Circumcision The Whole Story:
An informational video about the culture of circumcision. Exploring the historical origins, the physical structure and function of the foreskin, common beliefs and scientific truth.
*
Circumcision is Sexual Assault
*
Found in an Egyptian tomb built for Ankhmabor in Saqqara and dating to
around 2400 B.C., this image displays an Egyptian circumcision.
Hieroglyphs from before 2300 BCE depicting circumcision show that the procedure was practiced in ancient Egypt before 2300 BCE. And circumcision was ostensibly common among Semitic people (Hebrews and Muslims) throughout the Middle East for centuries BCE.
UN Convention of the Rights of the Child: “Children should have the right to express their own views and be protected from traditional rituals which may be harmful to their health.”
Representatives from Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Greenland all recently met in Norway with doctors and surgeons who agreed on one thing: “Male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. Circumcision without medical indication, of a person who is unable to provide consent violates fundamental medical-ethical principles,”
Ephron detailed how Jewish doctors promoted circumcision of gentiles using medical science as the background of their arguments. – Ancient Origins of Jewish Ritual Circumcision In Modern Society
“It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.” - Bertrand Russell
“In a Civilized Society, or any Human Society, children should be safe from Forced Sexual Mutilation and Torture!” T.D.P. Admin.
***
Just a harmless snip?
100+ circumcision deaths each year in United States
Each year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the journal Thymos, which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?
The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality. (Remember those red noses?) Why, the study asks, has the even greater number of deaths from circumcision not aroused the same response?
Part of the answer lies in the fact that most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem.
But another part of the answer lies in the unique place that circumcision occupies in American medical culture, as an entrenched cosmetic ritual that many parents feel they have to submit their baby boys to, and as a lucrative sideline that doctors are reluctant to abandon. American obstetricians can’t seem to rid themselves of the notion that circumcision of boys is somehow an integral part of childbirth. The study points out that “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” It further points out that because circumcision is a completely unnecessary operation, all these deaths are easily avoidable, and thus characterises the annual loss as neither a beneficial surgery nor a beneficent rite of passage, but as “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”
Because circumcision is unnecessary surgery (there being no pathology to treat in a normal male baby), the old calculus of surgical risk vs benefit is not nearly enough. “Risk assessment for an unnecessary surgery must be held to a higher standard than that for a life-saving surgery. We accept that a heart transplant carries with it a substantial risk of death, but without it there is a certainty of death. On the other hand, the risk from circumcision, which has no therapeutic value, needs to be zero for the infant’s sake, all the moreso because he is never consulted about whether he wishes to take his chances.”
Bollinger argues that the scale of the problem remains unrecognised because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and unwillingness on the part of the doctors who performed the surgery or the hospitals where it took place to admit responsibility, or even to acknowledge that circumcision is a surgical operation which, like all surgery, carries real risks. Too often they have tried to blame incorrect care on the part of parents, or even the peculiarities of the boy himself. As well as analysing the figures, the study runs through some of the few prominent instances where circumcision was recognised as the true cause of death, including the Ryleigh McWillis case in Canada, and several United States deaths that somehow made it into the news.
Some of these make chilling reading, as these excerpts from the article show:
The first known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858. Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination.
Allen Ervin, born 1985, was in a coma for more than six years before he died. He had been on life support after his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during his circumcision. Demetrius Manker was born in 1993 and died soon thereafter from blood loss. The coroner’s examination found a large, gaping wound on the underside of the boy’s penis extending almost to the scrotum. The coroner listed cause of death as blood loss due to penile circumcision; however, there is no mention of further action being taken. A West Virginia child, whose name was withheld, was born in 1996 without incident and circumcised prior to hospital release. A few days later, the parents rushed him to the emergency room because he was having seizures and his penis had turned green in color. He died the next day from septicemia.
Because the penis is highly vascularized, blood-loss is a risk even for boys circumcised past the neonatal period. In 2008, a 6-week-old Native American, Eric Keefe, died from massive blood loss. Hospital officials claimed that his circumcision was not to blame, but instead faulted the parents because they had administered over-the-counter pain medication that, they also claimed, thinned his blood.
Death sometimes occurs following repair of a circumcision complication. Dustin Evans Jr., was circumcised soon after being born in 1998. The surgeon took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a tight “collar” around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was later given an anesthetic in order to repair the damage, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest. His father lamented, “You think, ‘What could go wrong with a circumcision?’ The next thing I know, he’s dead.”
To stop killing boys, stop circumcising them
The solution to the problem, Bollinger suggests, does not lie in improving surgical techniques or giving operator better training. “The problem is this: circumcision is a killer of baby boys. No one, except for some human-rights activists, is trying to save them. It is unlikely that improving circumcision techniques would eliminate these deaths. No matter how skilled the physician is, some deaths will always occur.” The only effective way to eliminate this death toll and save these boys is to admit that circumcision is unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery and stop performing it on neonates and minors. This would give all boys the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised, and (if they do) would allow them to choose it for themselves as adults, when the surgical risks are so much less severe.
Source: Dan Bollinger, Lost boys: An estimate of U.S. circumcision-related infant deaths, THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90.
SOURCE: http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html: [ Circinfo.org - Circumcision Information Australia ]
***
There are very few if any Anti-Circumcision Posts or Articles online. Many of those that say they are, are really pro-circumcision, and write heavily biased Posts or Articles for circumcision, pretending to be against it. The very few that actually tell the truth, are surrounded by Dis-Information Posts and Articles being pushed by Google and the Mainstream Media as well as Medical Organizations.
It’s better to just go to the comment section where average Americans and Britons alike rip the pro-circumcision articles or posts to shreds.
T.D.P. Admin.
***
Comment Section of Vice Article: Is Male Circumcision a Form of Genital Mutilation?
