Counter-Currents
1,662 words
Moving en masse on city streets with their white button-down shirts and white pants, the men cut quite a figure. Clad head-to-toe in white and moving as if they’re on a vengeance mission, they are reminiscent of the futuristic British droogs in the Anthony Burgess novel and Stanley Kubrick film — until you notice that they’ve splattered their crotch areas with bright red paint.
Call it A Crotchwork Orange.
They call themselves Bloodstained Men, and they’ve taken to the streets to protest the routine genital mutilation of male American infants in the form of circumcision. Preaching the values of “Genital Integrity for All” and “Foreskin Positivity,” the loose consortium of self-proclaimed “intactivists” was founded in 2012 and travels to an estimated 60 American cities per year, startling passersby with their giant red crotch stains and placards that scream with slogans such as:
I WANT MY FORESKIN BACK
NOBODY WANTS LESS PENIS
CIRCUMCISERS BELONG IN PRISON
GENITALS SHOULD NOT HAVE SCARS
I REGRET CUTTING MY SON’S PENIS
STOP CUTTING BABY PENIS
IT’S NOT YOUR MOTHER’S PENIS
Bloodstained Men’s President and CEO David Atkinson explains their trademarked hyper-theatrical “Bloodstained Suits”
We wear all white with red paint on our crotch to represent the wound that was inflicted on us, without our consent, when we were children. We find that this is a very striking costume and it gets people’s attention, and it makes them realize that when you cut a baby’s penis you are forever damaging the penis of the man he will become. This is a permanent, unnecessary, harmful alteration to the genitals of a perfectly healthy child.
I was born in the early 1960s and went “under the knife,” as did 90% of American males at the time, but it wasn’t until I accidentally stubbed my toe on a story about Bloodstained Men while poring over the news that I pondered whether being forcibly subjected to painful genital mutilation at birth may have contributed toward my anger-management issues and propensity toward violence.
As a fan of, but never a participant in, hysterical political street theater as well as a lifelong admirer of rhetorical hyperbole, I’ve spent the last 24 hours amusing myself at the desperate passion of Bloodstained Men and similar groups such as Intaction and Saving Sons. It would be inaccurate to refer to such foreskin-defenders as “brothers in arms,” but I feel that describing them as “spiritual brothers dedicated to the preservation of the third leg” joins them all together under one giant stretched-out skin tent.
I’ve never been one to avoid videos titled “I feel maimed and I feel mutilated” or books that are titled Unspeakable Mutilations but then have the contradictory subtitle Circumcised Men Speak Out.
According to one source, the negative effects of f0rced postnatal circumcision include, but are not limited to:
– terror
– post traumatic stress
– recurring genital pain
– sexual dysfunction
– visceral flashbacks
– helplessness/hopelessness
– anger & hostility
– desire for revenge
– spiritual betrayal
– religious alienation
– sexual compulsivity
– body dysmorphic disorder
– loss of self-esteem
– feelings of shame
– infliction of self-harm
– suicidal & homicidal ideation
– betrayal of parental trust
– familial alienation
– sleep disorders & nightmares
– antipathy toward doctors
– anti-Semitism
– misogyny
Hold on — anti-Semitism? Upon sober reflection, I suppose it makes sense. Not only are Jews almost universally circumcised — it’s mandated in Chapter 17 of Genesis — but certain subsects of ultra-Orthodox Jewry practice metzitzah b’peh, which involves sucking the blood from a freshly-circumcised infant’s penis and, according to the venerable New York Post, has resulted in at least two dozen cases of infant herpes in New York City since the year 2000, as well as two deaths and two cases of brain damage. Metzitzah b’peh was allegedly first mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, but Bloodstained Men’s David Atkinson dismisses the notion that intactivism leads to Jew-hatred as “a bunch of nonsense. . . . Circumcision is anti-Semitic itself because it harms Jews.” Proving that Jews can fall on either side of the Foreskin Question, there’s even a 98-minute video called “Jews Against Circumcision.”
Considering that circumcision is also mandatory throughout the Islamic world, one could also make a case that intactivism is Islamophobic.
And since female genital mutilation is now considered beyond the pale while male circumcision is largely deemed to be no big deal, taking pro-foreskin agitation to the streets may also appeal to the wounded egos and scarred pleasure centers of large swaths of the manosphere.
