A&E Airs Child Torture as Entertainment

This past week, on Wednesday, January 27th, an episode of Duck Dynasty was aired on A&E, where Jep and Jessica have their adopted son, Jules, circumcised, and Jep decides to throw a "circumbration" party with his male friends.

The entire trip to the hospital was filmed and aired. The entire procedure was recorded, and the child could be heard screaming in the background.

Apparently Jep quickly got grossed out to the point of leaving.

Even so, he decides to throw a "circumbration party" with his male friends, "celebrating" the needless genital mutilation of their adopted son.

I don't even know where to begin, regarding all the different levels of how wrong this is.

For one, it's horrific enough that anyone would want to do this to a child that's your own flesh and blood, let alone a child that's not even your own.

You adopt a child, supposedly to try and give him a better life than what he's already been given, and this is how you welcome him? Mutilating his most private and intimate organs?

Throwing a party to "celebrate" the fact that you let a doctor abuse him?

You mutilate a child that isn't even yours, and throw a party at his expense?

And then film the whole thing and air it on cable TV?

The betrayal.

The abuse.

The suffering.

The "celebration" of it all.

On TV.

The episode was labeled "The Circumbration."

Absolutely sick and disgusting.

Only in a cutting culture would the forced genital cutting of a healthy, non-consenting male child be celebrated with a party, and then featured on television as entertainment.

Dissent Deleted, Blocked
People have tried to vent their disgust with this episode of Duck Dynasty on Facebook and other mediums but are being met with their comments being deleted and their accounts blocked.

In some instances, the option to comment and/or leave reviews and feedback have been removed altogether.

Claims of Christian Values
Jeb and Jessica claim to adhere to Christian values, but it seems they are oblivious to the major conflict of interest in calling themselves Christian and celebrating the genital mutilation of a helpless infant.

The book of Galatians says that circumcision profits the Christian nothing.

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."
Galatians 5:2-5 KJV

The bible is clear on this matter, and had Jep and Jessica actually read it as much as they say they do, then they would have acted differently. To read more on what the bible says on circumcision and gentiles, click here.

At one point, Jessica remarks "I wish God would make them how they are suppose to be," which is stupid, idiotic and ironic; God already makes children how they are supposed to be.

That is, unless they are to accept that the Christian god, even being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, somehow had this oversight.

Action
Contacting Jep and Jessica on Facebook or otherwise appears to be of no use, as their minds are made up and have decided to silence all dissent.

The best course of action appears to be to hit them where it hurts: through direct communication with A&E and their advertisers.

We need to deliver the message that genital mutilation being treated as comedy and entertainment is unacceptable.

Jep and Jessica may be able to block us on Facebook, but they can't stop us using other means of communication.

Furthermore, they have an international following, so they will hear international views.

This may be a blessing in disguise for intactivists, as this will bring the issue of the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors much needed attention.

I think in addition to contacting A&E etc., we also need to bring this to the attention of international adoption agencies; they should be warned of American male genital mutilation practices before allowing male children to be adopted by American families.

Contact information for A&E and their advertisers is detailed below.

A&E Contacts
E-Mail: feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com
Twitter: @AETV They like to use the hashtag #beoriginal
Facebook: facebook.com/AETV
Instagram: instagram.com/AETV
Tumblr: aetv.tumblr.com

Mel Berning
President, Chief Revenue Officer
(212) 210-1321
Mel.Berning@aenetworks.com

Peter Olsen
EVP, National Ad Sales
(212) 210-1431
Peter.Olsen@aenetworks.com

Brian Joyce
VP, National Ad Sales
A&E, HISTORY, H2
(212) 210-1430
Brian.Joyce@aenetworks.com

Teryl Brown
VP, National Ad Sales
HISTORY, H2
(212) 210-9768
teryl.brown@aenetworks.com

Jahid Mirza
VP, National Ad Sales
A&E
(212) 210-1415
Jahid.mirza@aenetworks.com

Amy Baker
EVP, National Ad Sales
Lifetime, LMN, LRW, FYI
(212) 210-9096
Amy.Baker@aenetworks.com

Nicole Durette
VP, National Ad Sales
FYI
A+E Networks
(212) 424-7057
Nicole.durette@aenetworks.com

Christine Olson
VP, National Ad Sales
Lifetime, LMN,
LRW
212-351-0246
christine.olson@aenetworks.com

