I used to think circumcision was a good thing. I was also an ignorant douche bag. Coincidence?
After doing a little research, I saw the light. I knew I was wrong. Very fucking wrong. Like pineapple-on-pizza wrong. If you like that shit, you’re wrong and a cunt.
Whatever opinion you may have on infant circumcision, welcome. I ask that you not feel alienated because my beef is not with you. It’s with an article I read recently.
This article to be exact: —–> 10 Reasons I Will Always Be A Pro-Circumcision Mom by blogger and chick-lit author Bethany Ramos.
When I first read the article, I wanted to punch someone. [adjusts glasses]
What in the fuckitty-fucking shit is this shittery-shit factory of giant unholy blasphemous ballsacks?
The second time I read it, I practiced deep breathing exercises and decided to prepare a CALM rebuttal with better GIFs but it went something like this:
If you haven’t read this pro-circumcision article, you should. It’s fun. And by fun, I mean running butt-first into a preheated fire poker. Hey, we all have our kinks, right? I just maxed out my credit card buying Mind Bleach in bulk.
I have a low tolerance for poor research and crappy GIFs, especially on the subject of circumcision. I like to correct false information about this surgery whenever possible. I’m also not against non-therapeutic circumcision. I just happen to think that a man’s dick and how much dick he wants to keep or cut off is his decision.
This subject makes people uncomfortable too. I like to prod them with sticks for my amusement.
A super fun quote from her article:
“Yes, I’m writing a blog post about it [circumcision] because the topic is interesting to me, and people deserve to be informed.”
Yes, people deserve to be informed. If this subject interests you, I encourage you to keep researching.
In the mean time:
Here are the top 10 reasons that make a person a pro-circumcision douche bag
1.) Citing the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Does the American Academy of Pediatrics really endorse the benefits of circumcision? They seem to, however, this is what they actually have to say about it:
“The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it, however, existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision.” Updated 05/14/2015
People seem to cling to the words “benefits” “outweigh” and “risks” while ignoring the rest. Yeah, that’s smart. Are your precious children not worth it for you to read the entire statement? I don’t know who puts their child through surgery for “potential” medical benefits when there are REAL, proven, risks involved with the surgery. You can read them all here: Stanford School of Medicine: Circumcision Complications
Besides that, the AAP can’t even recommend the procedure due to a lack of scientific evidence. But the benefits outweigh the risks? The “potential” benefits with a lack of scientific evidence? Seems to me they are cowardly dancing around the fact that they support infant circumcision with, again, a lack of scientific evidence. Seems legit.
Furthermore, the AAP circumcision task force is made up of only eight physicians. EIGHT! That is an octopus with eight doctor tentacles. Doctoctopus? God, what an ugly creature. It probably eats infant foreskins for snacks, shits em’ out, and then sells the steaming piles to bio-medical and cosmetic companies for profit.
The international group that condemns the AAP’s position on circumcision is made up of 37 doctors from 16 different countries. You can read that rebuttal here: HERE
“There are no compelling health arguments in favor of circumcision, while it can have serious long-term urological, psychological and sexual consequences. And performing medically unwarranted circumcision of underage boys conflicts with good medical practice. Male infant circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and the doctors’ oath not to do harm.”
That sure mouth-punches the AAP baby-foreskin-eating Doctoctopus into oblivion. Good riddance, because that thing was messy and stupid.
2.) Citing “The New York Times” as “proof” of support of infant circumcision.
I hate to break it to you (no I don’t) but The New York Times is a newspaper. Shit happens and they report that shit. If Florida Man lit his balls on fire while screaming racist profanities at the neighborhood pigeons, it doesn’t mean the newspaper reporting the incident agrees with his antics. Do you see the difference? The New York Times quoted the American Academy of Pediatrics when the new circumcision policy statement was released in 2012. The article was well balanced and cited pro-intact opinions as well.
But if we are going to get all technical n’ shit, I want to share this gem:
Anyone want to take a guess at who that “group” is?
The American Academy of Pediatrics. (AAP)
AWKWARD! The New York Times reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics previously endorsed (ENDORSED!) female genital mutilation because “religion and culture” as recently as 2010. The AAP later retracted their proposal after people went ape shit.
Here’s to you and your “research.”
3.) Making bullshit assumptions and spreading more bullshit.
While the above statement is not inherently false, it is misleading. What is the actual stance of the World Health Organization in regards to circumcision?
“There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.”
The WHO says nothing about infant circumcision. They only support circumcision of men in HIV prevalent countries, which is NOT North America (in case some of you are confused). Sexually acquired HIV is not a risk factor for an infant nor should it be a deciding factor for a child because it’s not even relevant.
BUT WAIT! HANG THE FUCK ON! There’s more.
What about the WHO’s claim that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV up to approximately 60%? Is it true OR bullshit pseudoscience? First of all, the 60% figure comes from a relative rate of reduction. The difference in HIV prevalence between intact and cut men from the study was: 2.49% to 1.18%. The WHO makes it sound as if circumcision will decrease the chance of a heterosexual man contracting HIV by 60%.
It is no secret that the three randomized controlled trials (RTC) are heavily criticized by the global medical and scientific communities. Why? For a shit-load of reasons, but some of the main highlights include:
“Numerous serious flaws in these RCTs included: inadequate equipoise, researcher and participant expectation bias, selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, lead-time bias, attrition bias/participants lost to follow-up, early termination, and failure to control for non-sexual transmission of HIV, all of which most probably exaggerated treatment effects.” Source: American Academy of Pediatrics
“Peer Reviewed” studies? The peer reviewers say: YOUR CRAP SCIENCE IS UNETHICAL BULLSHIT!!
“Billions of dollars to circumcise millions of African males as an HIV infection prevention have been sought, yet the effectiveness of circumcision has not been demonstrated. Data from 109 populations comparing HIV prevalence and incidence in men based on circumcision status were evaluated using meta-regression. The impact on the association between circumcision and HIV incidence/prevalence of the HIV risk profile of the population, the circumcision rates within the population and whether the population was in Africa were assessed. No significant difference in the risk of HIV infection based on the circumcision status was seen in general populations. Studies of high-risk populations and populations with a higher prevalence of male circumcision reported significantly greater odds ratios (odds of intact man having HIV) (p < .0001). When adjusted for the impact of a high-risk population and the circumcision rate of the population, the baseline odds ratio was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.56-1.09). No consistent association between presence of HIV infection and circumcision status of adult males in general populations was found. When adjusted for other factors, having a foreskin was not a significant risk factor. This undermines the justification for using circumcision as a primary preventive for HIV infection.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25760456/
Let’s take this a step further:
If we are to assume the male foreskin harbors dangerous bacteria and viruses, we would see a significant decrease in HIV among countries with a high circumcision rate. The truth is, there is no discernible difference. Look at it this way, there is a reason why most of the world’s parents are not trying to circumcise their infants as a way to prevent disease.
The circumcised US actually has a higher rate of HIV infection than intact Europe. How’s that for a fun fact?
4.) Believing circumcision pain is equivalent to baby shots.
Hmmm, do I want a needle-prick? Or do I want someone to forcibly spread my legs and saw off my clitoral hood?
But if you’re really convinced circumcision isn’t that painful for a baby, you can watch one of the many YouTube video on neonatal circumcision. Don’t worry. The surgery is “very simple.”
Currently, there is no proven method to eliminate circumcision pain according to a study measuring effective types of pain relief for neonates.
Even if a child is too young to hold a conscious memory of the procedure, the body still remembers. When the body experiences pain or trauma, the adrenal gland releases a stress hormone called “cortisol.” Elevated levels of cortisol in a newborn have proven to negatively affect brain development. Infant trauma has real life-long consequences in adults including: increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, hyperactivity/attention disorder, impaired social skills, and patterns of self-destructive behavior. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10657682/ ; Science Daily: Pain In Infancy Alters Response to Stress, Anxiety Later in Life
Suppose the procedure is pain-free, would that excuse it? No, it wouldn’t. Because circumcision is a permanent, irreversible procedure and should only be done to consenting adults and in the case of an immediate medical need. Don’t hate. All I want is for boys to have the same right to genital integrity as girls. American Girls have legal protection from non-therapeutic surgery on their genitals. Why is it so much to ask for boys?
“Shouldn’t the fact that you are comforting yourself by saying ‘He won’t remember it’ tell you that what you’re about to do is not good? You admit circumcision is unethical and inhumane the moment you have to justify it by saying your child won’t remember it.” – Seth Grimmr, Human Rights Activist
5.) Dropping the erroneous “hygiene” argument.
