MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
THE ABERRANT CIRCUMCISER
By Nicholas Carter
Let us take a moment to review the circumciser's record.
Around the turn of the century he circumcised because he believed that the operation would aid in the prevention of hip-joint disease, epilepsy, hysteria, rupture and genital infantilism - among many other things.
He was wrong.
For a long time thereafter he circumcised to prevent bedwetting and masturbation. He was wrong. Today, numerous little circumcised boys have bedwetting problems; and masturbation is not uncommon among circumcised males.
For years, doctors who worked in areas of the world where circumcision was common - North Africa and Persia (Iran), for example - reported that venereal disease was shockingly common in those countries. Nonetheless, American doctors continued to spread that prevention of VD by circumcision was an outstanding argument in favour of the operation. They were wrong. As noted earlier, syphilis among today's circumcised young people have reached epidemic proportions, and gonorrhea is completely out of control.
For decades the circumciser has declared that cervical cancer occurs primarily in women who are married to uncircumcised men. Some eminent medical researchers have examined this claim and they were all unable to demonstrate that the foreskin contributes to the disease. Another point: To subject millions of infants to a dangerous surgical procedure just because of one of many factors happen to be suspected in the causation of a disease would appear to be a highly illogical argument. (One of the most common forms of cancer among men and women in the United States is cancer of the colon and rectum. More than 45, 000 persons are killed by this disease which strikes as high as 75 000 people a year. No doubt, were anal intercourse high on the list of popular sexual techniques, the devout circumciser would be dancing to the tune that the unshorn penis is a danger to society because it enhances liability to cancer of the rectum.)
In a desperate attempt to prove that the procedure is performed because it is a form of medical prophylaxis rather than a social custom, the circumciser has been horrifying American mothers for years with the "tale that penile cancer occurs only in the uncircumcised." David Reuben made this claim in his book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex as late as 1969. The statement is false. Medical literature contains clinical evidence dating back several decades proving that the disease occurs in both Jews and Gentiles circumcised in infancy.
Over the years, an endless supply of "baby books" has instructed the American people that males should be circumcised for hygienic purposes. To sexually mutilate a child for such innocuous reasons as cleanliness and practicality in the hygienically aware world of the 20th century cannot be tolerated. True, there will always be some who ignore the principles of good hygiene. To sacrifice the many because of the filthy few, however, is the kind of thinking that belongs to the Dark Ages.
And finally, come circumcisers have emphasized that the esthetic qualities are among the principle virtues of the denuded penis. Doctor Joseph J. Kaufman, writing Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, quotes Professor D. Goodwin who once commented that circumcision was a "beautification" comparable to cosmetic surgery of the nose, with the defrocked penis appearing in its flaccid state as an "erect uncircumcised organ - a beautiful instrument of precise intent".
To dwell upon the circumcised penis as a copy of the erect organ is to succumb to a modern version of phallic worship with the penis elevated (figuratively speaking, of course) in its flaccid state as a vivid symbol of sexual power and fertility. And those psychiatrists who speculate about prepuce being the "feminine part of the male", and who suggest that no harm can come from separating the little boy from his "feminine part" are contributing to the perpetuation of his childish infatuation with the penis. The same practitioners could as easily justify clitoridectomy on the grounds that the female should be "separated" from her "male" part.
Throughout his hapless history the circumciser has been wrong on all counts. And tragically on the basis of his incredible record, many millions of children have been sacrificed upon the altar of genital mutilation.
From Routine Circumcision: The Tragic Myth by Nicholas Carter. Printed and published by Londinium Press, 21 Kensington Park Road, London W.11
NICHOLAS CARTER grew up in Los Angeles, California. He entered the broadcasting field in the late 1950's as a television announcer/director. Subsequently he worked as a announcer, disc jockey, newscaster and news writer for many years in the Los Angeles area. He served for two years as anchorman for KCOP-TV, Channel 13 weekend news in Los Angeles. While this article is somewhat outdated - the facts presented in the article have not changed.