Barefoot Intactivist
There can be no doubt that amputating the most sensitive part of a man’s genitals is clearly genital mutilation. What a joke of an article.
Reply ·
· 76 · November 4, 2013 at 7:54pm
Devin Palladino
Indeed it is. It should be banned universally.
Reply ·
· 43 · November 4, 2013 at 7:55pm
Nadja Sayej · Freelance Writer/ Blogger at VICE
Word.
Reply ·
· 10 · November 5, 2013 at 2:40am
Jessica Mmhmm
No one who is circumcised wants to call their penis mutilated. This word does not help further the cause. Calling circumcision what it is, SEXUAL ASSAULT OF AN INFANT, tends to wake people up a bit to start listening. Then explaining the damage/mutilation caused might be heard. I just find that leading with the word ‘mutilation’, shuts people down even further. (I know it’s mutilation)
Reply ·
· 27 · November 5, 2013 at 8:48am
View 8 more
Michael Austin · Top Commenter · St. Louis
How could it not be? It removes functional tissue. If circumcision weren’t already established in our culture, there’s no way that we would institute it for any of the proposed benefits it offers.
Have a UTI: take antibiotics. No need to remove anatomy.
Want to sleep with someone of questionable HIV status? Use a condom. No need to alter the body.
Want to “keep clean?” Bathe!
Any doctor who introduced this surgery for those benefits would be fired on the basis of ethics immediately.
Even if those benefits were larger, it still doesn’t give parents the right to cut off parts of their children. Let the man decide if the benefits are worth it. You could make a better case for preventive mastectomies being justified for health reason, especially in high-risk families. It’s still a human rights violation for parents to remove normal tissue without immediate medical benefit.
It’s not a family penis.
Reply ·
· 52 · November 4, 2013 at 6:51pm
Cørentin Tamatoa Giran · Top Commenter
What about phimosis ?
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 4:19pm
Molly Adams · Top Commenter · University of Miami
Cørentin Tamatoa Giran Steroid creams are effective in about 85% cases of phimosis.
Reply ·
· 10 · November 5, 2013 at 5:51pm
heirofsalazar (signed in using yahoo)
It is normal for boys to have phimosis when they are born; this is called ‘physiologic’ phimosis.
More to the point, it is well known now that PATHOLOGIC phimosis (with the exception of BXO) cannot be diagnosed until a male is an adult, and even then there are much more conservative treatments than a last-resort such as circumcision. The circumcision of children for phimosis is one of the great medical malpractices/frauds/idiocies of the modern era.
In 1999, Shankar and Rickwood published the following 2-year study: “The incidence of phimosis in boys” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00147.x/abstract), which found that “The incidence of pathological phimosis in boys was 0.4 cases/1000 boys per year, or 0.6% of boys affected by their 15th birthday, a value lower than previous estimates and exceeded more than 8-fold by the proportion of English boys currently circumcised for ‘phimosis’.
Read that again:
“The incidence of pathological phimosis in boys was… exceeded more than 8-fold by the proportion of English boys currently circumcised for ‘phimosis’.” Disgusting medical ineptitude.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 7, 2013 at 1:24pm
View 3 more
tovangar2 (signed in using yahoo)
Wow, this article is slanted. None of the “benefits” of circumcision mentioned here were even questioned. All, in most cases, are false. BTW, if you want to prevent HIV, use a condom. That or abstinence is the only thing that works.
Reply ·
· 42 · November 4, 2013 at 5:06pm
Nadja Sayej · Freelance Writer/ Blogger at VICE
I thought using a condom was a given? Try circinfo.net
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 2:40am
Erik Hamlin · Top Commenter · Encinitas, California
At no point was the claim that circumcision helps prevent HIV made. The claim is that it helps reduce the risk of HPV being transmitted through HIV.
That doesn’t make the statement any more credible, but it is different.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 3:02am
John Renaud · Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California
This is why scientists think that transmission is less likely without the foreskin http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 9:57am
View 2 more
Jeff Cowsert · Top Commenter · Indianapolis, Indiana
“….this sacred ritual, which mind you is absolutely safe?” Really? I’m calling BS on that statement. Two months ago a rabbi killed an infant who stopped breathing during the ritual mutilation, but his death was swept under the rug as “he had a preexisting condition” – nothing to do at all with the torture? Other boys have to live with herpes and brain damage from the penis sucking ritual that some pervert invented centuries after Abraham made claim to fame for his alleged commandment from god to do a ritual nick on his manhood. Others have died from having to endure forced oral sex on their bloody covered and raw wound following the “sacred ritual”. No one was recorded as sucking Abraham’s 90 year old bloody stump – and he certainly didn’t do the complete prepuce amputation that is done today. More than 100 infants per year die in the US following genital mutilation, so absolutely safe it is not.
“reduce the risk of HIV” is that why Europe who rarely circumcise have a lesser percentage of HIV and all other STDs than the US where circumcision has been forced onto 80% of the adult male population. Look it up in the United States Central Intelligence Agencies “The World Factbook” if you want to see for yourself. BS on the HIV reduction claim.
“reduce…….transmitting cervical HPV” I didn’t know men have a cervix. Oh wait, you mean all men need to amputate part of their reproductive system so that someone else might possibly benefit someday. Really? How unethical. Mr. Morris, please read the paragraph above.
“warrior status.”…..some get the idea that if we mutilate an infant or child’s genitals and if he survives then he becomes a warrior. Wow! What if he doesn’t want to be a warrior?
“as well as discourage masturbation among teens” So controlling the natural sexuality of a young boy is “okay”? Wow, why not just cut it completely off if you want total control of someone else. Jerks!
“Some men have had a superb circumcision experience” Well, I guess as long as they are informed prior to the adult procedure then let them enjoy it. But I can assure you that no infant has a “superb experience” and some of them grow up to not “superbly” appreciate what was done to them. Stop messing with the genitals of children.
