Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

One of the greatest brick walls for intactivism has been the fact that the circumcision of newborns happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision is challenged, it doesn't take very long for Jewish defenders of infant circumcision to start insinuating that those who oppose circumcision are equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. In the past, accusations of antisemitism were a very effective tactic at silencing any discourse regarding the circumcision of infants. To date, Jewish circumcision advocates still expect opponents of the practice to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust, but that strategy is slowly losing its effect.

Accusations of antisemitism are based on three assumptions:

1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews; only approximately 3% of all circumcisions in this country are Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, gentile circumcisions performed at hospitals.

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

Molly Tolsky brings the following picture back from her 10-day Birthright trip to Israel:

"Wherever you go, even in the Holy Land, people have opinions on circumcision. Case in point–I managed to capture this from the bus on the way to Tel Aviv. I believe what that van is blocking out is “Freedom of choice for newborns.” So even though this debate is getting a little annoying and at times totally out of line, it’s sort of nice to know that it’s not just us crazy Americans who spend hours discussing the rights of our baby’s penises. It’s us crazy Jews everywhere."

The following documentary follows two Jewish couples, one in America and one in Israel. One couple decides to proceed with the circumcision ritual, the other does not:

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Of all circumcisions that happen in the US, only about 3%, perhaps even less, comprises of Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

Jewish Intactivists Galore
Now as I've said earlier in this post, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews. But furthermore, intactivism is not exclusive to gentiles. Some of the most outspoken voices in the intactivist movement happen to be Jewish. In this blog post I include a list, which is by no means complete, of some of the most outspoken Jewish intactivists.

At least one young man has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.

Shea Levy

Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, is author to the revolutionary documentary CUT: The Film, which examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective. In addition to writing the OpEd "Outlawing Circumcision: Good for the Jews?" for the Jewish Daily Forward, he has also participated in other intactivist demonstrations.

 Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon wearing tefillin in protest against the latest AAP Statement

"When considering the practice of female genital cutting, we don’t start from a neutral position of 'I wonder whether there are any health benefits to permanently altering the genitals of baby girls? Let’s set up some studies and see what kinds of diseases cutting off clitorises can prevent!' We don’t do this, because we understand the very basic concept that cutting away healthy, functional tissue in the hopes of preventing potential disease is just bad medicine."
~Eliyahu Ungar Sargon

An interview with Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon

Cultural anthropologist Leonard Glick, MD, PhD, is the author of Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Glick became aware of the role of circumcision in Jewish history during the 1990s, while working no his first book, Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe. This was the catalyst that led him to research on the entire subject of circumcision. Glick is a father of three sons, all of whom were circumcised; he admits he hadn't given the practice a second thought when they were born. Through his research, he became "totally convinced that cutting the genitals of infants and children, girls or boys, is fundamentally evil. And that is why I am an intactivist." Glick describes himself as a "scholarly activist." He regularly sends letters to legislators, marches in protests, and gives lectures on Judaism and the history of circumcision.

 

 Leonard Glick MD, PhD

"The fact that I am opposed to this anachronistic, barbaric behavior has nothing to do with the fact that I am Jewish.... Children, whether male or female, of any race or ethnicity or background, have the right to their own physical integrity... No one, no parent, no adult, no one has the right to deprive a child of any part of his or her body without extreme medical emergency justification."

An interview with Leonard Glick

Dean Edell is a Jewish-American physician and broadcaster who hosted the Dr. Dean Edell radio program, which aired live from 1979 until December 10, 2010. In his own words, he has had "a long and vociferous opposition to the practice of routine male circumcision." Edell had fathered three boys whom he agreed to circumcise before he became an intactivist. Subsequently, he fathered two boys whom he refused to circumcise, and became one of the most outspoken opponents of circumcision.

In recent years, Edell has also strongly criticized the ongoing "mass-circumcision campaigns" in Africa. "The idea, that we Westerners are going to march into Africa... and are going to... perform an operation on millions and millions of men, when we refuse to feed [them], get them useful jobs, and bring them fresh water, is so naïve that it expresses to me the true desperation of the circumcision lobby."

Dr. Dean Edell

The following is an excerpt from one of his broadcasts:

"How do I do this without getting some friends very, very mad...

Are you ready?

Amongst speakers, at the CDC's National HIV prevention conference in Antlanta, which is happening, gonna be happening right now, amongst the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel, named for the Biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age according to the book of Genesis, the group trains doctors in Africa to perform circs on adult men to reduce the spread of HIV.

Two things.

First they had to stop the study, because they found indeed, that it didn't help at all in spreading HIV to women. So it doesn't seem even to be effective there, AND, the recommendation is men still have to wear condoms with every intercourse, where in Africa men think they get circed "I'm not gonna need a condom." But the heavy recommendation is you DO NOT stop using condoms, so then WHAT IS THE POINT? In Africa?

But here's my point.

Of what interest is it to Israelis, of what the rest of the world does?

Now I can say this because I'm Jewish.

And I think when Jews stick their necks out here and become the world's most vociferous proselytizers for circumcision, when it is our paticular religious rite, it would be like Catholics telling me not to use birth-control, I resent that. And when they try to inflict it into public policy, then you really get me blowing smoke out my ears.

We have no business telling other people what to do. It's like telling other people not to eat pork, like telling other people not to drive their cars on Friday. It is not the place.

And you understand the deep fear that Jews have about all of this, is in WWII, they pulled men's pants down [and] if they were circumcised you went off to the concentration camp. So there's a deep scar there.

And, um, this is not said, I'm the only person you'll ever find that say this, will admit this, that Jews feel more secure among populations where people are circumcised.

I know, I know. It's only been 50 years, but never the less. The memory I hope, you know, will be long.

All I've got to say is, very well said. Dr. Dean Edell is to be commended for having the courage to tell it like it is.

An interview with Dr. Dean Edell

Few people may know this, but radio talk show host Howard Stern is very outspoken against the practice of neonatal circumcision. He has openly resented the fact that he was circumcised on more than one occasion. On at least one occasion, he hosted inventor of the TLCTugger foreskin restoration device Ron Low on his show.

