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

AUSTRALIA: "Circumcision Debate" - Australian Sensationalism?

The "Great Circumcision Controversy" Trope
Audiences may not be aware at first glance, but media outlets are perpetrators of what I call the "Great Circumcision Controversy" trope. That is to say, that they are taking advantage of viewer gullibility, not to mention the fact that circumcision, particularly the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants, is a custom that is already deeply entrenched in some cultures, to create "controversy" where there is actually none.

How it works
In order to encourage the belief that male infant circumcision is a surgery that is carried out for medical reasons, media outlets present it as a controversial and ongoing "debate" between altruistic "expert" medical authorities, who pretend to vouch for male infant circumcision as "disease prevention" and "parental choice," and the resistance of extremist "special interest" groups who have nothing better to do than meddle in these affairs. This portrayal of reality, however, is not at all consistent with the view of male infant circumcision given in the position statements of world medical authorities.

Media Hype vs. Reality
While the media presents male infant circumcision as an "ongoing debate" going on between medical "experts" and "angry activists," the reality of the matter is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations.

The fact is that no respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. All medical organizations in the West state that the current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants.

Though it may come as a surprise to some, this does include the AAP. Advocates of circumcision bandy about the line from the recent AAP statement that "the benefits outweigh the risks," but they fail to mention that the same statement said these self-same "benefits" were not great enough to recommend circumcision for newborns.

Australian Media Perpetuates "The Great Circumcision Controversy"
Australian media outlets continuously perpetuate the false delusion that there is this "great circumcision debate" going on regarding the circumcision of infants.

It always goes something like this; They always claim that "a group of experts agree" that circumcision has these "medical benefits," the "experts" always being the same usual suspects. The spokesperson is usually Brian Morris, whom they always present as an "expert," never actually mentioning his credentials, which would reveal that he is actually not qualified in any way to talk about the subject. He and other "experts" are put up against activists against circumcision, which may or may not be better equipped.

Disingenuity
There is a tendency in most of the media, not just Australian media, to misrepresent the circumcision issue. Placing the cart before the horse, and beating around the bush, they focus attention secondary issues that aren't actually being contested.

One of the latest Australian media outlets to push the "great circumcision controversy" was the 60 Minutes television program. It follows the usual format stated above, citing the same usual suspects, who are put up against "non-expert" activists who are angry about circumcision.

Asks 60 minutes:

The question in the above picture misses the point entirely. No debate on any other surgical procedure begins with such a loaded question. More than "wrong," or "right," is circumcision medically necessary? If it is a medically necessary procedure, there is no "wrong" or "right" about it.

Similar loaded questions are asked.

"Should parents be allowed to have their children circumcised?"

"Should it be banned?"

They all, either intentionally, or inadvertently, avoid the crux of the argument. If circumcision is not medically or clinically indicated, then asking whether circumcision is "wrong" or "right" is irrelevant. Nobody is debating whether or not doctors should be allowed to perform surgery where it is medically necessary.

Without medical or clinical indication, can a doctor even be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice?" Let alone be expected to be reimbursed by public coffers?

Media outlets do a very good job of circumventing the questions that actually need to be asked.

Circumcision "Experts" Strike Again
Articles fueling the so-called "circumcision debate" are common fare at news.com.au, and they prop up Brian Morris and friends as a so-called "circumcision experts" regularly.

On this blog post, I will dissect their most recent circumcision article, which opens with the headline:

"Experts call for reintroduction of circumcisions in NSW public hospitals"

Who are the "experts" calling for said reintroduction? Australian media outlets may not be immediately forthcoming, but those who have been following circumcision in Australian media outlets know precisely who they are.

In tiny letters below the staple baby picture it is written:

"The circumcision debate is back on."

Well, at least on news.com.au it is...

In bold lettering, the first sentence of the article reads:

"INFANT circumcisions must be reintroduced into NSW public hospitals as a necessary and cost effective public health measure, according to an international panel of doctors, lawyers and ethicists."

The suspense is killing me. An "international panel of doctors, lawyers and ethicists," we are told. Who called this panel to convene? Where was this panel held? Who were the said "doctors, lawyers and ethicists" it was composed of? But most importantly, why does it sound as if this said "panel" were taking a position against the most respected medical authorities in the West? (Hint: Because they are.)

Continues the article:
 

"And failure to do so violates a child's right to protection from potentially fatal diseases and infections including penile cancer and HPV and HIV viruses."

