GREAT BRITAIN: Jewish Circumcision Advocates Grope for Celebrity Endorsement

A new prince has been born to Duchess Kate Middleton and Prince William, and Jewish circumcision advocates are already trying to use this opportunity to seek celebrity endorsement for circumcision.

Reads a headline from jewishpress.com:

"Duchess Kate Had a Boy, Call the Mohel"

The last time I checked, the Royals weren't Jewish. What does the Jewish Press care whether the new prince is circumcised or not?

Reads another headline, this time on MSN:

"Whether the royal baby is getting the royal snip is our new obsession"

Well, at least the authors of this little piece are honest about the fact that they are obsessed. The article goes on:

"Sure we're curious about what the royal baby's name will be, but what we really want to know is: Will there be a royal mohel?"

Why on earth?

And who's "we?"

There doesn't seem to be a name attached to this article. I'd like to know who was the obsessed author of this piece.

This part is rather interesting:

"Princess Diana apparently wasn't a fan, however, and her boys weren't given the snip (there were whispers that Prince Charles had both boys circumcised after Diana's death, but that remains unproven)."

Whispers where? Amongst whom?

Very recently, Prince William was caught taking a wee, and there are pictures where it can clearly be seen that he has an anatomically correct organ.

Those interested in taking a glance at the royal peen can visit this link.

This "whisper" is nothing more than circumfetishist fantasy and Jewish wishful thinking.

Haaretz writes a more reasonable article, but still asks:

"Little prince in the U.K.: What about the bris?"

Again, what in the world do Jews care whether the British goy prince is having a Jewish bris or not? Are they so desperate for validation of their blood ritual that they have to hope the new prince will be made into an unwitting poster boy?

Though the headline fails to conceal a hope that the child is circumcised, by a mohel in a bris no less, this author has integrity, pointing out the lengths to which some have gone to insist that the new prince must be circumcised:

"One group that will not try to claim the prince for its own is the Jewish community."

Will not? Or should not? Judging from other headlines, the above statement is but wishful thinking.

"In a bizarre episode last month a former BBC reporter claimed that Kate, the royal mother, was of matrilineal Jewish descent, making the new prince also a member of the tribe... But serious Jewish genealogists were quick to quash the theory explaining that the Jewish-sounding names in Kate's lineage meant nothing and the prince would not be kosher."

Thank goodness there are Jewish scholars with enough integrity to admit reality.


Still, the author seems to be hopeful that Prince William was ultimately circumcised, going as far as MSN has, quoting "a multitude of sources," this time citing medical necessity instead of Charles rushing the children to be circumcised in Diana's untimely absence.


"If a multitude of sources are to be trusted, then William was circumcised in a medical procedure (according to some versions of his own choice at a much later date) and Harry's foreskin is still intact."

Indeed, who is this "multitude" being cited here as a trustworthy source?

Much to the chagrin of hopeful Jews and circumfetishists, I'm afraid there is visual evidence that Prince William remains as his mother brought him to the world.


Jews and other circumcision advocates want so badly for the new British heir to be ritually circumcised for their own vainglory. Let us hope Kate and William will have the good sense Princess Diana had and spare their child needless mutilation.

UPDATE (7-31-2013):
I just had to post another headline that caught my eye; this time a mohel from the so-called "Initiation Society" eagers to cut the new prince's penis. Reads the Jewish Chronicle online:

"Bring me the royal baby and I’ll give him the snip, says top mohel"

Again, why?

How absolutely revolting.

UPDATE (8-11-2013):
FINALLY, a voice of reason from the UK:

"Prince George Being Circumcised? What Total TOSH!"

Everyone wants to know whether the new prince will be genitally mutilated except the Brits.

Disclaimer: 

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole.

Related Posts:  

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Related Link:
When the Queen is Dead: Long Live the Patriarchy?

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Among the smear tactics that circumcision advocates use to try to discredit intactivists, the accusation that they have an erotic fixation with the foreskin, to the point of a fetish, is not uncommon. I do believe that it may come second, the anti-Semite card being the first.

This notion that opponents of circumcision have an ulterior "foreskin fetish" is ridiculous in more ways than one, beginning with the fallacious logic that being opposed to the forced removal of a body part must automatically mean there is a sexual fixation with it. Under this same logic, those who oppose female genital cutting must have some sort of sexual fixation with the labia and/or clitoris. Perhaps those who devote themselves to creating breast cancer awareness must have an erotic fixation with breasts as well.

Fetish - What Does It Mean?
To understand what the word "fetish" means, as it relates to sexuality, let us analyze its definition from a few different sources.

Dictionary.com defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

This definition is straightforward, but something is missing. "Any object" is accurate, as this includes all objects, any object, that might not normally trigger a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as shoes, neckties and aluminum foil. "Nongenital part of the body" is not clear enough; the breasts and buttocks are "nongenital parts of the body," although these elicit a a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most males, at least in Western society. At least to me, "fetish" refers to "nongenital parts of the body" which do not normally cause a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as the feet, the space behind the knee, or the underarms. This definition is close, but, in my opinion, incomplete.


The Free Dictionary defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.

This definition comes closer, except that it is, in my opinion, forgiving. At least to me, "fetish" not something that "may become necessary for sexual gratification," but something without which sexual gratification is not possible. In this sense, Dictionary.com is more accurate, with its inclusion of "fixation."


Finally, Merriam-Webster defines "fetish" as:

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

Merriam-Webster is much less forgiving, but still forgiving, with its usage of "may." It conflicts with "is necessary" in the first part of the definition. Since its real or fantasied presence "is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification," then a fetish most certainly does interfere with "complete sexual expression."

