Connor's a lovely-looking chap, but he has had the misfortune at some point in the past to have his foreskin removed.
Reciprocating Motion doesn't discriminate against circumcised models: the fact is that almost none of them will have had any choice in the matter, so it seems unfair to penalise them.
But that doesn't stop us being opposed to this barbaric practice (I exclude its use for immediate medical reasons), just as we are opposed to the genital mutilation of girls.
For many years the NHS has had a standing policy that it would not undertake circumcision for any reason other than a medical necessity. I agree with this policy.
But now some public health doctors have argued that circumcision should be allowed on the grounds that it would stop the appalling litany of mutilations and diseases occurring when these practices are carried out by religious nut-jobs (a study found that 13 of 32 Muslim boys, circumcised mostly at the age of 6 in one religious college in Oxford, were subsequently hospitalised).
Are they insane? What they should be doing is prosecuting the parents of these children for abuse, for inflicting unnecessary and unlicensed surgical procedures on their infants and children (and I have no idea why the wielders of the knives are not currently languishing in prison with life terms).
Or will they next be offering female genital mutilation on the NHS, to "protect" girls from back-street mutilators?
I'm sure Connor is a lovely chap. But he should have the ability to choose for himself whether or not he wishes to have bits of his genitalia snipped off for non-medical reasons.
Anything else is just abuse. I can't believe we still permit people to do this to children.
12 comments:
We recently fought a version of that battle on this side of the big pond - the AAP wanted to have the law against any manner of female circ relaxed for exactly those same reasons - there was a barrage of communication to the board and they backed off - technically US boys should be protected by the laws under the equal rights portion - you are correct when you say that the parents need to be brought up on child abuse charges for having this surgery done - I have never understood how this one surgery continues to be a "parents decision" or a "religious right" in the face of all the findings both medical and ethical opposing it - and that includes many of us who have to live with the damage of badly botched surgery - I am looking forward to seeing equal protection lawsuits start hitting doctors, hospitals, mohels and parents when boys start coming of age after the law was passed in the 90's - I have come to the conclusion that costing these folks huge amounts of money is the only thing that is going to finally end this barbaric practice -
Thanks for the soapbox - - -
Jon
I was actually circumcised 2 years ago for various reasons, mostly medical and that I live in the USA and everyone here is, worst decision of my life. I am now a strong advocate for anti circumcision and recently convinced my friend not to have her son cut, one triumph!!!!
The barbarism still goes on in rural South Africa. I saw a recent report that about 20 boys had died as a result of this year's botched circumcisions.
My father was serving in the British Expeditionary Force when I was born in a Portsmouth nursing home in early 1940. The 'doctor' told my mother that my foreskin was too long and that I should be cut. In those days women didn't know much about the male anatomy (anything to do with sex was hardly discussed) and she had no-one to ask, so she concurred. I have ugly skin tags and count myself lucky that at least my frenulum was left intact. If I could have found that moronic butcher I would cheerfully have cut his cock off! The USA has a lot to answer for but I'm pleased to report that circumcision does not prevent masturbation as I can prove for almost 60 of my 70 years! Oh - your Word Verification is 'stiscum' which seems most appropriate in the circumstances!
I completely agree with you on every point!
I don't suppose you have ever read "Circumcision - A History Of The Worlds Most Controversial Surgery" by David Gollaher? It's a bit of an eye opener and I think it should be compulsory reading.
I totaly agree that taking a knife to a perfect baby boy's genitals has to be the worst possible start in life....I have alway been completely unable to accept it as anything less than horrific even though as a kid I was told it was supposed to be beneficial in some way!
Just be glad Mr LeDuc that you were born over here and not accross the pond, or in all likelyhood you would never have got to experience your manhood as it was meant to be either.
That said, I would very happily take a good long ride on "Connor" even if a part of me just wants to hug away the pain and violation he experienced early in his life. :'-(
I was cut as a baby and have no memory of it. Alas. Aesthetically (and STRICTLY aesthetically, lest you all bite my head off! The one with the brain in it, not the other head), I prefer the look of the cut cock. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I know just as many who prefer the uncut look.
