Sexual mutilation and the moral order
(problematics and basic concepts
of the struggle against sexual mutilation)
“When you were a toddler, remember those marks,
They already told you that enjoyment was hell.”
“It is not worth while saying
That children resemble us,
That they have the same scars
And that they’re born with violence.
It really suits us to say that,
It helps us to educate them
In our image…
“This postulate: parents, learning, power,
And that cunning dictatorship
Which removes them from their initial beauty…”
“If you love yourself a little,
Then, you love others.” Morice Bénin
Perpetrated upon whole generations of children,
sexual mutilation of both sexes is the greatest crime against humanity.
Committed within collective madness and without the intention of harming,
it is not reprehensible.
But it is first, aggravated rape (through the use of a sharp instrument),
then, discriminatory mutilation, and, finally, barbarous tortures.
I – Who and why?
(the agent of sexual mutilation: the moral order;
affiliation-submission through trauma)
“Sexual violence is, with torture, what causes the most psychotraumatic disorders.” Muriel Salmona
“… perhaps the most drastic mutilation ever imposed on man’s erotic life has in all time experienced.” Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its discontents
“The sex of the (child) appears well as a stake of possession, a symbol of submission.” after Simone Veil
“Circumcision standardizes the bodies in order to communitize the minds later and till the grave.” Mohamed Louizi (blog mediapart)
“…not only does the child’s body not belong to us but… their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto
“And the circumcision, you think it is consistent with the respect of bodily integrity? And excision of little girls? We should submit since it is cultural?” Bernard This
“This commandment has not been prescribed in order to correct a physical deficiency but a moral one.” Maimonides
Seeming to want to lecture the whole humanity by a morality against nature, the distinguished Rabi and Jewish philosopher Maimonides seems to advocate a eugenics through circumcision in the name of a moral order that, under the guise of religion or tradition, aspires to make supermen. That statement of moral superiority is distressingly sexist, and grossly racist since founded upon a physical difference. Moreover, suppressing their source in one of the sexes is not the way to control impulses; that obnoxious eugenics painfully castrates the child from the specific organ of autosexuality, decreed immoral. We are in a total puritan aberration since assuming autosexuality blameworthy, only the use of the organ, not the organ itself, would be immoral. Perceived by the child as parental, and very particularly maternal, betrayal, the barbarous torture of that first step to castration makes a lifelong threat of castration, and even death, present, aggravated by a beginning of realization. It is the tool of a tyrannical order that tends to dominate the child (and the adult) by the black pedagogy of the: “It’s for your own sake! Similarly, at the end of the 19th century, excision and circumcision were introduced into the Anglo-Saxon world in order to prevent autosexuality. But in 1950, following Dr. Gairdner’s alarming article, English medicine abandoned circumcision overnight. In 2010, the Royal Dutch medical association took an adamant stand against nontherapeutic circumcision for the motive that, without necessity and at the price of sometimes serious physical and psychological complications (the KNMG did not know yet that the rate of autism is much higher with circumcised children, and very particularly at birth), it violates the right of the child to physical integrity. In 2013, it was the German pediatric associations’ turn. Criminal Finnish (2006), then German (2012) justices judged circumcision unlawful. June 14, 2013, in La Sorbonne, opening the founding meeting of “Excision, parlons-en”, Mrs. Christine Lazerges, the president of the French national consultative commission of human rights, declared that she would mention that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory in her next report to the President of the republic. Indeed, it is an auto-exclusion of the ethnic group that discriminates both the child and the rest of humanity. But through pronouncing with a strong majority for the respect of the right of the child to physical integrity, the 1st October 2013 decision of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe provoked an outcry from the Muslim and Jewish religious and from the chief of the Israeli state. So that the 2 December 2013 report of the French NCCHR did not hold Madame Lazerges’ promise. Nevertheless, for the first time in history, a political assembly: the Council of Europe, condemned circumcision inasmuch as a mutilation, in the same way as excision. But as soon as 1989, the first symposium of NOCIRC(1), followed by Alice Miller(2) in 1990, had qualified both sex sexual mutilation “the greatest crime against humanity”.
