Denmark: Marie Krarup – Politician from the patriotic philo-semitic Danish People’s Party supports genital mutilation of boys and girls

During a debate about religiously motivated genital mutilation organized by the anti Islamic Free Speech Society [Trykkefrihedsselskabet], most recently in the news because of the attempted murder of the organizations president, Lars Hedegaard, Mrs. Marie Krarup, MP for the Danish People’s Party [Dansk Folkeparti] followed in the footsteps of now former member of the Free Speech Society the Lutheran Priest Katrine Lilleoer, MP for the DPP the Lutheran Priest Jesper Langballe, and Marie Krarup’s sister, the Lutheran theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, and argued that circumcision; amputation of part of the male foreskin is a minor procedure with positive effects, and that the freedom of parents to raise their children in some religious tradition is more important than the right of the individual to bodily integrity.

But Marie Krarup went even further than the preceding line of traitors to secular Occidental and Christian ideas, and suggested opening up for some ‘mild’ circumcision of girls!

This caused an immediate reaction from Dr. Morten Frisch:

The debate about foreskin amputation, which goes under the misleading term ‘circumcision’, has gone into a new phase.

Hard pressed by almost nation wide public opposition to the legality of the practice as well as strong and almost unanimous opposition from Danish medical practitioners, panic is spreading among the ranks of the foreskin amputation ritual advocates.

New marked arguments are being launched in an attempt to prevent boys in Denmark from attaining the right to bodily and sexual integrity.

According to Dr. Morten Frisch, Marie Krarup suggested that we end this sexist imbalance by opening up for ‘a mild form’ of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality for the law so to speak.

Dr. Morten Frisch about the debate on february 7:

The panel was made up of Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner, columnist Leo Milgrom (Jewish), economist Torben Mark Pedersen and me. Marie Krarup spoke as a suppliant for her sister theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, who rose from her sick bed and took part in the discussion anyway, seated among the audience.

I was the first to speak and went through the anatomical, health related and sexual consequences of foreskin amputation, and pointed at the need to secure boys the right to their own bodies, the same way we have installed paragraph 245a of the Danish Penal Code to protect girls from genital mutilation.

Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner talked about the reason why Jews practice foreskin amputation when the boys are eight days old.

Leo Milgrom, a Jewish man gave us his personal story of violence, loss and being let down, something many foreskin amputated men experience, while he also used the occasion to ask Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner once more, as he did in his article in the newspaper Politiken on July 28; ‘Can you give me my foreskin back?’.

MP Marie Krarup thought that there were important health benefits to be got from foreskin amputation, that the pain during and after the procedure were limited, that assault is too strong a word, and that the family deserves to be prioritized before the individual.

Torben Mark Pedersen (member of the Free Speech Society and a member of the ultra liberal, [financially the European meaning of the wordliberal] party, Ny Alliance (New Alliance) closed the presentation round focusing on the rights of the individual and the protection of children against religiously motivated assault.

Thereby the stage had been set for a confrontation between two badly agreeing points of view: that a child’s right to bodily and sexual integrity trumps parents possible urge to cut into their bodies. Or that we for historical reasons and respect for Judaism should accept that some parents violate the UN Children’s Convention, and mutilate their boys because religion is more important for them than basic human rights.

Allowing female genital mutilation in the name of equality

During the following debate, Marie Krarup was asked why some minorities living in Denmark should be allowed to cut into their boys’ genitals, while other groups for cultural reasons just as legitimate, risk several years in jail, if they have genital mutilation performed on their girls.

Marie Krarup suggested that we do away with this sexist imbalance by opening up for a ‘mild’ form of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality before the law so to speak.

The fact that this Member of Parliament can get it over her lips to legitimate female sexual mutilation in order to preserve the right to mutilate boy’s penisses, is logical enough in all its horror. When one has a world view which accepts that boys should pay with pain and life long loss of sexual sensitivity, because of their parents’ religious ideas, well I guess the same fate may befall girls.

