Mamarama: Who Knew Circumcision Made Everyone Go Bananas?

By • Jun 11th, 2010 • Category: Blog, Mamarama

One of my most popular Mamarama shows on YouTube is the one where I address the subject of newborn male circumcision. I had no idea at the time that this was such an incredibly polarized and controversial topic. There are over 16,000 views on this one video and many of the viewers are positively incensed by my rather neutral or diplomatic stance. Though I state that I am personally not a fan of the procedure, that is apparently overlooked, and I am aggressively criticized for leaning toward supporting circumcision. At the start of my video I rule out “religious reasons” for Jews and Muslims, because that is often not up for debate (though I have Jewish friends who DID debate the issue with their relatives or local Rabbi). More specifically for me, since I am in a rigorous training program as a childbirth educator one of the main lessons we learn is how to be unbiased and respectful toward decisions that may not be aligned with our own.

For the record, the American Academy of Pediatrics does NOT recommend circumcision any longer (since 1999). Medical advice has also claimed that the procedure reduces the spread of sexually transmitted disease but this notion is widely and hotly refuted; as is the idea that removing the foreskin prevents a rare form of penile cancer. Further, most babies in hospitals are not anesthetized prior to the procedure and the United States is the only developed nation that still continues this practice.

There is some scientific evidence that demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.

Here are just some of the venomous comments toward my video:

“This woman is trying to come across as measured and rational when she is actually advocating mutilation of a human being, as if it should be the parents decision. How vulgar and offensive she is. And while I’m commenting, I want my tonsils back, too!”

“Circumcision is one of humanities greatest crimes, and American parents who continue to let this go on are its accomplices.”

“So, you’re personally against RIC [Routine Infant Circumcision], yet you take the position that whichever way the parents do eventually decide, it should be respected, isn’t that correct? In other words, parents deciding to mutilate their babies is a bad thing in your view, yet you would still respect their decision to commit a mutilation. Really?”

“You didn’t mention that a man’s sexual sensitivity is decreased by removing the foreskin. This should be the # 1 reason to not perform the procedure.”

“If all women’s breasts were routinely removed, it would eliminate breast cancer. The USA should be embarrassed that, as a developed country, it still practices this barbaric procedure — done without the permission of the patient I might add!”

And my favorite for being sane and non-argumentative: “It is okay for a child to be different from their father, we do not always have the same nose, hair, eye color or objectives in life; why should we have the same-looking penis?”

And so on. I never suspected that so many men felt violated and mutilated by this very common procedure — in fact it is THE most common surgical procedure in our country. Yet again, this is one of the many things prospective parents have to consider and make a decision about, hopefully before their child is born. The best advice in this case is to arm yourselves with enough information about the procedure and make your choice for the reasons that most resonate with you and your partner’s philosophy.

What do YOU have to say? Men, Women, and Bananas??

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.

is the host of long-time public access show Mamarama as seen locally on Comcast Cable (channel 51) and on YouTube. In addition to her parenting program she is a childbirth educator and regularly writes about the parental experience. Contact Jayne at mamarama.tv.
Email this author | All posts by

  • http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

    Some of those comments are strongly worded, but I wouldn’t regard any of them as “venomous”.

    As well as looking at what the AAP says, you might also want to check out what other medical organizations say:

    Canadian Paediatric Society
    http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
    “Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

    http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
    “Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
    “After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

    Royal Australasian College of Physicians
    http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B
    “After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision.”
    (almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

    British Medical Association
    http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
    “to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

    Just this month, the Dutch Medical Association “has officially adopted the view that circumcision of underage boys without a medical reason violates children’s human rights and contravenes the Dutch constitution.
    …
    The association thinks there are good reasons to ban the practice—female circumcision was outlawed in 2004—but fears that this might force it underground, leading to a greater number of complications.”

  • http://mamarama.tv JayneF

    You’re right – after editing, the comments do not read quite so harshly; I actually softened some of those comments for this publication, omitting the expletives and so forth. Still, I appreciate the commentary – YOURS included. Even with a great deal of evidence that shows circumcision is medically unnecessary parents still opt for the procedure for more aesthetic reasons; which may seem superficial to some, yet it’s important to others. That’s why I included the line about a child not matching his father (a reason often cited). As I said, it remains a controversial topic.

  • Equal

    I was mutilated at birth and i deeply resent this terrible decision. Most people don’t know or even care to look but 4 out of the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis are amputated by “circumcision”, and if that wasn’t terrible enough the last remaining sensitive part “the glans” becomes “keritanized” which means that due to abrasion a substance called keratin, the same substance that forms your nails, builds up in the glans to help protect itself, further reducing pleasure. it is a crime beyond comprehension to mutilate children male or female. Lets stop this wave of mutilation. NO EXCEPTIONS.