"You know, my mother is so into 'natural'. Everythi- , 'The body is beautiful,' you should hear the rap. 'The body is beautiful, we should leave things natural...' So, she wouldn't get me braces. My teeth were as crooked as a four-way intersection in Washington DC, and green, and bu-bu-bu- wouldn't get me braces, My teeth were so wrecked because 'naturally the body will heal itself.' She's like a Christian Scientist. ... but the penis? Right out the window!" 

~Howard Stern

Jonathan Friedman, an Orthodox Jew who attended yeshiva through high school, is the founder of IntactNews, a news organization for the intactivist movement. He is also currently a Projects Coordinator at Foregen, a nonprofit founded to provide therapies for foreskin regeneration using regenerative medicine.

Jonathan Friedman, IntactNews, Foregen

I believe this is what has happened to all Jewish males, as well as the majority of non-Jewish males in the USA: we’ve been hijacked by abusive authority figures of the past. Whether it's the Victorian-era doctors, bent on perpetuating their own sexual repression, or during the Maccabean Period where the Jewish priestly ruling class instituted the more severe form of brit milah that is practiced today, which includes brit peri'ah (complete foreskin ablation), we are made to suffer and cause our children to suffer in an endless cycle of trauma. It's high time we stop.

And finally, but definitely not least, and definitely not the last in the long list of Jewish intactivists, Rebecca Wald is the founder of Beyond the Bris, a blog for the purpose of uniting Jewish people who oppose neonatal circumcision. The blog is self-described as a "multimedia project created by Jewish people who are united in the belief that circumcising healthy children is harmful and unnecessary. We are the faces and voices of the current pro-intact Jewish movement." Many of the Jewish intactivists already mentioned in this blog have contributed to, or have been mentioned in Beyond the Bris

.

Rebecca Wald

Other notable Jewish intactivists include Ronald Goldman, Ph.D, executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, and author of Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective and Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (he may be contacted at jcrc@jewishcircumcision.org), Rosemary Romberg, author of Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, and Lisa Braver Moss, author of the book The Measure of His Grief, and many essays published in Tikkun, Parents, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

But the list doesn't end here. Readers can learn more about Jewish intactivists not mentioned here on Beyond the Bris.

A few of Beyond the Bris's contributing writers: Eli Ungar-Sargon,
Lisa Braver Moss, Dr. Mark Reiss and Rebecca Wald

Related Links:
The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

The following is a Facebook group for Jews and others against circumcision:

http://www.facebook.com/JewsAgainstCircumcision

These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/

The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

"I believe circumcision is a major mistake...The code of the Jewish law is called "halacha" (the way). Within the Code, there is a provision that if a mother looses a son because of circumcision, she is NOT obligated to circumcise her next son. I extrapolate from this, the inter-connection of my human family, that enough deaths and maiming have occured because of circumcision. Therefore - circumcision is no longer a requisite! Just as we no longer practice the animal sacrifices in the traditional temple, so let us not sacrifice an important piece of our mammal in the temple of tradition."
- Rabbi Natan Segal, 2007
Rabbi of Shabbos Shul, Marin County, California, U.S.A.
Ordination: 1977 Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi Yeshiva B'nai Or Philadelphia, Pa.

 
"As a Jewish grandfather, I want to assure young couples about to bring a child into the world, that there are other members of the Jewish "older" generation, including other Jewish physicians, and even some rabbis, who feel as I do. If your heart and instincts tell you to leave your son intact, listen!"
- Dr. Mark D. Reiss, of Doctors Opposing Circumcision speaking to Rabbi Nathan Segal's Congregation on Kol Nidre eve.

 
"I am calm and comfortable in the knowledge that no one will ever take a knife to this baby's flesh in the name of religion... I am confident that my people have such an abundance of life-enhancing, life-affirming and mind-opening traditions, that our identity and sense of cultural self-heed will happily survive our outgrowing of circumcision, a cruel relic which has always felt to me like an aberration at the heart of my religion."
- Dr. Jenny Goodman
Challenging Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective (UK)

 
"...as recently as the mid-nineteenth century, in Eastern Europe and Russia there was a widespread move to stop the practice... Led by women--what a surprise!--who thought the practice barbaric and patriarchal, the movement eventually even convinced Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, who refused to allow his own son to be circumcised."
- Michael S. Kimmel, Professor, SUNY Stony Brook
TIKKUN, Volume 16, May/June, 2001.


"Coming from a European background... where many Jews reject a brit milla as an archaic and barbaric ritual... This author grew up in France in a traditional Jewish family. Not a single male of her generation or her children's generation within her large family (or in her circle of Jewish friends) was ever circumcised."
- Nelly Karsenty
Humanistic Judaism, 1988; 16(3): 14-20.

 
"I should like to suggest to my fellow Jews that perhaps the time has come to redeem the foreskin itself, rather than sacrifice it. Surely some substitute might be found for this rite, ... that would be preferable to this assault upon and mutilation of a newborn infant..."
- Professor George Wald, M.D
Harvard University Professor, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine

 
"...it would be anti-Semitic of us if we didn't defend Jewish babies along with other children. We respect what is beautiful in every religion or culture and speak out against what is brutal. All cultures and religions are capable of evolving."
- Mary Conant, R.N. and Betty Katz Sperlich, R.N. (a Jewish mother), founding members of "Nurses for the Rights of the Child", America's largest union of Nurses who refuse to participate in circumcisions.


"I was raised as a Jew and yet I never even considered circumcising my sons. Reason told me that God or nature doesn't make mistakes. Obviously there is a vast intelligence behind all of life, and just as our eyes have eyelids to protect them, foreskins must serve a similar purpose.

When all is said and done, circumcision is really a human rights issue. What right do any of us have to permanently remove a normal, healthy, sensitive part of another person's body without their consent? I have no problem with an adult male who chooses to be circumcised. I do have a problem with an adult who makes that decision for a child. I have known too many men, both Jewish and Christian, who resent the fact that they were circumcised."
- Laura Shanley

 
"...support can be found from many Jewish sources for the view that circumcision of infants is unethical and should therefore be abandoned... Now is the time to lay the knife aside and to move forward into the 21st century with a form of ritual that is truly welcoming and that is truly purely symbolic."
- J. Goodman, MD
Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective. BJU Int 1999; 83 Suppl 1:22-27.