You can buy Jim Goad’s Whiteness: The Original Sin here.
Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and misogyny all wrapped up tightly in the same skin tortilla — I’m tellin’ you kids, this has the potential to become the latest Dissident Right cause célèbre!
Feast, if you’re so inclined, on the deep emotional pain evinced in the testimonials of men who are told that they were born into a patriarchy but were instead birthed in a climate where part of their manhood was ripped screaming from their bodies the moment they sploshed out of their mother’s womb:
I [too] was raped and mutilated as a baby. Taken away to a dark corner of a hospital strapped down while knives and clamps were put to my most precious sacred body part. A good lesson taught to us at birth with sugar stuffed into our mouths [common infant pain relief] as we suffer the worst pain of our whole lives. With no coping mechanisms and no support from family or society we are left to stoop ourselves into drugs and alcohol with no understanding or escape from a sense of violation in the deepest parts of our psyche.
I didn’t ask for this . . . blades, sharp objects, can-opening devices are put to my most sacred body part. I’m just absolutely raped, abused, filleted open, as if I’m some kind of experiment.
I hate my parents! I can’t imagine what physical pain and psychological damage I’ve gone through when I was only one day old!! When it wasn’t necessary!! . . . A baby infant boy deserves to be cuddled just like a baby girl, not to be strapped down and have a sensitive part of his body which he owns by birthright chopped off. . . . I hate my parents and I hate that I hate them but I can’t help it!!
The intactivists even claim that the deep trauma of forced infantile circumcision has led to suicide.
Jonathon Conte helped launch Bloodstained Men with a red-crotched protest outside the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Convention in New Orleans. Four years later, he killed himself.
At the age of eight months, Canadian infant David Reimer underwent a botched circumcision with an electrocautery needle that burned his entire penis off his body. At the urging of a physician from Johns Hopkins, his family elected to transform David into a little girl named Brenda. But his male instincts eventually triumphed, and David spent much of his later years as a man with a surgically implanted penis whose longsuffering wife endured his volatile mood swings until the day David blew off his own head with a shotgun at age 38.
The Intaction website relates the story of a young man identified only as “Thad” who was said to have killed himself due to circumcision’s lingering trauma — although it doesn’t even attempt to explain why, at least not to my satisfaction, especially since Thaddeus is my middle name.
The modern defenders of infant penile mutilation — such as the American Academy of Pediatrics — argue that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks.” They list some of the risks of having an intact foreskin as “urinary tract infections, increased chances of STDs including HPV, HIV and . . . penile cancer.”
In the late 1800s, circumcision proponents had far more entertaining reasons than they do today. It was thought that since the foreskin contains thousands of nerve endings, slouching uncut into pubescence encouraged the “vile” practice of masturbation. In his 1882 book Plain Facts for Young and Old, John Harvey Kellogg — he of cornflakes fame — encouraged circumcision as a cure for self-pleasuring among rambunctious young males:
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.
In 1894, Dr. Peter C. Remondino of the National Popular Review wrote that “the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race is an efficient remedy in preventing their predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that race.”
While modern opponents of circumcision don’t generally tend to be as dramatic and bombastic as groups such as Bloodstained Men, they claim that botched circumcisions cause hundreds of male infant deaths yearly that are sometimes hidden on death certificates with alibis such as shock, sepsis, hemorrhage, or seizure. They say that next to appendectomies, circumcision is the second-most common surgery in America and thus represents a billion-dollar industry that is almost entirely unnecessary. They point out that circumcised infant foreskins can fetch a pretty penny on the medical-research market, with none of that money going to the parents or the mutilated baby. They also allege that science has yet to come to grips with the lifelong toll of psychological pain and diminished sexual pleasure wrought upon the male half of the public as a result of what is largely an outdated and barbaric practice.
The day my son was born in July 2008, doctors asked me and his mother if we wanted him circumcised. Based merely on aesthetics — the pachydermal appearance of the uncut penis and rumors that smegma would be an olfactory nightmare for his eventual female partners — we assented to the procedure.
About an hour later, when they returned him to the hospital room fairly roaring in unhinged pain, we regretted the decision and have regretted it ever since.
I mean, he’s not even Jewish.
Nearly 20 years ago, I had an idea for a horror movie wherein the discarded foreskins in a dumpster behind a hospital magically congeal and resurrect themselves as an all-consuming pink monster that preys upon obstetricians who line their pockets by mutilating boys’ genitals.
I think it’s time I finally wrote that screenplay.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
45 comments
Harlan Ellison (foreskinless Jew) wrote a story (‘Croatoan’) about what happens to all the aborted fetuses which end up in the sewer. He apparently went further and got a vasectomy after writing it. It shouldn’t surprise me if Clive Barker has written something about penises. Rawhead Rex in his Books of Blood (vol. 3) was an explicitly ambulatory giant phallic monster defeated by pregnant women.
I would highly recommend the film Bad Biology by Frank Henenlotter for more on this subject. It’s……something else.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VceC5utyAvM
Interesting looking film. Barker wrote a number of stories (in his Books of Blood) about uncontrollable libido. He also has a story about a possessed tumor. The foreskin monster sounds a little like Basket Case meets Re-animator.
Well, it’s directed by the man who did the Basket Case movies, so good eye. Certainly not his best work, but definitely one of a kind. The ending must be seen to be believed.
I’m a huge Clive Barker fan as well. I think my favorite story from The Books Of Blood is Dread. What a lousy movie adaptation though. If you love the story as I do and haven’t seen the movie, don’t waste your time. It totally ruined the amazing surprise ending. I think the only good adaptations of his stories by other directors are Candyman and The Midnight Meat Train. If I could choose one of his short stories to be made into a film, I would have to pick Son Of Celluloid, hands down.
If foreskin is such a bad thing as US doctors claim, then we would have evolved not to have foreskin. Doctors rarely know better than natural selection: https://mensrightsreview.com/2018/01/04/the-many-manifestations-of-male-genital-mutilation-from-circumcision-to-sub-incision-and-castration/
I don’t understand the aversion to circumcision. Any time I see an unsnipped wang, it’s disgusting looking, and perhaps that’s because mine doesn’t look like that. But I’m perfectly fine with it. And regarding it being a method to prevent boys from playing with themselves, that NEVER was a problem for my little horny, thirteen year old self. Hell, I’ve jacked it three times since breakfast.
I’m with you Lee. I am full on Alt-Right on every issue but this. I can remember going to the public pool as a little kid. We all had to shower nude before swimming. Almost everybody was circumcised. Those few that weren’t looked very odd. I have never had any problems, pains or sexual dis-function and I have never heard any of my friends (all circumcised) complain either. I am 100% for male circumcision if that is what the parents want. I am glad my parents wanted it for me. I just don’t understand the fuss; we have much more important things to talk about.
There is no medical reason for circumcision, it’s just another way for doctors to make a quick buck. The studies about penile cancer turned out to be false, in European countries, where circumcision is rare, there is not a higher rate of penile cancer. Circumcision is a Middle Eastern custom, not a traditional European one.
Fair enough. I’d rather not have to deal with dick cheese, but to each his own.
You wash between your toes, don’t you? Cleanliness is a European custom, not so much in the Middle East.
I was thinking “A Cockwork Orange” myself.
hahahahaha
“Nearly 20 years ago, I had an idea for a horror movie wherein the discarded foreskins in a dumpster behind a hospital magically congeal and resurrect themselves as an all-consuming pink monster that preys upon obstetricians who line their pockets by mutilating boys’ genitals. I think it’s time I finally wrote that screenplay.”
Comedy Central sort of beat you to the punch in their one season Freak Show cartoon where “Primi” a premature Jewish baby that speaks like an adult needs to get circumcised, gets circumcised, and his foreskin morphs into the Jewish messiah. It’s a pretty funny episode, “Mohel-me-not.” It’s pretty irreverent, I don’t think this episode could be made in the current year. In the episode, Judaism gets “bought out” by some big capital hedge fund, just to give you an idea of what I mean when I say “irreverent.”
You had me cracking up on the smegma commentary. Having been cut later in life I think it’s worth it and a good thing to do as soon as the baby is born. I find being cut a lot more “clean” than uncut. If there’s any sort of medical issue, like phimosis, it may be hard for a teenage boy or adult man to deign to go under the knife. I personally know someone who refuses to be circumcised despite multiple doctors suggesting otherwise to treat his phimosis diagnosis. Rather than cure the disease, the poor soul treats the symptoms with steroid creams that also do God knows what.
On the note of natural selection, if someone has say phimosis and it’s difficult for them to have sex, then natural selection would favor circumcision via the artificial selection act of circumcising.
I don’t think you should be too hard on yourself opting to circumcise your son and in turn reducing his risk for phimosis or balinitis to virtually zero.
Phimosis = a foreskin that does not fully retract. Apparently, it affects 10% of men, but it is a problem in only a tiny percentage whose foreskins are extremely tight.
Circumcising infants to prevent phimosis removes 9 healthy foreskins for every one with phimosis. Would that be permitted with any other medical procedure?
If an adult thinks his foreskin is too tight, he can always get it removed. Removing part of a baby’s body without medical cause or consent should not be permitted.
Why not amputate their feet while you are at it, to spare some of them the pain of gout?
I think it’s somewhat obtuse to compare circumcision with foot amputations.
Unless something changed, as of 2012, the American Association of Pediatrics diplomatically said without outright recommending that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. So in a way there is a medical cause inherent to all circumcisions.
That being said, I also respect that some people deign not to circumcise their sons due to concerns of consent and pain. It’s one of those things where both sides are right.
The British Medical Association, in line with the medical governing bodies of all Western nations save the US, disagrees: what does that tell you?
The routine circumcision of infants cannot be justified on medical grounds — as Greg Johnson has pointed out, the NNT (numbers needed to treat) for the adverse conditions it is asserted to prevent are higher than for any other paediatric prophylactic surgery.
This is a cultural/aesthetic practice adopted from the Semitic world (the Talmud declares ‘the foreskin is disgusting’ ) contrary to the norms of ancient Greek, Roman, Celtic, Slavic and Germanic peoples alike. We should ask how this has come about.
It is far more sensible to remove the genetic trait of phimosis from the population via natural selection aided by conscious eugenics. Circumcision allows for hereditary phimosis to pass through the filter of sexual selection.
I would add by the way that the best arguments against circumcision are not moral (pain or consent) but pertinent to a) that there is wisdom and beauty in how nature forms a normal healthy human body and b) that removing foreskin probably reduces sensitivity of the penis.
A clear headed assessment of the issue would lead anyone to see that infant circumcision should be left to the Jews and religious fanatics. Those who are circumcised and still support it are motivated by vanity and are coping.
This issue isn’t necessarily a huge deal— but it’s still a stupid custom that is waning in popularity and it’s better that it disappear among white people sooner than later.
Phimosis is not some kind of permanent defect. It’s a fixable condition in most cases. There are countless medical conditions in both male and female of our species, especially occurring over the past few generations, where biological degeneration is increasing. No need to fixate on this one thing. No one is in a state of normal health anymore.
Circumcising infants to prevent phimosis removes 9 healthy foreskins for every one with phimosis.
In circumcising societies, circumcision for socalled phimosis is the “cure” first attempted. The reality is that in other parts of the world, where infant circ’n is not common, they generally try other methods.
Also, in cut-happy societies, it’s the same with any other problem down there – doctors go for the scalpel and remove a body part because they themselves have disturbed feelings about normal genitalia or sex in general. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Also, I think that figure of 10 percent may be too high.
Phimosis, even in this day and age, is overdiagnosed. Some male foreskins don’t naturally retract until the mid teens.
I find it strange that of all the white nations, only England and other English speaking countries adopted this sick practice. What is wrong with those people? You can’t automatically attribute this to the high population of jewish doctors 100 years ago, because all the other European nations had plenty of jewish doctors as well. There are various theories as to why the British royal family came to be enthusiastic about circ’n, but that would not necessarily explain the rate of 90% in the USA, Australia, Canada, etc. during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, even in small towns.
This is child torture, plain and simple. I thought that there would be 1,000 comments on this topic by now in response to Jim Goad’s column.
A man who was circumcised as an adult said of the pre- and post-cut sexual experience:
“A circumcised man doesn’t experience pleasure – only relief.”
They say it’s like seeing 3-dimensionally VS seeing with only one eye. I don’t know – I haven’t as yet had an eye knocked out by some pro-babycutter losing his temper with me.
Much appreciation to Jim for his honesty as regards his regrets at having his son “done”. However, his motivation was really quite odd. He had no worries about the females in his life having problems with smegma? Tsk Tsk. Smegma is both necessary and good, just as perspiring and menstruation are good. That they stink like hell if ignored for a period of time somehow escaped Jim at the time. Even animals know to clean themselves down there, but humans apparently have to be trained.
I knew a man who killed himself over his circumcision as an infant. His is a true horror story of heavy scarring, lack of any normal sexual response where attempts at sex were concerned, but constant pain otherwise, day and night (and so on and so forth. It gets worse but never mind. ) Endless visits to various doctors, which proved useless. Told to take sitz baths. Right.
We were “just friends”, we were not having sex, but he blurted all this rage and grief out on quite a few occasions. Before God, every word of this is true.
“The Humongous” is unfortunately taken. Awful movie don’t see it.
How about “The Humongous Homunculus”?
Has Jim considered epispasm?
In the Greco-Roman world, intact genitals (including the foreskin) were seen as a mark of beauty and masculinity; exposing the glans was considered disgusting. Jews in Ancient Rome – where athletes competed nude – didn’t want to stick out like a sore thumb and so adopted this early form of foreskin restoration.
Pedant moment: at the beginning of Clockwork Orange the novel, the droogs are described as wearing black.
Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation.
It is as natural a process as the cutting off of an umbilical cord.
The foreskin serves its purpose in the womb. Once birth has taken place, like the umbilical cord, it too has to go.
As for the Jewish practice of oral suction, well, it’s a truly vile tradition. What else can one expect from a people whose ancestors abused and made fun of the Prophets, displayed obstinacy, and rejected Truth not once but twice?
Your reasoning in the first 3 paragraphs is faulty.
The umbilical cord will dry up and fall off in it’s own time. Surgical removal is a convenience, not a necessity. It saves the mother eating it, as animal mothers do (PBUH Animal Mother) or removing it herself.
This is not the case with the foreskin and I believe your assertion is not a good natured mistake.
I smell Malice.
This is satire, right?
That is sophistry. Religious people whose god says this or that is required always come up with stuff like you’re saying here.
@James Kirkpatrick
Sophistry is the overestimation of human ‘rationality’.
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Simply saying that is so much more tolerable and less insulting to everyone’s intelligence than pretending an irrational divine dictate is sane.
You might want to get a few feminine views on this subject. Long, long ago, in my memory, I was shocked at the uncircumcised appendage when I first encountered it, and couldn’t imagine anything other than the ‘missionary’ position. Like I say, it was a long time ago, and that relationship didn’t last for other reasons. But feel free to refute my observation.
Why would anyone want a woman’s opinion about this? How is a woman’s opinion in any way relevant to a discussion about male bodily integrity? I can barely comprehend the sheer narcissism necessary to believe that we should slice up a baby’s genitals to please random women who may or may not have sex with those genitals thirty years later.
Believe this or not, but it is true: I met a man who, when in his twenties, was engaged to be married to a woman who took a dim view of the normal sex organ. She, and this man’s mother, colluded to talk him into getting cut before the wedding. So he went along with this. Middle class, urban, white people, in the 1960s. The doctor who delivered this baby was not in favor of circ’n and that is why he escaped the knife at that time when circn was incredibly poppular.
This man’s father was not cut, by the way. Such was the craze back then. There are millions of old men today who were circ’ed starting about 1935 or so, even though their fathers were not. Women, at least back then, were so easily convinced. Any doctor who liked this particular fad was all-powerful over stupid women and their husbands.
A man who urged the surgical correction of female pudenda on aesthetic grounds would, in the Western world at least, be considered a lunatic.
@Vehmgericht
Not at all. “female genital rejuvenation” is a roaring business. Here, let Dr Rajat Gupta explain it all for you.
https://drrajatgupta.com/genital-rejuvenation/procedure-of-genital-rejuvenation/
Back when you could say these things, maybe 15 years ago, there was an item on a radio program where the broadcaster stated that the Chinese (in North America, at least) were particularly into this kind of thing. It was done at the request of the husband. However, white men apparently like that clean smooth look as well. Makes me wonder, is that what people do – examine, repeatedly and closely, the genitals of the person they are married to or carrying on with? How very odd.
I’ll make it easy for you: some men want women’s external genitalia to resemble those of young, preadolescent girls. If you can’t have sex relations with toddlers for fear of getting into trouble with the law, just get the old lady to resemble one.
If the majority of male organs you saw in your youth were circumcised, then it is no surprise if the odd uncut member shocked you by its appearance. I think it only looks weird when not erect. Watching porn as a young man, I thought the cut penises looked alien.
Your comment about sexual positions doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t be able to see the penis penetrating you in any position, missionary, doggy, you on top, unless you made a point to look at it.
But overall, I echo Sherman’s comment that women should have zero say on the matter.
I was surprised to see the USA at 71% as opposed to Iceland at 0.1%. … (For what it’s worth, I think it’s unnecessary, and seems to be in the decline in certain nations such as Australia).
Percentage of circumcised males in each of the 237 countries and territories in the world
Speaking of Australia, I was born in 1969 and it was ‘routine’ (yeah, I know…) here. When I was at school if someone had a ‘bottle-dick’ (I was shocked when I heard that back in ’79-’80) it was a ‘sensation’ in the towel-room. One of my peers yells. “He’s got a bottle-dick!” and I had no idea what he was talking about.
Needless to say, my son has a ‘bottle-d**k’, and declared himself a total unbeliever in God, Jesus and Our Horned Lord at the age of eight…without an ounce of a prompt from me or anyone else.
Anyway, thanks Jim, from one Catholic boy to another, for yet another great and witty article!
All the best to everyone here!
A.C
Does jim goad still write for taki?
No.
@ Goad, wonderfully comprehensive article. Everything you ever wanted to know about dick clipping. I was cut shortly after birth, so like a deaf person or a thalidomide baby I know no other existence—this is normal for me and I’m content with what I experience.
Circumcision is in the exactly the same category as other body modifications like tattoos, ear lobe plugs, foot binding, scarification, Ubangi lips, skull deformation, giraffe necks, and the clipping of dogs’ ears and tails. There is nothing normal or natural about it, and I hope it goes the way of the spitoon.
Epispasm/restoration- There is a part in James Michener’s ‘Tell Makor’ where the Jewish kids are fascinated by Greek culture, and they have their dicks restored in order to compete in the gymnasiums. During the Maccabee Revolt a Jewish dad sees his son naked at a sporting event, and immediately knows he has broken the covenant with the volcano god. He picks up a javelin and bashes the kid’s brain in.
As a witness to one of the mentioned organization’s protests in a town near me, I would caution folks to be wary. It felt like an “op” on decent, unsuspecting folks out here in the heartland. Plus they received fair coverage from the liberal, local media and a nice photo on the front page of the local paper. I can’t guess as to what they were trying to provoke among the local MAGAs but something was off with this crew and their graphic protest signs and costumes.
It is a sign of a certain sectarian influence that this practice, shunned as barbarous by Ancient Greek and Noble Roman alike, is presently a cosmetic norm in the US (as opposed to having been mandated by some jealous deity, or in a minority of cases genuinely indicated for medical reasons). The Indo-European world concurs, save where Islam has made inroads.
No other Western nation’s medical governing body endorses cosmetic operations on childrens’ genitalia and some have even attempted to have such procedures banned for boys, just as they are, rightly and very emphatically, for girls — meeting instant and furious opposition from certain minorities — and, in the recent case of Iceland, the US State Department!
Let us consider consider whether routine infant male circumcision is a genuine boon to our people, or yet another alien practice impressed upon us.
Thank you for your comment. It truly amazes me when jews and muslims ‘demand’ they be allowed to bring their cultural practices with them to Western nations when they migrate from their country of birth. Not only is it rude in the extreme, but the arrogance is off the charts. They should be treated as any bad house guest, and shown the door with no remorse.
I have never been circumcised, and I am grateful that I haven’t been. I’ve never had problems with smegma or other types of filth. I do think it’s very strange that Semites cut part of their genitals off and that Europeans shouldn’t do it. I think that the whole “aesthetics” thing that guys go on about sometimes is just because they don’t want to own up to the trauma of having cut-up genitals. But I still don’t think it’s that big of a deal. It’s not something worth focusing on.
53 His disciples said to him, “Is circumcision useful or not?”
He said to them, “If it were useful, their father would produce children
already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect.”
Gospel of Thomas
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment