Boys Deserve Better

Intactivist Graphics, Intactivism, Circumcision is medical fraud boysdeservebetter.com https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter pinterest.com/bdbadvocacy/

[boysdeservebetter]

Sexism is not a one way street.

The arguments for "inviolability" and for "security of person" are equally valid for protecting boys from forced genital cutting, as you can see with my minor changes in wording:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol7/iss1/9

McClain, Linda C. (1995) "Inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, the Sanctuary, and the Body," Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 9.

Feminist work has exposed those undeniable, unjust, and deeply disturbing limitations but tends to discount the role that the ideals of inviolability and privacy have played and may play in criticizing such limitations as violative of women's bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, even at the expense of the supposed "sanctity" of other loci of inviolability (e.g., the marital relationship or the home). pp. 196-197

[INTACTIVIST work has exposed those undeniable, unjust, and deeply disturbing limitations but tends to discount the role that the ideals of inviolability and privacy have played and may play in criticizing such limitations as violative of BOYS' and MEN's bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, even at the expense of the supposed "sanctity" of other loci of inviolability (e.g., 'parental rights' or 'religious freedom').]

Images of body as castle and as sanctuary shed light on these critiques and also capture in part the injury to bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and privacy caused by sexual assault. p. 199 [Images of body as castle and as sanctuary shed light on these critiques and also capture in part the injury to bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and privacy caused by sexual assault (non-consensual, non-therapeutic assault on the sex organs of infants).] Undeniably, there is still much to be done to secure inviolability for women, not merely by changing the law but also by changing law enforcement practices and public attitudes,so that what has been accepted or even legitimated is seen as violative and wrong. p. 215 [Undeniably, there is still much to be done to secure inviolability for CHILDREN, not merely by changing the law but also by changing law enforcement practices and public attitudes, so that what has been accepted or even legitimated [forced genital cutting] is seen as violative and wrong.]

~Devon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person  Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/141/250/case.html Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford is the first case cited here as a precedent for women's reproductive rights under the general banner of privacy law; surely then it applies to men's reproductive rights as well. 

[boysdeservebetter]

#WhatsWrongWithYou One of the most F****d up things about routine and ritual neonatal circumcision is that the child must be stable and healthy to be a 'good candidate' for the 'procedure' and that any actual problems with his penis may be contraindications to 'performing' it. The good news is that all that may be wrong with you is too much trust in a doctor who advocates non-therapeutic, non-consensual forced genital cutting. THAT is easily remedied, and a cure may be effected with five minutes of reading about the problems with this cultural habit. Your problem may be more serious than that. You may be #ObsessedWithThePenis . How can that be you say? Those crazy people holding signs at protests are the ones who are obsessed with penises. Well, THOSE people would just like boys to have the same medical, ethical, and legal protections which are acknowledged for the protection and preservation of all other healthy, normal tissue which belongs to a child. You and your ilk are the ones who need to have 'special' beliefs about the penis and what may be done to it at parental whim. Even that can be cured with only a small amount of personal suffering. It's difficult to admit that family members, or yourself, have been harmed by a pointless, painful, and unnecessary mutilation, but if you have even a modest understanding of logic and are willing to question the embedded beliefs we have about circumcision [and about boys], you can feel empowered to #EndTheCycleOfViolence within your own immediate family. Those who will really struggle to acknowledge a male child's human right to SECURITY OF PERSON are those who suffer from #NarcissisticPersonalityDisorder. #MyChildMyChoice they say, as though ownership of their children gives them carte blanche to do as they wish-- when in fact it is just a specific part of a specific part of the male body which can be ablated under the banner of alleged parental rights. Others display PTSD symptoms, suddenly becoming irrational in their insistence on inflicting this trauma on their child, muttering some psychobabble such as "I want my son to look like me. It's important for a boy to look like his father." When the anti-masturbation crusade began and intact fathers were convinced they were doing something good for their sons in circumcising them, this was obviously never a 'selling point' of circumcision. It's always about I, ME, MY-- and never about their male child's ACTUAL needs, but I don't even give up on those people. They CAN and DO come around on this issue. They may realize that telling a girl that her body belongs to her and no one else-- but making excuses why the same is not true for boys-- is sexist and unfair. Eventually. It is the #CircumcisionFanatics who are hopeless cases. There are fewer of these than you may think, but their influence is greater than you may realize. Their mouths may make the shapes for words like "Primum Non Nocere," Tikkun Olam," or "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" [or some other claimed and allegedly cherished personal values] but they will abandon all ethics, education, and empathy in order to promote and preserve their pet mutilation. Their motivations range from psychological self defense to greed to blind obedience to fetishism, and their handiwork is splattered all across medicine, public health, and the media, though disguised as science and as sensible preventive health. For some with #BloodstainedHands, to admit that they have done more harm than good in their careers [despite their best intentions] is too much to bear. For others, religious zealotry trumps all, and they can not identify religious or cultural maltreatment... unless perhaps it is a maltreatment done by those of another religion or culture. Forced genital cutting is no 'dilemma' or 'difficult decision' or 'personal choice.' It is a disgusting cultural habit to which we have clinged too long, and for which we have had far too much patience and tolerance. Just as few would have any trouble wondering #WhatsWrongWithYou were parents to decide to cut their daughter's genitals (assuming that the decision was made because of cultural pressure, habit, religion, or concern over the acceptability of uncut genitals to a future mate) and would understand that such a decision could only be made if parents refused to remove their cultural blinders, so is it with the forced genital cutting of males. #WhatsWrongWithYou #ItsAFairQuestion ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

Three images for those who claim the [male] foreskin is just an 'extra flap of skin.'

No, dumbass, it's a double-walled, highly-innervated sleeve of specialized tissue-- which provides comfort, protection, and stimulation to its owner.

And you don't have to soak it in warm water for 5 minutes and add lube to enjoy a life-like feel when masturbating or having sex.

The manufacturers note that intact men favor the smooth and less-textured versions of the product:

"Uncut men tend to favor the STU and the Original Fleshlights. The STU is favored because it's texture is less pronounced and it feels gentler on the foreskin, especially on the way out. The Original is equally favored because it is completely smooth and the foreskin has less to get caught-up on. It's argued that the movement of the foreskin on the penis head is more sexually arousing than textures and requires less manual stimulation."

It takes no imaginative leap to consider that the same would be true of actual intercourse, that it's the diminished man who needs something 'extra' to provide stimulation. His brain was wired to receive stimulation it never gets, and gradually developing a callus over the glans and foreskin remnant doesn't help. ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

A judge rules a surgical intervention must be performed.

Surely it’s a case wherein a life-saving procedure is being advocated for a child who desperately needs it for a chance of survival, yet parents oppose it on religious or philosophical grounds... right?  There ARE legal precedents for such.  Understandably so.

The answer is no.  A judge is hell-bent on forcing a healthy child with a normal penis to have part of it severed because of a parental agreement made prior to the mother’s discovery of the facts about the forced genital cutting of males. 

Where are the legal precedents allowing a judge to rule in favor of non-consensual, non-therapeutic maimings of children’s bodies?  Any idea where the notion that circumcision, despite being found medically unnecessary, should be permitted came from?  It wasn’t a Supreme Court case, nor any legal precedent.  It was the opinion of four individuals from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Nevertheless, traditional, cultural, and religious factors play a role in the decision made by parents, pediatrician, obstetrician, or family practitioner on behalf of a son. It is the responsibility of the physician to provide parents with factual and informative medical options regarding circumcision. The final decision is theirs, and should be based on true informed consent.

The ridiculousness of their assertion of genital maiming as a parenting right is featured above. 

An important concept increasingly featured in both in human rights documents and national constitutions is that of security of person.  The Botsford case was a landmark in U.S. law, and is a precedent  which seems eminently reasonable given our oft-declared valuation of the freedoms and rights we believe are ours to enjoy as citizens.  

Judge Gillen seems to have little interest in hearing anything which contradicts his beliefs about circumcision:

We offered to submit an Amicus Curiae or friend of the Court brief, which set out the bioethical issues, as well as the physical and psychological challenges of a "post-natal" (older child) circumcision. We were summarily refused that opportunity. That left the case with no credible, formal, medical testimony. All that remained was the offhand folklore and surmise of the judge, and some speculative benefits debunked decades ago. 

It’s hard to imagine a judge making any similar ruling-- as an example let’s say parents agreed to gauge their child’s pierced ears because it was their

preference

and made him or her

‘match’

one or both parents, then one parent balked at forcing it on the child-- would any judge make a ruling forcing the body mod on the child?  I don’t think so.