David DeSocio
SVP, Ad Sales Partnerships and Marketing
(212) 424-7385
david.desocio@aenetworks.com

Rick Basso
SVP, Direct Response
(212) 424-7004
rick.basso@aenetworks.com

Sarah Shriver
VP, Digital Ad Sales
(212) 424-7111
Sarah.Shriver@aenetworks.com
Digital Ad Specifications
Video On Demand 4+ Quick Reference

Marcela Tabares
VP, Sales Research
(212) 210-1444
Marcela.Tabares@aenetworks.com

Shawn Walker
VP, National Ad Sales
(312) 819-3322
Shawn.Walker@aenetworks.com

Erica Driscoll
VP, National Ad Sales
(248) 680-7156
Erica.Driscoll@aenetworks.com

Stephen Rhee
VP, National Ad Sales
(310) 201-6020
Stephen.Rhee@aenetworks.com

A&E Television Networks
235 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 210-1400

A&E Television Networks
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 819-0191

A&E Television Networks
201 West Big Beaver Road
Suite 1010
Troy, MI 48084
(248) 740-1300

A&E Television Networks
1925 Century Park East
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 201-6060

A&E Advertisers
Sensodyne
Toll Free: 1-866-844-2797

T-Mobile
Twitter: @TMobile
Toll Free: 1-877-453-1304

Samsung (PR department)
E-mail; samsungpr@edelman.com
Twitter: @samsungtweets
Toll Free: 1-800-726-7864

Motorola
Twitter: @motorola
Toll Free: 1-800-734-5870
Alternative: 1-847-523-5000

Walgreens
Twitter: @walgreens
Toll Free: 1-800-925-4733

IHOP:
Twitter: @IHOP
Toll Free: 1-866-444-5144
Alternative: 1-818-240-6055

Macy’s (PR Department)
E-mail: anne.keating@bloomingdales.com
Twitter: @Macys
Tel: 1-212-705-2434
Alternative: 1-212-494-3000

Nokia:
Twitter: @Nokia
Tel: 1-888-665-4228 FREE

Microsoft
Twitter: @microsoft
Toll Free: 1-800-642-7676

Verizon:
Twitter: @verizonwireless
Toll Free: 1-800- 837-4966

Bass Pro Shops
Twitter: @Bass_Pro-Shops
Toll Free: 1-800-494-1300 or 1-800-227-7776

Progressive Insurance
Tel: 1-440-461-5000
E-mail: Michele_L_Moore@progressive.com

Related Links:

What the Bible Really Says About Routine Infant Circumcision

WASHINGTON POST: Ritual Circumcision After Blizzard Painted as "Triumph"

A recent Washington Post article tries very hard to put airs on what would be nothing more than a Jewish child circumcision rite.

The only factor that would mark this one ritual different than any other one that happens is the fact that it happened after a major snow storm.

The storm would have made life difficult for thousands of other people, but somehow this story stood above the rest, making the ordeal worthy of an article on the Washington Post.

The author attempts to frame the whole situation, flights being cancelled, snow being an obstacle for the arrival of the ritual circumciser etc. as some sort of "powerful story" of "struggle" and "the triumph of the human spirit."

To some, this may be the case, but to those of us not conditioned to accept forced male infant genital mutilation as "normal," it's quite the opposite.

Perhaps it is a "triumph" in the eyes of those with a need to fulfill what they see as divine commandment to mutilate the genitals of an otherwise healthy, non-consenting child, but from the point of view of the child, who is weak, innocent and vulnerable, it can be nothing more than abandonment and loss.

The author appears to want to elicit a standing ovation and applause, and many will comply without thinking twice.

But how would readers react if, instead of male infant circumcision, the tale were bout female infant circumcision?

What if this story were, instead, about a couple, who, after a long trial of "strength and endurance," a sandstorm that posed as an obstacle for instance, were "finally" able to have their daughter circumcised?

Would it matter to readers that their family saw circumcising a baby daughter as this "long-standing tradition?"

Would it matter that they saw this as a matter of religious sacrament?

Would it matter that it was a "struggle" for relatives and the ritual circumciser to arrive "in the nick of time?"

Surely arguments that male infant circumcision dwarfs in comparison would quell disgust.

A freshly severed child's foreskin.

An infant's clitoris, barely visible, on a pair of scissors.

Surely it would be of comfort that the procedure was performed by a trained professional using sterile utensils under pristine conditions.

