Because what’s worse, a dog pooping on your carpet… or a ‘healing arts professional’ shitting on your rights and your future with a permanent theft?
Naively, I believed the 1997 anti-FGM law and the 1999 AAP Circumcision Policy would serve as the “writing on the wall” which would wake up ‘providers’ of non-therapeutic circumcision (and the insurance companies). Their failure in their duty to their patients is transparent, especially when considered in the light of ethical rules which are in place, and indeed are expected of them when they provide ‘care’ for any person other than an infant boy whose penis has been targeted for this ‘special’ amputation.
There is a reason [male] genital cutting advocates and providers don’t talk about ethics, but rather steer the conversation towards ‘parental rights’ and medical-sounding but completely fictitious standards for non-consensual, non-therapeutic amputations— such as ‘potential benefits’ and alleged prophylaxis against sexually-acquired diseases. (Why were STUDIES needed? Because REAL-WORLD data has never demonstrated a reduction in STIs due to circumcision.)
It would have been great if the revolution had started from within, but it hasn’t. In 1963 Shaw and Robertson expressed doubts that doctors would change their opinions on RIC anytime soon. 51 years later, it’s time to say the ‘shot clock’ has expired. They had their chance. Now it’s time to hit them where it hurts. Their failure to respect basic human rights and to follow their own medical-ethical rules is obvious to any who are willing to see it, so we must be vigilant in bringing the conversation back to this failure. What they want us to see is the ‘medical’ veneer they keep on applying over the ugly truth; we need to show parents that while the edifice of institutionalized genital cutting may appear well-constructed, clean, and welcoming… the fact is that it teeters on a spindly foundation.
"Child circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the nineteenth century. Medical ethics has changed over the years, especially since the advent of the human rights era.
In this chapter, non-therapeutic circumcision of children has been subjected to nine tests by contemporary standards of medical ethics. IT HAS FAILED ALL NINE.*
Although non-therapeutic circumcision of children remains a common practice, under contemporary standards of medical ethics, it has become unethical and needs to cease. Medical societies have a duty to revise their guidance regarding non-therapeutic male circumcision to reflect 21st century medical ethics. Similarly, medical doctors, hospitals, and other institutions have a duty to change their practices regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children to protect their genital integrity.” —Doctors Opposing Circumcision
*Emphasis mine. ~Devon
Why is it that warning a family member- or neighbor- or friend- about a ‘bad business practice’ or unethical practitioner in any field is welcomed… but not when it involves a boy and HIS penis?
Sometimes you’re thanked for alerting others to the medical and ethical fraud… but quite often one is subjected to criticism for sharing one’s own research and experience.
Slaves, and cumin, have been spared involvement in this tradition… when will boys merit the same consideration? When will it truly be a sacrifice, done only at the request of, and with the permission of, the person who holds the religious belief in such a ritual?
"Bris milah is an interesting mitzvah, in that it has already undergone great historical change. Bris milah was once only properly fulfilled if done in conjunction with metzizah (b’peh or otherwise), as well as the application of cumin powder:
“All necessary acts for circumcision are done on Shabbat [even if it violates Shabbat]: We circumcise, do peri’ah (tear the membrane), do metzitzah (suction), and put a bandage with cumin powder on the wound [to stop the bleeding].”
– Mishnah Shabbat 19:2”
"Epispasm is described in some detail in a Roman medical writer of the first century CE, and it was practiced at various intervals in the Hellenistic and Roman periods by Jews eager to conceal their circumcision and their Jewishness. Rabbinic circumcision, which removes all shreds of the foreskin and the membrane underneath, renders epispasm difficult, if not impossible."
Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant In Judaism
By Shaye J. D. Cohen
For an excellent overview, read Leonard Glick’s Marked In Your Flesh:
Finally, look at the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on circumcision:
"The critical view of the Pentateuch, which ascribes Gen. xvii. to the late Priestly Code, and Josh v. 4-7 to the interpolation of the redactor (see Dillmann, commentary on the passage), sufficiently accounts for the non-circumcision of young Israelites prior to their entrance into Canaan by the following theory: The ancient Hebrews followed the more primitive custom of undergoing circumcision at the age of puberty, the circumcision of young warriors at that age signifying the consecration of their manhood to their task as men of the covenant battling against the uncircumcised inhabitants (see Reizenstein, l.c.). After the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, the rite WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE EIGHTH DAY AFTER BIRTH. In fixing the time of the initiatory rite at an age when its severity would be least felt, the Mosaic law shows its superiority over the older custom.”
Explanations which find the origin of circumcision in hygienic motives, suggested first by Philo (l.c.) and Josephus (“Contra Ap.” ii. 13), then by Saadia (“Emunot we-De’ot,” iii. 10) and Maimonides (“Morch Nebukim,” iii. 49), and often repeated in modern times, from Michaelis (“Mosaisches Recht,” iv. 184-186) down to Rosenzweig (“Zur Beschneidungsfrage,” 1878), who recommends its introduction into the Prussian army, HAVE NO OTHER THAN HISTORICAL VALUE.