Which medical professionals recommend it for basic little boy hygiene?
The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis (glans) by a delicate membrane and naturally separates over time. The foreskin does not fully retract until the average age of ten. During the circumcision, the foreskin must be forcibly separated from the glans before the cutting even begins. It’s akin to ripping a fingernail from a finger.
There is no “extra” cleaning required for intact boys. In fact, intact boys are easier to clean than circumcised boys. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9393302/ Some of you may have chosen to circumcise your son because you thought you’d be constantly cleaning and fiddling with his penis. Sorry to say, you were misinformed. You may as well have circumcised him to prevent unicorn attacks.
Many parents are advised to forcibly retract the foreskin and clean underneath. This is not only bad advice, but can be very painful and permanently damaging to a child. Forceful retraction causes micro-tears in the delicate tissue resulting in inflammation and infection. Of course, many parents are just doing what they were instructed to do by a “medical professional.” Imagine if they told people to swab their daughter’s vaginas out with a Q-tip at every diaper change. Infection city? Oh yeah.
Wash your penis, it’s not that big, and not that difficult
Furthermore, what is more hygienic than an open wound in a diaper exposed to urine and feces?
The hygiene argument isn’t even valid. If we want to justify cutting healthy tissue from a boy’s private parts for “hygiene” we should start with women. Women get more infections (such as UTI’s), have more folds for bacteria to hide, bleed once a month, and have a retractable foreskin. Would it be logical to remove parts of women’s genitals for “hygiene?” Why not? Because it’s cruel, oppressive, sexist, and overall bigoted? Well, yeah.
The hygiene argument is a residual idea from the Victorian Era. American doctors from the late 1800’s prescribed circumcision as a treatment for masturbation. They believed that burping the worm lead to insanity and eventually death. Sexuality back then was viewed as sinful and inherently dirty and dangerous. So when you say, “circumcision is cleaner,” what you’re actually saying is, “sexual libido is dirty.” A cut penis is a pure and righteous penis.
Why do you think circumcision became highly medicalized in America but not other developed countries? Because Americans are prude assholes. That’s why.
Don’t hate on Americans though. Female cutting cultures spout the same malarkey.
“[Female Circumcision] It takes away excessive libido from women
It prevents unpleasant odor’s which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.
It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections
It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.
In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:
With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.”
Circumcision to reduce the risk of UTI’s (Urinary Tract Infections)? The overall risk of a UTI for an infant boy is 1%. (Girls are at a higher risk due to shorter urethras. Girls receive antibiotics, not genital surgery.)
“Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111. “
“Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative. Source: Meatal Stenosis: Background
“But…but…but, the benefits outweigh the risks….”
Of course, forcefully retracting the foreskin actually causesUTI’s and penile inflammation.
When will this circus of stupid end?
Penile Cancer? Fuckin’ really? Is it possible that penis reduction surgery (circumcision) would reduce the risk of cancer? Sure. But only in the foreskin, the part of the body that a cut man no longer has. The only way to prevent penile cancer is to chop off the entire penis. So let’s cut out the vulva of baby girls to prevent vulvar cancer. Because:
According to many pro-circumcision dip-shits, the male foreskin in infancy is “just a flap of skin” removed by a “simple and nearly painless procedure.”
But on a grown man, the foreskin suddenly turns on its owner and becomes a-huge-smelly-confusing-Rubik’s-cube, and if removed, the pain is so bad that getting finger-fucked by zombies outside a Bed, Bath, and Beyond is merciful by comparison.
But how common is a medically necessary circumcision?
According to a study from Finland, where you know, they aren’t trying to rip back baby foreskins to clean underneath, the risk is 1 in 16,667. To put this into perspective, your son has a 1 in 1000 chance of developing breast cancer. It makes more sense to remove his breast buds than part of his penis.
Doctors shouldn’t be recommending circumcision, but for some reason, society assumes that medical school makes a person immune to psychopathic behavior. Granted some doctors are horribly misinformed and some just enjoy skinning things for a good time.
8.) Carving a sexual preference into a child.
I’m not sure what the sexual preference of an adult (specifically a boy’s mother) has to do with his penis. I guess she plans on using it someday? Not sure. But aesthetics should never be brought up in a conversation about a child’s sex organs, ever. That is creepy and disgusting.
Since “looks” were mentioned though, take a glance at the below comparisons. Which looks better to you?
It doesn’t matter which one looks better to you. What matters is that the owner of the penis gets to decide what looks better to HIM. If a man wants to be circumcised, he can make that choice himself as a consenting adult. Shit, he can get it done in an afternoon. If a cut man wants to be intact? He cannot magically regrow his foreskin. He’s fucked.
An option that some men are pursuing is foreskin restoration. This does not replace everything that circumcision takes away, but it brings back the gliding mechanism and glans coverage, some of the many functions that are lost to circumcision. Much like ear gauging, foreskin restoration is painless and encourages the growth of new skin and it slowly covers the glans over a period of four to six years. It would be irresponsible to think your son could just restore if he isn’t happy with his circumcision, therefore the surgery is justifiable. I’m sure he’ll be cursing your name with every tug, for the next four to six years.
“Before I began restoring, I had extremely tight, painful erections, with little to no pleasure. After starting restoration, I no longer have tight painful erections and I have an incredible amount of pleasure.” – Race Allen Craft, Restorer and Activist
9.) Downplaying the harms of circumcision while hiding behind laws that protect your own gender.
Imagine if these babies were little girls, would that change your perspective?
“I am a thirty year-old white woman from the American South, born in a Catholic hospital to non-religious parents and I was circumcised. I’m missing more than most FGM victims, and yet I’m still thankful I’m not a man. If I were a man, I’d be missing my g-spot, even as a mutilated woman, I still have that. I still orgasm. I had a child (though birth was difficult). They are equally atrocious acts, but speaking in terms of loss, men lose much much more.” -Amber Baxley, Activist
In America, female genital mutilation (classified as removal of partial or all female genitalia without medical need, pin-pricks and nicks included) was outlawed in 1997. Although the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – Section 1, 14th Amendment, United States Constitution.
According to the US Constitution, not only do males have a right to their own property, (the right to keep all their normal, natural body parts intact) but the US must enforce laws to protect males just like they currently do for females. It is about equality. If you do not support a male child’s right to keep his natural body intact so he can make decisions regarding his own body and sexuality, you do not support equality. It’s that simple.
10.) Having no idea what “pro-choice” means.
Children are not property and parents do not own their bodies. Exactly why do you want to own your son’s penis? Does it make you feel big? Does it make you feel powerful?
The foreskin ignorance in America is so thick, I could tie it around my neck and hang myself.
I consider myself “pro-choice” too but I support a man’s choice to make this decision for himself. If you wouldn’t support a parent’s choice to circumcise their daughter, it doesn’t make sense to support it for their son. Unless you’re a sexist bigot, of course.
11.) BONUS! Believing that Female Genital Mutilation is “worse” than male circumcision.
By now, many of you have heard of “female genital mutilation.” You’ve likely read about the sadistic shit they do to girls in the name of “culture.”
When you think of female genital mutilation, you probably think of a little girl being dragged into a straw hut and forcibly raped with a broken bottle or rusty razor, her genitals mutilated, bleeding, and barely recognizable. The truth is, this form of FGM is the rarest form. The most extreme, yes, but the rarest form. It typically takes place in unsanitary conditions in regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.
The most common forms of FGM take place in a sterile medical setting, just like male circumcision in America. They typically remove the female foreskin for reasons mirroring the reasons we do for males: greed, ignorance, fear, myth, religion, superstition, bullshit fuckery non-sense. American girls are legally protected but “culture” doesn’t stop some people from mutilating their daughters. Almost 500,000 women and girls living in the US are victims of FGM. Education is our most powerful ally.
I often hear this: “But they are not comparable.”
They are not comparable you say? Even a small clitoral nick or a piercing is considered FGM, but removing the entire prepuce of a male is “not as bad as FGM?”
If a child was raped, surely you wouldn’t first ask if the child was male or female before determining the severity of the assault. If a child was beaten, you wouldn’t decide that it was worse if the child was female rather than male.
So why do you use this logic when children (male, female, and intersex) are held down against their will and a knife taken to their most sensitive private parts?
Take some time, digest this material. Look up the policies on circumcision for yourself. Read the entire statement. Read the studies. Educate yourself on cultural or societal conditioning. Learn the functions of the foreskin, learn about genital anatomy, and learn about human rights. If you’ve done all of that and still choose to be “pro-circumcision” or “pro-parent’s choice” you’re not only a douche bag, you’re an asshole.