Can you spot the connection between these items?
They have all been used in the cutting of boy’s genitals in the U.K.
In a previous post I stated that I did not like to use the word circumcision because it gives the impression of something normal, I hope this post will show you that in the U.K. today the word circumcision is used to conceal some gruesome acts done to little boys.
The Scalpel.
Obvious — probably what you would expect to be used, along with other surgical instruments some of which look like the equipment of a skilful torturer.
The Mouth.
The mouth is sometimes used in a ritual that surrounds circumcision. The circumciser sucks the blood from the baby’s wounded penis. Not surprisingly this has lead to complications of infection, herpes, and the circumciser now often uses a glass tube and gauze to prevent the transfer of germs. Intriguingly this shows that a ritual, supposedly rigid, is variable and capable of change, perhaps another change should be the raising of the age of the circumcision so that the child can give or withhold his consent.
The Razor Blade.
A widely available circumcision implement, all you need is a couple of adults to restrain the victim and the blade. The number of backstreet circumcisions performed annually in the U.K. is unknown, but complications are regularly seen in the A&E departments of the NHS. Sometimes the incident is referred to the police but a prosecution “would not be in the public interest”.
The Thumbnail.
In infancy the foreskin is fused to the glans (head) of the penis by a layer of special, epithelial, cells; the thumbnail, specially grown, is sometimes used to rip the foreskin from the head of the penis. This process is of course extremely painful.
The Soldering Iron.
The soldering iron has been used on at least one occasion to cauterize, that means sealing with a burn, the circumcision wound on a baby’s penis. The mechanic who did this on a kitchen table was not charged or arrested because he had not impersonated a doctor.
That we should permit all this to be carried out on non-consenting children in the twenty first century seems extraordinary. We rightly consider the exploitation of children to gratify adult wishes as abuse and society treats such abuse very seriously. Turning a blind eye to the abuse I have outlined above is un-justifiable. The existing law and child protection agencies should act to protect boys from what can only be called genital mutilation.
Condemning an abusive action in children of one sex, but looking the other way for children of the other sex is the definition of sexism. Male circumcision is, of course, defended because of all the “studies” that shows “potential benefits,” “religious freedom,” “tradition” and whatnot. These arguments fly out the window when it comes to female circumcision, however. All of a sudden, it’s about how much “worse” it is for girls and women, as if it were this indisputeable given.
The fact that the focus must change to the severity of the genital mutilation of one sex over the other underlines one thing; the arguments of “potential benefits,” “religious freedom,” “tradition,” “parental choice,” or what have you, are complete RUBBISH.
Does female circumcision offer any “potential medical benefits?” Would removing the labia and clitoral hood (but not the clitoris itself) “reduce” the transmission of HIV? Would it make hygiene easier for women? We will never know. Carrying out such “studies” would be “unethical.” With male circumcision, however, the cart comes before the bull, and the list of “studies” is endless. They will not stop until circumcision cures something.
“Studying” the “potential medical benefits” of female circumcision is immediately ridiculous, almost as immediately ridiculous as the “study” of other procedures. How would a “study” on skull trephination be received today? Feet binding? Neck stretching? Breast ironing? Slicing your child’s forehead as it is done on the day of Ashura? When else do we study the cure to find a use for it?
When is deliberate child hood legitimate “study?”
Only when it comes to male circumcision.
One day, we will look back on circumcision as modern medicine’s biggest disgrace.
> One day, we will look back on circumcision as modern medicine’s biggest disgrace.
Thank you Joseph. I believe that one day soon routine infant circumcision (RIC) will become a big public relations nightmare for the medical industry here in the States. The majority of us are subjected to RIC as soon as we are strong enough to take our first few breaths. From that point forward, many of us question almost everything else the medical industry here does.