man did in this story. The problems are ignored, and thus the lie that "the risks of circumcision are minimal" continues to be repeated.

Again, I'm not saying it was justified to kill this doctor, but when a young man is left with half sensitivity in his penis gone, the sensation of having a beehive at the end of his penis all day, and doctors and hospitals minimizing his problem and gaslighting him by telling him his problems have nothing to do with the procedure that obviously gave him his problems, calling him a "schizophrenic mental case," what recourse does a young man have? Who is holding doctors who get away with medical fraud accountable?

This isn't the first case of a man unhappy with his circumcision. There are countless stories of men confronting doctors who circumcised them, only to be told that "it's all in their head," only a few of which actually make headlines. Tragically, it took a murder for this man's problems to make headlines. How many other men suffer in silence?

Two cases come to mind:

The above two stories can be accessed here and here.

"But that's only two," some might say. Yes. Two that made the news. As demonstrated here, others suffer in silence, being gas lit into believing their pain and and anguish has nothing to do with the fact one of the most sensitive parts of their penises has been sliced off.
Finally, the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm is another testament to this fact.

The bottom line is, while this doctor's murder and this patient's suicide were tragedies, medical organizations need to acknowledge that circumcision can and does result in adverse outcomes, patients need to be fully informed before being asked to sign a consent form, and fraudulent doctors who profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals need to be held accountable.


Friday, January 5, 2024

"I Said Stop!!!" - Is Orgasm Too Intense for Circumcised Men?


This is going to be a little bit different than most other blog posts I write.

Usually, I post to report some finding or to comment on something.

But for this, admittedly, it's uncharted territory, it's more of an inquiry and an invitation for people to share their experiences.

I'm going to come out and say that I have by biases as an intactivist.

As far as I know, male circumcision was taken up by Western Medicine during the Victorian period as a possible solution to masturbation, which was seen as the root of all evil. Circumcision was supposed to desensitize the penis, making it difficult to masturbate, and, if research is correct, that's precisely what it does.

Circumcision necessarily results in the desensitization of the penis, because it removes hundreds if not thousands of specialized nerve endings, and the exposed glans and surrounding mucosa become dry and develop a layer of keratin over time in a process called keratinization. It is a well-known fact that circumcised men often find it difficult to masturbate without artificial lubrication, such as K-Y Jelly or Vaseline.



Sorrells et al found that circumcised penises become desensitized by a factor of 4.

It had long been established and well-documented that circumcision diminished sensation and made it difficult to masturbate. This was the whole reason for its adaptation.

And yet, here and there, I have often heard circumcised men comment to the effect that "I don't need any more sensation. If I had any more sensation I'd have a heart attack!"

For the longest time I wanted to ignore such men, because in my head, I thought they were merely playing Aesop's fox to sour grapes.


 "They're bluffing," I thought.

"They must be overcompensating for the fact that they're circumcised and there's nothing they can do about it," or so I thought.

It's impossible.

They can't possibly be feeling the sensations they say they do. How could they?

But then I started talking to my circle of friends. People who had gone around the block. Female friends, male gay friends, and they all talked about a particular phenomenon that they had experienced with circumcised sex partners.

This wasn't the case with every circumcised man, as men are cut differently. Some men are cut loose, others as tight as a drum, and then some men have more, some have less sensitive inner mucosa left, others have retained their frenulum, others not, so every man is different.

Still, I kept hearing about this phenomenon where, a friend would be having sex with a circumcised man, or s/he would be performing fellatio on him, and things would be going well. But all of a sudden, there is this sudden rise of intensity, the circumcised man orgasms, ejaculates, and all of a sudden he does not want to be touched.

My friends would report that after being mounted, often times what will happen is, the guy gets off, rolls over and, instead of cuddling, the guy pushes his partner away. While my friends reported they'd like to stay together, spoon, hug, etc., their partners would often rather not want to be touched.

One of my friends said that one time, she was fellating a partner, there was that sudden jump in intensity, her partner climaxed and ejaculated, but she wanted to continue fellating him. She said he yelled "I said STOP!!!", as he pushed her away.

This is the darndest thing.

Just recently, I was having conversations about sex with two different male friends. One of them is gay, the other one is straight, both cut. It occurred to me to ask them about their experience with their partners. I asked them if they had experienced what I'm talking about, and they both answered with a resounding "YES."

