MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Because advocates of circumcision are unable to justify the practice, they resort to ridicule and humiliation in order to silence their critics.
C .J. Louis
In Response to Ridicule
It goes without saying that once circumcisionists (advocates of circumcision) are unable to substantiate their practice with medical and ethical fact, they either turn to cultural anecdotes or outright attack people against circumcision ad hominem. Often times they ridicule people who are against circumcision. We are often accused of making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a non-issue and there’s simply “no big deal.” “Get over it,” they tell circumcised men who resent what happened to their bodies. “You have deeper psychological problems that aren’t even related.” Such men are often called ignorant for likening male circumcision to female genital mutilation. Circumcisionists even have the nerve to call defenders of children’s rights “foreskin fetishists.” They do so because they are unable to ratify the practice of routine infant circumcision. Ever-vigilant filibusters, they excel at evading the questions presented to them, dogmatically pronouncing myths and wives’ tales to justify their actions.
It’s a Non-issue!
Let’s begin by addressing the “insignificance” of the issue. According to circumcisionists, we are creating a tempest in a teacup. It's trivial! It doesn't matter! We need to get a life. Routine infant circumcision is obviously not trivial enough for insecure circumcisionists to leave well enough alone, now is it?
Many vocal advocates of circumcision say it really doesn't matter to them what parents “decide.” They have no vested interest in trying to convince parents to mutilate their child. It's the anti-circumcisionists who are filled with radical ideas. They should get over it and let parents make their own decisions.
If these individuals mean what they are saying, and if they didn’t really care, why do they even bother making these statements? If “it doesn't really matter”, and its "no big issue," why do they care if parents circumcise their children? If circumcisionists didn't care either way, then why would it make any difference to them if parents decided to leave their children intact? They wouldn’t bother to vouch for “parental choice,” while hastily providing information about neonatal circumcision’s supposed “medical benefits.” If they cared less, as they would have us believe, they wouldn’t bother to approach parents of neonates to have them sign their child away, but it is obvious routine infant circumcision is very important to them. Contrary to their stated apathy, it is clearly evident that circumcision is not just a “non-issue.” Their drive to convince parents to circumcise their boys betrays their supposed indifference. Who needs to “get over” circumcision? Who needs to "get a life," REALLY?
The contradiction is obvious and the motives for their statements are obvious: to promote circumcision while making it appear that it is the parent’s choice – even though to pro circumcisionists, “it doesn’t really matter.” Circumvention is the strategy of individuals who are unable to answer questions dealing with the ethics of performing non medical surgery, or answer questions regarding flawed or fraudulent studies which are used to promote it. By focusing on “parental choice,” proponents of circumcision are able to side-step having to give any explanation for the practice in question. It is the ethics that surround the imposition of a practice on non-consenting individuals that is medically unnecessary, and the validity of excuses used to promote such a practice that “don’t matter” to such individuals. Their apathy can’t hide their agenda to circumcise as many newborn boys as possible.
Get Over It!
Many circumcised boys and men who resent what happened to them as infants are now speaking out against this deplorable act. They are greatly disturbed that part of their bodies was severed during the first days of their lives. Why would anyone permit unnecessary destructive surgery on an individual without his consent? This is a question which many males ask the rest of their lives.
What bothers me is how other men and women have the audacity to say that these guys "suffer from deeper problems unrelated to the foreskin." They say condescending things like "you don't remember it,” or "just get over it."
Circumcision removes part of one's body which they would otherwise have as adults. Victims of unwanted circumcison feel that neither doctors nor parents had the right to cut off part of their sex organs. They feel their defenselessness as infants was abused by having a mutilation imposed on their bodies that they would have otherwise not chosen as adults. They have lost major erogenous tissue which would have greatly enhanced their sexual pleasure, as boys, young men, and as adults. They feel they were denied pleasure the majority of intact men around the world normally and naturally enjoy. Why can't a man be angry about that?
Furthermore, note the double standard. Uncircumcised men and boys are presumed to be subjects of criticism in locker rooms and by women. Therefore men and boys must be circumcised to avoid having to go through such trauma. (Never mind the assumption that circumcision would still be as common in the future, and that all uncircumcised men would indeed develop a complex.) Such problems uncircumcised men might have would also clearly be not related to the foreskin, but they aren’t told to “get over it.” On the contrary, they are encouraged to circumcise themselves and their children.
Circumcised men who want to restore their foreskin however, are a different matter. Whereas uncircumcised men wishing to circumcise themselves to alleviate any mental trauma are promptly ushered to the operating room, circumcised men wishing to alleviate THEIR “psychological problems” by restoring are told to go away. “You suffer from non-related problems,” they are told. “Find a sex therapist.” Circumcised men shouldn't "blame all their problems" on their circumcision, but on the other hand, all problems uncircumcised men may have are due to their intactness.
Why should intact men have to worry about their genitals? The fact that the intact penis is normal, and that it is the circumcised penis that has been altered is beside the point. Why are intact males encouraged to circumcise themselves to alleviate any possible mental trauma, while disgruntled circumcised men wishing to restore are ridiculed? Why should circumcised males have to accept what has happened to them, but intact males should reject their normal bodies? Why should intact males be bullied or intimidated into circumcision? Shouldn’t the same argument which is used to silence circumcised men who are told they should "get over it," and not restore, also be used to encourage intact men to "get over it" and leave their penises, and the penises of their sons intact? Promoters of circumcision have serious deep rooted mental problems if they believe in circumcision to alleviate the mental struggle of "fitting in," but shun foreskin restoration to alleviate the struggle of feeling violated. If this is not the situation, then perhaps they should explain their perverted views.
It is assumed that circumcision would still be as common in the future, and that all uncircumcised men do indeed develop a complex due to “not fitting in.” This is certainly not true. The world is changing. The rate of circumcision is almost nil in most democratic countries, and it is rapidly declining in North America. Furthermore, contrary to popular myths, intact males seldom develop any problems with their foreskins. The greatest fear of advocates of circumcision, which are often circumcised males themselves, is that soon, they will be in the minority, and that they will be subjects of ridicule. They project this fear on intact males, and males thinking about leaving their children intact. They wish to preserve the figurative forest in which they hide; therefore they must keep the mutilation mill running by ridiculing and intimidating intact males into submission.
It’s a parent’s decision. It’s part of our culture, and besides. He won’t even remember.
Opponents of circumcision are told often that it is none-of-their-business what parents decide for their children. But let’s analyze this deceptive reasoning more closely. How doctors, the people who have prestigious diplomas hanging on their office wall, suddenly feel it is parents that know better than them defies all logic or rational explanation. Even though there are no medical grounds for circumcising a newborn, somehow parents are better qualified to make this decision than doctors. Who are supposed to be the medical experts, doctors or parents? How circumcision proponents have the audacity to tell anti-circumcisionists to “stay out of people’s business” while blatantly making it theirs under the pretence of indifference has already been addressed.
Perhaps we should be told what criteria should be used by parents to determine what will be in the best interests of their child. Do they really know what the male will feel like when he is an adult and he discovers that an important and vital part of his body was destroyed without his consent? Will he really believe that in a democracy an individual has democratic rights when his own rights were violated? Will he really “thank them later on?” Will he “get over it?” What about the tens of thousands who are undergoing foreskin restoration? Did the parents really know what was in the best interests of their sons? Or is it the angry males who want to restore what was rightfully theirs who don’t really know what is in their own best interests?
There is no question that parents are supposed to make decisions that are in the best interest of their children. Parents must certainly make decisions with regards to shelter, provide proper food and protection from harm, teach social skills, give an education and provide a myriad of other needs, but where does the amputation of normal, healthy and vital body parts for which there is no medical necessity, fit into this scenario? Where under any democratic rules in civilized nations is the amputation of body parts of children a “decision” which parents are supposed to make? Just because circumcision is a choice that parents can currently make, does not mean it is right. And not all choices parents make for their children are justified merely because the parents made them. Parents have denied their children appropriate medical and lifesaving treatment because it was against their religious beliefs. Does parental choice also sanction this type of neglect or abuse?
What would happen to parents who "decided" to infibulate their baby girls? Would the fact that “she won't remember,” it was "their decision," or that it’s “part of their culture” sanction the act?
When it pertains to male circumcision in America, some people are quick to coin the phrase, “When in Rome…,” but no one in America seems to advocate what happens to women in Sudan and in other parts of Africa. On the contrary, most people condemn female genital mutilation in other countries as cruel, unnecessary, undemocratic, and a gross violation of human rights. What ever happened to parental decision, the best interests of the child, the resemblance of mothers and peers, tradition, religious beliefs and the host of reasons which are used in America to promote male circumcision? It is ironic that people condemn similar practices in other countries while they validate each of these excuses as long as it occurs in their home territory, and as long as the victims are male.
It is illegal in America to mutilate a girl, even in the name of culture or religion. Thus sayeth the law. But why is this different for boys? Why are religion and culture valid reasons for male circumcision in America, but not female circumcision? Is severity really an excuse? Because in America, even in the most minor form, genital mutilation of females (under the age of consent) is a criminal act. Why is the 14th Amendment partial to girls?
"He won't remember" is an excuse, not a reason. Circumcision is a mutilation whether he remembers it or not. Is "she won't remember" any reason to circumcise a baby girl? What about using a date rape drug? Is a man allowed to escape justice because "she doesn't remember?"
How DARE You!
Now, I can already tell what some people reading this article may be thinking. I know this because the reaction is all too familiar among proponents of circumcision. For some reason, male and female circumcision shouldn’t be compared. Routine infant circumcision should continue in America “because female circumcision is worse.” "You're stupid!!!” we are told. “How DARE you compare what happens to boys to what happens to women?" Let me ask a few questions. How many that are reading this article have witnessed both a male and female circumcision? Are the people that vehemently chastise us for equating both practices able to substantiate their claims by making this comparison themselves? Why does it even matter if one form of circumcision is worse than the other? I quote Steven Svoboda J.D.: “…human-rights law doesn’t say if you cut off four toes, it’s a human rights violation, but if you cut off only three, it’s okay. That’s not how human-rights law works. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Involuntary circumcision is wrong.”
Yes, I know women are circumcised, clitorectomized and/or infibulated in other countries. They are held down and mutilated against their will. This is done to them at an age of consciousness, so they will remember the pain and agony of this advent for the rest of their lives. But just as tragic is the fact that there are cultures in other countries where boys and men must likewise endure same thing. Did you know that there are initiation rites in some parts of Africa where they practice male genital mutilation? Did you know that just as in female genital mutilation, there are African tribes where boys and men are mutilated with dirty utensils, such as old, rusty cooking knives, razor blades and glass shards? In Australia, aboriginal tribes split the penis down the middle to reveal the urethra at about age 13. In some Moslem countries, including Turkey, boys are held down at varying ages to be circumcised at an age of consciousness. Here too, these boys will remember what has happened to them all their lives. Is circumcision wrong HERE then? Are these males extended the same sympathy that is given to women in Africa? Or is circumcision sanctioned just as long as it is done to males in the name of culture or religion no matter where and how it occurs?
Age, pain, and/or consciousness are not the issues here. Forcibly cutting parts off individuals, no matter how trivial someone else thinks the appendage may be, and regardless of the sex of the victims, is unethical and immoral. It's WRONG. It is a criminal act for which there is no justification whatsoever.
You Foreskin Fetishists Make Me Sick!
As the saying goes “the jig is over”. The circumcision hoax has finally been exposed. Conscientious and intelligent people no longer perform harmful and mutilating practices based on myths and fraudulent studies or reasons which have little or no validity merely to conform to peer pressure, or because it has been done for decades. They are demanding valid reasons and answers before being pressured into doing anything.
Advocates of circumcison have failed to make a case for circumcison. Their fraudulent claims and tactics no longer work in our age of enlightenment where information is available on the internet, libraries, and media. Intelligent and rational individuals can no longer be deceived by those who desire to harm and exploit others, including children.
