The circumcision “debate” is missing the point: adults can do whatever they want to their genitals. No one gets to carve up a baby’s hoochie!

20 Sep


Lots of new folks here, which is great to see, but please be advised:  do not waste your time explaining how girl’s bodies are so much more precious than boys and how male and female circumcision cannot be compared.  To me, you’re arguing that slavery was better for women because they got to be mammies and really, that’s not so bad, is it? 


Do. Not. Waste. Your. Time.


I will not publish those comments. 


Cutting up a baby’s genitals is barbaric.  Full stop.  The whole idea makes me just want to puke.  What are we, fucking stone age cretins imagining that wild creatures inhabit the wind and monsters lurk in the dark?

I have nothing against genital mutilation, per se.  Pierce them, tattoo them, cut them, shred them, go to town with a cheese grater on them for all I care.  It’s your body and your choice.

my choice

Where have I heard that phrase before?

Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern takes on a group he calls “Intactivists” for their supposed denial of sciency facts.

For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph. There are plenty of other loud fringe groups that flood the Internet with false information, but none of them has been as successful as the intactivists at drowning out reasoned discourse

Let’s see just what Mark is talking about, shall we?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks.

…only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.


So, baby boy dinkies can get infections, which can easily be treated with antibiotics.  No tissue removal required.  I wonder how the AAP recommends treating strep throat?  By their logic, a tracheotomy ought to do it, huh?

The other benefits?  Hacking off a baby’s foreskin can help prevent HIV, genital herpes, genital warts and penile cancer?

Well, aside from the penile cancer, aren’t the aforementioned things you acquire by fucking? How many baby boys are out banging that cute chick from swimming class?  If you’re mutilating an infant in the hopes of preventing the spread of HIV, I think you may have jumped the gun a little.

Babies don’t have sex.

And penile cancer?  It’s pretty uncommon in the West, and rarely seen in men under the age of 50. Again, that is a stupid justification for cutting a baby.

Whether circumcision results in reduced sexual pleasure really doesn’t concern me.  Getting sidetracked by that debate obscures the point:  if an adult freely chooses to surgically remove his foreskin, then the risk is his to bear.  A baby cannot make the decision to cut away part of his flesh, and no matter what the consequences for his pleasure, his basic right to bodily autonomy has been violated in a way that should strike almost all of us as a completely and utterly horrifying.

Who takes a knife to an infant?


And of course, when the infant in question is dressed in pink and sports frilly bloomers, we all respond in EXACTLY that way. Cutting an infant girl’s genitals is barbaric and criminal.

The main reason I am even addressing this so-called debate is because of this double standard.

Feministe: In Defence of the Sanctimonious Women’s Studies Set has a piece about those damn mouthy men who insist boys deserve the same basic rights as girls to NOT have their genitals sliced off, and it’s kind of stomach churning to read the commenters who get all shrieky about how cutting a girl is SO MUCH WORSE than cutting a boy.

Every time female genital cutting is mentioned on Feministe — every time — someone from the “intactivist” community shows up to derail the conversation and make it all about the alleged horrors of male circumcision.

Alleged horrors?


Are you fucking kidding me?  A surgical blade is used to slice off the skin that protects the end of an infant boy’s penis, usually WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC.


Does this picture make you flinch? What part of that is not horror?

Part of the feminist response is ignorance – they just don’t know what is involved in male circumcision, but part of it is the ugly truth that a whole lot of feminists really don’t give a fuck what happens to infant boys, and some are probably even gleeful about the pain little boys endure having this barbarous act carried out on them.

Getting into debates about the specific outcomes or consequences of circumcision lets the main point slide under the bloodied waters:  you either believe in the right to bodily sexual autonomy or you don’t.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that women deserve to reach adulthood with their genitals intact and that boys do not.  Arguing about the degree of cutting, or effects on sexual pleasure or disease prevention or any other aspect of this kind of mutilation is a way to divert attention away from the fact that CHILDREN’S GENITALS ARE BEING MUTILATED.

My advice to intactivists is to stick to the point:


Every child should be protected from a blade taken to their crotch, full stop.  And every adult has the right to do whatever they like to their crotch.  If you want to cut your genitals as an expression of your faith, go right ahead.

When you’re 18.  Make the choice yourself.

Arguing about what forms of mutilation are acceptable is like arguing about which people it is acceptable to enslave.

Slavery is acceptable or it is not.

Cutting up babies is acceptable or it is not.

When anyone argues that it’s okay to cut boys, but not girls, that tells you a whole lot about that person and how they feel about boys and men in general.  Couching the argument in terms of degrees or rationales or outcomes is pure sophistry, designed to draw your attention away from the fact that women’s bodies belong to women and men’s bodies belong to everybody.

Cutting little boys is the first step in getting them to understand they are mere utilities.  Something disposable, and they should get used to it.  They will be thrown into trenches, jails, dirty, shitty  difficult jobs, and one bedroom flats should they be foolish enough to marry and then face the “fairness” of divorce courts.

Let me clear here:  anyone who tries to argue on this blog that cutting girls is just ever so much worse than cutting boys will be banned.  Cutting infants  is a sick, disgusting, medieval practice and I am not amenable to any discussion of why it should continue.  Perhaps that will result in no comments at all. That’s fine.

My purpose today is to shine a light on the fact that the “debate” about circumcision grants women bodily sexual autonomy automatically, while claiming that men have no such right or need.

And that is bullshit.  Any discussion of infant genital mutilation should center on one topic and one topic only:  bodily sexual autonomy.

baby body

If men can be denied the right to bodily autonomy based on faith, then why can’t women be denied the same right? Abortion should be outlawed based on the faith of the pregnant woman’s parents?  Selective service should be outlawed based on the faith of the male draftee’s parents?

Well, that’s one way to make sure all the rich folks convert to Quakerism, isn’t it?


Orthodox Jews follow a rule that requires them to keep their heads covered.  The men wear a little hat called a yarmulke or kippa.  Lots of Jewish men have decided that there are plenty of ways to observe their faith without following an ancient ritual that singles them out and makes their personal beliefs public.

And holy moly, didn’t the whole fucking world just adapt and move on.  I could spend several thousand words describing which ancient laws we have decided are not worth observing any more, and yet religion still maintains a stranglehold on most people’s lives.

Whatever.  I don’t care.  Believe what you like, just don’t try to govern my life based on beliefs that have no evidence to support them other than faith.  I require a little more to go on.

So let’s say we outlaw genital cutting until children have reached the age of consent.  How many Jewish men will choose to undergo the ritual as an expression of their faith?  Yeah, probably about the same number that continue to wear yarmulkes.

Give adults the information and choice and you will see this cruel ritual cease to exist almost immediately.  Because it IS cruel and stupid and ugly and pointless and medieval.

big red

Feminists say “hey, MRAs, you don’t need a movement because we’re fighting for all the same things you are.  We’ve got it covered”.

Oh really?

Circumcision is a perfect litmus test of just how much faith we can put in that claim.  You either support the right to sexual bodily autonomy.

Or you don’t.

There is nothing else to debate.

Is it your body, and your choice?

Or only your body and your choice when you’re a woman?

That’s a little far off the equality mark, isn’t it?

And of course, that’s exactly the point.  Feminists aren’t arguing for equality.  They are arguing for special privileges and protections that apply only to women and girls.

Yeah, well, fuck you feminists.  Put your money where your mouth is.

Protect little boys as well as little girls.

I’ll wait here for the day that happens.



Still chirping.

What a surprise.

Lots of love,


161 Responses to “The circumcision “debate” is missing the point: adults can do whatever they want to their genitals. No one gets to carve up a baby’s hoochie!”

  1. John September 20, 2013 at 14:21 #


  2. judgybitch September 20, 2013 at 14:22 #

    I’m scared to watch that. What is it?


  3. John September 20, 2013 at 14:26 #

    Christopher Hitchens debates a rabbi, particularly interesting response to the rabbi’s joke RE circumcision.


  4. Misguided Child September 20, 2013 at 14:38 #

    A set of strange coincidences just happened to me. I am going to try no to give TO MUCH INFO.

    First, about a year ago I started researching what circumcision is, the more I learned the more angry I became that it was done to me. I recently decided to restore my foreskin using the TLC Tugger from Ron Low for all the same reasons everyone else chooses to restore. It arrived yesterday. I still have not had a conversation with my mother about why I was circumcised, I am not sure if I should have this conversation.

    Second, my best friend from childhood became a pediatrician and I was very proud for him. Last month I found out he preforms circumcisions, and he will be back home this weekend to show off his newborn baby boy (two weeks old). I don’t know what he did with his son. But I do plan to talk to him in great detail about the evils of genital mutilation. At the end of the conversation before I leave I am going to tell him that if he continues to do circumcisions, I will not be his friend and never want to talk to him again. I have been thinking of this for the last month, and believe it is the right thing for me to do. He is my best friend from childhood and for the better part of 15 years we were inseparable.

    Semper Fidelis


  5. Athan Nyx September 20, 2013 at 14:40 #

    I agree with everything you say here… I add that the only exception to this rule should be those kids with whom they will be hindered if there was no surgery. But even then cases of surgical intervention tends to be problematic. One of the worst cases is what they do with intersex babies where they may even do surgery to desperately try to conform people to normal under the assumption that it’ll prevent them from being bullied. Which can very often lead to problems when a person becomes an adult. Frankly… It would be better if doctors and the medical establishment did what most vets do… “Don’t interfere unless it is life threatening because it could always be no problem at all”


  6. Misguided Child September 20, 2013 at 14:52 #

    I am suprised you haven’t seen his clip before. Based on you past writings, I would have guessed that you would be very familiar with Christopher Hitchens’ work.