One friend, the straight one, told me that, he feels rather desensitized for the most part. When a woman is going down on him, he says he has to ask her to suck hard like a vacuum cleaner, because otherwise he can't feel anything. He says that the intensity will build up, but it rises suddenly, very suddenly, he'll orgasm, ejaculate, but he has to ask his partner to stop, because oftentimes they like to keep going. It's as if, after orgasm, his penis becomes super extra sensitive and he can't handle anyone touching it.

My gay friend, who is a top, tells me that he'll be penetrating a partner, but then once he orgasms, "It comes to be too much," he says. He says his partners often want him to stay inside, but this is something he's had to "work" on. Otherwise he too wants to pull out as soon as possible and demand to be left alone for a while, while it wears off. I ask him what he thinks it could be, and he said that perhaps its that circumcision may have "re-wired" his penis. This would make sense; circumcision severs the nerves connected to the foreskin, and after this, the nerves would have to reconfigure themselves to fire differently, wouldn't they.

I don't know how this works; it sounds like something researchers should definitely be looking into.

For me this seems something like a paradox. On the one hand, men circumcised men become desensitized. But at the same time, some men seem to become super sensitive after orgasm. This must be what circumcised men mean when they say "I couldn't handle more sensitivity than I have now."

I for one can't identify with this experience; after orgasm, I prefer to stay as deep and as close to my wife as possible and I would never push her away.

But how widespread is this phenomenon?

This can't happen with every circumcised guy.

Can it?

Is this something scientists and researchers need to be looking into?

If it negatively impacts intimate experiences with partners, I should hope so.

It would be interesting to hear what other people's experiences are.

I invite you to please comment below.

Related Links:

Male Infant Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
Male Infant Circumcision Has No Basis in Modern Medicine
External Links:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis
Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort

Thursday, January 4, 2024

@Joseph4GI Suspended for "Harassment"


"Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told."
~Sheila Steele

I've been locked out of #Twitter / #X before.

And it's always the same, isn't it; if the people who want to silence you can somehow construe what you have said as "harassment," then they can have you silenced.

The funny thing is, I think I know who did it, and if it's the person I think it is, then it's ironic.

It's a person who has the Twitter/X user handle @JulesMagaGirl.

Yes, she's a "MAGA" girl?

You know?

The kind of people that go on and on about "cancel culture?"

Well, it sounds like one of the anti- #cancelculture crowd is engaging in the very thing she says she hates.

A few days ago, I got notification that my X/Twitter account was suspended because one of my Tweets was labeled "harassment," and I was given the option to either delete the Tweet or appeal. I appealed, and I got the notification back that my appeal was refused, and I appealed again, because I know that the Tweet is not "harassment" as it is claimed.

It may be the last of my Twitter account, because I know for a fact that what I tweeted is not "harassment," and I sure as heck am not deleting the Tweet.

I'd like to use this blog post to make the case that Twitter/X does not allow me to make. I'm not sure if I'm caught by an automated system, or if there is a live person on Twitter trying to FORCE me to remove the tweet that is keeping my account suspended.

It went like this:

This user, @JulesMagaGirl had been arguing back and forth on a Twitter thread about circumcision being mutilation, and I happened to be part of it.

The user typically proceeds to post all the usual alibis and excuses for forcibly slicing off part of a healthy, non-consenting child's penis.

It's "healthy," "cleaner," it "prevents STDs," all the usual stuff.

But in one tweet, she tries to argue that male infant circumcision "does not have to do with genitals."

I can't remember exactly what was said because I CAN'T ACCESS MY ACCOUNT, but she actually tries to say "Male infant circumcision is not in any way cutting away any part of the genitals."

To which I post the following tweet:

Highlighted in my Tweet: "Those look like genitals to me..."

This is the Tweet that got me suspended from my account.

This is what passes for "harassment" in the eyes of some Twitter/X hall monitor.

If you look closely, all it is is just a rebuttal to the girl's claim that circumcision "doesn't remove anything from the genitals."

The tweet includes a clear picture of a circumcision.


It should be obvious to anyone with eyeballs and two brain cells to rub together that circumcision clearly removes tissue from the genitals.