Verbal repression adds up to those atrocious tortures. Likening pleasure to vice, it forbids lightly said infantile sexuality and before wedding sexuality. Sole present in the rest of the world, that mental sexual mutilation similarly subjects the individual to hypocritical puritanism. Maybe less irreversible, mutilation of minds through speech is as fearsome as physical excisions; it has the same aim of making the individual meek through traumatizing them by unconscious terror and by setting up the aberrant law of the banning of pleasure. Under threat of loss of love, and thus exclusion, a stupid decree makes autosexuality the original sin. That both parental and societal lie is fierce and dangerous. Operating through imbuing from the youngest age, it is a genuine taboo. It is all the more difficult to eradicate from minds that it is set up by violence that erects the reason of the strongest as a rule.
II – How? (sexual mutilation: the height of repression of infantile sexuality)
“At night, before going to bed, they all had to m…….te, in order well to know what they were going to lose…” Gérard Zwang (preface of “The drama of excision” by Dore-Miloch L.)
“Do not throw your seed amongst thorn-bushes. Try to circumcise yourselves…”
Jeremiah, 4: 3-4
Albeit his own circumcision trauma that made him commit grave clinical and theoretical mistakes(3), Freud rose up against that universal taboo. The discovery of the autosexuality of the foetus by ultrasounds brings him strong backing but autosexuality is still repressed. Imagine a being that has freely practiced it in its mother’s womb: yourself. Once out of this Eden, while having your bath, you are suddenly glowered at and harshly told: “Why is it so? You touched it?”, as if it had previously been forbidden. Assuming known and normal a yet never uttered ban isn’t it the summit of an as savage as blind repression? To crown it all, everybody around you condemns nudity and disparages your act of self-love by referring to it through reproachful terms. The root: stupratio of the most common one denotes disturbance (cf. per-turbation) and refers to “turpitude”. “Autosexuality” must replace that abhorrently making guilty term. Wanting to fight sexual crime is illusory without acknowledging that autosexuality is not debauchery but natural and healthy behaviour.
The discoveries of psychoanalysis: on the one hand, infantile sexuality and the unconscious, on the other hand, infantile traumas and their ravages (cf. Freud and Alice Miller), stand against those abuses. Violence in education, rather than tender care, has catastrophic results; breeding psychosomatic diseases, neurosis, psychosis and perversion, violence, depression and addiction. The child Notably perceives the repression of infantile sexuality as a death threat through loss of love (forsaking). Outlawing pleasure in an aberrant way, that threat opposes the resolution of the Oedipus complex: adherence to the law. So, it is likely to block their growth. Neurosis, psychosis and perversion are the direct consequence of the hypocritical public reprobation of what everybody merrily does in private. Only seducers, rapists, paedophiles, and homophiles “masturbate”, in their victims, granting them the same treatment they endured in their own childhood autosexuality. That compulsive need will not exist any longer when autosexuality will be socially accepted. Some transcultural studies of American anthropology (cf. James Prescott – violence.de) have, with absolute statistical correlation, checked the observations of psychoanalysts upon whole ethnic groups. They report that pain is inhibited by pleasure, and reciprocally, and that violence stems from a lack of tenderness in infancy and of the prohibition of premarital sexuality.
Hurting human independence and dignity in a way that is typical of the moral order: a violation of intimacy, obsessive rituals perpetrated upon the child: sexual mutilation, ear piercing (a symbolical defloration), etc., are a height of this repression. Denuding someone in order to mutilate her or his sex is a revolting humiliation.
In olden days, branding used to be a mark of stigmatization of criminals. But nowadays, a whole fringe of the youth unconsciously rises up against the repression of autosexuality through the absurd realization upon itself of a caricature of those markings: tattoos, piercings, etc. The adornment symbolizing the sexual organ, those provocative and perverse (fetishism), and discriminatory auto-mutilations are the unconscious expression of both guilt and rebellion against the taboo of autosexuality. That new snobbism sometimes qualifies itself “ethnic” but those young people do not realize that they are resorting to reductio ad absurdum against the stigmatization of autosexuality.
III – What? (a definition)
The preservation of the clitoris and the foreskin is founded on six facts that illustrate their essential-to-life character.