  7. judgybitch September 20, 2013 at 14:55 #

    I know Hitchens. I was just afraid it was a video of an actual circumcision. I would cry if I watched that. Like not a few sniffles, but sobbing, snot-covered face gut-wrenching cry.

    And hell, it’s Friday. I’d rather not, all things considered.



  8. Dan Bollinger September 20, 2013 at 14:56 #

    FGM, MGM, what it really boils down to is HGM, Human Genital Mutilation.


  9. Wilson September 20, 2013 at 15:02 #

    It’s futile, circumcision is doubly protected by politically correct progressivism: minority religions can do no harm, and privileged males can’t be harmed. The next step will be to make it mandatory to reduce women’s risk of STD infection, though the message will be focused on the benefits to boys and the community.


  10. John September 20, 2013 at 15:05 #

    The only “actual circumcision” in the video is that of the Rabbi’s argument.


  11. Bob Wallace September 20, 2013 at 15:19 #

    When I was in college a woman I knew started to defend circumcision. She got one sentence out before I told her, “Women can be circumcised, too.” She shut up and never mentioned it again.


  12. Misguided Child September 20, 2013 at 15:23 #

    I think the only way to end circumcision is to appeal to the true nature of Feminists.

    self·ish [sel-fish]
    1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
    2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

    For a woman sex with an intact man that it is with a circumcised man. But don’t take my word for it. Take a womans word.

    This website is 100% NSFW

    Here is a woman explaining why foreskin is important to her.

    Semper Fidelis


  13. Misguided Child September 20, 2013 at 15:28 #


    For a woman sex with an intact man IS BETTER THAN it is with a circumcised man. But don’t take my word for it.



  14. feministhater September 20, 2013 at 15:29 #

    You can bet your bottom dollar this will come to pass. It’s already here in South Africa, broadcasting the wonderfulness of circumcision as it protects women and society.

    Men mean nothing. I’ll see if I can find the advert on a you-tube video.


  15. korhomme September 20, 2013 at 15:37 #

    The American Academy of Pediatrics isn’t a neutral body. Its members can charge for circumcision, so clearly it’s in their interest to propagate reasons why circumcision should be performed. In reality, there are very few medical indications for circumcision.

    Look at the history of circumcision in the last two centuries or so. It was introduced as an anti-masturbatory procedure; and to enhance the effect, it was recommended that it be performed without anaesthetic. Once a critical mass was achieved, circumcision could be also advised so that the boy would have a “regular” appearance. During WWI, it was advised as anti-syphilitic measure.

    The claimed prophylactic advantages are really rather dubious. It’s now rarely performed on children in the UK, and even in the US rates are much less than previously.

    As an aside, clitoridectomy was also medically advised, for a very short time in the mid 19th century, as an anti-masturbatory procedure.

    Disclaimer: I have performed circumcisions.


  16. RS September 20, 2013 at 15:49 #

    I’m interested in this discussion for a bit of an unusual reason. My son was born with hypospadias- a condition in which the urethra isn’t closed. He was born already about half-circumcised because his foreskin never fully developed. I felt we had no alternative to having corrective surgery because he could have ended up slightly deformed without it and prone to lots of infections. I didn’t have him circumcised after the surgery and he is mostly as he was when he was born other than what was necessary for his health. I figured he could make the decision about whether or not to change anything when he was older.

    The only thing I wonder is how he’ll feel about the situation as he gets older. He doesn’t look fully circumcised or uncircumcised- but rather somewhere in-between. Basically he looks half-circumcised with some extra girth- which he may thank me for later. Regardless, what happens in the future is up to him.


  17. korhomme September 20, 2013 at 15:56 #

    Hypospadias is a contra-indication to circumcision; the prepuce may be needed for repair.


  18. Master Beta September 20, 2013 at 15:58 #


    Am I pro mutilating babies, or am I against it?

    Well this is a moral dilemma, I’m going to have to check and see what the bible says on this one.


  19. RS September 20, 2013 at 16:04 #

    That’s what the doctor told us. I don’t think he’ll ever need any further repair- thankfully.


  20. Exfernal September 20, 2013 at 16:12 #

    At least that is stated here:
    Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm
    Interesting, isn’t it?

    Some arguments FOR secular circumcision of infants (possibly inaccurate, as written from memory):
    – it is supposed to lessen the need for proper hygiene when the access to water and soap is restricted
    – it makes unaided masturbation more difficult. You know, the “masturbation is unhealthy” argument.
    – it is supposed to hinder the transmission of STDs during the intercourse to some degree. More keratinized epidermis is less passable for microbes and viruses.
    – it is supposed to allow for saving on average about four hundred dollars in medical fees per person during the lifetime
    – it is a cheap source of living human tissue.

    Not very convincing, overall.


  21. Mina September 20, 2013 at 17:16 #

    I have been involved the circumcision debate for about 15 years. I am a local NOCIRC center and give help and advice as needed to folks in the Midwest about intactness. You hit all of the nails on the head and then some. Fact is women are the ones who make the decision to circumcise and those women should be labeld misandric for doing so. I look forward to the day that little boys get the same protection as little girls and the right to keep all of their own body parts.


  22. Mina September 20, 2013 at 17:31 #

    oh, and by the way your argument is spot on … the only point one need to make about circumcision is that all human beings have a right to the autonomy of their body no exceptions. there is no alternative argument. they can talk talk talk about the health junk, the comparison to female circ junk – that’s all just noise for their rationalization. you are 100% correct. one need not make any other argument than that one. don’t let them take you off the point and you will in the end. every time!


  23. Jax September 20, 2013 at 17:44 #

    Jill Fillipovic just needs to stop talking about this shit already. It’s obvious she just wants an excuse to whine about the mean men… again.

    She’s actually shocked that people are talking about male circumcision in the comment section of a post she wrote *about male circumcision*

    What a moron.


  24. Southern Man September 20, 2013 at 17:48 #

    I’m circumsized. Not much that can be done about that. So is my son, now 21. Whether to have the procedure or not was not even discussed. And I solemnly swear, when the time comes, to have a heart to heart talk with each of my children about this. I failed with my son but perhaps I can break the chain with any future grandchildren.


  25. PreferNotToSayBecauseOfContentOfPost September 20, 2013 at 18:09 #

    I have a rather unique perspective it that I was circumcised in adulthood due to Phimosis, my Doctor recommended circumcision as a first course of action and I can say with absolute certainty it leads to significantly reduced sensitivity having had sex both with and without. Had I been made aware of other treatment options I would have tried them first and viewed circumcision as an absolute last resort. Not to go into too much detail but you are better being intact and it should be banned unless there is medically justified reasons and used as a last resort.


  26. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 18:58 #

    [Circumcision] makes unaided masturbation more difficult.

    Um, really? Ya sure had me fooled. Maybe I’ve been missing something, but what do I know? I’m just a man.

    This idiotic statement was obviously written by a WOMAN who knows less than nothing about male sexuality.


  27. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 19:05 #

    Some of you have probably already seen this, but this has been posted over at AVfM:


  28. judgybitch September 20, 2013 at 19:07 #

    Even if it DID work, that will still be a piss poor argument for cutting infants. Adult men and women spread sexually transmitted diseases. Not babies.


  29. Exfernal September 20, 2013 at 19:13 #

    Huh? An uncut man here. More sensitivity is a bad thing?

    Why not ask someone who knows the difference from personal experience? I mean someone volunteering for the procedure as an adult.


  30. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 19:25 #

    Yep. It boggles the mind to think that “adult” policymakers can’t grasp that simple little nugget of common[?] sense.

    My own response to that title, even without diving into the article itself, was “and in other breaking news, the sun rose in the east this morning.”



  31. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 19:27 #

    Well, because that would lead to actual statements of FACT, something the author(s) of this nonsense aren’t the least bit interested in when it contradicts their fantasies of what the facts should be.

    Like I said, you’re just a man who has experienced the very thing these “experts” are talking about. What the fuck do YOU know? Right?


  32. Mina September 20, 2013 at 19:41 #

    Circumcision has always been a solution trying to find a problem. All circumcision arguments are managed, 100%, by the hamster.


  33. Theodore Logan September 20, 2013 at 20:14 #

    The cosmetic industry uses foreskins for their anti-aging skin moisturizer products. This plus the kosher practice is why nothing will change in regards to circumcision of boys anytime soon.


  34. The Real Peterman September 20, 2013 at 20:44 #

    Good luck!


  35. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 21:25 #

    The cosmetic industry uses foreskins for their anti-aging skin moisturizer products.

    I can just see the new T-shirt/bumper sticker slogan now:

    “Hey, you ugly old bitches: find some other way to smooth your ugly faces! Keep your hands of my son’s dick!”


  36. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 21:25 #



  37. Jai Dudge September 20, 2013 at 21:27 #

    I’m going to have to disagree


  38. Jeremy September 20, 2013 at 21:47 #

    So, I am going to go into gory detail. I feel this is necessary because I don’t have my own blog. I don’t frequent intactivist websites, but I am entirely sympathetic to their aims.

    Circumcision harms men.

    Normal sexual function in women includes a natural lubrication that permits the use of all manner of commercially available devices with which to pinch one out. Ask any female friend of yours, the vast majority of those women who are comfortable with their own bodies have no problems acquiring full sensation within the limits of their own body’s normal function.