Where else could circumcision be removing anything from?

The nose?

The chin?

The knee?

@JulesMagaGirl is clearly delusional, as the fact that circumcision is clearly an act of male genital mutilation is clear as day from the picture I posted.

The thread goes on and on with other attempts at arguments that @JulesMagaGirl tries to make.

Parental choice. (Which would also apply to FGM.)

Retention of the ability to orgasm. (Also true of FGM.)

Retention of the ability to procreate. (Also true of FGM.)

All the usual canned stuff.

But the above Tweet is the one that got me cancelled.

I'm still waiting for that appeal, because as it is easy for anyone to see, I have not engaged in any "harassment," unless the "harassment" is adequate rebuttal to poor arguments.

At this point I need to ask, @elonmusk, what is the meaning of this?

Is this conversation not allowed on X/Twitter?

Kind of disappointing as I thought that free speech had returned to X/Twitter.

Apparently not.

Anyway, since X/Twitter will not allow me to make my case to them directly, I thought I'd post it here.

Very disappointed, Mr. Musk, very disappointed.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Censorship at Twitter?

Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI 

State of Affairs for Joseph4GI 

Twitter Bans Award-Winning Circumcision Documentary Filmmaker

Looks like @Joseph4GI is back

Saturday, December 9, 2023

Matt Walsh: The Accidental Intactivist

This is my 2nd blog post on Matt Walsh. In my first, I talked about how, if people didn't know any better, they'd think he was an intactivist.

It's amazing to me how he is basically making every intactivist point, but still somehow manages to have a blind spot, either unwittingly or quite deliberately, in regards to male infant circumcision.

Right-wingers do this all the time; they go on and on about how they abhor child abuse and genital mutilation but then twist themselves into knots to insist male infant circumcision is "different."

It's like they've got all of the logic that should allow them to arrive at the conclusion that male infant circumcision is genital mutilation and child abuse, but then refuse to make that leap. They struggle with cognitive dissonance, and somehow the belief that "male infant circumcision is not mutilation" is more important.

By their own definition, male infant circumcision should be wrong, and we should be calling for the practice to stop, but then they move the goal post and change the criteria of what constitutes "mutilation" in order to say that male infant circumcision is "different."

I can only guess it's because they've got vested interest in continuing their double-think.

I'd bet a dime to a dollar Matt Walsh is circumcised and has gone on to circumcise his own male children, so he cannot allow himself to be guilty of his own critique of other procedures performed on healthy, non-consenting minors.

If he is intact and didn't do this to his own children I'd be extremely surprised. If this is the case, he may have other reasons for refusing to criticize male infant circumcision with the same scathe he reserves for double-mastectomy and castration in children, such as not wanting to upset Ben Shapiro, a co-worker of his at the Daily Wire, who's Jewish and has a religious conviction to defend the practice. Candace Owens apparently has managed to upset Ben Shapiro by criticizing the actions of the Israeli government in the on-going Israel/Hamas war, which has led Ben Shapiro actually telling Candace Owens she should quit. So *if* Matt Walsh is critical of male infant circumcision, not wanting to rock the boat at work may be a reason to conceal it.

I do believe it's the former, rather than the latter, however. More than likely Matt Walsh has to reconcile his criticism of what he calls "child genital mutilation" to what has happened to him as an infant, and what he may have allowed on his own male children.

Matt Destroys Chris Christie With Intactivist Points
So I recently saw the following video on YouTube, where Matt Walsh gives his commentary on the recent Republican debate:

Matt Walsh really goes after Chris Christie in this video, namely his response to Megyn Kelly's question to Christie, in which she asks why he doesn't support a legal ban on "gender affirming care," reminding him that it involves castrating, sterilizing and removing healthy body parts from children who are too young to give consent.

Christie begins to respond by saying "Republicans believe in less government, not more." To which Matt responds by questioning Christie's logic, which seems to be that "Less government is a universal principle that we should apply to every situation."


 "Should we have less government when it comes to other forms of violence inflicted on the innocent? Should there be less government involved in policing murder or rape? Would you call for a repeal on laws forbidding sexual assault on the basis that Republicans want less government, not more?" ~Matt Walsh to Chris Christie


This scathing criticism from Matt Walsh comes as a surprise to me, because I was also under the impression that Republicans believed that "Less government is a universal principle that we should apply to every situation." It's nice to know this isn't the case. It is technically true that "less government" is not necessarily "no government." I mean, there should be law and order, otherwise intactivists have no hope of ever holding charlatan doctors who perform non-medical surgeries on healthy, non-consenting minors accountable.

