Genital Mutilation of Male Neonates

The first exposure of man to his disposability, the first of many horrors he is to encounter in life as well as his lot in it, is the partial dismemberment of his manhood at infancy, the cutting of his foreskin. Because he is incapable of making this choice as a neonate he is denied one by having it made for him without a second thought on the part of the people caring for him that maybe, just maybe, he’d want his genital whole and intact when he’s old enough to realize he has one. Before he realizes it, the gift of nature meant for heightened pleasure and protection is gone within 5 to 20 minutes of a traumatic procedure. While the dark ages could sufficiently serve as the reason why male genital mutilation was practiced through time, one has to wonder why we allow this barbaric practice against infant boys to continue today in the 21st century when female circumcision has been banned and eradicated in all developed parts of the world for some time now.

But we know why this is so, do we not? This act is just one of many ways to underscore the human female value over that of the male, to delineate to men that women and everything concerning women comes first, that women’s health is important than men’s, it is to say that even at birth their path is forever carved with the way one genitalia is preserved and protected while the other is cut and discarded, it is to dictate preference for one genitalia over the other. The outrage that should be expressed by men that this practice against their will flies in the face of morality or justice is simmered by the quiet admiration of their own circumcised penis (pleasure in unfreedom), never realizing that the demented nature of gynocentrism is at play and one of its tenets is to find admirable whatever women finds admirable and discard what is displeasing to women, to kowtow to her needs and desire at every point, and dignify her whims with a titillating smile when she grants the nod of approval. Women would say they prefer circumcised penis over uncircumcised penis and men agrees because to them that’s the way things have always been done and they’ve been duped to believe the alternative is worst for their health, so why bother challenging the injustice done to them? Who cares, anything to assuage the female’s infantilized mind, one that never fail to concoct unworthy anything aesthetically unpleasing to her.

The common excuses provided for male genital mutilation, aka male circumcision, range from hygienic reasons, prevention of infection and HIV, aesthetics, and so on, all ridiculous excuses served to justify normalized inhumane acts against helpless beings.

If the roles are reversed, maybe one would see how insane and immoral these nonsensical excuses for male genital mutilation are, yet we serve it to men and boys on a silver platter as if it’s a reasonable and valid proposition. With roles reversed, it’s impossible not to feel disgusted. One of the most commonly occurring feminine concerns is vaginal odor. Structurally this shouldn’t be a surprise when you have a vertical fissure weirdly anchored by the mons pubis, clitoral hood, labia minora, and labia majora before one gets to the vestibule. Also consider the positioning and the distance, a mere 1 to 2 inches to the anus. When it is objectively viewed, the vagina is a rather ugly reproductive organ compared to the penis. Vaginal odor is caused by a number of factors that range from vaginal discharge, menstruation, pH imbalance, smegma, infection, sexual intercourse, and so on. Because of these risk factors which can cause smelly, infectious, and unhygienic vaginas, we should do whatever it takes to mitigate those risks including but not limited to female genital mutilation. No, no, no, that’s not the word for it. Why not dress it up as female “circumcision?”


Type 1 is a partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or prepuce.

Type II is a partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora

Type III is the Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris

I think I like Type II, don’t you guys? Men wouldn’t have to deal with the precipitated substances that could accumulated in those flubs if left uncared for. Chop off all that extra stuff there. I wouldn’t even mind going for Type III female circumcision, would you guys? Type III would enhance, aesthetically, the appearance of the vagina and would get rid of having to put up with the smell as well as the risk of infection. No reason to mind how she may feel about it when she’s all grown. We know what is best for her body and that is the bottom-line. The procedure is safe of course, and it will always be performed with our advanced medical apparatus in a sterile medical environment and all procedures carried out on that little infant girl would be under the proficient supervision of our medical professionals. Isn’t that great?

Now, you see how asinine the above line of reasoning would be, especially if measured against feminist cry and clamor for freedom and liberation? Save freedom and liberation, what about viewing it from a human or from a moral standpoint? Of course, it’s wrong. Of course it’s barbaric. Then why do we do it to boys? If the above is inhumane and if it betrays all that is just and ethical, why do we feel this is OK to do to young boys…

male circum

But of course, many of the reasons provided in its futile attempt to justify why the crucial part of a baby’s body should be cutoff are not only false but are of questionable authenticity. Many of those myths propped up as valid reasons for male circumcision are debunked by Professor of psychology Dr. Darcia Narvaez.

Infection and Cleanliness

  • In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis.  You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl’s vagina.  The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out.  All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger.  It is harder to keep circumcised baby’s penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment.
  • The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty.  Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger.  After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy’s shower or bath.  Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do.  Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else!  It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises.  (Camille 2002)
  • Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby’s foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change.  Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection.
  • Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn’t know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone’s uncle.  Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl’s vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria.  Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures.  The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care.


  • Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years.  Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women.  It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.

Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)

  • This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985).  The study had many problems, including that it didn’t accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI)  (Pisacane 1990).  There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI  (Thompson 1990).  Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics.  The same treatment works for boys.

