Anne Rice, Willfully Ignorant Male Genital Mutilation Apologist Dies

 

Recently I ran across news that Anne Rice has finally kicked the bucket at 80.

And good riddance.

I couldn't stand how she threw children and men under the bus to pander to her feminist base and boost her book sales.

As more advocates of male genital mutilation croak, the world becomes a better place for current and future generations.

Fuck her.

Fuck anyone who insists on continuing to push the false narrative that "male and female circumcision aren't the same" and that men have all the attention when it comes to genital mutilation and that men attempt to "shove women to the back of the bus" in this regard.

It's feminists and anti-female genital mutilation activists and organizations that hog the limelight and piss on the rights of boys and men.

To push the narrative that "men bring up male circumcision while women suffering genital mutilation struggle to find a voice" as countless organizations dedicate themselves to raise awareness of FGM in Africa as they ignore boys and men who die in circumcision initiation rituals has got to be the ultimate misandrist grift.

Ding dong the witch is dead.

I can't wait until all willfully ignorant advocates of male genital mutilation die out.

Then the world will be a better place for ALL.

Willfully ignorant misandrist bitch.

Related Posts:
ANNE RICE: Misandrist Attention Whore

EDGAR SCHOEN: America's Circumcision Champion Dies

 

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

 

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

External Links:
Anne Rice, author of Interview with the Vampire, dies aged 80

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

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

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

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

In the words of one person:

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

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

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

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

Even if you "can't remember," it's still there, reminding you every day.

 
Even if he can't actually remember, the scar is there day in and day out to remind him for the rest of his life.

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

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

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

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

Male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 And who could forget Robin Hood: Men in Tights?

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

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

I think I can understand why; self-preservation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

I want readers to note the stark contrast and double-standards with which we judge male and female genital cutting. "Religion, custom and tradition" justify only male infant circumcision. The "little snip" narrative disappears when comparing the flesh removed side by side. Religious doctors attempting to clothe their tradition and religious believes can't pass muster this day and age. But yet, no one seems to think it's a problem when "studies" showing the "benefits" if male infant circumcision and medical policy based on them are written by adherents of a religion where male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment.

 

"I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table
on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious,
not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years
of ancestors looking over my shoulder."
~Dr. Andrew Freedman, AAP Circumcision Taskforce 2012

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

Screenwriter Daniel Barnz is no exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fantasy.

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

So what's the message here?

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

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

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

"Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese? Tee hee..."
"Isn't everyone circumcised?"
"No, they don't do it in France. But that's because they like stinky cheese."

That's not a direct transcription; I really don't want to watch this again to get the exact quotes, but the joke went something along these lines.

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

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

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

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

See how that's not funny?

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

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

Could you imagine the outrage???

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

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

We do not body-shame people.

We do not attack an entire ethnic group.

We do not joke about male infant genital mutilation.

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

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

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

The whole reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we treat the issue of male infant circumcision with kid gloves. Nobody wants to criticize male infant circumcision because once you do, you're Hitler. So when Jewish comedy authors write circumcision jokes, the correct response is to laugh. Maybe nervously, but yes, you must laugh. Or else. Or at least not mention the fact that joking about this makes one uncomfortable.

 

When authors of medical literature to the effect that circumcision prevents Ebola virus just happen to be Jewish, no-one better point out that conflict of interest, you Nazi.The lynchpin preventing male infant circumcision from being stricken from American medicine for the elective, non-medical mutilation that it is, is Holocaust guilt and the fear of being perceived as an anti-Semite. People are afraid to point out the confirmation bias in medical literature written by Jewish authors because that is "anti-Semitic." And this lynchpin is held in place by this steady drizzle of Jewish circumcision humor in American media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would NEVER allow the medicalization of FGM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genital mutilation is no joke. ~Christopher Hitchens

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

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Commedians Openly Criticising Circumcision

 

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

 

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

 

