Direct Link to Latest News


Circumcision: Genital Mutilation of Males?

October 28, 2011

r-CALIFORNIA-CIRCUMCISION-large570.jpgNew Item:Left,  Gov. Jerry Brown Bans any Ban on Circumcision

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction.  I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man's life is positive. In fact, the option of taking a libido inhibitor would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself.  (But that's another story.)

by Clifford Shack

Up until today, I thought that the religious circumcision that I was subjected to when I was 8 days old was but a quaint attempt at giving me a religious identity.

Cutting off my foreskin was somehow being ushered into an ancient covenant. Today, however, I realized that I had been mutilated.

Circumcision is a mind-control device. I had thought that the foreskin was just a piece of innocuous extra skin in the same category of an earlobe but even less important. Today I learned:
"The foreskin contains 85% of the sexually receptive nerve endings of the penis. The "ridged band," also known as the "preputial sphincter" is the most sensitive part of an intact male's body, containing 20,000 Meisner's corpuscle nerve endings. These are the nerve endings that sense light touch, as in the anus or lips. They are also found in highly concentrated patterns on the palms of our hands and soles of our feet. [To get a rough idea of the difference between an intact versus a circumcised penis on the sensitivity dimension] compare the sensation of gently gliding a finger over your palm versus the back of your hand."
In fact, circumcision first became a standard medical practice in the US, and subsequently a mindless cultural habit, specifically as a means to combat masturbation. The aim, according to this article in a medical journal, was to reduce masturbation.

In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce [foreskin] is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate. ("On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood." The Lancet, Vol. 1; 7 April 1860.)"


There is no biblical negative commandment as to the spilling of seed, if so Judaism would have lasted about two days. The authors of the Bible would have to be more subtle. It's obvious that they wanted the people to be "fruitful and multiply" as that is the Bible's first positive commandment.

They threatened the male populace with the story of Er and Onan the two sons of Judah. But to insure that masturbation and the natural pleasures of uncircumcised sex would be kept to an absolute minimum, they came up with the Covenant or the "Bris."

 With the crowns of the penis exposed. sex would be over and done with in a matter of a few minutes. The pleasure of woman would also be kept to a minimum. With outrageous sex out of the way, the minds of men would be free to study the Law or learn war.

The women, never fully satisfied would be subdued and channel their energies into household matters. Circumcision is at the core of preparing a populace for a subdued existence within a structured society.

Circumcised men can only wonder as what sex is supposed to feel like. What pains me more is the thought that I foisted this evil on my own sons. I could only beg for their forgiveness and warn them against circumcising their sons but being good Jews, they'll probably ignore the crazy old man.



Joseph Campbell on Circumcision (vid)

Circumcision is Immoral and Should be Banned

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Circumcision: Genital Mutilation of Males? "

Olivia said (October 30, 2011):

I have four boys all of them mutilated for life by circumcision. I did not see the first three done but saw the last one having it done, This baby jumped about a foot off the bed. There is no doubt in my mind this does have an effect long into the person's life. What that effect is it's anyone's guess. Something to think about, prison's are loaded with mostly men, more sexual violence is committed by men,and we have in America a problem with men beating their wives to pulps no matter what the class of the individual. This is a sick thing to do to a child.

Al said (October 30, 2011):

Along with the shaving of the beard, circumcision defiles the man and compromises his masculinity. And that is the whole point of paganism. It is designed to subdue the man and make his brain effeminate mush. Instead of pleasing God, we may be greatly offending Him by altering that which He created.

Circumcision appears to be a useless as infant baptism because the baby is not at the age of reason and has no say in the matter.

My suggestion is that people do some more thinking before they act. Try to find out whether something is good or evil first; then make your decision. You might be surprised to find that some things aren't as they seem.

Steve said (October 29, 2011):

Much thanks and gratitude to Clifford Shack for sharing some intelligent thoughts and insights on circumcision, along with a healthy dose of both empathy and common sense. Circumcision is a barbaric relic that has no place in modern society. If anyone cares to know exactly why circumcision came to be, I would highly recommend the book "Slave Species of God" by Michael Tellinger.

As for Makow's comments about chemical castration, I can only say that I am stunned. I have always thought highly of Makow and his articles, but this idea is patently ridiculous and absurd. Worse, yet, it's thoroughly depraved and downright dangerous. Stay away from my boys, Henry!

CM said (October 29, 2011):

I recently came across some websites promoting circumcision in Germany:

After studying these sites, it became clear that the proponents are homo- or bisexual. They see it as a blood rite and celebrate adult circumcision as a sexual act.

Ritual Circumcision in Judaism is not just circumcision but according to the Talmud involves consumption of the blood by the Mohel. For homosexuals, circumcision and ritual circumcision apparently is somehow a natural instinct. For heterosexuals it is an utmost repellant imagination. Circumcision is extremely polarizing in our perception of what is natural and adequate behavior in society.

According to information on the website, socialists advocate and practice circumcision. In the former East German Republic DDR all Vopos (Volkspolizei) police recruits were forced to circumcision. Homosexuality is very frequent among socialist intellectuals in West Germany. The social democrat party SPD is called Schwule (Gay) Democrats by insiders. It is well known that many leftist intellectuals are gays, bisexual and advocates of sexual extremism.

In West Germany in the 70s, there were groups promoting circumcision. I remember them as liberal evangelical Christs fanatic about Israel and kibbutzes who were pushy in convincing parents and their children for the alleged benefits and modernity of circumcision. All this was surrounded with an aura of modernity and sexual education. They were very messianic opposed to the usual conservative and nerdy Christians.

In USA and many British overseas colonies neonatal circumcision is a standard, at least until very recently. There is no common explication for this practice, but we may observe that in these countries the story of biblical Israelites has a lot of importance for the Christian faith. Anglicans in the colonies are very Abrahamic compared to continental European Christians and Catholics in particular. Many white Americans are descendents of mavericks in Europe who emigrated, something that may have to do with gens determining social behavior.

Based on these and other observations, circumcision may appear a natural and desirable behavior to some people because of a genetic disposition that is also determining sexual orientation.

Interestingly, B'nai B'rith which is the Ashkenazim principal organization translates in Circumcised Sons. We know that denominations are very important in Judaism. We may need an explanation why they don't call themselves, let's say, Hebrew Sons or Israelites.

The origin of Jews are a mystery. For me it seems that Talmudism and Kabballah has something gay. There may be some genetically programmed behaviorism that gays, Marxists and typically intellectual Jews share and that we may qualify as a gender issue. This kind of gender may be predominant in about 5% of the gentile population and to a higher extend among Jews. This may explain the deep antagonism between homosexuals, socialists, liberals and Jews with the rest of society.

Homosexuals often but not always have a certain “look”, some kind of marking physiognomy. They share this characteristic in all races and classes. To me it seems that “looking Jewish” is somehow similar to those features that we can observe in gays. But just as in gays, many (if not most) Jews we see among the white population have a neutral and mostly average central or south European appearance.

There may exist some distinctive class of people or “subspecies” that is dominant in politics and the media. They are dominant in performing arts. They are very social and know how to build networks. They have the highest social IQ which makes them masters in parliamentarism and pressure groups that are so powerful in our contemporary world.

Greg said (October 29, 2011):

Thank you for posting the article by Mr. Shack on circumcision.
I was cut without my permission right after I was born and some would call that rape. When someone does something to another without their permission.

When I came to realize the wrong that has been done to me and other men around the world, I became angry at the injustice. They only cut the guys and not the girls.

That was one of the reasons I changed my major in college away from Anthropology. It is filled with Markist/Feminist and they only want to talk about and try to stop female cutting. And became almost angry when a guy would bring up that they should stop cutting guys.

This awareness of it being wrong to cut guys lead me to non-surgical foresking restoration. It does not get a guy back what was taken, but it does get some. I have a ways to go, but the amount of feeling that translate into more pleasure supports the fact that uncut guys have more sensitivity and pleasure by having a foreskin.

