My email response to Douglas S. Diekema, MD, Circumcision Taskforce

For anyone following the AAP’s new stance on infant circumcision and the rest of the world’s doctors’ critique of it, one of the taskforce members, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, responded, seemingly on his own, with his own twisted version of events.  You can read that here:

This response so thoroughly sickened me that I had to write him, and here is the email I sent this morning to the address mentioned at the above link:

Subject culturally biased
Date Tue, Mar 26, 2013 07:23 AM
Mr. Diekema,

Yes, I deliberately left off the doctor in your title, since I only address people I respect as such. I just wanted to express my disgust at your ridiculous response to those many doctors from around the world that basically gave you and the rest of the circumcision taskforce a virtual slap across the face. The lot of you needed to be put in your place after changing your stance in August of last year. And for you to respond
that just because parents are starting to get educated and leaving their sons intact means YOU have reason to be unbiased? Well, that is just a load of…BS to put it nicely. Do not use the new statistics to fuel your perverted and/or greedy desire to mutilate newborn male genitals.

You should have left it at “let the parents decide”, but to go on and use lies
and manipulated data to back your agenda is beyond disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. You and the rest of the taskforce need to rethink why you want to push this barbaric procedure on the innocent. Is it only for the money, or can you not deal with the idea of future men having something that you never had the chance to keep? I was able to protect my son from men like you, and it is my hope that eventually all sons will be
afforded the same protection…and respect.

I sincerely hope that someday soon, you and the rest of that taskforce of yours will follow along the same path as other circumcision proponents such as Vernon G. Quaintance. I look forward to that day with a big smile on my face.


If he responds, I will post an update, but I strongly encourage everyone to also email their outrage at this man for continuing to not only promote RIC but continuing to lie about its benefits as well as how being intact is more dangerous. Just by doing a simple search, it is easy to discover why the majority of this planet does not perform this unnecessary and risky procedure on their infants.  Again, SHAME on your Douglas Diekema and the rest of the circpervs on the AAP circumcision taskforce!

Foreskin is NOT gross!

I haven’t written in awhile about this, but I’m feeling a bit disgusted, and the best way to vent is to write about it.  I am sick to death of hearing from ignorant people how gross it is to not be circumcised.  I still don’t talk to that bimbo ex-friend of mine who said that having foreskin is ugly and gross.  Anyone who would say that has no idea what a foreskin is or how it works.  Since I bathe/shower, change and help him use the potty, I see my son’s penis every day. Not once in the four years of his life have I ever thought it was gross or funny looking, and definitely not ugly.  Since I see it more often than my husband’s penis, I have to say that it’s startling to see my husband’s.  Why?  Because I shouldn’t be able to see his glans while he pees or showers.  That should only come out if we were having sex.  No one but the guy I’m having sex with ever gets to see what’s between my legs, so why should it be different for a man? It shouldn’t be.  My son is four years old, and I have never seen his glans (head of the penis).  I probably won’t unless he becomes retractable while I’m still caring for him, which is possible, but I’m not worried about it. Because like I said, only the person you’re having sex with should see your sexual organ.  So that privilege is reserved for someone my son won’t meet for many years.

Someday (in the distant future I hope) there will be some lucky gal who will excite my son and see his glans for the first time.  It is also my hope that she won’t be like the shallow bimbos I encounter on Facebook who think his foreskin is a turn off.  If she is, I can only hope that I have instilled enough confidence in him to kick her to the curb. After all there will be plenty of smarter women out there who will appreciate his body the way he was born…the way nature intended him to be.

There was a post on Facebook the other day, asking if we thought a certain guy was sexy, would it make him less sexy to find out he was intact.  Naturally this is a stupid question, and I was afraid to read the responses and come across a bimbo who said yes.  But can you imagine thinking what a hottie Hugh Jackman is and then going, “Oh gross, he isn’t circumcised?”  Or “That Colin Ferrell used to be sexy until I found out he’s got a foreskin!” Really?  Because I can’t visualize any hot blooded woman kicking either of those men out of their beds.

Foreskin is NOT a flap of skin that needs to be removed.  It is a layer of skin (yes SKIN, the stuff that covers our entire bodies) that is highly innervated and sensitive and helps protect  the penis and aid it during sex.  Like the rest of our bodies, it must be cleaned daily, especially before sex.  Is that really so difficult?  To clean yourself before sex?  Shouldn’t a woman do the same? Heck yeah!

For those of you who say you have done educated research but still decided to mutilate your baby boy, that is a blatant lie.  There is no way you did valid research or watched a circ video or read the long term effects or risks and still decided to do it.  You probably read the pro-cutting propaganda on the AAP website, which is run by a bunch of men who are financially and emotionally vested in keeping this barbaric ritual in practice.  Or you visited medicirc dot org or circinfo dot net and read their lies and exaggerations.  Nothing that any of these sites say make it OK to circumcise an infant, who can do nothing but scream while the most sensitive part of their body is sliced into.

It all boils down to one simple thing.  Even if there are minor benefits to circumcise, they are all rare things that circumcision will POSSIBLY PREVENT.  It won’t totally eliminate it of course, even if the benefit truly exists. But for those of you who refuse to believe that circumcision does nothing but harm the child as well as the man he grows to become, let’s look at what you think it does, shall we?

1. Reduces UTI’s.  Not true, but let’s assume it does.  Little girls get more UTI’s than cut little boys.  Should we perform surgery on them too? Or just give both sexes antibiotics?

2. Reduces penile cancer. Not true and even the American Cancer society has now admitted that on their site.  But let’s assume it does.  Removing the foreskin would only reduce the chance, not eliminate it.  So should we remove breast tissue from little girls to prevent them from getting breast cancer, which is more common in males than penile cancer?  Of course not.  Should we perform any other surgery as a means to prevent something?  Like removing a baby’s appendix so they won’t need to get an appendectomy?  Or removing a baby’s tonsils, so they wont’ need them removed when they are older?  Removing any organ will prevent it from going bad later in life, but that doesn’t make it right…unless it’s medically necessary.  Removing an infant’s foreskin is RARELY, if ever, medically necessary.

3. Reduces STD’s and AIDS.  Not true, but let’s say it is.  Even those biased African studies showed that the men who were cut were given condoms and educated on safe sex.  They were told to always use condoms. The intact men were not given condoms or education, and they were having risky sex with people who had HIV. So chances were good they would get HIV.  So was it really the circumcisions that reduced the HIV, or was it the guys wearing condoms?  Even the people pushing for the circumcisions are telling the men getting cut that they still need to wear condoms. So why cut them to begin with?  Just tell them that they can keep their foreskins if they always use condoms, since they will have to use them anyway.

4. It’s my religious belief.  No it’s not, but let’s say it is your belief that you must force your religion on your child.  Shouldn’t he be able to wait until he’s old enough to make his own decision about which religion or God he wants to worship?  Shouldn’t it be HIS sacrifice/covenant to make?  Your right to practice your own religion ends where another person’s body begins. He has that same right to practice his own religion.

5. He should look like his father.  No, he shouldn’t. No two penises look alike.  Are you going to glue hair on your baby son’s penis or stretch it to make it the same size?  If his father has tattoos, will you tattoo your son?  If they have different eye color, will you put contacts on your baby? Or dye his hair to match?  Of course not.

Well, hopefully I’ve made a few valid points and made someone rethink their own ignorance.  But it will always amaze me that someone must be convinced not to do unnecessary surgery on their infant, instead of the other way around.  If anyone created circumcision today, they would be thrown in jail.  Anyone who practices it should be.

The downside of having a baby boy?

I have heard this more times than I can stomach from new moms of baby boys.  The downside of birthing a male is that they “have” to get him circumcised. Where does that idea come from?  I never felt I had to get my son circumcised, even when I assumed I would.  It never occurred to me that it would hurt or that it wasn’t a good idea. It was just something I thought everyone did.  When I found out that most countries on the planet do not circumcise their newborn males, I realized that I needed to rethink what I had always assumed.  But it boggles my mind that there are women out there who are pregnant with boys and who think there is this downside.  If they know that it will cause their baby pain, then why do they do it? Is it honestly because they feel it has to be done?  Ignoring the creepy fact they are forcing their sexual preferences on their child, can they really think it’s better to do it when they are brand new?  It is amazing that some of these new parents think that the younger the boy is, the less he will feel the pain, but that IS NOT TRUE!  The younger they are, the more trusting they are, and the more damage can be done to their brand new brains.

There is no downside of having a boy, people!  The only downside is his, being born to ignorant parents who feel they must welcome their precious child into the world by strapping him down and forcibly tearing and cutting away a fully functioning part of his body.  It does hurt to have it done as well as the week following to heal, and that doesn’t even include the trauma to his brain that will never heal.

So I try not to snarl when I read another post from another ignorant woman who says she has to circumcise her son, since that is the one downside of having a boy.  If you feel that way, I can only hope you never have a boy to torture in this stupid and senseless way.

What’s your reason for supporting infant circumcision?

The hardest thing about being an intactivist is having to listen to the lame excuses and reasons people come up with for why they support circumcising their baby boys. The following are not in order of importance or relevance, merely written in the order I remembered them:

1) I might as well do it when he’s a baby, since it will have to be done eventually.

Of course the first response to hearing this one is “What? Why? Where did you get that lame idea from?” Yes, I have actually heard this reason. It seems that some people truly think that if they don’t circumcise their baby that something will go wrong later on, forcing them to subject their son to it later. This woman said that all her nephews had to be circumcised between 3 and 5 years of age due to problems. When I mentioned that the reason was they were probably all forcibly retracted, the response was, “Well, of course, because the doctor told my sister that she had to practice pulling it back every day to loosen it.” What amazes me the most about this is that neither she nor her sister put 2 and 2 together and realized the foreskin retractions were causing the “medically needed” circumcisions. Not that they actually were medically needed though, since there are non-surgical ways of dealing with torn foreskins or foreskins that are too tight, but that takes talking to a foreskin friendly doctor or doing research. And I have come to the conclusion that people who support infant circumcision are allergic to doing research. They seem to believe whatever BS their doctor feeds them and don’t require second opinions. No matter what a doctor tells you about retracting a boy’s foreskin, if they tell you to do it they are all WRONG. Only the boy himself should be the one to retract, and only when it has detached from the head of his penis (which can take until adolescence)!!

2) He’ll get more UTI’s if I leave him intact.

This myth got started when a guy named Wiswell performed a study and published his findings that circumcised boys were 10 times less likely to get a UTI than an intact boy. Of course he didn’t clarify there was actually only a 1% difference between the two groups. Meaning that 100 boys would need to be circumcised to prevent just one boy from getting a UTI. That is also ignoring the fact that little girls get far more UTI’s than intact little boys, and we don’t circumcise them to prevent infection. And referring back to my response to #1, forced retractions cause most if not all of the infections that lead to UTI’s. The foreskin actually protects the penis from infection, so taking away UTI’s caused by forced retractions would most likely shift the totals so that cut boys got more infections than intact.

3) There will be less chance of my son getting HIV and other STI’s when he’s older, if I cut him as an infant.

First, let’s set aside the very creepy notion that something needs to be done to an infant to prevent him from getting sexually transmitted diseases. After all, no baby will get an STD. Only sexually active adults/teenagers get those. If you’re so worried about your son not being careful of who he sleeps with or how many people he sleeps with when he’s older, than maybe you can discuss circumcision with him when he can decide for himself. After all it’s his body, not yours.

Second, and most important, it has not been proven that circumcision protects anyone from getting an STD. Those African studies were funded by circumcision proponents whose bottom line was going to be in their favor, no matter the outcome. They manipulated data, stopped the studies early, and left out necessary facts in order to come up with that much hyped 60% decrease.

4) His father is cut, so he should be too.

If his father had a missing arm, would you amputate your son’s arm? If he has tattoos and other modifications, will you do the same to your son? Of course not, so why change the one thing that neither of them will ever compare?

5) His father has a penis, so I’m leaving the choice to him.

If the father was circumcised as an infant, he has no idea what he is missing. And it has now been shown that infant circumcision permanently alters (damages) the brain. So while your son (and his father) won’t actually remember his genitals being sliced off, his body and brain will always remember it. This one event that happens so soon after a baby is born can make a man violent, or it can totally shut off his emotions. He can feel resentment toward all women and might even become a rapist. Cut men cannot be objective about circumcision, so the fact they have a penis is no reason to leave this decision to them. No, not all men have these issues, but they COULD! You don’t want your son to be one of those affected, right?

6) It’s best to circumcise a baby, when he is too young to feel the pain.

The myth that babies don’t feel pain was discounted ages ago, so it’s amazing people still use this reason. The fact that it’s so painful is why many of the awful things mentioned in #5 happen. Torture will forever change the person it’s done to, and that is what strapping a baby’s arms and legs to a restraint and then ripping, tearing, crushing and slicing half the skin from his penis is. It’s torture, and it’s usually done without any type of pain relief. Anesthesia cannot safely be used on such a small baby, and the numbing agent they use is not given enough time to take affect before they start. So for those of you who think it’s just a little snip that is over in a minute, most circumcisions can take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes, and the baby is in constant pain the entire time. That is unless he goes into shock to protect himself. At least if a man decides to circumcise himself, he is given anesthesia and then strong medication to deal with any pain afterwards. Babies pee and poo in their diapers, which gets into the wound the entire time they healing, and they can’t be given paid meds.

7) Intact is gross. Circumcised is just so much nicer looking and cleaner.

Over 70% of the world’s population of men are intact, and they and their women manage just fine. Ever wonder why women seem to prefer Latin and European lovers? It’s because they are intact, so they are better in bed. The foreskin not only protects the penis, it also enhances the sexual pleasure for both the man and the woman he has sex with. Women in the US are basically brainwashed to think that cut looks better, but it’s just what we have been conditioned to accept. Those who have had lovers of both cut and intact, prefer intact. As far as it being gross? Smegma is a natural lubricant excreted from the genitals of both men and women. The best way to keep intact genitals clean is by washing them daily. Women can stink just as bad as men if they don’t bathe. Intact men are no exception. Retracting the foreskin is extremely fast and easy, and men don’t have any problems doing so to clean their bodies.

8 ) Circumcision is healthy and safe.

Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, of baby boys who have died from their circumcisions (most of which are not reported). Their deaths might be listed as cardiac arrest, blood loss, infection, etc., but they all would not have died without the unnecessary surgery that was done on them. It is a risky, painful, unnecessary and totally cosmetic surgery that is performed on non-consenting babies that CAN cause their deaths. Don’t believe the hype created by the circumcision fanatics who want the whole world cut. They minimize the risks, which is why it is so hard for us intactivists to convince badly informed parents that circumcision is nothing more than medically accepted child abuse.

I think that is all I can stomach for now, though that is not all the reasons I have heard. If I feel up to it later, I will tackle the rest another time. Hopefully this will help open some eyes and get people to re-evaluate their reasons for doing this injustice to their innocent baby boys.

Parents do not always know best

There are two twitter accounts (that I’m pretty sure are run by the same troubled individual) that put on an act that parents should be able to decide to circumcise because it is their choice. They (he) feel that parents know what’s best for their child and no one else should tell them what they can’t do to that child. Of course the accounts are AParentsChoice and TheCircDecision (who has an avatar that says “parents know best”). To the uninformed parent, it looks like these two accounts truly look out for the new parent, providing links on circumcision and telling them they should be informed before making a decision. Trouble is they only post links about how circumcision should be done. That not only isn’t unbiased as they claim, but they even link to two websites run by known circumfetishists: circinfo dot net and medicirc dot org (I have linked to the info on the site owners).  Every time AParentsChoice or TheCircDecision post one of those links, they (he) reveal themselves for what they really are, a circumcision fetishist (even though they (he) continually deny it).  If either account truly supported an informed parental choice, links from both sides of the argument would be provided.

But let’s ignore the circumcision fanatics for a bit and focus on the parental choice and “parents know best” angle.  So if a parent chooses to sexually abuse their child, does that parent “know best”?  If he/she decided the kid needed a new nose, should cosmetic surgery be done, since the parent knows best?  Of course not, since parents don’t always know best, and many should not have the right to choose certain things for their kids.  You can’t choose what type of friends your kid has or the kinds of clothes he/she will like.  You can try, but the more you push, the more the kid will rebel.

Babies are defenseless, so it was decided a long time ago that was the best time to mutilate them.  Girls were too until it was outlawed in the US.  Given time it will also be illegal to mutilate boys, but nothing worth doing is ever easy.  The circ fanatics tell you to steer clear of intactivists, since we’re cult like.  They have it backwards though.  The fanatics who like strapping down infants and slicing off the most sensitive part of their bodies belong to the cult. After all what cult do you know of that consists of people who want to prevent blood letting??  We aren’t trying to start anything. We’re only trying to stop the insanity which is infant circumcision.  It doesn’t matter what benefits the pro-cutters come up with. None of them have anything to do with babies, not even the UTI’s, since little girls have far more of those than intact boys.

Parents need to stop listening to the “facts” of what benefits circumcision affords, since none of them can overshadow the damage being done to those babies. They not only lose a major part of their penis, but they lose trust for their mothers, which can escalate into more serious mental issues as men. Why take that chance to prevent something that won’t even be a problem for most men whether or not they are intact.

Just think about the real facts for a minute when it comes to sexually transmitted disease.  Some of these fanatics say that circumcision prevents HIV by 60% and should be considered a vaccine.  Would you honestly take the risk of a vaccine which has a 2% chance of major complications that prevents a disease that less than 2% of the population would catch anyway?  Where does the 60% come from?  Of that less than 2%, 60% are intact, which also means that 40% are cut.  That is less than a 1% difference.  You can’t believe these studies, since they use this type of manipulation all the time!  The circ fanatics will do whatever it takes to convince as many people as possible to cut their babies.  It’s up to the rest of us to protect them.

Honestly, who really sounds like a cult to you?  I know my money is on the circumcision fanatics and their followers.  It’s mothers like me who are trying to look out for the ones with no voice:  the babies.

Infant Circumcision vs. Adult Circumcision

Many people who support infant circumcision say that it must be done when the male is an infant because “he won’t remember it”. Not only is that a pitiful reason to torture a child, it isn’t even true. While he might not have the actual memory of the event, his body (not to mention his brain) doesn’t ever forget. These pro-cutters also say that it must be done during infancy because it doesn’t have the benefits when done older. Now if that isn’t the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever heard for supporting the torture of babies.

Let’s look at each type of circumcision:
An infant is taken from his mother and strapped to a board. He isn’t given paid meds, since his little body isn’t developed enough to handle it. What meds they can provide are too minimal to help with the pain, so he must lie there and scream as the most sensitive area of his body is ripped, crushed and then sliced away from him. Sometimes the trauma is so severe these babies retreat within themselves into a mini-coma that many people (including doctors) confuse with sleep.
Then as he tries to sleep, nurse or defecate, he is constantly reminded of this pain for at least the next week. Every movement chafes his raw little penis against a diaper. Urine and feces further irritates this wound and can lead to infections. And that is the best case scenario. Worst case is he loses too much blood during/after the surgery and dies, or the infection is so bad he ends up losing his penis.
An infant cannot consent to this, since he has no voice. His “loving” parents took that right away from him and made this “choice” for him. The doctor ignored the Hippocratic oath and did harm to his patient, the baby. On top of all that, the baby is unable to tell the doctor how much foreskin to remove. No way of saying “just a little off the top, please.” Or “can we spare the frenulum?” A baby’s penis is very small, and the doctors usually end up cutting off too much. This leaves a tight circumcision, which can leave a man with painful erections the rest of his life.

Now let’s look at an adult circumcision:
If a man thinks he has too much foreskin or a tight frenulum or has become a twisted circumcision fetishist, he might decide he wants to be circumcised. He researches and finds a good doctor, and then he discusses how much of a circumcision he wants. He can choose to have an inch cut off, or two or three. He can tell the doctor to fix a tight frenulum or remove it altogether. The doctor will make sure to see the penis erect, so he can judge how much skin the man has to spare. He will then willingly lie on an operating table, where he is given anesthesia. He won’t feel a thing during the surgery. Then he is given strong pain relievers for the healing time, which seems to vary between 3 and 6 weeks. Since he doesn’t defecate in a diaper, his penis can stay dry and protected within the bandages and his shorts. Since he chose to do this to himself, he won’t have the trauma of being tortured and won’t have to worry about having his ability to bond with his loved ones interrupted. This is his body and his choice, since his parents didn’t take that right away from him when he was born. And hopefully, when his penis heals and he can have sex again, he doesn’t regret what he just did to his previously healthy and intact body.