Circumcision Is Child Abuse

circumcision

We, as a society, are meant to love children. If I was to go and tear the nails off each of my child’s fingers I’d be roundly condemned and imprisoned (and probably best I were for my own safety!). Female circumcision is roundly, and justly, condemned as an abusive practice. But male circumcision?? Oh that’s ok, isn’t it? Yeah, just dandy, especially in America.

Male circumcision has some benefits, and there is continuing talk of expanding it’s use, such as here. It would seem circumcision helps reduce the risk of transmission of HIV from females to males. Well what I say to that is, why not go the whole hog? Cut off the penis entirely… then there will be zero risk that one day this boy might be a fucking idiot and be unsafe.

We can minimise the risk far more effectively through safe sex promotion. A condom’s ability to counter the risk of disease (and not just HIV!) far exceeds circumcision. But no, let’s abuse our male children, cut off a part of their body and absolutely do it before they have a choice. It’s disgusting, disturbing and it’s just as bad as the sort of stuff sick paedophiles do to children.

If a grown adult wants to get his foreskin removed, all power to him. If the child needs it for medical reasons, well that sucks but it’s understandable. But to physically hurt our children just to stop them, possibly/maybe transmitting a disease is wrong. Are we saying that circumcising them means they can go out and have unsafe sex??? NO! Because it’s not even close to being safe. It only reduces the chance and not by that much. So really, what the Hell is the point???

Don’t even get me started on the fact it doesn’t make an ounce of difference for gay guys, so they’re penis’ will have been brutalised for no reason whatsoever.

4 Responses

  1. Louis says:

    The people who recommend this for hiv infection safety reasons must and will be held responsible for circumcised people to think they can have unprotected sex with someone of whom they do not know their status and therefor may get infected mistakenly thinking that they do not need to use protection.
    The USA has about 80 percent of their babies circumcised, the hiv rate in the US is statistically way higher than in Europe ( a larger group of people) who are basically NOT circumcised. The truth will set people free, nothing else will.

  2. Yeti says:

    Plus, it is a myth that circumcision actually reduces the risk of transmission. Just as the idea that it makes the penis cleaner is a myth and sensitivity is reduced in those who have it performed in later life. The main three studies used to argue that it does. Randomized controlled trials under the supervision of Bertran Auvert, French circumcision proponent, was carried out in Orange Farm, South Africa; a RCT was carried out in Kenya under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Robert C. Bailey and Stephen Moses; and a RCT was carried out in Uganda under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Ronald H. Gray, and ALL three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated. Dowsett & Couch noted that even after publication of the RCTs, found insufficient evidence exists to support a program of circumcision to prevent HIV infection.

    Good article on the subject with lots of references:
    http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

    [Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:123]
    [Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44.]

    And rate watcher: I’m sorry you require mutilation to feel like a man.

  3. Rate Watcher says:

    Where I am from, male circumcision is a right of passage, a coming-of-age event that marks a boys transformation to a man. I will never condone female circumcision — it’s really female mutilation. But for a male, it makes the penis a cleaner instrument, and does not decrease sensitivity.

    Studies have proven that a man with a circumcised penis is less likely to get HIV from an infected female. This is a good thing. If you think that abstinence is a realistic option for a teen with raging hormones, then you are out of touch with the way life really works in many parts of the world. Condoms are great, but their adoption will only go so far, as going bareback is natural and the most pleasurable way to have sex.

  4. leprakhauns says:

    Yea, it is ridiculous that guys have to loose feeling in their penis for no reason at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine + 17 =