REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Touched off by a recent post on the Intact America blog and the responses it got (not to mention that wanted to correct a glaringly obvious spelling mistake, and make a few other minor changes), I decided to re-post my blog entry "Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation."

Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation
Original Date of Publication: May 4, 2013

Male circumcision has been called "rape" and/or "mutilation" before, and many, even amongst intactivists themselves, object, either because they themselves find it inappropriate, or because they're afraid others might, thus pushing people away from the message of intactivism.

But are "rape" and "mutilation" so different from male circumcision, that comparing them is inappropriate, if not insulting?

What is rape?
Rape is the act of forcing another person to perform sex acts against his or her consent. The act may involve the usage of drugs to impair a victim's judgement, or even memory.

Traditionally, rape happens when a man forces a woman to perform sex acts on him. However, rape between two men, two women, and yes, even a woman forcing another man, is also possible.

When are sex acts NOT rape?

When both people are consenting adults, sex between two people is not rape.

Consent is the difference between ecstasy and rape.

When one person is forcing another person to perform sex acts against his/her express wishes, then rape is being committed.

What is mutilation?
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "mutilation" as thus:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

 

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

When are these things NOT "mutilation?"

When either of these things are performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, they are not mutilation.

In addition, when these things are performed upon the request of a consenting adult, they are not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

What is circumcision?

In males, circumcision is the excision of the fold of flesh that covers the head of the penis. The procedure may or may not involve the use of drugs to kill the pain or impair the judgement of the person in question. Though there are speculative medical pretexts for circumcision, it is usually performed for cultural, traditional or religious, non-medical reasons, on healthy, non-consenting minors ranging between the newborn and pre-pubescent period, sometimes as far as the post-pubescent period. Very few circumcisions take place as a matter of actual medical necessity.

How is circumcision like rape?
At the crux of the intactivist argument is the principle of consent.

Circumcision can be compared to rape, because it is taking advantage of a minor to forcibly perform a permanent, disfiguring procedure on his sexual organs without his consent.

As in rape, the principle violated is the principle of consent, and the fact that pain killing drugs are used, and/or that the male victim may not be able to recall the event is irrelevant.

When is circumcision NOT like rape?

When it is performed on a fully consenting adult.

As in rape, the principle violated is that of consent.*

Because another, otherwise intelligent person, is forcing circumcision on another, non-consenting person, without his consent, sometimes against his express wishes, circumcision can be comparable to rape.

*Sometimes circumcision may be medically indicated in a minor that is not able to consent. When it has been determined that circumcision is medically indicated, and there are no other methods of treatment, circumcision is not comparable to rape. Reserving surgery as a very last resort is, however, standard medical practice governing all other forms of surgery.

How is circumcision mutilation?

From the definitions the online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us, it is the first definition,

 1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

that applies to both male and female circumcision, because it is "cutting up" or "altering radically so as to make [them] imperfect." 

Circumcision advocates often try to dismiss the notion that male circumcision is "mutilation" using definition 2,  

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

"because the foreskin is not a limb or an essential part of" a person.

If by the 2nd definition male circumcision isn't "mutilation," then female circumcision isn't "mutilation" either.

Some may make the claim that female circumcision destroys a woman's ability to experience orgasm, but research shows this claim to be false. There are varying degrees of female genital cutting, and scientific evidence shows that even women undergoing the most severe form of female genital cutting are still able to experience orgasm. It is demonstrably proven that a clitoris is not necessary for experiencing orgasm and a satisfying sex life. For further reading on this subject, please click here.

When is circumcision NOT mutilation?

When it is performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, circumcision is not mutilation. (This is actually standard medical practice that governs all other forms of surgery.)

In addition, when it is performed upon the request of a consenting adult, it is not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument

Ladies who are interested in getting their labia removed, their clitoris permanently exposed, or any other surgical alterations to their genital organs can find the appropriate surgeon and schedule an appointment.