The fact that it is possible to completely spare boys and girls for this madness by banning all none medically necessary chirurgy on children’s genitals obviously hasn’t occurred to Marie Krarup as a viable possibility.

Circumcision advocacy not official position of DPP

Many members of the Danish People’s Party are probably happy that she spoke as a private person, and not on behalf of the party.

[Mr. Frisch is sure right about that one too!]


Leo Milgrom (the Jewish man) asked a question to Katrine Winkel Holm which sounded about like this: ‘Is it ok if a new religious movement would want to amputate the tip of the little finger of their kids, in order to give them a sign of their belonging to a group, when after all it is legal to remove something far more valuable from a boy’s sex organ?

Theologian Katrine Winkel Holm thought not, because that would be violence against the child. When fingertip amputation is violence, while foreskin amputation isn’t, that is because there are historical reasons to cut into boys penisses, we were made to understand.

Or in other words, when a religiously motivated assault has been going on for so long that we have repressed the notion that it is an act of violence, nobody from the outside should come and interfere.


Foreskin amputation is costly. For the defenseless boys as well as for the young and adult men they will become later on. Sexually, emotionally, identity wise and economically.

That fact that this practice in the US is a golden egg worth hundreds of millions for doctors and other ‘circumcizers’ is a delicate matter which was not brought up at the meeting.

But it is thought provoking, that American Pediatricians and Obstetricians, who perform most of the foreskin amputations on newly born American boys, are the only doctors in the world, who can find arguments in the scientific literature in favor of the foreskin amputation practice.


People in the Western world prioritize to an ever higher degree the emphasis on the rights of children and abstain from the practice.

Even in the US where prognoses say that 2014 or 2015 will be the first year since WWII in which more than half of all newly born boys will have intact sex organs when they leave the maternity ward.

Western doctors argue against the amputation practice, except those who make good money out of it. [And those who support it for tribal reasons – Balder]

Marie Krarup doesn’t think that we should protect Danish boys from genital mutilation.

But a solid majority of the Danish public wants Denmark to lead the way and stop this assault on underage boys which is illegal under the UN Convention.

The Danish Medical Society advices against medically unnecessary foreskin amputation. The Sex & Society Organization is against it, as well as the Children’s Council.

What do you say?

Morten Frisch is Chief Medical Doctor, ph.d., and professor of Sexual Health Epidemiology

Comment: White Nationalists who complain that Muslim men should have more fun when they have sex with non-Muslim women resemble Muslims who think non-Muslims should have large non-Muslim families instead of being sluts and faggots. Disingenous, transparent hypocrisy is never cool or even effective.


PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New “Normal”

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New “Normal”

Yes! Different is normal!

So I just recently saw a video put out by Planned Parenthood, entitled “Different is Normal.”

It’s an interesting little video, obviously aimed towards teens, and it would probably be a very good message if it weren’t for one, tiny, detail.

Actually, no, it’s actually a rather large detail; it outright tries to call the circumcised penis “normal,” like any other part of the body we’re born with.

The video starts out with a good message…

“As a teenager, you worry about a lot of things: homework, acne, your profile picture. One thing you shouldn’t be worried about is whether or not your breasts, penis, or vulva are normal, but lots of kids do. So, are they normal? Will they be when you’re all grown up? Short answer: yes. Long answer: well, when it comes to our bodies, being different is normal.”

Well, there’s a slightly longer answer, but Planned Parenthood won’t be addressing it here. 

“You already know that our bodies are just like snowflakes, no two are alike. Our faces are all made of the same parts: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, but they all look completely different. If that goes for your face, then why not the rest of your body? The reality is that normal is different. It’s all over the place.”

Do you see where this is going?

They start with the penis.

“Here’s a flaccid, or soft, adult penis. All penises have the same parts: glans, shaft, urethra, and all have testicles hanging below. Here’s one that’s erect, or hard.”

Of course.

