Ethics and Esthetics


There is a lot of fuss about this picture on facebook. Strictly speaking, they are discussing removal of the hood, or clitoral foreskin. This is just as ethical or unethical as removing penile foreskin, give or take some ethical wiggle room. I personally prefer the look of a covered clitoris for the same reason many women prefer the look of an uncovered glans, that is, increased femininity.masculinity.

We should always accept the hard facts, regardless of political expediency.

What’s Wrong with the Movement for Genital Autonomy?

What’s Wrong with the Movement for Genital Autonomy?*

Since a German regional court in Cologne ruled in the summer of 2012 that the circumcision of a Muslim boy constituted “grievous bodily harm,” a movement was born that calls on governments across Europe to legislatively protect “genital autonomy.” The European debate is characterized by the fact that, unlike in the U.S., the majority of Christian and secular men are not circumcised. Depending on national context, the circumcision rate ranges between 0% (Finland), 1.5% (Spain, Denmark), 10% (Germany), up to a high of 15% (U.K.). Across Europe, circumcision is considered a ritual practice limited to Muslim and Jewish religious minorities. The German Bundestag was caught off guard by the Cologne court’s decision and sprang into action, mindful of the ominous consequences of this criminalization for Jewish (as well as Muslim) communities in the country of the Holocaust. By December 2012, German lawmakers passed a law defending the right of Jewish and Muslim religious communities to circumcise their sons—though not their daughters.

This spurred a movement across Europe that demanded the protection of boys’ bodily integrity in the name of gender equality. Their declarations and websites use gender-neutral language and declare “genital autonomy” a “fundamental right of each human being,” which includes “personal control of their own genital and reproductive organs; and protection from medically unnecessary genital modification and other irreversible reproductive interve. The Nordic Ombudsman of the Child Rights International Network issued a declaration in Oslo in 2013, signed by representatives from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland that called on their respective governments to outlaw boys’ ritual circumcision and “to work towards a situation where circumcision without medical indication may only be carried out if a boy, who has reached the age and maturity required in order to understand the necessary medical information, chooses to consent to the procedure.” Girls are not mentioned explicitly.

The reason for this silence is, as another website explains that “the problem of girls’ circumcision has been thoroughly discussed in the media and on the internet… while the ritual circumcision of boys has been remained completely taboo.” One website quotes Somali anti-Muslim activist Ayan Hirsi Ali, never known to shy away from controversy, as saying in an interview on Dutch TV: “I believe that male circumcision is worse than the incision of a girl.” The German site asserts that “the male foreskin contains more than double as many nerve endings as the female and possesses much greater physiological significance.” Another website,, maintains that “the amputation of the foreskin occurs usually against the will and without consent of the victim and causes considerable physical, sexual and psychological harm. It can and should therefore be called male genital mutilation (MGM). The comparability to female genital mutilation is given . . .The court decision [in Cologne] for the first time found the medically unnecessary amputation of the foreskin illegal bodily harm and explicitly gave boys the same self-evident right of genital autonomy which is generally accepted for girls.”

There are several reasons why this European push to criminalize ritual circumcision of boys is odious. First, there is the competitive edge that aims to outman the political battle against FGM, which is far from self-evident and generally accepted. Suddenly, men must be rescued from marginalization and traumatization and need support workshops with names like “Revealing the Wound-Restoring the Dignity,” as offered at the conference at the University of Colorado in Boulder in July 2014. The idea that ritual circumcision of the penile foreskin should be considered equivalent to the partial or total removal of the clitoris, the excision of the labia minor, and/or the infibulation of the vagina achieved by slicing (incision) and sewing up the vagina is ludicrous. The gender-neutral code of “genital autonomy” serves to conceal the “seamless garment” of coercive violence that aims to control women’s sexual and reproductive bodies. These practices cannot be compared at either the level of their painful physical and psychological impact or for their religious, political, and cultural meanings.

The religious reasons for men’s “mutilation” are fundamentally different from the arguments that drive the wounding of women. Women are cut for aesthetic reasons in order to purify and protect men from promiscuous female sexual pleasure. Women’s pleasure and agency is the target of the knife and it serves no religious signification. Men’s circumcision, on the other hand, does not aim at sensation and potency. On the contrary, men’s virility is enhanced by circumcision and loaded with religious meaning. God seals the covenant with Abraham promising him progeny, land, and everlasting life. The sacrifice of (fore)skin is more properly compared to the pain and blood of breaking the hymen. The promise of future offspring requires women’s sacrifice of bodily integrity (by penetration). The commandment given to Abraham to circumcise “the flesh of your foreskin … as a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old,” (Gen 17:11-12), is given within the context of the promise of descendants. Male circumcision and the penetration of women constitute the basis of the “covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.” (Gen 17:7) Christian women who refused to sacrifice their hymen by pledging perpetual virginity (as Christian women did) radically reinterpreted the meaning of God’s covenant with “carnal Israel.” But for Jews, the regeneration of the covenant involves the sexual production of corporate peoplehood, which is ritually sealed in the flesh of the male foreskin and consummated in women’s reproductive labors.