The removal of the clitoral hood and external labia are known as "clitoral unroofing" and "labiaplasty" respectively.  They are perfectly legal for the appropriate surgeons to perform at the request of the interested woman.

Forcibly performing any of these acts on a healthy, non-consenting minor constitutes "genital mutilation," and is punishable by law, and there is no exception for "religious beliefs."

The difference is consent.

There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.

It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.

Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as she wishes with her own body.

US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.

An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo

Yes, I am against forcibly piercing a minor's ears as well.

Conclusion
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.

I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation.

Is male circumcision "rape?"

Here. You decide.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI

External Link:

Circumcision and Rape: Does a Victim’s Memory Matter?

Related Posts:

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Male circumcision has been called "rape" and/or "mutilation" before, and many, even amongst intactivists themselves, object, either because they themselves find it inappropriate, or because they're afraid others might, thus pushing people away from the message of intactivism.

But are "rape" and "mutilation" so different from male circumcision, that comparing them is inappropriate, if not insulting?

What is rape?
Rape is the act of forcing another person to perform sex acts against his or her consent. The act may involve the usage of drugs to impair a victim's judgement, or even memory.

Traditionally, rape happens when a man forces a woman to perform sex acts on him. However, rape between two men, two women, and yes, even a woman forcing another man, is also possible.

When are sex acts NOT rape?

When both people are consenting adults, sex between two people is not rape.

Consent is the difference between ecstacy and rape.

When one person is forcing another person to perform sex acts against his/her express wishes, then rape is being committed.

What is mutilation?
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "mutilation" as thus:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

 

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

When are these things NOT "mutilation?"

When either of these things are performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, they are not mutilation.

In addition, when these things are performed upon the request of a consenting adult, they are not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

What is circumcision?

In males, circumcision is the excision of the fold of flesh that covers the head of the penis. The procedure may or may not involve the use of drugs to kill the pain or impair the judgement of the person in question. Though there are speculative medical pretexts for circumcision, it is usually performed for cultural, traditional or religious, non-medical reasons, on healthy, non-consenting minors ranging between the newborn and pre-pubescent period, sometimes as far as the post-pubescent period. Very few circumcisions take place as a matter of actual medical necessity.

How is circumcision like rape?
At the crux of the intactivist argument is the principle of consent.

Circumcision can be compared to rape, because it is taking advantage of a minor to forcibly perform a permanent, disfiguring procedure on his sexual organs without his consent.

As in rape, the principle violated is the principle of consent, and the fact that pain killing drugs are used, and/or that the male victim may not be able to recall the event is irrelevant.

When is circumcision NOT like rape?

When it is performed on a fully consenting adult.

As in rape, the principle violated is that of consent.*

Because another, otherwise intelligent person, is forcing circumcision on another, non-consenting person, without his consent, sometimes against his express wishes, circumcision can be comparable to rape.

*Sometimes circumcision may be medically indicated in a minor that is not able to consent. When it has been determined that circumcision is medically indicated, and there are no other methods of treatment, circumcision is not comparable to rape. Reserving surgery as a very last resort is, however, standard medical practice governing all other forms of surgery.

How is circumcision mutilation?

From the definitions the online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us, it is the first definition,

 1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

that applies to both male and female circumcision, because it is "cutting up" or "altering radically so as to make [them] imperfect." 

Circumcision advocates often try to dismiss the notion that male circumcision is "mutilation" using definition 2,  

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

"because the foreskin is not a limb or an essential part of" a person.

If by the 2nd definition male circumcision isn't "mutilation," then female circumcision isn't "mutilation" either.

Some may make the claim that female circumcision destroys a woman's ability to experience orgasm, but research shows this claim to be false. There are varying degrees of female genital cutting, and scientific evidence shows that even women undergoing the most severe form of female genital cutting are still able to experience orgasm. It is demonstrably proven that a clitoris is not necessary for experiencing orgasm and a satisfying sex life. For further reading on this subject, please click here.