    Normal (meaning intact) function in men allows this same ability to experience full functionality without lubrication because there’s enough skin that dry abrasive motion on the most sensitive part is avoided. When you circumcise a boy, you are denying him this natural function of his own body. You are essentially scarring him and removing natural function from his sexuality. In the future, when that boy wants to touch himself (and it will be OFTEN), he’ll either have to find a lubricant (and in the early years that means hand-soap), or he’ll be borrowing his parents baby oil. When he becomes active with a woman, the lack of skin will make for more abrasion inside of her, so women with less natural lube will actually feel less comfortable being intimate with him. More importantly, the sensation that he gets will be significantly reduced because the most sensitive part has calloused up from being uncovered, rubbing against dry clothes, and essentially drying/shriveling up into near uselessness.

    Circumcision harms women.

    Women, at least young uninitiated women and even some experienced ones, do not understand the primary male organ and how best to touch it. I would argue they shouldn’t have to. I would argue that nature has already provided us with organs that can be manipulated with no modern glycerin products to make things work, as long as we don’t scar them up.

    I am cut, I was cut as an infant. The two first women I ever had sexual contact with had no idea how to touch me. They presumed (from a natural state of mind) that they could simply go to town down there and everything would be fine. They were extraordinarily brutal in their friction to the point that I had to stop them and tell them to either use their mouth or let me put on protection. Their experience with me was also one of their first (first or second) sexual encounters with a man, and both of them were entirely confused as to why they were hurting me. Some women (at least when they’re young) don’t like the idea of using their mouths, so this leaves them with only one way to have any fun with it.

    The (initial) efforts of these two women on me were foiled by circumcision. There is no other explanation. If I had been intact for those ladies, their efforts would have met with tremendous success and we would have had a fantastic time getting comfortable with each other right off the bat. Instead they were both left with confusion. They were probably thinking that there was something wrong with me or them. They were right, but they’ll never understand that their feelings of inadequacy were generated by a doctor and my parents 20 years prior.

    How many young women are forever scarred by initial male rejection of their first contact with circumcised parts? Remember, everyone “knows” that male parts are easy to please, so if she’s doing something wrong, she’s actually in a worse state self-respect wise than a guy would be. How many women have doubts about themselves later because they hurt the first man they touched down there? I’d wager it’s not a small number. We gloss over this as a race of people because men want sex badly enough to forget about these bad episodes, and somehow women expect men to just make it happen for everyone anyway. All manner of non-function in males with regards to sexual intercourse is blamed on men and their lack of understanding the female body, society just outright blames us. However I would lay real money down that a significant percentage of problems in the bedroom are in fact caused by physically scarring male babies.


  39. feeriker September 20, 2013 at 21:55 #

    Well said, Jeremy.

    I really believe that this is a subject that needs much more serious examination and discussion. I’m not holding my breath, though, given the current climate.


  40. Jeremy September 20, 2013 at 22:13 #

    …Not much that can be done about that….

    Not true.


  41. Jeremy September 20, 2013 at 22:19 #

    Oh, you want that?

    You’re welcome.


  42. Jeremy September 20, 2013 at 22:28 #

    Everyone experiences the affects circumcision has on human sexuality, everyone. Even the uncircumcised experience it with the stories of how their friends feel about their encounters. What never happens is the specific sexual-encounter root-cause failures are never properly attributed. This doesn’t happen because the intimacy of the encounter leads both parties to feel ashamed about themselves over the failure. Even in people who have high-self-confidence, the true nature of failed encounters is not realized because both parties just blame the other. Hell, I did this with the first girl. For years I just thought, “Jesus, she had no idea how to touch a guy.” Only years later did I realize, “Uh, I think if I hadn’t been scarred by my parents I would have had a lot more fun.”


  43. Jeremy September 20, 2013 at 23:50 #

    That website is entirely biased, even though it claims to be neutral. The stories from adults who got circumcised all amount to three things

    1) Appearance, mostly from women who somehow “care” what their partners penis looks like. Can you imagine the outcry if men started telling women that they should cut their clitoral hood because they want their ladies to look better? It’s a ridiculous argument. Women (and men) do not get to define what a baby boy’s future genitals are supposed to look like, period.

    2) Hygiene, which amounted to two complaints, smell and smegma. Well duh, the head of the penis is supposed to be a mucus membrane, last I checked moist parts of the body smell after a few days if they’re not cleaned. How is this any surprise whatsoever? The smegma argument is ridiculous since it’s the equivalent of cutting up your armpits because they discolor once in a while.

    3) Sexual intensity and performance, which amounted to men who were intact claiming that keeping the foreskin back resulted in greater feeling for them, so they wanted it cut permanently. This argument is absurd. The fact that they were intact meant that the head was MORE SENSITIVE than it would be if left uncovered for years, so OF COURSE it would suddenly feel amazing to keep the foreskin back during intercourse, only an idiot wouldn’t understand this. Second, you can hold the foreskin back during intercourse with mechanical means without scarring your body if you so desire, or better yet, let your lady-friend do it when she wants to suddenly increase the sensation! What kind of foolish nonsense is this that you go get yourself permanently scarred because it makes it so you’re doing something automatic with your body that you could instead choose to do when you want to? Would you go replace your anus with a device that automatically let you shit instead of giving you control of it? Can you see the absurdity here? Thirdly on this one, they complain that condoms don’t stay in place easily during intercourse for intact men. This is true, but it’s only true because condoms are designed for the masses, and (I think) most men in the developed world are circumcised, certainly in the U.S. this is true. IMHO, if you need a prophylactic and you give up on your foreskin because you can’t find a protection solution, you are retarded.

    This of course, all forgets about the fact that your comment presumes we’re supposed to be taking advice on whether or not to scar future men from present men (and women for some stupid reason). So, of course, I shouldn’t feel bad about racking up trillion-dollar-deficits, because I can just pass the bill onto my forcefully-circumcised sons. Fantastic argument, if you like fallacies.


  44. Zach September 21, 2013 at 00:30 #

    If a pro-mutilation woman talks long enough, she will reveal that it is largely about her desire to control the aesthetics; it looks better to her, it is more ‘normal’, common.

    Conversely, these same voices are often the loudest when railing against a fully grown, fully empowered woman (though I guess she is a victim of the Patriarchy by default) who elects to rejuv her birth canal after children, or god-forbid, trim a bit of the female foreskin equivalent because she doesn’t like her own parts.

    They are more concerned about the *possibility* of latent, passive, patriarchal influence in a grown woman deciding to alter herself than they are about a woman (often) unilaterally deciding to cut her child or worse, lobby for the procedure on behalf of other women. With 40+% of children born out of wedlock, a boy is lucky if a man is even in the room to have the 5 minute discussion before the blade comes out.

    The Africa-HIV basis for the pro mutilation argument is so embarrassingly flawed that if the same lack of rigor behind the data were part of any other argument, say for the removal of “excess” labia, it would be shamed off the face of the earth and the “doctors” promoting such a scientifically impotent proposition would have their licenses publicly stripped.

    The thing is, on the slightest of margins, there very well be some distant significance in terms of health. But the frame is all wrong. We don’t look at the issue in terms of establishing credibility for something that is ALREADY HAPPENING. It is an ex post facto rationalization to justify socialized, habitual abuse. That is not how we should be approaching public heath or performing medicine. It is, however, the staple of feminist/progressive argumentation. Go figure.


  45. Rob Jones September 21, 2013 at 00:39 #

    Most of the commenters here are trying for righteousness but don’t really understand the issues or don’t have first hand experience with circumcision. I do.

    I was circumcised at 25. My own choice. Let me explain the reasons:

    1. The smell, no matter how much you wash, is disgusting. Growing up, I thought that’s how all boys were. All kinds of microscopic junk gets trapped between the foreskin and penis. Bacteria grow in the small spaces between the foreskin and penis even a few minutes after washing.

    2. It’s more socially acceptable to be circumcised, at least in the U.S. I noticed the difference between the reaction girls had when they first saw my uncirced penis compared to when I had been circumcised. Like night and day (for the better).

    3. STDs. Check out the stats and their research on circumcision. Obviously, it’s better if there are fewer places that viruses can be trapped (like under the foreskin),

    4. It’s better for the chick. More friction, last longer, less chance of giving her some kind of infection because of bacteria, etc

    I’m all about mens rights and the manosphere, but this is a stupid battle. Circumcision is pro man. i wish I had it done as a infant, but whatever.


  46. Misguided Child September 21, 2013 at 00:41 #

    I will give my personal experience and try not to cross the TMI line. First I need to say, MEN DON’T KNOW DICK ABOUT DICK! Their entire experience is from a sample size of exactly one. (no science or research would be taken seriously with such a small sample) Don’t believe me, go to YouTube and look up street interviews asking people what it means to be circumcised. (women also don’t know what it is either). The general population has no fucking clue. Case in point, a skin bridge is a common outcome of circumcision. If you are not aware of what a skin bridge is you can Google it. Men who have skin bridges think that it is completely normal and natural, after all that is how it has always been for them. You can not just rely on your own experiences, you have to research and study. As I stated in an earlier reply I recently decided to restore my foreskin. As I have aged the drying, keratinization and other effects of circumcision have become worse and worse. I became less and less sensitive over the years. Now I am to the point that my my hand has much greater feeling and sensitivity than I do. Not much surprise when you study the type of nerve endings and the number that are left after circumcision, and compare that to the type of nerve endings and the number of nerve endings that are in the palm of your hand. Especially the meissner’s corpuscles that sence light fine touch that the hand still has and a circumcised penis no longer does. A common complaint women have about sex with men is that they are way way too rough. Circumcised men have to. If they are much gentler, their less sensitive penis would never be able to get them to orgasm.