  • Restoring Tally

    I do not understand why infant circumcision is even a choice for parents. I am a son who was circumcised shortly after birth. It is my sex organ, not my parents. I am the one who will use my penis, not my parents. It is my choice to decide what happens to my penis, not my parents. Thanks to the Internet, many young men are learning what circumcision did to their sex organs. Many of those young men are upset with their parents for having their bodies altered without any medical need for surgery.

    My body, my choice.

  • Althea

    Most parents, especially of my parents generation, are horrified, absolutely horrified that I did not circumcise my three boys. My peers mostly react with repulsion that I chose to leave it up to my boys to make that decision down the line. One is now saying that he would never do that and another is excited at this prospect (this is also the one in the family voted most likely to get a tattoo and most likely to get a prince albert). However, the point here for me is once it is done it is a choice taken away. Since I didn’t make the decision the choice is now always theirs. I can’t find anything ever wrong (even for religious purposes) in letting my child make that choice. If it is for religious reasons, wouldn’t that choice to do it signify his dedication to his chosen religion all the more?

    I’m curious as to why I don’t see the pro-circumcision comments here. I get attacked all the time for making the wrong decision and for putting my child’s health at risk.

    I just don’t see a point in fixing something that isn’t broken or for taking away someone else’s freedom of religion before they can even express their views.

  • Pat

    The idea that circumcision should be a parental decision is an illusion. The foreskin is neither a birth defect nor “extra” skin. It’s part of the package, healthy and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is no more of a decision than considering whether to hack the baby’s toes off or any other part of his body. Circumcision is the only sugical procedure where no medical diagnosis is required. Assuming all parts of the body are functioning normally then there are no “decisions” for anyone to make. what’s the point in having an unnecessary operation, nevermind one that removes a valuable part of one’s anatomy (and without your consent)? There’s no reason to do it medically. The rest of the world gets by just fine with their “diseased” penis flaps. We can stop now.

    The recent studies about HIV/circumcision are debatable at best. These alleged benefits don’t manifest in the real world : the US has both the highest circ and HIV rates among industrialized nations. And it doesn’t matter if these studies are true ; babies don’t have sex and if at the end of the day you still need to wear a condom, circumcsion becomes useless. Not to mention all the risks associated with the procedure and the fact that the foreskin has many roles. Once again, it’s not a useless piece of skin.

  • Anon

    Well said. This topic really isn’t as controversial as it is made to look. The ‘controversy’ just comes from a small group of loud people who bombard any circumcision thread/blog that is put up on the internet to create a false perception that the world is against it.
    It really is not that big of a deal.
    Hats off to you Jayne for being respectful of parental decisions. These others can learn alot from you.

  • http://thefrontporchswing.blogspot.com Sarah

    I don’t understand the purpose of this post. You conclude by confessing that you had no idea that so many men feel (ARE) violated and mutilated by this (common) procedure, as if the fact that circumcision is common, or that you were ignorant to the fundamental argument for genital integrity makes their reaction irrational. The pros and cons of circumcision are not about the benefits and risks of the surgery…. that is not what makes the issue a hot topic. The issue is about the human right to genital integrity- and if you can’t understand that- of course you will continue to be feign surprise when you encounter people who don’t think that human genitals, male or female, are community property for other people to alter. You conclude by once again asserting that this decision belongs to parents, and by promoting this meme, you promote circumcision by refusing to acknowledge that every person has a right to genital integrity. If you have a true interest in providing accurate information to your clients- I suggest that you begin to teach the HISTORY of circumcision and the medicalized justification for circumcision- and balance that against the platform of the genital integrity movement- that the foreskin is a functional, healthy part of the human body and because it has an inherent value and a purpose- without medical indication, there is no reason that circumcision could ethically be considered. If you teach risks and benefits of circumcision surgery- without teaching anatomy and sexual function of the prepuce- you are also promoting circumcision through willful omission of critical information. You obviously know little of the value of the foreskin if you didn’t know that so many men feel (KNOW) they have been harmed.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D James Loewen

    The most common surgery in the USA is male circumcision, genial altering surgery, done without consent of the only person to whom it actually matters. That violates the Hippocratic Oath, “First, Do No Harm.” A natural, healthy, functioning, protective and erotic body part is amputated, often with horrible results and the recipient of this unwarranted surgery is supposed to accept this as beneficial?

    You state that this is “a controversial topic” and that you choose to take a “neutral or diplomatic stance.” This sort of statement is part of the problem, do you take a “neutral or diplomatic stance” on other controversial topics, like racism and slavery, or corporal punishment of children.

    Female genital mutilation is a “controversial topic” too. Has your rigorous training program as a childbirth educator taught you to be unbiased and respectful toward parents who have to make the “difficult decision” to have normal parts of their daughter’s anatomy amputated for religious and superstitious reasons?

    I’m sorry Ms. Freeman, the “neutral and diplomatic” position you take scratching your head and wondering about this is lacking in critical thinking. Perhaps if you spent less time wondering and actually looked at this issue in some depth you would see the long history of abuse; quack “doctors” who promoted male and female genial mutilation to thwart American children from masturbating. A quick google search reveals a thirty year history of inquiry into this topic by concerned people who under the guidance of one very heroic nurse, Marilyn Milos (NOCIRC) have published a tremendous body of work (published by the leading medical text book companies) looking at the social, religious, historical and medical aspects of genital mutilation.

    How do botched circumcisions factor into your “neutral stance” of this “procedure?”

    As for the banana I wonder, how would you feel if you saw an article discussing genital cutting of girls illustrated with a peach or a clam representing female genitalia?

  • http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

    The AAP has never recommended neonatal circumcision. It just keeps shifting its bottom on the fence (but unsurprisingly, it can never become comfortable).

    Through May this year it flirted with being “respectful” of parents who want to cut their daughters’ genitalia, too. It wanted to allow a “ritual nick” that “is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting”. All hell (rightly) broke loose and it had to ignominiously withdraw back to its excellent recommendation “that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents.” What it needs to do now is simply delete “female” and replace “girls” with “children”.

    As a childbirth educator, do you not also have a responsibility to be respectful of the children, and of their decisions, when they are old enough, about how much of their own genitals they may want to keep? (The second half of that sentence is almost fatuous. The number of intact men who ever choose to be circumcised is vestigal, and where it is not customary, and doctors are taught more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, so is the number who ever need to be.)

    @Anon: it is a big deal when it goes wrong ( http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html ), up to and including death: ( http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html ) or when men object to having had it done to them ( http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html ) or when parents are browbeaten into having it done: ( http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html ).

    There is no other normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable part of a baby boy’s body that parents may have cut off at whim. Why the anomaly? The exactly corresponding part of a girl’s body has special legal protection. Why the double standard? It would be a felony to circumcise a man against his will (especially without anaesthetic). What have we got against babies?

    The question is not why circumcision has recently made anyone go bananas, but how people ever got so bananas that this extraordinary amputation could become so entrenched?

  • Matt

    @Anon
    A medical organization that represents over 40,000 Dutch doctors and nurses released this policy statement last week:

    http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/dutch-doctors-circumcision-should-be-stopped

    a fringe movement you say?

  • http://mamarama.tv JayneF

    Thank you all for your interest and comments. I feel I have to make something clear in that it IS a struggle for me to personally oppose circumcision (for ALL the reasons presented and then some) yet present information about the procedure in a way that helps new parents make their decision. The best way I can describe this is to just switch the argument to breastfeeding. Though I fully support and promote breastfeeding, and though there is an enormous amount of evidence to show it is best for the mother’s health as well as best for baby, I respect a woman’s choice NOT to breastfeed if that does not feel right to her. So, again, childbirth education has to come WITHOUT one’s own agenda and judgment; I am not a crusader on these topics nor is it my place to be one. The feedback above does help me formulate how to approach this sensitive topic with prospective parents including recognizing the function and health of an intact foreskin and respecting the wholeness of their child’s body which does not require altering in any way. Maintaining respect for circumcision for religious reasons is something that has to factor into teaching as well – and that is yet another reason why it is inappropriate for me to take a biased approach about this topic despite my feelings.

  • http://thefrontporchswing.blogspot.com Sarah

    Jayne- It is paternalistic to censor facts in a secular childbirth class to avoid upsetting people who feel they have a religious obligation to circumcise. If circumcision is sexually damaging- it is sexually damaging across the board. If it’s painful, if it’s dangerous, if it’s not ethical… every one of your students has a right to consider these issues. You have no duty to dilute the truth for the sake of people who are under religious pressure to circumcise. What to do with that information is their problem, not yours.

  • http://mamarama.tv JayneF

    Let’s be clear – I did not say I would “dilute the truth” or “censor facts” – I said it was inappropriate for me to be biased in a class setting. For example, I am somewhat biased about epidural anesthesia, but you wouldn’t know that if you heard me speak on the topic. Letting the facts speak for themselves is a better approach, I find.

  • Equal

    I want you to be unbiased about this JayneF. I was born in and still live in America BTW. Anyways ever since I could remember I have had these lines up, down, and all around my penis. When I was old enough to realize what scars were, i knew i had them on my penis. When I was a little older i asked my mother why i had scars there, she told me i was “circumcised” because the doctors said it would be cleaner and so i wouldn’t be made fun of in the locker room. I pretty much dismissed that as fact. From being a kid and exploring my body, i found that the most sensitive part of my penis was not the head but a little patch of scar tissue that is located half of the way up the shaft of my penis, right where the scar going up and down my shaft connects to the scar going around the circumference of my penis (later i will find that that is the last remnant of my frenulum that the doctors removed from my body). When i reached my teens i learned in my middle school anatomy class that there was something called a foreskin and that it is dirty and causes diseases. Later in high school anatomy jumped further into the genitals of humans. They went into huge depth on the vagina and all of its components, nothing on the foreskin, the topic was emitted entirely. That’s when i decided that there was something fishy going on and i jumped into research for my own. That’s when i realized that I am a victim of the largest streak of genital mutilation in history. My foreskin was not a defect, i found that it was in fact far from a defect. Housing a specialized group of smooth skin muscles to protect my glans, highly sensitive skin and nerves, as well as something called a frenulum which is a rigid type of skin that is similar in composition to a clitoris and shares a very similar sensation. I learned that all of these things were stripped off of my body without me even knowing what they were or their function for the next 20 years. I am not some crazy human rights activist or anything like that, i am an average kid who just happens to know the facts now. There is no way around the fact that I and close to a billion other men around the world have been wronged and mutilated. Whether they realize it or not, we are victims of genital mutilation and our sexual sensations have been dulled, just like the victims of female genital mutilation.

    What are your un-biased thoughts on this- JayneF.

    PS you should know that I am infuriated that my body was whole for entire 2 days before they cut me. I will never experience the sensation of the nerves that they amputated from my own genitals. I will never experience sex the way nature intended.

  • John

    Equal – your story sounds exactly like mine – with this addition – my infant circ was badly botched – way too much skin removed and severe nerve damage that leaves me with only the very unpleasantly painful sensation of being rubbed with 30 grit sandpaper – there is no portion forward of the circ scar that gives me any kind of pleasant feeling whatsoever – I had several surgeries in the late 70′s attempting to reduce the damage, but was unsuccessful and continue to be unable to enjoy any mutual sexual encounters – am I angry? You better believe it! Although I am now retired from a successful career, a significant portion of my life was taken from me and altered for the worse. I don’t care what you cut off yourself as an informed adult for whatever religious or social reason, but infant and child mutilations of both sexes need to stop and it needs to stop now! What was done to me is unacceptable ethically and medically on so many levels! After having followed this issue since the mid 1940′s, I continue to be dismayed and saddened by the fact that educators, authors and medical experts continue to quote the same flawed and heavily biased studies and outdated social, cultural and religious dogma – my personal favorite, by the way is “so he’ll look like his father” – well, according to that one, I should not have been cut as my father was not cut. Apparently that only works one way.

    I do look forward to being around a few more years – long enough to see young men start seeking legal action against their circumcisors, mohels and hospitals under the equal protection for males and females laws when they come of age under the FGM law passed in the ’90′s. I have thought for years the circumcision establishment had considerable financial reward in keeping this procedure going not to mention the profit made off infant foreskins. I hope lots of these young men and their lawyers go for the limit financially as an additional deterrent to the infant MGM practice. – when it ceased to be financially rewarding and becomes a major financial liability to individuals and insurance companies, there should be added impetus to cease to this bizarre and destructive practice.

    Jayne – it’s not the parents penis and since there is no medical indication its’ not anyone’s decision other than the individual child when he is of age and can make an informed decision – therefore it should be a non-decision left to the individual at a later age – indeed, it is my personal feeling that a parent has the obligation to protect the child from having harm inflicted on them. I would suggest that you read Margaret Sommerville and her comments on ethical considerations, then follow that up with Marilyn Milos at NOCIRC. Also, comparing this to any other procedure such as breast feeding is apples and oranges – a decision by the mother to breast feed or not does not involve amputation for no medical reason with little or no anesthetic resulting in an irreversible transformation to the child’s genitals with possible severe consequences and complications. I would further suggest that if you continue to be “politically correct” you will also be guilty by omission of allowing severe damage to be done to some future child/children resulting in the kind of unpleasant life altering experience I, and others you have heard from, have had just as surely as if you took the knife to them yourself. I find it heartening that you say in your article that you are “not a fan of the procedure” – on the other hand, that’s a pretty wimpy statement. I hope that you will take the other responses here to heart as there is a great deal of timely information in them, then learn a great deal more about MGM and finally reach a point of being able to advocate for the individual child when it comes to his genital integrity.