 
"AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS - including a sizable number of American Jews  - question the act of male circumcision , a group of San Francisco activists are advocating to ban circumcision... Many of the leading activists against circumcision around the country are Jewish."
Jerusalem Post, Challenging the Circumcision Myth, April 10, 2011

 

"In Israel, opposition to circumcision has happened in just two decades, and now these “rebels” number in the tens of thousands, according to Ronit Tamir, founder of Kahal, a support group for parents who choose not to circumcise their children."
Jewish World, 3/11/2010.

The "Mommy Page" Wars

Lately, it seems a lot of "mommy pages" have sought to increase their viewership by bringing on the circumcision debate.

The most reliable way to start a thread that attracts 100+ comments on any parenting page, is to make infant circumcision the topic.

What are "mommy pages?"

Ostensibly they're parenting forums where moms, and sometimes dads, can come and glean, share or otherwise exchange parenting experiences and advice for the betterment of parenting, and hopefully, the betterment of the children being raised.

Or at least one would hope.

A lot of these, however, tend to be gathering places for like-minded parents who want nothing more than validation from others for what they've already decided to do with their children. Basically, they're mutual ego masturbation sessions where parents go to pat each other on the back and give each other high-fives.

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

They range from major mainstream online parenting forums, like CafeMom, BabyCenter, Baby Gaga, TheBump, etc., to "mommy pages" on Facebook, where they tend to have cute, but feisty little names like "kickass mommies," "uncensored mommas," or "I'm a mom, I got this."

The names try to give the impressions that they're places for parents to sound off and anything goes.

In reality, though, depending on the nature of the managers of the pages, they're places where the opinions and the nature of pages are already pretty much set, and where you've really got to walk around eggshells, so as to not upset other parents, namely the creators of said pages.

If you've got a dissenting view, you've got to be real careful to couch it, sugar coat it, and coddle others that disagree with you in attempts to get it heard. Dissenting views (or, actually, advice and experiences that upset other parents) tend to be silenced, deleted or blocked as "bashing" or "harassment."

In fact, when a lot of these "mommy pages" dare to bring on the circumcision debate, they always have to preclude, in all capital letters, with expressions such as "NO BASHING!" Or "HARRASSING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED, AND USERS BANNED IMMEDIATELY!"

Harrassment? Or Inconvenient Truths?
It's interesting what passes for "harassment" nowadays. Yes, I'm sure internet trolls exist in the intactivism movement; they exist in every walk of life.

But, it seems, on "mommy sites," on and off Facebook, any suggestion that circumcision might be a bad idea is considered "bashing" or "harassment," and is often deleted, and the poster blocked, no matter how diplomatic and respectful the comment may actually have been. Sometimes the entire thread is removed altogether, because it's just too much for the admins to handle. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that they may have actually made a mistake.

Parents go on these forums which are obviously for the purpose of dispensing and exchanging parental advice, they post their story, asking for every one's opinions, and then cry "bashing" and "harassment" when they don't get the validation they were looking for.

What I find almost comical is the way parents get on their high horse about the matter, and retort with snappy one-liners such as "whether or not I decide to circumcise my kids is none of your business." Or "don't you tell me how to raise my kids."

Another common one is "how dare you assume I don't have the good sense to research the subject for myself!"

Even though, they ARE, for all intents and purposes, seeking advice on a parenting advice forum. Many moms and dads who utter statements as the above also had the audacity to START their own "mommy" page to dispense advice to others.

Exchange on most other aspects of parenting (breast feeding, co-sleeping, car seats, slings, etc) is allowed. But anything other than "it's your choice" and "it's harmless and beneficial" regarding circumcision is considered "bashing," "harassment," "disrespectful," and "insulting."

Quite frankly, if parents didn't want to be "harassed" regarding their son's circumcision, why even bring it up? If they're "so confident" and "so informed" on their "decisions," why seek validation on the Internet?

On a parenting forum?

On Facebook?

Where millions of viewers can see?

It's rather immature, almost mentally unstable, to be making a post asking for other people's opinions, on an open parenting forum, where millions of other moms and dads can see, and opine, and then call it "bashing" and "harassment" when you don't get the validation you were expecting. It's rather self-contradictory to be posting part of your life on the internet, seeking out others' opinions, and then turn around and say "it's none of your business; don't tell me how to raise my child."

I see a lot more "bashing" and name-calling from defensive moms and dads who circumcised their sons than from those who decided against it. Right after comments against circumcision get deleted, and people are banned, those who remain proceed to speak ill of those who disagreed with them in their absence.

On a side note, I'd like to touch on defensive remarks to the effect of "how dare you think I'm not smart enough to do my own research!" It is impolite to insinuate that a parent is not so bright as to inform themselves on an issue that affects their children. The fact of the matter is, though, that one is not automatically smart and enlightened in child-rearing by mere virtue of being a parent. No parent knows it all. If this were true, then there wouldn't be a need for parenting forums and mommy pages. 

The fact of the matter is, however, that no respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision. The AAP tried to in their last statement, but stopped short. All medical organizations in the West state that the current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants. It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals. It is not possible, then, that parents who chose to allow their children to be circumcised "did their research."
 
It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

A Disservice to Parents and Their Children
Why do page admins delete "bashing" and "harassment" on their pages and forums? (In other words, factual information that may make other parents uncomfortable?) My theory is that, a lot of them are more interested in being the center of an online parenting forum than they are about dispensing factually accurate information. They aim to people please and earn and keep "likes" on their pages.

Deleting posts that upset parents who have made the irreversible decision to circumcise their sons makes you look like a hero.

What good is a parenting or "mommy" forum, where basically, instead of advice or exchange of accurate information, its people giving each other validation and reassurance?

The problem with only allowing "supportive," feel-good posts that pander to circumcising parents, and deleting factual information as "bashing," "harassment" and whatnot, is that a lot of misinformation is circulated.