The bottom line; circumcision on a healthy child is socially sanctioned assault and child abuse:
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CATPA)
• “Child Abuse = is a Criminal Offense that involves the physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of or Infliction of Non-Accidental injury to a child committed by a parent or another party if responsible for the child’s welfare or not, either purposefully, or due to neglect.“
• “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker or any other person, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
Forced Circumcision = Child Abuse
• Assault – Non-accidental injury, deliberate wound, amputation of a functional part of the reproductive system, bodily harm
• No established benefit – lack of an existing problem
• Forces a religious identity/branding – exploitation
• Mutilation – Disfigures, removes sexual functions, leaves a scar, alters normal aesthetics, harm
• Risk infection, bleeding and even death
• Adults have indicated physical and emotional harm from circumcision
• Doctors are sworn to an oath “first do no harm” – they break their oath
• 14th Amendment of the US Constitution: Gender Discrimination
/ Violation of the Constitutional Right of Equal Protection
• Forced Circumcision is Child Assault and Abuse – A crime tolerated and ignored
Reply ·
· 33 · November 4, 2013 at 8:16pm
Jake Stringer · Top Commenter · Chattanooga, Tennessee
I had a brief fascination with circumcision law in my middle year of college. I learned some pretty F-ed up stuff during my research. In regards to the African rituals, I learned of the Dogon creation myth, “Amma and the Nummo.” Basically, God (Amma) makes the earth out of mud. She’s like a hot lady, and he wants to be with her, but her clitoris (a giant termite hill) rises up in defiance whenever he tries to screw her. Eventually he gets pissed, and cuts down the termite hill with his hand. This was considered the first circumcision (clitoridectomy was a thing for a while, though a lot of them have since abandoned this), and the resulting blood from Mother Earth’s ant colony-vagina was the first menstruation. Then Amma rapes her and creates a trickster son, who goes on to mess with people, like the demons from Pandora’s box. Later, she has a good pair of children, the Nummo, who are water spirits. I don’t recall the specifics, but it had a lot to do with duality. It explained how people in their culture (between present-day Mali and Nigeria) would circumcise boys and girls to balance out their male and female spirits. Correct me if I am wrong to assume this plays any part in the since-further-diversified practices of modern Western and Central African people, but I thought it was interesting enough to bring up.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 9:54pm
Jeff Cowsert · Top Commenter · Indianapolis, Indiana
Jake Stringer Very interesting indeed and I want to know more about this. I have heard that some of the African tribes circumcise as a way to establish a 100% pure gender. They consider the clitoris to be a masculine part on a female and the prepuce to be a feminine part of the male anatomy. They felt that these parts needed to be removed upon reaching adulthood. Crazy stuff, but it sounds like something in line with the same type of mind you describe.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 6, 2013 at 5:36am
Ryan Jones · Top Commenter · Shaker Heights High School
The religious base circumcision on one passage in a book that has been transcribed by hand, translated, and edited for political gain countless times throughout history. What a crock of barbaric horse shit.
Reply ·
· 4 · November 24, 2013 at 8:42pm
Mark Lyndon · Top Commenter
No-one complained when female circumcision was made illegal, even though some people regard it as their religious right or duty to cut their daughters.
It’s illegal to cut off a girl’s prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl’s genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Even a pinprick is banned. Why don’t boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It’s *their* body.
Reply ·
· 29 · November 4, 2013 at 5:27pm
Rachel De Burgh · Sydney, Australia
Perhaps because there are medical benefits for male circumcision. However in female genital MUTILATION there are none. That is a HUGE difference. I know too many men who have had to undergo circumcision as a teen/young adult because of medical issues the foreskin caused. This was immensely painful and embarrassing in a time of life the last thing a young man wants is to be sitting with a catheter in his bits with doctors and nurses prodding at him. To ignore the millions of cases like this that come up each year (and the millions more that are avoided by circumcision at birth) is pretty closed minded. I am not aware, however, of any females who have needed to undergo emergency female genital mutilation. Just think about it.
Reply ·
· 4 · November 5, 2013 at 7:56pm
Rachel De Burgh · Sydney, Australia
I am not advocating men should be circumcised at birth, or that they should not. I am simply pointing out there are benefits either way. To completely ignore the medical need for it in any men is not going to help the debate.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 5, 2013 at 8:00pm
Max Roberts · Castmaine High School
Rachel De Burgh – There are no medical benefits to male circumcision. The men that you have heard of “needing to have it done” could easily have been treated in other ways without amputation. Research alternative ways to treat a specific problem. The foreskin is like any other part of the body that can have a medical problem, we treat those parts with antibiotics or other alternatives, we don’t hack them off. The same consideration should be given to the foreskin without the “Quick-fix” of circumcision. And BTW, male circumcision is MUTILATION, just the same as female mutilation.
Reply ·
· 12 · November 6, 2013 at 1:24am
View 12 more
Ron Low · Top Commenter · TLCTugger on Twitter at Intactivist
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Circumcision alters sex dramatically. Informed adults can decide for themselves about their own bodies.
Reply ·
· 24 · November 4, 2013 at 8:52pm
Molly Adams · Top Commenter · University of Miami
It is sad that we live in a world where “I don’t think we should saw off a healthy portion of baby boy’s genitals without waiting until he is older and gives his consent” is a controversial statement.
Reply ·
· 14 · November 5, 2013 at 9:37pm
Kyle Horton · Cook at Tap House Grill Westmont
Molly Adams – that is slowly changing. Keep raising awareness about the issues and supporting intactivist campaigns.