Why would anyone want THOSE feelings?
Oh wait, they DO want them.
My personal story with discovering the ‘delicious’ feelings which had been stolen from me is something that happened within a month or so of starting to “tape” my remaining skin over my glans.
I was sitting in a chair and felt the newly dekeratinized glans slip against the newly dekeratinized inner foreskin remnant— and “Holy fuck!” was what I remember thinking at the time. I knew by then that I’d been robbed of the comfort of being covered up in daily activities. I had also experienced the increase in sensation due to the shedding of the callus. But this was a random moment when I wasn’t expecting anything… and it was both exciting and horrible.
Exciting because I was at least reclaiming part of my birthright to experience my body fully… but horrible because I knew the capacity for such was permanently diminished.
Why does medical-ethical fraud and religious maltreatment get a free pass?
It’s not as though we don’t understand (or don’t claim to hold in esteem) the moral values which forced genital cutting violates…
Just think what the reaction would be were ‘prophylactic’ or ‘religious’ amputation suggested for any other part of a newborn’s healthy but vulnerable body. Those moral values suddenly would become blatantly obvious.
Genital cutting [males only] proponents and apologists say they don’t have ‘penis issues.’ That would be very funny… if their delusion wasn’t harmful to others. ~Devon
"Of course, children ‘get over it’ — they have no choice. Children are not resilient, children are malleable. In the process of getting over it, elements of their true emotional, behavioral, cognitive and social potential are diminished — some percentage of capacity is lost, a piece of the child is lost forever."
An unnecessary trauma is NOT justified because babies heal faster and won’t (consciously) remember the theft.
Say “YES” to ethics and to an “open future” for your son(s).
ANY time there is a hint, a guess, conjecture, speculation, about the ‘benefit’ of cutting off part of a newborn’s penis THAT is in my newsfeed FOR DAYS because American media can’t wait to share ‘good news’ about forced genital cutting of males.
This study? Nothing. Media silence.
It finds that intact men clear oncogenic (cancer-causing) HPV infections FASTER than circumcised men.
"the probability of clearing an HPV infection was significantly lower among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised [intact] men."
"Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the median time to clearance of any HPV infection was significantly longer among circumcised men than uncircumcised men (P <0.0001, log-rank test) (Figure 2). Similarly, median time to clearance of oncogenic HPV and non-oncogenic HPV types was significantly shorter among uncircumcised men than circumcised men.”
I know men who are circumcised and “okay” with it, but who, understanding that it wasn’t medically necessary, did not inflict it on their sons. Some really don’t want to know more about the issue than that, and I don’t blame them.
They protected their sons. I ask nothing more of them than that. ~Devon
"Circumcision is one of the most horrifying procedures I have ever witnessed in my medical career. The 4 or 5 circumcisions I attended were during my medical school years and none of them were performed with anesthesia. The memory of those infant boys strapped to the molded plastic frame screaming and writhing in pain as the Gomco clamp was tightened down around the foreskin will forever remain with me. Anyone who chooses to have his or her infant circumcised should be forced to attend the procedure. There is no longer any doubt that infants feel pain and there is increasing evidence that the pain of circumcision can leave lasting psychological effects….
Male circumcision is the only medically unnecessary surgery in the USA that is performed without obtaining consent from the patient. In law, parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child.
Giving consent to medical treatment of a child is a clear incident of parental responsibility arising from the duty to protect the child. This duty is clearly breached when the procedure in question is non-therapeutic, ablative and irreversible." ~Dr. Joseph Froncioni
The body is not like a suit of clothes, to be hemmed and stitched to the style of the times.
—Dr. Paul McHugh, Johns Hopkins University (via uncutting)
"Rape is unwanted penetration of a body part or an object in the body opening against a person’s will."
People will roll their eyes and get mad when the definition fits circumcision and they don’t want to hear it. They might sputter absurd comparisions:
What if a child objects to a dental check-up? What about taking his or her temperature?
Yeah, totally the same as amputation of part of his sexual organ WITHOUT medical IMPERATIVE.
What is rape? Must there be a sexual motive? Some say it’s so, others say no… that it is rather about power and violence over another. Some balk at calling it ‘rape’ if the powerlessness is self-induced (the victim is intoxicated), while most acknowledge that taking advantage of another’s powerlessness is no excuse.
Children are circumcised because they cannot resist. What child would consent to having his or her most intimate body part manipulated, opened, then partially ablated by surgical steel? Lacking medical imperative for such an act, would not “surgical rape” be a more accurate description than “circumcision?” ~Devon
Here is a law journal article, in which this question is posed:
"And finally, consider the child whose parents exercise such control over his physical body that they decide whether or not he will be circumcised in the first few days of his life. Do we think a rape victim who is a child has not been raped at all, merely because he had no effective legal right to self-possession to begin with? Do we think his parents in particular can’t be guilty of raping him?"
Gowri Ramachandran, Delineating the Heinous: Rape, Sex, and Self-Possession, 123 YALE L.J. ONLINE 371 (2013)