  47. PianoChick September 21, 2013 at 00:49 #

    I actually know a whole lot of feminists who are opposed to MGM. Myself included. Most of us are out there fighting for equality for everyone- other big topics I’ve seen are LGBT rights. And circumcision comes up occasionally. Most of the responses I’ve seen from feminists show that the majority disagree with MGM. While some feminists disagree and take the stand that you quoted, most that I’ve seen in the feminist circles I run in are opposed. So let’s not paint all feminists as evil man haters, okay?


  48. Jeremy September 21, 2013 at 00:55 #

    I was circumcised at 25. My own choice.

    Anyone can stop reading your comment after that sentence. But for arguments sake, lets go further.

    1) Some girls smell, they have more moisture down there than guys get. You know what they do, they find solutions! If one soap doesn’t work, or twenty attempts at solving it don’t work, they go talk to a doctor. Most women are able to deal with this and they’ve got a lot more moisture down there than guys get.

    2) Wrong. First off, only women who are intimate with you are going to notice this. I don’t go walking around on a daily basis with a t-shirt that says “I’m cut for social reasons.” Second, it is not any more socially acceptable to be cut, I’ve never heard any woman express a solid opinion either way.

    3) The STD argument is entirely debunked. If you keep up on the manosphere on this topic, you’ll see they just tried slowing down HIV infections with circumcision in Africa, with no discernable reduction. Fail.

    4) Wrong. There’s just as much variation in female genital anatomy as guy genital anatomy. This means there are women out there who make more or less natural lubrication, the women who are a little more “dry” actually like intact men better. With the women who are more lubed, it’s a toss up. I’ve spoken to women who make plenty of natural lubrication about their experiences with intact men, and some said they actually preferred the foreskin.

    Circumcision may be pro-man like a pierced dick might be, but it is ANTI-BABY.


  49. Misguided Child September 21, 2013 at 00:58 #

    My best friend from childhood is now a pediatrician, and preforms circumcisions. I plan on talking to him about what circumcision is. The brief conversation I had with him a month ago when I found out he was doing this led me to the conclusion that he has no clue what a foreskin is or its purpose. I don’t understand how people can graduate med school then be trained to cut of parts of a penis but never know anything about that the prepuce is. If he continues to preform circumcision I don’t want to know him any more much less see him. I plan on telling him my feelings. Any advice?


  50. pixelene September 21, 2013 at 01:31 #



  51. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 01:45 #

    Love this article! One criticism: radical feminist intactivist here! I can’t figure out if I’m a unicorn or just invisible, but hey WE REALLY DO EXIST. Much love to your work, please remember to show the anti-GM feminists a wee bit of love back. Peace.


  52. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 01:46 #



  53. Feminism Is A Lie September 21, 2013 at 02:09 #

    Mate, you were circumcised by your own choice as an adult. That’s the point JudgyBitch is making here – if adults want to do whatever with their genitals, they can. Adults have the capacity to weight up the pros and cons of whatever procedure they want done, then they can make the decision that best suits them. If your life experiences lead you toward thinking circumcision is best for you, fine. Good luck to you. But the point is, a potentially permanent procedure should not be forced onto babies no matter what rationalisations the adults can come up with. It’s about bodily autonomy. A baby’s body is not anyone’s but their own, such choices should be left for them to make as adults, not forced on them before they’re barely aware of their surroundings.


  54. Feminism Is A Lie September 21, 2013 at 02:21 #

    Ok, but then where has the debate about MGM gotten in feminist circles? Why is it any time a feminist topic is brought up into mainstream media, it’s about women not getting enough of something? Not enough pay, not enough women in X jobs, etc? There may very well be feminists opposed to MGM and I am glad to hear that, but where are you? Are you making your voices heard, or are you allowing yourselves to be drowned out by the masses crippled with a self-centric entitlement complex? I followed feminist debates, sites, writers and so on, for a while before being made aware of the Men’s Rights Movement. Not ONCE in my time of being a semi-feminist did I come across feminists dedicating some space for male issues, in a bid to promote some real equality. Finding the MRM was like getting a brick in the face, a huge eye opener. All I’m saying is, if feminists who do care about male issues are out there, speak up and don’t be drowned out by those in the mainstream who only care about controlling the debate for their own selfish gain.


  55. Unix-Jedi September 21, 2013 at 02:42 #

    I still have not had a conversation with my mother about why I was circumcised, I am not sure if I should have this conversation.

    Good, and no.

    It’s done. For whatever reason, there’s no point in going into it – she can’t undo it.

    (And I’m speaking from personal experience. Never brought it up with my mother, and she doesn’t know of the problems it’s caused me. No point. It’s done.)


  56. Unix-Jedi September 21, 2013 at 02:45 #

    I mean someone volunteering for the procedure as an adult.

    Still not a good comparison. The development – especially during puberty – is potentially radically different, as well as the nerve endings and pathways.


  57. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 03:39 #

    OK, Pretty much all of your articles make me want to burn my bras, even though I really like my bras and swing them around and be hyper feministy and catch snakes and spiders with my bare hands (which I do anyway) but FINALLY I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT SOMETHING BESIDES NOT HITTING KIDS.

    You cannot understand how much I hate genital mutilation of any kind. I got called sexist by Anne Rice for insisting that boys should not have their genitals cut too! No one should have the right to cut ANYONE’S genitals regardless of gender. Men AND women have the right to decide when they are adults about their genitals.
    This is not unreasonable. Circumcision is excruciatingly painful. I don’t know how people keep defending this practice.


  58. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 03:50 #

    Me for example. I am rather feminist and anti-cutting the genitals of infants of any kind. It’s just wrong. You just don’t cut a baby. All men and women deserve choice when it comes to their bodies.


  59. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 03:51 #

    Yeah, high five! Genital integrity for everyone!


  60. Marlo Rocci September 21, 2013 at 03:57 #

    Please note the only reason we’re talking about male infant circumcision because male infant castration hasn’t begun…yet.

    But I hear Krista is working on that.


  61. Paul Murray September 21, 2013 at 06:01 #

    The cited reasons for circumcision are:
    it’s neater
    it’s more hygenic
    it’s traditional.

    EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS usually given for FGM.

    The *real* reason for circumcision is to reduce sexual pleasure (Mamonides), in order to reduce sexual sin, masturbation, all that bad stuff that gives the gods such a bad case of butthurt.



  62. concerned cynic September 21, 2013 at 09:37 #

    Please understand that a large majority of those agitating against routine infant circumcision (RIC) in the USA and Canada, are mothers of childbearing age who agree that there is no real moral difference between RIC and FGM. The Anne Rice stance, namely that morally equating male circ with FGM, risks trivialising the latter and “derailing” the struggle against it, doesn’t have much traction among people not held in thrall by a fairly radical variant of feminist theory.


  63. Misguided Child September 21, 2013 at 09:41 #

    I am fully aware that the past can not be changed. But it might help in understanding, and lessen my anger. It also could make it worse. I don’t know; I am not able to predict the future. Because of the anonymity that the internet provides, I am able to open up online in a way that I could not even imagine in real life. I am also a closeted atheist. The only person I have talked to about this with is my oldest brother. I didn’t even say I was atheist, just that I no longer believed in god (for some reason US culture has a big problem with atheists, but if you say you no longer believe, that is understandable). His response was he understood, but advised me to not tell anyone else. It could get back to someone in the family and I would be ostracized or worse. Am I supposed to live the rest of my life lying and hiding the facts that I feel violated, and I am atheist? I think this must similar to the way homosexuals feel who have not yet come out. If we are not able to talk to our loved ones about our true feeling and beliefs what are we supposed to do. Anonymous posts on a blog seem like a piss poor substitute to a meaningful face to face conversation.

    Semper Fidelis


  64. Brother K September 21, 2013 at 13:26 #

    I have two words for you, Judgy Bitch: “THANK YOU!”


  65. Katie September 21, 2013 at 13:39 #

    I love you!


  66. Erin September 21, 2013 at 13:57 #

    YES! This was the single biggest reason why we left our son’s body alone!!! What right do we have to decide to alter his body like that??? I couldn’t take that choice away from him. (That and the thought of sending him to be sliced on made me physically ill.)


  67. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 15:02 #

    Please help us just a little bit. You seem like a rational, pragmatic guy. When I talk to other feminist women about why MGM is in fact, actual genital mutilation I get only so far into the conversation before some really angry MRA guy sets in with explosive name-calling. And suddenly my whole point is lost in a full out pissing contest between feminists and the MRA. People don’t get the point very well when you put them on the defensive. You may already be familiar with this feminist intactivist blogger, but I think she states the problem we’re having in article, below. More and more feminst women are waking up to MGM. Young women with no kids are the least likely to have ever thought much about circumcision.


  68. Indi September 21, 2013 at 15:31 #

    I wasn’t going to comment on this post…but then I saw this comment and I HAD to reply….

    FRICTION IS NOT A GOOD THING DURING SEX! As a women I can tell you from years of painful sex with a circumcised man that friction is the last thing in the world that I want. I should not be in pain after sex! It’s to the point that I’ve had to put an ice pack on my genitals after having sex. No amount of lube fixes it….nor hours of foreplay. If I have sex with my partner for any amount of time I am going to end up hurting.