Reply ·
· 11 · November 5, 2013 at 10:01pm
Gary Harryman · Top Commenter
Perhaps a little basic human genital anatomy will shed some light on this discussion:
Neurologically, the most specialized pressure-sensitive cells in the human body are Meissner’s corpuscles for localized light touch and fast touch, Merkel’s disc cells for light pressure and tactile form and texture, Ruffini’s corpuscles for slow sustained pressure, deep skin tension, stretch, flutter and slip, and Pacinian corpuscles for deep touch and detection of rapid external vibrations. They are found only in the tongue, lips, palms, fingertips, nipples, and the clitoris and the crests of the ridged band at the tip of the male foreskin. These remarkable cells process tens of thousands of information impulses per second and can sense texture, stretch, and vibration/movement at the micrometre level. These are the cells that allow blind people to “see” Braille with their fingertips. Cut them off and, male or female, it’s like trying to read Braille with your elbow.
Physiologically, the clitoris is richly endowed with thousands of these specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the clitoral foreskin is virtually bereft of them. The ridged band at the tip of the the penile foreskin is richly endowed with thousands of these same specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the glans is virtually bereft of them. Lightening speed feedback by somatosensory transduction from such tactile sensitivity gives humans intense pleasure, environmental awareness, and control. Cut off these super-sensitive cells and with lack of awareness comes lack of control. To say that amputation of the clitoris or amputation of the mobile roller-bearing-like portion of the natural penis, and consequently thousands of these specialized nerve cell interfaces, does not permanently sub-normalize a woman’s or a man’s natural capabilities and partially devitalize their innate capacity for gliding action tactile pleasure is grossly illogical denial of the bio-mechanical and the somatosensory facts of human genital anatomy.
Mechanically, the natural vaginal and penile lubricants are kept inside the vagina during male/female intercourse by the organic seal effect of the mobile penile foreskin. The mechanoreceptors in the buried legs of the intact clitoris straddle the entroitus of the vagina and are stimulated by the identical mechanoreceptors in the thick bunching accordion folds of the mobile penile foreskin. The clitoris and the penile foreskin are also intensely vascular – thickening when stimulated. Millions of years of trial and error evolutionary forces have synchronously engineered the human sex organs to function synergistically. We can be sure Nature has evolved (if you prefer, God has created) these differences and duplications for a reason. The brilliantly engineered unaltered female body is the perfect match for the equally brilliantly engineered design of the natural penis; they evolved together to compliment each other and they function collaboratively to achieve two common goals – mutual pleasure and insemination.
A woman can live without the sensitivity of the visible part of her clitoris. A man can live without the mobile and most sensitive part of his penis. But, both men and women are better off with their natural fine-touch parts intact – all of them. And so are their sexual partners.
Reply ·
· 21 · November 4, 2013 at 10:49pm
Yeoman Roman · Top Commenter · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Gary your first paragraph alone is so informative, that you are going to make circumcision enthusiasts heads explode. They cannot handle that level of information. They will have to pretend it doesn’t exist..,
Reply ·
· 5 · November 5, 2013 at 1:19am
Gary Harryman · Top Commenter
Circumcision is a racket.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 16, 2013 at 12:56pm
Yeoman Roman · Top Commenter · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Gary Harryman Yes it is a racket. It makes $$ for doctors and allows cut men to think they have lost nothing of importance.
Ignorance is bliss, when it comes to circumcision.
Reply ·
· November 23, 2013 at 9:39am
Öbür Dünya · Intergalactic University
“improved sexual pleasure, since women tend to prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, increased penile-vaginal contact, stimulation, and marginally better staying power during sex,” writes Dr. Morris in Sex and Male Circumcision: What Every Woman Needs to Know. “Any of these factors can increase the likelihood of the woman reaching an orgasm.”
… “since women tend to prefer the circucised penis for appearence…” etc “increase the likelihood of the woman reaching an orgasm”.
Did I just read that some of the benefits, and by that, arguments for cutting a baby boy or man is improved sexual pleasure… for the woman? Wow, that is messed up.
Just imagine the outcry:
“Some of the benefits of removing the woman’s inner labia is improved physical appearance, since many men tend to prefer a perfectly flat, childlike vagina.
This while also sowing the outer labia together has yet some additional benefits, for the man, since it creates a tighter fit which increases the chances of the male having an orgasm.” etc.
Seriously, this is too messed up I don’t even know what else to say. Thank goodness I wasn’t born a man.
Reply ·
· 2 · May 11 at 2:58pm
Ana Spektor
Those benefits have been shown to be false. The AMA does not even support routine circumcision. It it pretty idiotic that the only story of death is from a procedure performed by a midwife. Did you do any research at all that shows over 100 infants die every year in a hospital setting? What a piss poor article. What was even the point? Was this a writing exercise done drunkenly on the toilet? Way to have no interest in what you are writing about.
Reply ·
· 18 · November 4, 2013 at 5:50pm
Nadja Sayej · Freelance Writer/ Blogger at VICE
The midwife story was huge when it happened – it deserved my mention. If you think the other cases are necessary, I welcome you to link them here.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 5, 2013 at 2:41am
Craig Adams · Top Commenter
Circumcision is by definition genital mutilation. Child and infant circumcision is forced genital mutilation. It most certainly is not safe. I was neonatally circumcised (severe milah and periah circumcision) at a U.S. hospital by a “doctor” and it completely injured me — corrective surgery at age 5 for meatal stenosis and other complications. I wish my human right to a whole body was respected. I am not Jewish but Catholic. Circumcision is not universal among Jews. In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons. For example, most circumcisions of male infants of American Jewish parents are done in U.S. hospitals without any religious ritual. Jewish circumcision has never had anything to do with health concerns. Originally only the tip of the foreskin was cut, called milah. This p… See More
Reply ·
· 17 · November 4, 2013 at 6:47pm
Nestor R Rivera Traverzo · Works at Caribean Sea
Most women I know say an uncercumcised penis gives them more pleasure than a circumcised penis and its kept cleaner since its protected 24/7.
Reply ·
· 15 · November 4, 2013 at 3:47pm
Neil Nelson · Works at Cuyahaga Community College
true
Reply ·
· 5 · November 5, 2013 at 3:08pm
Dean Stanley · St. Paul’s High School, Covington, LA
Being born with a foreskin is nature’s way. My hppie parents didn’t need a panel of Nordic doctors to tell them that taking a scalpel to a newborn boys penis is unnnecesary and cruel. The baby also has no choice in the matter either.
When us uncut boys grow into young men and become sexually active we realize that our foreskins contain millions of nerve endings which make sexual contact and orgasm extremely pleasurable. I can’t speak for my cut brothers but I understand that sensation can be dulled because of the head being exposed and years of friction rubbing against clothing and such.
I believe it should be left up to the individual once they reach an appropriate age whether or not to be circumsised. I thank my cut father for making the decision to keep me natural and whole. I hope my son realises my decision to keep him natural was the right one.
Reply ·
· 9 · November 4, 2013 at 8:53pm
Neil Nelson · Works at Cuyahaga Community College
true
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 3:08pm
Neil Nelson · Works at Cuyahaga Community College
real talk
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 3:09pm
Lisa Weinstein · Top Commenter
Dean, I can’t wait for the day that my 2 sons (both intact) thank me and their cut dad, like you’ve just done. I know for a fact they will be happy that we weren’t so egotistical that we thought it was our “right” to decide for them whether they should keep their whole bodies. I’m raising them to be intactivists. Every person on this earth deserves the right to decide what to do with their body parts. Whether they want them or would rather not have them is a decision that should always be left up to the owner of the body parts. Your “hippie” parents were smart and so are you and every parent who doesn’t cut up their baby.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 8, 2013 at 3:51pm
Barefoot Intactivist
Up next, the pros and cons of circumcising female children, featuring interviews with prominent Egyptian mullahs/doctors explaining the key benefits.
Reply ·
· 9 · November 5, 2013 at 2:00pm
Juan Andrés Intactivist · Top Commenter · Universidad EAFIT
Performing an operation on somebody who does not have medical necessity for it, should only be allowed when the person receiving the operation requests it personally. Children cannot consent to an elective operation, but they will carry the result of the operation for the rest of their lives.
Reply ·
· 9 · November 5, 2013 at 6:34am
Yeoman Roman · Top Commenter · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Thank goodness this young boy asked his question and his rights to a complete and whole body are now being considered. It is not the “Family Penis” nor the “Family Foreskin”.
Thank you Iceland, Europe and Cologne for standing up against this assault and battery of children. May we in America follow in the great path you now stride forward on.
Reply ·
· 8 · November 5, 2013 at 1:27am
Joseph Lewis · Top Commenter
Is there a reason why the authors of VICE decided NOT to go with an actual medical doctor? Brian Morris is not a pediatrician, surgeon, urologist. He’s not even an actual MEDICAL doctor. So do tell us, dear sirs, how he is any actual authority on the matter? Any reason why you decided not to go with anyone at say, the RACP?
Reply ·
· 8 · November 4, 2013 at 10:52pm
Nadja Sayej · Freelance Writer/ Blogger at VICE
I tried 10 doctors, none of who would be interviewed, unfortunately. I will try RACP, thanks for recommending.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 2:46am
Barefoot Intactivist
Nadja Sayej So instead you interviewed a “circumcision enthusiast” as an authority? That is not journalism.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 5, 2013 at 1:53pm
Ian Wilkinson · The University of Western Australia – UWA
Very pertinent question bec this is what aust dr’s think about morris and his views on circ #i2 Read what Australian Doctors think about Brian Morris views on infant male circumcision http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/australian-medicine-demolish.html … … …
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 3:01pm
View 2 more
Susie Noonan · Top Commenter
I had the good fortune of experiencing sex with a man who was not circumcised. I’ve been an advocate of a ban on the practice ever since.
Reply ·
· April 22 at 11:36pm
Liz Smith
It’s not true to say that all women prefer the altered penis, either from the standpoint of appearance or performance. Much of any preference is due to social conditioning and lack of experience with an intact partner which, IMO, is superior in every way.
Reply ·
· 6 · November 5, 2013 at 3:50am
Yeoman Roman · Top Commenter · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Liz thank you for sharing your honest and informed opinion.
Too many circumcised men have the unsupported and incorrect opinion that “circumcised sex is fine”.
They of course have no experience being intact and sexual. There is a significant difference for the woman as well as the man. “In my opinion is superior in every way.” – is a very significant statement and the kind of thing that American “doctors” are loathe to actually inquire honestly about.
They’d rather ask circumcised men if they can imagine sex being better. Americans are scientific cowards when it comes to being honest about genital cutting. They see it as a profit stream. The Netherlands, the Dutch are much more inquisitive and objectve.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 23, 2013 at 9:36am
Lauren Ginsberg · Top Commenter · San Clemente, California
I prefer natural as well! so much brainwashing…..its sad. im sorry for guys who had no choice int he matter.
Reply ·
· April 15 at 7:08pm
Mark Hewitt · Canadian Forces
A child cannot give consent to a medically unnecessary procedure. It is barbaric. And slavery used to be a sacred institution. End male genital mutilation now! >:(
Reply ·
· 6 · November 4, 2013 at 9:28pm
Katherine Snooki McEachen · Top Commenter · Fairfield, Connecticut
I never understood why anyone felt a need to cut living tissue off a baby because baby’s are born perfect.
Reply ·
· 6 · November 4, 2013 at 9:06pm
Jhon Murdock · Top Commenter · Guatemala City, Guatemala
Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision, but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine. He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention. Why would anyone ever consult him or even listen to his blather?
Reply ·
· 4 · November 5, 2013 at 4:01pm
Transylvanian Draculina · Manager at True Black Metal
Christiane Northrup, MD
Imagine this. It’s the middle of the night and your baby boy has croup — you are worried. So you take him to your local emergency room. The ER doc comes in, removes the boy’s diaper, and forcibly retracts your child’s foreskin, leaving the child screaming in pain and bleeding. Within a couple hours, his penis and foreskin are swollen. And you don’t have a clue what to do. This just happened to a couple right here in my home state. And there wasn’t a thing the parents could do about it. I want you to know why this is occurring all over the U.S. today, so you can protect your son!
As ludicrous as this might seem for an ER doctor to do this for croup in the first place, pediatricians forcibly retract foreskins for intact (uncircumcised) boys during well-baby checks throughout the U.S. every day because th… See More
Reply ·
· 3 · November 6, 2013 at 5:48am
Molly Adams · Top Commenter · University of Miami
Boy and girls don’t share the same genitals, but there are corresponding parts. The male foreskin is embryonically homologous to the female clitoral prepuce (the same way ovaries are homologous to testes). Removing the foreskin, usually without anesthetic no less, is literally the same thing as slicing off that part of a baby girl.
And by the way, vaginas are dirty and get STIs too.
How is this even a debate again?
Reply ·
· 3 · November 5, 2013 at 5:50pm
Adam McPhee · Top Commenter · Toronto, Ontario
People should have the right to decide what is done with their bodies. Full-stop.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 6, 2013 at 6:30am
Bill Ellis · Top Commenter · ICP – International Center of Photography
I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome any circumcised male-bodied people who are circumcised and interested in (non-surgical) restoration to this forum.
http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/
It’s a long process and we can’t get back everything that was taken from us, but we can restore a good bit of sensitivity and original form.
I started restoration a few months ago and my partner and I are already amazed with the results.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 6, 2013 at 8:39pm
Josh Moore · Top Commenter · Saint Petersburg, Florida
With 21st century hygiene this should be a non-issue. Err on the side of free-choice and let the individual decide when they are old enough to understand what their organ is used for. This is one of the most deeply disturbing traditions that impacts almost every Western male and is rarely ever questioned. I would also like to suggest that if a Father is listed on the birth certificate, that his decision would be the deciding factor. I have only daughters but my wife and I never came to agreement on the matter.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 1:15pm
Brit Clousing · Calvin
Jeez, it looks like the anti-circumcision activists are all over this article. Somebody must’ve linked to it in some anti-circumcision website.
What I find most ridiculous is when those activists compare male circumcision (which, based on studies, has no effect on sexual pleasure) is compared to female circumcision (which is intended to remove female pleasure during sex, and appears to accomplish that goal quite effectively, based on what I’ve heard). This makes the whole notion of comparison between male and female circumcision absurd.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 4, 2013 at 8:43pm
Hugh Intactive · Top Commenter
For centuries, before it was commonplace, everybody KNEW that cutting the foreskin off was detrimental to sex. (Placed where it is, and chock-full of specialised nerves like those of the lips, how could it not be?) That was one of the reasons given for doing it!
It’s only since society became more sex-positive, but where circumcision lingers, that these studies (by circumcised men who make a point of avoiding the obvious) have been done. Some ignored the foreskin, others asked only men who’d volunteered to be circumcised. Do we need studies to prove that the lips are important for the pleasure of kissing?
The comparison between male and female genital cutting is as ethical issues. How can it be evil to cut normal healthy, functional, non renewing tissue off a non-consenting female, but not a male? And only THAT tissue. It’s a crime to cut off a baby’s earlobe – why not his foreskin?
Reply ·
· 7 · November 4, 2013 at 10:18pm
Molly Adams · Top Commenter · University of Miami
Actually, you’re wrong, female circumcision is not intended to remove sexual pleasure: it’s merely intended to diminish it for the woman, just as male circumcision is intended to diminish it for the man. I know an Egyptian woman who was circumcised when she was young and she claims she still enjoys sex…albeit probably less so, just like circumcised men.
“According to several studies in the 1980s and 1990s, [circumcised] women said they were able to enjoy sex…(though the risk of sexual dysfunction was higher with Type III)” (Boyle, Elizabeth. Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, pp. 34–35.)
Most female circumcision is Type I and II. Infibulation (Type III), which you’re probably thinking of, is not so common. Both female and male circumcision CAN, in their respective extreme cases, remove sexual pleasure entirely, but mostly they just aim to stunt it.
One’s already illegal. It’s time for the other.
Reply ·
· 7 · November 4, 2013 at 11:28pm
Nik K Malis · Los Angeles, California
What I find incredibly ridiculous is when uninformed imbeciles form an official opinion on a subject they know next to nothing about, going off only a tiny smidgen of information. Imbeciles like you.
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 12:52am
View 7 more
Peter Thurston · Top Commenter · Works at Better Off Damned
“How can any government get in the way of this sacred ritual, which mind you is absolutely safe?” erm, bullshit. There have been numerous cases of children contracting various infections, suffering from shock and even contracting sexual diseases in some rare cases. That is NOT safe, and if someone argues “well it just depends on the practitioner” I reply “same for a tattoo, should we give a child one of them?”
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 6:32am
Peter Thurston · Top Commenter · Works at Better Off Damned
Emi Craftaz Blunderfluff For medical reasons yes, just like if you have to amputate a leg to save a child then sure, doesn’t mean it’s okay to just go round lopping off limbs.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 5, 2013 at 7:26am
Zhora Wood · Colorado’s Finest Alternative High School
You’re being hyperbolic for shock value. Whether or not it’s to be considered genital mutilation is up in the air. There are preventative medical reasons for doing it as well. The circumcised are also less likely to contract STD’s. There’s no simple answer.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 6, 2013 at 7:49am
Peter Thurston · Top Commenter · Works at Better Off Damned
Zhora Wood Yet we have something called protection, you know, condoms?
Reply ·
· 1 · November 6, 2013 at 8:03am
View 2 more
Melissa June P · Top Commenter
mutilation
mu·ti·late
[myoot-l-eyt]
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 5:34am
Jesse Channon · Recruiter at Entech Canada
10 seconds of research shows the benefits of the procedure.
With regards to STD’s:
“The superficial skin layers of the penis contain Langerhans cells, which are targeted by HIV; removing the foreskin reduces the number of these cells. When an uncircumcised penis is erect during intercourse, any small tears on the inner surface of the foreskin come into direct contact with the vaginal walls, providing a pathway for transmission. When an uncircumcised penis is flaccid, the pocket between the inside of the foreskin and the head of the penis provides an environment conducive to pathogen survival; circumcision eliminates this pocket. Some experimental evidence has been provided to support these theories.[33]
The WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) state that male circumcision is an efficacious interventi… See More
Reply ·
· 1 · November 6, 2013 at 7:21am
Tom Tobin · Top Commenter · Middlesex Community College
10 seconds of research will lead to Oxford University’s dismantling of the shoddy science used to push forward those claims of which you speak.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 25, 2013 at 6:41am
me (signed in using yahoo)
Of course it is mutilation. Does the author even realize that Brian Morris is a Circumfetish freak? He gets off on boys being cut. He also spreads misinformation that is laughable if you think about it. Natural is better for women for sex and that has been shown. But it makes sense that natural sex is better than mutilated sex. For men this issue is drastic. Of course the thousands of nerves and movable erogenous tissue is important. Human’s have known male circumcision harms sexual pleasure and function for thousands of years. That is the purpose of the cutting! This is like an emperor’s new clothes thing OF COURSE WOUNDING AND AMPUTATION IS BAD.
The parts that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, fingertips and nipples have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.
EVERY HUMAN (male and female) has the RIGHT (a human right) to reach adulthood with all of the tissue (particularly all of their erogenous tissue) that THEIR genetic code provides.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 7, 2013 at 6:22am
Clayton Adams · Top Commenter · Works at A job
Stupid article, the subject is fucking children’s rights not health or culture. The kid gets no choice = unacceptable, how could it be anything else? I could see an argument for circumcision for an adult sure, do whatever you want, but a kid can just fucking wait. Shame on this reporter!
Reply ·
· 1 · November 7, 2013 at 4:13pm
Steve White · Vancouver Island University
Is the sexual assault of a baby wrong? Wait..that sounds pretty harsh, lets make that more ambiguous. Is forced genital amputation of an infant wrong? Noo still too harsh. Is forced genital cutting a form of abuse? No it’s still pretty clear whats happening here, more ambiguous. Is forced circumcision a form of abuse? Ooh! that’s better, though abuse is still not pc enough. Is circumcision a form of genital mutilation? Hey here we go, but female genital cutting is universally banned so lets add the finishing touches…some caps aaaand there!!!
Is Male Circumcision a Form of Genital Mutilation?
Reply ·
· 1 · November 5, 2013 at 9:17am
Amber Richardson · Top Commenter · Rend Lake College
Alot of men I know, dont care, They are happy that they are circumcised. Plus, Its a parents choice, not the rest of the worlds.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 6, 2013 at 12:41pm
Jeff Brown · Top Commenter
Why shouldn’t it be the boy’s choice? It is his body. When he is old enough to pierce it, he can decide whether or not he wants to have part of it cut off.
Many women who are circumcised also don’t care.
Reply ·
· 3 · November 6, 2013 at 4:06pm
Alec Loy
I am More then Happy not being circumcised, I know the feeling you get on the head of him when he isn’t
Reply ·
· November 25, 2013 at 11:28am
Sean Leo Snyder · I’m Debt Free Thanks
I sure hope the people claiming circumcision to be assault aren’t pro choice. Just saying…
Reply ·
· 1 · November 5, 2013 at 10:19pm
Elise Prince · Delgado Community College
What’s the definition of female circumcision? Boom
Reply ·
· 1 · November 4, 2013 at 4:46pm
brinxster (signed in using yahoo)
I should have had a right to know what being a full natural human being is, to know what full natural sex is like… I only get to live once and the human experience for me has been literally cut short robbing me of that. Why? Why is it so important to inflict this onto people? Why couldn’t I have simply decided this for myself as a part of my own religious conviction if I so choose? Then at least it would mean something to me rather than be a symbol of religious oppression and hatred of freedom and a constant reminder that I’ll never know what the human experience fully is. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
Reply ·
· November 17, 2013 at 9:10pm
Chris Carey · Top Commenter · Highland High School Albuquerque, New Mexico
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microscopic/circum-aids.htm
Reply ·
· November 4, 2013 at 8:13pm
Hugh Intactive · Top Commenter
Thee are plenty of flaws with those studies:
1. The men were recruited by snowball methods, i.e. non-randomly, many known to each other, with perhaps the same sexual partners.
2. The trials were not double-blinded or placebo controlled, the real gold standard of clincical trials, laying them open to experimenter and experimentee bias. Everyone involved wanted circumcision to be effective against HIV.
3. The circumcised group were given safe-sex advice that the control groups were not.
4. The circumcised men were told not to have sex for six weeks.
5. The drop-out rate was several times the known infection rate, so many circumcised men could have HIV without being counted.
6. Contacts were not traced, meaning we have no idea how the men got HIV
7. Homosexuality is stigmatised in those communities (especially Uganda, where it is l… See More
Reply ·
· 6 · November 4, 2013 at 10:37pm
Jenna Mullins · Top Commenter · Barrie, Ontario
Essentially everyone I have discussed this with prefers circumcised penises. It may be technical genital mutilation but but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is detrimental.
Reply ·
· November 7, 2013 at 2:31pm
Gary Harryman · Top Commenter
Of course. Just like slavery may technically be a violation of human rights, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Right? Male or female, infant or adult, forcibly amputating parts of another person’s body is a clear violation of human rights and perpetrators should be imprisoned.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 23, 2013 at 1:22pm
Pierre Mccandless · Gold Coast, Queensland
Funny how they say that getting a circumcision pleases a womens aesthetic tastes and sensations, but what about the mans? I say just get in their put it in a warm place, splooge, and get out. Fuck her pleasure, its all about man man.
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 8:41am
Andrew Gross · Top Commenter
“Is Male Circumcision a Form of Genital Mutilation?”
NO.. Next question…
Reply ·
· November 4, 2013 at 7:31pm
Hugh Intactive · Top Commenter
Aristotle said it was mutilation of the part cut off didn’t grow back. So yes. Next quesiton.
Reply ·
· 6 · November 4, 2013 at 10:24pm
Yeoman Roman · Top Commenter · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Of course circumcision is genital mutilation.
It is useless surgery on the genitals, damaging them removing 3/4 of the sexual nerve endings and 15 square inches of very sensitive tissue. It alters sex sex profoundly making it less pleasant for women, requiring artificial lubrication and quintupling the rate of impotence in middle aged men.
Thank you though for you opinion Andrew, -however misinformed it is.
In America genital mutilation is primarily done for the doctor’s profit and generally to reassure fathers that their own circumcision was of negligible consequence. Many men are grateful for this fraud. 
Reply ·
· 6 · November 5, 2013 at 1:13am
Andrew Gross · Top Commenter
Yeoman, I would ask you to provide evidence for your assertions. Because you previously cited a number of facts about circumcision to me that turned out not to be based on any actual medical evidence. But you’ve already shown that you’re not interested in learning whether the facts you cite are in fact true or false. You reflexively repeat assertions you’ve picked up without care or concern over their veracity. When challenged, you wrote on your Facebook page: “Circumcision is NOT about facts.”
Reply ·
· 2 · November 5, 2013 at 6:08am
View 7 more
Lisa Hill · Top Commenter
I don’t personally find uncircumcised attractive, at all.
Reply ·
· November 5, 2013 at 12:49am
Hugh Intactive · Top Commenter
There’s no arguing with taste, but the great Renaissance artists disagreed with you, putting foreskins back on their depictions of such people as David, John the Baptist and Jesus. But why should anyone’s personal preference be any reason to cut any normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing part off another person, decades younger, whom they will (we hope) never have sex with?
Reply ·
· 7 · November 5, 2013 at 1:04am
Cris Morton · Top Commenter · Central Washington University
“Sorry little guy, but if we don’t cut off part of your penis, then girls like Lisa Hill won’t fuck you.” Nope, not convinced.
Reply ·
· 7 · November 5, 2013 at 8:43am
Jeff Brown · Top Commenter
Many men in Africa don’t personally find uncircumcised women attractive, at all.
In my opinion there is no ethical difference between an African man who rejects a women because she has normal, intact genitals and an American woman who rejects a man because he has normal, intact genitals.
Reply ·
· 5 · November 5, 2013 at 12:24pm
View 4 more
John Manov · University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
It’s important to remember that very many “intactivists” (a majority, according to a friend of mine who is a former intactivist) are really more preoccupied with their inability to enjoy sexual intercourse with women than with any “mutilation” of babies. This inability, of course, doesn’t originate in their having been circumcised, but rather, in most cases, in latent homosexuality. He is not repelled by circumcision, or the circumcised penis, but himself.
Reply ·
· 1 · November 5, 2013 at 8:50pm
Kiva Swett Ebert · University of Florida
hahaha there is no way that circumcision helps w orgasms
Reply ·
· 6 · November 5, 2013 at 8:56pm
Neil Ragnvald Hoffmann · Florida Atlantic University
Alexander Edvard
Reply ·
· November 6, 2013 at 1:31am
hanscastorp1914 (signed in using yahoo)
When defending the indefensible, just insinuate that your opponent is gay.
Works like a charm every time.
SOURCE: [ Is Male Circumcision a Form of Genital Mutilation? By Nadja Sayej Nov 4 2013
****
Cover Image: The Babylonian Nommo (Oannes)
instructs the High Priests in sacred knowledge.
Ancient Origins of Jewish Ritual Circumcision
In Modern Society
By R. D. Gray
© 2008
“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven…
Amen.”
– Excerpt from the misunderstood Lord’s Prayer
Abstract
Circumcision is a religious ritual practiced in ancient matriarchal societies. Its popularity was limited in the United States until the 20th century when medical professionals began to encourage the procedure. The claimed benefits have since been found questionable in nature and inconclusive, yet the community continues its support for the procedure unabated. As such, it appears that circumcision today is – at minimum – a sacrificial ritual performed by a proxy priesthood. This is done in a secular medical environment and is in accordance with ancient matriarchal beliefs that have been reincarnated in modern form.
Historical Background and Perspectives of Circumcision
- Documented in Ancient Times
Found in an Egyptian tomb built for Ankhmabor in Saqqara and dating to
around 2400 B.C., this image displays an Egyptian circumcision.
Circumcision is a surgical procedure proven to originate earlier than the second millennium before Christ. It is historically documented in stone at Saqqara, Egypt (ca. 2400 B. C.) [[1]] Mummies pre-dating Saqqara indicate occurrences of it as early as 4000 B. C. [[2]] Its true origins in