When is circumcision NOT mutilation?

When it is performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, circumcision is not mutilation. (This is actually standard medical practice that governs all other forms of surgery.)

In addition, when it is performed upon the request of a consenting adult, it is not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument

Ladies who are interested in getting their labia removed, their clitoris permanently exposed, or any other surgical alterations to their genital organs can find the appropriate surgeon and schedule an appointment.

The removal of the clitoral hood and external labia are known as "clitoral unroofing" and "labiaplasty" respectively.  They are perfectly legal for the appropriate surgeons to perform at the request of the interested woman.

Forcibly performing any of these acts on a healthy, non-consenting minor constitutes "genital mutilation," and is punishable by law, and there is no exception for "religious beliefs."

The difference is consent.

There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.

It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.

Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as she wishes with her own body.

US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.

An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo

Yes, I am against forcibly piercing a minor's ears as well.

Conclusion
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.

I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation.

Is male circumcision "rape?"

Here. You decide.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

ANNE RICE: Misandrist Attention Whore

 

Up until about three days ago, I didn't even know there was somebody named "Anne Rice."

Her latest activity on Facebook was brought to my attention, however, and it has seriously pissed me off.

Who in the hell is she?

Apparently she's some famous vampire story writer with a following.

Perhaps this following is dwindling however, and she must be trying to find another niche, because now it looks like she's trying to become another yuppie armchair feminist.

It was the following post on her Facebook page that caught my attention:

"Earlier, we posted on the ghastly cruel practice of Female Genital Mutilation of little girls around the world. Immediately the thread was hi-jacked by people insisting that male circumcision had to become the topic. In effect, the little girl victims of FGM was shoved brutally to the back of the bus, and told their problem just wasn't important enough to rate a thread of its own, and until male circumcision was addressed along with it, they would get no attention. I was stunned. I mean I have seldom been so disappointed and shocked by sexism on this page. Let me also note: male circumcision is almost never a topic brought here by anyone UNLESS some one tries to discuss Female Genital Mutilation; only then do the anti-male circumcision people appear to hog the limelight and shift the entire focus. This is truly stunning. Here is an article from wikipedia on FGM for those who are interested. Thanks to Rebecca Hulit for the link. I will continue to speak out against this barbaric practice. I do not think women are second class humans. They do not have to wait in line for men's problems to be solved before we can discuss theirs. (And by the way, male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same!)"

It's almost entertaining to watch somebody complain about how somebody "hijacks a thread" with "sexist comments"by doing none else than attempting to hi-jacking a thread, and replying with sexist comments.

No, seriously, if she's looking for a new crowd, Anne Rice should try becoming a stand-up comedian. 

No one is trying to "hi-jack" anyone. No one is trying to "steal Anne's thunder." 

FGM is wrong, and there's no doubt about it. 

But seriously, anti-FGM activists like Anne Rice has apparently become would like to believe like they've got to work real hard to get people on their side.

No, Anne, its MALE genital mutilation people want to "shove to the back of the bus," thanks.

I replied with similar remarks.

Her reply to me?

"You're insulting and you're wrong."

That's it?

That's her big reply?

All I've got to say is, not very impressed.

I can see that all this really is for her is a contest on getting more viewers and readers. Well, it looks like her tactics are working.

What a horrible, sexist person Anne Rice is, for seeding more ignorance on this issue.

How absolutely revolting to see this sexist double-standard from people who are supposed to be enlightened.

Apparently pointing out that boys also happen to be victims of genital mutilation, somehow means you're sexist against women

"I do not think women are second class humans. They do not have to wait in line for men's problems to be solved before we can discuss theirs," she says.

And yet, this is precisely what Anne Rice proposes for boys and MEN.

Men are second class humans. We shouldn't worry about men, because women and THEIR problems are more important, is basically what she and her ilk are saying.

What WE, and other intactivists are saying, is that male and female circumcision are the SAME problem.