    I hate circumcision. If a genie popped out of the ground tomorrow and offered me one wish….you know what it would be? Not riches…no, I’d wish for my husband to have never been circumcised as a child so we could have a healthy sexlife.


  69. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 15:43 #

    Well, yeah.


  70. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 15:45 #

    Feminism or no feminism cutting the genitals of children is just warped. That goes for intersex people too. It is a warped and disgusting practice and anyone who cares for any freedom or babies in general or kids in general should be against both. It’s hypocritical to talk about how evil female genital mutilation is and then hand your son over to be strapped down and painfully cut.


  71. Feminism Is A Lie September 21, 2013 at 15:58 #

    I’m not a guy nor do I really label myself as an MRA, I don’t consider I’ve really done enough to be called an activist of any sort. (I’m just clearing that up). If my post came across as being angry, then I apologise, that wasn’t my point. I’m just going by my experiences with feminism. This experience has lead me to think there is not much attention given to male issues within feminist spaces and when attention is given, it is still somehow turned into a female-centric issue. Or the attention is only given to a male issue after it’s brought up by non-feminist spaces and even then, the attention seems to be given to this issues only to “formally” dismiss it. (And then tout the feminist-approved narrative). That’s been my experience, which has left me wondering where feminists who care about male issues are, and why they do not consider opposing opinions valid, hence the comment. I don’t know about your experiences with feminism, but when I think about it, I don’t believe I would have become aware of male-related issues, such as MGM, if I hadn’t sort of accidentally found the manosphere or MRA blogs. Not that I wasn’t aware that circumcision happens, I just didn’t have a strong opinion either way until blogs such as JB’s got me to think about it a bit further. (That goes for a few other things too). My experience of feminism was quite shallow, in that only female issues were brought up and often non-problems being distorted into huge problems. JB’s blog, and a few others, gave me a bit more perspective on what’s really happening and I realised feminism just wasn’t for me. Sorry to get a bit off track there, I hope that sort of clears things up regarding my previous comment.

    However, I am glad to know there are feminists out there who are against MGM. I certainly do not want to shut down anyone who wants to speak up about this issue, regardless of what differences of opinion we may have on other things. I mean, I may not exactly agree with feminism, but if we can agree that MGM is wrong, then I don’t see reason for silencing your views on that topic, when we basically have the same idea/goal.


  72. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 16:02 #

    But I don’t want to do that. That’s not very nice and we have women who can sing soprano parts just fine…


  73. Riggtex September 21, 2013 at 16:36 #

    I disagree.

    I daresay that some toddlers out there would very much like to avoid getting immunization shots, but we do it to them anyway.

    I believe the point should be driven home is that the costs of circumcision are too great and the benefits too scant and dubious to the point that bodily autonomy wins out handily. If you’re going to force something on someone too young to understand and decide on its consequences, you’d better be damned sure that the benefits are sure and plentiful and that the costs are minimal and controlled.

    This is why we view inflicting some very short term pain on children against their will is well worth their vastly decreased risk of terrible infection.

    I don’t think a similar statement could be reasonably made about circumcision.


  74. mama24-7 September 21, 2013 at 16:46 #

    “Maybe I’m missing something…” If you’re circumcised, you are missing something! The human male prepuce makes a whole penis a piston. Circumcision changes it into a stick. My sincerest condolences on your loss.

    You can learn more about what the foreskin actually is & does here: (My apologies to the blog owner if she also has info/video’s on the same thing.)


  75. Kourtney Stump Cohen September 21, 2013 at 17:11 #

    EPIC! I love it! We are Jewish and m son is whole!


  76. feeriker September 21, 2013 at 17:31 #

    I don’t argue that circumcision does identifiable damage to the man’s “pleasure sense, ” but that wasn’t the point of my post. My response was to the assertion that “circumcision makes masturbation more difficult,” an assertion that I can state categorically from personal experience is pure BS.


  77. Nicky September 21, 2013 at 17:35 #

    You wish you had had it done as an infant? Really? You WISH you had had the same surgical procedure, but with less anaesthetic (if any at all), at a time when your risk of dying or suffering complications from the surgery were far greater, and when your recovering penis would be sitting in a urine-soaked nappy with you unable to clean or care for it yourself? Oh, and NO understanding of WHY you were hurt, and no understanding that the pain you were in was only temporary.

    I’m gonna guess that wish is because you think you wouldn’t remember it. Is it also, in your view, more ok to hit an elderly person with short term memory loss, than a healthy adult? They are, after all, unlikely to remember being hit. They will still experience that pain (and probably greater pain than the adult), but they’ll forget about it after the pain goes away. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT BETTER.

    BTW, it sounds like you had an anomaly of some sort that made your penis smell bad. That’s just not normal for a penis – intact or not. Point one, not a reason to cut babies. Points 2-4 don’t even need debunking (although Jeremy has done so) to clearly be seen as invalid reasons to cut BABIES.

    Just FYI, I’d imagine a girl with a mascetomy could argue that sex is better for guys without boobs getting in the way, too.


  78. Unix-Jedi September 21, 2013 at 17:37 #

    It also could make it worse.

    Yes, it can. All it can do is try and shift your anger onto your mother as guilt – which will likely fail.

    Even if she’s guilty, even if she’s (made) aware of the transgressions… what then?

    I’m not religious either. But forgiveness is really more about your peace of mind than the person who has trespassed. Especially in a case where – sadly – it was quite understandable.

    Work on yourself – getting yourself to a healthy place – physically and mentally – and you’ll be better off than challenging/confronting your mother.

    If you get to a healthy spot, I think you’ll find there’s no reason to confront her.

    It sounds like you need to get comfortable with yourself in lots of other ways – religious and other – and right now you’ve got a lot of resentment. Which, while understandable, is a bad time to confront people, especially when you’ve got more than 1 complaint/issue boiling below your surface.

    Hang in there, many of us understand.


  79. Nicky September 21, 2013 at 18:06 #

    Yes. People who circ are (usually) of the erroneous belief that there is little harm done by circ, and great good done by it. They consider that the bodily autonomy is LESS important than the benefits. So it *is* possible to be pro MGM and anti FGM, without believing that women are more worthy of protection than men, by believing that FGM is more harmful and less beneficial.

    This whole argument reminds me of the abortion one. The pro-circ guy says ‘choice is irrelevant, look at the benefits’, the intactivist says ‘benefits aren’t real/important, therefore choice is the WHOLE point.’ The pro-lifer says ‘choice isn’t the point, you’re killing babies!’, the pro-choicer says ‘they aren’t really babies, therefore choice is the whole point’.

    It doesn’t matter how much you tell someone that it’s wrong to do x if they believe it is a binary choice between x and y, and they believe y is worse than x. You HAVE to talk about y as well to even have them listen.


  80. Liz Matthews September 21, 2013 at 18:10 #

    This is an excellent post that hits the nail right on the head. Cutting babies’ and children’s genitals is horribly wrong, no exceptions.


  81. Fia September 21, 2013 at 18:14 #

    I try to tell people this all the time. Really great post thank you!


  82. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 18:33 #

    I know. No argument from me!!


  83. Liz September 21, 2013 at 19:18 #

    The primary reason for FGM is to prevent orgasm.
    That’s why some cultures require it for women to be considered marriage material (example Egypt, where over 95 percent of females underwent the procedure in spite of illegality under Mubarak). Inability to enjoy sex makes them less likely to pursue that enjoyment outside marriage.


  84. Modern Drummer September 21, 2013 at 19:31 #

    To all the Christians , 1 Corinthians 7:19 KJV “circumcision is nothing”
    The nothing is meant nothing spiritually.
    Read Romans 4 where in your own bible it is made abundantly clear that circumcision is irrelevant to Christianity.
    Many Christians seem to hate penises almost as much as feminists do.


  85. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 21:06 #

    Yikes. be very careful with this. When you assume that FGM is type 3/4 level, you are dismissing the vast majority of FGM victims who *only* (sarcastic usage here) have suffered from a type 1. It’s like saying their pain is not real and doesn’t matter. This is where I see so many of my sisters screwing up discussions of FGM. ALL GM is wrong. This is not a men’s rights issue so much as a children’s rights issue. Circumcision performed on any child is WRONG. You cannot stand up for patriarchal religious customs over the genital autonomy of children.


  86. Liz September 21, 2013 at 21:32 #

    Some types are more wrong than others.
    According to Wikipedia, clitoridectomy, the partial or total removal of the clitoris, is the most common type. Type Ia (removal of clitoral hood ONLY) is rarely, if ever, performed alone.


  87. TheKangarooBoxer September 21, 2013 at 21:38 #

    Right on. Feminists, despite their proclamation of equality, are often the ones pushing to mutilate men and boys in Africa($) to “reduce HIV”. The charlatanism never gets old. Funny how one way the “equality of genders” works…


  88. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 21:45 #

    Read Infidel. In this book she talks about the genital mutilation she went through. Many women who are cut can still experience orgasms, it’s just not as easy to achieve one and it’s probably not as powerful as having an orgasm when you are intact. They also think it’s cleaner and that clitorises grow into tails. Men in the USA are told that circumcision is cleaner but men in Europe and Asia and such only bother with it if it’s for a medical reason. In fact, Ali’s BOTHER was cut on the day she was cut. Both of them suffered. I’m not minimizing women. I’d hate to have my genitals cut, which is all the reason to protect boys and men from having theirs cut too.


  89. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 21:48 #



  90. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 21:51 #

    I don’t think I hate penises… I don’t really have any experiences with them. I’m sure they are nice when attached to a nice man.

