MALE GENITAL MUTILATION (Circumcision) _________________________________________     Imagine this scenario:     "Excuse me?"     "Yes?"     "Would you mind if I cut  the end off your dick?"     "Oh, no! Go right ahead."     Or this:     "Excuse me, Miss?"     "Yes?"     "Would you mind if I cut out your clitoris?"     "Well, it's not much use. You might as well."     Can you imagine that happening to you?     Both practices happen, every day. The former scenario is still much more prevalent. The latter scenario has been out-lawed (by some) but is still practised. Both the above scenarios show consent.     The reality is that there is no such consent.     Male genital mutilation (circumcision) is removing the foreskin from the penis. This practice is world-wide. It involves three notions: 1)   Religious practice 2)   Medical reasons   3)  No particular reason, it's just done     All seem to be confused. They may be intertwined, as a 'reason' for the practice.     My stance, as always, is about Control and controllers, and in this instance, religious control leading to medical approval for the practice. The philosophy and medical reasons are spurious, to say the very least. Where is it written and by whom, that the end of a man's penis should be sliced off? The Word of a sick god, perhaps?     Let's face it, men came onto the earth as animals. However they developed, is not in question, nor needs to be a question.     Men came 'fully-equipped'. They did not come without a foreskin. The simple truth is that it was there for biological reasons (otherwise it wouldn't be there). But there it doesn't always stay.     The foreskin is not a vestigial organ like the appendix, which is merely so only because Man walks upright; the appendix was an aid to digestion in animals that walked on all fours.     My thrust here, is not for or against circumcision (although I am personally against it on humanitarian grouds, amongst others), but why?     Let's ask a question: What is the most sensitive part of a male's anatomy? Answer: his penis.     (A penis is the way by which a female gets impregnated. That's sexual reproduction).     Let's ask another question: Do people remove the foreskin from other mammals? Answer: No. You might question why.     Another question: Why do we do it to humans? The answer is more complex.     I believe, the answer is control. I believe that is as simple as saying: "He will comply (with us) because we have control of his penis (a.k.a. manhood). This so-called 'useless' piece of skin will seem less than cutting off a finger (or toe or some other part of the body), which would make him more conspicuous. Thus this individual will conform to our practices because he is like us. This is our symbol of faith". Every time he looks at his penis, especially to urinate or copulate, he will remember.     This practice is done so young, usually, that some sick people believe the child does not feel pain. Where do they get that notion?     Circumcision is de-masculinising. Such a male is no longer a 'normal' male animal. Try cutting the end off a bull's dick and see where you get. You won't get a compliant bull who believes in your fantasies!     Given the truths, which I won't go into here, as the information is readily available if you look for it; circumcision is a method of making males comply to an assumed 'authority'. It matters not a jot where the idea came from, a truth remains. The lies persist.     I am not saying that circumcised males are not 'whole men'; they are as best they can be, of course; most men are. There is so much evidence that circumcised males are striving to achieve their sexuality through criminal damage/mutilation/actual bodily harm and so forth, to their most sensitive and private parts, it's not true. Stories are legion. "I want my foreskin back!"     The fascination with a man's (sexual) appendage is such that he almost always feel inadequate when it is not equated with others. Men buy vast volumes of crap pills that will do nothing for them except as placebos. Viagra pills to enhance the sexual favours of women, pills for a bigger penis, stronger erections, bigger sperm count and so forth. 'Bigger is better' and so on; so much bull-shit. All this data was in my e-mail 'in-box'; it went straight into the dustbin is where it ended up, without my reading it.     Whether religious or medical, there is a ritual of circumcision. What I believe is that those who have undergone such ritual practices and maybe later realise their own truths, are those who, already mutilated, have to find ways to satisfy their horror, shame or other psychological distress for their own state. This my be naiive, but why should it be?     "But, my dear fellow, it's much more complicated than that."     "Clear off!" (Or words to that effect.)     Most migrants to other countries take their practices with them. Most migrants are not aware of their independence as human beings. They have long accepted the rule of others (The Rule of Might (read bullying)). They therefore, accept practices which are usually, not in their best interests. This has happened in Africa, America, Australia and many other places.     The migrants to these countries took with them their sadness (although they may not have realised it as a sadness). They really didn't discover New Lands and took on the native but rather took the old with them. Certain things had to change because of the differences in geography, but rituals and practices hardly changed. The fact that even some of the natives engaged in these practices may have led to their belief that they were 'correct', but read on, dear reader.      It seems the 'reasons' behind these practices and rituals have been either lost or clouded over in time. These things are 'just done' and few question them.     Such mutilating practices upon a human body date, we know back to Man's first ventures on the planet. Whatever these reasons were, they have no bearing on the reasons now. If we haven't developed at all, then why call ourselves Homo Sapiens?     So, I suppose, is the legacy of male penile mutilation. It may have started with Homo Nonsensicus for some reason known only to them and has been perpetrated ever since as a valid practice. Again, haven't we progressed at all?     Some of us have come to believe that the disgusting practice of mutilating a female of the species is just that, disgusting; then why not males? Who's making the rules here? Certainly not innocent babies (circumcised) and now devoid of their (human) birthright (not to be violated by any means).     I'm not citing particular religions, or whatever, because that is unfair on those people who practice these activities without ever being near a religion.     Let's be frank, here. If I were to go out into the street, grab your baby son, take him to my house, determine if he isn't already corrupted, find he is intact and without anaesthetic cut the tip of his penis off with a piece of sharp stone (without anaesthetic), what would you think?     If I were caught afterwards, because I would return him to you (not quite so intact), what might I be accused of?      At least:         Baby-snatching/kidnapping         Actual bodily harm (A.B.H.)         Assault with a deadly weapon         Infringement of Human Rights         Causing unnecessary suffering         and probably a host of other things.     What would my defence be?         I acted in my faith.         I wanted him to be like me.         It's just done.         He had phimosis.     Who would my jurors be?         Circumcised males         Uncircumcised males         A fair combination of both         Women who were circumcised         Women who were uncircumcised         A fair combination of both     Who would be the judge and lawyers, solicitors and other hangers-on?         As above?     What would your verdict be?         He acted in good faith         He's a paedophile         He should be 'put down'         He's a monster         He was only acting on 'orders'         and anything else you can think of.     Our lives should be those of mutual consent between us and others. If we are not able to do this, then we should be left alone. If this isn't instigated, it isn't properly human (unless we redefine 'human'). At this level, rights or non-rights don't apply.     There are 'laws' governing the notion of consent but they don't amount to anything (as few 'laws' do). Horrors go on all around us every day about which we have made no consent (except by not replying to them in some peaceful way).     If you can find evidence of the following scenarios, I and thousands of others would like to have the source. ***     "Hi, doc!"     "What's the trouble?"     "Look, it's a bit embarrassing, but I have this curious skin on the end of my dick. Do you think you could remove it?"     "No problem, Mr. Falus. Will that be cash or credit?" ***     "Good morning, Mr.Gyno, I was wondering..."     "Yes, my dear, what is it. Please sit down."     "Thank you. It's like this (coming to the point quickly). I have this little 'button' in my thingy, which makes me feel all sort of wobbly and stuff when I touch it. Do you think you could get rid of it for me?"     "My dear young lady, of course. Will that be cash or credit?"     The trouble is, we are too lazy. We love a tit. We love the comfort of a tit that is given to us without our asking (that's probably a statement that could be made into another of my articles). Thus some elect those who purport they will look after us (fine if they do) or they are subject to controllers who bully them into their ways of thinking ('thinking', of course, is a moot point). The latter is more prevalent; observe what is going on around you.     I may be extrapolating too far, but I do believe that a great number of the World's problems relate to this kind of un-consented bodily mutilation. People will feel mutilated/abused when confronted with even the faintest notion that they have been 'got at' without their consent. Why otherwise do we teach people (i.e. give them an education which we often pretend is for their benefit)?     How does a circumcised male teach boys and girls about the effects of being circumcised and not being circumcised? The opposite may of course be true. However, the un-mutilated male has a better kind of truth if the truths are examined. If he doesn't like the truths, he can have himself dealt with, it's his choice, consent and responsibility..     A penis is designed to give pleasure, preferably to both partners. That is its pre-destined job. Without that pleasure, the act of sexual reproduction would undoubtedly fail. The same goes for the female. This is basic biology. It has nothing to do with love-making or anything else. Anything else is the private domain of the participants. I make no moral stand here; I'm not talking about morals. I'm talking about mutilation for some-one else's ends (please excuse a pun).     Any act by any human/s upon any other/s without their consent is morally criminal, at the very least.     The psychology behind mutilation would be very complex and I'm not sure if it is worth pursuing, in the long run. This psychology would best be perpetrated and reported on (at length) by those probably with something to hide.     There are truths.     Seemingly, willy-nilly, males are being mutilated every day for some spurious 'reason/s'; worse, there is no 'reason'. Those being thus mutilated have (most often) made no consent in the matter.  'Medical' grounds are more than spurious material for the pursuance of this desecrating act of violence..     As a parent, with a responsibility and duty of care of/for your off-spring, look for evidence as to why you might want to perform this act of desecration/mutilation upon your sibling, male or female.     There is, as I have said, plenty of material and resources available, especially on the Internet, regarding this matter. You might forget the latest game, television programme or other mindless occupation or chat-room to find it. Your baby is your responsibility.     To begin with, you make its choices. These live with them for the rest of their lives. Would your cut off its foot to salve your conscience of an after-life (or other spurious belief), or because you believe your priest (or whomever) that it is the 'correct' thing to do?     If you do not heed this essay, at least, I think you are morally irresponsible. I'll say no more.

Return to CONTENTS page