Forcibly cutting is wrong for both boys AND girls.

How insulting that Anne Rice accuses us of "hogging the limelight and shifting the entire focus," when "brutally shoving to the back of the bus" is precisely what SHE's doing.

Anne Rice couldn't be less enlightened on the subject of genital mutilation.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

Intactivists demand equal rights for BOTH sexes.

No.

No more firewall between men and women.

You can't have one without the other.

You can't talk about the horrors of FGM while ignoring MGM and pretending it doesn't exist.

It's insulting, ridiculous, and REVOLTING to insist people are "hijacking" the conversation, "shoving to the back of the bus," when this is precisely what is happening right here.

It's so hilarious to hear Rice go on about "second class citizenship" and being forced to "wait in line," when that's basically what she is proposing should happen for boys and men.

Clamoring "don't you dare steal our thunder" while shouting others down... talk about the pot calling the kettle.

One of her followers, one Natalie Mullins dares to reply to me with idiotic pap:

"I love how Anne posts something about female issues and is accused of being sexists for it. You people are seriously backwards. Here's the problem Joseph- Men HAVE NOT BEEN OPPRESSED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS IDIOT. There is NOTHING sexist about Anne posting about FGM. And if you want to talk about MGM, make your own damn post about it. FGM and male circumcision are patently not the same and any idiot can see that."

 
Oh, I see the way it is; cutting girls is wrong, but cutting boys is OK "because they've had it coming all this time."

Can this woman even hear herself talk?

"Not patently the same." What is the basis for this claim?

I can back mine you know.

They ARE the same.

YES THEY ARE.

And this is demonstrable.

WHY are FGM and MGM "not patently the same?" Is it the severity? The "medical benefits?" Is it "the research?" Is it religion? Let's have it.

What is the reason cutting girls is bad, but cutting boys is OK?

This is the equality sign I currently have up on my Facebook account.

It envelops it all; blue for boys, pink for girls, purple for intersexed.

It's high time we stopped pretending like there is this firewall between the sexes.

Highlighting one sex over the other IS sexist.

We are not arguing that girls be drowned out, yet this is precisely what Anne Rice, and other anti-FGM speakers, demands for boys.

ALL sexes.

ALL voices need to be heard, not just that of women.

To demand only FGM be talked about, but nothing else, is blatant and deliberate sexism.

It's so funny to hear people talk about how women are the sex that are not to be seen or heard. We hear feminist activists resent the burka. But I guess this makes it OK to do to boys and men...

"Payback time," as Natalie suggests, I guess...

The about section of her Facebook page states that Anne Rice is "Committed to defending the rights of women, children, and gay persons. Committed to defending the rights of women, children and gays against traditional religions that target them for special persecution and oppression. " - Notice the absence of males.

When women undergoing circumcision in Africa suffer problems, such as complications, life-long problems, deaths etc., the whole world knows about it, and rightly so.

But when the men suffer the same problems, boys being circumcised in the harsh conditions of the African bush, boys losing their penises for life, boys and men dying after their "initiations," everyone just shuts up.

Don't talk about it.

Yes, let's talk about the girls and women being forcibly circumcised in Africa.

But to talk about the boys and men being forcibly circumcised is "sexist hi-jacking."

WHY???

Not understanding that forcibly cutting the genitals of any child is a human rights issue is deliberate and willful blindness.

It's time to bring down the firewall between FGM and MGM.

Cutting a person's genitals against his/her wishes is the exact same principle and violation of basic human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Anne Rice is a misandrist hypocrite. She's obviously a crowd-pleasing people pleaser with zero integrity. She cares more about book sales and popularity and doesn't give a rat's ass for actual equality of the sexes.

Now she's deleting dissent on her Facebook page while allowing deliberate ignorance to go unmitigated.

Being "brutally forced to the back of the bus" and having to "wait in line" indeed.

Equal rights for ALL sexes.

Related Articles: 
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Anne Rice loses a fan; another blogger sounds off.