It is precisely this religious quality of male circumcision that disturbs its secularist European opponents. The movement to criminalize ritual circumcision is spearheaded by uncircumcised men who feel morally obliged to protect innocent boys from “ancient stone age rituals” and “obedient submission to irrational laws of a tribal god.” It is Christian men who want to prevent the medically unnecessary suffering of Muslim and Jewish boys. All of their websites, especially those in German, categorically reject any suggestion that their campaign might advance anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim aims, and loudly proclaim their tolerance and opposition to antisemitism. But their denials are hollow. For instance, one website lectures: “Some Jews are afraid to recognize circumcision for what it really is and think that those who reject circumcision are antisemitic. That is ridiculous. Jews are not defined by their practices… People who advance the antisemitism-argument to undermine criticism of circumcision may be swayed by the following analogy: If 90% of all black people smoke, and one opposes smoking, one is not therefore a racist, but only an opponent of smoking. It is the practice not the people.” Surely, since circumcision is merely a bad habit, any reasonable person should be able to quit…. Such dismissive, arrogant, and self-righteous contentions reveal the true agenda.

Odd and rapidly shifting political and religious coalitions characterize the contemporary European scene. Emotional appeals to protect innocent children from the bloody knives of religious fanatics unite conservatives with progressives. Feminists, who work against sexual violence, such as FGM, are recruited into campaigns to outlaw gender-neutral ritual circumcisions thereby marginalizing and criminalizing Muslim and Jewish minorities. European Jews and Muslims are divided by the rise of antisemitism, which is increasingly committed by Muslim immigrants, radicalized by poverty, jihadi ideology, and anti-Israel politics, but find common ground in resisting this ban. Feminists should insist on the fundamental difference between male and female circumcision and speak out against criminalizing male circumcision in countries where such bans serve to marginalize religious minorities.

Comment: Boldfacing by me.

MRA’s Target Female Pediatrician

Most MRA’s are enamoured with the intactivist movement regarding circumcision. They make silly comparisons between FGM and circ, making people laugh at how ridiculous they are.

Some of these MRA intactivists sit outside medical conventions harassing any woman they can find and talking about their porn fantasies, which include the complete torture of women’s bodies and especially their genitals, while whining about how their dicks don’t work.

Whether you think circ is a good thing or a bad thing, MRA’s use it because it’s something to use as a weapon to attack women. This is precisely what happened when a bunch of them attacked Dr. Monaghan outside a convention. They held up their signs with their crotches spray painted red and told her about what they like to see happen to women’s genitals, especially when they’re at home every day beating off to it.

What they think of the doctor, after they spent days harassing her and beating off to torture of women (comments from AVFM):



Then they got sad face when the good doctor told them that hey, maybe they should cut the whole thing off so they’ll stop harassing her. OMGERDDDD! The doctor talked back! She put my male violence in my face to show me how fucking ridiculous I’m being! Then they told her to ‘cut off your pussy lips BITCH!’ ‘Cut your VULVA BITCH!’ ‘YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE!’

Now it’s true that men love watching a grown male fuck a female child in porn. Teen porn is very popular to these men. I wonder if they know how painful it is for a female child to be penetrated by a grown man. We’ve also seen a rise in men, fathers and brothers, raping their young daughters and sisters, even infant girls while whacking off to child porn. So really it’s men who are the pedos and are projecting it onto her. Ah yes, the smell of fresh MRA hypocrisy in the morning.

These MRA’s harassed these doctors for days, specifically women, and then when the good doctor got angry they took that one comment and began failling on their fainting couches. They forgot to edit out the sexual violence they wanted to do to her afterward and in a brief moment of intellect, understood what FGM is all about. FGM is about cutting girls completely whereby they have ZERO sexual pleasure and have complications their ENTIRE lives. It makes it easier for men to own women as baby making machines and fuck holes. This never happens to men, ever.

