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.
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.
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.
According to another report "24 Oras," the boy bled to death after bleeding would not stop after being circumcised at a "free circumcision event" organized by the Scout Royale Brotherhood.
Circumcision is a custom in the Philippine Islands, thought to be a holdover from their Islamic past. While Filipinos are mostly Catholic now, and the Bible prohibits circumcision for gentiles (Galatians 5), circumcision continues to be ingrained in Filipino culture.
Boys being circumcised at a "circumcision party" in Marikina, The Philippines
Unlike the United States where male infant circumcision is performed on newborns, in the Philippines it is a rite of passage, often performed on older boys. In the Philippines, circumcision can happen at a hospital, or a doctor's office, but it often happens at mass circumcision events, where boys are gathered and circumcised by organizations dedicated to circumcising boys.
Because it is stigmatized to remain intact, or "supot" as they say in the Philippines, most boys are geared toward getting circumcised from a young age, in the summer before going back to school.
While most circumcisions are performed "successfully," where the destruction of the glanular hood is intentional, there are risks that attend the procedure.
Various kinds of infection, including MRSA and galloping gangrene can occur, part or full ablation of the penis can happen, and hemorrhage or sepsis can occur. The most common complication of circumcision is uncontrollable bleeding.
Not to mention that even a circumcision considered "successful" will not always be an aesthetically pleasing result, often resulting in too much or too little skin removed, skin tags, uneven scarring and other misshaping.
And yes, death is a risk of male circumcision.
These risks attend male circumcision at any age.
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued their policy statement on male infant circumcision, where they state that "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks," but at the same time, in the same policy statement, they say "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." The statement concluded that "the benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," while at the same time, that parents should be the ones to weight the risks and benefits for themselves, the risks of which are, by the AAP's own admission, unknown. In effect, the AAP absolves doctors who perform circumcisions on healthy minors of any responsibility, placing the onus on parents instead.
Because this is cosmetic, non-medical surgery, whether or not these risks are conscionable ought to be considered when performing it on healthy, non-consenting minors.
It is my view that, unless absolutely indicated, the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be left up to the individual in question, when he is of age, and after he has considered all the benefits and risks for himself.
Well, well, well! Would you look at this! I guess I'm on a roll after a long hiatus. Who knows how long it will last? Well, I guess I might as well ride the wave while I'm at it.
I was surfing Facebook and I came across an old video I hadn't noticed before. Fox's Tucker Carlson was interviewing Fuambai Ahmadu and her advocacy for female genital cutting. According to YouTube, the video was put up on May 4, 2017, around the time the federal ban on FGM was lifted due to a court case in Detroit.
I'll embed the video here. Today is December 15, 2021 and I can still see the video as of today, so if you can't see the video anymore, it was probably taken down. See the video below.
I decided to watch the whole video, and I couldn't help but notice that basically these two are making the case against male infant circumcision in the United States.
I think this back-and-forth perfectly illustrates the male infant circumcision slash female circumcision debate and how it usually goes down in this country because people are committed to the narrative that ignores and protects their cognitive dissonance.
I decided to type up a transcript of the whole thing and post it here. (I'm afraid there are some things that I couldn't quite hear clearly, please forgive me)
I'll be inserting my own commentary; if you want to hear the argument without any commentary, please feel free to watch the video.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:
Fuambai Ahmadu: "I don't defend FGM. I don't mutilation. I would never defend the mutilation of anybody. I don't identify with the term 'mutilation.' I don't know anybody in my family who does, or my community. From over 25 years of research I've done on this field, I would say the great majority of women who are affected by what I call female circumcision practices do not see themselves as mutilated. I think we need to start interrogating how we use that terminology."
I'd like to draw a parallel here; she sounds precisely like an advocate for male infant circumcision. People who advocate and support cutting the genitals of boys never think it's "mutilation" and they feel "insulted" that anyone ever referred to what they do as such. Well THEY don't do "mutilation," it's those other people who do it. We're the innocent ones. And I think this is where the whole trouble of "female genital cutting is mutilation" begins, because the point is not actually to decry mutilation; if it were, we would talk about the elephant in the room, and we would have to talk about the very practice one is defending. In my opinion, the whole point of decrying genital cutting as it occurs in girls as "mutilation" is to diverge attention to the practice one wishes to defend. If "that other" thing is "mutilation," what we do is perfectly fine.
