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

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

The "Mommy Page" Wars

Lately, it seems a lot of "mommy pages" have sought to increase their viewership by bringing on the circumcision debate.

The most reliable way to start a thread that attracts 100+ comments on any parenting page, is to make infant circumcision the topic.

What are "mommy pages?"

Ostensibly they're parenting forums where moms, and sometimes dads, can come and glean, share or otherwise exchange parenting experiences and advice for the betterment of parenting, and hopefully, the betterment of the children being raised.

Or at least one would hope.

A lot of these, however, tend to be gathering places for like-minded parents who want nothing more than validation from others for what they've already decided to do with their children. Basically, they're mutual ego masturbation sessions where parents go to pat each other on the back and give each other high-fives.

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

They range from major mainstream online parenting forums, like CafeMom, BabyCenter, Baby Gaga, TheBump, etc., to "mommy pages" on Facebook, where they tend to have cute, but feisty little names like "kickass mommies," "uncensored mommas," or "I'm a mom, I got this."

The names try to give the impressions that they're places for parents to sound off and anything goes.

In reality, though, depending on the nature of the managers of the pages, they're places where the opinions and the nature of pages are already pretty much set, and where you've really got to walk around eggshells, so as to not upset other parents, namely the creators of said pages.

If you've got a dissenting view, you've got to be real careful to couch it, sugar coat it, and coddle others that disagree with you in attempts to get it heard. Dissenting views (or, actually, advice and experiences that upset other parents) tend to be silenced, deleted or blocked as "bashing" or "harassment."

In fact, when a lot of these "mommy pages" dare to bring on the circumcision debate, they always have to preclude, in all capital letters, with expressions such as "NO BASHING!" Or "HARRASSING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED, AND USERS BANNED IMMEDIATELY!"

Harrassment? Or Inconvenient Truths?
It's interesting what passes for "harassment" nowadays. Yes, I'm sure internet trolls exist in the intactivism movement; they exist in every walk of life.

But, it seems, on "mommy sites," on and off Facebook, any suggestion that circumcision might be a bad idea is considered "bashing" or "harassment," and is often deleted, and the poster blocked, no matter how diplomatic and respectful the comment may actually have been. Sometimes the entire thread is removed altogether, because it's just too much for the admins to handle. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that they may have actually made a mistake.

Parents go on these forums which are obviously for the purpose of dispensing and exchanging parental advice, they post their story, asking for every one's opinions, and then cry "bashing" and "harassment" when they don't get the validation they were looking for.

What I find almost comical is the way parents get on their high horse about the matter, and retort with snappy one-liners such as "whether or not I decide to circumcise my kids is none of your business." Or "don't you tell me how to raise my kids."

Another common one is "how dare you assume I don't have the good sense to research the subject for myself!"

Even though, they ARE, for all intents and purposes, seeking advice on a parenting advice forum. Many moms and dads who utter statements as the above also had the audacity to START their own "mommy" page to dispense advice to others.

Exchange on most other aspects of parenting (breast feeding, co-sleeping, car seats, slings, etc) is allowed. But anything other than "it's your choice" and "it's harmless and beneficial" regarding circumcision is considered "bashing," "harassment," "disrespectful," and "insulting."

Quite frankly, if parents didn't want to be "harassed" regarding their son's circumcision, why even bring it up? If they're "so confident" and "so informed" on their "decisions," why seek validation on the Internet?

On a parenting forum?

On Facebook?

Where millions of viewers can see?

It's rather immature, almost mentally unstable, to be making a post asking for other people's opinions, on an open parenting forum, where millions of other moms and dads can see, and opine, and then call it "bashing" and "harassment" when you don't get the validation you were expecting. It's rather self-contradictory to be posting part of your life on the internet, seeking out others' opinions, and then turn around and say "it's none of your business; don't tell me how to raise my child."

I see a lot more "bashing" and name-calling from defensive moms and dads who circumcised their sons than from those who decided against it. Right after comments against circumcision get deleted, and people are banned, those who remain proceed to speak ill of those who disagreed with them in their absence.

On a side note, I'd like to touch on defensive remarks to the effect of "how dare you think I'm not smart enough to do my own research!" It is impolite to insinuate that a parent is not so bright as to inform themselves on an issue that affects their children. The fact of the matter is, though, that one is not automatically smart and enlightened in child-rearing by mere virtue of being a parent. No parent knows it all. If this were true, then there wouldn't be a need for parenting forums and mommy pages. 

The fact of the matter is, however, that no respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision. The AAP tried to in their last statement, but stopped short. All medical organizations in the West state that the current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants. It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals. It is not possible, then, that parents who chose to allow their children to be circumcised "did their research."
 
It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

A Disservice to Parents and Their Children
Why do page admins delete "bashing" and "harassment" on their pages and forums? (In other words, factual information that may make other parents uncomfortable?) My theory is that, a lot of them are more interested in being the center of an online parenting forum than they are about dispensing factually accurate information. They aim to people please and earn and keep "likes" on their pages.

Deleting posts that upset parents who have made the irreversible decision to circumcise their sons makes you look like a hero.

What good is a parenting or "mommy" forum, where basically, instead of advice or exchange of accurate information, its people giving each other validation and reassurance?

The problem with only allowing "supportive," feel-good posts that pander to circumcising parents, and deleting factual information as "bashing," "harassment" and whatnot, is that a lot of misinformation is circulated.

Myths are spread, and children suffer as a result.

Stifling the circumcision debate may keep parents from getting upset and boost online egos, but it doesn't help anybody.

For example, it is accepted medical knowledge that you don't forcibly retract a child's foreskin "for cleaning." Research shows that the foreskin often remains non-retractable until, and even after the onset of puberty. These actions actually hurt your child and put him at risk for infection.

And yet "mommy sites" will often delete this very important information as "bashing" and "harassment," however respectfully presented, and will allow misinformative posts that "warn" parents who do not circumcise their children that they will have to forcibly retract their children to "clean."

As more and more parents are choosing to keep their children's genitals intact, the proper care of normal genitals is important information that parents need to be made aware of, if they don't want to inadvertently hurt their child.

Deleting factual information as "bashing" and "harassment," and blocking the users which disseminate it might spare parents who circumcised their children anxiety, but it doesn't help parents who are seeking to make an informed choice, or their children, totally defeating the purpose of a parenting website.

A Sign of Progress
It's rather self-serving the way "mommy site" admins want to take advantage of the circumcision debate to boost their viewership and "likes" on Facebook, but don't want to actually allow true debate, accusing users that make good points of "bashing" and "harassment," however polite they were, for the sake of popularity.

This seems to be working in favor of intactivism, though.

It used to be the case (and in many cases still is the case) that the circumcision conversation was strictly off limits, and people wanted the conversation to end full stop.

That "mommy sites" now want to host the circumcision debate as an attention booster, even with heavy editing and accusations of "bashing" and "harassment" is truly a sign of the times.

Moms and dads are being forced to come to the table talk about, and consider an issue they once hoped would be a bygone parenting "decision," like deciding what brand of diapers or wet tissues to use.

People are talking, which means circumcision is no longer this taboo "non-issue" you can slide underneath the carpet and pretend never existed.

Some mommy sites actually aren't that bad, and allow links and posts that polite and informative. On the whole though, there's a lot of sugar-coating and coddling of circumcising parents going on.

You can ban people and delete comments you don't agree with, but the circumcision debate is here and it's not going to go away.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all."
~Sophocles

Moral of the story:

"When you ask for advice on the Internet, don't call it "bashing" because it's not what you want to hear."

"If you didn't want it, then you shouldn't have brought it."

Related Posts:

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

Celebrity Endorsement: Shakira Pimps Her Baby Bump

 Shakira and Gerard Piqué pose for UNICEF

In what is at least an ostensive act of charity, Shakira is using the fact she's pregnant to help raise funds for UNICEF.

It all sounds like a noble good cause, but there's a big reason I will not donate to UNICEF, and others should become aware and refuse to fund them as well.

UNICEF promotes the circumcision of children as HIV prevention policy.

The following is an excerpt from "Children and AIDS: Second Stocktaking Report" pamphlet:

"Young people everywhere need accurate and relevant information about sexual and reproductive health and HIV transmission, as well as opportunities to build risk-reduction skills. They also need access to appropriate HIV prevention services, including voluntary counseling and testing, harm reduction, sexual and reproductive health services, PMTCT and male circumcision, and to commodities including condoms."

"Accurate and relevant information" indeed.

Yes, I'm sure "access to male circumcision" is precisely what these children "need."

Currently, UNAIDS is working with the Swaziland Ministry of Health to introduce and scale up neonatal circumcision, this, even though in recent studies, HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent in circumcised males in Swaziland, not to mention other African countries, and countries around the world, and there is absolutely zero evidence that infant circumcision has any effect on HIV transmission.

Another celebrity that is tacitly endorsing male circumcision as HIV transmission is Annie Lennox, not to mention others who sang with her at the Hope Rising! "benefit concert" in Toronto.

I wonder what goes through celebrities' minds when they hop onto charity bandwagons like this.

Is it that they're honestly interested in charity and helping those in need? Or is it merely empty PR projects with the intention of gaining a positive image? (Or an image at all?)

Maybe they actually really mean well, but don't scratch deeper than the surface, and are content with just being associated with "a good cause."

I grew up listening to Shakira, so part of me wants to believe she is actually interested in doing good for children, and not just taking advantage of charity to both boost her image AND announce her pregnancy.

I wonder if any of these celebrities actually look into the causes they decide to champion, or if they merely just hop on for the publicity...

Intactivists Beware
UNICEF promotes the circumcision of children as HIV prevention policy. Do not donate to UNICEF, and discourage others from donating to them, until they make a clear statement that they will not promote male genital mutilation as HIV prevention policy.

Become aware of organizations that promote, finance, or facilitate male genital mutilation cloaked as "HIV prevention strategy" and BOYCOTT them.

Relevant Facebook Page:
Foreign Aid Charities and Orgs: HANDS OFF Children's Penises

Related Articles:

Annie Lennox Tacitly Endorses Male Circumcision as HIV Prevention - TWICE

The 'Circumcision Song' Hits Airwaves Across Africa Thanks to Bill Gates' Funding

When All Else Fails, Hire a Sports Team

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

It's not that uncommon; very often I read on Internet mediums, be it an online parenting forum, some Facebook group or page for parents, or sometimes it just appears on my news feed, someone posts something along the lines of:

"I ask for prayers. Donovan is fighting for his life after some breathing problems he had after his circumcision."

Or, "Please pray for our family. Justin's circumcision wound had trouble healing, and now he's in critical condition."

Of course everyone offers their sympathy.

"We'll be prayin' for ya hon..."

"God is watching over him."

And, of course, when some one dares to call a spade a spade...

"What a tragedy. But was this necessary? Did the doctor tell you this would be a risk?"

...all hell breaks loose:

"Shut the *** up, you heartless ***!!!"

"Circumcision had nothing to do with it! Go the *** away!"

Maybe the person calling out the elephant in the room is even banned from the group, and his/her posts are deleted.

In a few cases I've seen, the tragedy ends in death, pissing MORE of us off, and by this time many can't stand it.

Many readers will recall the Joshua Haskins case, where the mother posted every detail on her blog (her son would not stop bleeding), and then deleted them. While it was perfectly clear that her son was having complications directly caused by his circumcision (at the last minute, doctors determined he needed one more suture on his penis), she started denying this, touting the line her doctors told her to repeat; "He died of heart problems he had before, not his circumcision."

Certainly, Josh was born with heart problems and he spent the first days of his life in a NICU. But the "heart problems" were not what we were reading about on her blog. Josh bled uncontrollably for seven hours until the doctors finally decided to give him an extra suture, but by then it was too late.

Intactivists following Joshua's mother's blog were not going to let this one go. They were following her blog right up to the point where the doctors approved Josh's circumcision, and many tried to warn her about the risk of death. And when Joshua died, the criticism intensified, as did readers who came to Joshua's mother's defense.

"How dare you attack this mother in her moment of grief!"

"You've got some nerve taking advantage of this mother for your cause!"