In desperation, many proponents of circumcision resort to name-calling in order to circumvent having to justify their cause. They wish to draw attention away from themselves by pointing fingers at their accusers. I have often read web-sites where we are accused of having a fetish for the foreskin. What cheek! First of all, I can’t see there being a fetish for something that is completely natural and normal in human males. And furthermore, who is making the accusation? It is not we who say “the circumcised penis is prettier.” It is not we who say “women prefer a circumcised penis.” It is not we who say “I wouldn’t sleep with a man who wasn’t [circumcised].” These sound like the words of people that may be suffering from apotemnophilia. Apotemnophilia (from Greek αποτέμνειν "to cut off") or amputation fetish, as Wikipedia describes it, is the overwhelming desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs. Some authorities hold that the condition is often sexual in origin.
When we take a stand against circumcision, we do so with a genuine concern for the child’s well being in mind. That having a foreskin may or may not be sexually appealing to some is of no concern to us. Anti-circumcisionists don’t have an overwhelming desire to intrude on another’s body to satisfy. On the contrary, we ask that children’s genitals be left alone! Close observation of the reasons used to justify routine infant circumcision reveals that it is our accusers that have an inherent circumfetish, and calling us foreskin fetishists is a pathetic defense mechanism. Something has to be said about people that find surgically altered genitals to be sexually appealing, especially when they vouch for routine infant circumcision for this reason.
Conclusion
Quite frankly I’m tired of being ridiculed because of the stand I take. Advocates of circumcision minimize the practice to a “non-issue”, and we who can see it for the perverted mutilation that it is are told to “get a life.” I’m tired of being made to feel futile for voicing my opinion and trying to end this deplorable practice. Proponents of circumcision are unable to show how the amputation of healthy tissue from non-consenting individuals is ethical. When questioned, they respond with hostility, name-calling and circumventions, and when they get tired of blowing hot air they fall silent. They don’t respond to e-mails. They don’t pick up the phone. They fail to respond in any manner. If they have logical reasons which can be defended ethically and legally, let’s have them. Quit the pathetic victim act and cut the ridicule!
Let’s have the facts! Why isn’t the foreskin valuable? Why do hundreds of millions of males around the world value and protect their foreskin? Why are tens of thousands of males restoring remnants of their foreskin? Though these men wish to regain a feeling of wholeness and restore penile sensitivity, whatever foreskin they CAN restore is only a rendition of what having the foreskin they were born with “could be” like. Why are ethical doctors and professional people around the world condemning this practice and seeking to end it? Why does no medical organization around the world recommend it? Aren’t doctors obliged to practice under a medical code of ethics? If not, why not? Since when has the amputation of body parts of non consenting individuals ever been a mandate of medicine, and where under any criminal code is such a practice sanctioned? Does the fact that any practice has continued for decades justify its continuance? Do parents really have the right to demand the amputation of body parts off their children, and is such REALLY a “parental choice?” Ridiculous criticism is abundant, but these questions remain but unanswered.
Our opponents may call us obsessed because we're concerned with the welfare of children, but what do you call those who are obsessed with cutting part of children's genitals off? Are circumcisers not indulging in another kind of obsession? An obsession which is pedophilic and sadistic to say the least? Anti-circumcisers want to protect all children from abuse and harmful practices. Even the United Nations states that children need to be protected from harmful religious practices. Pro-circumcisers worry that the child will be sexually appealing. "It's prettier. Girls like it better," they say. Medical ethics and the value of the amputated part of the individual’s body seem to be of little concern to them. Are these really the type of individuals you want giving you advice with regards to your children?
It's people like these who need to “get a life.” A principle that was instilled in me from the days of kindergarten is that YOU KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. It’s circumcisionists who need to get a life and stop lobbying for the mutilation of children. Until the day comes where circumcision is viewed for the mutilation and sadistic child sexual abuse it is, no, I will not “get a life." Fighting to let baby boys sleep in peace, undisturbed by a sick freak who wants to chop part of their penises off, will have been a life worth living, thank you.