First fact: minors. Sexual mutilation aims the most often at minors. But through fighting feminine mutilation alone in a sexist way, , Western feminists, at the vanguard of the struggle, make it a gendered affair and a contest between sexes. They reproach men for imposing excision on women who realize I upon minor females (!) – and accuse nonsexists of confusing excision and circumcision. So doing, they forget that dads have themselves been circumcised with the complicity of their own mums. But we shall see that excision is the most scandalously visible tip of the iceberg of sexual mutilation. Instead of approaching the latter in a dynamic, historical and transgenerational, rather than static perspective, the feminist conflate violence against adults with violence against minors. But the war of the sexes is a war of “adults ignoring the child within themselves” (according to Maud Mannoni), and that of generations is a war on children. The fact is that, in order to avoid all resistance, excision is now practiced at birth, and in the hospital albeit the forbidding of the OMS. Following Mrs. Albagly (Director of the DDASS of the Rhône – 02.26.07 FSM colloquium in Lyon), we affirm: “The right to the respect of the physical integrity of all children is not negotiable.”
Second fact: sexual. The specific organs for autosexuality (the clitoris and the foreskin) are not genital organs but organs of pure pleasure, without any other function for the clitoris (unlike the ablation of the glans, excision does not impede reproduction).
Third fact: physical mutilation. For eighty percent of the world population who enjoy these organs, the particular, incidentally extreme pleasure they provide is indisputable. Excision suppresses, lessens, or turns pleasure into pain; the destruction of clitoral pleasure often entailing that of vaginal pleasure, two-thirds of the excised are frigid. With man, the loss is the most often limited to preputial pleasure, notably that of little orgasms(4), by no means insignificant. Recent anatomical discoveries bring scientific basis to this empirical affirmation. In 1996, John Taylor highlighted the part of exquisite erogenous mechanism of the terminal ring of the foreskin. That discovery contributes to ending the tale according to which the lip protecting the erogeneity of the glans, man’s mini-vagina in autosexuality, would not be an organ. Not having been awarded the Nobel Prize it deserves, it remains ignored though experimentally confirmed by Sorrells’s sensitivity inquiry. At last, the third sexual function of the foreskin – that of a gliding cushion reducing friction in coitus – has also been emphasized. It explains why the African women with circumcised partners are much more hit by the HIV than men, which strengthens the contest of the WHO’s circumcision campaign in Africa. Several inquiries have shown that the circumcision status does not influence transmission of STIs, except AIDS but in the medium term only. However, bioethics forbids preventive mutilation and circumcision may not be practiced without very serious medical motive, upon minors as adults.
Fourth fact: the trauma. Highlighted by Freud, traumas bearing on infantile sexuality provoke the formation of the unconscious and are the deep cause of mental disease. Assaulting the image of the body, the castration of the organs for autosexuality has strong emotional repercussions and, through stunning and dissociation, creates a grave trauma, the most often unconscious. Autosexuality, the very first, natural, innocent and harmless sexuality is heavily made guilty, all the more since circumcision threatens boys of total castration. However, and even in non-excising cultures, girls too, unconsciously suffer from the threat associated with circumcision. If the sheath of the glans is destroyed, what then is going to happen to the very little clitoris? Besides, a symbolic threat is enough and the passing of a knife over the child’s body is sometimes substituted for excision. That criminal performance illustrates the presence of the death threat in all sexual mutilation.
Fifth fact: the taking of possession of the individual by the group by means of a terrorist violence. The human sacrifice of a part of the body implements a powerful psychological mechanism of enslavement. Indeed, for the unconscious as for the fetishist, primitive or infantile soul, the part is equivalent to the whole (cf. the abuses of Voodoo that, after the prohibition of sexual mutilation by the slavers, “possesses” its victims to the point of forcing them to prostitution through merely cutting a lock of hair off). Founded upon a perverse impulse of control, those abuses of power imply an unacceptable possessiveness: “I know, therefore I have the right to determine what is done to your body.”
Sixth fact: discrimination and segregation. Performed in order to warrant an alleged moral superiority, sexual mutilation isolates the ethnic group through an artificial racism, in the aim of favouring endogamy and possession of women. It is also a means of enslavement through the exclusion of opponents.
The worst of allegedly educational violence, sexual mutilation rites set up the law of might and the prohibition of pleasure through terrorizing the human person at the age when they are the most vulnerable. Barbarian methods of banning infantile sexuality and of making pleasure guilty, possessory markings exert a perverse sway of the group over the still minor individual in order to force them to work, reproduction and war. Vexatious, it humiliates through condemning personal pleasure by the castration of its specific organs. It frequently makes sexuality painful for women and severely impoverishes autosexuality for men. The atrocious pain, the terror of the operation and the permanent reminder of the related threats of castration, exclusion, and death deeply traumatize, the most often unconsciously. So, it is one of the most obnoxious techniques of enslaving the individual, responsible for virulent fanaticism and warlike violence. Pretending to socialize through warranting a moral value sometimes endorsed by God in person but destroying human identity in its most intimate part, its illusory superiority discriminates foreigners and opponents through an artificial racism.
IV – The consequences: exclusion, segregation, discrimination, racism and violence
“If hate creates the object, it is also what threatens its existence the most violently. Because it makes of the identity of oneself to oneself an exclusive and even fetishized concept, hate carries in itself the rejection of all otherness. When it makes itself the ally of a narcissism enemy of “little differences”, it becomes the carrier of a purity that no longer tolerates any variegation, any mixing. Purity of the race, purge, ethnic cleansing, the pure and hatred dwell in the same countries.” Jacques André and Isée Bernateau
“An uncircumcised is not a man.” (African saying)
1) The exclusion of opponents
Circumcision is a behaviour that is deviant, perverse, dangerous because likely contagious, like all perversions. Like them, it tends to be credible, to carry authority, and therefore, to be reproducible, and even to back itself upon statistics! Moreover, the African saying implies casting out the opponents, considered as minors, debauched and cowardly, and the systematic sanction of the absence of mutilation is exclusion from the community. That punishment reveals the deep characters of the practice: elitism and feeling of superiority (enabling the sexually handicapped to fight depression), exclusion, barrier to marrying outside the group (a great concern of the racists), and finally, forbidding the burial of intacts in community cemeteries, or even in the national ground (Saudi Arabia), but for posthumous circumcision (Jews).
2) The auto-exclusion and exclusion of other ethnic groups
A collective particular sign creates a social link indicating a belonging but not an identity and a collective mutilation is a collective alienation through auto-exclusion. Allegedly providing a moral, physical and even sexual superiority, sectarian mutilations separate the group from humanity. Antisexual, anti-democratic and xenophobic, they discriminate the ethnic group from the neighbouring ones. That auto-discrimination has been emphasized by Maimonides:
“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them.”(5)
But exclusion calls for hatred. Spinoza and Freud exposed circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples and that hatred is reciprocal. The contempt of the “un”-circumcised goes along with a veritable racism source of continuous tribal wars: Hutus against Tutsis, Zulus against Xhosas, Kikuyus against Luos. An extremely serious collective pathology (transgenerational and collective syndrome of Münchhausen by proxy, aggravated Stockholm syndrome), circumcision generates particularly high violence. Genocide practically never exists between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Gypsies (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side and six on both sides. And the Gipsy exception is moot since some of them are circumcised. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. That strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of boastful superiority with those who practice it and the inverse feeling with the others so that the holocaust of the foreskins is responsible for all others. Between 1996 and 2002, all wars without exception involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. The death penalty is twice as frequent in them and they are the only ones to practice excision. In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed all the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians. Circumcised Congo holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over a period of one year. Sexual mutilation separates the child from the mother at the age of bonding. That is monstrous, the result is catastrophic; circumcision is the breeding ground of paranoia, sexism, fanaticism and group or state terrorism. It makes the equilibrium of terror and the fortune of gun merchants. The cause of a worldwide systemic racism, sexual mutilation, circumcision very particularly, is a cancer that gnaws at the planet.
More fascist than fascism since it aims at children, sexual mutilation is unbearable to fascists. But democrats may not tolerate those ordeals. Taking the festivities of folklore for an alibi, it is imposed by military and religious elites with adolescent behaviour. Societies that advocate them are affected by a strong propensity to communitarianism, fundamentalism, patriarchal tyranny and domination over women. It has a sexist character. It considers women and children as objects of a right of property. It does not welcome the child into a society regulated by the difference of sexes and ages but socializes or affiliates through the trauma of a barbarous military initiation that enlists for war. So, it is encouraged by tyrannical regimes which use it as an induction to violence and a sign of rallying. The community sign is always a call for nationalism, a sign of war, of possession of the individual and exclusion of foreigners. Sexual mutilation makes the people carry the can (the hat in the French expression!) of a non-existent guilt: scarf, veil, burka, kippa, tattoos, forced obesity, breast ironing, stretched oral or vulvar labia, scarification, filed or knocked off teeth, bound-feet, cut off clitorises, foreskins, uvulas and tongue fraenums, the death penalty, to arms et cetera. The escalation of the techniques of manipulation of the minds through marking and mutilating the bodies – the worst tools of the war of generations – channels human needs at the service of the interests of the ruling classes and generations. Sexual mutilation is the most monstrous technique of domination of peoples ever imagined.
3) The exclusion from the human species and the discrimination of other ethnic groups
“But a private person may not perform such an ablation (of a member), even with the patient’s consent; it would be committing an injustice to society, to which man belongs with all his limbs.” Saint Thomas Aquinas
The motivation of the father of the Church is similar to that of the tenth principle of the International declaration of the rights of the child of the United Nations:
“The child shall be protected from practices that… may foster racial, religious or any other form of discrimination…”
Racism is more arrogant when it stands on mutilations that aim at ensuring the possession of women. So, the three great myths of circumcision: moral superiority (virtue, chastity, fidelity, purity, spirituality), hygiene superiority, and sexual superiority, above all aim at convincing young women in order to favour endogamy. That is still more obvious for excision.
Sexual mutilation is not properly racist but founding a collective identity upon an assault against that of the species is not only degrading in itself, it is also discriminatory. It aims at making supermen through an alleged community superiority by surgically imposed differentiation. It is an artificial racism, more racist than racism, a power-of-two racism, some neo-Gobineau enacted by Mengele. The peoples who carve out an identity through knife for themselves upon the body of their children offend the rest of humanity. A height is reached in chapter 17 of Genesis where that racism takes the dimension of a divine obligation that promises hegemony to Abraham and his people:
“… you will be the father of a multitude of nations…” (Genesis, 17: 4)
That hegemony will later be confirmed by the absolute ethnic superiority of the myth of divine election:
“… if you keep my covenant, you will be my treasure between all peoples…” Exodus, 19: 5
Since sexual mutilation rests upon antique customs and is committed for the sake of the child, within love and without the intention of harming, the only means of criminalizing it is exposing the will of discrimination and segregation, under threat of exclusion of opponents, of that crime against humanity.
Man is the sole species of which males and females teach their kids the reason of the strongest through humiliating, slapping, smacking, hitting, banging, and even, a height of refinement of sadistic domination, through castrating them of a part of their sexual organs. If there is no biological sign of passage to adulthood, setting up the destruction of the specific organs for autosexuality as a testimony of it is pure madness. The entire contrary, autosexuality is an initiation (auto-initiation). Sexual mutilation gives the right to marriage through certifying a passage to adulthood accomplished within submission to the established order. It is a false certificate. On the contrary, it may be feared that numerous maimed persons do not reach genuine maturity, characterized by deep acknowledgment of the difference between sexes and a true desire of the other sex, an acquisition that alone enables peoples’ access to real democracy through the acknowledgment of the power of women. As long as the puritan repression of autosexuality and the sexism that sets one gender up against the other instead of gathering them in the defence of toddlers will prevail, it will be impossible to eradicate it.
If the fight against circumcision is in good way in the United States where the rate of circumcision has fallen down from 90 to 55%, that against deadly excision (5 to 15% immediate deaths, 20% at delivery) progresses only in dribs and drabs and, in a scandalous paradox, its medicalization south of the Mediterranean is followed by its restoration north of it. That is because symptoms are attacked without getting to the root: the treatment of the child like an object, the denial of the right to pleasure, and making autosexuality guilty, so that circumcision is not fought, which would bring real efficiency to the fight. The use of the term “abstinence” in official recommendations for the prevention of AIDS shows that autosexuality is still considered an infantile or profligate behaviour. It seems to be ignored that every human being is an aging child and that those unable to regress cannot progress either. Sexual mutilation strikes the fundamental rights of 850 million persons. Attacking excision only neglects 76% of the victims.
Due to their age, sexual mutilation is the sole crime against humanity which nobody complains about. Irreversible, it harms the whole population: children, adolescents, temporarily separated, divorced or with-different-sexual-need couples, bachelors and widowers. Perpetrated under various pretexts: religion, tradition, hygiene, folklore, it imposes adults’ way of living on the child through an odious torture. One of the causes of fanaticism, suicidal terrorism, and redoubtable tyrannies, it is incompatible with democracy. Cultures or political systems that tolerate it do not deserve the name of civilization or democracy. Founded upon a perversion of ethics distorted into moralizing morality, creating neurosis inside the people in order to give a social basis to that of the rulers, it pretends to give lessons to the people. It is for the profit of those who exploit them. Sexual mutilation is the worst expression of a patriarchy that ensures its domination through a threat of death engraved in the very flesh of the individual. It is the paradigm of the persecution of the individual. Its abolition is a stage in the fight against the repression of sexuality and for the human person’s right to the free access to their own body and the respect of their physical, emotional and mental integrity, autonomy and dignity. Medicine may not be used as a pretext for barbarity; in the absence of “very serious medical motive” (article 41 of the French Code of medical ethics), mutilating is contrary to bioethics. In a civilized society, not a single hair of a child must be touched and the abolition of corporal punishment must be extended to children. The right to the body must be mentioned in article 1 of the Universal declaration of human rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in rights, in the first place the rights to the body and pleasure, in their three dimensions of integrity, dignity and autonomy.”
“The steel that maims from the satin,
Our useless wounds far away,
We’ll change our gates into lanes
And make our cities gardens.”
Jean-Jacques Goldman (Il suffira d’un signe)
Given as a lecture at the 10th Symposium of NOCIRC in the University of Keele (UK), 4 September 2008, this text has been published by AgoraVox and CaféBabel. It has been saluted by Mrs. Najaud-Belkacem, spokeswoman of the French government, and quoted by Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, ex-President of the children court of Bobigny and member of the International bureau of the rights of the child, in his 7 July 2012 article against excision and circumcision.
Violence and circumcision: genocides, wars, terrorism,
the death penalty, excision, and rape
I – Countries practicing circumcision in a majority
THE DEATH WARS TORTURE EXCISION
PENALTY 1996-2002 (Frequency)
(in principle) (in %)
AFGHANISTAN X X X
ALGERIA X X X
ANGOLA X X X
BANGLADESH X X
BENIN X 13
BISSAU GUINEA X 45
BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA X X
BRUNEI X X
BURKINA FASO X X 4
CAMEROON X 1
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. X X X 15
CHAD X X X 44
DEM. REP. OF CONGO (ZAIRE) X X X 5
EGYPT X X X 91
EQUATORIAL GUINEA X X
ERITREA X X 89
ETHIOPIA X X X 74
FIJI X X
GAMBIA X 76
GHANA X 4
GUINEA X X X 96
GUINEA-BISSAU X 50
INDONESIA X 90
IRAN X X X
IRAQ X X X 8
ISRAEL X X X
IVORY COAST X X 36
JORDAN X X X
KAZAKHSTAN X X
KENYA X X 27
KUWAIT X X X
LEBANON X X X
LESOTHO X X X
LIBERIA X X X 45
LIBYA X X
MALAYSIA X X X
MALDIVES X X
MALI X 85
MAURITANIA X 69
NIGER X 2
NIGERIA X X 27
OCCIDENTAL SAHARA X X
OMAN X X
ORIENTAL TIMOR X
PAKISTAN X X X
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY X X X
PAPUA NEW GUINEA X X
PHILIPPINES X X X X
QATAR X X
RWANDA X X X
SAUDI ARABIA X X X
SENEGAL X X 26
SIERRA LEONE X X X 88
SOLOMON X X
SOMALIA X X X 98
SOUTH AFRICA X
SOUTH KOREA X
SUDAN X X X 88
SWAZILAND X X
SYRIA X X X X
TADZHIKISTAN X X X
TANZANIA X X 15
TOGO X X 4
TUNISIA X X
TURKEY X X
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES X X X
UNITED STATES X X X
UZBEKISTAN X X