No one seemed to grieve that Joshua's tiny, fragile state was taken advantage of, or that if he hadn't undergone this needless surgery, he would still be alive.

You know, perhaps some intactivists did go too far with their comments. Some did get pretty nasty, and understandably so.

Perhaps things would be different had we waited for the grieving process to end. Or would they?

Would the Haskins' be more open or closed to listen to others regarding their son's cause of death? Would they be open, or closed to listening to the idea that their son may have died needlessly?

And these catastrophes keep coming. I keep reading pleas for prayers for boys who are left dying after their circumcisions. I keep reading of folks who lost babies just after their circumcisions (but insist it was something else).

It's different when you hear about this from people in your immediate vicinity instead of Facebook.

Not too long ago, a cousin of mine was circulating a plea for prayers among my family for a couple who had just lost their first baby boy in her congregation. I didn't need to inquire too deeply.

"Such a shame too; he only needed to be circumcised before they were released from the hospital."

My cousin said.

I didn't say anything; this was a couple in a church I don't even attend.

But my cousin couldn't seem to put two and two together. More important to her is the comfort she would derive from the thought that others would be praying.

Perhaps when a child is fighting for his life isn't the time to talk about circumcision.

Perhaps when parents are grieving isn't the time to talk about it either.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year). The fact is, hospitals are not required to release this data. Adding to this is the fact that doctors lie about a child's cause of death to cover their own bases, and parents, wanting to divorce themselves of any fault in their son's death, are complicit in repeating whatever their doctors tell them.

The child "bled to death." The child "suffered hemorrhage." The child "went into cardiac arrest." The child died of "septic shock."

Nevermind the circumcision performed on him beforehand.

What have the parents to say about the possibility that circumcision most likely killed their baby?

They're grieving. Don't you dare bother them.

And a year later, "Don't remind them. It breaks their heart every time."

Nobody wants to talk about it.

Meanwhile, the tragedies continue.

So when is it a good time to talk about it?

When is a good time to break the silence?

Related Posts:

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Circumcision Just After a NICU

 

FORCED MALE CIRCUMCISION: NPO Clitoraid Denounces Germany, Appeals to UN

Clitoraid, a private non-profit organization, which aims to assist FGM victims who want to undo their mutilations, has spoken out to denounce the German decision to legalize the ritual genital mutilation of boys.

“Bodily harm is against the fundamental rights of all children, and we can’t understand when a so-called civilized country such as Germany would allow its male babies to be so readily mutilated legally!" said Nadine Gary, spokesperson for Clitoraid.

In addition to denouncing the German legalization of the ritual genital cutting of boys, the organization is urging a worldwide end to genital mutilation of male children as well, appealing to the UN to forced genital mutilation worldwide for both genders.

“On Nov. 28, the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns all cultural and religious arguments in favor of FGM because the act constitutes a gross violates of children rights, but how can the U.N. ban Female Genital Mutilation and not denounce Male Genital Mutilation as well? Is it exempting certain religions from respecting the fundamental right of baby boys?” Gary asked.

Gary continues, "According to the World Health Organization, 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised. This means billions of people have been mutilated without their consent."

Brigitte Boisselier, Ph.D., head of Clitoraid, affirmed that mutilation of any baby or child in the name of a god is unacceptable.

“It’s been done for centuries under the pretense that a god requested it, but no religion should be allowed to harm infants or children who can’t give informed consent,” she said. “We’re setting up a hospital in Africa that’s due to open next year, where female victims can go to have genital repair surgery for free. “And, thanks to Clitoraid, thousands more can find relief at several clinics in North America. But we’ve also been getting e-mail from hundreds of circumcised men who want to have their own mutilation undone. They need help too! So, as Rael has repeatedly stated, it’s urgent to have all the old scriptures reviewed by an independent committee on human rights so that all religious group practices are in agreement with the Declaration of Human Rights.”

Rejected Amendments to German Circumcision Law
Amendments to the German law to legalize the genital mutilation of male children were put forth by circumcision opponents in the final Bundestag debates. Among the amendments that were rejected,  was a provision that parents cannot be allowed to circumcise a child if he is able to, and does verbally express his wishes to not be circumcised. (e.g., if the child can and does say "NO," the parents can no longer circumcise him)

The Bundestag majority rejected this amendment, meaning that according to the new law, the parents can physically drag him into the doctor's office, restrain him and circumcise him against his express wishes, and he has no protection.

Another amendment proposed that parents waited until he was 14 to decide whether or not he wanted to be circumcised.

This too was rejected.

 In Muslim traditions, boys are circumcised at later ages against their verbalized express wishes.

Sexist Double-Standards and Special Pleading
The tendency around female and male genital cutting is to sensationalize female genital cutting, while downplaying male genital cutting. While female genital cutting is rejected as "mutilation," and attempts to medicalize it are squarely condemned, the media seems to welcome, perhaps even encourage "research" which tries to find so-called "medical benefits" in male genital cutting.

While male circumcision advocates can get away with reading off a laundry list of the so-called "medical benefits" of male circumcision, advocates of female circumcision who try to clothe their cause in science are immediately stopped in their tracks.

Not so long ago, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this move was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."


When AAP fellow Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD published a 41-page Arabic-language paper titled “Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine," where he says female circumcision is recommended and even “an honor” for women, he was fired by the MAYO Clinic. (Interestingly enough, a petition started to revoke this man's certifications states in bold lettering: "Remember: It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little girl's vulva. It's still felony child abuse.")

Yet Jewish doctors who circumcise boys can get away with both reciting the "circumcision has medical benefits" sutra, and expounding with beaming pride that circumcision is this "time-honored tradition."

I'll have to steal the quote from above and make it part of the intactivist movement:

It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little boy's penis. It is still child abuse, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

To continue with my own quotes:

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.

Thank you, Clitoraid, for acknowledging that the genital cutting of BOTH sexes is a gross violation of the most basic of human rights, and for resolving to help victims of BOTH genders regain what was stolen from them.

Visit:
http://clitoraid.org/

Related cause:
Help find ways to restore intact organs for men who want to undo their mutilations

 http://www.foregen.org/

Related Blog Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom  

So Where's the "Sunat" Party?

"Religious Freedom" and "Parental Choice" Not Absolute: Yet Another Example

Perhaps the most classic of arguments invoked in favor of male infant circumcision are those of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." In actuality, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" aren't absolute, and I've given examples of this in past blogs.

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people's resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn't be need for child protective services.

Last year, a mother lost custody of her 8yo daughter for injecting Botox into her face for a child beauty pageant. This prompted New Jersey law makers to make it illegal to inject Botox into children, UNLESS it is for actual medical purposes. (Sound familiar?) The year before, a man was given prison time for tattooing his gang's symbol onto his son's abdomen. In Oregon, a law was passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.

And, the classic case that trumps "religious freedom" and "parental choice," in 1996 a ban was instituted, banning female genital cutting of any kind. All female genital cutting, ranging from infibulation, to a "ritual nick" as proposed by the AAP, is illegal in the United States, and punishable by law. No exempt for "religious" cutting of female children's genitals exist.

To add another example where "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail, a Texan man has been jailed for carving a pentagram on the back of his son. It could be said that this man was merely practicing his "freedom of religion," and exercising his "parental choice." But these arguments just aren't going to fly, aren't they.

Interestingly enough, in another recent case, a Canadian man recently lost a high court appeal to have charges of aggravated assault against him thrown out; he tried to circumcise his own child with a knife. His arguments? "He was practicing his religious beliefs."

"This is a case about child abuse... This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally," it was argued.

How the material circumstances of the case bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally is beyond me. Now, it seems, the government is determining what "proper" religious rituals are, and defining what constitutes "child abuse."

Andrew Freedman of the AAP "task force" on circumcision defense circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table. Yet, for the Canadian case, the trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure.

So when is it "child abuse?" When is it not?

Why was it "child abuse" for one man to cut his child's genitals on the kitchen table, on the grounds of "religious beliefs" and "parental choice," but not the other?

How far are "religious beliefs" and "parental choices" protected until the government is allowed to intervene?


Other "parental choices" that don't fly under "religious freedom."

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

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 Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom