Oh what a basket of sunshine the topic of male circumcision is… There’s nothing I like better than misandry mixed in with some down-home religious fanaticism. Indeed, it is a topic as sensitive as the foreskin it cuts off. I think that deep down, like abortion, most people feel it is wrong but the powers that be dissuade the regular citizen from pronouncing himself. Feminist political power demonizes any objection to abortion and the religious aspect of circumcision makes it hard to ban.
A recent poll in Denmark shows that 75% of Danes are in favor of a total or partial ban and yet the Danish Health and Medical Authority performs the necessary hire-wire act by stating: “[…] that there was neither enough risk to justify outlawing circumcision nor enough documentation of its benefits to generally recommend the practice.” This typical rhetoric is understandable: the government doesn’t want to go against the majority but also doesn’t want to earn the ire of Jewish media and political influence nor the anger of Muslims. In fact, even New York mayor Bill DeBlasio is caving-in to pressure from Ultra-Orthodox Jews who want no restrictions on the practice of their ritual viz. Oral Suction Circumcision (known as metzitzah b’peh) where the mohel (the guy who cuts the foreskin off) places his mouth on the baby’s bleeding penis and sucks the blood out of the wound.
The outrage comes from a city counsil resolution under former mayor Bloomberg to supply parents with consent forms warning them that recent cases of herpes leading to brain damage and even death have been caused by this procedure. That’s right, the problem is a consent form; that just goes too fucking far! Prior to the ruling, several hundred rabbis, including Rabbi David Neiderman, the executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, signed a declaration stating that they would not inform parents of the potential dangers even if informed consent became law. The suggested compromise that it be performed via a glass tube in order to avoid direct contact has also insulted proponents of Oral Suction. On the bright side, Female Circumcision is illegal in Denmark.
“If then, we ‘match up’ a deeply religious Muslim couple who wish to have their daughter altered and who believe it is a religious obligation, and who are willing to accept the Seattle compromise, with a deeply religious Jewish couple who wish to have their son altered because they believe it is a religious obligation, it is hard to justify why the first couple’s wish is illegal and the second’s is not.”
Jewish and Muslim circumcision originates with God’s command to Abraham that he and his be circumcised as a covenant of flesh between God and his chosen people and its justification on health grounds is rather recent. 19th Century English medical theory and the Victorian crusade against masturbation is responsible for the social acceptance of circumcision in the English speaking world e.g.
“I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit.”
— M.J. Moses 1871)
The establishment at the time promoted their obsessively negative preoccupation with sex by citing the historical use of circumcision as a method of reducing male sexual pleasure e.g. the infamous Dr. Kellogg‘s recommendation of circumcision without anesthetic: “the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if connected with the idea of punishment.” He might as well have quoted first century Jewish philosopher Philo who claimed it “represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind.” or revered 13th Century rabbi Maimonides who wrote “weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate” and that it “weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment.” He recognized that it was “a very hard thing” to have done to oneself but that it was done to “quell all the impulses of matter” and “perfect what is defective morally.” Philo recognized that it should be done as early as possible as one would be less likely to do it of one’s own free will (citations here).
Considering that many more males face circumcision than females and the result from complications (as we have seen with the Ulwako) including full castration, are much more appalling, one would think it would be vilified and outlawed as much, if not more, then FGM but, of course, this is not the case. Female circumcision is treated as a serious and terrible problem; untold millions are spent by the U.N. and other groups to rid Africa of this abomination while Bill Gates subsidizes the promotion of its male counterpart.
Mutilated women are never referred to as “cut”; something tells me it would be denounced vociferously. And yet, women seem to enjoy categorizing men as either “cut” or “uncut”. This vulgar trivializing of Male Genital Mutilation is in tune with the overall verbal degradation of masculinity so celebrated in our society e.g.
Den/Man-cave, brodown, to dude up a room etc. There are many different excuses and mollifications used to justify circumcision. One of the most nauseating is the myth of “health benefits” like reducing bacteria and detritus known as smegma making “cut” men cleaner. This is hateful misandry based on shaming “uncut” men and declaring them filthy. Not only is this the lowest kind of rhetoric but it is also hypocritical of women to claim this because if loose folds of skin trap bacteria and filth, then surely we must circumcise baby girls’ labiae as they produce much more smegma than foreskin, after all, it is women who need douching… But something tells me that such a practice would be disallowed and Feminists would bloviate passionately at the Patriarchy’s slander against the vulva which degrades the very essence of womanhood; oh the Rape Culture!
Circumcision is a racket: medical practitioners can add it to the medical bill; ever wonder why doctors are so eager to prescribe it…? As more and more people pronounce themselves against the practice, the medical industry an its “experts” have turned to the most powerful tool know to marketing in order to continue their swindle viz. Female Vanity.
Barbarossa has written an article concerning the new claim that infant foreskin contains fibroblast which can be used to rejuvenate wall-smacked female flesh. Women’s sense of entitlement and misandry will provide a viable excuse for the continued mutilation of helpless baby boys. And this is not surprizing as we find a visceral consumptive streak in Female Nature: ever heard a woman describe a man as yummy, delicious beef-cake, hunk of man-meat? Is it the swollen, bulbous muscle that women find sumptuous or is there something fundamentally utilitarian in carnivorism, like a mantis or spider cannibalizing her inseminator, that wet women’s appetite?
From his semen to his wallet to his very utility, women want to feed off a man as much as possible: Elite Roman women would pay a hefty price for perfume fortified with a gladiator’s sweat; bull semen is added to cosmetics and now fibroblast: if women think there is some carnal male essence therein, they will buy it and the absolute disregard for ethics and morality women display for infants (as evidence by abortion, neonaticide and the Planned Parenthood scandal) helps us understand fibroblast as a good excuse for circumcision, after all, it’s only proper that masculinity be worked and sacrificed for female consumption.
Ancient sources describe circumcision as a test of manhood and ritual passage into adulthood. The emphasis was on one’s ability to remain stoic and conceal any signs of pain. Society comforts itself at the thought that it will be protected and maintained by obedient man-bots who never complain and never show weakness. In fact, communities in present day South Africa still regard the excision of the foreskin as a status marker whereby those intact are ridiculed as mere boys and are often forced to undergo the dangerous and potentially lethal procedure:
“The young men in the eastern Cape belong to the Xhosa ethnic group for whom circumcision is considered part of the passage into manhood. A law was recently introduced requiring initiation schools to be licensed and only allowing circumcisions to be performed on youths aged 18 and older. But Eastern Cape provincial Health Department spokesman Sizwe Kupelo told Reuters news agency that boys as young as 11 had died. Each year thousands of young men go into the bush alone, without water, to attend initiation schools. Many do not survive the ordeal.”
So as ritual, circumcision is ultimately a marking of the male for social purposes as if to say “you are for us; we emasculated you and we control your sexuality: we control you.”, like branding livestock. Masculinity is so powerful that it must be regulated and men must be raised in a society which ridicules and shames it to ensure that an individual man not love himself nor demand better treatment by denying society the use of that power.