I have no idea whether Gillen has a good track record, nor any notion whether he is in other ways kind, logical, and fair in his rulings.  I do not dismiss the possibility.  The simple fact is that circumcision creates in some a pathological need to think and act illogically.  Gillen seems determined to make a ruling on circumcision rather than seeing the case for what it is, a contract with no legal standing.  On cannot sign away another person’s rights.  It’s pretty damn simple. Gillen’s preoccupation with a 4 yr old boy’s penis is just another example of life in a genital cutting culture.  Law, ethics, medicine, and public health all take a back seat to preserving the forced genital cutting of male children. Not by my nor by any other intactivist’s standards do they fail children (and the men those children become), these ‘public servants’ and ‘healing arts professionals’ fail according to their own standards.   That is probably the most damning indictment one can make, isn’t it?  You don’t fail to meet some new age/crazy/hippie/crunchy earthmama/druid’s standards. You fail to understand THE MOST BASIC tenets of your own professions.   You have a cult-like loyalty to penis cutting.   Your own legacy will be tarnished because of it and you can’t see it. Chase and 3,000 other boys a day whose genitals are assaulted are healthy. It’s you who are sick.

.

[boysdeservebetter]

VOID

Whether it's the contract between father and mother in the Chase case, or the contract (covenant) between God and Abraham, they are VOID when OTHER's bodies are involved.

Let's start with the oldest contract-- severing the protruding tip of Abraham's, his descendants', and his slaves' foreskins-- as part of a land deal. VOID. Had it been just Abraham's penis... no contractual problem whatsoever. But his descendants' and his slaves'? See the problem there? Can one get a mortgage by claiming the neighbor's property as collateral?

What it we switched the sexes in the Chase case and say the father had signed a contract to 'trim' a daughter's labia and 'unhood' her clitoris? Very 'safe procedure', might be 'easier to clean'.... It might even be 'traditional' in the mother's native country. Would the public reaction be similar? HE SIGNED A CONTRACT! HE SHOULD HAVE RESEARCHED IT BEFORE SIGNING!

No, ignorant people wouldn't be saying such things if the contract involved (even the most minor alteration of) a girl's genitals. They'd be wondering what in the hell was wrong with the mother that she felt a compulsion to inflict a social amputation on her child. And a judge certainly wouldn't be trying to hush the father and force the child to be mutilated, all while refusing to hear legal AND medical evidence that such a mutilation was not only not in the child's best interests, but that such a contract (even were it considered as a contract case rather than a case involving the rights and welfare of a child) had no legal standing for one very simple reason-- you can't sign away someone else's property.

The judge is willfully ignorant, showing as little understanding of law as he does of human rights or medicine.

It's SO damn simple.

To whom do a girl's genitals belong? To whom do a boy's genitals belong? To whom do an intersex child's genitals belong?

~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

Some simply have way too much faith in doctors who commit medical malpractice.

For others, 'choosing' to circumcise is nothing more than vacuous narcissism.

It's mystifying that even those very concerned with teaching their children personal boundaries, respect for others' possessions, and fostering a positive body image become idiots when the [male] foreskin and its wanton destruction is brought up. ~Devon “Security of person” IS a right: https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter/photos/pb.159118167517640.-2207520000.1427105206./696821820413936/?type=3&theater

[boysdeservebetter]

Unless you look at the toes curled in anguish and discard your cultural blinders-- then it's one of the few issues which is truly black and white: It's done only to one sex, it requires special pleading [none of the rationalizations can be used to violate girls' genitals... or to justify the ablation of any other normal, healthy part of the body], it's permanent, non-therapeutic, non-consensual, and is contrary to just about every value people claim to cherish.   End FGC. [Forced Genital Cutting]

[boysdeservebetter]

Perceived ownership is not carte blanche to do whatever 'business' you want, is it? ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

As has been repeated over and over, circumcision is no 'little snip.' Even if it were, just a little bit of a medically unethical violation of a child's genitals is okay? That's the argument? Early textbooks omitted the clitoris just as some continue to omit the male foreskin. Later texts were wrong about the physical structure and functions of both. "The clitoris, as previously understood, was a superficial structure, a delicate knob of tissue situated just below the pubic bone. Thanks to the work of Dr Helen O'Connell, we now know that this is only part of the story. The clitoris consists of a head (the external component), attached to a body two to four centimetres long that gives rise to arms that can be up to nine centimetres long. The body also gives rise to two bulbs of erectile tissue, which sit between the arms on either side of the vagina. O'Connell has called for the structures, known as the "bulbs of the vestibule" in the few texts that mention them, to be renamed the bulbs of the clitoris."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/anatomy-of-a-revolution/2005/09/08/1125772617200.html "In the 16th century, as if no one had ever noticed it before, two Italians issued competing claims for the discovery of the female penis. One of them, Gabriel Fallopius, did succeed in having his name attached to the tubes between the ovaries and uterus. Despite this controversy, a hundred years later, Reinier De Graaf described the internal clitoris and remarked, “We are extremely surprised that some anatomists make no more mention of this part than if it did not exist at all in the universe of nature.”" (Sounds familiar, huh? with no mention of the male foreskin or its functions in some texts) http://afterdinnerparty.com/the-clitoris/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5013866.stm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145367

[boysdeservebetter]

I finally relented and made a graphic presenting 'both sides' of the circumcision 'debate.'  If this were properly seen as a medical ethics [lack thereof] issue and a human rights issue (rather than as a parenting choice issue) there wouldn't be a call for an 'unbiased' presentation of 'both sides' of the 'debate.'  Breast ironing? Scarification? Tattooing? Cutting girls' genitals (in even the most minor form)? We don't hear calls for 'both sides' of those issues, because those mutilations aren't our own.  'Both sides' of human rights? 'Both sides' of equal protection under the law? 'Both sides' of following medical ethics and normal protocols?  It would be comical if the results of this idiocy weren't so tragic. ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

Boys Deserve Better than heartfelt but hollow hyperbole.

*Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley: "The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/141/250/case.html (The notion that it is reasonable for parents to 'choose' to carve up their male children's genitals is a fiction popularized by the American Academy of Pediatrics starting in 1975: "Factors such as climate, the social and emotional reaction of prospective parents to penile cleansing, and the ability to understand and facilitate good hygiene, etc. should be taken into account when recommending whether circumcision should be performed.") 

https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter/photos/pb.159118167517640.-2207520000.1419938338./697314213698030/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter/photos/a.159418667487590.34880.159118167517640/660784454017673/?type=1&theater

[boysdeservebetter]

Boys Deserve Better than adults determined to characterize their normal, complete genitals as an impending problem. Some, unwittingly or not, advocate aggressive hygiene or forced retraction-- which creates the anticipated problems. "Even the American Academy of Pediatrics in guidance on treating children has said: "Thus 'proxy consent' poses serious problems for pediatric health care providers. Such providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses ... the pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." Those who advance the plea of necessity and/ or expediency might wish to consider how they would rebut comparison with unethical behaviour by other doctors, such as those involved in torture, who also use such excuses. They might also explain why abusive behaviour towards a child is less abusive when performed by a doctor." http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price/ http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_An_Overview_of_Factitious_Disorders/hic_Munchausen_Syndrome/hic_Munchausen_Syndrome_by_Proxy

[boysdeservebetter]

"Son, we want you to be an independent thinker-- take things you read, see, and hear with a grain of salt. Study, come to your own conclusions, don't just accept things at face value. Question authority." "That all sounds great Mom and Dad-- any caveats?" "Hmmm... now that you mention it, it's better that you don't study ethics, law, medical protocols, human rights, or become proficient at identifying sexism OR embedded cultural beliefs and practices." "That's a long list of things I'd think you'd want me to be aware of, at least in basic terms." "True, true. Um, it's just that we'll become angry, stammering idiots if you ask us a certain question relating to all those things.  NEVER MIND, just be a follower." ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

Doctors Are Examining Your Genitals for No Reason

Relevant to the discussion of medical habits which have "become more of a ritual than an evidence-based practice."

"After scouring nearly 70 years of pelvic exam studies, conducted from 1946 to 2014, the researchers found no evidence that they lead to any reduction in “morbidity or mortality of any condition” among women."

The latest in a recent series of reevaluations of conventional practices relating to women's bodies. Sharing because a) it has relevance for many followers of the page and b) it shows that it is not just routine circumcision which has "become more of a ritual than an evidence-based practice." and is being questioned. (Maybe those who can't believe their doctors are blinded by superstition and greed in terms of circumcision can more easily see that medical habits die hard when they read about other established practices being scrutinized.)

"Just two years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists admitted that “no evidence supports or refutes the annual pelvic examination … for the asymptomatic, low-risk patient.” Nevertheless, ACOG reupped its endorsement of the exam, writing that it “seems logical.”"

This kind of conclusion by ACOG reminds me of Mr. Diekema of the AAP Task Force, who stated "In the case of circumcision, the likelihood that the benefits would accrue to an individual child are relatively small" but then concluded "it seems reasonable that a child’s parents should be weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure in consultation with their physician."*

He would have been just as big a failure as a logician as he is as a bioethicist.

"Seems logical." "Seems reasonable."

"SEEMS?" To whom does it SEEM logical or reasonable to promote invasive exams or 'procedures' when they have been shown to be ineffective, unnecessary, and even harmful? Those who get paid to do them? The lobbying groups protecting the financial interests of their members?

~Devon

*https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter/photos/a.320980054664783.72020.159118167517640/327751773987611/?type=3&theater

[boysdeservebetter]

The CDC reps have said that it took them seven years to come up with their circumcision policy. The AAP was at it for more than five years. Why? What's wrong with medical, ethical, and diagnostic protocols as practiced on other body parts?  The answer is that any sane reading of and application of said protocols would mean no forced genital cutting of males. That would upset the circumcision cult, which is obviously willing to prioritize penis cutting over reason, ethics, actual medicine, and duty to the patient. How long would a reasonable policy take to write? A few minutes... and maybe an editing session to make the language perfectly in line with the stated missions of the respective 'medical' groups.  The only reason I can think of for a reasonable, rational, and responsible policy statement taking more than a few hours to craft is to figure out how to apologize for the abject failure to prioritize human rights, ethics, and medicine over the desperate need to preserve cultural cutting. ~Devon * Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice AAP Committee on Bioethics http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/ http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/95/2/314.full.pdf+html

[boysdeservebetter]

There is a medical quote I once read but have not been able to find since. Essentially it said that in cases where gentle stretching was not successful a dorsal slit offered all the benefits of circumcision without any of the drawbacks or surgical risks. This doctor in 1913 was advocating dilation, and if that didn't work, a slit. "Why circumcise anyone?" "Do not mutilate your patients." Clearly Dr. Marner had been influenced by the concerns about tight foreskins. He relents and performs a circumcision when the patient insists... considering a freed glans a success even though he considers circumcision a mutilation. 

The notion that a tight foreskin-- or any irritation of the foreskin-- was problematic had grown in the 1800s during the "reflex neurosis" 'medical' craze. That he advocated forced retraction and oiling the glans of an infant every day in his first few weeks of life to loosen the foreskin is evidence that while he shunned circumcision he was not exempt from the influence of that craze.  ~Devon

[boysdeservebetter]

Regret parents should sue

Many parents beat themselves up for learning too late, for not protecting their sons, but whose fault is it really? True informed consent was not provided.  By either the "reasonable patient" or "reasonable practitioner" standard, non-therapeutic circumcision is an abysmal failure. In my case, had my mother been told I could die from circumcision it would have been enough to save me. For my friend Carol, had she simply been told that it could disrupt breastfeeding she would have rejected it. Others have shared that had they known about the lack of ethics of circumcisers and circumcision it would have changed their minds. Others had no idea that there was any function, sexual or otherwise, attributed to the MALE foreskin. Even if you assumed a parent could give valid proxy consent for the non-therapeutic mutilation of a child's genitals, the chances that any parent received what would be considered informed consent are virtually nil. They would have to be told: that the criteria used to justify it are not adequate for any other 'beautifying' destruction; that the foreskin is specialized erogenous tissue with numerous features and functions; that because circumcision is ELECTIVE the requirements for truly informed consent would have to be an exhaustive list and detailed explanation of all possible complications, no matter how rare; and that any provider of this 'service' violates oaths, ethics, and standard diagnostic protocols which they are normally expected to value and follow. Failing to provide adequate information is grounds for a malpractice suit, but somehow circumcision-- and circumcisers-- skate free. I feel sick every time I read the accounts of regret parents who were not told BASIC things which would have changed their minds and saved their sons from the pointless, barbaric destruction. In every case, an adequate informed consent process would have been sufficient for them to avoid this lifelong regret. Somehow in this perverted culture it is circumcised men and regret parents who are told to "get over it" and accept what was done. In fact it is the circumcision providers, circumcision apologists, and happy customers of this cultural mutilation who need to "get over" their lack of ethics, lack of education, and lack of empathy. As I have said before, any doctor who possessed a full measure of any of those three "E"s would find it impossible to continue butchering boys at parental request or behest.  ~Devon