    But really a component of genital cutting is cutting down on sexual pleasure, or trying to control it. Which is evil.


  91. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 21:52 #

    Though I do hate having random penises waggled at me when I don’t even know the guy. And why would I WANT to get to know a guy if he will show me his penis before we even date and get to know each other? Icky and rude.


  92. revoran September 21, 2013 at 22:00 #

    I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the various different procedures and how severe they are (and yes there is more than one kind of MGM and one kind of FGM). For instance penile subincision is a rare form of MGM practiced by some isolated tribes as a coming of age ritual – it involves slicing the entire penis as part of a urethrotomy. Truly an extreme procedure.

    However you are totally right that it’s completely non-essential to the point which is that taking a knife to genitals of an infant, who by definition cannot decide for themselves, is sick and inhumane – a gross violation of bodily integrity. And while there is no valid medical reason to slice off the foreskin of an infant, again that is secondary to the main point: don’t slice up kids’ junk.


  93. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 22:41 #

    Saying that some types are more wrong that others gets into the “less worse” fallacy. If you were only forced into oral sex is that less wrong that being anally gang-raped? When we allow that some forms of sexual violence might be “not as bad” we are doing no one any favors. It is all wrong. There is no hierarchy of evil and we shouldn’t play into the idea that some forms might be somewhat okay. It’s all unacceptable.


  94. Liz September 21, 2013 at 22:44 #

    Cutting off a child’s foreskin is entirely different than cutting off his penis, or a large portion of his penis. This is not a fallacy and to equate one with the other is absurd.


  95. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 22:50 #

    But it’s not even feminist that push that. It’s based on shoddy science anyway. My theory is the Catholic church perhaps and the fact that they hate condoms. But it’s less of a theory and more of a paranoid hypothesis.


  96. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 22:52 #

    Foreskin is a part of the penis. Have your prepuce cut off with no anesthesia and then come back and say this. Cutting genitals is cutting genitals. It’s not something that should be done without consent to anyone without a legit medical reason.


  97. acantholycosa September 21, 2013 at 22:53 #

    Who even THINKS of these things and why don’t people go, are you out of your dang mind, cutting penises?


  98. Hugh7 September 21, 2013 at 23:04 #

    Actually, the reasons given for female genital cutting are just as wildly varied and irrational as the reasons given for male genital cutting. They all boil down to power and control.


  99. stephanie September 21, 2013 at 23:33 #

    So it’s wrong to turn a girl’s genitals into the mere essentials… a vulva with a hole… but it’s ok to turn a functional penis into nothing more than an ejaculating broomstick?

    I don’t understand basing the rightness or wrongness of genital cutting on the degree of sexual handicap that the child suffers.


  100. Koffeewitch September 21, 2013 at 23:45 #

    Cutting off ANY part of a child’s body without absolute, dire medical necessity is wrong. Is this really so hard for you to get? This is isn’t a pissing contest. We aren’t interested if someone is cutting off a clitoral prepuce, the topical clitoris (there is still a large area underneath the external with nerve fibers), the foreskin, the scrotum or a child’s fingers and toes. If you are a person who is for human rights then you know this is wrong.


  101. Ter September 21, 2013 at 23:48 #

    Perhaps you already know of this site, but since you’re Jewish and have chosen not to circ, I thought I’d mention it:


  102. Joseph Lewis September 22, 2013 at 00:03 #

    That was the primary reason for MGM.

    Do a little history search for Rabbi Maimonides and John Harvey Kellogg.

    Is it really intent? Would it make FGM that much better if we wrote up some “studies” and said we were doing it “to prevent disease” in girls?

    “But male circumcision doesn’t eliminate orgasm in boys, it does in girls.”

    And if it could be shown scientifically that even girls undergoing the worst kind of FGM still enjoy orgasm and a fulfilling sex life? Would taking a healthy, non-consenting minor and cutting that person’s genitals be acceptable for girls and women?

    Research shows that, contrary to popular belief, FGM does NOT make women unable to enjoy sex. FGM is not as catastrophic as advocates of MGM would like you to believe.

    Male circumcision doesn’t eliminate orgasm for (most) boys. And it doesn’t for girls either. But you see, that doesn’t matter. Whether forcibly cutting up a child’s genitals decreases, improves sexuality, or makes it stay the same is irrelevant.

    That doesn’t justify you taking a healthy, non-consenting minor and forcibly cutting off that person’s genitals.


  103. Joseph Lewis September 22, 2013 at 00:10 #

    Tell me, Riggtex, circumcision is like immunization how?

    I reckon it’s more like, you know, cutting off a healthy part of a person’s body. Do immunizations do that? I don’t think so.

    You are engaging in trying to call a dog’s tail a leg. It doesn’t work.

    Immunizations are the only way to prevent some diseases, for example polio.

    Name one disease that circumcision immunizes a child against.

    I think it is a mistake to view the foreskin and circumcision under the myopic, self-serving scope of a rigged “cost/benefit” analysis.

    Think about it; do we look at each and every part of our body and put it under a “cost/benefit analysis” microscope and decide that removing it “far outweighs the risks” of having it? Or do doctors wait until there is a medical diagnosis that needs remedy?

    I think we need to stop the comparison of circumcision and immunization in its tracks. It is misleading, it is deceiving, it is false.

    Immunizations do not remove a healthy, working body part, and they actually prevent disease.


  104. Joseph Lewis September 22, 2013 at 00:14 #

    My favorite quote for Christians is Galatians 5:1-6

    “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
    Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
    For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
    Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
    For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
    For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”


  105. Joseph Lewis September 22, 2013 at 00:22 #

    Sexist, self-serving double-standards.

    Forcibly circumcising a girl or woman is wrong for whatever reason given.

    But let’s mull over forcibly circumcising boys and men.

    “Rigorous studies show male circumcision has benefits, and it is not detrimental to a man’s sexuality.”

    Has female circumcision been studied with the same “rigor?”

    And if female circumcision weren’t as catastrophic as believed, would forcibly circumcising girls and women be more acceptable?

    What if “research shows” some correlation between FGM and a reduced rate of transmission in STDs? Would that make it more acceptable?

    Or would FGM still be considered morally repugnant in principle?

    Research actually shows that, contrary to popular belief, women who have undergone FGM are still able to orgasm, and lead fulfilling sex lives. And some research actually shows a correlation between FGM and a reduced HIV transmission rate.

    The maxim “if it has medical benefits and it doesn’t reduce sexuality” doesn’t exactly work, doesn’t it.

    Whether it prevents disease or not, whether sexuality decreases or increases is irrelevant.

    Taking a healthy, non-consenting minor and forcibly cutting off part of his body is a despicable, morally repugnant thing to do to a human being.


  106. Todd September 22, 2013 at 01:11 #

    Thank you! That really needed to be said.


  107. Dave Branch September 22, 2013 at 01:50 #

    Love the discussion, though why any feminist would not relate to infant abuse I don’t understand. I have heard the arguments, yet, in the context of being Americans, I believe we still fall short of understanding how our materialistic lifestyle dictates much perspective. We don’t own our children, or have ANY kind of right to alter their bodies. This is our psychosis with regards to “having.” “Possessing.” “Owning.” “Controlling.” Another human being, no matter genetics or age, is subject to your whims, whether religious or narcissistic. Kahlil Gibran said it best: “Your children are not your children.”


  108. sybil September 22, 2013 at 02:07 #

    When our son was born, my husband’s mother called and asked if we had circumcised him. My husband said ‘No.’

    His mother said, “Good. I wish we hadn’t had you circumcised. The doctor said it was better, and I believed him.” It meant a lot to my husband to hear an apology from her.

    She also told my husband that his father is not circumcised. Until that moment, he had no idea. So much for the idiotic argument that boys ‘need to look like their father.’


  109. Adrienne September 22, 2013 at 02:38 #

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. The tides really are turning, slowly but surely.


  110. Taylor September 22, 2013 at 05:27 #

    I agree. Every male in my family has been circumcised. It’s not mutilation. You cannot compare it to cutting off a penis or what they do to females in other countries. It’s like comparing ear piercings to someone getting their leg cut off by force.


  111. Derek Brown September 22, 2013 at 05:27 #

    Seriously awesome post.


  112. Sylvia O'Neill September 22, 2013 at 06:11 #

    that book, Infidel (by Ayaan Hirsi Ali), as well Desert Rose (Waris Diri) really do help one to understand the problem that is fgm, as in the western world we do not really hear of this happening to girl babies as much as boys. Both is wrong, and so very damaging psychologically and physically. It is amazing that people can do this to either gender, believing that it is the best thing for them etc, though usually it is simply tradition…! Keep in mind also, where fgm is concerned, it is usually always done by women. Whether the child is a little boy or a little girl – both are precious and beautiful and worth protecting and keeping safe, and they deserve respect. Sticking needles into a child, cutting them, is anything but love!


  113. Sylvia O'Neill September 22, 2013 at 06:14 #

    even piercing a babies/small child’s ears boils down to this. I know a little girl whose ears were pierced against her fathers wishes and when the child’s aunt took them out because the child was in agony, the mother threw a tantrum and forced them painfully back in again- she did not care about the child but rather the power and control she held over the child, and her father. Note also that this is something that is rarely done to boys…


  114. Sylvia O'Neill September 22, 2013 at 06:18 #

    look into vaccinations properly. Inserting a needle full of disease and poisonous toxins is never helpful to anyone.


