Never Forgive the Mutilators

On No Contact With My Parents Who Chose to Circumcise (Male Genital Mutilation)

“Children don’t forget this torture; Just because you call her mother; Doesn’t mean that she’s your better; Who cares for the little children; You may slice with no conviction; Blind revenge on a blameless victim.” - Being Boiled, The Human League

The moment a parent allows circumcision to be inflicted on their child is the moment they give up any right to have any relationship with that child.

The sheer amount of retardation and sadism required for parents to choose ‘circumcision’ rather than leaving the child intact is mind boggling. What kind of so-called ‘parent’ decides to mutilate their child?

You would think that it’d be apparent that slicing off a unique organ from a child, causing permanent disfigurement and loss of functionality, would be something to be avoided. Yet, some so-called ‘parents’ seem to just want to slice away with all the viciousness of an Epstein-Elite. No more capacity to produce smegma - the unique mucosal layer which protects the glans from damage and keeps it properly moisturized. The long term effects on the glans without that protecting layer is a drying out, hardening, and loss of sensation. On a scale of 1 out of 10 wherein the uncircumcised man has a ‘10’ in the ability to feel sexual sensation, men who become circumcised as adults report the feeling drops to a “3 at best.” This loss not including the loss of sensation over time from the glans being exposed sence near-birth.

This loss of sensation is the exact historic reason why circumcision was promoted. From Philo of Alexandria, to Maimonides, to John Kellog - they all cite the loss of sexual function in circumcised men as the primary reason - the laudable reason - for circumcision. It is thought by many scholars that circumcision was developed as a marking of slaves in Egypt. For John Kellogg - the progenitor of the industrialized practice in America - it was about “castigation” and the infliction of maximal pain for the sake of preventive punishment of a boy for being a boy. John Kellogg so hated the thought of masturbation that for him all children needed to mutilated without anesthesia - and he did so in his clinic such as to industrialize the removal of the foreskin of boys and clitoral hood of girls. Yet, more than a century after his death only the practice as it involved females has been banned (in violation of the equal protection clause.)

For infants, it’s not just a cutting, as the foreskin is still fully attached to the glans. As such, using a special clamp, the penile structure has to be ripped off by the doctor prior to inserting the knife and cutting.

Speaking of the pain that circumcision is intended to inflict, it is so intense that it is the medical standard for infant pain. A commons side effect being cyanosis wherein the infant turns blue from lack of oxygen as a result of expiatory apnea - the intense screaming of the child. Sometimes this screaming is so intense that internal organs rupture. There are reports of stomachs and lungs rupturing with air being displaced into the abdomen and pneumothorax. And anesthesia is mostly useless. Even experimental anesthesia is not capable of doing anything more than slightly dulling the pain. Roughly 50% of infants during the surgery scream an intense and abnormal scream, the other 50% enter into what has been described as a “semi-coma” of unresponsiveness.

As a result 90% of infants who are mutilated by these butchers face long term behavioral changes. Often these changes are reflected in how they responded during this blood ritual. Many withdraw. Circumcised infants have significantly greater issues with feeding and the typical mother-child bond is fundamentally disturbed. These mutilated boys have far greater anticipatory responses to pain, such that difficulties with vaccination, for example, result. Permanent alterations to neurological structural development occurs such that it is accurate to say that permanent neurological damage results.

There is a lack of in depth study on the effects going into adulthood. However, a survey of open ended self-reports that the most common words or phrases used were;

“anger, resentment, revenge, rage, hate, sense of loss, deficiency, diminished body image, disbelief, lack of understanding, confusion, embarrassment, shame, sense of having been victimized, cheated, robbed, raped, violated, abused, mutilated, deformed, fear, distrust, withdrawal, grief, sadness, pain, envy of intact men.”

Is such a list any shock? If someone finds it shocking it says something about that person.

Another survey showed that 80% of men reported negative emotional impact or harm. Yet, an industry of child-slicers will do nothing to investigate deeper. A few tidbits still exist - circumcised men are far less likely to go to the doctor, reporting greater medical anxiety, and psychosomatic reactions to antiseptics like iodine. It is a common reason for estrangement due to blame being placed squarely on the fully accountable parents.

There is no medical justification. By 1989 the AAP, an organization with significant financial biases (which they unethically do not admit to) in favor of this barbaric mutilation, had already stated that all studies showing benefits of this male genital mutilation had systematic methodological failures, inconsistent data, and unusual or incomparable demographics. That it does no yet condemn the practice (for purely financial reasons) is to be contrasted with the fact that the medical justification is denied worldwide by every major medical association. British Medical Association (BMA): Generally considers the procedure “non-therapeutic” and states that the evidence for health benefits is “insufficient.” In the UK, the practice is now officially considered to be harmful. Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS): Does not recommend routine circumcision, stating the benefits do not justify the risks. Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG): Explicitly states there are no strong medical reasons for the procedure and has even called for a phase-out of non-therapeutic circumcision. Against the bankrolls of pro-mutilation American lobbyists who go about looking for more victims to slice for their sadistic pleasure, massive strides have been made including a notable court ruling in Germany against this very retarded and barbaric practice.

Considering the long term and severe harms, it is very hard to justify circumcision medically. A statistically irrelevant benefit to preventing diseases that are incredibly rare and easily treatable never justifies such invasive surgeries. Even in the cases where there is phimosis or other defects which may warrant medical intervention, there is far less invasive procedures such that, if these are not discussed, the circumcision is medical malpractice.

It is merely disfigurement without reason. It requires someone of extreme sadistic personality to consent to such an operation on a child. They lack the empathy to ask “Would I ask for my genitals to be cut? Would I go through that pain?” These are evil people. Every single parent who unconscionably consents to this has no excuse of ignorance but are the ultimate betrayers.

I will restate myself; The moment a parent allows circumcision to be inflicted on their child is the moment they give up any right to have any relationship with that child.

There can be no forgiving such. There is no restitution possible. No way to restore what is lost.

My parents. No. You are not parents. You chose to destroy rather than to protect. You are merely my mutilators. I will never forgive you. You are not deserving of forgiveness.