Myths are spread, and children suffer as a result.

Stifling the circumcision debate may keep parents from getting upset and boost online egos, but it doesn't help anybody.

For example, it is accepted medical knowledge that you don't forcibly retract a child's foreskin "for cleaning." Research shows that the foreskin often remains non-retractable until, and even after the onset of puberty. These actions actually hurt your child and put him at risk for infection.

And yet "mommy sites" will often delete this very important information as "bashing" and "harassment," however respectfully presented, and will allow misinformative posts that "warn" parents who do not circumcise their children that they will have to forcibly retract their children to "clean."

As more and more parents are choosing to keep their children's genitals intact, the proper care of normal genitals is important information that parents need to be made aware of, if they don't want to inadvertently hurt their child.

Deleting factual information as "bashing" and "harassment," and blocking the users which disseminate it might spare parents who circumcised their children anxiety, but it doesn't help parents who are seeking to make an informed choice, or their children, totally defeating the purpose of a parenting website.

A Sign of Progress
It's rather self-serving the way "mommy site" admins want to take advantage of the circumcision debate to boost their viewership and "likes" on Facebook, but don't want to actually allow true debate, accusing users that make good points of "bashing" and "harassment," however polite they were, for the sake of popularity.

This seems to be working in favor of intactivism, though.

It used to be the case (and in many cases still is the case) that the circumcision conversation was strictly off limits, and people wanted the conversation to end full stop.

That "mommy sites" now want to host the circumcision debate as an attention booster, even with heavy editing and accusations of "bashing" and "harassment" is truly a sign of the times.

Moms and dads are being forced to come to the table talk about, and consider an issue they once hoped would be a bygone parenting "decision," like deciding what brand of diapers or wet tissues to use.

People are talking, which means circumcision is no longer this taboo "non-issue" you can slide underneath the carpet and pretend never existed.

Some mommy sites actually aren't that bad, and allow links and posts that polite and informative. On the whole though, there's a lot of sugar-coating and coddling of circumcising parents going on.

You can ban people and delete comments you don't agree with, but the circumcision debate is here and it's not going to go away.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all."
~Sophocles

Moral of the story:

"When you ask for advice on the Internet, don't call it "bashing" because it's not what you want to hear."

"If you didn't want it, then you shouldn't have brought it."

Related Posts:

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

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

What happens when a researcher is bold enough to publish findings that contradict popular, long-held beliefs, and shake core foundations?

Emotions run high, fallacious arguments are made, conclusions are jumped to, and logic and reason fly out the window.

Popular Beliefs Regarding Female Genital Cutting
Activists involved in trying to bring an end to the practice of female genital cutting purport that female genital cutting, or "mutilation" in their words, has all kinds of negative side effects.

One of the most popular claims of activists in the anti-FGM movement is that female genital cutting eliminates in a woman her ability to experience orgasm, leaving her to be a sexual cripple for the rest of her life.

Never actually making attempts to substantiate this claim, it is enough to say that the intent of female circumcision is to diminish a woman's sexuality.

This is a core belief in the anti-FGM movement, which is often used to parry any suggestion that the practice of male circumcision could be compared to female circumcision (and therefore equally appalling and worthy of eradicating), which is always, under any circumstance, "mutilation." (Even though the "intent" to curb male sexuality was the reason circumcision was introduced in Western countries.)

"Female circumcision removes the clitoris, which is equivalent to the removal of the entire penile shaft," the argument goes.

"Male and female circumcision can't be compared."

Putting the Lie to anti-FGM Claims
In my experience, people making claims that sensationalize female genital cutting, but that trivialize male genital cutting, often go unchallenged.

The delusion that female circumcision is one and the same in every case, that all women have their external genitalia removed, and have their vaginal opening sewn shut is put forth, and the claim that female circumcision destroys a woman's ability to orgasm, is readily believed.

The myth that female circumcision is the same across the board is demonstrably false, and one only need to compare female genital cutting practices around the world to realize that there is a broad spectrum in regards to female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting can range from making a small incision to draw a symbolic drop of blood, to a "ritual nick" as described by the AAP, to just the removal of the clitoral hood, to the removal of the labia, to the removal of the clitoris itself, to the removal of the external labia, to sewing up the vaginal opening to leave a small hole. Female circumcision may or may not include all of these. The worst kind of female genital cutting which does, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest kind of female genital cutting, at 15% globally.

Not too long ago, Swedish professor Sara Johnsdotter published findings that shook the core belief that female genital cutting, particularly the removal of the clitoris, destroys a woman's capacity to experience orgasm.

Johnsdotter discovered not only that women who had undergone some sort of genital cutting were still able to orgasm, but also that women who had undergone infibulation, which is the worst documented type of female cutting, removing the clitoris and having the vaginal opening sewn shut, were still able to orgasm and have fulfilling sexual lives.

Science, Moral Values and Political Agendas
At least ideally, science is supposed to be fundamentally value-free and amoral. Researchers are supposed to be neutral, impartial, unbiased and dispassionate, and they are supposed to publish their findings as they found them. Something is either true, or not. At least in theory, findings are simply that, findings, and are not supposed to be "good," or "bad."

Ideology and reality, however, do not always coincide, and research, especially research involving male and female genital cutting, is plagued with political agenda, activism and moral judgement.

Having presented her findings at the World Congress for Sexual Health, Johnsdotter was criticized, being told that her research "only encourages female genital mutilation."

Italian researcher Lucrezia Catania, also presented at the same congress. According to her findings,  the little bump most people think of as the clitoris is actually only the tip. In fact the clitoris carries on deep inside the body, so even if the tip is cut off, there's plenty left for stimulation.

This image was taken from the Wikipedia article on the clitoris.

Even still, either mishearing or completely ignoring what the Italian researcher had just said, Egyptian sexology professor Hussein Ghanem insisted that "[T]he clitoris is the female equivalent of the penis... Let's cut off your penis and see how well you do!"

Further dismissing Johnsdotter, Ghanem insists "We must be very firm and clear that [female circumcision] is harmful, and that the majority of Egyptian and African women do not experience orgasm."

But contrary to Ghanem's assertions, Johnsdotter found, to her surprise, having studied Somali women living in Sweden, that they had a very positive view of sex, and had lots of sexual pleasure, including orgasms, even having undergone the most severe form of female genital cutting (or "mutilation," as Ghanem, and other anti-FGM activists, insist).

Johnsdotter found that it was the Somali women who were more integrated into Swedish society, and more aware of campaigns stressing that genital cutting ruins women's sex lives, who had a negative view about sex and their genital cutting.

Hussein Ghanem argues that the Swedish and Italian researchers are "playing right into the hands of people who defend genital cutting." He claims a colleague of his, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is now  using the Italian findings show the practice isn't so bad after all.

"Help the victims, but condemn the practice," says Hussein Ghanem.

But Johnsdotter's approach is different: "You have real victims, women who suffer all their lives, but you also have many women who live very well with it. A respectful treatment would talk to both kinds of women, with all kinds of experiences. Don't start by telling people they're barbarous and that they torture their own daughters, focus on bodily integrity and human rights, a woman's right to keep her genitals in one piece."

So here we observe that researchers are presenting what they found, and even though the researchers themselves are morally opposed to the practice of forced genital cutting in women, we have others who are morally opposed to publishing findings, as true and valid as they are, that contrast with the with their activist slogans that female circumcision is sexually crippling.

We are witnessing what happens when researchers publish findings that aren't politically correct, conflict with popular belief and that challenge the status quo.

Findings vs. Politically Correct Research
I recently ran across some writings by Johnsdotter on TierneyLab. It was written in response to a post by WHO researchers, who were discussing the hazards of female genital cutting.

I'm going to cut and paste some excerpts from the writing that I think are very relevant to this blog, research concerning male and female circumcision, and research in general. I will pause between each excerpt and talk about how it is relevant to the discussion of "research" and male circumcision.

"One of the hazards for science is when politically correct results are uncritically welcomed, readily published and repeatedly cited; while politically embarrassing results are ignored or marginalized. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in the study of “female genital mutilation,” where the roles of researchers and political activists often seem to be confused."

The same is true for the "study" of "male medical circumcision," except the situations between male and female circumcision are inverse.

While with female circumcision, publishing "research" that shows female circumcision is harmful, sexually debilitating, etc. are uncritically welcomed, readily published, repeatedly cited, and politically embarrassing findings (for example, research that shows female circumcision may actually beneficial, and may not affect sexuality) are ignored or marginalized, with *male* circumcision, it's the opposite.

With male circumcision, it is "research" that shows male circumcision is "beneficial," that it "does not cause sexual dysfunction" (perhaps even enhancing male sexual performance), that it "prevents disease" etc. which is uncritically welcomed, readily published, repeatedly cited etc. It is findings that show male circumcision is harmful, puts children in danger, causes sexual dysfunction etc. which are ignored, marginalized, etc.

"Other publications in leading medical journals suggest that the boundary between scientific research and activism has become blurred, to the detriment of scientific standards. The WHO study is one example of the uncritical rush to convey politically correct results.

One is left worrying that publication standards might have been compromised for the sake of making medical claims in support of the ongoing eradication campaigns."

Another example is how readily the WHO accepted the latest circumcision/HIV "research" in Africa, and used it immediately to initiate so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" across the continent.


"We do not necessarily question the statistical correlation that was found in this Lancet study. But we do call for a broader and more rigorous discussion of all published findings on FGM, including those published in prestigious medical journals. When it comes to publications on the topic of “FGM” we don’t see the usual critical scientific discussion regarding possible bias, possible confounders, or weak links in the causal hypotheses used or in study design."

And the same applies to male circumcision "research." 

"We suggest that this silence has to do with prevalent Western ideology concerning “female genital mutilation” and ongoing political projects. Activists, governmental bodies, funders and even editors of medical journals systematically welcome research results that can be used in preventive work while muting or hesitating to publish results that go against the grain of mainstream thinking regarding this issue."

The Western ideology concerning "male medical circumcision" is that it "causes no harm," that it is "not sexually debilitating," and that it may even be "beneficial" in preventing disease. It is also a practice that has taken hold in the United States (and previously in the British Commonwealth), and is a cherished tradition for Jews, Muslims and many African peoples. Activists, governmental bodies, donors and even editors of medical journals systematically welcome research and results that can be used in the promotion of male circumcision, while muting, or hesitating to publish results that go against the grain of mainstream thinking regarding male circumcision, if not their own core beliefs and values.

"This blurring of the distinction between science and activism is so endemic that researchers often present their 'hard facts' with explicit reference to their political agenda. The abstract of the article by Almroth et al. ends with a blunt comment: 'The association between FGM and primary infertility is highly relevant for preventive work against this ancient practice.'"

If one examines "research" regarding male circumcision, one will find similar comments along the lines of: "The association between male medical circumcision and a decreased rate of HIV transmission is highly relevant for the promotion of male circumcision as a method of HIV prevention." 

So in the end, does the research that finds itself in scientific journals convey neutral and dispassionate findings? Or does it convey politically correct results intended for the furthering of an agenda?

Attempts to Block Research from Publication
At the World Congress for Sexual Health, Hussein Ghanem criticized Sara Johnsdotter for presenting findings that went against his moral position that female genital cutting is "mutilation" and ought to be stopped. Ghanem's criticism goes as far to suggest that Johnsdotter's research "only encourages female genital mutilation." He continues with saying "We must be very firm and clear that [female circumcision] is harmful, and that the majority of Egyptian and African women do not experience orgasm," despite the fact that evidence that contradicts this belief was presented.

This is just one example of findings being criticized, with suggestions that they ought not to be published (and that mainstream beliefs be repeated) based on moral objections. (This despite the fact that Johnsdotter holds the same moral objections as Ghanem.)

(It must be pointed out: While academics who oppose FGM can get away with dismissing information that doesn't jive with them using the "moral" argument, those against MGM who challenge "research" being used to instate "mass circumcision campaigns" are called "emotional, science deniers.")