She’s not the first female they’ve harassed. This MRA made another video where he claims he met two women, who he assumed were doctors, and claimed they said they’d stop circumcision when they got equal pay. Of course he didn’t catch any of this on camera. I imagine he targeted a couple women and then started harassing them because that’s what this is really about. These MRA intactivists specifically target women so they can use circ to harass them. It’s as simple as that.

See, it’s ok for dudes to beat off to women and girl children being gagged, anally raped, vaginally torn and bruised on a daily basis but goddammit if a doctor makes a quip about MAH DICK when I’ve been harassing her for days!

Guys, you’re being dumb. Harassing women near medical conventions with your silly diatribes about man hating lesbians who circ boys is you being ridiculous. Your need to get off on the actual torture of women’s and girls genitals in porn marks you as the ultimate hypocrites. I won’t give you any tips on activism because I love watching you make jackasses out of yourselves.

Your dicks work just fine when you beat off to women and children being genitally, anally, and orally tortured on a daily basis. So I don’t want to hear your shit about how you can’t sexually function and manhating lesbian doctors are ruining your life.

You compare FGM to circ and people laugh at you and they’re right to do so. How is it that you don’t understand the differences between how and why girls are cut up to nothing and how and why you are NOT? Nevermind, don’t answer that. You should already know.


House Mouse Queen
September 15, 2015 at 12:50 PM
I have to say that I’ve been with both circed men and uncirced men and the uncirced men got yeast infections. I remember when my partner from Greece who was uncirced got a yeast infection. I had to take him to the doctors and he had to take internal medicine. The doctor flat out told him it was b/c he wasn’t circed and that he would keep getting them.

I am Jewish and it’s part of our covenant for boys to be circed and after my experiences with men who are uncirced having problems I would be more likely to circ my child.

I actually think the medical evidence is pretty compelling FOR it. I also don’t think harassing women at medical conventions accusing them of being man hating lesbians is going to stop the practice.

Either way, it’s about educating parents about it, not screaming at women.

Empowered Circumcised Women

How crazy can someone be to start a magazine for “empowered circumcised women”?  Who does that? Aren’t circumcised women supposed to be “mutilated”? What on earth could be so “empowering” about female circumcision?? Well, about three weeks ago I completed and posted on my website the first issue of SiA and the Shabaka Stone Magazine, a new African feminist and women’s lifestyle quarterly designed to give voice to the “silent majority” of circumcised women globally who oppose anti-Female Genital Mutilation campaigns and the war being fought by feminist activists on our behalf.  Given my erratic schedule, I only had time to quickly post the promo video on Facebook with a link to the website and digital magazine. The magazine had nearly 1,000 unique views in just a few days.  My lead interview first published in NewstimeAfrica (read here) has registered on its own website over 250,000 views since February 6 (International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM).  Clearly, SiA Magazine is not such a crazy idea!!!  But, the question remains, why should circumcised women care to read SiA Magazine? Ladies, here are five good reasons to embrace yourself:

1. To know the “other side” of the debate on female circumcision. 

Many of us come from societies that practice both male and female initiation and circumcision.  While on the one hand we are taught that male circumcision is a “good”, hygienic and religiously grounded practice, on the other hand we are told that female circumcision is “bad”, that it is “mutilation” of perfectly “healthy” genitalia and interferes with sexual functioning.  We are told further that Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a form of extreme patriarchal control over women and that it must be eradicated with self-righteous, robust anger and urgency.  And so, like me, many of you have asked yourselves: How is that my mother, aunties, grandma and other women in my family have been participating in this great crime against women and girls and even subjected me to it? Are these women really acting out of ignorance, shame, oppression, and hopelessness?  Why were all the women celebrating and rejoicing during my own ceremony or others I attended? 

2. To understand that different women experience different forms of female circumcision in different ways. 

Many of us are bombarded with horrific media representations of the most extreme (yet comparatively rare) forms of female circumcision.  We don’t recognize ourselves in those images and our experiences are taken completely out of context.  According to anti-FGM activists, we supposedly cannot enjoy sex or we have “reduced” feeling.  We are said to have all these intractable health problems yet uncircumcised western women are increasingly seeking so-called “vaginoplasties” or “designer vaginas” that look very similar to our supposedly mutilated vaginas. Clearly, these “crazy” women also see and experience the health and aesthetic benefits for themselves!

3. To know the real origins of female circumcision and how it relates to male circumcision in our African religious and cultural contexts.  

Unfortunately, the dominant western feminist discourse on female circumcision defines this practice as a (most insidious) form of patriarchal control over female sexuality.  This patriarchy narrative has been repeated so often that it seems to be an obvious fact.  But, many of us feel intuitively that this doesn’t make sense of our own experiences.  Yet we can’t ask our mothers or female elders – many of them don’t know either; they say it’s “tradition”.  What circumcised women need to keep in mind (and the media and western feminists will not tell you) is that most African societies that practice female circumcision also uphold subversive ideologies of female empowerment.    

