Thursday, January 23, 2020

Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI

Well, I think it's finally happened.

Twitter has finally managed to kick me out for good.

I'd been locked out of my account before, but I've always managed to appeal to them to give it back.

In the bast, I had been locked out because others who wanted to shut me up reported me for responses they baited me into.

You know the type of people too.

Some pro-circ advocates are in the habit of posting inflammatory tweets about circumcision and intact men, and then reporting/blocking people respond.

It's a strategy.

A tactic they have.

I've seen them tweet about it too.

"Let's see how many foreskin crazies we can lure out."

If that's not instigation, I don't know what is.

At any rate, I had always been able to prove that others were posting instigating thoughts in order to "cancel" intactivist users.

For those still on Twitter, always take screen shots; you never know if you need to prove your innocence.

This one time some chick was posting about how all men should go get circumcised, how intact penises are smelly and ugly.

When I responded with "What would you think if I said all women should get circumcised? Because uncircumcised vaginas are ugly and smelly?", the same person reported me for "gender discrimination" or what not. I was shown my "offending Tweets." When I sent them screen shots and addresses of the instigating Tweets, they apologized, and I agreed to take down the "offending Tweets," and that they would ask the other party to take hers down.

This other time, another chick tried to get others to attack me. I forget the technical term... "aggressive following" or whatever. She retweeted something I posted encouraging others to attack me, which they did. And I didn't mind. I don't care. If people want me to destroy their idiotic excuses for circumcision arguments, I'll do it. I eat circumcision idiots for breakfast. I responded in turn, retweeting the Tweet where she was encouraging others to bombard my Tweets. The woman reports *me* for "aggressive following" or "bullying." I can't remember exactly what it was. I got banned, and again, I was able to show that it was the other person doing what she was accusing me of.

Long story short, I've always been able to appeal and come back. Appeal and come back.

But this time, I don't think I'm coming back from this one.

Actually, I suspect that some pro-circumcision Twitter administrators have had their eye on me for a while, and were looking for a way to kick me out.

I suspect that I was being shadow banned for a while, because it seemed I didn't get as many responses and likes as I used to for some time now.

I know what a sensitive topic circumcision is, and there are always people responding passionately, but recently, I hadn't been getting too many responses; just people already in the choir.

This time, I wasn't even kicked out for anything circumcision-related. I was kicked out of my account for a Tweet on a completely different topic; healthcare and gun control. Twitter said that my tweet was "encouraging violence or suicide." I used the words "In America, if you're sick and can't afford healthcare, you might as well shoot yourself." Completely figuratively, not even aimed at anyone in particular.

I have already tried appealing several times.

The first time, I got a reply, telling me that Twitter had received my appeal, that they'll be reviewing it and addressing me shortly. They did, and they told me "Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision." Which is strange, because I never challenged that a violation did take place; I appealed telling them that I would remove the offending Tweet as soon as they reinstated my account.

Thinking the response to my appeal may have been automated, I tried appealing again. This time, no reply telling me they'd got my appeal.

I appealed again the next day. And the next. And the next.

What they want is a cell phone number from me; something I haven't been able to furnish since I was first kicked out. I don't have a cell phone number I can give them; I have a company phone, and I don't want to involve my employer in my intactivism.

I always thought it was rather sneaky that anyone, Hotmail, Gmail, Twitter or any social media outlet would want something as personal as a cell-phone number. I probably could just sacrifice my employer's phone number for me, but I also don't want Twitter tracking my every move.

So no.

When I try logging into Twitter, I'm asked for a cell number if I want to proceed further.

I'm not giving them that, so I think this is where my presence on Twitter ends.

Perhaps it's for the best that I move on from Twitter, as it's become a PC wasteland where you can't say anything "offensive."

Opposing circumcision, male infant circumcision in particular is seen by its advocates as "antisemitism," or "parent harassment" or "mommy-shaming."

It's only a matter of time before opposing circumcision will be called "misogyny" and/or "violent assault."

Whatever it takes to silence us.

Well whatever.

I think I've put enough of my thoughts out there on Twitter, enough to plant seeds and for others to take my thoughts, expand on them and spread the message.