Matt Walsh really comes after Chris Christie's "less government comment" and he is relentless.
"[F]orget about laws here in the United States. You want American government involvement all over the world, suddenly your "less government" principle disappears when it comes time to defend Ukraine or some other foreign country that's irrelevant to most Americans. Our government is very involved in sending billions of dollars to Ukraine and yet you have no issue with that. So is that the principle the American government can be involved in protecting Ukrainian children, but not American children? Is that how the formula works in your thick skull? Or is the whole "less government" thing just a meaningless smoke screen that you deploy whenever you need to find a way to avoid engaging with an issue that you find politically inconvenient? Yes, I think we've figured it out now."
This criticism also comes as a surprise, as I was under the impression that Republicans all collectively want American government involvement all over the world to be the World Police. I personally lived through both Bush presidents and our involvement in the Middle East. It is despicable to me that we went to war over "weapons of mass destruction" that never materialized. Every last Republican I know defended the actions of George W. Bush and his father. Every last Republican I know was in favor of "getting the terrorists back for 9/11." So this idea that Republicans DON'T want American troops in Ukraine or elsewhere is new and surprising to me. The tables seem to have turned; the GOP is now the party of "no war," and now the Democrats are the party of "stay the course." Matt is right; it's hypocritical to be "less government" while at the same time supporting more American government abroad.

But Matt's pounce on Chris Christie's "less government" comment was nothing compared to what came next. In an attempt at a one-two punch strategy, Chris Christie cited "less government," followed by the "parental rights" argument, and Matt Walsh responds in the most intactivist way possible, you would think he was already one of us.

"I trust parents," Chris Christie told Megyn Kelly.

 And Matt responded: 

"What do you mean you 'trust parents?' that's like saying 'I trust uncles' or 'I trust cousins.' 'I trust step sisters.' It doesn't make any sense. Obviously we don't have complete blind absolute trust in any group of people just based on their biological relationship to other groups of people."


I am impressed with this logical take-down. Matt Walsh is absolutely right. I have always argued through this entire blog that not everything you do with your children is justifiable merely because you are the parent. Parental rights are not absolute. If they were, there'd be no need for child protective services.

But it gets better. Matt continues:


"The trust we have in anyone is conditional just as our rights are conditional. You can lose trust and you can lose rights. That's what going to prison is all about, and one way to lose both of those things as a parent is to physically abuse your child. As Ron DeSantis pointed out at the debate, making a statement that should never have needed to be said at a presidential debate, parents don't have the right to abuse their kids. If you treat your kid that way, you lose trust and you lose rights. Everybody understands this basic concept and agrees with it. The only question is whether sterilizing, castrating and removing body parts from a child counts as abuse, but that's not a question at all. In fact, if that doesn't qualify as abuse, then nothing qualifies. If it's not abusive to have your child's body mutilated, then what the hell is abusive? What fits the bill if that doesn't? There is no gray area here and Chris Christie knows that.

Bravo, Matt.


Bra, vo.

Everything he says is, of course, spot on. I'd like to take Matt's words and apply them to intactivism:

 "The only question is whether slicing part of a child's penis off counts as abuse, but that's not a question at all. In fact, if that doesn't qualify as abuse, then nothing qualifies. If it's not abusive to have your child's body mutilated, then what the hell is abusive? What fits the bill if that doesn't? There is no gray area here."

It really is this simple. If only Matt Walsh could stick with this logic, and carry it through, he would oppose male infant circumcision and call for it to end in rallies as he does with child transition. But, of course, I'm sure Matt has found away to reconcile his cognitive dissonance and define the forced genital cutting of baby boys in such a way that he, in his own words used in the past, is "rescued."

He'll call it a "little piece of skin," minimize the complications and latch onto "medical benefits," though he himself doesn't think "minimal complications" justifies operations to destroy normal, healthy body parts otherwise. I'm very sure he would oppose the removal of the same amount of skin in baby girls, no matter how "beneficial," and "minimal complications" would be immaterial to him.

To quote him again:


"The primary complication of cutting off a woman's healthy breasts is that, *you've cut off a woman's healthy breasts.* The complication is that you've removed a piece of her body, a piece of her, and you've done it on the theory that it will help her be a man, even though, she could never be a man, and chopping off her breasts will bring her no closer to manhood, than she was when she still had them.

The fact that there are, allegedly "only," "additional complications in 12% of cases" does not rescue you from this fact, it's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes "perfectly well" when you're cutting the breasts off of a woman, you're still cutting her breasts off, and that's the issue. You are removing healthy body parts, and often you're doing this to young girls who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos, because they've been judged "too young" for it."

 (YouTube of this is available here.)


Matthew, the primary complication of cutting off a baby boy's healthy foreskin is that, *you've cut off a baby boy's healthy foreskin.* The complication is that you've removed a piece of his body, a piece of him, and you've done it on the theory that it prevents diseases and makes him "cleaner," even though, lacking a foreskin can never immunize a boy against any diseases, and even if you chop off his foreskin he'll still need to wash with soap and water to keep clean.

The fact that there are, allegedly "only complications in 2% of cases" does not rescue you from this fact, it's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes "perfectly well" when you're cutting the foreskin off of a boy, you're still cutting his foreskin off, and that's the issue. You are removing healthy body parts, and often you're doing this to young boys who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos, because they've been judged "too young" for it.

I've already talked about the foreskin, its circumcision and risks and complications in many, other posts, so I'm not going to do that here.

It would be nice to see Matt Walsh stick to his own logic, carry it through and oppose the genital mutilation of infant baby boys at birth.

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, present in all males at birth; 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 individuals 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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

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.

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.

Related Links: 

Sunday, December 3, 2023

Male Infant Circumcision is Genital Mutilation


I've posted on the definition of "mutilation" and why male infant circumcision fits it in the past, but yet another opportunity has presented itself in my Twitter feed and I thought I'd seize it.

It happened like this. I was scrolling through my Twitter/X feed, and I ran across this post: (Picture below in case this gets deleted.)



When I see a post like this, my immediate reaction is to check the comments to see what people are saying. Shocking, I know.

It's always very interesting for me to see the logical fallacies and double-standards defendants of male infant circumcision use to try and defend the practice. Typically they'll cite "culture/religion/tradition," and “parental choice,” but if it's about anything else, such as some of the practices mentioned on this post, “culture/religion/tradition” and/or “parental choice” leave the chat.

The following reply caught my eye, because it touched on one of the hinges of the arguments against male infant circumcision; the definition of what is "mutilation." (Again, picture pasted below in case the tweet is deleted.)

ArchPhantom94's opening paragraph is interesting. I'd like to know what s/he thinks about female genital cutting, whether or not s/he believes it's "evil" and how s/he managed to arrive at that conclusion.

If I'm understanding ArchPhantom94 correctly, s/he seems to be claiming moral superiority over Dr. Melissa Sell. If we are to believe Dr. Melissa Sell is a real doctor, which I don’t know if anyone who calls themselves “doctor” on Twitter/X ever actually is, then we can only assume that she determines her morality and designates procedures as “evil” or not, based on medicine, science and research. At least she is supposed to be, because she would be a doctor and doctors deal in medicine, not religion or superstitious nonsense.

If a procedure is medically indicated, then it's right and good. And if it is not, then not only is it wrong and evil, it's simply medical fraud, as doctors should not be reaping profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting minors.

As a doctor, one of Dr. Melissa Sell’s guiding principles should be the first dictum of medicine which is the Hippocratic Oath: "First Do No Harm."

"Primum non nocere"
"First do no harm"
~The Hippocratic Oath

After challenging Dr. Melissa Sell's morality, excusing him/herself from addressing his/her own, ArchPhantom94 presents the following challenge:

"My argument is circumcision is not mutilation... Looking forward to your refutation, ma'am."

OK, ArchPhantom94, I'll bite.

In this post I'm going to take ArchPhantom94's post and tear it limb from limb.

Firstly, s/he writes:

Legal definition: "Mutilation means the intentional infliction of physical abuse designed to cause serious permanent disfigurement or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the functions of any bodily member or organ, where the offender relishes the infliction of the abuse, evidencing debasement or perversion."


