Circumcision Math: Does it add up?

Excellent article on the odds of medical intervention being required for the male foreskin.

“… Let’s set ethical arguments about pain, consent, divine design, etc. aside for now. Let’s just look at the math. What are the odds that your son will actually need to have a circumcision later?”


Circumcision Math: Does it add up?



Ten Horrifically Botched Circumcisions

Harrowing reading. Anyone who has seen a male leap around after catching himself in his trouser zipper will be able to imagine the unnecessary pain and mutilation involved.

Circumcision is one of the most common and historic surgical procedures in the world, dating as far back as ancient Egypt. Like any medical procedure, there can be serious risks involved which are often overlooked given the innumerable rate of success. But when these errors do occur, the results are not only physically devastating, but psychologically and emotionally traumatizing as well. Sometimes, people’s lives are damaged forever . . . if they’re lucky enough to survive.

Click for full article: Ten … botched circumcisions

Peter Lloyd,The Suffragent: Why circumcision is the same as FGM

30 Mar 2016: MailOnline Journalist and ‘Stand by Your Manhood’ author Peter Lloyd explains why boy circumcision is the same violation as FGM – despite feminist assertions to the contrary.

A Historical and Medical Critique of Circumcision – Dr. Christopher Guest

Excellent expose …

Dr. Christopher Guest’s recent presentation hosted by Simon Fraser University’s Advocacy for Men & Boys. This event was made possible by the Children’s Health and Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP.)


Beyond the Bris Non-Profit Organisation

It is not anti-semitic to suggest that ritual child MGM is not needed. Many Jews around the world are against MGM.

There has been a history of over 2200 years of opposition to this rite within Judaism itself. Modern Judaism’s reform movement, started in the late 1800s, at its very conception wanted to leave MGM behind but more conservative elements in the movement kept it – probably not to alienate those people who wanted to reform but not lose the male tribal mark of covenant – the mark of contract with the divine being…

MGM was made more invasive … “Talmudic sages related to a mashukh, a man who physically disguises his circumcision.7 The practice of meshikhat orlah—the drawing down of the foreskin (in English, decircumcision or epispasm)—was known between the second century B.C.E. and the second century C.E. By stretching vestigial penile skin tissue to cover the glans penis, a man who desired to pass beyond Jewish communal boundaries to join non-Jewish society could remove the identifying mark of Jewish identity. The Rabbis discussed whether or not a repeated circumcision might offer him a way back, but they also took action to thwart this blatant transgression of the boundary. As this essay will show, until the middle of the second century C.E. the sanctioned method of circumcision allowed for the possibility of stretching and drawing down remaining foreskin tissue and thereby “crossing the border” of Jewish society, leaving no physical sign. I maintain that the requirement of periah (the splitting and peeling back of the mucosal membrane lining the foreskin, thus fully uncovering the glans penis) was instituted by the Rabbis following the Bar Kokhba Revolt for the purpose of sealing this breach. If so, this constitutes a striking example of change instituted in one of the most deeply rooted norms in Jewish law and society.”

Click for excellent paper on the history of MGM within Judaism: Brit Milah: A Study Of Change In Custom

Around 2200 years ago Jewish society had spread around the world of the Greeks and Romans – who also imposed themselves on Jewish society … In Greek culture Homosexuality was much more accepted … Jewish men would be discriminated against if they wished to compete in games or visit the gym (ever a place for liaisons between men). Circumcision was regarded as the mark of a slave to the Greeks who saw the foreskin as a beautiful sheath for man’s sword of sexuality…  So some Jews began foreskin restoration – the Rabbis responded by making the MGM much more invasive than the MGM done in the time of Abraham or Moses – so it would be impossible to reverse …

Many commentators have pointed out that this amounts to repression of homosexuality…

Click here for Jewish support group: Facebook Beyond the Bris

When Joshua reached Gilgal – the Israelites cut those that had not been cut during the years wandering in the wilderness with Moses – they were arguably at their most Jewish while in the wilderness when the Tablet and Torah were given… and yet not cut …
In the USA, Muslim, and Jewish, communities bigots call gays “queer” and the uncut “queer” too – insinuating both conditions are wrong… MGM was used to repress gay men in antiquity … and maybe still is …

An Obituary: The Un-Word is Dead!

For those who pay attention to politically correct (PC) language… A normal man is “Intact”… A cut man is “Circumcised” … a restored man (you can never get the feel back – the nerves have been butchered – only the hooded look can be restored) is “Uncircumcised” … Full explanation below … It is definitely not PC to call Intact men “Uncircumcised” – this gives credence to genital mutilation… Do we call intact women “unmasectomised”?

“…There would then be three useful, respectful and scientifically sound terms to refer to the possible penis types that exist: intact (those in the natural state), circumcised (those with the prepuce removed) anduncircumcised (those with a restored prepuce or pseudo-prepuce)(as in Fig. 1). For the medical community to not change the vernacular describing penis types, given all of the above, would be UNCONSCIONABLE! And isn’t conscionable the preferred state?…”  [Wallace, W. G. (2015), An undeniable need for change: The case for redefining human penis types: Intact, circumcised, and uncircumcised (all three forms exist and all are different). Clin. Anat., 28: 563–564;] The publishing of this “Letter to the Editor” was my way to stand on the street corner holding a sign of protest, shining a spot light on something so obvious! This biased and pejorative term had to be stricken from the scientific literature! Interestingly, while preparing Wallace 2015a I had heard that some journals would not even publish research findings if the authors used the term intact, thereby forcing them to use uncircumcised. If this is indeed true, this suggests a DEEP BIAS in the scientific and medical communities!

This topic is surely a cut can of worms!


Guardian: Circumcision: the cruellest cut?

This is a rather ill informed and pro MGM article from the Grauniad …

No mention of MGM as a masturbation prevention strategy …

However, this article raises the important issue of … what if the child cut at the behest of his parents on the grounds of “religious freedom” grows up and rejects his parents’ religion? How can MGM be justified?

Click for full text: Circumcision: the cruellest cut?

While the American Academy of Paediatrics (APP) has concluded that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and the procedure is a matter of parental choice, outraged opponents call it male genital mutilation, or child abuse. Many parts of Europe concur. A court in Cologne this summer ruled that circumcision contravened the rights of a child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs. A German doctor has now filed charges against a rabbi for performing circumcisions on two infant boys, causing outrage in Jewish and Muslim communities and a delicate debate about intolerance, religious freedom and children’s rights in Germany.