Surely adult women saying they are circumcised and they are "just fine" ought to justify it.

Somehow, I doubt that arguments of "tradition," "religion" and "parental prerogative" would be enough to silence the ensuing shitstorm.

The snowstorm in the Washington Post story is a diversion; merely the tip of the iceberg.

The child endured unnecessary pain, and a needless risk for herpes, infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Forget all these other challenges the child was put through, everyone let's pay attention to that nasty snowstorm.

The efforts the author goes through to beautify what is happening, the fact that there has to be an article trying to paint this story as a "success" after "a long struggle" speaks to how the author really feels about the situation.

This could have been a story about someone finally getting a much needed heart.

A doctor making it in time to perform an emergency c-section that saved both mother and child.

You know?

An actual emergency in which there were real stakes.

But this?

Where a child's life was put at stake?

Part of the most intimate part of his body permanently destroyed?

His sexual experience changed forever?

Sorry, but it's a terrible attempt at beautifying a sick, disgusting tradition.

The author in the Washington Post article strives to make this a beautiful story about parents who "struggle" but "finally made it," but strip away the "tradition," "endurance" and religious mumbo-jumbo, take away the blizzard and you're left with nothing more than ritual child abuse and genital mutilation.

It is nothing but sick, disgusting, self-serving opportunism on the part of this Washington Post author, and it's deplorable.

Some may yet defend ritual genital mutilation as "tradition," and I find this ironic.

For one, the fact that "religious tradition" cannot justify female infant circumcision demonstrates that it fails as an argument.

And secondly, the fact that the child's mother is a rabbi, and she doesn't have to undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, not to mention the fact that the ritual mutilation was performed by a female mohel, exposes the hypocrisy in invoking "tradition" as an alibi; this goes to show you that traditions can and do change.

Ritual male infant circumcision is one of those traditions whose time has come.

The time has come to condemn this tradition in male children, as in female children, for what it is; ritualized child abuse and forced genital mutilation.

Relevant Websites:
Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision

Related Posts:

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Related Articles:

Female Circumcision Is Becoming More Popular in Malaysia

A Cutting Tradition - The New York Times

Circumcised women can have healthy sex lives: expert - SBS

Stories That Didn't End So Triumphantly:

TEL AVIV: Botched baby dies - circumcision exonerated again

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

ISRAEL: Baby's Penis Reattached after Mohel Botches Circumcision

PITTSBURGH: Penis cut off, reattached, rabbi sued

ISRAEL: Baby loses 1/3 of penis in worse-than-usual circumcision

NEW YORK: Hypospadias - rabbi botches circumcision

Johannesburg: Jewish circumciser slapped with life ban after botched bris

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

I have been on hiatus from the intactivist movement for the holidays. Now I'm back, and I'm going to make a quick post to report some of the male infant circumcision mayhem that has caught my eye on Facebook.

 

 

Folks, prayers and thoughts can only do so much.

We need to ask ourselves, is it conscionable that parents are asking for prayers and thoughts over something that could have been completely prevented?

Circumcision carries risks.

Risks that pro-circ American medical organizations either minimize or refuse to talk about completely.

American medical organizations have incentive to minimize risks, or tacitly advocate not talking about them at all with parents.

A good 80% of American men are circumcised from birth.

A good number of American physicians are either circumcised, or parents of circumcised children themselves.

For some parents and physicians alike, circumcision is a cherished religious tradition that they defend tooth and nail.

Furthermore, at 1.3 million male babies are being circumcised at birth in the US annually, a good number of American physicians benefit from a freebie procedure for which they need no medical diagnosis, only a signed consent form.

Hospitals charge thousands in fees for facilitating circumcision to parents.

In speaking the truth about the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, there is much at stake.

There is money to be lost.

Malpractice lawsuits to face.

Religious traditions to protect.

Mental sanity to preserve.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks of circumcision include infection complications, including MRSA, herpes and gangrene, a botched operation that may need correction later on, an aesthetically displeasing result for which there can be no correction (e.g. such as too much skin removed, pulling up hairy skin onto the shaft, uneven scars etc...), partial or full ablation of the glans (head of the penis) if not the entire shaft itself, hemorrhage and even death.

Considering that circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy infant, how is putting a healthy child at these risks conscionable?

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Otherwise healthy children don't need to be put at any of these risks.

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it that any number of botches, complications and death is deemed "acceptable?"

When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?