  115. korhomme September 22, 2013 at 07:42 #

    I don’t know what pediatricians/surgeons in the US are taught specifically about circumcision — I’m in the UK — for instance, is ‘routine’ circumcision still standard policy. The evidence for it is very dubious.

    But I fear that your friend is probably a believer, and it’s very hard to convince some people to see alternatives, to change their minds. Often, the only way to change the paradigm is to wait until the ‘believers’ have retired or died out; so, this might take at least one generation.


  116. oogenhand September 22, 2013 at 09:11 #

    Reblogged this on oogenhand.


  117. Nickycky September 22, 2013 at 09:40 #

    I believe Riggtex’s point is that the people who advocate for circ BELIEVE that they are removing an unhealthy, or at best useless, body part in order to prevent disease. The fact that they are wrong on both counts is what needs addressing. You can’t just say ‘it’s different’ and expect to convince them. See Sylvia’s comment. Her belief is that injecting poisons is wrong. Absolutely a reasonable belief. Just as ‘cutting off part of a baby is wrong’ is unarguable. The question, in both cases, ‘Is NOT is it wrong to do this?’, but ‘Is it MORE wrong to do this than not to do this?’ And THAT is what needs correcting.

    Do you cut your nails, or your hair? That too is, technically, cutting off a body part without a medical reason. We DO look at the parts of our body *that we do not believe are necessary* in terms of cost/benefit. The argument that needs to be made is that foreskins ARE necessary. Stating that it’s a false comparison is not going to convince someone who believes it is apt.


  118. Nickycky September 22, 2013 at 09:42 #

    Oops. I put the speech marks in the wrong place, there. It should read:

    The question, in both cases, is NOT ‘Is it wrong to do this?’, but ‘Is it MORE wrong to do this than not to do this?


  119. patriarchal landmine September 22, 2013 at 10:18 #

    women are by far the worst perpetrators of this act. more boys have been mutilated on the woman’s say so than any amount of girls.


  120. Einar September 22, 2013 at 12:16 #

    I hope you’re kidding, injecting bacteria and viruses into little children have saved millions of lives the last centuries. Genital mutilation have saved none…

    Vaccines are so powerful they can eradicate entire diseases like polio and smallpox. And are vastly superior to post infection meds because the germs cant become immune to the vaccine(except flu. because flu isnt one disease, its hundreds).


  121. Rin Jones-Dawson September 22, 2013 at 14:52 #

    Just because you are okay with it, or your parents were okay with it doesn’t make it any less wrong. You may not want to compare it but it IS comparable. If you were to cut off your child’s fingers, is it any more acceptable as long as you leave the thumb and pointer so they have some functionality? No. You are denying that child the right to its own body. The right to grow up and be able to make a choice that affects their sexual experience. You are choosing to lessen their genital functionality. There is a reason why people think its wrong to do the same to girls. How could you not see its a practice that is no longer acceptable?


  122. Mahname September 22, 2013 at 15:01 #

    Gotta love that argument: “We cut off our children’s x, but those other people cut off their children’s y which is worse so therefore we are justified.”
    Don’t see any issue with that logic at all? Take your time.


  123. Mahname September 22, 2013 at 15:14 #

    And your personal experience is what, exactly? That you’ve masturbated successfully? Congratulations. That neither proves nor disproves the argument.


  124. Natalie September 22, 2013 at 15:49 #

    OMG THANK YOU. Exactly. All of this.


  125. Koffeewitch September 22, 2013 at 16:12 #

    So you’re okay with cultures that *only* cut off the clitoral hood? Most types of FGM are type 1 (or like MGM a type 2). When you talk about cutting off the whole penis, you are telling the women who didn’t get their entire vulva/clit excised that their circumcisions are not mutilation either. It is not okay to cut the genitals of unconsenting persons. Never. (And ear piercing should also wait until the person themselves ASKS to have their ears pierced.) BODY AUTONOMY.


  126. Emma the Emo September 22, 2013 at 21:04 #

    ” If you were only forced into oral sex is that less wrong that being anally gang-raped?”

    If you were punched moderately hard in the face, is it less wrong than being permanently brain-damaged and disabled?
    Is it less wrong to cut of a foreskin than the whole penis?
    Don’t get me wrong, both are wrong. Both would (or should) land you in jail. But for a punch, you might get a week/month in jail, and years for serious brain-damage. There IS a hierarchy of evil, duh, that’s why we don’t put everyone in prison for life no matter the crime.


  127. Emma the Emo September 22, 2013 at 21:18 #

    Great point. We do all sorts of things to kids while they can’t know any better themselves. We do it so they grow up to be functional adults, rather than badly adapted or ill adults.


  128. Christoph Dollis September 22, 2013 at 23:18 #



  129. Nicky September 23, 2013 at 06:19 #

    Unless you have personal experience of masturbation with both a *healthy* intact AND a circumcised penis, you can’t attest to the relative levels of difficulty of masturbation. And EVEN IF you have that experience (which would be unusual – I doubt many adults get it done without having medical issues), it is anecdotal and does not mean that your experience is the norm. The best you can claim from personal experience is that it doesn’t ALWAYS make masturbation more difficult.


  130. mamaziller September 23, 2013 at 06:59 #

    husband was circumcised strictly for health reasons. Surgery had to be done on his penis as a child to allow him to pee normally etc because his hole was closing. I think they had to reuse the foreskin during the surgery and so he had to be circumcised. It happens that the benefits can out way the negatives. He would have been dead if they did not do it.


  131. Jen Fon September 23, 2013 at 09:43 #

    One could ask if you read the article, but it doesn’t even seen you read the damned title.


  132. Master Beta September 23, 2013 at 12:56 #

    “It’s not mutilation”

    Of course it’s mutilation. What a ridiculous thing to say. Ear piercing’s aren’t mutilation because they can (and do) heal. Having your leg amputated is mutilation because legs don’t grow back. Circumcision IS mutilation.


  133. Master Beta September 23, 2013 at 13:00 #

    Just sick and wrong. Who the hell pierces a little girl? Probably the same people who circumcise a little boy.


  134. Exfernal September 23, 2013 at 18:47 #

    Not all types of bacteria are dangerous. Some are harmless, some actually beneficial:

    “Animals reared in a gnotobiotic colony often have poorly developed immune systems, lower cardiac output, thin intestinal walls and high susceptibility to infectious pathogens.”


  135. Christine Martin September 23, 2013 at 18:59 #

    Thank you!


  136. Christine Martin September 23, 2013 at 19:01 #

    they are! But only someone who has actually looked into circumcision (beyond racist images on CNN) would know that.


  137. Christine Martin September 23, 2013 at 19:04 #

    Anyone who actually knows anything about the MOST COMMON forms of FGM, particularly the type of Sunat that takes place in South East Asia would never dare say “female is worst than male”. imo both a wrong, but when you look at the ritual nic and removing the entire prepuce, how can you say its worst for girls? over 90% of South East Asian women will tell you they are HAPPILY circumcised.


  138. Jerry September 24, 2013 at 02:29 #

    Yes, except that circumcision violates Catholic doctrine. Look it up. It’s never enforced or preached about today, though.


  139. Kaynejack September 25, 2013 at 01:24 #

    Thanks so much for writing this. You are correct.

    Personally (and I am male and circumcised… badly) I don’t understand why RIC of males and FGM need separate categories. They are done for the same reasons. They are done to innocents who cannot protest. They are done for culture and religious conformity. They remove choice and pleasure from the child. They leave a scar that will never fade.

    I believe both are HUMAN genital mutilation, or INFANT genital mutilation. I wouldn’t wish either form on anyone.

    My own circumcision took too much skin, making erections painful. I was left with circumferential adhesions, was given an acroposition (meaning the skin twisted before it healed, and my frenulum (the most erogenous zone of the intact penis, and most circumcised ones too,) was completely excised. And I have Meatal Stenosis (a mild form) that makes peeing difficult, painful, and caused urinary tract infections when I was a child. I was left with a dead stick incapable of any feeling except for heat and cold. The only thing they didn’t do to me was neuter me… maybe they should have.

    Is this “better” or “worse” than female genital mutilation? I don’t know. But I do know this, If female genital mutilation causes half the pain my RIC caused me, then it should be banned.

    I see no benefit that circumcision gave me. Sure, I’ve never had an STD, but that is kinda like an amputee claiming that thanks to the loss of his legs, he’ll never have athlete’s foot.

    Both male and female cutting is the same evil, and both should be banned equally. There is no sensible argument I’ve heard suggesting the opposite.

    JB, I greatly appreciate your stance, and today you have found a new follower.


  140. Kaynejack September 25, 2013 at 01:37 #

    Oops. Where I said “acroposition”, I should have said, “Malapposition”. I meant that my skin twisted on my shaft before it healed in place. I guess I need to brush up on my medical terminology.

    Sorry about that.


  141. wolf September 27, 2013 at 16:00 #

    You judgybitch I like. You are an angel cause you stand up to this double standard. I wish all mothers to be were like you.


  142. Allyssa September 28, 2013 at 05:23 #

    What do you say to the bitches who comment that because women bleed monthly and have babies, the men deserve to be cut?

    Love the article! One day, I’ll get the guts to post something blatantly anti-RIC on my FB page but I’m not prepared for backlash atm.