Also, if men would learn to keep clean and pass that knowledge down to their sons that would help for people who say cutting is done for cleanliness. If cutting a guy is to prevent infection and cancer, then why is it that most of the men in the world are not cut and they do not have rampant infection and cancer. So the people that say that studies show that it prevent infection and cancer are using fraudulent studies or ones where the people paying for the study have rig it.

I have noticed too that the most violent religions on the planet are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and circumcision is the only thing that they have in common.

Jesse said (October 29, 2011):

Even the atheist Christopher Hitchens has the good sense to denounce this barbaric practice:

His comparison to female genital mutilation is probably the best angle to take with fair minded but religion averse Westerners. How can we honestly protect our female children while allowing this to be done to male babies routinely? The double standard and the fact that it seems to be lost on more than half of the commentators shows the triumph of feminist mind control. And even the secular modernist will rise to the defense of "religious freedom."

But of course, the highest word regarding the sanctity of our God created bodies comes from above. Christ taught that circumcision must be of the heart and not of the flesh, and condemned the amputators of manhood as perverts. In modern times, Swami Sivananda stated that castration is actually the path to impurity. Our bodies were given to us perfectly, and to contend that this perfect creation needs improvement (and improvement by violent excision no less) denies the omniscience of our Creator and thus denies the Creator himself. It is a grave sin.

Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil-workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!
- Paul in Philippians 3:2

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
- Paul in Galatians 5:1 to 5:4

I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves.
- Paul in Galatians 5:12

Alan said (October 29, 2011):

Perhaps if they weren't circumcised and hasn't had their glans desensitized, they would get satisfaction much more easily, like don't having to pound away hurting their better halves in the process. Circumcised men sense a feeling of great tenderness and physical pleasure only DEEP inside their penises, because the outer skin has been calcified.

Chemical castrations etc. are hot topics at the Eunuch Archive site. There they love discussing the "benefits" of castrating boys, though mostly for their own selfish sexual satisfaction.

John said (October 29, 2011):

Post this link please, the idea it is done to prevent infection is absurd, usually HIV, which is a hoax.

IM said (October 29, 2011):

I love the debate that some men and women would love to mandate that all baby boys have part of their anatomy chopped off. And the chopper-offers can think of a million good reasons to support their theories. But I'll bet not 1 in 10 has given a sustained thought to giving the baby boy anesthesia to relieve the excruciating pain. To me this reveals all I need to know that their motive is little more than a sadistic pleasure.

BG said (October 29, 2011):

All I can say, guys, is, if it's going to happen, it's better to have it done as a baby than a grown man. I had a friend in my early 20s who got circumcised when he was about 28-29. He said the stitches were NOT Fun. He said his doctor kept saying it was the healthy thing to do, as others have described, so he finally had it done. Ouch! Glad I'm not a guy!

Good job by Debra explaining God's **OT** position re circumcision. However, "M" got it right when he said: "The reason for Jewish circumcision was SEPARATION. It was a mark. It ENDED with Christ."

Jewish believers in the first century were insisting, "Unless you (Gentiles) are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1)

That led to "Paul and Barnabas" having "great dissension and debate with them" about their continued legalism (Acts 15:2) which led to the Jerusalem Counsel in Acts 15:6 (approx. 50 AD) settling the matter once & for all.

"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the WHOLE law." (Galatians 5:2-3; see also Romans 2:25-29 where he expounds further that the Jews who WERE circumcised were not even keeping the rest of the Law themselves).

Paul also points out that God had ALREADY declared Abraham as "righteous" due to Abraham's FAITH BEFORE God ever instituted the "separation in the flesh" circumcision -covenant with him: Romans 4:9-12.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6)

Bottom Line Biblically-speaking: Circumcision is a personal preference matter under the current administration of grace & this applies to the Jew as well as to the Greek.

For more details, two good articles:
•Grace - No Circumcision Required: (covers just about every single scripture on the subject):
•Pauline Circumcision Contradictions? (we know this argument will come up from the "Paul haters"):

M said (October 29, 2011):

This idea about hygiene in the uncircumsized penis [beloe] is ridiculous. It takes 2 seconds for a man to wash it clean. I have never had an urinary infection in my whole life. Compare it with women, who are always wet and with bacteria. Would you circumsize them too ? People forget God made the prepuce too. I have two sons and neither are circumsized. And yea, 50% of sensitivity is there.

The reason for Jewish circumcision was separation. It was a mark. It ended with Christ. Actually, it provides the funniest moment in the Bible, when Saint Paul says that people who were still being circumsized should go all the way and castrate themselves for good.

Dan said (October 28, 2011):

Having been born in a US Army base hospital I was circumcised at birth. I doubt it was any more traumatic than cutting the umbilical chord.

Why circumcision? 5,000 years ago underwear and pants were invented. Men could go hunting without having to worry about their ding-a-ling dangling exposed to solar rays and winter ice. Not only was foreskin rendered obsolete, but became inconvenient.

As a teenager when I learned there was such a thing as foreskin I was thankful to have been circumcised. It's quite simply better for hygiene. (women appreciate that).

It's undisputed that unclean foreskin harbors bacteria and viruses, which plays a known role in spreading STD's, most commonly Chlamydia, and HPV.

Circumcision has only lately become a new 'issue'. On the one hand I see on the web it's become a new industry with quack promising to 'restore' foreskin - rather like the industry that promises penile enlargement, and the viagra industry promising 'male enhancement'.

The California and Boston court cases to ban circumcision is an attack on freedom of religion, I am sure.

There's no difference in sex pleasure or function (BTW the 'ridged band' isn't removed by circumcision). Who sits around wishing they had more penile sensitivity? Penis envy isn't something a grown man should pursue as a cause.

Debra said (October 28, 2011):

God's Laws in Leviticus 12:2-3 commands circumcision of male infants in verses that are spoken Words of God to Moses for the people, not for interpretation. However, the people should consider why Father would command as such and, by doing so, can read this Law is amongst all the other "Health Laws" and applies to the circumcision Law, as well. God has told "what" to do: circumcise male infants; He told "how" to: remove the foreskin; He told "when": at 8 days old"; "why": for health.

Laws of God are to be read in an ordered manner of logic: What, How, When, Why; with Who given.

Uncircumcised males are at a greater risk for infection. This is a known fact, and well documented.

A surgical procedure prior to 8 days old has the higher risk of bleeding (God Knows What is Best):-
"On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.".

John said (October 28, 2011):

For decades, one of my favorite books, a unique one, is None of These Diseases by S.I. McMillen, It is still in abundance at Concerning circumcision, the following is a brief extract:

Medical science recognizes the fact, but unfortunately the general public is still unaware of the value of circumcision. How can circumcision of the male prevent cancer in women? The human male is cursed with a superabundance of foreskin over the penis. Circumcision (circum, "around," and cision, "cutting") remedies the fault by removing the excess of foreskin. If the tight, unretractable foreskin is not removed, proper cleansing can not be readily performed. As a result many virulent bacteria,including the cancer-producing Smegma bacillus, can grow profusely. During sexual intercourse these bacteria are deposited on the cervix of the uterus, but if the mucous membrane of the cervix is intact, little harm results. However, if lacerations exist, as they frequently do after childbirth, these bacteria can cause considerable irritation. Since any part of the body which is subjected to irritation is susceptible to cancer, it is perfectly understandable why cervical cancer is likely to develop in women whose mates are not circumcised.

These bacteria not only produce cancer in women, but also irritate the male organ and may cause cancer of the penis. The extreme rarity of penile cancer in circumcised men is shown by the fact that in 1955 only the fourth case in medical history was reported. Thus we can say that circumcision is an almost perfect prophylaxis against this deadly cancer. Prevention by circumcision is far more important than treatment, because once a diagnosis of cancer is made, surgical removal of the penis is mandatory.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at