Circumcision as prevention of HIV

  • Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in.  There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another. 
  • In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread. 

Claim that circumcision saves lives

  • Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime.  Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008).  How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?
  • Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.

Benefits of the foreskin have been well documented, yet it does very little to trigger awareness and advocacy. By cutting the foreskin, 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings are destroyed, the frenulum (similar to the ones under the tongue and lips), highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans are destroyed, length and girth reduced, rich vascularization of several feet of blood vessels are lost, immunologic defense of the plasma cells that secretes immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins are lost, immunologic Langerhans cells that plays major role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections are lost, half of Dartos fascia (the smooth muscle that underlies the scrotum) are gone, the protective purpose of the foreskin over the glans, and so on are destroyed by circumcision.

Barring penile medical conditions such as phimosis, paraphimosis, peyronie’s disease, epispadias, hypospadias, or any grave infirmity, there is no ethical or medical justification whatsoever for male genital mutilation. We must realize the danger of this vitiate practice and just because that’s the way things have always been done doesn’t mean it’s right. Any change that must come must be put into motion by men. It’s by recognizing that your penis and everything about it matters to you and to indict it as the injustice that it is if messed with. And if a woman doesn’t find it pleasing to look at or make love to, throw your middle fingers up and let her know her flower box need some petal-makeover as well and if she wouldn’t do it to hers, she should let yours and your sons’ be.


-Smegma: A sebaceous secretion in the folds of the skin under a man’s foreskin

-Synechia: Connective tissue that glued the foreskin to the glans penis

-Phimosis: A penial condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot be pulled back past the glance

-Paraphimosis: A urologic emergency in which the retracted foreskin of the uncircumcised male cannot return to its normal anatomic position.

-Peyronie’s disease: A connective tissue disorder involving the growth of fibrous plaques in the tissue of the penis

-Epispadias: A rare type of malformation of the penis in which the urethra ends in an opening on the upper aspect of the penis

-Hypospadias: A birth defect in which the opening of the tube that carries urine from the body develops abnormally, usually on the underside of the penis.


5 thoughts on “Genital Mutilation of Male Neonates

  1. M.G.M. – the trauma of birth, as the J** Otto Rank called it – also has a residual effect on how males interact with other males: during that post traumatic shock, the mother coddles the new-born. This then conditions the males to treat females as solace givers & to have a more defensive drive to females, while having a much more competitive attitude to other males, also combined as competition to get females. It’s why often another man can get beaten or interrogated for even slightly raising his tone to another female to give a plain fact.


    1. I think it’d be really fascinating to see the science behind Male Genital Mutilation and their treatment of females when they are older. By the way, I bought one of the latest books you recommended. It’s expensive but I can’t wait to start reading it.


      1. Which one was that, Hedon? To suggest, I stated it would be a better idea to have like a bulletin board type thingie that lists potential neuroscience – what the future of MGTOW should be – books to read, then others’ schedules could allow for provision of those downloads to save money on some of those expensive technical books. ¶ Stadusk is just mostly doing geography & politics now. There’s already enough people doing that. ¶ Some of them also have manipulation, like this work by a woman called Gillian something Stein.


    2. That article related to this ‘Origins Of BDSM….’ confused & frustrated a lot of people. The fundamental point is: Females are attracted to impatient males, for a lack of a better description. They’re also collectivists, a-logical & not particularly intelligent compared to males, generally,. Because of those two factors, females select males on their level. Either the males act that way, are already that way, or they are ordained to be that way by females. Remember: Logical males “don’t know how to socialize”. No. females just have too much monopoly of social structures. So what we get due to female selection is accidents, etc..


  2. Also, I have an interest in the fetish community, & sexology in general. It’s funny because I’ve had many casual people cringe at the word sexology & actually think that I just contrived that as a mythical concept. It’s just the scientific study of sexuality. (I also still am sexually active with females, even though I’m involved with MGTOW.) When I got to fetish spaces/dating sites to study the demographics, & also to meet girls, I always notice these casual people like to portray themselves as some experts on sex, yet they don’t even know that the silly notions of “top or bottom” is due to circumcision. I’ve had interesting experiences when having the adult conversation about it, & other women would actually try to find excuses, slandering me, & by making me seem like I was a bad-guy or a “freak” because I was introducing something to them that they were unaware of & it was a strike to their egos. I’ve also had other females stating to me, when I was trying to have a conversation about it, “talking about dicks doesn’t turn me on”. But I wasn’t specifically trying to arouse them. I was trying to emphatically tell them that I’m not aggressive because I’m intact. With these instances, it was not about them, it was about male experience, yet they still think in terms of their vanity. It’s amazing how much women will defend their sexuality when given this kind of info.. I’ve also noticed, that now that whores are being criticized for what they are, they have so many excuses ready for them. There’s been info. more popularized that females are more prone to disloyalty & also more secretive, What results is a lot of females suddenly claiming this trend of “polyamorous” as a clever way of trying to imply that they established this, when, really, they’re just not admitting their lack of integrity & their greed. Same trend of a lot of females claiming “pansexual” because they’re not going to admit their amoral.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s