All infant circumcision is child abuse and needs to stop!

Any removal or alteration of a baby’s genitals is mutilation and child abuse.  If you ask most people from civilized societies, they will immediately say that FGM (female genital mutilation) is barbaric and worthy of being against the law,  and it is.  If you mention MGM (male genital mutiliation AKA circumcision) to the same group of people, you get mixed results.  For many ridiculous reasons MGM is totally acceptable, especially when it’s done to non consenting infants.  The people who are against FGM but support MGM are aghast when the two are compared, saying that FGM is far worse than MGM. Please note that this blog is not saying that all stages of FGM are the same as male circumcision.  Of course the higher stages are beyond awful and can be fatal.  Though, a botched circumcision can also lead to death and/or loss of penis. The most common FGM is the removal of the external clitoris, and that is what is being compared to male circumcision.Following is a chart that shows the severity of FGM and MGM and where they each fall. As you can see, many stages of FGM are less severe than male circumcision:

Forms of Female and Male Genital Cutting

I wanted to ask a simple question.  Are you aware that most of the female clitoris is internal?  The little nub that is exposed (size varies of course) is the equivalent of the glans of the intact penis, and the rest of the clitoris surrounds the vagina.  No woman in her right mind would want that nub removed though, since it is the only way we can receive oral orgasms.  But the inner clitoris is what gives a woman vaginal (and G-spot) orgasms.  So to say that the removal of the glans of the clitoris is removing a woman’s ability to enjoy sex is just plain ignorant.  That is not to say it isn’t still barbaric, which it is.  That just means that it can be just as bad as removing the more erogenous half of the penile skin.  Both FGM and MGM without consent should be illegal.

With the African studies claiming the grossly inflated reduction of HIV, more people might start thinking that infant circumcision is a good idea.  That is what the pro-circumcision groups behind these studies want, but that doesn’t make it right.  Most of the reasons people push for circumcision could easily apply to women, but that doesn’t make it anymore acceptable to surgically alter female genitals.

1. “Circumcision gets rid of the extra skin, which is a breeding ground of bacteria and infection.”  So is the vagina, but most women (including myself) manage to survive our whole lives with ours intact. If we do have a problem, antibiotics will clear it right up. We don’t get stitched up to prevent STD’s and HIV. So why slice off half of a baby’s penis on the slight chance he will someday catch an STD or HIV?  That is just plain ignorant.

2. “If the foreskin is left intact, smegma builds up and causes penis to stink.”  Um, vaginas produce smegma too.  It may sound like a disgusting word, but smegma keeps the intact penis and the vagina lubricated and moist.  They are also both self cleaning organs. All it takes to keep either from smelling bad is daily bathing.

3. “That extra skin is not needed.”  Actually, that “extra” skin keeps the penis an internal organ, which is what it is designed to be.  Same for the vagina.  Could you imagine what would happen if a woman’s vagina was subjected to air all the time? It would dry out and make sex painful if not impossible.  Artificial lubricants are not needed when two intact people have sex, though sex would be impossible if both partners had external sex organs (ignoring anal sex, of course).  Not only that but the majority of pleasure nerves are in the foreskin, so they are removed.  There are in fact more nerves in the foreskin than the female’s external clitoris.  Here is an interesting video which demonstrates how much skin is removed for both sexes during circumcision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FcN3lT40w&feature=related

4. “It’s more attractive.” Countries that practice FGM also feel that the circumcised female is more attractive.  If people have a problem with genitals the way nature made them, they should probably seek psychological help instead of supporting the abuse of children/infants.

So the next time you are repulsed by the idea that some countries circumcise their baby girls, just remember they might feel the same way about it as some people in the US feel about male circumcision.  Just because it is acceptable in certain cultures does not make it right or ethical.  All infant circumcision should be illegal because an infant cannot give consent.

 

Idiot’s Guide to Circumcision (or Circumcision for Dummies)

Honestly, there are idiot guides to everything else under the sun, so why not circumcision (AKA circ and cut)?  There are obviously people who are still totally in the dark about this ancient barbaric practice, so why not?  Probably because it would cause the medical profession to lose all the money it makes from strapping down baby boys and chopping off nearly half (or more) of the skin of their penises.  I have written several articles regarding this controversial (yes, amazingly controversial) topic, including one on debunking the myth that it’s just a snip of skin.

I recently read an article that was linked on Facebook from the group, Saving our Sons, which detailed a new mom’s nightmarish encounter with almost losing her son due to a botched circumcision (I’ve read so many of these stories lately).  Not only that, but he is forever maimed and probably won’t ever be able to enjoy physical intimacy.  There are so many bad things that can happen due to being cut.  The least of which is less sensitivity, and the worst is death, but there are many degrees of awful between those two extremes. One is what happened to that woman’s son.

The incompetent doctor cut all the shaft skin instead of the “normal” amount they remove.  The poor kid nearly bled to death until a surgeon finally had to sew the glans to the base to prevent anymore loss of blood.   Of course this required two more corrective surgeries when the boy became a toddler.  Even still, you have to imagine this boy no longer has any of the nerve enriched skin, so it is doubtful he will ever receive any pleasure from sex.  And supposedly this happened after the new mom was told something so awful, it convinced her that her son would hate her if she didn’t have him cut.  So a woman who proclaims to have been against cutting changed her mind due to one idiotic person.  But the question remains, who was the bigger idiot? The person who told her such nonsense or her for believing it?  Can I get a show of hands?

Her story made me feel sick.  I couldn’t feel sorry for her. She did the research and knew it was wrong. She didn’t even have the guts to reveal what she was told, merely that it still haunted her.  Of course it did, because her decision has doomed her son to a celibate life, not to mention the possibility of more corrective surgeries to fix something that should never have been done.  Will her story save other new moms from doing the same thing to their boys? Maybe, but maybe not.  This woman did the research, and yet she still let some stranger with a knife near her innocent baby.  I didn’t even know as much then as I do now, when I told the doctor I didn’t want my son cut.  I knew idiotic women who told me that they would never be with a man who was intact.  I didn’t care about their opinions, because I had those same feelings when I was younger.  I was brainwashed into thinking all men should be cut.  I believed it should be done, and that it was neater and more attractive.  Well, I’ll tell you what. After changing and cleaning my intact son now for almost three years, I think his little winky is the cutest one I’ve ever seen.  I would physically do damage to anyone who tried to mutilate that perfect little thing (well, one day it won’t be so little :))  and damn the consequences.

For all of you who continue to believe the hype that cutting reduces the risk of getting STDs and HIV. Here’s a new flash: it’s  total bull.  Only abstinence and condoms prevent that.  I know plenty of people who have acquired STDs from their cut boyfriends.  And since America has the highest rate of cut men as well as the highest rate for HIV, where is the correlation? If we hardly have any intact men, then who is getting HIV?  That’s right, the circumcised men.  It’s simple math, people.

The study in Africa supposedly showing a decrease in HIV from those who were cut?  Well, can any of you men imagine wanting to have sex after you’ve just had half your dick cut off? Those studies didn’t take into account the healing time, which would affect those men’s sex drives.  I think it takes about 6 weeks for a man to fully heal from having his foreskin chopped off.  Don’t quote me on that, since I didn’t check, but common sense tells you that they weren’t out there having sex right after the surgery.  And from what I’ve read recently, the rate of HIV is now increasing for those cut men.  Yep, because they’ve now had plenty of time to heal and jump back into the fray. Afterall, they are so ignorant they believe that since they’ve been cut they no longer need to use condoms. They believe the hype that circ’d men don’t need to use them.  I still don’t understand how that myth even got started.  Besides all that nonsense, let’s go back to cutting baby boys.  From what I understand not too many infants are out there having sex, so that supposed “benefit” is moot.

And though I’ve avoided discussing the religious aspects, I won’t hold back anymore.  Adults pick their religions, not children.  To force your son to make a pact with a God he knows nothing about is wrong.  Let him decide when he’s older if he wants to make such a personal and intimate pact. Maybe he will follow a different path.   For those who refer to the old testament of the Bible, where it allegedly says God wants all boys to be mutilated on the 8th day of their life, SO WHAT?  There are plenty of things in the Bible that are morally wrong, like girls having sex with their fathers.  Do you support that too, since it is in the Bible?

It all boils down to a human right’s issue, and babies are humans. They have a right to bodily integrity, and no parent (or doctor) should have the right to remove a fully functioning organ. Yes, the foreskin is an organ. Don’t believe me?  Look it up.  After all, don’t you know what the biggest organ is in the human body?  Yep, it’s our skin.  And for those who say that only internal organs count, at least half of the foreskin IS an internal organ. “The intact penis has a glans penis that is an internal organ,” quoted from doctorsopposingcircumcision.org (see link at bottom of page).

For those who think that babies can’t remember what was done to them, there can be psychologic complications:

The patient has experienced, according to experts, “excruciating pain, the perinatal encoding of his brain with violence, an interruption of maternal-infant bonding, the betrayal of infant trust, and must suffer the risks and effects of permanently altered normal genitalia. In addition, he has lost his basic human right to a sexually intact and functional body.” Milos MF, Macris D. Circumcision: a medical or human rights issue? J Nurse-Midwifery. http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

Just because we’ve done it for hundreds or even thousands of years does not make it right.  We used to stone people.  We used to burn people at the stake if we thought they were witches. We used to think that leeches cured fever.  We are supposed to be more enlightened.  So how come we still practice this ancient barbaric ritual?

Oh, and one last thing I should mention.  Many people who are in support of routine infant circumcision do so because it is their sexual fetish. They are turned on by the idea of someone inflicting pain on a baby’s genitals.  Don’t believe me again?  Well, this time I did the research for you, http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Circumfetish, as well as  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djiTpV__qR4. Be sure to check out the reference links given near the bottom of the circleaks.org page!!  Do you want to be in the same camp as these perverts?  Here’s another news flash for you.  Some doctors who perform circumcisions ARE circumfetishists.  So before you hand your baby over to someone willing to chop off his foreskin, ask yourself if he could be one of them.  They are able to handle a baby’s penis and abuse it without fear of reprisal.  How is this not a problem for everyone?

Hopefully this Idiot’s Guide to Circumcision will shed some light for those of you looking for answers.  Unfortunately, for every article written against cutting, there is one written saying how wonderful it is.  Just question anyone’s motives when he/she tells you that you should intentionally inflict pain and abuse on your baby son. He was born with it for a reason. It does not cease to be important once your son is born.  It will benefit him his whole life, and it is incredibly easy to clean.  So for those other idiots who say it stinks?  Take a damn shower!! It’s called soap and does amazing things to dirt and grime.  Just imagine our fingernails if we never cleaned under them.  I suppose they should be removed at birth too?  How about behind our ears?  That can get pretty nasty without proper cleaning. Should we slice those off too to avoid the trouble?  Do you see where I’m going with this?  Stop missing the forest for the trees (or rather stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater), and take your whole baby home from the hospital.  If you truly feel he was perfect the way he was born, then PROVE it!

Oh, there is one last thing I’d like to add. I recently read an account of a man who had a circumcision in his 20’s. He apparently had a tight frenulum, so an erection was uncomfortable for him. Instead of fixing the problem, he had his entire frenulum cut off as well as getting circumcised. Reading his account literally made me sick to my stomach, but it did remind me of something very important. When a baby is circumcised, he cannot tell the doctor how much of his foreskin to remove. The doctors usually remove all of the loose skin. When an adult male has a circumcision, he is free to tell his doctor how much or little to remove. So if a man is born with an overly long foreskin or a tight frenulum, he can choose to have some of the foreskin removed or have his frenulum fixed. There is no such civility for a newborn baby. Just another reason why routine infant circumcision is WRONG!!

Further reading: Foreskin facts & Doctors opposing circumcision