But, where’s the foreskin? Is that not a part of the penis? And why are they showing a picture of a circumcised penis, as if it were the way it appeared in nature? Where’s the scar?

They show a second slide:

Only THEN do they decide to add:

“Some have foreskins, some are circumcised and have no foreskin.”

Did the guy with a foreskin get some sort of body modification? Was he born with some sort of genetic variation? Why are penises assumed to be circumcised by default?

“Some are shorter, some are thicker, some are thinner, some curve when they’re erect.”
“All are normal.”

Well. At least they hope to convince insecure teens.

Let’s see how they treat the girls:

“Same goes for girls. Each vulva has an inner labia, outer labia, clitoris, 
pening to the vagina, urethra, and clitoral hood.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

They didn’t seem to forget the labia, nor the clitoral hood, nor the clitoris in this diagram. Furthermore, the girls are actually shown different diagrams of different other vulvas, complete with different shapes and sizes of the clitoris, as well as variations in the lengths of the labia.

A stark difference is that the boys don’t get to see different types of foreskins and/or glans. It appears the only variations among penises is circumcised and not… Absolutely no mention of the frenulum…

“Even with the same parts, each adult vulva looks completely different.
Some have bigger openings in the vagina, some have bigger clitorises that stick out…”
“…some have wide outer labia…”
“…some have bigger inner labia that stick out…”
“…and often the labia in the pair don’t match each other.”
“All are normal”

So much dedication and care for the female vulva. Where are all the variations of the male penis?  Where are all the large prominent glans? The long foreskins? The short foreskins? The uneven foreskins? Are those not “normal?”

But, more than this, where are all the circumcised vulvas? Where are the vulvas with no clitoris? Where are the vulvas that have been sewn up in infibulation? If they’re showing diagrams of circumcised penises, why aren’t they showing diagrams of female circumcision? Why does Planned Parenthood try to pass off the circumcised penis as just another variation of “normal?”

Would Planned Parent hood EVER dare to say that ANY of these things was normal?

Female genital cutting is “normal” for millions of girls in Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei and all over South East Asia.

But let’s not talk about THAT.

“So remember, when it comes to our faces, our hands, and yes, our genitals, different is normal. So you can officially stop worrying about your vulva, breasts, or penis.”

Do you hear that, boys? Do you hear that men? You can stop worrying about the fact that someone took a knife and sliced off part of your penis.

Muslim boy becoming “normal.”

This is perfectly “normal” and acceptable.

What about you girls who don’t have a clitoris? Who are missing your labia? Or who have been infibulated?

For millions of girls globally, this is “normal.”

Go sit in a corner and feel sorry for yourself.

Thanks, Planned Parenthood, but NO THANKS.

No, the circumcised penis is NOT normal.

It is a forced, contrived, artificial phenomenon.

It is a subversion of the normal, healthy penis.

No, penises in the world DON’T all have the same parts. (Neither do vulvas in the world for that matter…) Some are missing parts, and it’s because they were deliberately CUT OFF.

But let’s not get into that; this is a feel-good video for teens, right?

This video is pure self-serving GARBAGE.

Planned Parenthood ought to be ASHAMED for trying to normalize genital mutilation.

They ought to be ashamed that they are insulting the youth’s intelligence with this crap.

SHAME on you, Planned Parenthood, SHAME on you.

Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

The presence of the foreskin is normal, and its absence abnormal.

Nay, it is a deliberate disfigurement.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

The same video touting the same bullshit can be seen here in Spanish.

The New York Times has actually published a very informative article concerning female genital cutting as it occurs in South East Asia and can be accessed here.

Comment: Among many people, Planned Parenthood has a very shady reputation. Again, as I stressed many times, lowering the birthrate by whatever means requires the acceptance of euthanasia. Hell is eternal.

The Quandary of Liberalism

My Body, My Choice: Ban Non-Consensual Circumcision

by Matthew A. Taylor
November 22, 2011

Rabbi Lerner’s defense of infant circumcision (“No to the Proposed Legal Ban on Circumcision”) is filled with holes. One of the holes is in my heart and inscribed on my body.

Credit: Creative Commons/G. J. Charlet III

Like countless men who have been circumcised, I’m angry about what was taken from me. If I could go back in time to the moment before this was done to me, I would use any means necessary to stop it. I wish there’d beena law against it. I’ve spent many nights ruminating in grief. I know other men like me who have sunk into deep depression while wrestling with the pain of this violation.

“Circumcision is a matter of individual choice,” Lernertold the Jewish Week newspaper.

What about my choice? Shouldn’t my right to an intact body matter? Lerner doesn’t address the possibility that a man should have the right to make the choice for himself. Advocates of circumcision evidently believe the feelings of the human who is being cut are irrelevant. Anyone with an open heart who listens to the screams of a baby being circumcised cannot honestly believe that babies want to be circumcised.

While parents have to make tough decisions about many things concerning the health of their children, this is the only routinely made choice that involves an irreversible amputation that is not medically necessary. Why is this one body part of newborns of this one gender OK to forcibly amputate?

Not only is circumcision’s harm permanent, the traumatizing event takes place in early infancy, when the baby is most vulnerable and sensitive to pain. With enough therapy and personal growth work, most forms of verbal, physical, and even sexual abuse can be overcome. But circumcision leaves a man disfigured for life.

Lerner claims, “there is little evidence that circumcised men have less sexual pleasure than uncircumcised men.” In fact, circumcision throughout history has been motivated by a drive to reduce men’s sexual pleasure. In the twelfth century of the Common Era, revered scholar and sage Rabbi Moses Maimonideswrote, “One of the reasons for circumcision is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.”

Christian puritans such as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (co-inventor of the corn flake) promoted circumcisionin the nineteenth century as a means to curb masturbation and reduce male sex drive, which led to its widespread adoption among non-Jews in the United States. Female circumcision was widely practiced in institutional settings in this country until the mid-twentieth century for the same reasons, and is still performed on a limited basis today, despite being illegal.

While circumcision may not reduce a man’s desire to make love to himself, it irrevocably reduces his capacity to experience sexual pleasure. The foreskin is a natural and integral part of a man’s penis, containing tens of thousands of nerve receptors found nowhere else in a man’s genitalia. The foreskin glides up and down on the penis, providing pleasure to both a man and his partner, and keeps the head of the penis moist and sensitive. Many men who have been circumcised as adults report a significant decrease in sexual pleasure.

A recent British Journal of Urology study offered this report:

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce (foreskin) is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

But we don’t need studies and medical research to know how much sexual pleasure a foreskin provides. Ask European men. Most of the intact men I’ve spoken to say they enjoy having a foreskin, and they feel lucky to have escaped the circumcision lottery with penis intact.

Imagine there was a surgery performed on babies that removed their capacity to see in color. An entire life spent viewing the world in black-and-white would still be beautiful, but shouldn’t human beings have the right to see in color? Why should anyone have the right to take that away?

Most men who experience sex in shades of gray don’t know what they’re missing. And when the topic is brought up, a lot of men get defensive because it’s difficult in this culture to admit that one’s penis—the center of many men’s definition of manhood—is somehow less than it should be. It’s also hard for men to admit that their loving parents made a poor decision that caused irreparable harm.

Rabbi Lerner repeats many of the myths about circumcision, such as the claim that there’s “some evidence that [men who are circumcised] are less likely to carry some diseases than the uncircumcised.”

In fact, reputable members of the medical community have argued that the studies that show any such benefit are flawed and suffer from selection bias. According to Doctors Opposing Circumcision, all claims that circumcision provides any protective benefit against sexually transmitted diseases, male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection have been disproved. They add that history shows that medical professionals have for decades invented theorized benefits as a rationale to justify the procedure––a solution in search of a problem.

George Denniston, M.D.—a graduate of the Harvard School of Public Health associated with the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Washington—writes:

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Even if circumcision really did lower the rates of STD transmission, shouldn’t educated adults make their own decisions about their sex lives? Condoms and responsible sexual relationships prevent STDs, not circumcision.

Protesters march in an anti-circumcision protest in San Francisco. Credit: Creative Commons/Mik Scheper

No medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision, and in fact, most Western medical associations recommend against the procedure. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association released the world’s most up-to-date national policy statement on circumcision in 2010. Their well-footnotedpolicy recommended that doctors aggressively counsel familiesagainst circumcising due to the “absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.”

Lerner extols the virtues of the Jewish community’s traditional abhorrence of violence against women. But why is violence against men OK? Mainstream Judaism practices a form of patriarchy that holds women and girls as sensitive and vulnerable, while men and boys are emotionless warriors against whom violence is not only permissible, but also necessary.

Lerner refers to allegedly feminist arguments in favor of circumcision, lines of thought that strike me as misandry masquerading as feminism. For example, feminist-identified Rabbi Elyse Goldstein argues that men’s “phallic-centered power” must be decreased in order to teach men to respect and become more like women. “In ‘sacrificing’ a piece of the penis, in uncovering and revealing themselves in their most vulnerable part, in making themselves more like women, men can be made more whole,” Goldstein claims.

From where I sit, arguments like Goldstein’s sound like hate speech. If a man said he needed to cut off part of a woman’s genitals in order to make her “more like a man,” he’d rightly be ostracized. Why do we, as a progressive community, let this kind of dehumanization of men go unchallenged? Yes, male violence against women is a huge social problem and must be addressed. Inflicting irreversible harm onto our innocent sons’ genitals is not the answer.

Which part of your daughter’s body would you cut off to prevent a disease? Which part of her genitals would you cut off because you believe that God commanded you to do so? Well if you wouldn’t cut your daughter, why is it OK to cut your son?

Abolishing infant circumcision would benefit the Jewish people. Rabbi Lerner rightly mentions that we’ve left behind numerous Torah commandments in the dustbin of history, such as stoning people to death and taking slaves from neighboring nations. Did giving up those divine dictates harm the Jews or make us more righteous and compassionate?

We can look to the foundational myths of Judaism for guidance toward the abolition of infant circumcision. Abraham’s smashing of the idols represents the Jewish commitment to iconoclasm, which, according tomedia theorist Douglas Rushkoff, is one of the three pillars of the Jewish experience, along with social justice and abstract monotheism. Circumcision is a false idol, and must be discarded.

Similarly, in the story of the binding of Isaac, the angels tell Abraham that even though he is willing to sacrifice his son, doing so is not a path to the divine. In the story, Abraham’s alternative sacrifice of a lamb is his idea, not requested by the angels. Eventually, Jews left behind animal sacrifice as well, as we recognized that killing defenseless creatures does not bring us closer to the Creator. Someday, we will see the same truth about circumcision that we came to see about human and animal sacrifice. After all, circumcision is nothing more than a different flavor of those ancient practices. It’s sacrificial violencepassed from generation to generation, with holy intentions and unholy consequences.

When we finally liberate ourselves from the mental and spiritual prison of this tradition, we will clear space to engage in more loving, compassionate practices, such as Brit Shalom (covenant of peace), a contemporary Jewish baby-welcoming ceremony that preserves the positive intentions of a standard Bris but without the cutting.

Such a change would be a blessing not only for the babies condemned to lose part of their bodies, but also for those who lose their lives. Over one hundred babies die every year in the United States due to circumcisions in medical and religious settings, and many others end up with other complications, including severe disfigurement. As many may recall, a young man named David Reimer committed suicide in 2004 because he couldn’t live with the debilitating consequences to his love life of having his penis amputated during a circumcision.

When I was in Jerusalem at the Wailing Wall during a human rights research fellowship a few years ago, an Orthodox woman told me: “Baby boys are born without a soul. When we cut off the foreskin, a hole is created in the body for God’s soul to enter into them. This is why circumcision is a divine mandate.”

This woman is as mistaken as Abraham was when he believed that God required the sacrifice of Isaac. Someday, we will see that our baby boys are born perfectly whole and complete, with their souls as intact as their genitals.

Lerner argues that banning circumcision against nonconsenting minors undermines “the First Amendment rights of Jews” and creates “a slippery slope toward the abolition of all religious practices.” Such claims are unfounded. The First Amendment’s protections of speech and expression do not apply to harming other people. The First Amendment does not give you the right to sacrifice a virgin, punch someone in the face, or even cut off a tip of someone else’s finger because it’s part of a religion. Simply put, the First Amendment ends where someone else’s body begins.

Anti-circumcision protesters march in San Francisco Credit: Creative Commons/Mik Scheper

As for the supposed slippery slope, if circumcision is banned, will that lead to the outlawing of Passover Seders? Not in a million years. Not in this country. Let’s give the United States the credit it deserves for being a relatively free, open society.

As a corollary to his slippery slope argument, Lerner claims, “It’s not hard to imagine some who were sexually abused by Catholic priests as children attempting to ban Catholic educational institutions or even the Church itself, attacking the entire institution as sexually perverted or violently patriarchic.” This is as misguided as saying those of us who wish to abolish the U.S. imperial war machine seek to abolish the entire country, and yet another tactic to silence the voices of the abused. And what an eyebrow-raising Freudian slip! Doesn’t Lerner’s comparison point out that when we strip away the emotional tug of religious tradition, infant circumcision lands in the same ethical boat as institutionally shielded sexual molestation?

Speaking of the slippery slope, what if—God forbid—the Supreme Court one day were to rule that the First Amendment permits nonconsensual circumcision as a form of protected religious expression? Wouldn’t that create a slippery slope in which even more extreme forms of religious violence against defenseless children become legalized? Federal law prohibits all forms of genital cutting performed on nonconsenting minor girls. This includes female circumcision variants that are far less harmful than the typical male circumcision, for example, a small ceremonial nick of the clitoral hood (the female analogue of a foreskin). The U.S. Constitution provides for equal protection, and it’s hard to imagine a law that protects only girls from genital cutting withstanding a legal challenge that sought to extend such protection to boys.

To be clear, I have no objection to circumcision or any other form of body modification when it’s freely chosen by a consenting adult. Sensibly, the proposed San Francisco ban only applies to circumcision of nonconsenting minors.

Many Jews today oppose circumcision. For more perspectives, see,, and Circumcision is not a requirement to be Jewish; this is determined solely by parental heritage or conversion. Circumcision is on the decline among world Jewry, for example, less than half of newborn boys in Swedish Jewish families are cut.

Routine circumcision of nonconsenting minors is a human rights violation, whether it’s practiced on boys or girls, and it must be outlawed. Anyone who stands in the way of this reform—including Rabbi Lerner—stands in the way of human rights and genital-integrity equality. I hope my words, as painful as they may be to read, will contribute to an Abraham-like transformation of his perspective.

During the weeks since Rabbi Lerner wrote his original critique of the proposed legal ban, a judge struck the ballot measure from the San Francisco election, and the California legislature passed a law that prohibits local municipalities from restricting circumcision. I believe both actions were wrongheaded and inconsistent with existing federal law that protects female minors from nonconsensual genital cutting. One day, I believe justice will prevail and that the law will be expanded to accommodate equal protection for male minors.

(To read Rabbi Tzvi Marx’s rebuttal to this article and other opposing views on circumcision, click here.)

Matthew A. Taylor ( is a writer and human rights activist. He offers a listing of genital integrity resources at

Comment: This is the logical result of Liberalism. If FGM is banned, and infant baptism is banned, how can ritual circumcision stay?