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CANADA: Circumcision Evangelist Sets His Sights for Haiti, Caribbean

 

Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

 

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

 

External Links:

US Pediatric Doctor Favors Female Circumcision

 

Mayo Clinic Fires Doctor Who Said Female Genital Mutilation is an “Honor” for Women

 

Muslim Opponent of FGM Ousted From Mayo Clinic

 

Change.org - Revoke the Certifications of Hatem Elhagaly

 

Muslim spokesman criticised for saying it's acceptable for girls to undergo FGM 

 

Israeli Mohel Tells Student Circumcisers to Practice on African Babies

 

Simpsons’ Writer Reveals Show’s Jewish Bona Fides

 

Fewer baby boys getting circumcised, CDC says

 

Israelis train Africans to circumcise against AIDS

Self-Serving FGM Myths That Persist

It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.

At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.

It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.

One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.

I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.

"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
• Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
• Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
• Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"

This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."

While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.

A circumcised African woman sounding off

A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:

• Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
• Adult men don't complain
• Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.

So it must be asked.

Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"

Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?

The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.

A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia

"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"

A boy is circumcised in the same city.

"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."

On with the next part of my exchange:

"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Female circumcision is all one and the same
• All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
• The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
• The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part

Even the WHO recognizes that there are varying degrees of severity of female circumcision, and that not all remove the clitoris, which the person wants to equate here, with the entire shaft of the penis. As I have already said above, the worst kind of FGM is actually the rarest form.

The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?

Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?

I invited the person arguing with me to look at this paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, where authors propose just that. Not too long ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) itself tried to justify what they called a "ritual nick."

The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.

Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia

Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.

The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?

I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.

Continuing with my exchange:

 "Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."

 Myths repeated here:

• The foreskin is prone to problems
• The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
• All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections

I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."

The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.

Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.

The exchange continues:

 "Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."

Myth purported:

• The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels

Really?

I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."

Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.

Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision. 

Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity

Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.

The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:

Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off.  Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina.  However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.

Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless!  It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.

Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:

• Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
• The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
• Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
• Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
• The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located

They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.

It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.

Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.

Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.

You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?

The bottom line

 Is it truly a matter "severity?"

Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.

Is it a matter of "pain?"

Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.

Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?

Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.

The bottom line is this:

Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.

Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.

Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.

Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.

When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.

Related Posts:

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Links:
New York Times Magazine - A Cutting Tradition
All Africa - Africa: Female Circumcision - Orgasm Still Possible?
WHO - Classification of Female Genital Mutilation
Journal of Medical Ethics - Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

New York Times - Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

British Journal of Urology - Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.

 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:

Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

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

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

AFRICA: Yet Another Circumcision Botch

When people try to minimize male circumcision, but make a big commotion about female circumcision by saying "Female circumcision is worse," what are they comparing?

I want to know, because it seems the comparison being made is that of male infant circumcision as it happens in hospitals in the United States, to the worst possible scenario as it happens somewhere in the African bush.

"With female circumcision, women are forcibly tied down to have their labia and clitoris cut off with a rusty blade, glass shard or tin can lid, and have the remaining area sewn up to leave only a small hole for menstruation. Afterwards the must be cut back open if they want to have children, and they will never experience orgasm in their life, ever. Women experience excruciating pain. With males, it's just a little piece of skin, performed in the hospital by professionals, and they don't even remember it," seems to be the usual argument used to shut down any protest against male circumcision.

But is the comparison really this clear cut?

Is female genital cutting really only a matter of the materials used to perform the procedure? Pain management? The person who does it being a professional? In a medical setting? Is not remembering the pain and/or enjoying sex really at the crux of the argument?

The fact is that the kind of female circumcision described above is actually the rarest form of female genital cutting, also known as "infibulation." Even the WHO recognizes that there are different degrees of severity.

Could forcible female genital cutting really be made more acceptable if it were made as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision? If it were performed by a medical professional? In a medical setting? With sterile utensils under the most pristine conditions? With pain management? When a baby girl does not remember?

In the past, the AAP tried to approve a form of female genital cutting that they themselves admit would be much less severe than male infant circumcision. A "ritual nick," as it were. As recently as 2014, a paper was released in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling for a similar compromise.

Is it really just a matter of severity? Pain management? Setting? Facilitator? Effects on sexual prowess?

What if the proposed "acceptable" form of female genital cutting could result in the reduction of some disease? Say, HIV. Would it be more ethical to forcibly perform on healthy, non-consenting girls?

I'll leave the reader to answer this question for him or herself.

For now, I'd like to, once again, point out the fact that comparing the worst case scenario for female genital cutting to male infant circumcision as it is performed in hospitals in the west, is a false comparison. (Who reading this has actually seen male infant circumcision as it is performed in medical hospitals? Through the magic of YouTube, it is now possible to actually see, and hear, what happens during the forced circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting minor.)

In Africa, boys are circumcised pretty much in the same way girls are; in the bush, by amateurs, using raw utensils, under filthy conditions. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also results in failed procedures where the resulting male's organs are deformed, and/or dysfunctional. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also often results in infection. In many cases, it results in the loss of the organ itself. As in female circumcision, male circumcision often results in death.

Every year come circumcision season in Africa, the news is filled with reports of scores of men having been infected, having lost their organs, or their lives.

Yet, for whatever reason, this isn't a problem.

It isn't a problem worth reporting, and if it is, it is usually minimized or dismissed because "Circumcision helps reduce HIV." It's the men's loss for not having gone to get circumcised by a trained professional.

Why is female circumcision as performed on girls and women in Africa compared to male circumcision as it is performed in Western hospitals? Why is it not compared to its corresponding counterpart in Africa itself?

This frustrates me to no end.

The implication seems to be that female circumcision could be made more acceptable if only it were performed in the hospital, by a trained professional, using sterile utensils, with pain management, on girls too young to remember the pain.

The thing is, girls are already circumcised in this manner.

Girls are circumcised in infancy at hospitals by trained professionals in South East Asia, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore.

The people of those countries justify it by saying it is less severe than male circumcision.

And they're right.

Most female circumcisions performed in those countries are carried out without a hitch.

As in America, most women don't see a problem with it, and don't have any problem demanding that the same happen with their daughters.

So why isn't male infant circumcision as performed in the US compared with THAT?

Is it that it hits too close to home and Americans don't want to be put in the awkward position of ratifying female genital cutting? Or conversely, of questioning their own practice?

Why do purposefully avoid comparing like with like?

In Africa, yet another boy loses his penis to ritual circumcision. According to Waza:

A 13 year old boy is recuperating at his parents’ house in Webuye after a circumcision rite turned tragic. The boy accidentally got sliced on his pen!s on Tuesday as he was being initiated in to manhood in the ongoing Bukusu circumcision festivals.

The boy’s parents’ rushed him to Webuye district hospital after they realized he had been wrongly cut. They described this as an accident that was not intended.  Webuye district medical superintendant Dr. Bita confirmed they had received the boy whos manhood had been chopped off slightly  by what they suspected to be a quack circumciser and treated him before releasing him . Dr. Bita appealed to the general public to be aware of the quacks performing the cut cautioning them of other possible dangers like HIV.

Um, I'm quite sure slicing his penis was intentional. Slicing off the foreskin from a penis is the whole point of circumcision. Later the report must clarify that the boy was "wrongly" cut, meaning that the cutters cut off more than they intended. But I assure you, slicing the penis was no "accident."

And unless there is a clinical or medical indication for surgery, circumcisers are ALL "quack doctors."

In the comments, someone is already saying that circumcision is "beneficial," and that the boy should have been circumcised by a "professional."

What if female circumcision could be deemed "beneficial?"

Would we still be against it?

Related Post:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay