There is no other drive so powerful than the desire to mutilate another's genitals. It was easier to tear down the Berlin Wall and end communism in Europe than it is to end genital mutilation. Millions of males and females the world over are deprived of the right to normal intact genitals - and the question is why?
One effective tool in the propagation of this dehumanizing practice is the never ending search (a study) for reasons to legitimize and promote it. There has always been some claim of a medical benefit to popularize circumcision. As soon as it became evident that a claim had no validity, you could be certain that there would be another reason to replace it. There is no limit to the extent these demagogues will go in order to pursue their goal - the genital mutilation of baby boys (who ultimately become men) in North America and other countries in the world.
Currently the fraudsters are claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS and millions of males are slated for circumcision in Africa. The basis for this fraudulent claim are studies which have no credibility in the scientific world. The methodology used to reach their conclusions would not be acceptable in any other kind of research today. Yet these studies and their results are used to promote mass surgery unprecedented in the history of the world. The whole scheme is probably the greatest fraudulent act in the world today. What will be the next criminal act of this nature - mass female circumcisions - mass mastectomies etc. - and how many millions of people will become victims of such unethical and insidious acts? We obviously can find many reasons to amputate parts of the human body and mutilate in the process. Ethical medical procedures to combat diseases are never a solution for these demagogues.
The sexual predators who promote the mass circumcision of males have to be exposed and stopped. Their acts have no place in a civilized world. We are objecting to the criminal acts of the Taliban and spending billions of dollars fighting their heinous acts, yet we let similar demons practice their acts of mutilation unchallenged. Any perverted act is permissible as long as it is done in the name of democracy, religion or medicine (especially if it pertains to male circumcision - it must be promoted for any reason - legitimate or not). And we in North America claim to be concerned about human rights. This is hypocrisy at its worst. Wake up America!
The media has been the greatest promoter of male circumcision in North America. They are always ready to publicize the latest research in Africa, India, or some other remote part of the word indicating the possible advantages of circumcision. Why these studies were not done in North America, or why the results could not be confirmed by similar studies in Canada or the USA, are never explained. Nor is there ever any explanation as to the relevance of studies done in Africa to justify circumcision in North America. As an example, several studies claim that circumcision prevents the spread of the AIDS virus or STD, yet advocates of circumcision are unable to explain why the USA (where the majority of males are circumcised) has the highest rates of these diseases of any industrialized nation in the world.
Edward O. Laumann, Ph.D; Christopher M. Masi, M.D; Ezra W. Zuckerman MA reviewed a number of studies which claimed that circumcision would prevent STD, sexual dysfunction and other aspects of circumcision. Their conclusions were published (CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES) in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 277, Number 13: Pages 1052 -1057. With regard to sexually transmitted diseases they stated: " ... we found no evidence of a prophylactic role of circumcision and a slight tendency in the opposite direction." There are other factors such as the number of sexual partners etc. which determine the spread of STD - not circumcision. <http: //ww.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/>
WHO ARE THE ADVOCATES OF CIRCUMCISION?
Most authors of pro-circumcision studies claim that they have no vested interests in their work. However, when we examine who conducted these studies - their motives become evident. These studies are usually done by circumcised males who try to validate their own circumcision and legitimize the practice. Doctors who circumcise must protect their reputations and careers. Statements to the effect by the authors that they have no vested interest in conducting these studies are merely a facade to provide credibility to their research. It doesn't take a great genius to see the obvious conflict of interest.
Intact males have no need to justify their wholeness. Opponents of circumcision have no axe to grind. They have no reputations or careers to protect. They do not reap huge profits by engaging in unethical practices. Those who promote ethical and legal practices have no need to be accountable for their words and actions. Their aim is to protect the rights and interests of those who are unable to defend themselves. They are to be commended and supported for their actions - and should not be subjects of ridicule, which appears to be the norm today. It is those who advocate or perform circumcisions who need to justify their perverted activities.
HOW IS CIRCUMCISION PROMOTED?
Fraudulent circumcision studies carried out in the past have achieved their purpose - the promotion of male circumcision. In literature on childcare, books, magazines and newspapers, we are constantly informed that there just may be some possible benefits to circumcision. (No proof that there are in fact real benefits to circumcision is actually required - merely speculative benefits.) Authors of literature on childcare seldom check the validity of the claims and perennially quote studies which have long been discredited. As a result of irresponsible journalism and misinformation, boys continue to become victims of an unnecessary and destructive mutilation.
It has been proven repeatedly that studies which supposedly indicate medical benefits of circumcision seldom stand up to scientific scrutiny. They are usually methodologically flawed and filled with inconsistencies. When questioned by peers, the authors of most of these studies refuse to provide explanations with regards to the logic of their conclusions. If there were benefits, what mandate under ethical medical practices provides for the amputation of body parts on non- consenting individuals in order to prevent medically treatable conditions? If urinary tract infections, which are common in females, pose no serious threats to their lives, what would be the legitimacy of circumcising thousands of males (who rarely develop UTI) in order to prevent a few isolated cases of urinary tract infections during the first few months of a male's life? Would not any responsible physician treat urinary tract infections in males medically as it is treated in females?
Reputable members of the medical profession also question the motives of studies which were clearly designed with the intention of restoring the credibility of male circumcision. The rogues (actually few in number) who promote circumcision are widely known and are usually quoted as authorities on circumcision. They are also branded as charlatans by those who believe in ethical medical practices. They are the sexual predators in the medical profession who practice under the guise of medicine - using the excuses of "medical benefits" and "parental choice" to promote their trade. Male circumcision is the billion dollar swindle in North America and the true benefactors of male circumcision are the corrupt doctors who reap the monetary benefits of circumcision, not their victims.
Claims that circumcision prevents prostate cancer, penile cancer, AIDS, STD, cancer of the cervix etc. have all been proven false. A comparison of rates in countries where the majority of males are circumcised - and countries where the majority of males are intact reveal that the claims are false.
Every claim regarding alleged benefits to male circumcision was thoroughly refuted in "CIRCUMCISION An American Health Fallacy" by Edward Wallerstein published in 1980. Since then, volumes of information have been written documenting every aspect of circumcision, including that of trauma. In view of all this information one has to seriously question the motives or integrity of anyone who still claims that there are medical benefits to circumcision. The moral values and ethical integrity of any doctor performing circumcisions has to be challenged.
Those who discuss male circumcision in the media believe that they must present an unbiased report which would be inoffensive to parents and those who perform circumcision. However, they seldom mention the functional value of the foreskin, or address the question of human rights of the victims, or the ethical ramifications and legality of performing non- medically necessary surgery on non consenting individuals. Their intent is to provide a hodge podge of conflicting and misleading information which leaves parents in a terrible dilemma. Their reluctance to provide truthful and accurate information casts serious doubt on their credibility. If those writing on childcare are unable or unwilling to provide accurate information regarding male circumcision, one has to question the credibility and value of the rest of the information they provide.
WHAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULTS OF ALL THE PRO- CIRCUMCISION CLAIMS?
What has been the result of the many questionable claims of medical benefits made by advocates of circumcision in the past? For example , several decades ago circumcision propaganda assured everyone that circumcision would prevent prostate cancer. Today prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death among men and may soon become the leading cause of death. More recently we were told that circumcision would prevent penile cancer. Today it is becoming obvious ( confirmed by the American Cancer Society) that circumcised men in the USA are developing penile cancer. This myth has resulted in devastating consequences for many men who developed penile cancer who had urgent medical treatment delayed because their doctors refused to believe that they really had penile cancer.
Now we know that penile cancer is an age related disease and that the only part of the penis which is not prone to cancer is the part which has been amputated. It is also a fact that in other countries in the world (where the majority of males are intact ) there are lower rates of penile cancer than in the USA. As circumcised males reach the age where they are more prone to cancer, it is very evident that circumcision has done little to prevent it. The prediction is that (as it was in the case of prostate cancer) penile cancer may ultimately become just as prevalent (or more prevalent) in circumcised males than it is in the uncircumcised population.
Those who believe that they can improve what nature has designed by the amputation of body parts are destined for a rude awakening. The foreskin has great value and should be preserved for life - not destroyed. Unfortunately, it is the male who becomes the victim, and once the harm has been done, very little can be done to remedy it.
Advocates of circumcision have deceived people on every aspect of circumcision. For decades parents were assured that infants being circumcised didn't feel a thing. The screaming and convulsive crying, defecation during surgery, physical shock they say, was the result of the infants being restrained - not the cutting.
We now know that infant males do feel severe pain during circumcision as indicated by brain wave patterns and other physiological functions during and after circumcision. Infants also experience pain and discomfort for days after the surgery. Many doctors are now using creams and dorsal block injections which partly reduces pain.
Advocates of circumcision also refuse to acknowledge that the debate over pain (and how to alleviate it) is not the issue. Why should anyone experience pain or discomfort resulting from any procedure for which there is no medical necessity? To legitimize the practice by reducing pain is no more justifiable than the use of drugs by males to subdue females and sexually assault them making it less traumatic. The only way to eliminate the pain of circumcision is to end this deplorable practice.
It is now known that the torture and trauma which infants experience may have a long term effect upon them even as adults. This has been well documented in "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma" by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. published in 1996. (For further information please see <http://www.circumcision.org/>.
The callousness of circumcisers can be compared to that of individuals who restrain and brutalize their victims while assaulting them. Parents are advised not to watch the procedure because it may be too upsetting. If it is just a simple and painless procedure (often compared to a vaccination or water baptism ) as parents have been informed for decades - why wouldn't parents want to watch it? Many of the most vocal opponents of male circumcision are nurses and others who have witnessed it. Viewers are warned that sections showing circumcision aired on television may be disturbing. If scenes are disturbing to the viewer, just imagine how you might feel as an infant undergoing this barbaric and destructive procedure!
WHY ARE MALES DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE?
The male (unlike the female) has no right to choose what he believes to be in the best interests of his own body. He must not be left intact and given the opportunity to make his own decision when he is old enough to understand the ramifications of circumcision. Males must be circumcised as infants because when they become adults they may be disappointed if they weren't circumcised. However, there is no mention of the fact that as adults, many males resent this unwanted intrusion upon their bodies. What are they to do then? Intact males can undergo circumcision if they wish, but what alternatives do circumcised males have? Why isn't this possibility also considered? Are males not entitled to make their own decision?
Over the decades, females have indoctrinated males into believing that they and only they have the right to choose what is the best interests of their own bodies. Not the church, not the state will decide our fate. As an analogy, there are about 1.5 million abortions in America each year because females have the right to choose what is in their best interest - which is to carry a pregnancy for less than a year. Yet over 1.25 million males annually become victims of male genital mutilation and must live for the rest of their lives with a decision into which they had no input. Is this the type of treatment individuals should receive in a democratic and civilized societies?
WHY ARE MALES SPEAKING OUT AGAINST CIRCUMCISION?
Males are now speaking out against the unwanted intrusion and mutilation of their bodies. For years, circumcision flourished because men were reluctant to talk about a private part of their anatomy. Today on many radio or TV talk shows, men who know very little of the reasons used to promote circumcision, do not hesitate to state that circumcision is inhumane and barbaric. Many men have also stated that they were emotionally devastated when they became aware of their circumcision. One man who called me stated that circumcision was nothing less than aggravated sexual assault. Emotional scars may fade with time - but the physical scars produced by circumcision serve as a constant reminder for many males of the abuse they experienced as a child.
Not only are many male victims speaking out against circumcision, but as concerned individuals who respect the democratic rights of others, they are seeking ways of preventing future generations of males from becoming victims of this type of abuse. They have been joined by thousands of concerned men and women, old and young, doctors and lawyers along with individuals from every other profession. They are speaking out - writing articles - researching the claims - writing and publishing books - developing websites - trying to end one of the most dehumanizing practices on earth. Those who still have the audacity to proclaim the "pros and cons" of male circumcision are rapidly becoming the minority. Their deceptive strategies are well known. The circumcision hoax is finally being exposed - and circumcisers will soon be held accountable for their fraudulent practices and medical misconduct.
During the past decade, it is estimated that over 50 000 males have undergone painstaking foreskin restoration which may require years in order (at least a facsimile) to stretch what little foreskin is left. "The Joy of Uncircumcising" by Jim Bigelow PhD, which is currently out of print, but available online at NORM, has been a restoration manual in great demand. Certainly this should indicate that many males resent their circumcision and their desire to restore. Many males are demanding the return of a part that is rightfully theirs. And the rudimentary restoration process (which does not restore valuable sensory nerves which have been permanently destroyed) is giving them a sense of wholeness again.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR DECEPTION - THE FORESKIN IS ESSENTIAL
Contrary to popular deception, the foreskin is not a useless piece of tissue. It is filled with tens of thousands of receptors which provides most of the erogenous stimulus experienced by males. Most of this valuable erogenous tissue is destroyed by circumcision. In most cases the valuable frenulum is also amputated. The glans penis contains very few receptors compared to those found in the foreskin. In addition the foreskin contains receptors to heat and cold which are not found in the glans. The removal of the foreskin ( also designed to protect the glans) further exposes the glans to irritation by clothing and the environment. The sensation in the glans gradually diminishes over time in order to alleviate discomfort from irritation. This is nature's way of dealing with persistent undesirable stimulus. It is estimated that the total loss of sensation over a period of time may be at least 80 %. Would any intelligent person permit the loss of pleasure of any other sense (example vision) and justify the mutilation of that part of the body for any reason?
If circumcision has so many advantages why do not millions of intact males (85% of the world's population) rush to have their foreskins removed? Very few intact males (who are happy to have their foreskin and experience the benefits of it ) can be persuaded to undergo circumcision. Many adult males who have been coerced to undergo circumcision later stated extreme regret. One individual informed me that this was the greatest mistake he had made in his life.
Many males will never forget the type of deception used to force them to undergo circumcision. These are just a few of the many horror stories told by males who were circumcised without their consent. Adult males who have checked into hospital for other medical procedures awoke to discover that they were also circumcised - without their permission. Another male related how parents lied to him, stating that he was going to the hospital for another medical procedure, only to discover that he became of victim of unwanted circumcision. One woman was quoted on a Canadian radio talk show that she had her twin sons circumcised because she despised males. These are deplorable examples of sexual abuse legitimized in the name of religion or under the guise of medicine.
I received a letter from a man who fought for years to prevent his son from undergoing circumcision. When he and his wife separated, he received a call from his son from the hospital stating that his mother had taken him to the hospital and that he had undergone circumcision. Recently, a popular TV talk show host bragged that she adopted two boys and immediately had them circumcised. She wanted the boys, but because they were intact, she immediately had them circumcised in order to satisfy her perverted desires. If they don't want males to possess certain body parts, they just amputate them. Imagine the public outcry if the situation were reversed and the victims were female.
MANY CIRCUMCISED MALES ARE IN DENIAL
Many circumcised males have defended their circumcision stating that they really haven't suffered any harm as a result of their circumcision. If these assertions were indeed true, would this really legitimize the practice of circumcision? The fact that circumcised males really do not know what they are missing doesn't mean that circumcision has not deprived them of sensations and pleasures which intact males experience. The fact that the foreskin is erogenous and valuable part of the body has been well known for centuries and is documented very well in the current medical literature. Circumcisions have been performed for centuries in order to destroy penile sensitivity and curb masturbation. If it had no effect on the sexual enjoyment of males then why were punitive measures like these taken in the past? Intact males can only sympathize with their brothers knowing that they have truly been deprived of a valuable part of their body.
We would hardly accept statements from color blind individuals who may similarly claim that they really do not miss anything because they are color blind. Those who experience the entire color spectrum know very well that color blind individuals certainly miss a great deal of enjoyment as a result of this defect. Circumcised males may rationalize that they have not suffered any loss; however, this does not alter the fact that they have indeed lost a whole range of sensations enjoyed by intact males. Any intelligent and conscientious male would ensure that his son was not deprived of a valuable part of his body just because he (the father) was a victim. We do not accept the sexual abuse of girls because other females were unfortunate victims of sexual assault - so why should we not, likewise, protect our sons from a surgery which diminishes the ultimate enjoyment and which destroys vital protection which the foreskin has been designed to provide?
I have heard statements in the media quoting child prostitutes who claimed that they did not suffer emotionally as a result of their activities. Does this likewise legitimize the practice, or do we have a moral obligation to do everything possible to end child prostitution in spite of their claims?
ARE STUDIES ESSENTIAL TO PROVE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA?
There are also those who justify male circumcision because there are no studies which indicate that the victims of male circumcision have suffered emotional trauma resulting from their circumcision. Do we really need studies to indicate how these victims feel before we condemn the practice? Are not the many protests of victims of circumcision sufficient to understand that males who were coerced into silence for decades are no longer silent. Many males who discovered that they were circumcised have become enraged and are speaking out against this dehumanizing practice, condemning circumcision as a form of criminal assault upon their person. Circumcision has to be one of the greatest violation of human rights in the world today. Many of the most vocal opponents of male circumcision are the victims of this barbaric and inhumane practice.
WHY MEDICAL FRAUD WEBSITE?
While principal of a high school, I was asked by a dozen senior male students to meet with them privately. To my amazement, they wished to discuss circumcision. Most of these students were circumcised and were angry and resented their circumcision. Would I do something to end this dehumanizing and barbaric practice, they pleaded with me?
Since I have become involved in the anti-circumcision movement I have received hundreds of phone calls, emails, and letters of encouragement from all parts of the world - even Jewish men and boys who supported the abolition of circumcision . All these men stated that they felt cheated, violated and dehumanized as a result of their circumcision. They really didn't give a damn about the so called medical benefits or reasons their parents used to justify it. Their bodies belonged to them and no one had the right to make an irreversible choice for them. Not their parents - not doctors - nor anyone else.
WHY IS THE MEDIA PRO MALE GENITAL MUTILATION?
It is strange that some of the most vocal advocates of male circumcision are female. During the past two years we have had several articles published in Canadian publications written by female columnists who ridiculed men who were organizing to challenge the legality of male circumcision and the current discriminatory laws in Canada. Males were told that they had no right to interfere with parental rights and have no business defending the rights of infant males. Furthermore, unlike female circumcision which was used by males to dominate women, male circumcision was beneficial. Females also preferred a circumcised penis over an ugly intact penis. One writer advised males to confine their views to internet instead of print. Imagine what would happen to any male who would dare write a chauvinistic article condemning females who protested against acts which they consider are abusive to them? Would any publication ever print it? It appears from the number of articles which frequently appear in print in both Canada and the USA , that abusive and slanderous articles are acceptable as long as they are directed towards males.
It is evident that these columnists were deliberately trying to coerce parents into circumcising their sons. Their articles were a desperate attempt to intimidate and ridicule men into silence. A number of men who were outraged at the bigotry expressed by these columnists sent letters of protest to the editor. At one paper the letters disappeared until the editor was personally contacted and asked why he refused to publish them.
Whenever pro-circumcision articles appear, papers are very reluctant to publish letters of protest. If any anti-circumcision article is published (because the press was obligated to print it), you can be certain that shortly after, there will be a another major article with photos glorifying the tradition of circumcision. This is done to discredit the opponents of circumcision and nullify the growing opposition to it. We are supposed to have freedom of the press where conscientious objectors have a right to publicly protest what they feel is wrong? Why the hypocrisy and bias with regard to male rights? Instead of ridiculing opponents of circumcision, I would suggest that advocates of circumcision prove that circumcision is a legal and ethical medical practice.
It is largely with the advent of the internet that the facts of circumcision have been known - and it is internet which may ultimately be the tool to free males from the domination of circumcisers. It appears to be politically incorrect for the media to publicize inequities faced by males under the law. Whatever the issue - false accusations, violence directed towards males, the inequity of child custody and access laws - the media becomes strangely silent and oblivious to the fact that equality is a two way street.
As for dominating the other sex, why are (some) women so adamant that men should have no voice in determining what is best for their own bodies? Why are they writing all these pro-circumcision articles and letters? Who is really trying to dominate whom?
Males are not chattel of parents. Nor do males lack the intelligence to care for themselves. Men have walked the moon - bolted tons of steel in outer space - built giant skyscrapers and bridges, developed computers and technology - fought wars - cleaned up toxic waste sites - cleaned their ears - wiped their anuses - performed thousands of other activities, simple and complex, but need to be circumcised and be deprived of a vital and the most erogenous part of their body ( which requires the least effort to maintain) in order to facilitate hygiene ?
Finally, to debate the pros and cons of circumcision is akin to discussing the pros and cons of child pornography, rape, incest, child prostitution, or any other perversion. There are issues for which there can be no debate. Male circumcision is one of them. Furthermore, opponents of circumcision are often ridiculed or branded as special interest groups. How dehumanizing can the perpetrators of these deviant acts get? When it concerns the protection of children (whatever the issue), individuals have a moral and legal obligation to speak out - not provide excuses or try to legitimize perverted acts. If anti-circumcision groups are special interest groups - so be it. Shame on the individuals who feel that they have the right to mutilate the genitals of children - including those who have the audacity to claim that circumcision is neither ethical or unethical.
CIRCUMCISION HAS NO PLACE IN ANY DEMOCRATIC AND CIVILIZED NATION
Circumcision, whether it be of males or females, has no place in any democratic and civilized society. In North America, the male is the victim of this dehumanizing practice. In other countries ( mainly Africa) females are also the victims of this barbaric practice. The excuses to promote and legitimize the practice of both male and female circumcision are similar. The opposition faced by opponents of both MGM and FGM ( male and female genital mutilation where they are practiced) is just as great. And the struggle to end these horrific practices is just as difficult.
A number of years ago an inquiry in Canada revealed that boys at the Kingsclear Reformatory in New Brunswick were sexually abused for thirty years. Many boys were housed at the reformatory because they had no place to go. This abuse continued for years even though government officials were told about it. Nothing was done to stop or prevent it. How long will it take to halt the sexual abuse of boys by circumcision? How long will we permit these sexual predators to assault boys in the name of religion or under the guise of medicine?
Circumcision of males, without their knowledge and consent, is immoral and abhorrent. The crime of circumcision can no longer be condoned. We have laws to protect our daughters from genital mutilation. Why are boys allowed to become victims of this inhumane practice? I recently read a sign in a doctor's office which stated : " Ending violence against women is a man's job". Whose job is it to end violence against boys? It is time for everyone who has respect for the rights of others - and for human dignity - to speak out against this deplorable act - the genital mutilation of baby boys. MALES HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