For those on you staying behind, I wish you well.

Follow my blog as I try to post monthly.

Read past posts, and do use them as arsenal for any discussions that are allowed to happen.

I do have a feeling we're winning, though.

I've been following along in the latest developments and the usual suspects have fallen silent.

I'm seeing more and more groups on Twitter, Facebook and other social media aimed at educating parents to be.

I'm confident that we are approaching victory, and that sooner or later, all who ever advocated for this sick, disgusting form of child genital mutilation will be ashamed to admit ever having done so.

Related Posts:
Circumcision Censorship at Twitter?

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Benefits of Toe Removal

A parody of routine infant circumcision and its supposed "health benefits."

"Toe Jam" on a baby

Toenails are a pain to keep clean. They accumulate dirt, and they take time to trim. If not properly washed, toe jam can develop between the toes and the foot will give off an unpleasant odor.

Toes Are Prone to Disease
The spaces between the toes are the perfect place to harbor bacteria that cause infection. Athlete's foot is such a problem in North America today that there is an entire industry based on foot hygiene products.

Athlete's Foot

The fungus that can and does grow underneath the toenails takes so long to get rid of. Fungal treatments like Lamisil and Lotrimin make a killing of money off of people with fungal problems.

Furthermore, toenails can become ingrown, requiring the need for surgery. Compound the hygiene and fungus products with the need for surgery, and having toes becomes very expensive, very fast.

Toenail Fungus

May Require Surgery Later On
When toenails become ingrown, they sometimes require medical intervention. I know quite a few guys that had to have part of their nail root killed because they had recurring ingrown toenails.

Ingrown Toenail

May Require Amputation in Adulthood
If your family has a history of diabetes, you may wish to consider removing your children's toes. If your child gets diabetes, s/he may develop a condition called "hammertoe," where poor blood circulation causes the toes to become necrotic, becoming a gangrene hazard, not only for the toes themselves, but for the rest of the foot. It is such a common incident, and there is a danger that the wound(s) may not heal correctly, causing the entire foot to be gangrenous. I know of a few cases where the wounds did not heal, and the gangrene kept spreading. The patients had to undergo surgery after surgery, until the gangrene had left them with a stump up to their thigh. Some patients simply died in recovery.


Consider Your Child's Elderly Caretaker
Caretakers for the elderly already have to deal with so much. They have to feed and wash old people, and sometimes, if the men are intact, they have to (gulp) pull back the foreskin and rinse! On top of that, they have to take care of their patients' feet. This means washing them, clipping their toenails (that never stop growing) and making sure there is no gunk between the toes or fungus under the nail beds. It would make elderly caretakers' jobs SO much easier if their patients simply didn't have any toes.

Health Risk
Babies' toes pose a specific health risk for a very common condition known as "hair tourniquet." A parent's hair wraps around the baby's toe, quickly cutting off circulation. If the condition becomes severe, the baby must be taken to the ER and have the hair removed immediately. Occasionally, the toe is lost. Clearly, parents may see that cutting off a child's toes is in the child's best interest. If parents can demand a doctor circumcise their son, then it only follows that they should be able to demand a doctor remove their child's toes.

Hair Tourniquet

And, because a parent believes it is for the best, a physician has the duty to oblige. Why, if it's done as baby, s/he won't remember it!

If they use enough anesthesia, the child will not even feel the pain.

Having your toes removed as an adult is simply no fun.

Especially if diabetes runs in the family, physicians should advise parents to cut off their babies' toes. After all, they may need to have them removed later in life anyway.

My girlfriend's cousin's boyfriend's aunt's baby had to have a toe removed because of a hair tourniquet. If I ever have a baby, I'm surely going to have his toes removed.

In short, having toes is a HEALTH HAZARD! Cutting off a child's toes has health benefits. The AAP should recommend that all doctors advise parents that they remove their child's toes in infancy. It is simply better to remove a baby's toes when s/he is too young to remember and won't know what s/he is missing later in life. Parents and doctors that choose not to remove a child's toes are denying him/her of potential health benefits.