Tucker Carlson: "I almost don't want to specify what it refers to because it's upsetting, but it's the removal of a kind of key female sex organ in a lot of cases and this is being done to girls who obviously can't give consent, and it affects them for life."
Notice here the arguments that Carlson is putting forward, because it will get him in the end.
He has a problem with cutting girls because they can't give consent, and it affects them for life.
The same is irrefutably and demonstrably true for male infant circumcision. The biggest problem any intactivist have with male infant circumcision are, as you can read throughout my entire blog is, consent, and the fact that a man has to live with the outcome, adverse or benign, for the rest of his life.
Ahmadu: "This is why I think we DO need to have a discussion on what IT is. When we use the term "female genital mutilation, automatically a certain image comes to mind, an image that has been put out there for over 30, 40 years in the mainstream media through activists, efforts and women's groups. It's the idea of the most horrific of procedure, which is Type 3, the WHO's classified this as type 3 infibulation, that involves the suturing and sowing up of the labia majora. This is a very rare procedure that is confined, basically, to a specific part of sub-Sahara Africa, the horn of Africa. It makes up less than 10% of the entire prevalence of the procedures in sub-Sahara Africa and across various parts of the world.
A case I've made on here on several posts already (scroll to the bottom for links to other posts I've written on this subject).
Ahmadu is engaging in a classic tactic that advocates of male infant circumcision turn to, and that's blaming it all on the media and the negative image it has given it. It is forceful cutting of a healthy, non-consenting child, but that's not the problem; it's the negative attention it has garnered.
Can you imagine pedophiles arguing that nothing is wrong with what they do; it's the negative image the media and others have given them and they're being oppressed?
Actually, in the case of male infant circumcision, it's quite the opposite; for the past century it's been presented as this good and wonderful and harmless and "medically beneficial" thing.
We need to understand that over 90% of what we call 'female circumcision' involves what WHO classifes as Types 1, and that's divided up into types A and B, and Types 2, A and B as well. So for instance, the Dawoodi Bohra case that has become quite talked about in recent weeks with the doctor, the female doctor, Dr. Nagarwala I believe, in Michigan, their community, their Shia Muslim, you know, quiet community here in the United States, their community performs, first of all they perform circumcision on boys, we'll get to that in a moment, and they perform Type 1 A circumcision, which is a nick, a nick of the prepuce, the foreskin of the clitoris."
Exactly. She's on point.
Advocates of male infant circumcision would like people to believe that female genital cutting is "much, much worse" without actually ever making comparisons. The argument usually goes something like this:
Male infant circumcision advocate: "Female infant circumcision is so much worse."
Skeptic: "So let's discuss it."
Male infant circumcision advocate: "How dare you compare them! You just can't! So don't!"
I'm SO glad to see a woman discussing this; I'm usually shut down because I'm male. Well, here is an actual woman who has undergone so-called "FGM."
Carlson: "That is not actually what is illegal as far as I understand. What I understand is the removal of an entire portion of the female sex organ without the consent of the child. Now, you underwent this as an adult; there's a quantum difference between making a decision to do something like that, and having that decision made for you that cannot be reversed as a child. That seems to me, probably the worst thing you can do to a child."
Here again, Carlson brings up the elephant in the room when it comes to male infant circumcision; the consent of the person involved for a decision that cannot be reversed. This is precisely it, Tucker! You've got it!
Ahmadu: "OK, so back to the case of the Dawoodi Bohra doctor who is now in prison waiting trial, she is accused, she's charged with FGM, mutilating 7yo girls , he performed nicks, nicks, Type 1 A to the clitoral foreskin. (Carlson tries to interrupt) But it's really important because what's happened it's the activists who have made the term female genital mutilation they've conflated it with all these different practices..."
Yes! It's a nick! So small! And she's completely right. This shouldn't be a problem. Not if it's OK to slice off a chunk of flesh from a child's penis.
Carlson: "Some of these activists are victims of the practice itself. And we've interviewed them on this set. And they have said this has affected my life and my happiness, and my ability to experience happiness in a profound way, and it's totally barbaric, and guess I don't buy the 'hey it's a different culture,' well so is throwing widows on the pyre, and it's still wrong."
Tucker sounds like he could be on the intactivist team! Except when Fuambai actually throws his own logic in his face.
Yes, Tucker. "It's a different culture" shouldn't justify slicing parts of children's genitals without their consent. You are right on the money.