The following is but one documented example of similar behavior surrounding the publication of politically incorrect findings.

In 2011, Morten Frisch, an MD, PhD and Doctor of Medicine, a professor of sexual health epidemiology at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen and at Aalborg University in Denmark, published a study, which showed an excess of orgasm difficulties in circumcised men, as well as significantly increased frequencies of orgasm difficulties, pain during intercource and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment in women with circumcised spouses.

This study was preceded by three other publications based on the same data set, dealing with sexual dysfunctions in Danish men and women in relation to socioeconomic factors, health factors and lifestyle factors, respectively, which were swimmingly published without serious criticisms from peer reviewers in the two most prestigious US journals of sexual health, the Journal of Sexual Medicine and Archives of Sexual Behavior. After adding the variable of male circumcision status to the analysis, however, the study was met with extremely critical reviews of everything about the entire data set.

In particular, Brian Morris, made extensive, obstructive peer-review comments in a review which included serious insinuations of racism and amateurism. (Brian Morris is quite possibly the most vocal circumcision advocate in Australia.) According to a letter of appreciation written by Morten Frisch to the editors of the International Journal of Epidemiology for the publication of his study, Frisch was informed by a colleague that Morris used his mailing list to enact a campaign to write critical letters to the editors of the International Journal of Epidemiology.

"I would like to thank the IJE editors for withstanding the pressure from one particularly discourteous and bullying reviewer who went to extremes to prevent our study from being published. After the paper's online publication, I have received emails from colleagues around the world who felt our contribution was useful and potentially important. One colleague informed me that the angry reviewer was the first author of the above letter to the editor. In an email, Morris had called people on his mailing list to arms against our study, openly admitting that he was the reviewer and that he had tried to get the paper rejected. To inspire his followers, Morris had attached his two exceedingly long and aggressive reviews of our paper (12858 words and 5291 words, respectively), calling for critical letters in abundance to the IJE editors. Breaking unwritten confidentiality and courtesy rules of the peer-review process, Morris distributed his slandering criticism of our study to people working for the same cause."
--Morten Frisch. Author's Response to: Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect?

The Study of Adverse Effects of Circumcision Strictly Prohibited
At least in one case, scientific observers are severely reprimanded for attempting to document the adverse effects of circumcision, and they are told that any attempt to study them was "strictly prohibited by ethical regulations."

The following letter was sent out some time ago, by one Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.

Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell ("Plastibell") with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used.

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.
Director,
Pacific Institute for Advanced Study

One can already make the observation that this research would be biased from the very beginning, but not any more biased than research conducted by activists against female genital cutting.

Usually, findings are published, and are either validated or dismissed after other scientists have analyzed the data, methodology etc. But here we observe strict prohibition of observation, and the destruction of inconvenient findings by so-called "ethical regulations." Whose ethics dictate that the negative effects of a commonly performed surgical procedure are not to be documented is beyond me.

We also observe two contrasting sets of standards for the publishing of scientific observations of the genital cutting of each sex:

For female circumcision, observations of the adverse effects are readily and uncritically published, while observations that it may not be as harmful as thought, perhaps that it may even be beneficial, face skepticism, criticism and scrutiny. Some even go as far as saying that the latter should not be published, as it plays "right into the hands of people who defend genital cutting."

For male circumcision, it is observations of its adverse effects which are met with opposition, if not outright prohibition, while observations that circumcision is "not harmful," and may have "medical benefits" that are readily and uncritically published. There seems to be no concern that the latter may be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

"Studies show..." - How findings and their publication are tainted
An idea that has come to dominate both sides of the genital cutting debate is the dubious premise that, whether a practice is morally justified or morally reprehensible is determined by the outcome of some "study."

The reasoning goes as follows:

"If the practice is scientifically proven to be "harmless," even "beneficial," then it is morally justified, perhaps even a social imperative.

If it is shown to be "harmful" and have bad side effects," then it is morally reprehensible and must be condemned."

"Science" and "research" command respect, prestige and authority. Scientists and researchers are, at least in theory, supposed to be impartial, dispassionate and unbiased bearers of scientific fact, as opposed to mere opinion.

It is no surprise, then, that advocates of genital cutting, and opponents alike, seek to support their moral stance with the respect and authority of scientific research.

Morals are relative and subjective, but science is authoritative and final.

The argument is, then, no longer about moral values, but about "disease prevention" and "public health," which are assumed to be, not only morally justified, but also an indispensable and even a necessary social imperative.

A stance is now no-longer "opinion-based," but "evidence-based."

No longer "right," or "wrong," because that would sound like the imposition of values.

Instead, it is now either "beneficial," or "it has devastating consequences."

But using science and research to support a moral position is problematic; and Johnsdotter presents a clear example.

The problem of activists and politicians depending on scientific research to explain the merits of their principles leaves the door open to all kinds of abuse:

• "Researchers" with an agenda taking liberties with what is supposed to be scientific data
• Editors and reviewers using their positions to publish results that support their own personal views, and refusing to publish results which do not, in what are supposed to be scientific journals
• Flawed research making farfetched associations between a practice and benefit/harm
• Bad methodology that grossly overstates human costs and/or "net benefit" of a practice
• The justification of actions that are actually morally repugnant under the guise of "disease prevention" and "public health"
• Failure to cross-examine politically favorable "research," or subject it to critical scrutiny
• The corruption of the scientific virtues of impartiality and balance in the assessment of evidence, and critical skepticism with regard to proposed hypotheses, and vigilance against value-driven confirmation bias in the conduct of research
• Overall, political activism overwhelming science and research

Medicine becomes value-based, as opposed to "evidence-based."

"Science" and "research" is all good until findings begin to contradict chosen moral values.

Solution
Political activism, moral values and deeply held beliefs are factors that can permeate both sides of an issue. Activists on all sides of the genital cutting debate can be seen trying to wield the respect and authority of scientific research.

Genital cutting is but one example; search the literature for other controversial issues such as marijuana, abortion, or firearms, and you will find much more of the same; so-called "research" being used to shore up a chosen social policy.

So what is the solution?