Closing Note
These rationale for toe removal sound humorous don't they? These are actual, serious arguments used by people who defend circumcision. Use them with anything else, and the absurdity becomes obvious.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Circumcision Status, Lube & Masturbation Twitter Poll Results

Well, No Nut November 2019 is finally over, and so was a last-minute Twitter poll I conducted for the occasion.

For this poll, I asked male respondents for two, basic pieces of information.

One, circumcision status (cut or intact?), and two, whether or not lubrication is a necessity, though in retrospect, I probably should have worded it better. Perhaps "Do you use lube regularly when masturbating? Yes or no?" Would have been better. After all, I want to know what men usually do actually, not whether or not lube is a necessity. (It's possible for lube not to be a necessity, and still use lube quite regularly.)

At any rate, it is what it is, and now I give you the results.

It is noteworthy that, so far this has been the most popular poll I've conducted so far! 175 votes! You can see the results to other polls I've conducted if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of this post.

Notice those percentage points; respondents were more or less 50/50 in circumcision status, with half of the respondents being circumcised and half being intact.

Notice the circumcised group; 3/5ths or so indicated that circumcision was a necessity for the best masturbation experience, while the other 2/5ths indicated that external lubrication was not a necessity.

Again, I probably could have rephrased this question; it could be a lot of the "not needed" guys still actually use lubrication on a regular basis (this is actually what I need to know), they just indicated that it was "not needed."

Now let's look at the intact group; they overwhelmingly indicated that lubrication is *not* necessary for the best masturbation experience. Again, perhaps the question could have been rephrased; it could very well be these men use lubrication on a regular basis.

I'm interested in the actual day-to-day state of affairs; who uses lubrication more during masturbation?

Circumcised men? Or intact men?

That's what I want to know.

And if these numbers are any indication, it looks like circumcised men are more likely to be lube users.

Look at the circumcised and intact "lube is a must" bars: stark difference.

Here is another consideration for this poll:

Not all circumcised men are circumcised equally.

Some men are circumcised more loosely, or more tightly than others.

A loose circumcision may allow a man enough slack skin to use during masturbation, though the foreskin remnants may or may not slide effectively depending on how much mucosal tissue is left, in which case a man with a loose circumcision may still need to use lubrication.

Perhaps the large number of circumcised men who indicated the don't need lubrication during masturbation may have looser circumcisions, and those who indicated they need lubrication were circumcised more tightly.

Then there is that strange 2% of intact men who indicated that lubrication is a must; it could be they either learned to masturbate using lube so they don't know any better, or, it could also be that their mucosal tissue doesn't produce enough natural lubrication; some intact men produce more natural lubrication than others.

Unfortunately Twitter polls are rather limited and there is only so much data that can be asked for.

The original poll can be seen below:

This No Nut November, we learned that circumcised men may use lubrication more than intact men, and that circumcised men may be more likely to develop a "death grip" during masturbation, perhaps owing to the desensitization due to circumcision.

Just for good measure, I've included a screen shot to the "death grip" poll here.

The original poll can also be accessed here:

Finally, I'd like to close by saying that these polls are in no way as definitive as rigorous peer-reviewed study would be. I admit that they are casual, just for fun, and that further study is needed. Hopefully actual researchers will see these polls and use them as a starting point.

Related Links
Joseph4GI's Twitter Penis Poll Results

Twitter "Circumcision Status and Death Grip" Poll Results

PEPFAR: The Plot Thickens

In my last post, I talked about howthe U.S Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is planning to end their support of infant circumcision.

I also talked about the bewildering fact organizations decided to use the Mogen clamp, despite its notoriety for its glans amputation mishaps.

 Mogen Clamp

A common adverse outcome of Mogen clamp usage

The story doesn't end there, though.

As if it weren't enough that PEPFAR and other American organizations have been engaging in human experimentation on the African population, they plan to continue further.

 Chinese Shang Ring device

According to their guidelines, PEPFAR is planning to use the Chinese-manufactured ShangRing device, another circumcision clamp that is already known to be unsafe, for future circumcisions, and they intend to test it on African populations to find the rate of adverse outcomes.