So Who Has a Fetish?
Now, let's analyze the realities surrounding the state of the circumcised and anatomically correct male human penis. While the presence of a foreskin is normal in all males at birth, the circumcised penis is a forced, artificial phenomenon. A subversion of what would otherwise be anatomically correct male genitalia, the circumcised penis is a contrived vision of what the male human penis is supposed to look like, which doesn't actually occur normally in nature; being born without a foreskin is considered a congenital anomaly, known as "aposthia."

Those who follow the exchanges between circumcision advocates and intactivists will notice that, while circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," at the same time they argue ad populum that "women prefer circumcised penises," and that, furthermore they would not have sexual relations with men who were not circumcised.

"Foreskins gross me out. I would never have sex with a man who wasn't circumcised. My son's future wife will thank me because I didn't leave my son with a gross-looking anteater."

Let me reiterate Merriam-Webster's definition of "fetish":

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

If not being circumcised is a problem to the extent that a person cannot have sex with a man with anatomically correct organs, and to the extent that such a person encourages others to refuse sex with genitally intact men, and that others circumcise their children to produce "sexually desirable men with circumcised penises," then I'd have to say that circumcision advocates have an obsession with circumcision that goes beyond a "fetish."

It's a Two-way Street, BUT...
The fetish accusation can go both ways; if a person cannot be sexually gratified unless a man has anatomically correct genitalia, if being circumcised is a deal-breaker, if that person is turned off by pornography with circumcised men in it, then it could be said that a person may have a "foreskin fetish." Therefore, only someone who for whom circumcision or the foreskin poses no obstacle for sexual gratification, one way or the other, can be said to not be harboring any kind of "fetish."

But something does not sit well with me; while those who prefer circumcised penises can be said to be "obsessed" with an artificial absence of a perfectly normal body part, those who prefer intact members would be "obsessed" with naturally occurring male genitals.

Let's change the body part and see what happens; if a man is attracted to women who are missing a breast due to a mastectomy, it could be said that that man has a fetish for women with a mastectomy. Could it be said, then, that a man has a "fetish" if he has a preference for a woman with both of her breasts, and is sexually turned off by a woman who is missing a breast?

Bluntly, my question is this; how can a sexual preference for normal body parts as they occur in nature, sexual body parts, mind you, be considered a "fetish?"

How is it "normal" to feel that sex without a foreskin is "complete sexual expression," and that the presence of a normal, healthy body part poses an obstacle for sexual gratification?

In what backwards society is the preference for normal, healthy genitals considered a "fetish," and a preference for maimed, mutilated organs, to the point of being unable to achieve sexual gratification otherwise, considered "normal?" 

The Rabbit Hole Goes Deeper... 

In addition to having a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, there are those who derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself (see apotemnophilia and acrotomophilia). They have sexual fantasies of power and control, that often involve minors and infants. These people, dubbed "circumfetishists" by those who know about them, have a few clubs and websites where they get together to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by performing circumcision on others, voluntary or otherwise and/or watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions.

Groups such as the Acorn Society, the Gilgal Society, and the Cutting Club openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members; there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys.

For those who can stomach it, the comments and behaviors of proponents of circumcision would make a fruitful area of psychological study. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

In Closing
So who are the fetishists?

Is it those say children should be circumcised to make them "sexually attractive?"

Or is it those who insist children should be left alone?

Could it be that when circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," the pot is calling the kettle black?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

External Links:
CircLeaks - Circumfetish

CircLeaks - Gilgal Society

CircLeaks - CircList

CircLeaks - Vernon Quaintance 

CircLeaks - Brian J. Morris 

CircLeaks - Jake Waskett

Wikipedia - Apotemnophilia

Wikipedia - Acrotomophilia

CIRCUMCISION: For or Against? (NO BASHING!!!)

Much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who spend endless hours trying to convince you that circumcision is a "non-issue," circumcision is highly controversial, and a guaranteed attention getter.

No parenting forum, webpage or Facebook group is complete without the obligatory circumcision thread, which always asks a question to the effect of "Are you pro or anti-circumcision?" Or "Circumcision: For or against?", and which is usually coupled with some sort of "NO BASHING!!!" warning.

These threads and the pages they're on are something of a paradox; asking for "no bashing," they posit a question that, because of its very nature, will elicit just that. Answering "no" or "anti" is going to be perceived as "bashing" by those who are "pro." Parents who circumcised their children invariably say "it's none of your business!" as they brag on a public parenting forum about having had their children circumcised.

But I digress, and I've already written a separate post about mommy pages and the "no bashing!!!" phenomenon.

"Do you support or oppose circumcision?" asks many a thread on public parenting forums, but this kind of bifurcation ignores many important factors that are relevant to the debate.

For example, is there a medical need? Are other alternatives available? Have they been tried? Shouldn't surgery be reserved as a very last resort?

As a thought experiment, let's replace "circumcision" with any other medical procedure.

Are you for or against appendectomies?

Do you support or oppose coronary bypasses?

Are you in favor of gall bladder removal?

Kidney transplants?

Suddenly, medical necessity becomes relevant, and whether you're "for or against" becomes a moot point, doesn't it.

Am I for or against circumcision?
I am against the forced circumcision of minors unless there is a legit medical need for it, and all other alternatives have failed.

This is standard medical practice governing all other medical procedures though.

If informed, conscientious adult males choose to be circumcised for non-medical reasons, I have no problem with this.


Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

The Circumcision Blame Game