who thinks circumcision is sexual assault

[madbr3991]

circumcision is one of the worst things someone can do to a human. i would say circumcision is as bad as rape. im sorry but if you wanted to cause permanent harm to a baby. to rob a child of the sexual experience he was entitled to. you couldn't do better then circumcision. cutting the genitals of a baby or child stealing the most sensitive part of a babies body. i say circumcision is sexual assault.

what do you think?

[tony12345]

I contend that circumcision is worse than rape, check out my testimony on mgmbill.org

[Joseph]

"Rape?! RAPE??!!! RAPE?!! It’s not just rape!!
I’d far prefer rape!"
~Van Lewis

I'll have to agree; circumcision is far worse than child molestation or even rape; at least with rape, the victim gets to keep his/her whole body.

A circumcision victim has to live with the visual scar, the visually different appearance of the circumcised penis, and the fact that part of his penis is missing for the rest of his life.

All so that he'd have a "pretty penis" like mommy and the doctor wanted it.

[z726]

I'd say assault and battery, whatever the proper legal categorization for this crime would be. It doesn't matter, if nobody has the presence of mind to file charges against the perpetrator. The victim, as a child, would be too young to understand, and the parents would have been conned into thinking it was ok by the doctor.

[peterpink]

In legal terms cutting a part off another person's body with or without their permission is called 'assault' in English Law, so is probably similar in the USA. Cultural blindness (and the cost) stops people taking doctors to court.

My opinion is that circumcision is worse that rape. Rape produces physical and mental damage, the physical can heal. Circumcision produces physical and mental damage, the physical can never heal.

I tell people that I was sexually assaulted the day after I was born.

[deadhand31]

This has been a major contributor to a lot of the rage that I am plagued with over my circ. Most people I have talked to say that it isn't sexual assault simply because my parents had authority, and it was because they wanted what was best for me. However, sexual assault does not take intent into account. A few examples:

Pedophiles never believe that they harm a child. They think they're doing something normal, yet taboo (yes, when psychologically examined, this is what the vast majority of pedophiles actually feel.) So.. since the pedophile doesn't THINK he's harming the child, should we give him a pass?

If I were to touch a woman on the shoulder, if she takes great offense to that, it is technically sexual assault. Any kind of unwanted touching, according to the legal system, classifies as sexual assault if the one being touched FEELS violated or threatened, then it is sexual assault. The fact that I may have just wanted to get her attention is irrelevant.

The problem is that few people really understand that circumcision is not something that is done and over, it's a daily consequence. A woman who is raped can, through counseling, learn to enjoy her sexuality again. A man who is circumcised can go through counseling to help deal with the past, but he will never know 100% of what sex is supposed to feel like.

[Joseph]

Most people I have talked to say that it isn't sexual assault simply because my parents had authority, and it was because they wanted what was best for me.

Best for YOU? Or best for THEM?

It's interesting how the "parents have authority" quip works.

It'll work for a boy, but not for a girl, and ONLY when it comes to circumcision.

If a parent uses his/her authority to let the doctor fondle the child's penis while s/he masturbated to orgasm, I'm sure that would be justified "because parents have authority to let that happen."

After all, the child wouldn't even remember it.

[cobra]

I don't think it's right to compare circumcision to the sexual abuse of a child. I am a survivor of both circumcision and child sexual abuse. If I could magically undo one of the two, I would probably undo the sexual abuse. Circumcision can be physically reversed, but the mental damage caused by sexual abuse is just as severe. Maybe more so.

As an sexual abuse survivor, I know I am not the person I would have been had I not been molested. It creates almost a split personality in your psyche, with your normal persona who is happy and lives a normal life, and then the "drone" persona who absorbs the pain and anger at the cost of becoming emotionally dead.

I would rather have one mind in an imperfect body than carry around this fractured part of my psyche the rest of my life.

[Joseph]

Do you think it would have affected you had someone had their way with you at an age where you couldn't remember it?

As with men who can't remember their circumcisions (and more than likely do not wish to), probably not.

Let's keep into perspective that quite a few men in the world (e.g., Africa, the Middle East, Malaysia, etc.) undergo forced circumcisions at an age where they are fully aware and are most likely to remember it.

There's not a doubt in my mind that these boys carry with them "fractured psyches," equal to, or worse than boys who have only been sexually abused without having had parts of their bodies cut off.

I think how much psychological damage each of these kinds of sexual assault inflicts will depend on the age at which they were perpetuated.

Bottom line is though, they're BOTH sexual assault and they're BOTH wrong, and it doesn't matter whether a person could remember it or not. It's still sick, disgusting and perverted and people need to get in trouble for it.

[Joseph]

As an sexual abuse survivor, I know I am not the person I would have been had I not been molested. It creates almost a split personality in your psyche, with your normal persona who is happy and lives a normal life, and then the "drone" persona who absorbs the pain and anger at the cost of becoming emotionally dead.

I would rather have one mind in an imperfect body than carry around this fractured part of my psyche the rest of my life.

I think it's probably about time I came out on this forum as a male sexual abuse survivor...

It's been about 6 years since I've started coping with what happened to me when I was 4yo. I've come quite a long way. I probably wouldn't be where I was today had I decided not start dealing with my past 6 years ago.

It's probably why I'm so vocal on here, as I see circumcision as WORSE than what happened to me.

At any rate, I think I can identify with the above quote. I too feel "I know I am not the person I would have been had I not been molested." However, contrary to you, I'm not sure what my actions would have been had I found out I was circumcised ON TOP of my sexual abuse.

I would have been "damaged goods" both psychologically and physically.

I seriously think this would have driven me over the edge to commit suicide. I couldn't live knowing I was born merely to sexually gratify others with my body, and in more ways than one.

I'm not sure which would I "rather" have had... "one mind in an imperfect body," or my whole body with a fractured psyche for the rest of my life. I would have been abused either way. What a shitty deal to choose from.

[cobra]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I try to apply this to the things I have been through in my life. It's probably why I try to minimize the negativity of circumcision and concentrate instead on the benefits of restoring. I do not want to live my life being a "victim". It's a self-defeating mindset. If you identify yourself as a victim, you will continue to be victimized.

Rather than think I am ruined by circumcision, I try to make my transformation from cut to restored a positive thing. I have experienced sex in ways that few people can claim to have done. It gives one a rather unique insight, and an authority to speak out against genital mutilation that the intact and unrestored cannot claim to have. Rather than dwell on what I have lost, I concentrate on what I have gained.

Rather than dwell on the negative aspects of sexual abuse, I try to concentrate on the positives. There is a positive aspect to it, you know. I am more aware of the bad things people will do. I am not ignorant like my parents were. It gave me the insight to protect my own children more effectively.

I have never contemplated suicide. Insight, mental resilience and determination is what I developed in response to the negatives in my life.

[Aussiebloke]

I do not want to live my life being a "victim". It's a self-defeating mindset. If you identify yourself as a victim, you will continue to be victimized.

Hats off cobra. You have obviously been through a lot and your mental strenght is impressive. Great attitude.

*Deleted. Just because I wanted to. ;) ~Joseph*

[Joseph]

Hats off cobra. You have obviously been through a lot and your mental strenght is impressive. Great attitude.

NOTE: He's not using his own sexual assault to justify it on others.

[Joseph]

Hey Aussie, could we please stay on topic?

Thanks.

[Aussiebloke]

Hey Aussie, could we please stay on topic?

Thanks.

No worries.

I don't think it is sexual assault. And I would appreciate it if you (Joseph) stop modifying my posts when they disagree with you. That is not how a moderator should operate.

[Joseph]

No worries.

I don't think it is sexual assault. And I would appreciate it if you (Joseph) stop modifying my posts when they disagree with you. That is not how a moderator should operate.

It IS sexual assault, and no.

Remember where you are.

There is a difference between posts that "disagree" with me, and when they're off topic.

I WILL delete/modify your posts when they go off topic.

[Aussiebloke]

It IS sexual assault


Great comeback.

It IS NOT sexual assault.

You WILL NOT be able to report a circumcision to police and get them to charge anyone (parent or doctor) of sexual assault.

I understand that you WANT it or HOPE it to be sexual assault. But the FACT is, it is not. All your desires and hopes does not make it fact.

As someone who has been 'sexually assaulted', I'm actually amazed that you feel this way. Did you report your abuse to the police? Did you get justice?

[Joseph]

Great comeback.

It IS NOT sexual assault.

You WILL NOT be able to report a circumcision to police and get them to charge anyone (parent or doctor) of sexual assault.

I understand that you WANT it or HOPE it to be sexual assault. But the FACT is, it is not. All your desires and hopes does not make it fact.

As someone who has been 'sexually assaulted', I'm actually amazed that you feel this way. Did you report your abuse to the police? Did you get justice?

Obviously you know nothing about the subject. Why would you EVER see circumcision as sexual assault?

I'm afraid the person who "wants" or "hopes" circumcision isn't assault is YOU, because you know that you are guilty for allowing it to happen to your own children.

It's the "hope" and "want" of a perpetrator; to be "justified" for what he does.

The fact of the matter is that it's hard to confess that you were sexually assaulted if you're male, because, until recently, more than likely you won't be believed.

In America today, still, male sexual abuse survivors have a hard time getting taken seriously.

There are "rape crisis centers" for women, but not for men. SOME crisis centers offer their services to men, but they're still called "women's crisis centers."

Men are still told to "get over it." To "walk it off." Men are supposed to be men and "take it" like a man.

No, I did not go to the police. I was sexually molested when I was about 4 years old. I'm 28 today. I remember who my perpetrator is, and I've sent him a letter telling him this. That's as far as I will take it.

The fact that police won't charge anyone for an act has no bearing on the fact that it is sexually, physically, emotionally abusive.

Most people don't go to the police because they are ridiculed, especially if they were molested by women. Because a woman was supposed to make a "man" out of you.

Most men don't go to the police because "it happened such a long time ago... who'd believe me?"

Circumcision is no exception. True, police won't charge anyone for it. Most people will not take you seriously if you say you resent the fact that you were circumcised. Most will tell you "it's in the past, get over it."

Just because this is the case doesn't mean circumcision is not the sexual abuse that it is.

It's taken a while, but it's now possible for a man to deal with his abuse. Through the power of the internet I found a men's group, and a psychologist willing to work with me.

It will take a while, but the time will come when a man who is angry he was mutilated as a helpless infant will be able to sue his perpetrator.

True, I'm MUCH better off than I am today. But just because I've been very resilient does not mean that I just walk away and tell other men who were sexually abused "oh get over it. It's nothing, you know?"

No. I understand them and I listen to them; they have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do.

You don't GET it.

You don't get cobra and InnerLogic; you just like that they tell guys that they need to put their circumcisions behind them.

You seem to want to ignore that even though cobra and InnerLogic are at better places then they were yesterday, they STILL think circumcision is fucked up, and they don't endorse it. (It's real funny how you come into this forum all matter-of-fact, and post how we pay attention "only to what helps our case.")

I'm MUCH better than I was 4 or 5 years ago.

But that doesn't mean I don't still think what happened to me was wrong and should STOP.

The sexual abuse continues, and men continue to suck it up and not talk about it because this is what is EXPECTED of them.

Men don't take this to the police because they're embarrassed and they know what kind of crap they'll get.

Circumcision is just another side of the coin; it's the physical sado-pedophilic side of child abuse.

Sorry if you don't like this uncomfortable truth.

[Aussiebloke]

The fact that police won't charge anyone for an act has no bearing on the fact that it is sexually, physically, emotionally abusive.

True, police won't charge anyone for it.

So in a court of law......it is NOT sexual abuse. Your opinion does not make it fact.

[Joseph]

So in a court of law......it is NOT sexual abuse. Your opinion does not make it fact.

It actually technically IS... "in a court of law."

Existing laws just need to be put into practice.

That will happen sooner than you know it, Aussie.

[Aussiebloke]

It actually technically IS... "in a court of law."

Existing laws just need to be put into practice.

That will happen sooner than you know it, Aussie.

Keep dreamin'.

But to clarify. If it was seen in a court, it would not be under a charge of sexual abuse.

[Joseph]

Keep dreamin'.

But to clarify. If it was seen in a court, it would not be under a charge of sexual abuse.

Oh, but it will, Aussie.

I'm afraid the one who is dreaming is you.

Men WILL take their sadistic sexual perpetrators to court.

Indeed, some already have.

It is no dream.

:)

[Joseph]

In argument terms, appealing to authority (ie, police, courts etc.) is called "ad verecundiam." You are right, currently authorities do not recognize circumcision as the sexual abuse it is, but this proves nothing; the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so.

When something is true, it is true in and of itself. The circumcision of infants is sexual, physical and emotional abuse.

Sexual because it involves the child's sex organs. When someone circumcises a child because it makes him "more attractive," that person is gratifying him/herself by making the child "more attractive." The child has absolutely no say in the matter. The child is unwittingly being made a sex object. Furthermore, this diminishes his sexual experience for the rest of his life. A child has to live with a Beta penis; second-hand sex organs. A mutilated penis is NOT what a child was born with.

That the circumcision of a healthy child is physical abuse goes without saying. Clearly, adults are taking advantage of the fact that a child is defenseless to inflict elective, cosmetic, non-medical mutilation on his body. The child must live with mangled organs for the rest of his life. In some cases, the child is left with dysfunctional organs. He is also being put at the risk of death, a risk finally getting some attention.

Circumcision is emotional abuse. You needn't go beyond this forum to see that. Telling a man that he should appreciate having been abused is insult to injury. Victims of other rape undergo the same emotional abuse. "You enjoyed it." "Get over it." "Move on with your life." Disgruntled circumcised men are standing up and saying NO.

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is sexual assault. It is sexual abuse. It is child rape.

It may not be currently recognized as such by authorities; touche.

However this is secondary. Laws are dynamic and are subject to change; at one point in this country's history, slaves didn't have rights. Women couldn't vote, and so forth.

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors IS sexual assault, it is the violation of basic human rights and it is only a matter of time before it will be legally recognized as such.

[Aussiebloke]

You are right, currently authorities do not recognize circumcision as the sexual abuse it is

Thanks buddy.

[photenman]

A law review article was published in 1984 by William E. Brigman called, "CIRCUMCISION AS CHILD ABUSE: THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES". He argued that circumcision is child abuse. It's online at http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/. Since then a lot of legal articles have called it child abuse and criminal assault.

The child abuse laws are very straightforward. No one can intentionally injure a child at all.

Also when Congress expressly banned female genital cutting, it found that it already violated federal and state constitutional, statutory and civil laws. That is, it was illegal before Congress expressly banned it. Those same laws that applied already to females apply to males as well.

E.g., it's unconstitutional. It violates the right to security of the person or privacy or bodily integrity. That's the right to genital integrity that you hear about. So even if a court thought/wrote that it was legal, it isn't.

Religious reasons are no defense to child abuse. Parents don't have any right to violate child abuse laws either. Parents have a legal duty to protect their children. And doctors cannot violate child abuse laws. They have a legal duty to protect and not to harm their patients. They cannot lawfully amputate healthy body parts which they themselves call not medically justified.

It's all very clear that's it's illegal. The lawsuits are coming.

[Aussiebloke]

So the charge would be 'child abuse' and not 'sexual abuse'.

[Americut]

So the charge would be 'child abuse' and not 'sexual abuse'.

Sounds like both.

The charge is child abuse. The crime involves the child's sex organ. Yes crime, as explained in Photenman's link.

I don't see why you are concerned with what it's called. If you strap anyone down and cut off a pieces of their genitals, you are sexually assaulting them. Their age is irrelevant. Unless it's a child, well then its also child abuse.

How is this a matter of opinion?

[Joseph]

So the charge would be 'child abuse' and not 'sexual abuse'.

But it is also sexual abuse.

:)

[Joseph]

How is this a matter of opinion?

(Shhh! It's NOT! Child molestation is by definition BOTH "child abuse" AND "child sexual abuse." The fallacy in argument Aussie is using is called "appeal to authority." AKA, argumentum ad verecundiam. [see previous posts...])

;)

[cobra]

Outside of the legal debate, the ethics of circumcision seem to me to be thus: if you touch someone else's genitals and they don't mind, it isn't abuse. If they do find it offensive, it is abuse.

Morally, if you had your child circumcised and they are fine with it, you did nothing wrong. If your child at any time regrets you tampering with his body, then ethically, you sexually abused them.

Logically, you should allow a child to decide for himself whether he wants to be circumcised when he is of an age to understand the full implications of the procedure: 18 years of age in most locales. If you do not, you are taking a gamble on morally being held accountable for sexual abuse.

What is motivating you to possibly be hated by your child when he grows up and grasps the full implications of your acts upon his sex organ?

Don't you understand that we are not freaks, and your children may one day be on a website very much like this one, cursing your stupidity and selfishness? You can try to brainwash them, but they will ultimately decide for themselves. I hope, for your sake, they decide it's no big deal. I doubt it, but you may not be accused of abusing them.

[Joseph]

Outside of the legal debate, the ethics of circumcision seem to me to be thus: if you touch someone else's genitals and they don't mind, it isn't abuse. If they do find it offensive, it is abuse.

Morally, if you had your child circumcised and they are fine with it, you did nothing wrong. If your child at any time regrets you tampering with his body, then ethically, you sexually abused them.

Do you think the same can be applied with non-mutilative sexual abuse?