I'm not exactly sure where to begin to describe how much this reeks of human experimentation, ethical violations and human rights abuses.

I don't have the strength to write anymore on this blog post.

It should already be an outrage that PEPFAR and other organizations went through and circumcised millions of African children, even though circumcisions were supposed to be voluntary (there is nothing "voluntary" in forcibly circumcising healthy, non-consenting children), even though it was already thoroughly known that the Mogen clamps were known for its glans amputations.

It is absolutely despicable that they plan on further using African populations to test yet another device known to cause problems.

Precisely what is this about?

A genuine interest in public health?

Or testing devices on unwitting African populations?

When does the human experimentation stop?

Brendon Marrotta, creator of the award-winning documentary American Circumcision has written a much more detailed blog post, and he gives his own insights on this matter. I encourage readers to go read it.

The link to Brendon's blog can be accessed here.

Related Blog Post
BREAKING: PEPFAR To Nix Infant Circumcision in Africa

Circumcision Documentary Making Waves on Netflix, Twitter

American Circumcision: A Reaction to a Documentary on Circumcision in America

External Link
PEPFAR To Experiment On African Children With The ShangRing

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

BREAKING: PEPFAR To Nix Infant Circumcision in Africa

PEPFAR Plans To End Infant Circumcision Campaign In Africa

the U.S Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is planning to end their support of infant circumcision.

These plans can be read in their draft proposal here:

PEPFAR 2020 Country Operational Plan Guidance for all PEPFAR Countries
Since the Obama years, PEPFAR has spent millions of tax dollars on "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa under the pretext of "reducing HIV transmission," based on claims made by authors of very controversial studies.

Ignored Warnings
Their 2020 Country Operational Plan Guidance draft says they are ending their support of infant circumcision due to a high rate of "adverse events" and circumcision complications


The fact that PEPFAR was funding male circumcision for *infants* in the first place raises many questions.

First, the famous African circumcision "trials" involved grown, sexually active adults. All of the campaigns happening in Africa were supposed to be aimed towards *adult* males, and was supposed to be "voluntary," hence the oft-repeated acronym "VMMC," which stands for "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision." WHY were infants who are at ZERO risk for sexually transmitted HIV being circumcised? HOW was this "voluntary" for them?

Second, are they seriously proposing that they hadn't known of "adverse events" before? That they had to circumcise millions of infants to find out? Aren't warnings complete with photographs of adverse outcomes published in guidebooks put out by PEPFAR or UNAIDS? How was this not a live human experiment carried out on unwitting children and their parents in Africa?

Promoting the Usage of a Device Known for Circumcision Mishaps

 The Mogen Circumcision Clamp

I have already written a few posts regarding the Mogen device, and how despicable it is for "researchers" to feign dissimulation as to the adverse outcomes of the usage of this device.

The Mogen device has a terrible track record for circumcision mishaps, including glans amputations. So infamous is the Mogen clamp for circumcision mishaps that numerous million-dollar lawsuits put the company out of business.

 It has been long known that the Mogen
clamp is infamous for glans amputations.

Yet, in their plan, PEPFAR admit to using the Mogen clamp.


Why were they using it?

How was this widely-published, well-known information not known to them?

These are children who will have to go through their entire lives with damaged genitals, no thanks to PEPFAR using a device known to cause errors on a massive scale.

Taxpayers Deserve to Know More
 PEPFAR claims to have done 22.8 million circumcisions, according to one of their posts on Twitter.

This information can also be found on the government website here.

This program is being funded by the taxpayer. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave 40 million of your tax dollars to this program. She and her husband have been known to be avid supporters of circumcising as many African boys and men as possible. As the people funding this madness, we have the right to know the full extent of the damage and implications this program has caused in the so-called name of "HIV prevention."

Precisely how
many adverse events were there? Exactly what type of adverse outcomes are we talking about here? How old were the children? What devices were used?

Still only a draft proposal

Ending this program would be good on many levels, however these guidelines are only a draft proposal and are, as of now, still open for public comment until December 13. PEPFAR is taking public comments and anyone can add their comment here:

Guidelines for commenting on PEPFAR's website:
PEPFAR says on their website: “Your comments on the guidance are welcome and encouraged, and it is recommended that you are as specific as possible when submitting feedback.”

Meaning: PEPFAR will not read your long philosophical rant. They may not even be interested in public comments at all, and their request for comments is only a formality.

However, they might read a SPECIFIC comment on a SPECIFIC part, with a SPECIFIC suggestion.
If you leave a comment:

  • Say you support PEPFAR’s decision to stop performing infant circumcision
  • Ask for MORE DATA on adverse events (What specifically? With what devices? On what children, etc.?)
Further reading below:

Related Posts:
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

AFRICA: PEPFAR Taking Advantage of Father's Day to Push Circumcision

MedPage Today: Circumcision "Cuts HIV" In Africa - STDs Soar In USA

Male Circumcision and HIV in Africa: EPIC FAIL

Circumcision in Africa: It ain't workin'...

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

Mogen Posts:
AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CONNECTICUT: Baby's Glans Partially Amputated - Doctor Cleared of Negligence

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

International Men's Day Issues: Circumcision

Last year, I wrote a post on International Women's Day.

I had never even heard of International Women's Day. The only reason I even became aware of it was because I started seeing posts about it on my Facebook news feed.

Pardon me if I'm too logical, but I'm one of those kinds of people who thinks in terms of opposites and converse truths.

For every high, there is a low.

For every to, there is a fro.

To and fro, stop and go, that's what makes...

Well you get the picture.

There's a mother's day, there's a father's day. There's an International Women's Day, then conversely there must be an International Men's day.

I mean right?

Is that too outlandish to think?

So I Googled it, and what was the first thing I saw?

Angry feminists, bemoaning that every year, there is a spike in searches for the question “When is international men’s day?”

Apparently, somehow men all get together and collectively decide to antagonize women.

There are a few things wrong with this line of thinking.

First, why is any feminist concerned with others Googling about an existing counterpart day for International Women's Day?

What do they care?

Does International Men's Day, or even people LOOKING UP the goddamn thing somehow invalidate women or their dedicated Day?

Why does it bother them that anyone would want to know?

How absolutely egotistical feminists must be to be concerned over who looks up to see if there's an International Men's Day.

How pettily petulant it is to pout about the fact that some people believe there should be a counterpart to International Women's Day.

The common denominator in all this angry ranting is this idea that “men have had their own celebration all other 364 days a year, for centuries,” and I call BULLSHIT.

I work and maintain my household day in and day out with maybe only major holidays off. Some Christmas Eves I have to work up until Christmas dinner, and I never once asked for a “celebration.”

Fuck, I STILL don’t care that I don’t get a pat on the back. I’m a father. It’s my responsibility to work and raise the kids I begat. In Chris Rock’s words, “You’re *supposed* to take care of your kids! What do you want, a cookie?

Note, I was so busy working last year that November 19th came and went and I completely missed it. That's how much International Men's Day is important to me.

I mean, I care about Men's Issues, but having an International Men's Day to celebrate any victimhood we might have is just not that important to me.

I think about certain issues that pertain to boys and men every day and don't need a special day to do it.

But now that it's here, and that I've remembered, I'd like to make a post about outlining that one men's issue that I've dedicated my life to addressing; circumcision.

Why do I think circumcision is an important men's issue?
People would like to dismiss circumcision as this "tiny snip performed in infancy that no one remembers."

But the problem is much bigger than that.

Circumcising an infant child takes away a man's choice as an adult.

The fact is that 70% of men are intact globally.

29% or so were forcibly circumcised as children or youths as a matter of religious or cultural custom, and less than 1% ever need circumcision as a medical intervention.

This means that, given the choice, men would rather keep their whole penises. 

Forcibly imposing a surgical alteration on a child's genitals that he may not want as an adult violates a man's self autonomy and open future.

"My body, my choice" for girls and women, but not boys and men is a sexist double-standard.

Stigmatization and Body Shaming
In countries where circumcision is the norm, intact men are body-shamed.

In Western countries, it is considered inappropriate to make jokes about women's genitals in any way, much less female genital cutting. We are not to talk about large labia, fish smell or menstruation.

And yet it seems to be quite acceptable for people in American media to take gratuitous swipes at intact men, and even make jokes about having men and boys forcibly circumcised.

Belittling jokes and humor about "all that extra skin" and smegma can be seen in American stand-up comedy, in television shows and Hollywood movies.

Women are not to be objectified.

Feminists resent being seen by men as nothing more than sexual fantasy, reduced to just a walking set of breasts and buttocks.

And yet, it seems it's acceptable for women on social media to reduce to men to walking, talking penises, openly state that intact men are "ew, gross," that they would never date one, and that they will be sure to circumcise their male children to satisfy the sexual preferences of hypothetical daughter-in-laws.

It would never  be acceptable for men to express that they prefer the look of a circumcised vulva, much less bragging on social media that they would circumcise their daughters to appease a hypothetical male suitor.

In non-Western countries, such as different countries in Africa where male circumcision is the norm, it goes beyond the shaming and harassment of intact males. In some African tribes, such as the Bagisu, if a male is found to be intact, they will parade him through the streets and forcibly circumcise him. Some tribes, such as the Kikuyu, go as far as circumcising the males of rival tribes that do not circumcise.

The objectification of men, and the sexualization of newborns needs to stop.

The body-shaming and humiliation of intact men needs to stop.

The bodies of people of both sexes need to be respected.

Invalidation of Men Who Resent their Circumcision
When women who have undergone FGM speak, the world listens.

People lend an ear, and give their empathy and compassion.

When men who were circumcised at birth express resentment of what happened to them, they are often belittled if not dismissed outright.

Some people go as far as expressing disbelief that any men actually resent their circumcision “because it happened so long ago,”, or that their circumcisions have caused them pain or discomfort when masturbating or having sexual intercourse with a partner. “A man can still get hard and ejaculate,” so what’s the problem?” they say.

A circumcised woman could still take in sperm and shoot out babies. Imagine if anyone said that. It’s not acceptable to think of a woman as a baby-making machine, but it’s perfectly fine to reduce a man to a living, breathing sperm bank.

This gets into another point that needs to be raised; the sexuality of women is placed on a pedestal and worshiped, whilst male sexuality is minimized or deemed immaterial. I recently got into an argument on Twitter with a woman who made a comment along the lines of "Why is male sexuality important? When a man and a woman have sex, what matters is that the woman is satisfied. Why does everything have to center around men?" Is it not immediately obvious that if men had the full equipment they were born with, they might know how to use it to please women better? No one ever made the argument that women's satisfaction didn't matter, but the same person in the same breath states that a woman's satisfaction matters whilst a man's doesn't.

It's all interrelated. How are men supposed to know how to pleasure a woman when they've been masturbating with and having sex with damaged equipment their whole lives? You can't dismiss male sexuality issues such as circumcision, where 80% of American men have had their genitals mutilated at birth, and then wonder why, oh why is sex with men so dissatisfying.

Male sexuality matters.

What happens to men affects women. Women who care about pleasure during heterosexual intercourse with men ought to be concerned instead of dismissing it and treating it as inconsequential.

Why do we dismiss and ridicule men who resent their circumcision?

Why does it matter that a man’s circumcision happened so long ago?

A woman is allowed to “me too” about a fuzzy incidence in college she can’t exactly remember, but the rules are different for boys and men.

"Believe her," but not "him."

You can't deny a woman's "lived experience," but you can deny a man's.

Why the double-standard?

A man touches his penis and is reminded of his circumcision every time he urinates, takes a shower, masturbates and makes love. The question isn’t “How can he remember?” The question is, How can he forget?

It has recently become en vogue to criticize men not expressing their feelings as “toxic masculinity.”

Saying “Men should express themselves more” is just lip service if they’re going to be dismissed or ridiculed.

When a person's genitals are forcibly cut, it shouldn't matter what sex or gender they are in order to think his or her basic human rights were violated.

And yet there is this firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females.

While there are entire organizations and world governments speaking out against the forced genital cutting of girls and women, they are strangely silent when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys and men.

While human rights advocates fly half-way around the globe to decry the genital mutilation of girls and women, the very same people display a willful ignorance to the genital mutilation of boys in their own countries. While their cameras faithfully bring back images of girls being restrained as they have part of their genitals forcibly cut off, they somehow fail to capture images of the boys who are enduring the same in the very same countries.

And yet, when the issue of male genital cutting is raised, it is met with immediate shut-down.

"We're talking about women's genital cutting, not boys and men."

"Must we talk about men's penises?"

Say some people.

So when are we going to talk about the forced genital cutting of boys and men?

When do we stop talking about vaginas and start giving attention to men's penises?

The irony is lost on people who frame the raising of the fact that 3,000 male infants are circumcised a day in the United States, while FGM is banned in several states, as an "interruption."

We talk a whole awful lot about how women endure FGM in the African bush, by amateurs using crude utensils such as rusty blades and glass shards, but we don't want to talk about the fact that scores of young men die every year on the same continent.

"Men interrupt conversations about women's genital cutting to talk about their penises. Typical."

Say some women.

"We are being erased," they say.

Oh the bloody irony.

It's about time we stopped erasing the boys and men.

There is no shortage of organizations decrying FGM.

It's forced male genital cutting that is erased.

I hope this post gives readers a glimpse of all the issues that surround male circumcision, and I hope they can see that there's more to it than just "a little snip." This International Men's Day let's give male circumcision the overdue attention it deserves.

I'd like to close by giving some of the men in this movement honorable mention.

Thank you David Llewellyn, for all the legal work you do.

Thank you Dr. Dean Edell for being a Jewish voice against male infant circumcision.

Thank you Leonard Glick, for your book Marked in Your Flesh.

Thank you Brian Earp for all the research on this and other topics that you do.

Thank you Steven Svoboda, for running Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.

Thank you Brendon Marotta for your documentary American Circumcision.

Thank you Eric Clopper, for using your voice and making the sacrifices that you have.

Thank you Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon for your documentary Cut.

Thank you Brother K for having the courage to do the things I never could.

And sorry to those of you whom I couldn't remember off the top of my head.

Mission Statement
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 not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a 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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

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

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Related Posts:
Happy International Women’s Day Marilyn Milos

RED HERRING: The Abortion DebateCircumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Twitter "Circumcision Status and Death Grip" Poll Results

In my last post, I discussed No Nut November and why people might choose to partake in it.

I discussed "death grip," what might be contributing factors to its cause, and how one may be able to overcome it.

I discussed my own personal experience with detrimental masturbation habits and how I managed to overcome them.

Finally I discussed the effects of circumcision and why I believe there might be a correlation between the incidence of "death grip" and being circumcised.

Being No Nut November, and overcoming "death grip" being one of the reasons men might decided to take part, I created a poll on Twitter asking for men to self-report whether or not they are struggling with "death grip" and their circumcision status.

Well, the poll has finally closed after 7 days, the result are in, and here they are.

Up front, it must be said that 40 respondents isn't a huge sample size, but I'm still posting these results for what it's worth.

Here are my observations:

There were slightly more circumcised respondents than intact.

On either side, there were more respondents that reported they weren't experiencing "death grip," as opposed to those who reported they were.

I want to bring attention to the difference in intact and circumcised men who reported they were experiencing "death grip"; there were far more circumcised men than intact men.

The greater number of respondents were intact men reporting they were not experiencing "death grip."

Is there a correlation between circumcision and a higher rate of men experiencing "death grip?"

Again, this isn't definitive by any means, as the sample size is rather small, but if these numbers mean anything, it seems more circumcised men may be experiencing the phenomenon of "death grip" than intact men.

This was an informal poll with a very small sample size, but I hope this might serve as a starting point for others interested in exploring this further.

That's all she wrote for today!

Original Tweet below:

Related Post
Death Grip and Circumcision: Is There a Correlation?

Posts about other Twitter Polls I've Conducted:
Joseph4GI's Twitter Penis Polls

Joseph4GI's Twitter Penis Poll Results