4. To be able to hold your own and maintain your self-esteem in the midst of anti-FGM hate campaigns and negative media stereotypes. 

Many people see terrifying youtube images of African women and girls being forced, coerced, kidnapped, tricked, held-down and savagely “mutilated” by either eerie looking, cross-eyed men or witch-like, toothless old women.  It never occurs to the everyday person going about his or her business in western societies that you – the polite looking African female neighbor, housekeeper, nursing assistant, professor, doctor, scientist or coworker – might be a circumcised woman.  While it’s not anyone’s business either way, it is important for you to keep their prejudices in perspective: In the eyes of the enlightened western world, female circumcision or “FGM” affects poor, illiterate, despondent and oppressed African women in some random rural village oceans away.  According to this worldview, a woman cannot conceivably be both empowered and circumcised. 

5. To appreciate that there are so many options that stop short of “zero-tolerance to FGM” slogans and anti-FGM hate campaigns. 

Our more powerful and morally superior western detractors need to take a lesson from the history and experience of homosexuals in their own countries – you simply cannot continue to hate and legislate against the preferences of adults and adolescents who have reached the age of majority to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies – African women included.  You don’t get to legislate your feelings of disgust or apprehension about the practices and preferences of others.  This doesn’t mean that as a global society, we (including circumcised African women who are also human beings with free will) should not concern ourselves with the protection of innocent children.  What this does mean is that we have to treat all children as equals – irrespective of sex, gender, culture, socioeconomic class, ethnic origin, religion and so on.  This means we don’t get to use terms like FGM or MGM or any kind of “mutilation” in order to insist on an age of consent for all non-medically indicated genital surgeries on children.

So, my circumcised sisters, just like much of the western world is only now coming to grips with the humanness of homosexuality and the need to embrace different lifestyle choices, I believe that good-minded, well-meaning people will come to accept that grown African women have the right to choose to uphold whatever forms of female circumcision we may desire for ourselves – whether as a cultural tradition or aesthetic preference, within traditional initiation settings or in hospitals and clinics – and not be judged by those who choose differently.  SiA Magazine supports above all the principle of equality – our equality as circumcised women with other adult women and men in the world as well as the equal (not special) treatment of our daughters vis a vis our sons and other children worldwide.  

If you are a circumcised woman, you are by African definition empowered and SiA Magazine is especially for you!!!!!

Comment: To know the “other side” of the debate on female circumcision. We should always look at every issue in as many ways as possible.

Trans activists are effectively experimenting on children

8 April 2015 15:45
A boy who plays with dolls is not trans or dysphoric - he's just a boy who plays with dolls

A boy who plays with dolls is not trans or dysphoric – he’s just a boy who plays with dolls

Can you think of anything more cruel than telling a five-year-old boy who likes Lady Gaga that he might have gender dysphoria? Or telling a nine-year-old tomboy who hates Barbie and loves Beckham that she might really be male – in spirit – and therefore she should think about putting off puberty and possibly transitioning to her ‘correct gender’?

Saying such things to kids who are only doing what kids have done for generations – messing about, discovering their identity – turns playfulness into a pathology. It convinces boys who aren’t boyish and girls who aren’t girly that they must have some great gender problem, a profound inner turmoil that their tiny minds must address, when in truth they’re just having fun. What an awful trick to play on children.

It’s being played on them more and more. ‘Transgender kids’ – the quote marks are because I’m not convinced that toddlers are capable of thinking – are in the news. On Sunday, BBC 2 aired Louis Theroux’s documentary on trans kids in America. Like all of Theroux’s work, it was objective, observant and humane. It introduced us to Camille, a five-year-old, pink-loving, Gaga-admiring boy who daftly thinks he is a girl, and even more daftly is indulged by psychologists and his parents; Cole/Crystal, a boy who can’t decide whether he is male or female (Cole, buddy, you’re male) and whose confusion was heightened by the conflicting responses of the adults around him; and, saddest of all, Nikki, born Nick, a troubled 14-year-old boy who is taking drugs to put off puberty because, according to experts at least, he’s transgender.

The trend for diagnosing gender dysphoria or transgenderism in kids who a couple of decades ago would simply have been seen as camp (boys) or unladylike (girls) is spreading. This week the BBC reported that the number of British kids under the age of 10 who are being referred to the NHS because they have ‘transgender feelings’ has quadrupled in six years. Forty-seven of these kids were aged 5 or under. Your four-year-old boy loves dancing in leggings to old Madonna songs? Quick, get him to the doctor! It’s bizarre.