At the time of my sexual abuse, I sure didn't find it offensive. To be sure, I had no idea what was going on.

It was as an adult that I felt what happened with me was a problem.

Had I not ever regreted this happening to me, that someone tampered with my body, "ethically," would I have been abused?

Or would what had happened to me been "abuse" whether I remembered it/regretted it or not?

[Linda]

Circumcised man with nothing to live for but his finances. Sad tale.

investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=518573&pt=msg&mid=9034446

[cobra]

If no one hears a tree fall in a forest, does it make a sound?

If you do not feel you were harmed by a sexual encounter, is it abuse?

My opinion is that there are actions that are wrong, no matter what... and actions that depend on the perceptions and emotional consequences of the parties involved.

I think child circumcision is wrong regardless, because you are taking away someone's basic capacity to judge it's rightness or wrongness. How can they even know they have lost something if they have never been given the opportunity to experience it? It's like cutting out someone's eyes at birth. Or lobotomizing them. You have reduced their capacity to experience life to the fullest degree they could have.

I'm just throwing out thoughts. Playing a little devil's advocate myself.

At a certain point, these debates become very existential.

There are many legal acts which are terribly harmful to another person.

Legality is no yardstick of immoral or harmful behavior.

The reality is, if you have your child circumcised and they feel it has harmed them, you might as well consider yourself a child mutilator. Legal or no, you have commited a crime against them. What sane person would want that possibility hanging over their head? Alas, when it comes to circumcision, sanity is not often a part of the decision making process.

People used to throw their kids into a flaming pit for Baal.

Now they just cut off a chunk of their pecker for Jehovah.

I guess that's a bit of progress.

Consider, however, in that ancient society, it was perfectly legal to toss your baby into Baal's flaming mouth...

[Joseph]

My opinion is that there are actions that are wrong, no matter what... and actions that depend on the perceptions and emotional consequences of the parties involved.

Yes, my opinion is that when an action is wrong, it is wrong regardless of people's perceptions and/or emotional consequences.

Had I been molested a bit earlier in life, you know, at a time where I wouldn't have "remembered" it, I probably would have been alright.

I have never denied that quite possibly the majority of men who were circumcised at birth have grown up to live fairly decent lives.

But is what has happened to them justified because they don't remember, and the cookies the doctor got out of mutilating them is his "little secret"?

The same question is asked of my sexual abuse, and the same is asked of any and every abuse that happens.

Abuse is taking advantage of the helpless to harm them, or to gain personal gratification.

It may be possible for abuses to go unreported, unnoticed, unrecognized, and some people for their own sakes REFUSE to recognize abuse for whatever reason. i.e, the sake of family stability, the sake of acceptance at a church or synagogue, the sake of acceptance of a certain political party. We're back at man's basic fear; the fear of being abandoned, not being accepted, not belonging.

But the fact that abuses get swept under the carpet, forgotten, or purposefully stuck at the very back of one's subconscious does not render them justified, or "right." Shit floats. Abuse is abuse, and it's wrong.

At a certain point, these debates become very existential.

There are many legal acts which are terribly harmful to another person.

Legality is no yardstick of immoral or harmful behavior.

This has been mentioned earlier; appeal to authority is a fallacy in argument. Authorities can and have been wrong. i.e, slavery, women's rights, etc. It sounds like they want to legitimize "mild" forms of FGM. Doesn't render it medicine, doesn't make it right.

The reality is, if you have your child circumcised and they feel it has harmed them, you might as well consider yourself a child mutilator. Legal or no, you have commited a crime against them. What sane person would want that possibility hanging over their head? Alas, when it comes to circumcision, sanity is not often a part of the decision making process.

I disagree with what I've highlighted in bold; the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is genital mutilation, child abuse, and child sexual abuse.

Whether he "feels harmed" by it, whether he decides to feel resentment, whether he decides he wants to take his perpetrator to court, etc. that is secondary.

Abuse of Power?
But here is another vector; should parents consider themselves child mutilators/sexual abusers, if they were whole-heartedly looking out for their child's best interest?

I don't think so.

In this case there is a greater abuse that is happening, and this is called abuse of power.

It is abuse of power when a doctor places the onus of "the great decision" on naive parents, when he knows full-well there is no "decision" to make.

Parents don't go to med-school for 10 years or so. Parents don't (usually) have Ph.Ds. It is not THEIR job to know better than the doctor. That's HIS job.

It should be interesting that child mutilators are experts on any other surgery, but they're suddenly stupid when it comes to circumcision, but more than willing to carry it out.

In this case, parents are being taken advantage of, along with their child, and the abuse becomes greater. Parents aren't being fully informed. Online, I have run across mothers and fathers that regret ever having agreed to let the doctor mutilate their children. There is much they didn't know, and much they didn't see. I've met quite a few people online that say that had they had known, they would have NEVER consented. These parents were abused along with their children, and they have the right to take their child's mutilator to court.

[cobra]

I'm just throwing out thoughts, mind you, not making any kind of personal declaration of belief...

For instance, a guy holding down and fucking his girl raw is okay if she likes it... but if she doesn't, it's rape.

That's why I said if the child grows up and likes being circumcised...

In a way, hinging the morality of the act upon the opinion of the child gives the child a small modicum of power. Where a broad declaration of "this thing is wrong not matter what you think" does not. It is another form of abuse of power. You are forcing a definition of "victim" onto that child. Branding them with an identity.

Isn't it better to allow each individual to decide if they have been violated?

Just as I am sure it upsets you when people say "foreskins are gross", you should consider that some people do not take to being defined as a mutilated ruin of a human being.

Who are you to define someone that way?

Food for thought.

[Americut]

For instance, a guy holding down and fucking his girl raw is okay if she likes it... but if she doesn't, it's rape.


I'm not sure if comparisons like this hold much ground because in a court of law, a child is considered naive towards various actions or decisions. Such as even if the child didn't mind that a perverted uncle touched them, the uncle is still going to jail for it. And isn't it illegal to give a child a tattoo? If that's the case, it doesn't matter how much the child likes the tattoo. I know that you're talking about the child becoming an adult and deciding whether or not the degrading penile surgery bothers him. Well I'm not sure this is something to be left up to how well a person deals with the wrong that was done, long after it happened. It's like saying if a kid's dad cuts the kid's pinky finger off and the kid grows up to be a piano player, and resents the lack of that finger - then it was abuse. But if the kid grows up and doesn't play piano, and really just doesn't care about the missing pinky, then it was ok and not abuse? Naaah.

I think there are comparisons that could be used for and against this argument, but I also think that a line must be drawn. As far as I'm concerned, unnecessary and degrading penile surgery forced on infants falls on the NOT OK side, regardless of any odd comparison or perspective. I know not everyone agrees.

[Joseph]

For instance, a guy holding down and fucking his girl raw is okay if she likes it... but if she doesn't, it's rape.

And if she can't "remember," is it rape?

Is it rape to have sex with a girl in a coma?

In a way, hinging the morality of the act upon the opinion of the child gives the child a small modicum of power. Where a broad declaration of "this thing is wrong not matter what you think" does not. It is another form of abuse of power. You are forcing a definition of "victim" onto that child. Branding them with an identity.

I think this line of thought is fallacious. No matter how you slice it, pardon the pun, a child is a victim. At the time of rape, the child has absolutely no power. The morality of the act CAN'T be hinged on the opinion of the child, because at the time of rape the child HAS no opinion. He is being an object of abuse. He IS a victim.

But a child doesn't stay a child forever; a child grows up into a powerful adult and can decide what he wants to do with his life THEN. As an adult, a child can decide he's through being a victim. But this is AFTER the fact. The fact of the matter is that abuse happened and it shouldn't have. One can decide to deal with it in one of many ways:

He can pretend the abuse never happened, and help perpetuate the same abuse that happened to him, or he can decide to accept the reality of what happened and move on. In my opinion, one way of dealing with it is healthy, and the other is not, if not destructive to the lives of others.

Still another option exists; perhaps a child doesn't know he was abused, and his parents may decide never to tell him for his own sake. The child grows up as if nothing ever happened. Here's the trick; with circumcision, a child eventually has to find out, because there is a scar there on the organ that he will use to evacuate urine and/or be intimate with someone else. This is why I think circumcision is far worse than non-mutilative sexual abuse, if not THE WORST kind of sexual abuse possible; worse than rape.

Isn't it better to allow each individual to decide if they have been violated?

Beyond what is "better," this is what every person must do with the cards life deals him.

IMO, a violation is a violation. How one wants to do with what has happened is entirely up to them.

Whether that be denial, acceptance, and/or retribution.

As for me and MY abuse, I've tried denying it my whole life, and it didn't work. I've found it's better to accept what has happened and come to terms with it without any retribution. I have found accepting it and talking to others who are willing to listen to me has brought me peace.

I could always deny that whatever happened to me wasn't abuse, and then proceed to take advantage of other children in their infancy. Because after all, as long as -I- don't think it's a violation, then it should be OK right? It would by my "decision," though one that would probably bring me negative consequences, and rightfully so.

So in answering your question "Isn't it better to allow each individual to decide if they have been violated?", I think each individual decides for himself regardless of which way you think is "better." One MUST. I just think it is unhealthy denial to insist, despite knowing the fact of what happened to one's self, that it WASN'T a violation, and to live his entire life accordingly. It can, and does lead to the train of thought "well, if it didn't harm/violate me, then it wouldn't be harm/violation to impose it on someone else." The violence continues, and that doesn't help anyone.

When one accept the facts, realizes it's in the past, but they have the power to change their future, THEN they can decide that they aren't a victim any longer, that's TRUE acceptance.

It's not up to an individual to decide when he has been violated or not; when someone has been violated, he KNOWS this. It's up to an individual to decide what he wants to do with this information, whether it be to accept it, or stuff it in a jar and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think it's better if an individual realizes and accepts the truth. Only then can he decide it's not going to affect his life. Until then, he is only hurting himself, and possibly, others.

That's what I think...

Just as I am sure it upsets you when people say "foreskins are gross", you should consider that some people do not take to being defined as a mutilated ruin of a human being.

*EDIT* - I felt this begged re-quoting:


I have never denied that quite possibly the majority of men who were circumcised at birth have grown up to live fairly decent lives.

But is what has happened to them justified because they don't remember, and the cookies the doctor got out of mutilating them is his "little secret"?

When I hear "foreskins are gross," it does make me think that person is stupid; but that person is entitled to their own opinions, and, if s/he can find a circumcised man who's blissfully ignorant about his circumcision, or is just happy being circumcised, then s/he has found a treasure. One ignorant idiot for the other.

It's when one wants to impose their sexual fetish on children, that I will not tolerate.

I'm sure some people don't like to be defined as a mutilated ruin of a human being, but I think the purpose of definition is to describe accurately what something is, not to produce a sound that's palatable to one's ears.

Rape is not a pretty word. But a rape victim must come to terms with what has happened before s/he can move on.

Who are you to define someone that way?

When someone takes advantage of a healthy, non-consenting individual because of his weakness and size, in order to use or hurt his body, the stronger, older person is a perpetrator, and that child is a victim.

These are the facts.

That they are what they are do not blame me.

It is up to a person to decide what s/he wants to do with them.

I am against the censuring of the reality to protect people's feelings.

The silence hurts the victims themselves, if not others.

[Joseph]

I'm not sure if comparisons like this hold much ground because in a court of law, a child is considered naive towards various actions or decisions. Such as even if the child didn't mind that a perverted uncle touched them, the uncle is still going to jail for it. And isn't it illegal to give a child a tattoo? If that's the case, it doesn't matter how much the child likes the tattoo. I know that you're talking about the child becoming an adult and deciding whether or not the degrading penile surgery bothers him. Well I'm not sure this is something to be left up to how well a person deals with the wrong that was done, long after it happened. It's like saying if a kid's dad cuts the kid's pinky finger off and the kid grows up to be a piano player, and resents the lack of that finger - then it was abuse. But if the kid grows up and doesn't play piano, and really just doesn't care about the missing pinky, then it was ok and not abuse? Naaah.

Exactly.

It's one thing if the child grows up and he wants his lover to take an axe and sever his pinky, it's quite another for a father to take advantage of an unwitting child to have his pinky cut off.

A child might decide he's not bothered by the fact that he's missing his pinky.

That's fine, as long as he realizes the truth and isn't TRUELY bothered by it.

*EDIT* - His dad STILL doesn't get off the hook; if the child wants to take him to court, he's fully entitled to.

If the child goes on to cut HIS child's pinky off, because he doesn't think that what happened to him was wrong, then that child has problems.

[Joseph]

Just some thoughts to throw out there:

DISCLAIMER: This applies to me and to me only, as it is my experience, it by all means doesn't have to be everyone's.

It took me a while to admit that I was victimized as a child. For the longest time I didn't want to face the truth. I would hear about it and I'd tell myself: "Nah, that didn't happen to me." It really got to me, filled me with rage when guys joked around saying "Suck my cock. You're just a little cock sucker and you KNOW you are." In my experience guys joked around like this all the time. I'd always fear that this ball was going to be tossed to me at some point... and sometimes it was... I didn't know what to do with it.

At night sometimes I'd be crying into my pillow screaming into it... "I'm NOT... I'm NOT!!!" It might sound kinda funny to some people reading this, and looking back, how pathetic I was! I think if I were in the same room with me then I'd be laughing my ass off.

Eventually I started realizing that this has got to stop... I was abused and I needed to deal with it. Went online... did some research and found a good book. "Victims No Longer" by Mike Lew, to those who are interested. Turned my life around. I admitted to myself what happened, came out to my parents about it, my siblings, and some close friends. I wrote a letter to my perpetrator... told him I wasn't going to raise hell... I just wrote to him letting him know what he did to me, and that it be forever engraved in his concience. I wasn't writing for no closure, or for him to admit it, or an apology; just to tell him the facts. I can't deny them, neither can he.

I decided that what happened happened, but that wasn't going to rule the rest of my life. I also learned that what makes you a victim is shutting up. Because shutting up is precisely what your perpetrator wants you to do. "Shut up. If you don't shut up, something real bad's going to happen to you." I remember my perpetrator locking me up in a room when I was 4 or 5... he said that if I told anyone about this, that he'd know, and that he'd tell my whole family. Back then, I didn't know that what we had done was wrong, only that it was so bad my family wasn't supposed to find out.

Maybe it stuck...

The point is, I decided I wasn't going to be a victim anymore, but it took admitting to myself that I was. In doing so you realize that you are no longer the little boy that was raped. Now you are older and have the power to control your life. You also have the power to speak out whenever necessary. When someone else says "boys don't get molested, only girls are capable of being victimized," I loudly say "I beg to differ." It's empowering to know you can speak out about it and not feel bothered anymore. To know that every time you do this, it's like socking your perpetrator in the face. Because now, you are no longer quiet like he wants you to be. You have the power to not only get back at your perpetrator, but to strike fear into other perpetrators, and thus beginning to end the abuse.

I totally see what you're saying cobra; once someone is no longer a victim, it makes no sense to keep painting someone as such.

But who's characterizing/defining others? Only you have the power to define whether you are a victim or not.

When you are truly not a victim anymore, definitions are like sticks and stones. Shouldn't bother you to know that the fact is you were victimized.

*EDIT* - When you are truly healed, the wounds don't hurt anymore.

I was victimized. SO? That was then. This is now.

When you are no longer a victim, you also understand what others are going through. You don't tell them "oh, just get over it." True, eventually we must move on with our lives, but one who has truly gotten "over it" can lend an understanding ear.

If it bothers you that others are "whining and complaining", and you're acting all "cool" and better than everyone else, are you truly over what happened and it's not still bothering you so much you'd rather everyone just shut up?

Facts are facts.

Whether someone is truely "over it" or not, that is up to a person to decide.

This is what I mean when I say facts must be presented no matter what. If it bothers someone, maybe they still have something they have to deal with.

Why be quiet? Why shut up? Why enable predatory behavior by perpetuating the myth that "men get over it" and/or "don't suffer emotional problems?"

Speak your mind. Express your anger. Say what you feel. Those that are "insulted" have problems that they must deal with on their own. Maybe others don't want to hear about the skeletons in your closet because they're too afraid to take out THEIRS. This shouldn't hinder YOUR healing.

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is physical, sexual, emotional assault.

I consider circumcision WORSE than my abuse, because at least I wasn't left with a physical scar to remind me. Circumcision victims have to deal with the double burden of dealing with it both mentally, and physically, should they decide it's a problem.

These are the facts, and people need to deal with them.

It's abuse and it needs to STOP.

[cobra]

You guys found the faulty logic in all the sneaky hypotheses I presented. Those were the best arguments I could think up to minimize abuse. I really wonder how someone could know all the facts about circumcision and still think it is okay. Is it ignorance, willful self-deception, sexual gratification or purposeful malice that motivates these people?

I hope, for their sake, it is just ignorance.

Just one other thought: do you think the root psychological motivation to circumcise is to damage a child's sexuality... or is it some weird way to, in fact, SEXUALIZE a boy's sex organ.

Consider, with the adult intact male, sexual arousal involves the penis becoming erect and the foreskin sliding back and exposing the glans...

...and circumcision makes a child's penis look as if it is retracted due to arousal. Permanently.

In our culture, we sexualize little girls by putting makeup on them, piercing their ears, and letting them wear provocative clothing.

Is circumcision an analog of this phenomenon? Some people dress their little girls like sluts. Some people make their little boys look like they have erect penises by permanently altering their prepuce into a visually retracted looking state.

Considering how many little kids get fucked by adults in our culture (over 3 millions reports every year) it makes more sense that parents are subconsciously sexualizing their children instead of willfully diminishing their child's sexuality.

I wonder how the general population would react if we approached the problem in such a manner.

Why ARE so many people obsessed with their childrens' penises? I mean, to the point of being so damned insistent on altering them? They go into hysterics if you so much as broach the subject of just leaving... it... alone.

[Joseph]

Just one other thought: do you think the root psychological motivation to circumcise is to damage a child's sexuality... or is it some weird way to, in fact, SEXUALIZE a boy's sex organ...

In our culture, we sexualize little girls by putting makeup on them, piercing their ears, and letting them wear provocative clothing.

Is circumcision an analog of this phenomenon? Some people dress their little girls like sluts. Some people make their little boys look like they have erect penises by permanently altering their prepuce into a visually retracted looking state...

In wanting to "help" their children, sometimes parents just ruin it for them.

I think it is EXACTLY as you say.

Circumcision is an attempt to make a boy "sexy," disguised as medicine. You'll notice that quite often it is said "it's cleaner, prettier, sexier" in that order, right off the cuff. No one cares for those "medical" reasons, those are a secondary thought. As a final "Shut up. See? The man in the white labcoat said so." (Strangely enough, doctors always say "the parents made me do it," even though just moments ago, they were making the argument "you want him to look like daddy, don't you?")

You could say that circumcision in boys is the equivalent of pierced ears in girls. Nothing but cosmetic surgery to "ensure he's a boy." (Because having a penis just isn't enough.)

Blinging your baby has GOT to be the epitome of tackiness.

I wonder how the general population would react if we approached the problem in such a manner.

They'll tell you "Don't be so perverted! That's SO not the reason... why, he could get AIDS." (Because babies are at the highest risk... :rolleyes: )

Why ARE so many people obsessed with their childrens' penises? I mean, to the point of being so damned insistent on altering them? They go into hysterics if you so much as broach the subject of just leaving... it... alone.

And then turn around and tell you YOU'RE the one who's "obsessed."

The question is then, since when were doctors supposed to act as cultural brokers?

If they're obliged to snip the boys, why not offer ear piercings for girls, right there at the hospital?

And while they're at it, they can offer tattoos and brandings. That's SO en vogue right now... and you DON'T want them to remember the pain, do you?

If you do it at home there's a chance they could get infected. Might as well have them done right here in the clean sterile hospital by a professional.

:rolleyes:

[wifeandmama]

They'll tell you "Don't be so perverted! That's SO not the reason... why, he could get AIDS." (Because babies are at the highest risk... :rolleyes: )

I know, for real. And let's go ahead and vax them for Hep B when they're hours old, too, b/c they have such a big chance of getting THAT drug-needle-sharing and/or sexually-transmitted disease, too, right there when they've just come into the world. :rolleyes:

And then turn around and tell you YOU'RE the one who's "obsessed."

Oh for real! I posted an intactivist link on my Facebook wall and it went downhill to the tune of 52 comments, including this one: "Mine is circ'd with no problems what so ever. Don't care what anyone else does don't think it should be discussed either. Family choice end of topic." Okay... so how is awareness supposed to be raised if nobody talks about it?

[photenman]

Just a reminder to everyone that circumcision is extremely painful. It was done with no anesthetic. Then medical studies showed that it causes excruciating pain, so the AMA said use anesthetic. But by 1999, only 45% of doctors did, because they did not think it was necessary. Even anesthetics don't work. You put a little cream on, then crush the most sensitive part of the penis, it's not going to do much good pain wise.

In addition, the infants struggle like hell. They are in absolute terror. They react to it as a life threatening event.

Which is all to say that it's not jut that infants don't consent, they perceive circumcision as assault, and they protest as vigorously as they can. Maybe as an adult they are OK with it, but as infants they weren't.

And ethically and legally, whether they know they were abused or not, they were.

If there is any place where a bright line must be drawn - that this is not OK even if you like your circumcised penis - this is it.

It is most definitely assault and abuse, and abuse of a sexual nature. It's certainly akin to rape, except rape leaves you physically intact. So whether it's "sexual abuse" merely depends upon the definition. If a statute says sexual abuse = rape, incest, etc. only, then maybe not. Otherwise yes. But it certainly violates the child abuse statutes. So who cares about the definition, it's abuse of a sexual nature that cannot be tolerated.

Why would anyone be arguing that it's not child abuse? Just watch a circumcision and read a child abuse statute.

[Joseph]

Oh for real! I posted an intactivist link on my Facebook wall and it went downhill to the tune of 52 comments, including this one: "Mine is circ'd with no problems what so ever. Don't care what anyone else does don't think it should be discussed either. Family choice end of topic." Okay... so how is awareness supposed to be raised if nobody talks about it?

52 comments. You would think that such a non-issue would garner less than that, wouldn't you? ;)

On that last comment, sound like somebody's insecure. If she doesn't wish to discuss it then she should shut her trap.

Kudos on broaching the subject! The very fact you raised it has raised awareness, and I'm sure it has raised a red flag in at least ONE psyche.

[Joseph]

...medical studies showed that it causes excruciating pain, so the AMA said use anesthetic. But by 1999, only 45% of doctors did, because they did not think it was necessary. Even anesthetics don't work. You put a little cream on, then crush the most sensitive part of the penis, it's not going to do much good pain wise.

Where are you getting the 1999/45% figure from?

This 1997 CNN report says that "Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised, according to a report from the University of Alberta in Edmonton."

http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

The figure couldn't have just shot up in two years, could it? Maybe it was an American study/review you got that from?

Doctors don't use anaesthetic because it puts babies at further risk of death. Thus they try to desuade parents from the idea by saying "the prick of the anaesthetic shot hurts way more" and/or "they don't remember anyway".

More from the same report above:

"...researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision.

They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic. (I'm sure the injection lasts as long as the healing process, where a baby must endure salty piss on their wound...)

In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia."

[wifeandmama]

Kudos on broaching the subject! The very fact you raised it has raised awareness, and I'm sure it has raised a red flag in at least ONE psyche.

Oh, it has, for sure. People have told me that if they hadn't seen the link I posted, they probably wouldn't have given it a second thought and gone ahead and circ'd their boys. And a few of the comments were from people who had circ'd their first boy or two but have since regretted it and changed their mind for any future boys. I just hope some of the ones who are like my friend who's sons are "just fine" will at least keep it in the back of their mind for when/if they have any more kids.

When my son turned 6 months old, I did post a happy half-birth post that went like this: "Happy 6-month birthday to my breastfed, cloth-diapered, intact, babyworn, never cried-it-out baby boy!" (After posting, I realized I should have put "born-at-home" too, lol.) And oddly enough, THAT post was way more benign than the link I posted. This happy half-year birthday post just ended up going off into a discussion about baby-led solids, lol.

The link that was so controversial, btw, was this one (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/02/dr-dean-edell-statement-on-circumcision.html).

[Joseph]

Oh I see stuff like this all the time. Lots of my friends get brave enough to post their objection, and I've seen the crap they've had to endure.

What's real sad is that if you talk to a lot of parents that had their kids cut, initially they get defensive, but then when you start sharing links etc. with them, they feel short-changed. (Some remain in denial, but this is expected.) It is my belief that the majority of parents would refuse this for their children if they saw the whole picture.

Parents are NOT making "informed decisions." Doctors are using their power to lie by omission. I've read accounts of nurses losing their jobs because they took it upon themselves to give parents a fuller story.

For most any other procedure doctors go play by play. With circumcision, most of the time it's "it's a parent's decision... you're on your own..."

Bless you for helping to get the word out.

[wifeandmama]

Agreeing with your whole post, Joseph. (imagine a nodding smiley right here)

[Joseph]

We've talked about the undeniable abuse of children.

But I'd like to probe the doctor-parent relationship a little more.

When a doctor takes advantage of naive parents to get to their child, I would think there is a double-layer of abuse going on.

The child is an innocent by-stander. But what about parents who are depending on the doctor for accurate medical information?

[Terato]

So in a court of law......it is NOT sexual abuse. Your opinion does not make it fact.

Oh for fuck's sake. Does it not make it 'sexual assault' and an outrageous violation of human rights (not women's rights or men's right's, HUMAN rights) if a girl is sexually mutilated (or, to use another example, forced into a marriage she doesn't want, where she is raped by her 'husband' every day) and no one is ever, ever charged with a crime in that nation where the mutilation or forced marriage took place?

Just because someone is never charged with a crime, or because said evil is not considered a crime, does not make something NOT evil, and not something that should be considered a crime. Look at segregation and slavery and apartheid; does the fact that once ALL of those things were all legal and (to a degree) accepted 'facts' or customs of certain societies make them morally right?

Sidestepping AussieBloke's blatant trolling, yeah, I do think that circumcision is a form of sexual assault. If it were done to a full-grown man or a teenage boy against his express will - if he were screaming in agony as some psycho strapped him down, immobilized him, and cut off part of his penis - it would be considered as criminal. The fact that it is done by doctors to babies who cannot speak and cannot fight back, and that it is an accepted custom in American society and elsewere, does not change the fact that if it were done to someone else of a different age group, it would be considered sexual assault under the law, and would be punished.

When a doctor takes advantage of naive parents to get to their child, I would think there is a double-layer of abuse going on.

The child is an innocent by-stander. But what about parents who are depending on the doctor for accurate medical information?

Back in the day when there was no Internet, and no information on the value of the foreskin, yes. Today, not so much. I honestly think that today's person CANNOT fully depend on just one doctor for a final opinion. Get a range of opinions, do your own research, learn about possible treatments that you can do on your own to help yourself. That goes for your own health, not just your child's. The medical world is full of a lot of bullshit, assumptions, and prejudices - as much as anywhere else. (You learn these things, being a size acceptance supporter AND an intactivist.) If you don't take the time to educate yourself, especially about something that affects another person, like circumcision does, then frankly you have no one to blame on that but yourself.

I never gave circumcision much of a thought (though I knew vaguely what it was, and I knew about FGM) before I met my boyfriend. I eventually became curious as to whether he had been circumcised, for no particular reason other than curiosity about him. Before I could pop the question, I read one of his posts on the internet that was filled with absolute rage over the fact that he had been cut, because the thread it was on was discussing the issue of sensitivity. I tried to calm him down, but then I started researching the whole thing, and I was absolutely horrified at what the procedure REALLY entailed, and what the possible consequences were.

[Joseph]

The fact that it is done by doctors to babies who cannot speak and cannot fight back, and that it is an accepted custom in American society and elsewere, does not change the fact that if it were done to someone else of a different age group, it would be considered sexual assault under the law, and would be punished.

Doesn't taking advantage of babies who cannot speak/fight back actually make it WORSE?

I really pisses me off how people non-challantly say "they're too small to remember." As if this were supposed to somehow make it "better."

Back in the day when there was no Internet, and no information on the value of the foreskin, yes. Today, not so much. I honestly think that today's person CANNOT fully depend on just one doctor for a final opinion.

Ideally, yes.

Unfortunately, I believe the percentage of Americans who still look to the doctor as god is extremely high...

[BlackSkullRacer613]

When you look at what it is, how is it not sexual assault?

[cobra]

"They're too small to remember."

TRANSLATION:

"They're too young to object."

[madbr3991]

"They're too small to remember."

TRANSLATION:

"They're too young to object."

thats a perfect transation