It's hard for me to get passionate about circumcision simply because I don't remember it and I don't have any issues with my penis, thankfully. To me, having a cut cock is sort of like having a thumb, or a toenail. It's always been there, and I've never questioned it, until someone made me aware of its existence.
To see the doublethink that goes on over this side of the pond have a look at this letter to the GMC (Word doc).
I was in the tiny minority of boys growing up intact in the 60s in America. I have always been grateful that my parents chose not to mutilate my genitals at birth.I was able to protect my sons from this barbaric practice as well as a few other family members.
I especially like this blog because most photos are of men with normal cocks (uncut and average size); a refreshing change from most erotica on this side of the pond. I don't like the looks of a cut cock but I tolerate those pictures because I know that 99.9% of the time it was not the subject's choice to alter his penis.
Thanks for your tasteful choices of photos for this blog.
I am looking forward to the day when there is no more routine infant genital mutilation.
It's interesting to read all the posts on this topic which could fill an internet reserved for nothing else. There has to be something about it which lies in realms far apart from merely utilitarian debates about medical need, cash-hungry urologists versus cash-strapped State medical schemes and current obsessions with 'human rights'. Great religions almost as old as mankind have esteemed it for millennia before the arrival of our godless generation, British royalty adopted it... in the world's current state I don't believe we are in any position to claim that we've found the holy grail and to presume to lay down the law on such a topic.
Oh, Anonymous, you do yourself no favours by quoting "great religions as old as mankind".
What utter rubbish: humans evolved into their current form -- depending on how you measure these things -- something like a quarter of a million years ago. Christianity has been around for less than 1% of that time. Judaism for a bit more, Islam for a bit less. Confucianism and Buddhism are about the same age. Zoroastrianism a bit older. I'm not sure where you draw the boundary between a "great" religion and a "lesser" one, but, of course, not all of these have advocated circumcision as an essential part of their practice.
Even if they did, I would say it was irrelevant -- the modern world is that. We pick and choose what bits of traditional religious ritual suit us (I'm not aware of any Christians refusing to eat shrimp or wear polycotton -- on religious rather than taste grounds). We don't stone adulterers to death. And so on ad infinitum.
And the fact that British royalty adopted it is frankly a laughable argument in its favour -- that bunch of intellectually challenged clowns wouldn't be my role models (and didn't the Sainted People's Princess stop it? I think Wills and Harry weren't circumcised, only their boorish father and uncles, and generations before them). The British upper classes adopted it as a sign of them being "in": the vast majority of British boys have never been circumcised.
It's also a bit disturbing that you chose to put the phrase "human rights" in quote marks -- are you implying they are a joke, or irrelevant, or meaningless? Human rights are there for all of us, often the only thing standing between us and dictators or state murderers. If you wish to give up all (or indeed any) of your human rights you'd be a pretty weird sort of person. But to offer up those ofother people would be outrageous.
However, I think you're right: there is something fundamental about male genital mutilation. It's about a denial of sexuality, a taming of men, a marking of humans to show they are owned by a group. These are all a Big Deal. And, as all those things, circumcision has no place in the modern world.
For all that LedDuc you must acknowledge that 2010 will look very olde-worlde by the time 2110 has arrived and the ideas of 2010 will seem quite quaint and passé: it might even be by then that a Mullah will be living in the Vicarage! BTW, would you also ban tattooing?
I'm not advocating the banning of circumcision and nor would I advocate the banning of tattooing -- but, just as it is illegal for anyone to tattoo a child (ie, anyone under 18), so it should be illegal to circumise a child.
It's actually a great parallel and thank you for raising it -- perfectly illustrating my point, that adults should have the freedom to choose to do as they please (chop off or colour in bits of their bodies, alter their brain chemistry with alcohol or drugs, insert their cocks into any orifice offered up by a consenting adult, etc, etc).
But children are not the property of adults, and those adults should not be taking decisions which permanently, irrevocably cut off bits of a child's anatomy to fit in with their own religious or cultural beliefs and prejudices.
well, there also some that seems circumcised but are not, like myself.
Post a Comment