24 April 2012

Infant male circumcision is genital mutilation

This post is of a very different topic than the ones I usually post on.  If this isn't a topic to your taste or you are too young to read it please do not continue.

A few web articles have come to light in recent days describing human male infant circumcision as male genital mutilation.  They are correct and I must say I can attest to many of the negative repercussions described as I am a victim of this procedure as well.  Taking a perfectly good and necessary organ of the body and removing it for some kind of societal trend is shocking.

If you or anyone you know is having a baby boy for Christ's sake please do not have it circumcised.  It truly is a profound disfigurement of an otherwise healthy, functioning genitalia and it's repercussions are lifelong and significant even when the procedure goes correctly.  The correct, intended outcome of this procedure is abhorrent.  A penis needs a foreskin especially during infancy when it's actually still joined to the glans.

Having said that, I know of some people who have their foreskins removed in adulthood because they are having some sort of medical problem with it.  That's fine, but for goodness sake at least let the penis develop properly up to and including puberty. 

The article links follow (links three and four often don't load -- keep trying until they do.  If it gets real bad let me know -- I may have to mirror it).  Warning, some of the images, especially in links 2, 3 and 4 are graphic and may disturb some viewers:

Mutilation of an Innocent

Update: 25/4/12:

I found a video where a doctor against circumcision says that the complication rate of circumcision is 100%.  It sure is:



  1. Thank you for this post. I hope more people get to read it.

  2. Thank you for speaking up on this issue. In times that woman are fighting for protection and privacy of their reproductive organs, men are still being ignored bc at the time they are too young to verbally say no. Many men are coming to terms with the fact that a very functioning part of their penis was taken from them for no reason. Its a common misconception that as a baby a parent has to pull the foreskin back to clean it. that is not correct. The foreskin in fused to the head of the penis with the same membrane that holds your fingernail to your nail bed. Imagine ripping your fingernail off. You simply clean the outside, never pulled the foreskin back. The average age of retraction is 10.6 years, some men don't retract until they're 18. It's all normal, and should never be forced. Only a boy should ever retract his foreskin. He knows how fast is enough without hurting himself.

  3. "some people ... have their foreskins removed in adulthood because they are having some sort of medical problem with it. That's fine, but for goodness sake..." get a second opinion, preferably from a doctor you know to be foreskin-friendly, because where circumcision is not customary and doctors are taught more about the foreskin than how to cut it off (may even have one of their own), the lifetime risk of actually needing to be circumcised is one in thousands.

    You'll also find a lot of useful information at The Intactivism Pages, www.circumstitions.com.

  4. And it's great to see more and more posts like this. Thanks to the Interwebz, word is getting out. The truth is great and it will prevail.

  5. Thanks for these comments. The amazing thing is, if someone hadn't have told me this (I read it on the internet) I wouldn't have known. I sometimes suspected that something was up with my package but I didn't quite know what. I mean, my circumcision hasn't quite been the end of the world for me, but it wouldn't have occurred to me that I wasn't quite "all I could be" if I wasn't circumcised.
    And it's understandable: I was just a baby when my circumcision happened and all I've ever known of my genitalia was the post-circumcision state. I wouldn't have known that circumcision is not desirable and entails extreme agony to the baby for 20 minutes, for I was too young to remember it.
    Fancy thinking that babies do not feel pain (as people used to believe)! Of course they feel pain -- more so than adults!! What a stupid time we lived through. Take away the foreskin? No thanks for me would be my choice...but too late, oh well; I was just a baby!
    The worst thing is: my lack of recognition of my own victimhood -- not realising circumcision was barbaric and not normal -- would have meant that I wouldn't have been concerned if my own son got circumcised. Armed with what I know now, of course I wouldn't allow that. Thank God my partner at the time didn't favour circumcision and that it wasn't standard practice at the time when my son was born in Australia (in 1999).

  6. Let's add the word mangle to the already accurate name for routine infant circumcision and see if we can find the right word to describe the procedure truthfully.

    The definintion of "mangle" is

    1. To mutilate or disfigure by battering, hacking, cutting, or tearing.
    2. To ruin or spoil through ineptitude or ignorance:

    That pretty much describes what causes an awake horrified infant to shriek in gasps of surprised terror when a mangler has taken hold of his tender genitals with devices manufactured just for him.
    Two counties that MOSTLY cherish and protect their male infants, totally opposite of the US, WOULD NEVER HEAR of MANGLING THEIR SON'S GENITALS AT BIRTH,will however throw their baby girls in any garbage can or river nearby, and even better, manufacture and send over circumcision devices to the US, where people cherish and protect their female infants ( or so they believe) while they allow the male infants to be injured mangled and killed at birth as though it is normal and even called traditional. And the infants tough enough to survive the merciless life threatening traumatic injury done to them awake get to live with it in embarassed or ignorant silence listening to big mouth blowhards telling them how free they are and lucky to live in such a wonderful country.
    No wonder US society is wrecked and women hate their lives and most of them don't understand what "the bad segment of society that mangles babies" stole from them. The killing of infant males that happened in the US the last three decades ( an insane quest for world dominance) was orchestrated with the help of less than ethical people. But why would one person in the US EVER, criticize any country for any human rights violations, cruelty barbarianism, or INFANTICIDE, when masses of US parents got handed a sexually mutilated deceased infant and a death certificate, that likely read in most cases, Cause of death: "unknown infection" "heart failure" "hemorage" but left out the primary cause hoping parents would just go on home, clam up forever and forget about it. Only in a few cases they report (117) do the cerificates read Cause of death "infant circumcision" Doctors will never allow people to know the real number. Somebody might yell "selective gender specific infanticide", and we know that would be bad.
    A lot of these parents should have been handed a fine new untraumatized AMERICAN son, a certificate of "live birth" and a cigar that said "its a boy"
    Everyone in the US is a victim of this strange attack on babies where hardly anyone ever says the perpetrators are INSANE, so they can't be prosecuted, so what is the right word for organized baby mangling?

    Poor Babies. RIP