I'm not sure what law book ArchPhantom94 is copying and pasting from, but it does not sit well in his/her favor. As I have demonstrated in my last post, male infant circumcision was medicalized and promoted for the express purpose of diminishing male sexuality.

Examination of medical literature reveals that scientists and researchers were pre-occupied with the control of male sexuality, namely, the diminishing of male pleasure. The research shows that they were well-aware that the foreskin provided sensual pleasure, and that circumcision decreased it.

"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantages which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of coition and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss, increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful." Editor, Medical News. (A Plea for Circumcision) Medical News, vol. 77 (1900): pp. 707-708.

"It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein." E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventive of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp. 1869-1871.

"Another advantage of circumcision ... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing ... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance." Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): pp. 121-126.

"Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extremely proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision." L. W. Wuesthoff, Benefits of Circumcision, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 434.

"The prepuce is one of the great factors in causing masturbation in boys. Here is the dilemma we are in: If we do not teach the growing boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse the glans there is the danger of smegma collecting and of adhesions and ulcerations forming, which in their turn will cause irritation likely to lead to masturbation. If we do teach the boy to pull the prepuce back and cleanse his glans, that handling alone is sufficient gradually and almost without the boy's knowledge to initiate him into the habit of masturbation ... Therefore, off with the prepuce!" William J. Robinson, Circumcision and Masturbation, Medical World, vol. 33 (1915): p. 390.

"Phimosis may be a predisposing cause of masturbation in some cases ... Hemorrhage following circumcision at birth cannot be considered seriously as a contraindication. Meatal ulcer due to ammoniacal diapers in the circumcised is not a contraindication ... Routine circumcision at birth is warranted." Editor, Routine Circumcision at Birth?, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 91 (1928): p. 201. 

"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is 'against nature', but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R. W. Cockshut, Circumcision, British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (1935): 764.

"[Routine Circumcision] does not necessitate handling of the penis by the child himself and therefore does not focus the male's attention on his own genitals. Masturbation is considered less likely.Alan F. Guttmacher, Should the Baby Be Circumcised?, Parents Magazine, vol. 16 (1941): pp. 26, 76-78.

The evidence is clear; desensitization, curtailing male sexuality, stopping boys and masturbating and experiencing pleasure weren’t mere potential side-effects of the practice of male infant circumcision, they were the whole point, the very intention, the very premise, the very basis of why boys were supposed to be circumcised. “Intentional infliction of physical abuse designed to cause serious permanent disfigurement or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the functions” was the intended purpose. 

That’s one down for ArchPhantom94.

On to ArchPhantom94’s next point:

Dictionary definition: "severe damage to somebody's body, especially when part of it is cut or torn off; the act of causing such damage"

ArchPhantom94 wants to pull out the dictionary to show us that male infant circumcision isn’t “genital mutilation,” but this definition simply fails to support his point. I’m not sure what dictionary he’s using, but in a past post, I use the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, which defines the word "mutilation" as thus:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

I'm going demonstrate how male infant circumcision is genital mutilation by all definitions.

From the definitions the online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us, it is the first definition,
 1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)
that applies to male infant circumcision the most, because it is "cutting up" or "altering radically so as to make [them] imperfect." 

Circumcision advocates often try to dismiss the notion that male circumcision is "mutilation" using definition 2,  

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple


"because the foreskin is not a limb or an essential part of" a person. While this may be true, I'd have to say that if by this definition male circumcision isn't "mutilation," then female circumcision isn't "mutilation" either. I don't think ArchPhantom94 is ready to concede this point.

In his original paragraph, ArchPhantom94 asks "How do you determine your morality and why you designate circumcision evil?" Here, the question is, how does ArchPhantom94 or any other circumcision advocate determine what is "essential?" When was it decided that the clitoris and/or labia were "essential" and that the foreskin is not?

But here, I think talking about what is "essential" or not is misleading. “What is essential" is not the metric by which doctors decide to remove body parts. There are a number of parts of the human body that aren't "essential" including the spleen, gall bladder and appendix. The clitoris and the labia aren't "essential" either.

The metric any and all doctors must go by when it comes to surgical removal is medical indication. Let us come back to the first dictum of medicine,the Hippocratic Oath:

"Primum non nocere"
"First do no harm"
~The Hippocratic Oath



To address ArchPhantom94’s dictionary definition:

"severe damage to somebody's body, especially when part of it is cut or torn off; the act of causing such damage"


One must wonder if ArchPhantom94 actually knows what a circumcision is. Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, male infant circumcision is a euphemism for the surgical amputation of the hood of flesh that covers the glans or head of the penis, otherwise known as the foreskin. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue that, with rare exception, is present in all baby boys at birth. Male infant circumcision is performed on healthy, non-consenting minors with no medical or clinical indication.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation of the penis, a botched procedure with permanent misshaping, hemorrhage, sepsis and even death. Circumcision botches are so common, there are actually doctors that specialize in revising other doctors' mistakes. The long term effects of circumcision, even when the operation is carried out "successfully" are drying out of the mucosal tissue on and around the glans or head of the penis, necessity for artificial lubrication, loss of nerves, keratinization and desensitization over time.

If we take the foreskin to be the normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue found in all males that it is, then its forcible amputation fits the definition of "severe damage to somebody's body, especially when part of it is cut or torn off." Male infant circumcision is literally cutting off part of a child's penis.

For perspective, here is the freshly severed foreskin off of a healthy newborn, compared side by side with the tip of the clitoris of a baby girl. (Readers should be aware that infant female circumcision is performed in South East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore, often referred to as "sunat." See links at the bottom of this post.)

To the left is the severed foreskin of a newborn baby boy.
To the right is the severed tip of the clitoris of a baby girl
which you can barely see on the silver pair of scissors.

Circumcision advocates would like others to believe that circumcision removes "a little bit of skin." I hope readers can see that the description is misleading. This is no "little bit of skin" but a chunk of flesh. It is the speck on the silver scissors above that is considered "mutilation" by ArchPhantom94 et al.

The last point ArchPhantom94 says on his Twitter/X post is:

"Deprivation" is the operative word and element when it comes to mutilation. Circumcision does not fall under the above, nor under "mutilation" because it does not deprive the male of his natural functions.


Here ArchPhantom94 is changing the argument. "Deprivation" is NOT the operative word and element when it comes to mutilation, and we'll come back to this point in just a moment. Before I do that, I'd like to address ArchPhantom94's assertion that "does not deprive the male of his natural functions"

Here he is changing the goal post at the last minute. The legal definition he gives is "the intentional infliction of physical abuse designed to cause serious permanent disfigurement or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the functions of any bodily member or organ," and the dictionary definition he gives is "severe damage to somebody's body, especially when part of it is cut or torn off." These aren’t quite the same thing as "deprivation of natural functions." This would mean that ArchPhantom94 is implying that "intentional infliction of physical abuse" and "severely damaging somebody's body especially when part of it is cut or torn off" is acceptable so long as these actions don't "deprive someone of his/her natural functions," and I don't think ArchPhantom94 actually means to make this assertion. If so, then this would justify most female genital cutting. After all, a woman can still ovulate, menstruate, become pregnant and birth children without her labia or clitoris.

No, ArchPhantom94, as all male infant circumcision advocates do, ties himself in knots attempting the mental gymnastics of defining "mutilation" in such a way that excludes male infant circumcision. There are two things that are missing from this equation; one, the fact that the foreskin is an intrinsic part of the penis that has value, and two the issue of consent.

What is the foreskin?
To understand how circumcision is “severe damage” and “permanent disfigurement” that “deprives” a healthy, non-consenting minor of function, it is important to understand what the foreskin even is. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue that, with rare exception, is present in all baby boys at birth. The foreskin is a hood of skin that covers the head of the penis, akin to the eyelids which cover the eyeballs. The surface of the glans, or head of the penis, and the inside of the foreskin is not normal skin, like the skin on the arms, hands, legs and feet; these surfaces are mucous membrane, such as on the inside of the mouth, the inside of the vagina. The foreskin keeps the glans and surrounding mucous membrane moist and supple, facilitating sexual intercourse and masturbation. 


The foreskin is laden in specialized nerve endings called "Meissners corpuscles," which make it sensitive to light touch and pleasure. Research mapping out sensation on different parts of the penis shows that the most sensitive part of the penis is found on the foreskin. It is these functions that advocates of male infant circumcision in the Victorian era (see medical literature citations above), sought to eliminate through circumcision, and research shows that this is precisely what it does.


Circumcision dries out the glans and surrounding mucosa, necessitating the use of artificial lubrication for sexual intercourse and masturbation. The head of the penis was not designed to be permanently exposed to external environments such as dry air and the constant abrasion of clothing. To make up for the loss of foreskin, the head of the circumcised penis and surrounding mucosa builds layers of dead skin in a process called "keratinization." In addition to the loss of thousands of Meissner's corpuscles found in the foreskin, keratinization adds to decrease sensation over time. Over time, men may take more stimulation to achieve orgasm, and may eventually lead to erectile disfunction, necessitating the need for drugs like Viagra.

The head of an intact penis (above)
is kept shiny and moist by the foreskin.
By comparison, the head of the circumcised
penis (below) is dry and becomes dull due
to constant exposure and keratinization over time.

So, if one has been following along, one can see that male infant circumcision does indeed deprive a healthy, non-consenting minor of function. It may not be an "essential" function, such as erection and the ejaculation of semen, but function none the less. And, if one is to value sexual pleasure, I'd say very important functions.

To minimize the mutilation that is male infant circumcision, advocates often like to cite the "low complication rates". That's not the problem. That you're cutting off healthy tissue from a child's penis IS the complication. The fact that it's "only 2%" does not rescue circumcision advocates. 2% of 1.4 million babies is STILL 28,000 babies with complications. The risks include infectionpartial or full ablation of the penis, a botched procedure with permanent misshaping, hemorrhage, sepsis and even death.

It's circumcision itself that is the problem. Even if everything "goes perfectly well" you're still cutting off part of a child's penis, you're removing healthy, functional flesh from children who aren't legally allowed to get tattoos, and that's the issue.

To conclude my rebuttal of ArchPhantom94's definitions of "mutilation," which are, if I understand correctly, "intentional infliction of physical abuse designed to cause serious permanent disfigurement or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the functions,"  "damage" and "deprivation", male infant is all of these things.

If history and medical literature on the subject are correct, the very objective of male infant circumcision was the very depravation of males of sexual function by intentional and deliberate disfigurement. Male infant circumcision is the deliberate attempt at the control of male sexuality. It was expressly meant to reduce male sexual pleasure in order to prevent masturbation.
I'd like to come back to ArchPhantom94's last-minute switch to "deprivation" as the "operative word and element when it comes to mutilation."  I've already demonstrated that male infant circumcision can indeed be called "mutilation" based on the definitions s/he gives, but deprivation is NOT the "operative word and element when it comes to mutilation." The operative words here are medical necessity and informed consent. That is the difference, and one I talk about in a previous post.

Sometimes, circumcision is NOT mutilation.

When is that?

When it is performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, circumcision is not mutilation. (This is actually standard medical practice that governs all other forms of surgery.)

In addition, when it is performed upon the request of a consenting adult, it is not mutilation.
Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument
Ladies who are interested in getting their labia removed, their clitoris permanently exposed, or any other surgical alterations to their genital organs can find the appropriate surgeon and schedule an appointment.

The removal of the clitoral hood and external labia are known as "clitoral unroofing" and "labiaplasty" respectively.  They are perfectly legal for the appropriate surgeons to perform at the request of the interested woman.

Forcibly performing any of these acts on a healthy, non-consenting minor constitutes genital mutilation, and is punishable by law, and there is no exception for "religious beliefs."

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.

Consent and medical necessity are the operative words, and it’s what makes the difference between surgery and mutilation.

Male infant circumcision is mutilation because, in addition to the deliberate destruction of normal, healthy tissue, meant to curb male sexuality, children can’t consent.

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, present in all males at birth; 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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.


Related Posts:
REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit 


CIRCUMCISION DEATH - A 13yo Bleeds to Death in the Philippines


Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

External Links:
Business Insider: 12 body organs you can live without

A Short History of Circumcision in the U.S.


MRSA Infection in Circumcised Baby Boys

Female circumcision part of Malaysian culture, says DPM

New York Times Magazine - A Cutting Tradition