Many dubious premises abound here, the first being that circumcision is, in fact, a "necessary and cost effective public health measure." The "experts" in the aforementioned "panel" may "agree," but no medical organization in the world recommends the circumcision of infants, as such. In fact all of them, including the AAP, and Australia's very own RACP, say that the so-called "benefits" are insufficient to do so.

Circumcision does not, cannot "protect" against penile cancer, HPV, nor HIV. A circumcised man is still susceptible to these, and any disease an intact man is susceptible to. A circumcised man is still capable of developing penile cancer, and, he is still vulnerable to HPV and HIV, and any other STD. Circumcision FAILS to protect a man against any STD, which is why he must wear a condom.

Any "expert" that denies these very simple, irrefutable facts, can be dismissed as a quack.


Let's continue.

"Sydney University academics were among a panel of experts which on Friday published an international critique strongly denouncing a Tasmanian Law Reform report which proposed banning circumcision."

How absolutely disingenuous of Daniela Ongaro, "health reporter."

Let us read from the "critique" itself. At the very top of the article, it reads:

"Corresponding author: Brian J Morris"

This should already be raising red flags.

Down, under the heading "Author's Contributions," it says:

"MJB and BJM drafted the manuscript."

 MJB and BJM being Michael J. Bates, and Brian J. Morris respectivey.

Continues the passage:

"BJM, MJB, JBZ, SEK, AM, ADW, LSZ and AART made substantial contributions to successive drafts and thereby the intellectual content of this article."

It sounds as though Brian Morris would like to give himself credibility by association. He actually lacks the credentials necessary to be speaking about medical or legislative matters, as we will see later on, so he depends on the "substantial contributions" from others who actually do.

"All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Which was drafted primarily by Michael Bates and Brian Morris.

"Sydney University academics were among a panel of experts" tries to make it sound like Michael Bates and Brian Morris were "a part of" a so-called "panel of experts," when actually, they are actually the ring leaders. And "international critique" tries to make it sound like entire medical boards of different nations have come together to denounce Tasmanian Law Reform, when actually, it's just Brian Morris with a little help from his friends.

Falsely lending credibility to a man with no medical credentials whatsoever, and with a known track record for promoting "compulsory circumcision" for all males in Australia? And exaggerating his most recent paper, which is nothing more than more of the same pro-circumcision propaganda he writes as an "international critique?"

Seriously, Daniela Ongaro, who do you think you're fooling.

Let's move on:

"It was feared the report could pave the way for legislation which would criminalise the practice and potentially jail doctors and parents if a child were circumcised."

This much is actually true. But "feared" by whom?

"The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice," said author and legal expert Michael Bates.

Judging from the article itself, Michael Bates may be the only legal expert of the group of 8. There would appear to be only one ethicist, and the rest seem to hail from medical schools. The phrasing "a panel of lawyers, doctors and ethicists" hides these numbers.

"A legislative ban in Tasmania would fuel the vigorous campaigning against childhood male circumcision by opponents worldwide."

I think this is the fear that has Brian Morris' undies in a bunch; a legislative ban would put a definitive nail in the coffin to his pipe dream of "compulsory universal circumcision" for Australian males.

Continues the article:

"Sydney University's Professor Emertitus (Is this even a word?) Brian Morris said there is strong medical evidence of the lifelong health benefits of infant circumcision and called on all governments to make the procedure again available in public hospitals with an increased Medicare rebate."

Medical evidence which was insufficient for the AAP, nor the RACP, nor any other respected medical board in the world, to endorse the practice.

"The O'Farrell Govenment should absolutely act on this now - I have talked to them and nothing's been done which is just appalling," Prof Morris said.

And who is Brian Morris? And why should anyone listen? We'll get to that in a minute, just as soon as I finish destroying this poor excuse for a news article:

"In NSW routine circumcisions of baby boys are not performed in public hospitals unless there is a medical need."

Which is usually the way medicine works.

Strangely enough, there is a lone sentence in bold, floating in the middle of the article that reads:

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Comment below

But it leads nowhere. There is no way to comment. Curiouser and curiouser...

Misrepresentation
Media outlets often present circumcision "experts" as "objective," "impartial," and/or "dispassionate" authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumcision fan clubs.

It should strike viewers as odd that, rather than bothering to invite someone from a reputable medical organization, such as the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), to speak on the matter, Australian news outlets place more weight on what a few self-proclaimed "experts" who directly contradict the stance of Australia’s peak medical bodies have to say.

Who is Brian Morris? And why should he be given any credibility?

Brian Morris is the most vocal circumcision promoter in Australia. Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision (though he likes to market himself as one, and the Australian media has swallowed the act, hook, line and sinker), but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences at the University of Sydney). He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention, and much less, law.

And yet, Morris is constantly producing publications for parents compelling them to circumcise their children, and the Australian media is constantly giving him the spotlight, calling him an "expert" on the topic of circumcision, oftentimes uncontested by any real authority on the matter. Furthermore, he is a prolific publisher of "studies" and "appraisals" of circumcision, which are basically Brian Morris quoting himself, and repeating inconclusive or flawed circumcision "research," and calling for the RACP to instate "mandatory circumcision" for all males in Australia.

Morris is (was?) also an outspoken member of Gilgal Society, a UK-based club for circumcision enthusiasts, known to be a meeting place for people who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Members, called "circumfetishists" by some, discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal has actually published circumcision erotica involving underage boys. The head of Gilgal Society, Vernon Quaintance, was arrested not too long ago for the possession of child pornography.

Up until recently, Brian Morris' name could be found in pamphlets, alongside the Gilgal Society logo. Since the Gilgal scandal, he has tried to sponge out his ties to Gilgal, by releasing new pamphlets without the logo. Gilgal Society no longer seems to serve Brian Morris purpose of a functional club for circumcision enthusiasts, so he decided to start his own circumcision club in Australia.

Brian Morris also runs a website which he uses to promote circumcision, which was at one point hosted on University of Sydney servers. He was recently asked to move it elsewhere, as the University of Sydney found content on it that was inappropriate. Brian Morris links to Gilgal Society, as well as eight other "recommended" circumfetish websites, and he also includes a list of places to get circumcision devices.

Accusations of Libel
Brian Morris' favorite thing to do when he feels threatened by others revealing damning information about him, is to accuse them of "libel."

Typing "libel" in google yields the following definition:

li·bel

ˈlībəl

noun

noun: libel; plural noun: libels

1.

Law

a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

synonyms:

defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering;

"Libel" and "slander" are basically written and spoken ad hominem respectively, and Brian Morris might have a case, if anything I have said about him on this blog were untrue. To my knowledge, everything I have written about Brian Morris in this blog post is verifiably true. If any corrections need to be made, I welcome them in my comments section.

Brian Morris does not hold medical credentials of any kind, he takes a position against the most respected medical authorities in the West, including Australia's RACP. He is, or once was, a prominent member of Gilgal Society, a club for circumcision enthusiasts, and a known publisher of underage circumcision erotica, and he consorts with members other similar circumcision clubs, such as CircList. He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention, and much less, law.

Some may yet argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not "ad hominem." The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (last accessed 9/15/2013):

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

It ought to concern the Australian media, the University of Sydney, and respected medical authorities, that Brian Morris lacks any credentials to be speaking on the matter of circumcision, that he may be abusing the prestige of the University of Sydney for his own agenda, and that close inspection reveals his connections to circumfetish groups. While he may outwardly portray an interest in child well-being and public health, this seems to conflict with a perverted interest in the circumcision of minors.


Points to note:

• The Tasmanian Law Reform Intstitute findings follow the 20yr old findings of the Queensland Law Reform Commission, where, as in Germany, they found circumcision to be an assault, on a strict interpretation of the law.
• Circumcision is banned in Australian public hospitals.
• Fewer than 1 in 1,000 registered doctors will circumcise a heathy child.
• Two states are circumciser free.
• An Australian Doctor survey in 2012 found over half of respondents consider circumcision "tantamount to child abuse and should never be performed".
• In 2007, the Australian Medical Association 'backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys'.
• Circumcision was near universal for a few generations until the '60s and virtually abandoned in the '70s.
• A 1993 Queensland Law Reform Commission report into Infant Male Circumcision (following the death of a boy) found circumcision to constitute "an assault", violating both the State's Criminal Code and the Common Law.
• A 2012 Tasmanian Law Reform Institute report recommended a general ban on the practice.
• Australian 'media doctor', Dr John Darcy, outlines the position of the Australian medical community in 30 seconds flat in this YouTube video.
• Only a small number of people in Australia publicly advocate for circumcision. You can meet them here.

Related Links:

WASHINGTON POST: The "Great Controversy" Strikes Again

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

GUEST BLOGGER: WHO Retrocedes 150 Years

In my last post, I wrote about the WHO and its codifying of a completely bogus diagnosis. I just read another blog post which goes into greater detail regarding the history of the diagnosis "adherent prepuce," and the normal development of anatomically correct male organs, which has already been well-documented in medical history. I thought it warranted a re-post on my blog, so I asked permission from the original blogger, dreamer, if he would allow me to do so and he complied. I feel it will be a good lesson in history and male anatomy for my readers.

The balanopreputial synechiae conspiration - or when medicine reverses 150 years thanks to a committee 

By dreamer - August 27, 2013

 

Or can the World Health Organization can be hijacked by special interest groups?

The description of the circumcision procedure often includes a step, described as follows in the circumcision advocacy site circinfo:

"The adhesions between glans and foreskin are divided with a hemastat (artery forceps). "

Yet Douglas Gairdner in his 1949 "The Fate of the Foreskin" article, indicated that "It will be seen that preputial "adhesions" is an inapposite term to apply to the incompletely separated prepuce, suggesting as it does that the prepuce and glans were formerly separate structures."

In Intactivist circles, these adhesions are often referred to as "balanopreputial synechiae", "balanopreputial lamina", "balanopreputial membrane".

"Balanopreputial" means specifically something that is related to the glans ("balano") and the foreskin ("prepuce").

Synechiae is defined as an adhesion between two parts of the body.

Lamina refers to a structure, particularly a flat structure (2D)

In Anatomy, a membrane may refer to a thin film that is primarily a separating structure.

Wikipedia used to have an article on the balanopreputial membrane. This article was marked for deletion in 2007. The argument for deletion is that these words basically are an expression used by "lobbying" groups (in other words, "anticircumcision" or intactivist groups) to refer to "the epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans". There is no equivalent article describing the "epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans".

While this term is difficult to find, I've found references to the process of "balanopreputial separation" as an external sign of puberty in rats! More details here.

A book on Pediatric Drug Development includes the term "balanopreputial separation" again in reference to rats.

What about people?
It is known and reference in literature even as old as 1933, that "the prepuce in the human penis is adherent to the glans at birth, a layer of stratified squamous epithelium being interposed, and shortly after birth these parts become separated so that the prepuce may be retracted.", and the presence of this epithelium is referenced in this article as being described as far back as 1860.

In 2012 a group of Brazilian researchers studied the development of the foreskin in the fetal period and found "the presence of preputial lamella and a large amount of mesenchymal tissue between the foreskin and glans"

The glandulopreputial lamella is defined as "a layer of embryonic epithelial tissue that gives rise to the prepuce."

A lamella is a thin plate-like structure.

The development of the balanopreputial cavity in one humped camels has also been studied, finding references to the same lamella.

A 2010 paper describes the Development of the Glandopreputial Lamella and Sulcus in Female Fetuses, including the presence of a "stratified squamous epithelium" - the same epithelium mentioned in 1933 and in 1860.

So, this epithelium as a normal part and stage of the development of the foreskin has been known for at least 150 years. Whether we call it epithelium, or membrane, or synechiae, or lamina, we are referring to the same thing. A normal structure that connects the glans and the foreskin during their development.

The same 1933 paper describes that "The separation of the prepuce in the human penis is essentially a process of keratization of the intervening epithelium. It begins anteriorly and posteriorly at about the same time and proceeds toward the center. When confined on all sides the separation manifests itself as an epithelial pearl formation. On the surface, as is possible in the anterior region, it appears as a desquamation."

What's more important is that the paper then indicates that "Separation is not completed at birth, but is accomplished sometime during infancy or early childhood."

The exact age of retraction has been a subject of debate. This old paper indicated that " Unless the prepuce has been retracted, slight adhesions may persist in the posterior regions of the glandar lamella at 5 and 6 months. Separation is sufficient at the 10-day stage to allow mechanical retraction without danger of a tear, apparently an important factor in completing the division."

 Based on more recent observations, the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne posted in 2013 that "The normal foreskin is attached to the glans and is non-retractile in most newborns. Over time the foreskin separates and becomes retractile. The proportion of boys with retractile foreskins is: 40% at 1 year, 90% at 4 years and 99% at 15 years."

By what means are the foreskin and the glans attached? By the presence of a synechiae, or a membrane, or a lamina, or an epithelium.

So basically, it doesn't matter if we call it a synechiae or a membrane or a lamine or an epithelium. There is a normal structure that appears during the normal development of the fetus (male or female), which later starts to dissolve and separate, and the final product, usually years after birth, is the presence of a separate glans and prepuce, either the glans penis and the foreskin on the male, or the clitoris and the clitoral hood on the female.

So there is no need to play thug of war over the use of one word or another. This structure exists, has been described, has been sufficiently observed and it's normal. There is no denying this.

Which is why it can only generate shock that the new 2013 ICD-10 codes of the World Health Organization, scheduled to go into effect in October 2014, include a code (N47.0) for "adherent prepuce, newborn" as part of the disorders of the male genitals.

With this new code, every human male will be born with a medical condition N47.0 - not because it's a medical condition, but because it has been codified as such. A normal stage of the human development has been pathologized by the World Health Organization.

And who can guess what procedure cures this condition?

If this doesn't sound like a conspiracy to circumcise the world, then I don't know what is it. I can only conclude that the World Health Organization has been hijacked by a special interest group.

Original post can be read here.

Related Links:
WHO: Codifying Medical Fraud

WHO: Codifying Medical Fraud

How do you justify the forced genital mutilation of minors?

1. Invent pathological conditions that make it indispensable.
2. Link anatomically correct male organs to the proliferation of disease.

It used to be that forced genital mutilation, particularly the forced genital mutilation of males at any age, was sanctioned under the immunity of "religious freedom." Additionally, parental privilege and cultural relativism could be invoked in order to justify the forcible amputation of a male child's foreskin.

Given other practices that fall under this category, however, the alibis of "religious freedom, "parental choice" and "cultural immunity," have lost validity.

Perhaps the best example of this is none other than female circumcision; a federal law makes the forced cutting of girls of any kind, and at any age, a punishable offense, and there are no exemptions for "religious" female genital cutting, or cultures where female genital cutting is practiced.

For this reason, advocates of circumcision, particularly male circumcision, have sought to, not only justify the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, but to make the practice indispensable.

For over a century, circumcision "researchers" can be seen trying to link circumcision with the prevention of feared diseases; there is no shortage of "studies" that say that circumcision prevents this or that, all written by "researchers" who promote its universal adaption. They can also be seen trying to pathologize the presence of anatomically correct male genitalia, and the many stages of its development, setting arbitrary ages by which the foreskin should be "retractable for cleaning."

While there will never be enough "research" to justify the forced circumcision of girls, it seems circumcision advocates have made the covert contract with themselves, that the forced circumcision of boys will one day be justified, even made compulsory, if only they could come up with the right amount of "studies" that say circumcision prevents disease. We see them trying very hard today, promoting "mass circumcision" in Africa, in the so-called name of AIDS prevention.

Despite their hard work and efforts, however, not a single respected medical organization has found the latest HIV/circumcision propaganda to be convincing enough to recommend the circumcision of minors. In their latest statement, the AAP tries to sell the one-line "benefits outweigh the risks" slogan, but still concluding that the same "benefits" are "insufficient to recommend the practice."

Not quite having achieved the recommendation they wanted, it appears circumcision advocates are returning to the older tactic of trying to pathologize anatomically correct genitals.

WHO Codifies False Conditions Into Existence
The World Health Organization (WHO) has just released their new 2013 ICD-10 codes, which are scheduled to go into effect in October 2014. ICD, which stands for "International Classification of Diseases", is the global system for reporting morbidity and mortality statistics, for billing, and for health care automated decision support.

The new codes for conditions of the foreskin include a prominent (first on the list) billable code, for a condition whoever wrote these codes want to call "adherent prepuce in the newborn." If these codes go into effect, it means that doctors and hospitals will be able to claim "adherent prepuce" as a valid medical diagnosis in neonates (valid in the sense that a billable code exists in the WHO ICD system, not that it is an actual medical condition necessitating surgical correction), and be able to legally charge to "correct" it, thereby possibly justifying routine infant circumcision.

The new proposed codes under classification N47, "Disorders of the Prepuce," can be seen here. (To view, click on the hyperlink for "9 codes" in the second bullet point to read the full list of nine, beginning with N47.0 - Adherent Prepuce, Newborn.)

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting newborns, let alone asking parents to make any kind of "decision." However, if these codes, which the US Centers for Medicaid and Medicare use, go into effect, doctors will have a code available to justify routine infant circumcision, starting next year unless the new code is rescinded. A whole new ICD-11 code system is slated to be introduced for 2015.

Who Did It?
Research documents the normal development of anatomically correct male organs,(1-5) and there is no such thing as a pathological condition known as "adherent prepuce in the newborn"; all boys are born with the prepuce fused to the glans at birth, and if we are to believe the WHO, then all boys are born with a pathological condition which doctors can charge for "correcting." In essence, the WHO's board of physicians has declared the newborn foreskin, which is normally fused to the glans at birth, to be a disorder.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

The fact that the WHO's board of physicians have decided to call a normal stage of development in the male infant penis a medical disorder, and have even made an ICD code for it does not make it a medical disorder. The foreskin is not a congenital birth defect. 

What I want to know is, who was responsible for writing these codes?

I suspect it was Americans who are in cahoots with fellows at the American Academy of Pediatrics; judging from their last statement, the AAP would like nothing more than to force the 18 state Medicaid programs who dropped coverage for male infant circumcision to start covering it again.

It is despicable to know that interested individuals at the WHO can use their ICD system to codify anatomically correct organs as pathological disorders, in order to warrant medical reimbursement for their "correction."

Who wrote these codes?

Who is responsible for this deplorable travesty? 

Why would a Geneva-based international organization do such a thing as pathologize all males at birth? I would expect that coming from a country where circumcision is rare, that the people of Switzerland would have a better understanding of anatomically correct male genitalia.

The WHO needs to be called on this immedeiately.

1. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156(5):1813-5.
2. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997;39(4):403-5.
3. Ishikawa E, Kawakita M. [Preputial development in Japanese boys]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2004;50(5):305-8.
4. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200-3.
5. Thorvaldsen MA, Meyhoff H. Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose? Ugeskr Læger 2005;167(17):1858-62.

Related Posts:

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

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

GREAT BRITAIN: Jewish Circumcision Advocates Grope for Celebrity Endorsement

A new prince has been born to Duchess Kate Middleton and Prince William, and Jewish circumcision advocates are already trying to use this opportunity to seek celebrity endorsement for circumcision.

Reads a headline from jewishpress.com:

"Duchess Kate Had a Boy, Call the Mohel"

The last time I checked, the Royals weren't Jewish. What does the Jewish Press care whether the new prince is circumcised or not?

Reads another headline, this time on MSN:

"Whether the royal baby is getting the royal snip is our new obsession"

Well, at least the authors of this little piece are honest about the fact that they are obsessed. The article goes on:

"Sure we're curious about what the royal baby's name will be, but what we really want to know is: Will there be a royal mohel?"

Why on earth?

And who's "we?"

There doesn't seem to be a name attached to this article. I'd like to know who was the obsessed author of this piece.

This part is rather interesting:

"Princess Diana apparently wasn't a fan, however, and her boys weren't given the snip (there were whispers that Prince Charles had both boys circumcised after Diana's death, but that remains unproven)."

Whispers where? Amongst whom?

Very recently, Prince William was caught taking a wee, and there are pictures where it can clearly be seen that he has an anatomically correct organ.

Those interested in taking a glance at the royal peen can visit this link.

This "whisper" is nothing more than circumfetishist fantasy and Jewish wishful thinking.

Haaretz writes a more reasonable article, but still asks:

"Little prince in the U.K.: What about the bris?"

Again, what in the world do Jews care whether the British goy prince is having a Jewish bris or not? Are they so desperate for validation of their blood ritual that they have to hope the new prince will be made into an unwitting poster boy?

Though the headline fails to conceal a hope that the child is circumcised, by a mohel in a bris no less, this author has integrity, pointing out the lengths to which some have gone to insist that the new prince must be circumcised:

"One group that will not try to claim the prince for its own is the Jewish community."

Will not? Or should not? Judging from other headlines, the above statement is but wishful thinking.

"In a bizarre episode last month a former BBC reporter claimed that Kate, the royal mother, was of matrilineal Jewish descent, making the new prince also a member of the tribe... But serious Jewish genealogists were quick to quash the theory explaining that the Jewish-sounding names in Kate's lineage meant nothing and the prince would not be kosher."

Thank goodness there are Jewish scholars with enough integrity to admit reality.


Still, the author seems to be hopeful that Prince William was ultimately circumcised, going as far as MSN has, quoting "a multitude of sources," this time citing medical necessity instead of Charles rushing the children to be circumcised in Diana's untimely absence.


"If a multitude of sources are to be trusted, then William was circumcised in a medical procedure (according to some versions of his own choice at a much later date) and Harry's foreskin is still intact."

Indeed, who is this "multitude" being cited here as a trustworthy source?

Much to the chagrin of hopeful Jews and circumfetishists, I'm afraid there is visual evidence that Prince William remains as his mother brought him to the world.


Jews and other circumcision advocates want so badly for the new British heir to be ritually circumcised for their own vainglory. Let us hope Kate and William will have the good sense Princess Diana had and spare their child needless mutilation.

UPDATE (7-31-2013):
I just had to post another headline that caught my eye; this time a mohel from the so-called "Initiation Society" eagers to cut the new prince's penis. Reads the Jewish Chronicle online:

"Bring me the royal baby and I’ll give him the snip, says top mohel"

Again, why?

How absolutely revolting.

UPDATE (8-11-2013):
FINALLY, a voice of reason from the UK:

"Prince George Being Circumcised? What Total TOSH!"

Everyone wants to know whether the new prince will be genitally mutilated except the Brits.

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.

Related Posts:  

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Related Link:
When the Queen is Dead: Long Live the Patriarchy?

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Among the smear tactics that circumcision advocates use to try to discredit intactivists, the accusation that they have an erotic fixation with the foreskin, to the point of a fetish, is not uncommon. I do believe that it may come second, the anti-Semite card being the first.

This notion that opponents of circumcision have an ulterior "foreskin fetish" is ridiculous in more ways than one, beginning with the fallacious logic that being opposed to the forced removal of a body part must automatically mean there is a sexual fixation with it. Under this same logic, those who oppose female genital cutting must have some sort of sexual fixation with the labia and/or clitoris. Perhaps those who devote themselves to creating breast cancer awareness must have an erotic fixation with breasts as well.

Fetish - What Does It Mean?
To understand what the word "fetish" means, as it relates to sexuality, let us analyze its definition from a few different sources.

Dictionary.com defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

This definition is straightforward, but something is missing. "Any object" is accurate, as this includes all objects, any object, that might not normally trigger a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as shoes, neckties and aluminum foil. "Nongenital part of the body" is not clear enough; the breasts and buttocks are "nongenital parts of the body," although these elicit a a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most males, at least in Western society. At least to me, "fetish" refers to "nongenital parts of the body" which do not normally cause a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as the feet, the space behind the knee, or the underarms. This definition is close, but, in my opinion, incomplete.


The Free Dictionary defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.

This definition comes closer, except that it is, in my opinion, forgiving. At least to me, "fetish" not something that "may become necessary for sexual gratification," but something without which sexual gratification is not possible. In this sense, Dictionary.com is more accurate, with its inclusion of "fixation."


Finally, Merriam-Webster defines "fetish" as:

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

Merriam-Webster is much less forgiving, but still forgiving, with its usage of "may." It conflicts with "is necessary" in the first part of the definition. Since its real or fantasied presence "is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification," then a fetish most certainly does interfere with "complete sexual expression."

So Who Has a Fetish?
Now, let's analyze the realities surrounding the state of the circumcised and anatomically correct male human penis. While the presence of a foreskin is normal in all males at birth, the circumcised penis is a forced, artificial phenomenon. A subversion of what would otherwise be anatomically correct male genitalia, the circumcised penis is a contrived vision of what the male human penis is supposed to look like, which doesn't actually occur normally in nature; being born without a foreskin is considered a congenital anomaly, known as "aposthia."

Those who follow the exchanges between circumcision advocates and intactivists will notice that, while circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," at the same time they argue ad populum that "women prefer circumcised penises," and that, furthermore they would not have sexual relations with men who were not circumcised.

"Foreskins gross me out. I would never have sex with a man who wasn't circumcised. My son's future wife will thank me because I didn't leave my son with a gross-looking anteater."

Let me reiterate Merriam-Webster's definition of "fetish":

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

If not being circumcised is a problem to the extent that a person cannot have sex with a man with anatomically correct organs, and to the extent that such a person encourages others to refuse sex with genitally intact men, and that others circumcise their children to produce "sexually desirable men with circumcised penises," then I'd have to say that circumcision advocates have an obsession with circumcision that goes beyond a "fetish."

It's a Two-way Street, BUT...
The fetish accusation can go both ways; if a person cannot be sexually gratified unless a man has anatomically correct genitalia, if being circumcised is a deal-breaker, if that person is turned off by pornography with circumcised men in it, then it could be said that a person may have a "foreskin fetish." Therefore, only someone who for whom circumcision or the foreskin poses no obstacle for sexual gratification, one way or the other, can be said to not be harboring any kind of "fetish."

But something does not sit well with me; while those who prefer circumcised penises can be said to be "obsessed" with an artificial absence of a perfectly normal body part, those who prefer intact members would be "obsessed" with naturally occurring male genitals.

Let's change the body part and see what happens; if a man is attracted to women who are missing a breast due to a mastectomy, it could be said that that man has a fetish for women with a mastectomy. Could it be said, then, that a man has a "fetish" if he has a preference for a woman with both of her breasts, and is sexually turned off by a woman who is missing a breast?

Bluntly, my question is this; how can a sexual preference for normal body parts as they occur in nature, sexual body parts, mind you, be considered a "fetish?"

How is it "normal" to feel that sex without a foreskin is "complete sexual expression," and that the presence of a normal, healthy body part poses an obstacle for sexual gratification?

In what backwards society is the preference for normal, healthy genitals considered a "fetish," and a preference for maimed, mutilated organs, to the point of being unable to achieve sexual gratification otherwise, considered "normal?" 

The Rabbit Hole Goes Deeper... 

In addition to having a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, there are those who derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself (see apotemnophilia and acrotomophilia). They have sexual fantasies of power and control, that often involve minors and infants. These people, dubbed "circumfetishists" by those who know about them, have a few clubs and websites where they get together to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by performing circumcision on others, voluntary or otherwise and/or watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions.

Groups such as the Acorn Society, the Gilgal Society, and the Cutting Club openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members; there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys.

For those who can stomach it, the comments and behaviors of proponents of circumcision would make a fruitful area of psychological study. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

In Closing
So who are the fetishists?

Is it those say children should be circumcised to make them "sexually attractive?"

Or is it those who insist children should be left alone?

Could it be that when circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," the pot is calling the kettle black?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

External Links:
CircLeaks - Circumfetish

CircLeaks - Gilgal Society

CircLeaks - CircList

CircLeaks - Vernon Quaintance 

CircLeaks - Brian J. Morris 

CircLeaks - Jake Waskett

Wikipedia - Apotemnophilia

Wikipedia - Acrotomophilia

CIRCUMCISION: For or Against? (NO BASHING!!!)

Much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who spend endless hours trying to convince you that circumcision is a "non-issue," circumcision is highly controversial, and a guaranteed attention getter.

No parenting forum, webpage or Facebook group is complete without the obligatory circumcision thread, which always asks a question to the effect of "Are you pro or anti-circumcision?" Or "Circumcision: For or against?", and which is usually coupled with some sort of "NO BASHING!!!" warning.

These threads and the pages they're on are something of a paradox; asking for "no bashing," they posit a question that, because of its very nature, will elicit just that. Answering "no" or "anti" is going to be perceived as "bashing" by those who are "pro." Parents who circumcised their children invariably say "it's none of your business!" as they brag on a public parenting forum about having had their children circumcised.

But I digress, and I've already written a separate post about mommy pages and the "no bashing!!!" phenomenon.

"Do you support or oppose circumcision?" asks many a thread on public parenting forums, but this kind of bifurcation ignores many important factors that are relevant to the debate.

For example, is there a medical need? Are other alternatives available? Have they been tried? Shouldn't surgery be reserved as a very last resort?

As a thought experiment, let's replace "circumcision" with any other medical procedure.

Are you for or against appendectomies?

Do you support or oppose coronary bypasses?

Are you in favor of gall bladder removal?

Kidney transplants?

Suddenly, medical necessity becomes relevant, and whether you're "for or against" becomes a moot point, doesn't it.

Am I for or against circumcision?
I am against the forced circumcision of minors unless there is a legit medical need for it, and all other alternatives have failed.

This is standard medical practice governing all other medical procedures though.

If informed, conscientious adult males choose to be circumcised for non-medical reasons, I have no problem with this.


Bottom Line
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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

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

The Circumcision Blame Game