  • Jessica

    I guess my question, Jayne, is, do you have an opinion right now about the recent AAP decision to “prick” a girl’s genitals as a substitute for FGM (which they quickly reversed)? Would you “respect the differences” of people if they said they planned to do that to their newborn daughter? I think that’s a much more apt comparison than the breastfeeding analogy you offered.

  • http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

    “it IS a struggle for me to personally oppose circumcision (for ALL the reasons presented and then some) yet present information about the procedure in a way that helps new parents make their decision.”

    I sympathise. You are at the cutting edge :( of the problem of non-therapeutic circumcision. The heart of the problem is that parents have to make a decision at all. What other decision about inessential surgery is pushed on parents of neonates? None. The AAP really needs to get off the fence and recommend that it not be done, to get people like you off the hook. But meanwhile, there is no good reason you have to dither and say “on the one hand… on the other hand…”. The human rights issue is clear. I suggest that you tell parents you support the policy of the KNMG (Royal Dutch Medical Association). A copy is here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/KNMG-policy.pdf

    It’s very different from breast-feeding (except that there is a wealth of indirect evidence that neonatal circumcision hinders the establishment of breast-feeding). You can encourage mothers to try breast-feeding and if it fails, they can switch. There’s no switching after a circumcision. Bottle feeding doesn’t (usually) permanently diminish his body for life.

  • http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

    Sorry, the “wealth of indirect evidence that neonatal circumcision hinders the establishment of breast-feeding”: http://www.circumstitions.com/Nursing.html

  • http://mamarama.tv JayneF

    Final Comment: Thanks everyone for your passionate viewpoints and testimonies. I will no longer be addressing this topic via this blog, but please know that I have heard your thoughts and respect your heartfelt opinions. I hope you’ll follow my subsequent blogs as I address many other points of parenthood and child-rearing. Thanks again….JayneF (Mamarama)

  • Jack

    Although no medical group is for this amputation of genital parts, the US medical community has not really looked into the harm that is caused. If people just started doing this, the affect of cutting off parts (pleasure giving parts) would be much more carefully considered. The following is certain and really should be mentioned in any disucssion (see for exxample the Mayo clinic that fails to mention the nerves and the pleausre lost).

    Male circumcision is nerve damage — a cutting off about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. This is 2/3 of the total pleasure source amputated! This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones taken away from a human before the human can experience this. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good.The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans.

    BTW, the other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE) include curved or misshapen erection, painful erection, botches of all sorts (many requiring redo) and death. About 120 boys DIE each year in the US from this sick practice.

  • http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Joe

    I started thinking about this subject, after watching Michael Moore’s
    documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ where he makes the point that gun ownership in Canada, approaches gun ownership in the US, yet gun crime in the states is far higher, why?

    So I started digging around in nationmaster as regards national statistics and male circumcision rates and this caught my eye. The majority of men are circumcised in the following nations.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/

    With the search term ‘Circumcision-(male)’

    Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon,
    Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali ,Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa,Tonga, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Yemen.

    My contention is that it does not change the individual that much, but changes society.

  • TD

    “Even with a great deal of evidence that shows circumcision is medically unnecessary parents still opt for the procedure for more aesthetic reasons; which may seem superficial to some, yet it’s important to others.” Anyone who finds “aesthetic reasons” a justifiable excuse for infant circumcision is a child sex abuser, plain and simple. Jayne, just imagine what it would be like if an unnecessary surgery that even remotely resembled circumcision were done routinely to baby girls in America. What if it were commonplace for American baby girls to undergo a “labia trim,” without anesthetic, while they were strapped down to a board manufactured specifically for the procedure, simply to ensure that a little girl wouldn’t have “meat curtains” that her future sex partner might find aesthetically unpleasing? Taking a neutral stance on male infant genital mutilation is effectively encouraging it — it is your responsibilty as a compassionate human being to condemn it, not equivocate. No child deserves to be sliced into for no good reason. Stop being wishy-washy, and take a bold stand against the sexual abuse of ALL children, including boys.