What can be done to weed out politically correct "research" from actual dispassionate scientific findings?

To quote Johnsdotter again:

"We do not necessarily question the statistical correlation that was found in this Lancet study. But we do call for a broader and more rigorous discussion of all published findings on FGM, including those published in prestigious medical journals. When it comes to publications on the topic of “FGM” we don’t see the usual critical scientific discussion regarding possible bias, possible confounders, or weak links in the causal hypotheses used or in study design."

Usually, findings are published, and are either validated or dismissed after other scientists have analyzed the data, methodology etc. This is supposed to be the whole point of "peer review."

But personal convictions and moral values gum up this process.

As is seen in Johnsdotter's case, if Hussein Ghanem had his way, her findings would not be published because it doesn't jive with his personal a priori beliefs.

If Brian Morris had any say in the matter, only colleagues of his who are in complete agreement with his interpretations, analyses, and conclusions would be heard and all others, such as Danish researcher Morten Frisch, would be silenced.

In Paul Tinari's case, he was told that any attempt to study the adverse effects of male circumcision was strictly prohibited. He was forbidden from publish the results of his team's research, as well as commanded to destroy the results under the threat of immediate dismissal and legal action.

So for one thing, scientists ought to have the freedom to publish what is found, as they found it. Findings need to be published regardless of whom it pisses off.

But most of all, as Johnsdotter suggests, there needs to be a broader and more rigorous discussion of all published findings, including those published in prestigious medical journals.

The same critical scientific discussion regarding possible bias, possible confounders, weak links in in the causal hypotheses and/or in the study design, needs to be applied to research across the board, not just the research which doesn't support a particular moral stance or political agenda.

But scientific research can only undergo this scrutiny when it is published, an there may be self-interested individuals trying to keep this from happening.

Therefore, possible conflicts of interest, such as political agendas, activism, and cultural and religious bias, must be declared by scholars and scientists in every part of the peer review process, from the scientists and researchers, to editors and reviewers for scientific journals.

If not declared, then others need to have the courage to point them out. 

We must remember, when all is said and done...
Johnsdotter is to be commended for having the integrity to publish findings that do not support her own stance against female genital cutting. She sends the very important message that it is a mistake to use science and research to support a moral stance. It corrupts science (findings and their publication), and it distorts the definition of moral values.

Johnsdotter is warning of the danger of relying on findings to determine the moral justification or reprehension of a practice. Findings are beginning to show that female genital cutting practices aren't as catastrophic as anti-FGM activists would like others to believe. Some findings show that female genital cutting may actually enhance the sexual experience for both partners, and may even confer protection against disease. (See here and here.)

Scientific findings may actually be used to justify what may in fact be morally reprehensible.

The same warning applies to us intactivists.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the "scientific research" regarding circumcision has been hijacked by people with a pro-circumcision agenda. It is my personal view that scientific scrutiny would reveal that most of what is out there is grossly exaggerated and/or completely fabricated by circumcision advocates to support their own view that all males should be circumcised.

But Johnsdotter's warning applies to intactivists as well. It is a mistake for us to rely on scientific "research" to support our cause. It could very well be that male circumcision is not as harmful as we say, and that it does genuinely offer some kind of "benefit," to men.

It's an important part of any strategy to keep the truth, truth. If it doesn't cause serious problems, then this is what needs to be reported, and intactivists have to have the courage and integrity to acknowledge and recognize findings that don't support our cause. Johnsdotter sets a very good example.

We must remember that, after all is said and done, moral principles stand on their own.

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals of any sex is morally reprehensible regardless of what "studies" say.

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

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

Not even if it could be made "painless," not even if it offered "medical benefits," not even if sexual experience would remain unscathed would forced genital cutting ever be justified in girls and women.

The same applies to boys and men.

Afterthoughts...
Johnsdotter says: "You have real victims, women who suffer all their lives, but you also have many women who live very well with it. A respectful treatment would talk to both kinds of women, with all kinds of experiences. Don't start by telling people they're barbarous and that they torture their own daughters, focus on bodily integrity and human rights, a woman's right to keep her genitals in one piece."

Perhaps both activists against FGM and MGM can learn from this.

Many people I've encountered who are both against FGM, but pro MGM, often say that parents who circumcise their boys love their children, and only do it because they believe it is what is best for them. Does this same consideration apply to parents who circumcised their daughters? Parents who circumcise their sons are "loving parents with good intentions," while parents who circumcise their daughters are thoughtless monsters?

Intactivists, while there are real victims of male genital mutilation, the fact is that that most circumcised males have a very positive view of sex, and have lots of sexual pleasure as well. Perhaps it would be better for our movement to talk about both kinds of men with all kinds of experiences. It would probably serve our movement better if we didn't start by telling people they're barbarous and that they torture their own sons. We should focus on genital integrity and human rights, and a man's right to keep his genitals in one piece.

Harry Styles Says "No" To Taylor Swift

And now they're never, ever, ever getting back together.

Ladies, what would you do if your guy was constantly poking fun at a part of your body he isn't satisfied with, and he kept nagging you to get cosmetic surgery to satisfy his aesthetic tastes?

What would you do if your boyfriend kept telling you that you're flat as a board, and that he would like at least a C-cup?

Maybe he thinks your nose is too big, and you need a rhinoplasty.

What if he called your labia unsightly, comparable to an Arby's pastrami sandwich, or a chewed-up piece of bubblegum?

What if he kept nagging you to get a labiaplasty because he thinks your labia are unsightly?

Would you cave?

Or would you tell him to fuck off and find a new boyfriend who appreciates you for who you are?

Well, according to recent news, Harry Styles has apparently dumped Taylor Swift because she kept nagging him to get circumcised. (In the UK, where Styles is from, circumcision is rare.)

It pisses me off the sexist double-standards we have in this country, where girls are taught to demand respect for their bodies and that men not view them as just another piece of meat, but boys are taught that they have to sacrifice themselves to appease a girl.

Women are not to be objectified. Women's rights activists decry the notion that beauty can only be found on the cover of a fashion magazine. They fight to send girls the message that they don't have to fit themselves into the mold of a Barbie doll to appease others.