The NHS now prescribes puberty-blocking drugs to so-called trans kids when they turn 10 or 11. This seems especially cruel, to deny children that tough but essential transitionary period, that biological burst that turns girls into women and boys into gruff-voiced scallywags who might one day mature into men. We do not ask 10-year-olds to make major decisions in relation to their schooling, where they live, smoking or sex; and yet we now invite them to make the terrifying existential choice to offset adulthood itself, to keep their hormones locked in limbo, to determine what sex they are. What a terrible burden to put on a human being who probably isn’t allowed to walk to the shop on his own or to stay up past 9pm.

We all now recognise that it was wrong and wicked to have castrato singers, males who were castrated before puberty in order to preserve their pure and feminine dulcet tones. The last-ever castrato died in 1922. Yet are we not doing something similar today, using drugs to keep boys (and girls) in a puberty-avoiding state, a childish limbo, having convinced them with psychobabble that they are dysphoric?

The treatment of non-conforming or plain funny kids as ‘transgender’ strikes me as a stunning abdication of adult responsibility. It is the job of adults to correct childish confusions, to guide kids through weird or rough patches, and ensure, to the best of our abilities, that they come out the other end as rounded, hopefully happy adults. But now, the cult of relativism runs so deep that adults even balk from making that most basic of all judgements – that a child with a penis is a boy and a child with a vagina is a girl – and instead we accommodate to the child’s own fads and silliness.

What about children who want to be dogs, or dinosaurs, or racing car drivers? Should we indulge them? ‘Transgender kids’ aren’t at fault at all here – the problem is an adult society that has so profoundly lost the plot that it can no longer steer and socialise the next generation, and can’t even bring itself to say ‘boys will be boys and girls will be girls’ because to do so in our Queer Studies-saturated era is apparently to be discriminatory, judgemental, oppressive.

There’s one more, seriously dark element to the promotion of the ‘trans kids’ phenomenon: it’s being pushed by adult trans activists as a way of pursuing their own interests and agenda. More and more trans campaigners are using ‘trans kids’ effectively as a moral shield, hoping that if they can convince the world that transgenderism is something that emerges as early as three or four then it must be natural, good, healthy, and thus should be insulated from criticism.

That is, they’re effectively experimenting on children, both socially and medically, both through filling kids’ heads with nonsense about dysphoria and offering them drugs, in order to advance their own adult demands for greater recognition. This is repulsive, the creation of a new generation of castratos who are paraded and praised in public by self-serving trans activists who only want more political clout and respect. Stop it. Let kids be kids. A boy who plays with dolls is not trans or dysphoric – he’s just a boy who plays with dolls.

Comment: They took away my comments at the site. Talking about age of consent and FGM gets you into trouble…

Women with vagina piercings to be classed as suffering from FGM

Hundreds of women in London with vagina piercings will be recorded as victims of potentially illegal female genital mutilation under new NHS rules to be introduced next month.

The mandatory reporting regulations, sent to medical staff by the Department of Health, say that any woman whose labia or clitoris has been pierced must be classed as suffering FGM.

The rules will apply even when women have consented to the piercing and had the procedure in the belief that it will improve their sex lives and enhance their attractiveness.

It means that each of the women will also be classed as a potential crime victim and that those responsible for carrying out the piercing could be deemed guilty of an offence under legislation banning FGM.

The new edict forms part of an expansion of NHS rules on recording FGM and will fuel the debate about how cosmetic genital surgery and other procedures to create “designer vaginas” should be treated by police and prosecutors.

Under existing legislation, any action to cut or otherwise damage a female’s genitals is illegal unless there is a genuine medical or psychological reason to justify the procedure.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee has warned, however, that a lack of clarity in the law means that potentially unlawful surgery is being carried out in Harley Street and elsewhere as women undergo procedures such as labia reduction for cosmetic reasons.

The new NHS regulations make clear that piercings are also a form of mutilation and should be recorded as part on an “enhanced FGM dataset” that is designed to establish the number of victims in this country.

A Department of Health spokesman confirmed the move and said that piercings were a form of FGM even when performed on consenting adult women.

He added: “While there are challenges in this area and adult women may have genital piercings, in some communities girls are forced to have them.

“The World Health Organisation has quite rightly defined this as a form of FGM. We are taking every precaution to record genital piercings that have been done within an abusive context.”

Comment: Like?

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.