Ahmadu: "...and I absolutely agree with you, Tucker, but there's one thing I want to correct. You've said it removes a vital part of the female genital anatomy, alright? And is it OK to say if I actually that part is? Because there's a misconception about actually, you know, what these surgeries entail. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes the clitoris of a woman. It is absolutely impossible to remove a woman's clitoris without killing her. What is exposed is a tiny fraction of what is actually an extensive organ.
Again. Fuambai is on point.
And here too is an argument that male infant circumcision advocates like to use; the foreskin isn't a VITAL part of man's anatomy, is it? Since it isn't "vital," then it should be OK for parents to have doctors remove it in their children. After all, they can still have fulfilling lives, sexual or otherwise, what's the real "harm?"
This argument works in the case of female genital cutting. If it's not actually removing anything "vital," what's actually wrong with it? Why can't parents choose to have doctors do this? It's the same argument.
Carlson: "I'm going to stop you there and before we get too into it, I'm gonna just... lemme just say... (he's interrupting) Would you concede, because there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds? Is that fair?"
(Clap, clap, clap...) BRAVO, Tucker. Bravo.
Now if only you could agree to carry this argument through its logical conclusion...
Ahmadu: "Well here's what I think. There are a lot of men, right? ...who have experience male infant circumcision who say that this is mutilation. In fact, in the courtroom, when Dr. Nagarwala appeared in court, there were protesters outside they were not anti-FGM protesters...
Jesus Christ! Who's side is this Fuambai woman on?
Intactivists could easily confuse her as one of our own.
She's completely right.
The one thing that I would have to say to this is that far from being an "experience," a lot of men have graphic evidence that circumcision has indeed harmed them, because their procedures resulted in severe deformity of their organs. It is verifiably, objectively true that, to many men, circumcision has resulted in "mutilation" as defined by opponents of FGM.
Of course, in my book, unless there is medical or clinical indication, slicing ANY part of a healthy, non-consenting person's body off is "mutilation."
Carlson: (Interrupts again) But that's not an argument for female circumcision...
Tucker, yes it is. Readers, scroll back up. Did he, or did he not bring up that "there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being
led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not
imposed on six year olds?"
Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, Tucker.
Ahmadu: "What I'm saying is, you're saying to me that there are opponents to female circumcision... Carlson: "Look as you know, there's a lot of research, and I don't want to get into the circumcision debate on men, but there is research that shows that there are profound medical advantages in that, there is no research that shows there's any medical advantage in female genital mutilation.
Classic.
Notice here how his own argument of consent and letting adults make their own decision flies right out the window...
Ahmadu: "First of all, that research is contested. There's a lot of research that shows that yes there IS harm, there IS risk. There are over a hundred deaths, a hundred deaths each year from male circumcision.
THIS WOMAN! Fuambai, you're an intactivist!!!
Carlson: "Look, I don't want to... that's... that's a separate show... and I'm open-minded but, but, but what you're doing is not making...
Poor Tucker... walked into his own trap on this one...
Ahmadu: "You're saying we're abusing girls...
That's what he said, Fuambai...
Carlson: "But that's like saying... you know we can't ban weed because beer is legal... it's two separate arguments..."
Talk about attacking a straw man... what does weed and beer, two substances that adults choose to take out of their own accord, have to do with the arguments at hand, that of the severity of genital cutting and the consent of the individual...
Ahmadu: "You are accepting that it is OK to perform a much more intensive or, invasive procedure on boys...
When she dies, Fuambai Ahmadu needs to be made an intactivist saint...
Carlson: "No, I'm not accepting that I'm just saying that this is bad to do to little girls it's pretty simple...
But OK to do to little boys...
Ahmadu: "I disagree. I think that if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery.
BINGO.
Carlson: "Well I just don't want it in my culture, in my society, I guess it's what it all comes down to."
As his society mutilates 1.4 million boys annually...
Ahmadu: "So what, it's OK to cut BOYS in your society?"
YOU GO, GIRL!!!
Carlson: "I'm just saying I don't want THIS. I think it's awful."
Yes to this, but no to that.
The words "ad hoc" and "special pleading" come to mind...
Ahmadu: "Well we don't in our culture we don't discriminate. You know, we have gender egalitarian surgeries. We do not discriminate."
Carlon: "We're out of time I feel that we could finish the hour... I'd probably die of embarrassment but thank you very much..."
Ahmadu: "You're welcome."
Poor Tucker... clearly here tripping over his own arguments, and clearly his attacking the straw men of beer and weed isn't working and he can't stand it so he's got to end the segment...
But see, neither of them is wrong. They're both absolutely correct.
Both of these individuals make the case as to why forcibly cutting the genitals of boys, and girls, is wrong.
Tucker Carlson, quite rightly so, points out that this is a decision that needs to be made by consenting adults, and he makes no exception for culture. He says "I don't want this in my culture," but then recoils when he is faced with the fact that his own culture already accepts the forcible cutting of minors.
Fuambai Ahmadu is on point when she talks about gender egalitarianism and non-discrimination, albeit in the wrong direction. She's right though.
"..if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on
boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it
should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and
societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender
inclusive genital surgery."
Absolutely on point.
However, conversely, if we oppose it in American society, the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting girls without their consent, regard for culture or religion, then the same should be true of the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, regardless of culture, religion or otherwise.
Though it's on Fox, I thought this was an excellent interview and an excellent representation of how the circumcision debate usually goes, with the absolute meltdown when male and female genital cutting is discussed in the the same breath, the refusal to acknowledge that they are the same issue.
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.
Mutua Kuthuka, father of two boys who died post-circumcision
I'm not going to say much in this one. All I'm going to do is repost this article about two boys who died last week after botched traditional circumcisions in Africa.
All I want to say is, those who say "you can't compare male and female circumcision" are either ignorant or pretend to be, and they need to shut up and stop spreading deliberate and demonstrable lies.
Male and female circumcision aren't "similar"; they're identical.
One and the same.
They BOTH need to stop, and they need to stop now.
I will copy/paste the article and the link below.
On
Wednesday morning last week, 12 boys between the ages of five and eight
assembled at a homestead in Lundi village in Mwingi East, Kitui County,
ready to undergo circumcision.
The
boys, all under the grip of fear, were to be circumcised using a razor
blade by a 70-year-old woman. The woman is said to be an experienced
traditional circumciser and is revered among members of the Kavonokya
sect.
The
sect, which has its base in parts of Mwingi and Kitui South, is
notorious for disregarding conventional medicine. Its members do not
visit hospitals. Whenever one of them falls sick, the members congregate
in their secretive conclaves for prayers. At times the prayers are
endless. Many members have died as a result.
In the event of death, they hurriedly and secretly bury the dead and later dismiss it as an unavoidable will of God.
Armed
with nothing more than razor blades and egged on by the fathers of the
boys who were pinning the young ones down, the circumciser moved from
one boy to another, casually cutting off the foreskin.
After
the cut, the boys would be tossed onto a waiting party that would
bandage their private parts with pieces of clothes to stop the bleeding.
Unlike in hospitals, this callous ritual had no drugs to lessen the pain.
And
then something tragic happened. Two of the boys developed excessive
bleeding after being cut. They were immediately carted away and taken to
a secret house where sect members began their ritual prayers.
The sect members continued praying, jumping up and down and clutching firmly onto bibles, as the boys’ lives slowly ebbed away.
From
Wednesday to Friday, the two boys aged five and seven lay on a bed, and
bled endlessly. Late on Friday, with no other intervention except for
the prayers characterised by intense beating of drums, singing and
violent stomping of feet, the condition of the two siblings
deteriorated. They died, one after the other.
“Ijumaa ndio walilemewa zaidi,” their father, Mutua Kithuka said, revealing that the bleeding never stopped.
“The
younger one died at 6pm and the other one around 10pm. They would vomit
every time they were given something to eat,” said an emotionless
Kithuka, a staunch Kavonokya adherent who describes himself as the
paragon of faith and who says going to hospital is out of question for
his family.
Falls sick
“It
is true we did not take them to hospital because I am saved and
according to the scriptures, we are not allowed to go to hospital. If
one falls sick, you invite the church elders to pray and the sick is
healed by faith. God gives and God takes away, it is His will,” Kithuka
said.
He said his sons had never stepped foot in hospital since they were born but were in ‘perfect’ health.
Mwingi
East police boss Joseph Yakan confirmed Kithuka was arrested yesterday
while the traditional circumciser was arrested on Friday. They are being
held at Ukasi Police Station and will be arraigned today.
Mui
chief Paul Musyimi said he learnt of the matter after the boys had
already died. “We are warning the sect members not to circumcise their
sons at home. Stern action will be taken against those who go against
this directive,” Musyimi said.
The two bodies have been preserved at Mwingi Level IV Hospital mortuary.