At the same time, more than half of all US born males are taught from birth that their bodies are not their own, and that they must sacrifice it for social conformity.

"I don't want him to be made fun of in the locker room," goes one quip.

"I think it's more attractive, and I don't want any hypothetical girlfriends to be grossed out," goes another.

Self-respect and empowerment for one sex, conformity and subjection for the other.

Why the sexist double-standards?

Good on Harry Styles for standing up for himself.

Guys, if you have normal genitals and a girl keeps nagging you to mutilate yourself for her own enjoyment, tell her you will, just as soon as she goes and gets a labiaplasty.

And while she's at it, tell her to upgrade to a D-cup.

Then maybe you'll think about it.

Or better yet, show her the door.

She ain't worth it.

Find someone who doesn't have a fetish for mutilated penises and who will love you as you are.

Related Articles:

Circumcision Propaganda Parodies

Circumcision Propaganda Parodies

Last year, I wrote about how circumcision promoters in Uganda were turning to outright stigma and misandry to push circumcision on males there.

For this post, I have created parodies based on the posters being propagated in Uganda as part of the so-called "mass circumcision campaign," in order to illustrate just how hateful and sexist their messages are, and how people would be disgusted at the same posters would that the genders were reversed.

Let's begin with the first poster:

We've all seen this one.

This quite possibly the one that pissed me off the most.

In this country, feminists are always talking about how they resent viewed as just another piece of meat for a man. They balk at boob jobs, buttocks enlargement, dental floss bikinis, high heels, all manor of body alterations, accessories and apparel in order to fit the mold of attractive beauty desired by a patriarchal society.

But yet this kind of propaganda is acceptable for males.

In response to the above poster, I created this:

I wonder what the response of Western women be if they knew something like this was circulating in Africa, or any part of the world.

Another poster that really pissed me off was this one:

It's wrong on so many levels.

I go into more detail in a past blog post.

In response to this poster, I created the following:

And this would not be inaccurate; studies do show a reduction in HIV transmission among circumcised women. (See here and here.)

Of course some may say "the studies are flawed," which is precisely the case regarding male circumcision.

But this isn't the problem. Even assuming the studies presented here were 100% accurate, they would still not be enough to cause the WHO to promote the wholesale circumcision of African women.

There could never be enough "research" to promote the genital cutting of women in any way shape or form.

At times, the propaganda doesn't even seem to try to feign an interest in HIV prevention.

And forget the fact that you're HIV negative. More important is the fact that a man isn't circumcised.

I talk more about it here.

In response to this poster, I created this:

Is the deliberate sexism obvious now?

Women, how would you feel if you read something like this regarding your own bodies?

Having created the posters above, I went on to create posters of my own.

(What can I say? I was on a roll!)

Basically, what it boils down to.

Circumcision for HIV prevention simply isn't causing the mass flood towards circumcision clinics the so-called "researchers" and promoters were expecting, so now they're basically trying to use women's opinions and stigmatization of intact men to try and create the demand they want.

And a last one.

This is an old one, but one that seems to persist as rationale for male circumcision.

The same rationale could never be used to promote genital cutting in women.

It is an insult to point out normal and natural aspects of female genitals, i.e. smells, secretions etc., but calling out the same normal smells and secretions in men is fair game.

When will men have the same respect as women?

Related Post:

UGANDA: Circumcision Promoters Turn to Stigma and Misandry

Celebrity Endorsement: Shakira Pimps Her Baby Bump

 Shakira and Gerard Piqué pose for UNICEF

In what is at least an ostensive act of charity, Shakira is using the fact she's pregnant to help raise funds for UNICEF.

It all sounds like a noble good cause, but there's a big reason I will not donate to UNICEF, and others should become aware and refuse to fund them as well.

UNICEF promotes the circumcision of children as HIV prevention policy.

The following is an excerpt from "Children and AIDS: Second Stocktaking Report" pamphlet:

"Young people everywhere need accurate and relevant information about sexual and reproductive health and HIV transmission, as well as opportunities to build risk-reduction skills. They also need access to appropriate HIV prevention services, including voluntary counseling and testing, harm reduction, sexual and reproductive health services, PMTCT and male circumcision, and to commodities including condoms."

"Accurate and relevant information" indeed.

Yes, I'm sure "access to male circumcision" is precisely what these children "need."

Currently, UNAIDS is working with the Swaziland Ministry of Health to introduce and scale up neonatal circumcision, this, even though in recent studies, HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent in circumcised males in Swaziland, not to mention other African countries, and countries around the world, and there is absolutely zero evidence that infant circumcision has any effect on HIV transmission.

Another celebrity that is tacitly endorsing male circumcision as HIV transmission is Annie Lennox, not to mention others who sang with her at the Hope Rising! "benefit concert" in Toronto.

I wonder what goes through celebrities' minds when they hop onto charity bandwagons like this.

Is it that they're honestly interested in charity and helping those in need? Or is it merely empty PR projects with the intention of gaining a positive image? (Or an image at all?)

Maybe they actually really mean well, but don't scratch deeper than the surface, and are content with just being associated with "a good cause."

I grew up listening to Shakira, so part of me wants to believe she is actually interested in doing good for children, and not just taking advantage of charity to both boost her image AND announce her pregnancy.

I wonder if any of these celebrities actually look into the causes they decide to champion, or if they merely just hop on for the publicity...

Intactivists Beware
UNICEF promotes the circumcision of children as HIV prevention policy. Do not donate to UNICEF, and discourage others from donating to them, until they make a clear statement that they will not promote male genital mutilation as HIV prevention policy.

Become aware of organizations that promote, finance, or facilitate male genital mutilation cloaked as "HIV prevention strategy" and BOYCOTT them.

Relevant Facebook Page:
Foreign Aid Charities and Orgs: HANDS OFF Children's Penises

Related Articles:

Annie Lennox Tacitly Endorses Male Circumcision as HIV Prevention - TWICE

The 'Circumcision Song' Hits Airwaves Across Africa Thanks to Bill Gates' Funding

When All Else Fails, Hire a Sports Team