WESTERN SAHARA X
YEMEN X X 23
81 countries 70 countries 30 countries 52 countries 44 countries
(86%) (37%) (64%) (54%)
TOTAL POPULATION: 2,027 billions
II – Countries where circumcision is rare
THE DEATH WARS TORTURE EXCISION
PENALTY (1996-2002) implying
(in principle) circumcising countries
ARMENIA X X
AUSTRALIA (X) X
BELIZE X X
BYELORUSSIA X X
BOLIVIA X X
BOTSWANA X X
BRAZIL X X
BURUNDI X (X) X
CHINA X X
COLOMBIA X X
GEORGIA X (X) X
GUATEMALA X X
GUYANA X X
INDIA X X X
JAMAICA X X
LAOS X X
LATVIA X X
MACEDONIA (X) X
MALAWI X X
MEXICO X X X
MOZAMBIQUE X X
NORTH KOREA X
PERU X X X
RUSSIA X (X) X X
SALVADOR X X
SINGAPORE X X X
SRI LANKA X X X X
TAIWAN X X
THAILAND X X X
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO X X
UGANDA X X X 1
UNITED KINGDOM (X)
YUGOSLAVIA X (X)
ZAMBIA X X
ZIMBABWE X X
92 countries 40 countries 10 countries 46 countries 12
(43%) (11%) (50%) (13%)
TOTAL POPULATION: 4,116 billions
NUMBER THE DEATH WARS TORTURE EXCISION
OF COUNTRIES PENALTY
Circumcising 81 70 30 52 44
countries (2,027 B) (86%) (37%) (64%) (54%)
Non-circumcising 92 40 10 46 12
countries (4,116 B) (43%) (11%) (50%) (13%)
It must not be inferred from these figures that circumcision would concern 1/3rd of the humans. It only hits 1/5th of them. Circumcising countries are less populated (26 million on average) than countries which leave their children intact (45 million on average).
Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Gypsies (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side and six on both sides. And the Gipsy exception is debatable since some of them are circumcised. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. That strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of superiority with those who practice it and the inverse feeling with the others.
All wars between 1996 and 2002 involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. Circumcision makes the fortune of gun merchants.
Since the 1972 slaughter in Munich, the quasi-totality of terrorist attacks in the world, as well as those in American universities, have been committed by circumcised.
The death penalty is more than twice more frequent in them.
Torture is more widespread in them.
Most dictators are circumcised.
Making 15% direct deaths and 20% deaths at delivery, excision is a feminicide, 100% correlated with circumcision since it only exists in circumciser countries (a little more than half of them).
The feminicide in Eastern Congo is the work of circumcised Hutu looters who afterwards destroy those whom they used as a foreskin.
97% circumcised Congo (DRC) (http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/pphg/triangulation/DRC.pdf) holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over a period of one year.
In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed 100% of the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians.
– Amnesty international. 2002 report. (N.B.: Assam, Botswana, Comoros, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Gabon, Island, Luxemburg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Norway, Nederland, Panama, Samoa, and Slovenia, do not figure in the 2002 report of Amnesty international).
– Amnesty international. “Abolir la peine de mort” 2002; (41).
– for excising countries: DHS: http://www.measuredhs.com/ and WHO:
and UNICEF: 2013 report
for Indonesia: http://cirp.org/news/smh01-13-04/
– http://sicsociety.org – World maps of excision and circumcision.
– Encarta encyclopaedia (msn-hotmail.com) for population statistics.
– for the Norwegian statistic: Hofvander I. 9th symposium of NOCIRC in Seattle; 2007.
(2) Miller A. Introduction to reflections about sexual mutilation, in Banished knowledge – facing childhood injuries. New York: Doubleday; 1990. p. 131.
 Earp B. Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse
 Carmack A. Female genital mutilation,” “circumcision,” “gender-conforming surgery”: why the double standard?
(5) Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago university press; 1963. p. 609.