  143. Jessica September 28, 2013 at 07:39 #

    I love this. This is a matter of basic human rights, regardless of gender. My only issue is that I self identify as a feminist and find the idea that female genital mutilation is “worse” absolutely disgusting. I guess there are different versions of feminism? But I would argue that any feminist who would throw “men’s” issues aside in favor of “women’s” issues has lost sight of what she’s supposed to be fighting for. Feminism is supposed to be a demand for equality, not a “girls rule boys drool” attitude…….. BUT coming back on topic: this article is brilliant. I wish more people would stand up for such basic human rights as bodily autonomy. Thanks!!


  144. Passerby September 29, 2013 at 14:59 #

    Thank you!


  145. Misguided Child October 4, 2013 at 06:06 #

    We know that circumcision is incredably painful and tramatic. We also know that childhood trama and abuse leads to adults who commit crimes. I began looking for research into the effects of circumcision on crime. Amazingly not much research has been done on this connection. Here is what I found.

    Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.

    It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mentioned this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.

    This attitude pervades throughout Law Enforcement from the U.S, Department of Justice down to local Sheriff Departments and Child Protective Services. Many have no clue, the same as the parents who are Conned into the ritual. The Con is the criminal Approach used to lure victims.

    In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.

    No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.

    Semper Fidelis


  146. Sarah October 10, 2013 at 18:11 #

    Thank you for this post. I take it you apply the same principle to intersex babies, who are frequently subjected to medically unnecessary procedures to normalize ambiguous genitalia. I’m concerned that this is largely motivated by a strict gender binary perspective. Many people won’t accept that biologically and psychologically, there are degrees of variation.


  147. judgybitch October 10, 2013 at 18:39 #

    Of course I do! Particularly with ambiguous genitals. How in the hell do parents think they can just “pick” which gender their baby will be? It doesn’t work like that.

    Leave well enough alone and the person who owns the genitals make the final decision.


  148. Terri O'Brien October 10, 2013 at 23:02 #

    Kaynejack the only problem I have with what you posted was that you said they were to young to protest. I can assure you that they do protest rather vociferously the problem is that no one is listening to them. I know this because when my son was born he had to be in the NICU and someone objected to me nursing him in the unit so we were given a chair in a storeroom for nursing that most unfortunately was the room next to the circumcision room and I still can’t the sound of those poor babies crying out of my head! Anyone who tries to tell you they sleep through it or whatever other bs is full of bs trust me. I have raised 7children and worked with kids my whole life and have NEVER heard anything like that before or since and hope never to again


  149. DJ October 15, 2013 at 03:53 #

    There’s a “debate” about this going on on the Prevent Disease FaceBook page…

    Most of the commenters there just don’t seem to get it.


  150. Gaius November 13, 2013 at 14:11 #

    One tactic I can’t recommend enough – presenting MGM as a feminist issue that harms women too. Is it totally honest? No. Do people deserve honesty? Fuck no. They need to hear whatever will make them act human. NOTE – I think that these statements are mostly true, but even if they weren’t true they could still work.

    First, where on Earth do the FGM activists think the idea came from? No country cuts girls that doesn’t also cut boys and even force the procedure on grown men.

    Second, circumcision exists to make men into better rapists. It turns something sensitive into a blunt club. Argue that anything a patriarchal culture forces on people’s junk is designed to facilitate rape. Whether it works or not isn’t the point – the intention is there.

    Third, foreskin protects women from rough thrusting by both cushioning the thrust and making the man more sensitive.

    Fourth, the foreskin has estrogen receptors and its own immune system.

    Fifth, as long as MGM exists it will be used to justify other mutilations including FGM. Even if the anti-FGM activist says there is no comparison, they cannot deny that FGM practitioners and most MGM practitioners do equate them.


  151. Dee November 13, 2013 at 20:10 #

    As new grandmother to a once perfect grandson, I am still grief stricken and furious that my idiot son-in-law practically threatened my daughter with divorce to accomplish his preference to mutilate their child. What was his compelling argument in support of the procedure? Nobody knows. Without any statistics or logic, he just wanted their son deformed and he wanted it bad. Hahaha, he may yet get that divorce. My daughter perceives the forced mutilation as a symptom of her husband’s unfitness as a parent and partner.

    In response to those who would say that female circumcision is more vicious and barbaric….Let’s take that perspective–a clitorectomy seems to be more serious than a prepucectomy. So what if the removal included only the structures comparable to a male foreskin with the same argument–hygiene. Do those “it’s worse for girls than boys” people think that it would be okay to snip off only the hood and the inner labia?

    Regarding the “freedom of religion” argument: The mutilation of girls’ genitals is also based on religious beliefs. I am speechless. How can it be okay to cut little boys based on religion, but not to cut little girls based on religion? How can people with a brain NOT understand that genital mutilation is mutilation, regardless of the sex of the child?

    Regarding the “parents have a right to make health decisions for their children” argument: Parents are not given the rights to choose what they believe is best for their child’s health on other matters. Parents have been prosecuted for choosing faith healing or herbal remedies instead of submitting their child to medicines, chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Have there been any such charges filed against the parents of circumcised infants who were crippled or died from complications? We truly do live in a double standard world, don’t we?

    Do logical people really believe that exposing the urethral opening in infants helps prevent UTI? Logic would seem to indicate that the opposite is true. In fact, with all the research I am doing with regard to the new grandson, I have discovered the cause of the UTI. Ready for this? It’s DIAPERS. Yep, our Western culture has all these great ideas, and instead of the third world parenting (point and shoot the baby away from the caretakers body), we soak up their wastes and hold them against the baby’s body until it is convenient to deliver our babies from their own sewage. You get the idea. But diaper-free baby is not the subject of this thread. Google it if you want to know more. There is more evidence to support getting rid of diapers to prevent UTI than getting rid of the foreskin.

    So parents have the right to select surgery for their minor children, as long as it is penis trimming for boys, or ear lobe piercing for girls. And they do not have the right to choose abortion for their minor daughter….or even to spank their kids. Is that weird? You can chop off part of your son’s genitals, but you can’t slap him?

    Unfortunately, the legislation of circumcision has everything to do with feelings and emotion, and nothing to do with logic and objectivity. And it IS hard to find exactly the right rule. If parents have ABSOLUTE rights over their children, they could nurture or maim as they choose. But if they don’t have absolute rights, where is the line drawn? How can that line be drawn fairly, so that it offers equal protection to children regardless of gender, yet allows parents to follow their convictions?

    Plan of attack. Two factors have a great effect on circumcision rates: the recommendations by the medical profession, and health insurance coverage. The circumcision would be likely to drop dramatically if there was not medical insurance reimbursement.

    Even if health insurance covered circumcisions 100%, requiring physicians to recommend against elective/cosmetic surgery for infants could help some parents make a non-invasive decision. In addition, requiring informed consent to include viewing video presentations prepared by both the pro- and anti-circ crowds, it is likely
    parents would choose to leave the “personal choice” to the person who is most affected by that choice.


  152. Kingsley Bugarin January 8, 2014 at 12:19 #

    Genital mutilation have saved none…

    Worse than that. Genital mutilation of baby boys just in the USA in the past hundred years has killed thousands.


  153. Kingsley Bugarin January 8, 2014 at 12:38 #

    It’s definitely not the Catholic church doing it. The fraudulent HIV research has almost all been conducted by mutilated men from the USA.

    Circumcising Africa has nothing to do with saving ‘poor’ African men from HIV. It is all about trying to prop up the falling neonate circ rate in the USA where it is both a very lucrative industry. It is also a source of sexual gratification for circumfetishists.


  154. Kingsley Bugarin January 8, 2014 at 12:48 #

    The full list of miraculous claims made for circumcision.


  155. Kingsley Bugarin January 8, 2014 at 12:58 #

    The site you quote is by circumfetishist Brian Morris and has no value. You are either ignorant of this fact or one of his little circumfetishist disciples.


  156. Jai Dudge January 12, 2014 at 06:58 #

    I reference a website: you disqualify it because it disagrees with your position, thus you assume it’s bias. And I, because “” disagrees with my position, I assume it’s bias. … So what’s actually been achieved here? Literally nothing.


  157. Kingsley Bugarin OAM January 12, 2014 at 13:50 #

    I don’t ‘assume bias’ in I state categorically that the content of that site is a mixture of misinformation and pathological lies.

    You and Brian Morris can have whatever opinion you wish but you do not have a right to your own facts.

    Brian Morris’s claims are not backed up by fact. Circumcision has no medical or hygienic value.

    An historical list of the miraculous benefits of circumcision:

    A critique of the scientifically fraudulent African trials:

    The emotive arguments Brian makes about things like boys looking like their fathers are so infantile they do not deserve a reply.

    His medical claims have all been proven false. In fact the HIV claims are just a rehash of the claims made for syphilis in 1855.

    FANTASY: Brian Morris claims circumcision is a ‘surgical vaccine’ against HIV.
    FACT: The mostly mutilated USA has a higher prevalence of HIV than mostly intact Europe.

    FANTASY: Voluntary adult circumcision is reducing the prevalence of HIV in Africa.

    I don’t present any of this for you though Jai. You will simply disqualify reality as a ‘bias’ because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

    Besides, anybody who quotes Brian Morris as a reliable source of information on circumcision must be one of his circumfetish disciples.


  158. Juan Andrés October 22, 2014 at 13:52 #

    Thank you for writing this. Great blog.


  159. gregm January 18, 2015 at 09:47 #

    Think of circumcision like cutting off your baby boy’s eyelids. The eyelids only gets in the way when your trying to see and there’s all that mucus you have to wash off in the morning.



  1. Why This Hit Piece On The Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage | judgybitch - April 2, 2014

    […] You get to keep the labia you were born with, for […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: