Main Page

The concept of infantile sexual mutilation is not very much spread yet. Indeed, historically, Occidental feminists, who have been at the vanguard of the struggle, ignored and still ignore infantile mutilation to speak only of the feminine one. Monopolizing the fight against sexual mutilation, they make it a struggle between both sex adults. But only the concept of infantile sexual mutilation enables to face the reality of a phenomenon that strikes the child first.

The moral order

We stand against the religious and societal moral order which tries to dominate the child through terrorist techniques of repression of sexuality: branding, mutilation and torture. They are sometimes a preliminary for mere and/or sexual enslavement. Under the guise of identity marking or passage-to-a-so-called-adult-age rites but in the sole aim of obtaining an alleged moral and physical purity through violence and threat, they discriminate and make use of the child while traumatizing them. Perpetrated against a whole category of the population, they are a crime against humanity. This crime being relatively minor, it is forgivable inasmuch as it rests upon antique and hereditary custom, but only at the condition of being abandoned.

Concerning young girls, the films “Nightwatching – A murder in a Dutch painting” and “Raise the red lantern” show that these barbaric customs are not reserved to Islam, Judaism and a few primitive tribes but also existed in Occidental and Chinese civilizations. Indeed, only a few centuries ago, Dutch bourgeois tolerated that young girls whom they abused should be “opened” by knife, in order to spare themselves the inconvenience of virginity. The Chinese nobility, on its side, sold its young girls in marriage better through the torture of foot-binding. However, these barbarities are always accompanied by verbal repression. This mental mutilation is the sole present in the main part of humanity. The consequence of sexual mutilation is enslaving the individual to puritan and hypocrite values.

Against infantile sexual mutilation (*),we gather and extend on one hand the discoveries of psychoanalysis (on one side the Freudian infantile sexuality and the unconscious, on the other one the emphasis upon infantile trauma put by Alice Miller – cf. alice-miller.com –), on the other hand of American structural anthropology (James Prescott – cf. violence.de). The latter concludes that violence is inhibited by pleasure and reciprocally. Indeed, these advances of contemporary research reach the same conclusion: violence in education, rather than tender care, has catastrophic result: it breeds violence, depression or addiction. Giving the floor by turn to the biologist, the anatomist and the neuro-anatomist, to prophylactic medicine, psychiatry, sexology, law, sociology, anthropology, history of cultures, religion and psychoanalysis, this book could be entitled “The monologues of the foreskin and of the clitoris”. Well, no! But for individual cases, sciences are unanimous in standing up for organs sometimes alleged redundant but destroyed because they are the major organs of autosexuality.

A definition of infantile sexual mutilation

The defence of the child against ISM hinges on four elements which illustrate the essential-to-life character of the suppressed organs. They define infantile sexual mutilation: in order to submit the child and enhance their societal (and sometimes merchant) “value” by diverting sexuality from pleasure (this is above all true for women) towards reproduction, infantile sexual mutilation irremediably castrates them from the specific organs of autosexuality, while deeply traumatizing the human person. In similar repressive perspective, the paediatrician Edwige Antier recently sustained the return to the appalling but lucrative epidemics of ablation of tonsils and amygdales as an effective means of submitting naughty children, advancing that their ablation is efficient since it symbolizes castration.

First element: physical mutilation. For normal persons (the very great majority: 80% of the world population) who use these organs for autosexuality and heterosexuality, it is indisputable. The recent discoveries of anatomical medicine bring undeniable backing to their empirical affirmations. Taylor’s one, in 1996, concerns the part of exquisite erogenous mechanism of the ring of the tip of the foreskin. Since that date, it has been scientifically demonstrated that the amputation of the foreskin is genuine sexual mutilation; the foreskin does not only have the function of protecting erogeneity of the glans but also that of highly erogenous zone. This discovery still did not receive the medicine Nobel Prize that it deserves. It has not known media coverage and remains ignored by the public. Would it be anti-Semite? Sorrells's sensitivity enquiry experimentally confirmed this histologico-anatomic demonstration. The third sexual function of the fore-skin, that of a gliding friction-reducer-cushion in coitus, has also been high-lighted. It explains why AIDS hit African women whose partners are circumcised more than men. Several statistical enquiries showed that the circumcision status is without significant influence upon the transmission of STDs except AIDS. But Talbott (3) demonstrated that for the latter, in Africa, the most contaminated continent, the great vector of the epidemic is not the foreskin but prostitution. Anyhow, the example of Japan (first world consumer of condoms) shows the whole world that hygiene and condoms are the safest protection against STDs, including AIDS. It must not be forgotten on one hand that elementary ethic forbids mutilation – very particularly that of children – for prophylactic motive, on the other hand that the cleaning of the foreskin takes a few seconds and that one does not pull out teeth in order not having to wash them. Nobody, today, has the right to practise circumcision without serious medical motive, upon the child as well as the adult. Violence calls for violence; one must not fight debauchery through the violence of sexual mutilation.

Second element: the psychical traumatism. Psychoanalysis and psychosomatic medicine considering the psycho-physic set as a whole and every traumatism, may it be physic or psychic, having a sexual implication, the expression: “sexual mutilation” must be taken in the general sense. Now, sexual mutilation provokes a trauma of exceptional seriousness. Highlighted by Freud, traumas bearing on infantile sexuality (and certainly not “m........n”, etymologically: “turpitude by hand”) are at the origin of the formation of the unconscious and thus of mental disease. The consequence of this necessary becoming aware brings a weighty argument to feminists belonging to cultures that mutilate boys only; little girls suffer, unconsciously but much more than boys, from the threat linked with circumcision. Indeed, due to the smallness of the clitoris, the awareness of a threat of castration is unlikely; the threat of death and its heavy associated burden of guilt remain. For this guilt bears upon the very first sexuality, the simplest, most innocent and natural.

Third element: infantile. It means that sexual mutilation is practised by adults against the child. This is the great novelty of a concept incongruous in relation to the current appellation: “feminine sexual mutilation” (FSM). The boldest ones oppose it to MSM. Daring this simple bringing together – at once qualified an amalgam – they bring the wrath of certain feminists down on themselves. But one has no right to amalgamate violence against adults and violence against the child. The latter are roughly marked for life, on one hand by a savage attack against the sex and sexuality, on the other hand by a psychological trauma as serious for each of both sexes even if it remains most of the time unconscious. The war of sexes is a war of “adults ignoring the child within themselves” (Maud Mannoni. Letter to Sigismond). The war of generations is above all war against children.

Fourth element: sexual. Sexual mutilation is certainly not genital. It exclusively bears upon the specific organs of autosexuality, gravely made guilty. Therefore the matter is mutilation of pleasure. This mutilation is limited to that of feminine pleasure with boys. With girls, the mutilation of masculine pleasure entails that of feminine pleasure and mutilation of pleasure is total; the woman is rendered frigid. But when the very existence of pure pleasure is savagely and hypocritically denied or annihilated by insane minds, the child themselves fall ill and will look for pleasure in sadist and/or masochist perversions. Mental disease is a pathologic reaction to the perversion of parental ethics.

This is why we rise against sexist designations that set up one gender against the other instead of gathering them in defence of the toddler, of their sexuality and physical and moral integrity. Sexual mutilation is infantile only by the age at which it is practised. For it is irreversible. It strikes more particularly three categories of the population: children of course, but also bachelors and widowers, not to say anything of the rest or the population. As long as the clito-phallocratic or feminist-masculinist speech ignoring the child's sexuality will prevail, it will not be possible to eradicate infantile sexual mutilation. On the contrary, the worldly abolition of sexual mutilation will be a powerful lever of liberation of consciences.

The repression of infantile sexuality

More than a century ago, Freud already made himself the defender of infantile sexuality. By verifying its natural existence (manusexuality and auto-fellatio) right up inside the womb, prenatal ultrasonography today brings him a strong backing. However, autosexuality is still repressed, in one way or another, very particularly in the practice of circumcision and excision, common since every minute on the planet, 6 girls and 25 boys endure the knife. Impossible not to bring forward “the rights of the child” in this debate! After the above definition of infantile sexual mutilation, we broaden the question to that of the right of all, whatever their age, to free access to their own body and to the respect of their physical, emotional and mental integrity.

Indeed, imagine a being that has freely practised autosexuality in its mother's womb for several months. You are this being. Now assume that once out of this Eden, while quietly being bathed, you are glowered at and harshly told: “Why is it so? You touched it?” Or else you realize that everybody around you insidiously and hypocritically disparages your act of self love by wording it through pejorative and reproachful terms. The root of the most common one, like in perturbation, denounces disturbance. But it is also that of turpitude. This condemnation even affects university which affects slightly precious, somewhat perverse terms: autoerotism, onanism. Let us recall that making love means “pretending to be the cherub, the cupid, the little love”, before knowing the great. Autosexuality must replace the execrable term imposed by religious people, which must be crossed out of vocabulary. This is a compulsory step in the fight against sexual violence and crime (including infantile sexual mutilation). The fight against AIDS too, as testified by the African chiefs of state who modestly advocate “abstinence”. However, this puritan discourse is dangerous for their peoples; how many youngsters, with the gullibility of their age, will take it literally, which would be a stupid and unhealthy deprivation. One may not, above all in the fight against AIDS, above all at the scale of whole populations and through the use of media, insidiously reinforce the customary slating of autosexuality. It would undermine the physical and psychic health of peoples. In the fight against AIDS and infantile sexual mutilation, all hypocrisy must be abandoned.

Repression of the very lightly said infantile sexuality stems from this universal taboo. A forbidding against nature suddenly makes you plunge from the paradise of the womb into the hell of repression, guilt and trauma. The unconscious guilt it creates is one of the origins of mental disease: neurosis or depression through internalization of guilt, violent behaviour rejecting guilt upon others, or soothing the tension produced by guilt through perversions and addictions. Children and young people emotionally perceive the repression of sexuality as a death threat through loss of love and thus abandonment. Contrary to the natural law, such a threat can only oppose the happy resolution of the Oedipus complex that implies adherence to law. The social contract rests upon the acceptance of law by free and equal individuals; it must not be imposed by force or intimidation. Repression of sexuality, and very particularly infantile sexuality, is likely to block children and adolescents in their growth. It submits them to a law contrary to the natural law, outlawing pleasure. Some will be inhibited in the exercise of genuine authority or revolting against the abuse of authority, others will be pushed towards dissidence. Perversions – notably paedophilia – and rape are the direct consequence – aggravated by the sexual fuss of the media – of the hypocrite public reprobation of what everybody gaily practises in private. However, in a paradoxical way, one goes up to tolerate the noisiest perversions for the sole reason that one is unable to realize the root of the evil. Nevertheless only seducers, rapists, paedophiles and homophiles “masturbate”, in their victims, granting them the same contempt they endured in their autosexuality of childhood.

They will not need to go through this when the value of autosexuality will be universally acknowledged. For the time being, it is only recognized by some rare personalities or in some cultures (Asia, Oceania), more particularly in popular classes.

“If one must be twelve to kiss the lady, I rather like playing alone, thank God!” Georges Brassens (The plural)

Transcultural anthropological studies brought a support, extended to entire populations, to Freud's and psychoanalysts' clinical and theoretical observations. With absolute statistical correlation, they showed that depression, violence (drug, alcohol, criminality), are the consequence of deprivation of tenderness during infancy, a deprivation that can be increased (or decreased) by the banning (or permission) of premarital sexuality (cf. the works of James Prescott – violence.de).

Infantile sexual mutilation is the height of this repression. It intends to dominate and control the youth through putting it under traumatic terror (cf. Alice Miller). The horrid physical torture carries along both an irreversible loss and a threat of castration or death, which provokes a powerful unconscious trauma, highly guilt-carrying. This guilt may generate strong individualities and great achievements but also, and as certainly, great disorders and trouble of the mind. Physical and emotional castration of the specific organs of autosexuality undermines the image of the body and threatens boys of total castration and girls from death. The upshot is a trauma necessarily buried in the deepest layers of the unconscious. One shivers at the idea of what can occur if it comes back up. Incidentally, this is called a stroke of the head for an insult, a decimation against one death but also Hiroshima and Nagasaki in retort for Pearl Harbour – which is, in the realm of pure analysis, the whole for the part (structural mechanism of perversion), to the image of the initially suffered trauma or of the dreaded torture: castration. But coming to the point of invading a country for a promise made by God without witness, makes one enter the field of pure psychosis: taking oneself for God. Out of the ten genocides of modern times, only one did not imply non-intact, the frequency of wars is four times greater in circumciser countries, the death penalty is twice more frequent in them and they are the only ones to excise women. In Norway, 60% of the rapes are committed by 2% of the population who are circumcised. Sexual mutilation is the breeding ground of paranoia, fanaticism and terrorism, it is also that of counter terrorist excessiveness.

These mutilation is also extremely harmful in the case of infants (USA, South-Korea, Jews) where circumcision, committed before the age of speech, cannot be verbalized, which impedes the substitution of society for the mother and renders the emotional shock still more horrible. The torture is increased by the skinning of the glans (stuck to the foreskin at this age). Today, the best observers of infancy strongly recommend breast-feeding till the age of speech and holding till that of walking. This is poles apart from the savage ordeals of separation from the mother that make the child enter a kind of barbarous military service. Infantile sexual mutilation does not welcome infants into a society regulated by the difference of sex and age, it integrates them into gangs of pirates intoxicated with domination and blood. Those groups are submitted to hierarchies of medieval type which have relationships in terms of the power struggle of personal allegiance, in a homophile and sadist relationship of seduction, for sole rule. We are within pure bestiality, we shall not say animal nature because animals do not know such an abomination.

Sexual mutilation is particularly severe in the castration of woman's erectile organ and vulva, not mentioning the long-term havoc frequently endured by adjacent organs (vagina, urethra, bladder and intestine). In societies where woman is openly a commodity, excision, bringing feminine sexuality down to the function of substitute of the foreskin, is the ultimate, logical complement of circumcision and vice versa. Indeed, in polygamous cultures, these partial castrations, threats of total castration or death, aim or aimed, on one hand, at imposing virginity and fidelity by reducing young women's ardour through disability and terror, and, on the other hand, still through terror, at deterring sons from rivalling their fathers for their young spouses. In a world dominated by men, circumcision threatens the organ of the little girl more seriously than the castration of the erectile organ of woman threatens that of boys. So, infantile sexual mutilation is one of the instruments of the perversion of the woman-man relationship in the patriarco-matriarcal society (treatment of woman as a servant rather than an equal, imprisonment at home or under the veil and dress, obsessive care for pureness, polygamy, selling like a merchandise, forced marriage, repudiation, absence of right to divorce, impunity for rape, stoning of the adulterous, “honour” crimes). One of the worst repressions of individual independence and sexuality, it traumatizes, terrorizes and makes guilty the child and the adult.

The assault to respect of the human person and species

Signs of physical distinction also injure human dignity. Every marking of the body makes the latter an advertising poster. Moses and Mohammed forbade tattoos because the body must not be treated like a commodity. Putting the trousers of the child down to mutilate them is lack of respect. It injures their modesty and humiliates them.

At last, physical marking attacks the human species. Founding a collective identity upon an attempt on the identity of the human species is not only a degrading act; it is also discriminatory since it leads its holder to believe themselves illusorily superior or even to boast about it. No people may carve themselves a purely formal identity upon the body of their children without offending the rest of humanity.

A double exclusion: discrimination of the individual and seclusion of the people

The absence of mutilation entails the casting out of the ethnic group. This is an intolerable attempt against the right of the individual to be considered by their relatives whatever their physical appearance may be. This systematic accessory of sexual mutilation reveals its deep meaning of measure of exclusion, of limitation of the entrance of foreigners into the group.

Intended to separate the group from others, sexual mutilation is a sectarian act, sometimes committed under the guise of religion. But exclusion calls for hatred; some great thinkers (Spinoza, Freud) denounced circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples. Therefore, sexual mutilation is encouraged by tyrannical regimes that use it as well as initiation for their troops as sign of tribal distinction, of phallic, perverse rallying. It has a sexist character. It is incitement to discrimination, insidiously disguised under what could be finery if it were possible to easily take off and behind the festivities of folklore. Imposed by military-religious elites, the community sign is always a call for nationalism, a threat, a sign of war. The French legislator did not misunderstand it by forbidding carrying religious signs at school. Veil, foreskin, clitoris, the death penalty, to arms et cetera, the escalation of mutilation, sexual or other including mental, is the great instrument of the war of generations. For being latent and insidious, this neurotic war, a source of genuine other wars, is not less atrocious and merciless. In order to channel human needs at the service of the interests of the ruling classes, it attempts to divert sexuality against love. Sexual mutilation is both antisexual and antidemocratic. More fascist than fascism in Occidental countries, it is obviously unbearable by fascism but this is not a reason for the democrats to tolerate it.

The struggle and its actors

Those who mutilate their children are victims of their own parents. This leads them to denying the mutilating character of sexual ablations. They must understand that this denial is intolerable to all those who do not practise them, that is to say the four fifths of humanity. For non-mutilators, sexual excision appears monstrous, and still more since inflicted to children. Mutilators must also admit the fact that those who oppose mutilation are the more often foreigners, westerners. This does not imply that they would be attacking a cultural value worthy of being preserved. Against the circumciser moral order, universal ethic and science show that every mutilation is a biological and mental impoverishment, a non-value unworthy of belonging to culture. Infantile sexual mutilation is one of the worst scourges of humanity. Not only is it natural that the fight against it – at the risk of hurting its adepts – would be initiated by non-mutilators but also there are, in the very bosom of mutilating peoples, consciences of great courage who rise up against mutilation. So, the dangers of circumcision have been highlighted by African voices (4). These persons must be listened to.

Conclusion

Culturalo-religious narcissism does not deserve the sacrifice of one hair of a child. Its indignant protests must hush in front of the shrieks of the victims. But trauma is foremost psychological and physical mutilation is not the only condemnable one. Mutilation of the mind, through speech, Paulinian, Christian, puritan and Occidental, perhaps without being irreversible, is as redoubtable as physical excisions. It has the same aim of rendering the individual compliant by traumatizing them through a genuine putting under unconscious terror, founded upon the most stupid decree: making autosexuality the original sin. It is fierce and dangerous because the lie is both parental and societal, difficult to eradicate from minds. The damage provoked by mental repression is as incalculable as that of physical repression.

The abolition of infantile sexual mutilation is only a stage in the fight against the repression of the sexuality of the youths and for the right of all to the free access to their own body.

(1) Taylor J., Lockwood A., Taylor A. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. BJU 1996; 77: 291-295. http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor

(2) Sorrells M., Snyder J., Reiss M., Eden C., Milos M., Wilcox N., Van Howe R. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU International 99 (4), 864-869. http://www.icgi.org/touch-test/touch-test-article.pdf

(3) J. Talbott. “Size matters: the number of prostitutes and the global HIV/AIDS pandemic”. PLoS ONE 2(6). http://plosone.org/doi/pone.0000543

(4) http://geocities.com/RainForest/3719/circoncision.htlm

[edit]

Minor destruction, massive destructions - Sigismond

The findings on the field of American anthropologists bring Prescott (1, 2) to conclude that violence is strengthened by pain, lessened by pleasure. The study of forty-nine cultures (2) revealed an absolute correlation between adult violence (criminality) on one hand and, on the other hand, deprivation of physical affection and corporal punishment of children, often accompanied by the prohibition of sexuality to adolescents (and to children, should it be added). Socio-religious beliefs preach intolerance towards sexual pleasure, considered dangerous. According to Moisés Tractenberg, circumcision is a cause of sado-masochism:

"Another consequence of early circumcision is that it imprints an aggressive and traumatic situation onto the mind of the newborn… The impossibility of processing such a tremendous infusion of inwardly focused aggression may lead, a posteriori, to the emergence of psychopathic and violent behaviour or, in many other cases, to the emergence of extreme masochistic behaviour." (3)

Saying that the circumcised are systematically violent would be inaccurate. Hundreds of examples of the contrary can be found. However, in extreme situations or after repeated or strong provocations, all things being elsewhere equal, those who experienced a grave trauma will be likely to lose their temper in a position of strength, and to endure stoically in a position of weakness. The unconscious memory of the trauma renders them unable of self-control and serene and objective analysis. This explains the passivity of the Jews in the extermination camp of Treblinka as well as the appalling immoderation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It can be thought, too, that infantile sexual mutilation favours group suicidal behaviour: Treblinka, Zionism, Gulf war, Islamic terrorism.

By traumatizing man, by depriving him of a natural protection, circumcision hardens his paranoid tendencies, bringing him to seek other types of protection. Far from the shelter of his native land he will be persecuted, settled on his ground-lines he will overrun his neighbours. The warlike temper of nations of circumcised men reflects their barbarity towards children. Overbearing and confident, their history is marked by violence. The Hebrews, chased from Palestine by historical events, suffered violence; Arabs and Israeli conquerors exerted it. For thousands of years, wars and unceasing tribal slaughters have been devastating Africa and the Middle East. Many peoples of polygamists, enslavers, invaders or perpetrators of genocide, practised circumcision: it was the immediate preliminary of the invasion of the land of Canaan, the Arabs brought it into widespread use to the Africans they subdued, and its adoption followed the extermination of North American Indians. Piracy against the protective envelope of the child’s sex generates the piracy of adults.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, at the age of the conquering bourgeoisie, two nations that gave themselves the vocation to guard planetary order (Victorian England and the United States) adopted circumcision in spite of their Christianity, dragging along with them the other Anglo-Saxon countries, prompted by the medical profession and other notables. Except for one civil war, all wars between 1996 and 2002 involved at least one circumcising country. But they were 4 times more frequent in circumcising countries. The death penalty is twice more frequent in them. Out of the ten genocides of modern times: Congolese, Hereros, Armenians, Jews, Biafrans, Cambodians, Hutus, Tutsis, Bosnians, inhabitants of Darfur, nine implied circumcised on one side or the other.

In the eyes of the intact, circumcision is a scandal against nature. This scandal is generally unconscious; Spinoza and Freud attribute Judeo-phobia to circumcision:

"… the Jews having lived apart from all nations in such a way that they incurred universal hatred, and this not only by observing exterior rites opposed to those of other nations, but by the sign of circumcision… " (4).

"… among the customs by which the Jews made themselves separate, that of circumcision has made a disagreeable, uncanny (unheimlich) impression, which is to be explained, no doubt, by its recalling the dreaded castration..." from (5),

"The hypothesis that a root of those hatreds of the Jews (Judenhasses) which occur in such primary ways and lead to such irrational behaviour among the nations of the West, must be sought here too, seems inescapable to me. Circumcision is unconsciously equated with castration." (6)

"The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism; for even in the nursery, little boys hear that the Jews have something cut off in their penis - a piece of their penis, they think - and this gives them a right to despise the Jews." (7)

Similarly nowadays, the psychoanalyst Alice Miller writes:

"The ritual practices of circumcision and excision have effects that reach not only the individual and their descendants but also other men." (8)

Infantile sexual mutilation is the height of the “black pedagogy” denounced by this author.

Her colleague Julia Kristeva highlights the irreparable of handicaps at the eyes of those non handicapped:

"… (they) confront each one of those who are not affected by those disablements to the anguish of castration, to the horror of the narcissistic wound, and, beyond, to the irreparable of physical or psychical death: thus establishing the most uncompromising of exclusions." (9)

The wanton character of criminal mutilation practised upon children by their own parents, still more strongly than accidental or genetic handicap, stirs up repulsion, sadness and revolt of strangers to these customs. Sexual mutilation of children puts each woman, each man, in front of human vulnerability confronted to the arbitrariness of nonsensical and savage tyranny, and to fierce brutality, sadistically setting about the innocent, the weak, the impotent, cruelly victimized. Barbarous mutilation of children thus inevitably generates dislike against its authors. Like all crimes, notably those against the child, it provokes hatred. The victims must not make their children victims. For the neuropsychologist James Prescott, editor of the Montagu petition against the genital mutilation of children (10),

"The greatest crime against humanity is the torture and mutilation of children.",

all the more if it is a crime against sexuality.

Instead of this, their compulsion to circumcise drives the circumcised to mutilate their defeated enemies. A testimony of it is brought by the foreskins required from David by Saul to obtain his daughter’s hand (1 Sam, 18: 25-27), by the martyrdom of English prisoners of the Moguls and that of the Germans caught by the Herero. Von Trotha, a general of William II, colonizer of Namibia, wrote in 1904:

"They (the Hereros) have killed, robbed, cut noses, ears and other parts of the wounded soldiers… "

In December 2000, international press reported mass circumcisions and excisions of Christians in Moluccas (Indonesia), during forced conversions by fanatical Islamists. At the assembly of the United Nations of 31 July 2001 (11), the Indonesian government recognized the fact of forced conversions without infirming or confirming the genital mutilations. In Europe itself, Muslim warriors have circumcised Serbs (12).

Circumcision is responsible for the slaughters of circumcised

The Germans created the first extermination camps for the circumcised Hereros of Namibia. Hitler repeated the same method for the Jews. Similarly the Tutsis slaughtered the circumcised Hutus (Simone Veil, a survivor of Auschwitz, declared 13 that a characteristic of Hutus’ extermination: the Tutsis took pleasure to penetrate the intimacy of their victims, makes it comparable to that of the Jews). At last the Serbs slew the Bosniacs. That exterminating madness is not a mere effect of hazard; the unconscious has its reasons and hatred always has unconscious motives. The latter have been highlighted by an inquiry, quoted by doctor Foley 14, to 200 members of the German extreme-right. One of the unconscious fantasies of the persecutors of the Jews manifestly comes from an overt fear of one day having to bear the lot that the Eternal, according to Abraham’s testimony, would have assigned to him as well as to his sons and servants. We have just seen that those fears are not fanciful.

However, its systematic character compels to put aside the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. This barbarous madness certainly answers that of the collective crime against children and sexuality and, with Freud, one must see the violation of the physical integrity of the newly-born as the deep source of the peculiar violence of Judeo-phobic racism. The belief in a link between a physical marking and land property is particularly scandalous and irrational for other peoples. A detail of life in camps, that of the systematic torture exerted at the very arrival of the prisoners, intended to break the individual, recalls the torture of circumcision on the eighth day that breaks, from entrance into life, one of the most intimate and sacred human bonds: attachment to the mother. This detail adds up with that here-above reported with the Tutsis and the Germans, of penetration into the victims’ intimacy. A third detail confirms this thesis: death through poisoning by gas tends to accuse the Jews of poisoning humanity. Indeed, this whole work demonstrates that circumcision poisons humanity. This is not a reason to poison the Jews. However, fourth detail, a great common point between the attitude of the Nazis and that of the Jews is the revolting penalty that is at the basis of Abrahamic cultural identity: the exclusion from the people of those who would refuse circumcision a discrimination of the same order as racism since founded upon a physical difference. This exclusion correlatively bears upon strangers, practically barred from marrying Jewish girls, except through adopting their religion. The Nazi racism models upon this racism. The Jews excluded the intact from the people, the Nazis wanted to exclude the Jews from the human gender. Even if the second is worse than the first, both attitudes are inhuman. The conjunction of those "details" aims towards establishing the existence, with the Nazis, of an unconscious will less to exterminate the Jews than to abolish circumcision. Those who treat the child either like a subhuman of whom a declared congenital anomaly should be corrected, either like a beast of which the belonging to the herd should be marked, may expect disproportionate reactions: being themselves treated like sub-humans or animals. But this explanation is insufficient. Why setting about the Jews rather than to the other circumcisers?

The answer to this question lies in the particular ideological powerfulness of Abraham’s lie There is, in Jewish circumcision, an element that does not exist in other circumcising cultures (the term "circumcision" does not exists in the Koran), a politico-religious ideology which founds upon circumcision a colonialism perpetrator of genocide (today repeated against the Palestinian people). The affirmation of a circumcision by divine order deeply affects Christian conscience which rejects such a superstition with horror; how could God order a crime against the child? This lie is all the more deeply rooted with the Jews as it pretends founding in the same time the identity of the people and a title deed – like both an act in a registry and a notarized act. Jewish circumcision so creates, in a much stronger way than other circumcisions, both neurosis and the benefits of neurosis.

Concerning land property, whereas the Jews were scattered in a multitude of countries of Africa, Middle-East and Europe, German imperialism appears as an extreme, caricatured radicalization of the myth of the colonization of the land of Canaan. But was there caricature of the: "... I make you the father of a multitude of nations... " (Genesis: 27, 5)?

The only way imagined by the Nazis to end the adult imperialism of the crime against nature of circumcision and with the discriminatory ideology that accompanies it was the settlement of a still more systematic ideology. Nevertheless, since this radicalisation is accompanied by a will of extermination of the Jewish people, it must be thought that the pupils are not only looking for overtaking the masters but that they have a particular problem to settle with them. Obviously, this problem was circumcision. Nazi madness pretended punishing a minor crime against humanity by a major crime against humanity. That madness was exerted within the logic of the unconscious which, assimilating the part to the whole, holds circumcision for murder. One should let sleeping dogs lie.

1 Genital pain versus genital pleasure: why the one and not the other? The truth seeker, July-Aug 1989; (1-3): 14-21. cirp.org/library/ psych 2 Body pleasure and the origins of violence. The bulletin of the atomic scientists, Nov 1975: 10-20. cirp.org/library/psych 3 Moisés Tractenberg. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. Male and female circumcision. New York: Denniston et al. Plenum publishers; 1999. 4 Politico-theological treatise. 1670. 3: 99. 5 Leonardo da Vinci and a memory of his childhood. 1910. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1957. S.E., XI. p. 95, n. 2. 6 Moses and monotheism. 1936. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXIII, p. 91. 7 Analysis of a phobia on a five-years-old boy (Little Hans). 1909. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1955. S.E., X, p. 36, n. 8 Banished knowledge - Facing childhood injuries. Chap VII. 1988. New York: Anchor press; 1997. 9 Aux frontières du vivant. Le magazine littéraire, février 2004 (428). 33-36. 10 MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org 11 UN document A/56/253, Questions relative to the rights of man, n° 44: 12-13. 12 UN document S/1994/674 section IV-F. 13 Radio broadcasted speech. 8 March 2004 (day of woman). 14 Foley J. The unkindest cut of all. Fact magazine 1966; 3 (4): 2-9. cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley

[edit]

Violence and circumcision - Sigismond

http://intactwiki.org/Image:VIOLENCE_AND_CIRCUMCISION.doc

[edit]

Feminism and infantile sexual mutilation - Sigismond

Extremist feminist circles, hostile to inclusive feminism, amalgamate violence against children with violence against women. Too much wanting to pull – it is tempting in a sexist struggle against “men” – on the argument of a hastily said feminine mutilation, numerous Occidental feminists pervert the conceptualization of sexual mutilation to make it an affair of adults, whereas often, sexual mutilation precisely marks the entrance into adulthood. This interpretation bends the deep meaning of a violence exerted against both sex children. On must say and repeat that sexual mutilation is infantile before being feminine or masculine; it aims at infantile sexuality much more than at adult sexuality. To be convinced with it, it is enough to report that in Africa, in front of the reaction of authorities who forbid feminine sexual mutilation, the latter strikes younger and younger little girls, because they begin to defend themselves, with the support of the police.

Secondly, circumcision of boys is an obvious threat of castration by slices and when the Catholic Church celebrated the feast of Circumcision on the 1st of January, one could wonder what would remain on the 31st of December! Since feminists rightly claim that excision, sexually speaking, is equivalent to castration, they should admit that even when only circumcision is practised, it threatens girls just as well, with the entire related trauma.

Next, the feminist interpretation grants men the responsibility of a mutilation that is the most often accomplished by women. As a matter of fact, adults, women and men, are accomplices. But they are not only accomplices in the execution; they are foremost accomplices regarding the intended aim: forbidding and making guilty infantile and youthful sexuality.

In their blindness, feminists accuse opponents of infantile sexual mutilation who refuse gender distinction without, of course, denying the self-evident seriousness of the damage provoked by excision, of “suspiciously amalgamating” excision and circumcision. They do not hesitate to wantonly affirm that both mutilations would have nothing in common, that circumcision would not be mutilation and even that it would be done for the sake of the child. Introducing sexist discrimination into the fundamental right of the human person to physical integrity, they ignore the reality and seriousness of the loss and accidents of male mutilation and make excision a pure expression of masculine domination. As if the excisers – mostly women – agents of the crime, did not even connive in it and as if circumcision was not also an expression of maternal domination and of secret revenge against men. Following them, Awa Gréou, sentenced in Paris to seven years imprisonment without remission for earning her life through mutilating little girls, would be a martyr of masculine domination. The worst of those possible mothers refuse involving themselves in a fight that, according to them, would concern males only.

The feminist interpretation finds its power of seduction on one hand in the tremendous ravages provoked by excision, on the other hand in the strength of love towards the mother, of which it both uses and protects the pure and holy image through unburdening her of all responsibility. With the unconscious aim of leaving her image intact, the sexist feminist thesis charges “men” with the responsibility of adults' crime upon children.

But with reason do they condemn as a whole all kind of feminine sexual mutilation: infibulations, excision of the clitoris, of its hood, of the lips as well as – insisted Khadi Koïta – the mutilation by simple prick, so-called symbolic but nonetheless traumatizing and assaulting the dignity of the human person:

“And some think that the symbolic must be saved by making a small incision so as to pour a little blood, all this in the name of this famous respect of cultures. But we would want to tell physicians of the whole world that we, women, are against all act of medicalization, whatever its form, that a physician must treat, heal, repair, save a life and not destroy, and foremost not mutilate in the name of the respect of disastrous for health customs or traditions.”

Bravo for a for once wholly warranted amalgam! But excluding the excision of the feminine part of man's sex of it is not suspect but really guilty of denial – upon a background of raving androphobia – of the reality of the psychological and physical harm of masculine mutilation. Shame on those who rise up for a drop of blood of little girls and forget the serious haemorrhage provoked to their little boys! If excision is particularly sexist, it is not because of its aim: dominating the child through putting them under unconscious terror, but because of its odious unconsciousness of the havoc it provokes. But today, the latter is lessened by “clean” excision practised on a large scale in African hospitals. For we are reaching the point where the repressive reducers of so-called infantile sexuality try to pass excision off as a merely cosmetic operation, symmetric of that of the foreskin of which one totally ignores the erogenous value, without taking into account the loss of a considered as without object erectility. However, chirurgical genius today succeeds in restoring the clitoris, the nervous endings of which subsist, buried under a terrible scar. Their bringing to light enables to stop the pain and recover some use of the eradicated organ. No surgery will ever render the sexually mutilated their erogenous ring.

In summary, sexist feminists commit two mistakes. One on the side of agents: amalgamating the generation and social conflict with the war of sexes, as much in the aim of absolving women as in that of using the mutilation of girls, practised by mothers, as an argument against men. The second on the side of victims: excluding boys as if they were adversaries. All this conceals the real aim of infantile sexual mutilation and other attacks against the human body: dominating the population, more particularly youth and women, in order to exploit it. Those who struggle with no ulterior motive against all forms of undermining the dignity and physical integrity of the child do not linger in counter-productive comparison. As Marilyn Milos likes saying: “The shrieks of children undergoing the knife are indistinguishable.”

An anonymous feminist sorts things out in an African forum :

“Occidental women hijack African women's struggle against excision and make it a discriminative practice of African men against their wives. Against this politic of division, black women have risen by protesting against “white women's maternalism” and creating their own concept of struggle that takes into account women first in what constitutes their essence and their complementarities with men. This is “Africana Womanism”, invented by an African-American, which is different of the European concept of feminism that has a posture of fight and opposition between men and women...

Yes, excision is harmful to the health or our women. It must be eradicated. We contrive to do it as fast as possible but in the spirit of preservation of peace and social cohesion and not in the spirit of opposition between men and women by insinuating that it is a discriminative practice against our women. There where it appears so, it is due to the exterior contribution of Islamic religion that grants woman a subordinate position.”

Rosemary Romberg-Weiner, an American feminist and activist against circumcision, professes the same views of “inclusive security”:

“Much has been expounded on feminism. Men's rights are also gaining in recognition. But the time has come to grow beyond that. In an arena with one gender pitted against the other, no battles will ever be won. Instead we must recognize that we are all humans together on this planet. We must strive for human liberation in this. Allowing wholeness and completeness for our own children's bodies, and acknowledging and healing from our own wounds is but one step along the way.”

Susan Peer's sharpness of observation seems the best means of rekindling the flame of reason. Stressing out a till now unnoticed biological symmetry between feminine and masculine exterior sexual apparatus, she takes the defence of young boys with acute shrewdness (cf. Annex II).

The weakness of the feminist interpretation is confirmed by foot-binding in imperial China, which seems to be the height of cruelty to children. Though this is impossible to prove in the absence of written testimonies, we assume that it was, like excision, intended to give merchant value to young girls through rendering infantile sexuality (autosexuality) impossible to them. Frigidity was achieved by impeding clitoral erection through terror. The disgust for clitoral erection was indeed the great fantasy of the emperor who fell in love with his concubine having naturally very small feet. As soon as this news spread into the country, mothers and fathers eager to gain a high social position (like African excisers) imagined to impede the natural growth of girl's feet. One detail compels us to think that the whole thing, with the passing years, was deliberately for the shrewd and aristocratic chosen few (in families of aristocracy, competition for power upon children between men and women passes through a war based on physical, economical and political force by men, seduction by women): impeding erection of the clitoris was achieved through terror of a threat of castration symbolically operated from a distance, through breaking from infancy the articulations of the toes by wringing them under the foot and forced walking after this.

To conclude, in the same way as is unfair the hypocrisy of fathers who finance the excision of their daughters while denying all responsibility in this crime through asserting that “it is women's business”, mums who would affirm, like the French alleged “Guard She-Dogs”, that circumcision would be men's business in order to refuse rebelling against it, forget their mothering responsibility.

The fundamental motive of infantile sexual mutilation is, for leaders the subjection of their subjects, for parents that of children, by the terror inspired as well by an atrocious torture as by an implicit threat of castration and death. Imagining that, in those crimes, mothers would be dupes of fathers, issues from gullibility or hypocrisy. Infantile sexual mutilation is above all an instrument of the war of generations and only very secondarily that of the war of sexes. Through embezzling the first at the profit of the second, sexist feminists bury their head in the sand. To such a point that, as reformist rabbis taught us (cf. Chapter V), they do not realize that circumcision is also a practice of exclusion of women. For apart from the physical trauma, excision and circumcision aim at dominating boys and girls through a dreadful psychological trauma. The latter is intended to impart a morality against nature, thrust forward by means of a threatening affective blackmail: “If you do that (autosexuality), you are no longer my child!”. It is a matter of threat of exclusion and thus of death. In other words, infantile sexual mutilation forbids autosexuality through terror, in the aim of making use of the individual and their sexual life. Obviously, adults also suffer from it, and particularly terribly women, but it is not the first aim which is domination of children (and future adults) by terror.

If one does not see that, one passes by the essential of the phenomenon of alienation through infantile trauma, physical or mental (here both). The advantage of this analysis is to gather sexes against the perverse hold, the physico-ideological domination settled by both sex exploiters who promoted sexual mutilation in an aim of social domination. The principal enemy: the ruling classes, should not be mingled with “men”, just as victims as women. Like ragging, circumcision is intended to comfort the power of the eldest over the younger. Ragging is nowadays forbidden by law. It is abnormal that circumcision should not be yet.

Sigismond oldsigismund@hotmail.com - http://groups.mns.com/circabolition

(1) 10 June 2004 colloquium in the French Academy of medicine in Paris: "Feminine sexual mutilation, another crime against humanity. Knowing, preventing, acting." http://www.equipop.org/index.php?rel=10&typ=2&art=375

(2) http://www.grioo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45371 (message 129, 25.3.4)

(3) Romberg-Weiner R. Male circumcision as a feminist issue. http://peacefulbeginnings.org/malecircumcisionasafeministissue

CLITORIS AND FORESKIN By Susan Peer

One woman's way to educate others about male genital mutilation

By Susan Peer

One woman's view

If I talk to women about circumcision and they don't seem to get it, then I make it personal. Sometimes I tell a story. (This probably works best woman to woman.) I'll tell them to:

Imagine that you are admitted to a hospital for some minor surgery. On waking up from the anesthesia, you realize that your inner labia and the hood over your clitoris have been cut off.

When you confront your doctor, he explains that the tissue that was removed was "redundant" and not necessary for sexual functioning.

He goes on to say that you will be much easier to clean and have less odor, there will be less chance of infection, and he felt that you would look "better", more aesthetic.

He says that when he told all of the "risks" and "benefits" to your family, they gave informed consent for the procedure.

How would you feel?

Now imagine that you were awake and resisting, but they did it anyway.

If they don't get it right away, they usually will later, when they are alone.

Susan Peer

Parents of Intact Sons. Information about the advantages of keeping your sons intact and support group for parents of intact boys. Susan Peer, RR 1, Box 1324- A, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301. Tel: 717-223-1337.

[edit]

Ethics against AIDS, not statistics - Sigismond

(biased enquiries upon black human guinea-pigs)

“The one who gives up an essential liberty for a fleeting and uncertain security does not deserve either security or liberty.” Benjamin Franklin

In order to fight AIDS, the only safe and sound methods are personal pleasure (autosexuality), condoms, fidelity and monogamy. Talbott demonstrated (1) that in Africa, the most struck continent, the great carrier of the epidemic is not the foreskin but prostitution. Indeed, African prostitutes are four times more numerous and four times more contaminated than those of the rest of the world. But “dry sex”, sodomy, multi-partnership, adultery, polygamy and homophilia when it is not zoosexual touring with endemic carriers-of-the-virus monkeys (very probably at the source of the epidemic; one zoophile homophile is enough to contaminate humanity), must also be rejected steadfastly. Let us insist upon the fact that the use of drugs favours taking ill-considered risks. For all those who have not yet found a stable relationship with a healthy person, autosexuality is the surest resort against infection. This implies not to have been deprived from its specific natural organs: the clitoris (its ablation can be compared to the castration of the penis) or the foreskin (circumcision is a threat of castration that traumatizes even little girls). In a continent where women are now the first affected by an epidemic initially spread by men, they are the first interested in adopting the ethic of fidelity. And this all the more that it is also an ethic of equality in which the loss of diversity is rewarded by gain in physical and affective security, and by deeper relationships.

Human guinea-pigs

Contrary to this obviousness and to the ethical principle forbidding amputation for preventive purpose, the insight of a few researchers makes one’s hair stand on end. 3 128 men have been recruited for a research study (2) on the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing AIDS. It succeeded a whole series since twenty years, with similar aim. But the press touted again the dubious conclusion. Circumcised right away were 1 546 human guinea-pigs. The others underwent the mutilation ten months later. For according to the hasty and naive promoters, the venture was so successful that they stopped it to circumcise the rest of the sample. The authors of the enquiry eased their conscience by providing condoms and advice to their victims. But there was a time when experiments upon humans were sheltered behind the barbed wire of extermination camps. Today they are done in the open; in order to proclaim the so-called positive results of crimes realized with the collaboration of victims fascinated by the title of physician, a few scientists obtain media coverage in the congress of the International AIDS Society. Science, how many crimes are committed in your name!

Men only, blacks only

The enquiry asserts being randomized (statistically representative of the population through drawing lots) but women were excluded from it. But since when is a population composed of one sex only?! Moreover, how could a small town of black people validly represent South African population that includes 11% of whites?! The enquiry, deliberately androcentered and ethnocentered, is all the more statistically biased that it studies the risk of transmission of women to men without having registered the HIV status of women in contact with the subjects of each sample.

A fascinating short term outcome

The enquiry confirmed that over a period of 10 months, circumcision considerably lessens the number of masculine contaminations, 60% lower with the circumcised. Two similar enquiries, led in Kenya and Uganda, over a longer period (two years), showed a lessening of this "protection" through circumcision that passes from 60% to 50% (3). The lessening of the protecting effect of circumcision within time shows that circumcision only hinders the entry of VIH with those who expose themselves to it. It is fallacious to advocate a lessening of the risk of “60%” instead of “60% over one year”. One could say that the reason why the experimentations were prematurely stopped was that the more they lasted, the lower was their allegedly successful rate. And we are going to see that in the long run, there are good reasons to think that the cure will be worse than the disease.

The long-term consequences

Indeed, with the victims who will endure the life-long consequence of the operation, its implementation will end in inverse effect: spreading the epidemic through reluctance in the use of condoms, for two reasons. On one hand the circumcised – particularly young subjects – will think themselves sufficiently protected. The rumour is already spreading into Africa: “Circumcision is the best condom, the best vaccine!” On the other hand and foremost, by striking a blow at the sensitivity of the glans (4), circumcision makes condom use, already little pleasant to normal men, frankly daunting. The extent of the epidemic in Africa and the USA – where the majority of the male population is circumcised – strongly suggests that, in the long term, circumcision has the inverse effect to the looked for aim. Indeed, the USA is the developed country where the epidemic spread the most.

The second consequence will be a worsening of the transmissibility of the virus to women – and children of pregnant women – due to abrasion of the vagina provoked by the absence of the foreskin. Two enquiries (5, 6) disclosed that the foreskin limits irritating friction against the vagina, for three reasons. First of all, normal men look for the fine sensations provided by the exquisite erogenous and tactile sensitivity of the foreskin (that of the glans is merely erogenous), through movements of moderate amplitude, in a less gymnastic, slower, gentler and more tender act. Then, the foreskin glides on the shaft so that friction against the vagina is reduced. At last, through its mobility and folds, the foreskin plays a part similar to that of the rings of a piston and inhibits the draining out of vaginal secretions by the rim of the glans. Conversely, in order to compensate for their loss of sensitivity, the circumcised require movements on a greater scale inducing, indeed, deep massage of the glans but also intense rubbing. Moreover, the mushroom of the corona of their glans voids the secretions little by little and the vagina gets irritated. We already know that women are twice more likely to be contaminated that men. Circumcision can only worsen this figure. The AIDSUNO 2004 and 2006 (7) reports revealed that in Sub-Saharan Africa, where circumcision concerns less than 20% of men, women represent 59% of contaminated persons. But South Africa is the land of “dry sex”, which excludes preservative. A recent enquiry (8) disclosed that women of circumcised men are more prone to contracting HIV.

Conclusion

For lack of integrating ethical and behavioural variables, statistic enquiries, however fascinating their conclusions may be, are likely to be gravely misleading.

There still are in Africa many peoples who resisted the epidemic of circumcision. The probability is now high that they would abandon their antique wisdom in front of the pseudo-scientific, neo-colonizing invasion that recommends circumcision against AIDS in Pretoria but not in Paris. Whereas, at request of the prosecution, a Finish court acknowledged that circumcision is a penal assault, whereas South-Africa was the first country in the world to prohibit circumcision of children under 16 without their consent, a few physicians use the AIDS epidemic as an excuse to bring barbarity in general use and mutilate the last black upholders of an ethic which respects the child and refuses the quasi-racist distinction that pretends founding a collective identity upon a destruction of the identity of the species.

World circumcision – and soon genetic manipulation in a “brave new world” – rather than fighting the real sources of the epidemic is the long-term solution suggested by sorcerer’s apprentices who benefit from the gullibility, conformism and antique hygienist superstition that favour paedo-sexual criminality. The psychoanalyst will see there an avatar of the sadistic obsessive, parental and societal compulsion to threaten sons and daughters with castration, and even to castrate the latter from their erectile organ, in order to dominate both of them better. As this threat is not verbalized, it remains unconscious and its consequences can be disastrous.

The great statistical sophistication of the enquiry and the treacherous, short-term effectiveness of the solution it recommends did not abuse European scientists; for ethical reasons, it was refused for publication in Europe (9) to be edited only by an obscure review of the United States still practising circumcision by a majority. We highlighted its unconscious racism, worthy of “Uncle Tom’s cabin”. But it occurred, at the beginning of the enquiry (10), that 146 (72 + 74) of the subjects had contracted the virus. These persons were not warned of it (11)! The stenches of racism ensuing from such a decision are obvious; it would have been unthinkable in a developed country. The editors of The Lancet did not make any scandal; they turned the study down. But it is inadmissible that physicians would have attempted on the right to dignity of human persons by depriving them from a diagnosis of lethal contagion. Such a use of the public funds granted by the French government to the Agence nationale de recherche sur le SIDA is appalling. At all events, even if circumcision has a strong incidence upon the transmissibility of AIDS, a medicine that is only 60% and short-term safe must be ruled out if it can have the effect of dissuading the use of a 99% safe one. As the president of Uganda stated, one has no right to neglect a 40% risk. Second and foremost, we saw that the protective effect is limited in time. Not only do elementary ethics forbid mutilating the human body as a preventive measure but also puritan mutilation and benign neglect towards debauchery cannot save humanity from AIDS. African voices already raised (12) to denounce the now well-known behaviours responsible for its development. Instead of opposing them, circumcision is going to favour them. This solution is thus still more aberrant than the ablation of breasts for the prevention of cancer. The AIDS epidemic, still more than other STDs, reminds a world lead astray by the reign of pornography of the elementary rules of love ethics: “One must not make love without true love and true love (respect, tenderness, fidelity) does not exist without true knowledge”. Their implementation cannot be done without the abandonment of the taboo of autosexuality. According to Marilyn Milos’s motto (13), AIDS must be fought through education, not amputation. Ethics and education enable really fighting AIDS, the circumciser moral order cannot. This is why circumcision for statistical motive, recently declared by OMS officials, is an ethical derangement. Already two medical societies: the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations (AFAO) (14) and the French Conseil national du SIDA (15), reacted against the recommendation of the WHO to circumcise population against AIDS.

The enquiry led in Orange Farm is an alarm screaming to the universe that the safety of condoms is made for rich whites whereas circumcision is a fallacious and short-term stopgap for poor blacks. However, the main upshot that can be drawn from Talbott’s enquiry is that the latter had rather offer themselves condoms than the prostitutes through which they contaminate their wives back home. At all events, the younger must not suffer from an epidemic resulting from their elders’ misconduct nor the whole masculine population from that of a few ones.

Sigismond – oldsigismund@hotmail.com - http://groups.msn.com/circabolition

(1) Talbott J. "Size Matters: The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic". PLoS ONE 2007, 2(6). http://plosone.org/doi/pone.0000543

(2) Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Songnim-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al. (2005) Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2(11): e298.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

(3) http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm

(4) Sorrells M., Snyder J., Reiss M., Eden C., Milos M., Wilcox N., Van Howe R. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU International 99 (4), 864-869. http://www.icgi.org/touch-test/touch-test-article.pdf

(5) O’Hara J., O’Hara K. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International 1999; 83 (suppl. 1): 79-84. http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara

(6) Boyle G. Bensley G., Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 2003; 116 (1181): 595-6. http://cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1

(7) http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/2006_EpiUpdate_Fr.pdf

(8) http://www.icgi.org/2008/02/wives-more-likely-to-contract-hiv-from-circumcised-husbands/

(9) Schoofs M, Lueck S, Phillips MM. Study says circumcision reduces AIDS risk by 70%. Findings from South Africa may offer powerful way to cut HIV transmission. Wall Street Journal 2005 July 5: A1.

(10)http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298&id=38884

(11) Cohen J. AIDS research. Male circumcision thwarts HIV infection. Science 2005 Aug 5; 309 (5736): 860.

(12) http://geocities.com/RainForest/3719/circoncision.html

(13) NOCIRC 2006 newsletter. http://www.nocirc.org (NOCIRC publications)

(14) http://www.afao.org.au/view_articles.asp?pxa=ve&pxs=169&pxsc=&pxsgc=&id=633

(15) http://www.sida-info-service.org/direct/news.php4?id=384

[edit]

Discovery of a tri-millenial falsification: the Second Commandment forbids circumcision - Sigismond

Read a summary at http://salem-news.com/articles/january312008/circ_paris_13108.php

or get the whole article WORD file at: The_Ten_Commandments_and_sexual_mutilation,_a_crime_against_creation.doc

(PARIS, France). In ancient times, John the Baptist and Jesus, among the first, gave their lives for baptism by water, against the traumatism of the “original” punishment of the prime erection (for rebels, it leads straight off to that of the cross). Since then, numerous attempts of abolishing circumcision occurred. The most elaborated one was that of German Reform rabbis, in the middle of the 19th century, for socio-political and legal reasons: a criminal assault against the child, the custom isolates the Jews, and also religious ones: the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and thus the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice for men only, after his death, in Gilgal – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).

Previous to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon both sex children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality (a scientific discovery by Freud). Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. Strikes accompany it, up to the Spine Crown and the Cross, as shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus in front of three witnesses: André Breton, Paul Eluard and the painter” (Köln: Museum Ludwig) where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin. For sexual mutilation (ISM) castrates the child of the specific organs of autosexuality. It was imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement. After having freed them, Moses could not tolerate that some would carry on these barbarous customs. Thinking that these ablations make the phallus a fetish in seemingly permanent erection (“It's so much prettier!”) and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, he denounces, through the 2nd Commandment, chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than genocide of his brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.

Similarly deeming circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his Mosaic, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community – orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents came back to circumcision, after twenty years resistance. But the “heresy” gained the United States where some practise non-mutilating nomination. The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. It interprets the following verses:

“... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generation, for those who offend me, and who spread my benevolence to the thousandth, for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus, 20: 5-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1966),

as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but:

1, if the sentence had this meaning, its would also have this construction,

2, the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 8) rubs out the terms “upon children”. But how could the most sacred text of the Torah since carved in stone by God in person, have varied? The Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people, could only be falsified intellectually. The thing was favoured by the blue-pencilling in the Book of Deuteronomy, a book of priests, easy to modify. The cut making could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting back into force circumcision that had to be abandoned in the jails of Nebuchadnezzar; it was a custom of the “Egyptians”, his worst enemies (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004).

3, the text does not say “the crimes” but “the crime”, a precise, well-known crime upon children...: sexual mutilation,

4, asserting that God punishes children for the crimes of fathers, the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the aberrant meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning children and grand-children irresponsible for paternal criminality. The just will not allow such interpretation; a jealous God is jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter,

5, besides, one could not understand why a punishment of criminality applied to the whole family would dead abate at the fourth generation. On the other hand, it is natural that the punishment of circumcising criminals could not be applied beyond great-grandfathers,

6, it duplicates the 6th Commandment: “Do not commit homicide.”,

7, the 2nd, at the contrary, brings out mutilative paedo-sexual criminality as very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population, children in the case in point. Justly locating sexual mutilation amongst crimes against creation (humanity), he distinguishes it from ordinary crime. Similarly, Koran forbids sexual mutilation (6: 115, 10: 59 and 16: 89), condemns its generalization by Abraham (2: 124 and 4: 118-119), affirms the perfection of the creation (30: 30) and shares (2: 136, 3: 84, and 17: 55) the Mosaic conception, both theological and humanitarian, of respect of the physical integrity, dignity, privacy and modesty of the child, 8, consequently, for the first time in history, a legislator enacts an imprescriptible penalty, striking the elderly years after their crime,

9, a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlightens it:

“If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either go up on my altar through degrees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there (let us not that Moses, in shrewd sexologist, advocates capped penetration).” (Exodus, 20: 21-23)

10, at last he tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion” of the opponents that institutionalizes identity discrimination, the worst one.

The meaning of the divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aimed at sexual mutilation, their supporters – and blind victims – cleverly twisted it through blasphemous introducing an inexistent double meaning.

We owe the great Jewish liberator and legislator, an enemy of slavery and barbarity, the invention, against infantile sexual mutilation, of the concept of crime against humanity, with imprescriptible penalty. Abolishing Abraham's, the 2nd and 6th make the Ten Commandments: the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man, a declaration of the right of the child and the human person to the first of their rights: that to physical integrity and property of their body. It forbids any mutilation without grave and strictly medical motive. Religions and animisms valuing one hair of a child less than temples, books and oral tradition, deserve seeing them destructed or forgotten. This is a summary; read the whole article at http://intactwiki.org

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) – oldsigismund@hotmail.com – researcher in psychoanalysis, a specialist of ISM, author of “Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view”, available free at http://intactwiki.org and http://groups.msn.com/circabolition

Sign the world petition against ISM at http://montagunocircpetition.org

Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, beauty and ugliness. But power is at the tip of the tongue and sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons.

Fascism is: “Shut up!”, democracy: “Talk all you want!”. Psychoanalysis is neutral; “You talk to me; I heal you”, “I talk to you, you cure me.”

There are only facts; interpretation is that of the prince.

[edit]

Psychoanalysis of the Book of Genesis - Sigismond

Psychoanalytical interpretation allows decoding the three great ontological myths of the Book of Genesis as fables cleverly invented in order to back up, from the youngest age, the idea of the well-founded of circumcision.

First myth: God the father first creates man (the child) out of mud. This myth implies that children, for the father, lord and master, have no more value than mud.

The myth of creation of woman by pulling out Adam’s rib is foremost a myth of precedence of the creation of man over that of woman (the egg made the hen), intended for giving man supremacy and the property of the earth. It is next a metaphor of circumcision. The rib, through a metonymical reversal (mode of symbolisation of the unconscious) of a contained in place of a container, represents the foreskin. Woman, reduced to her vagina, is “created” through circumcision. This reducing of woman to the status of substitute of the foreskin (mere object, slave), is both the preliminary and essential complement of the very polygamous institution which terrorizes the future young man in order to remove every idea of incest with the young spouses of the father out of him.

The third myth, that of the Garden of Eden and of the original sin, is similarly an insidious image veiled in order to inspire into the fresh consciences the idea of the necessity of circumcision. It reflects the situation of the child in the arms of his mother, consuming the fruit that the father will soon forbid. Circumcision is the original punishment that chases the child from this paradise. It makes the little boy pay a very high price both for the sucking of the breast (the apple) set up in original sin, and for autosexuality; he is inflicted not only the laceration of his most intimate flesh (by which he is in a very chauvinist way identified to his glans, through stripping it) but also the metsirsah: the open sucking of his skinned and bleeding glans. A true revenge of excessive patriarchs, it symbolically punishes the child in the same way he “sinned”. Indeed, during breast-feeding, the baby boy enjoys his mother, up to erection (the snake), which makes him “guilty of incest”. The tree of good and evil is thus the mother’s body. At last, the myth points woman, who played with the “snake” (by showing her breast to the baby), as the agent provocateur of sin. Therefore, out of outrageous jealousy, the whole sexuality, based upon orality, of the infant with his mother, is fiercely condemned.

The most hideous, the most scandalously and perversely contrary to life – and to love that is its condition – is the symbol of the snake, an animal with mortal venom, in order to designate the masculine sex. This symbolism is a technique for making people guilty for sexual life. How being amazed that with such a degrading imagery, the sexual moral of the three religions should be so unhealthy, generating violence against women?

The Catholics reinforce this symbolism by that of a woman stepping over the snake. Beyond its rudeness, the image of a woman stamping a symbol of the masculine sex is the most odiously deadly that can be imagined to imprint on the consciousness or the unconscious of the child. Trusting the adult, the latter will be deeply traumatized and hurt by a representation that is genuine calling for castration (castrated singers have been used for religious offices) or even for circumcision, suggested by the fact that snakes loose their skin when moulting. Both lewd and criminal, this symbolism intoxicates Catholic consciences. Making of what gives life a symbol of poisoning and death, and setting the faithful of a religion against those of another by giving the first an ideal of hostility towards sexuality whereas the others are supposed to let themselves be tempted by it, is an appeal for hatred.

The point of departure of the trauma, of the malaise in civilization, is not an imaginary or alleged original sin but an effective original so-called punishment. After having tasted the fruit of the tree of good and evil (the maternal breast in free enjoyment for eight days of Eden), Adam and Eve find themselves “naked”; he, stripped of his foreskin in punishment of autosexuality and threat of future incestuous envies (trust cannot exist in a polygamous society); she, compelled with him to dress so that her young body would not excite the concupiscence of a father for whom all women are to be conquered and whom we guess being rather paedophiliac, unable to face the nudity of his own daughters. The archaic fault is the devilish invention of fathers mad with jealousy, ordering themselves Gods of their children and making them feel guilty through a paedophobe crime.

The unique God of Moses, an enemy of barbarity, jealous of other Gods and prohibiting them, will replace by a good and imaginary God this deification of unworthy fathers. But, as well in the African and Islamic worlds as in the Occidental one, the Covenant by word did not yet succeed to dethrone the Covenant by blood of the Abrahamic myth: the pulling out of the “rib” in punishment of the “bite into the apple”.

However, the Machiavellian enslavers, writers of those deeply chauvinist, sexist and racist myths, likely to intoxicate young brains with guilt for life, caught themselves into their own trap by reversing the logical order between sin and punishment.

The Book of Genesis has been written for gullible children. It is deliberate manipulation of the unconscious by several convergent myths reinforcing each other in order to prepare the wording of Abraham’s “law”. The psychoanalytic interpretation dismantles the perverse spite of those myths carefully devised by shrewd connoisseurs of the mechanisms of the unconscious, manipulators of the masses by a discursive technique worthy of the cleverest totalitarian propaganda. The deep aim is to separate, isolate boys from their mothers and from women, themselves excluded from society, from men’s clan. Rendered accomplices of the crime, mothers are deprived of the intimate tenderness, attachment and deep biological trust and love of their boys. The latter, terrorized, will easily be dominated, enlisted and indoctrinated by the warriors and the religious elite who wrote the Bible. This elite, through the devilish invention of the original sin, settled the pseudo-moral foundations of the Africano-Judeo-Christiano-Islamic civilization, a puritan, predating, despoiling civilization.

Deciphered by psychoanalytic interpretation, the Book of Genesis appears like a tool of the moral order of barbarian, sexist, domineering and self-assured fathers, exploiters of women and children. Similarly, the Christian myth of the Holy trinity relegates femininity to a secondary position; Mary remains a mere mortal.

Supporting the pillar or patriarchy: domination of child and woman, these misleading and neurotising (at best) myths make humanity live within lie when it is not within the piracy of infantile sexual mutilation. The teaching of sexism to the child is intolerable. The authorities of the three religions must expurgate catechisms from those myths which make women and child feel inferior and guilty.

[edit]

Silence, on castre ! - Sigismond

(titre emprunté au film de Dominique Arnaud)

Le concept de mutilations sexuelles infantiles n'est pas encore très répandu. Historiquement, en effet, les féministes occidentales, qui ont été à l'avant-garde du combat, ont ignoré et ignorent encore les mutilations infantiles pour ne parler que des féminines. S'appropriant la lutte contre les mutilations sexuelles, elles en font un combat entre adultes des deux sexes. Mais seul le concept de mutilations sexuelles infantiles permet de faire face à la réalité d'un phénomène qui frappe les enfants d'abord.

L'ordre moral

Nous nous élevons contre l'ordre moral sociétal et religieux qui tente de dominer l'enfant par des techniques terroristes de répression de la sexualité : marquage, mutilation et torture. Elles sont parfois un préalable à l'asservissement pur et simple et/ou sexuel. Sous couvert de marquage identitaire ou de rites de passage à un âge soi-disant adulte mais dans l'unique but d'obtenir une prétendue pureté morale et physique par la violence et la menace, elles discriminent et instrumentalisent l'enfant en le traumatisant. Perpétrées contre une catégorie particulière de la population, elles sont un crime contre l'humanité. Ce crime étant relativement mineur, elles sont pardonnables dans la mesure où elles reposent sur une coutume antique et héréditaire mais elles ne le sont qu'à condition d'être abandonnées.

En ce qui concerne les jeunes filles, les films "Nightwatching" ("La Ronde de nuit – Crime dans un tableau hollandais") et "Épouses et concubines" montrent que ces coutumes barbares ne sont pas réservées à l'islam, au judaïsme et à quelques tribus primitives mais existaient aussi dans les civilisations occidentale et chinoise. En effet, il y a seulement quelques siècles, les bourgeois hollandais toléraient qu'on leur "ouvre" au couteau les jeunes filles dont ils abusaient, pour s'épargner le labeur du dépucelage. La noblesse chinoise, de son côté, vendait mieux ses filles en mariage au moyen de la torture du bandage des pieds. Cependant, ces barbaries sont toujours accompagnées par la répression verbale. Cette mutilation mentale est la seule présente dans la majeure partie de l'humanité. La conséquence des mutilations sexuelles est l'asservissement de l'individu à des valeurs puritaines et hypocrites.

Contre les mutilations sexuelles infantiles(*), nous rassemblons et prolongeons d'une part les découvertes de la psychanalyse (d'un côté la sexualité infantile et l'inconscient freudiens, de l'autre l'accent mis par Alice Miller – cf. alice-miller.com – sur le traumatisme infantile), d'autre part celles de l'anthropologie structurale américaine (James Prescott – cf. violence.de). Cette dernière conclut que la violence est inhibée par le plaisir et réciproquement. Ces avancées de la recherche contemporaine aboutissent à la même conclusion : la violence dans l'éducation, plutôt que les soins tendres, a un résultat catastrophique : elle génère la violence, la dépression ou les addictions. Donnant tour à tour la parole au biologiste, à l'anatomiste et au neuro-anatomiste, à la médecine prophylactique, au psychiatre, au sexologue, au juriste, au sociologue, à l'ethnologue, à l'historien des cultures, au religieux et au psychanalyste, ce livre pourrait s'intituler "Les monologues du prépuce et du clitoris". Eh bien, non ! Sauf exceptions individuelles, les sciences sont unanimes à prendre la défense d'organes parfois prétendus superflus mais détruits parce qu'ils sont les organes majeurs de l'autosexualité.

Définition des mutilations sexuelles infantiles

La défense de l'enfant contre les MSI s'articule autour de quatre éléments qui illustrent le caractère essentiel à la vie des organes supprimés. Ils définissent les mutilations sexuelles infantiles : pour soumettre les enfants et augmenter leur "valeur" sociétale (et quelquefois marchande) en détournant la sexualité du plaisir (c'est surtout vrai pour les femmes) vers la reproduction, les mutilations sexuelles infantiles les castrent irrémédiablement des organes spécifiques de l'autosexualité, en traumatisant profondément la personne humaine. Dans une même optique répressive, la pédiatre Edwige Antier défendait récemment le retour à la navrante mais lucrative épidémie d'ablations d'amygdales ou de végétations, comme technique de soumission des enfants turbulents, en avançant que leur ablation est efficace parce qu'elle symbolise la castration.

Premier élément : la mutilation physique. Pour les normaux (la très grande majorité : 80% de la population mondiale) qui tirent plaisir de ces organes dans l'autosexualité et l'hétérosexualité, il est indiscutable. Les découvertes récentes de la médecine anatomique confirment leurs affirmations empiriques. Celle de Taylor (1), en 1996, concerne la fonction d'exquise mécanique érogène de l'anneau de l'extrémité du prépuce. Depuis cette date, il est scientifiquement démontré que l'amputation du prépuce est une véritable mutilation sexuelle ; le prépuce n'a pas seulement une fonction de protection de l'érogénéité du gland mais aussi celle de zone hautement érogène. Cette découverte n'a toujours pas reçu le prix Nobel de médecine qu'elle mérite. Elle n'a pas été médiatisée et reste ignorée du public. Serait-elle antisémite ? L'enquête de sensibilité de Sorrells (2) a expérimentalement confirmé cette démonstration histologico-anatomique. La troisième fonction sexuelle du prépuce, celle de coussinet mobile réducteur de friction dans le coït, a aussi été mise en lumière. Elle explique pourquoi les africaines dont les partenaires sont sexuellement mutilés sont plus touchées par le SIDA que les hommes. Concurremment, plusieurs enquêtes statistiques ont montré que le statut de circoncision est sans influence significative sur la transmission des MST, mis à part le SIDA. Mais Talbott (3) a démontré que pour ce dernier, en Afrique, le continent le plus touché, le grand vecteur de l'épidémie n'est pas le prépuce mais la prostitution. Quoi qu'il en soit, l'exemple du Japon (premier consommateur mondial de préservatifs) montre au monde entier que l'hygiène et l'utilisation du préservatif sont le plus sûr recours contre les M.S.T., y compris le SIDA. Il ne faudrait pas oublier d'une part que l'éthique élémentaire interdit la mutilation – tout particulièrement celle des enfants – pour motif prophylactique, d'autre part que la toilette du prépuce ne prend que quelques secondes et qu'on n'arrache pas les dents pour ne pas avoir à les laver. Personne n'a le droit de pratiquer la circoncision sans sérieux motif médical, sur un enfant comme sur un adulte. La violence appelle la violence ; on ne doit pas combattre la débauche par la violence des mutilations sexuelles.

Deuxième élément : le traumatisme psychologique. La psychanalyse et la médecine psychosomatique considérant l'ensemble psycho-physique comme un tout et tout traumatisme, qu'il soit physique ou psychique, ayant une implication sexuelle, l'expression : "mutilation sexuelle" doit être prise au sens large. Or les mutilations sexuelles provoquent un traumatisme d'une exceptionnelle gravité. Mis en lumière par Freud, les traumatismes portant sur la sexualité infantile (et certainement pas "m……….n", étymologiquement : "turpitude par la main") sont au fondement de la découverte de l'inconscient et donc de la psychanalyse. La conséquence de cette nécessaire prise de conscience apporte un argument de poids aux féministes des cultures qui mutilent seulement les garçons ; les petites filles souffrent, inconsciemment mais bien davantage que les garçons, de la me-nace liée à la circoncision. En effet, devant la petitesse du clitoris, la prise de conscience d'une menace de castration est improbable. Restent la menace de mort et le lourd fardeau de culpabilité associé. Car cette culpabilité porte sur la toute première sexualité, la plus simple, la plus innocente et naturelle.

Troisième élément : infantile. Il signifie que les mutilations sexuelles sont pratiquées par les adultes contre les enfants. C'est la grande nouveauté d'un concept qui détonne par rapport à l'appellation courante : "mutilations sexuelles féminines" (MSF en français). Les plus hardis leur adjoignent les MSM mais à oser ce simple rapprochement – aussitôt qualifié d'amalgame – ils s'attirent les foudres de certaines féministes. Mais on n'a pas le droit d'amalgamer violence contre les adultes et violence contre les enfants. Ces derniers sont brutalement marqués à vie, d'un côté par une atteinte sauvage contre le sexe et la sexualité, de l'autre par un traumatisme psychologique aussi grave pour chacun des deux sexes même s'il demeure la plupart du temps inconscient. La guerre des sexes est une guerre d' "adultes ignorant l'enfant en eux-mêmes" (Maud Mannoni. Lettre à Sigismond). La guerre des générations, c'est avant tout la guerre aux enfants.

Quatrième élément : sexuelles. Les mutilations sexuelles ne sont assurément pas génitales. Elles portent exclusivement sur les organes spécifiques de l'autosexualité, lourdement culpabilisée. Il s'agit donc de mutilation du plaisir. Cette mutilation est limitée à celle du plaisir féminin chez le garçon. Chez la fille, la mutilation du plaisir masculin entraîne souvent celle du plaisir féminin et la mutilation du plaisir est totale ; la femme est rendue frigide. Mais quand l'existence même du pur plaisir est sauvagement et hypocritement niée ou annihilée par des esprits malades, l'enfant lui-même tombe malade et recherchera le plaisir dans les perversions, sadiques et/ou masochistes. La maladie mentale est une réaction pathologique à la perversion de l'éthique parentale.

Voilà pourquoi nous nous élevons contre les appellations sexistes dressant un genre contre l'autre au lieu de les rassembler pour la défense des tout petits, de leur sexualité et de leur intégrité physique et morale. Cependant, les mutilations sexuelles ne sont infantiles que par l'âge auquel elles sont pratiquées. Car elles sont irréversibles. Elles frappent plus particulièrement trois catégories de la population : les enfants bien sûr, mais aussi les célibataires et les veufs, pour ne rien dire du reste de la population. Tant que prévaudra le discours clito-phallocrate ou féministo-masculiniste ignorant la sexualité infantile, les mutilations sexuelles ne pourront pas être éradiquées. Par contre, l'abolition mondiale des mutilations sexuelles sera un puissant levier de libération des consciences.

La répression de la sexualité infantile

Voici plus d'un siècle, Freud se faisait déjà le défenseur de la sexualité infantile. En vérifiant son existence naturelle (manusexualité et auto-fellation) jusque dans la matrice, l'échographie prénatale lui apporte aujourd'hui un puissant soutien. Cependant, l'autosexualité est toujours réprimée, d'une façon ou d'une autre, tout particulièrement dans les pratiques de la circoncision et de l'excision, courantes puisque, chaque minute sur la planète, 6 fillettes et 25 garçonnets passent sous le couteau. Impossible de ne pas mettre en avant les "droits de l'enfant" dans ce débat ! Après la définition précédente des mutilations sexuelles infantiles nous élargissons la question à celle du droit de la personne, quel que soit son âge, à la libre disposition de son corps et au respect de son intégrité physique, sentimentale et mentale.

Imaginez en effet un être qui a librement pratiqué l'autosexualité dans le ventre de sa mère pendant plusieurs mois. Cet être, c'est vous. Supposez maintenant qu'à la sortie de cet Éden, un jour où vous êtes tranquillement dans votre bain, on vous fasse les gros yeux en vous disant sévèrement : "Pourquoi est-ce que c'est comme ça ? Tu y as touché ?" Ou alors, vous vous apercevez qu'insidieusement, hypocritement, tout le monde autour de vous déprécie votre acte d'amour de vous-même en le désignant par des termes péjoratifs et réprobateurs. La racine du plus courant, comme dans perturbation, désigne le trouble. Mais elle est aussi celle de turpitude. Cette condamnation affecte même l'université qui affecte des termes précieux, un peu pervers : autoérotisme, onanisme. Rappelons que faire l'amour signifie "faire l'angelot, le cupidon, le petit amour", avant de connaître le grand. Autosexualité doit remplacer le terme odieux imposé par les religieux, lequel doit être rayé du vocabulaire. La lutte contre les violences et crimes sexuels, dont les mutilations sexuelles infantiles, passe par là. La lutte contre le SIDA aussi, comme en témoignent les chefs d'état africains qui prônent pudiquement l' "abstinence". Cependant, ce discours puritain est dangereux pour leurs peuples ; combien de jeunes, avec la crédulité de leur âge, le prendront à la lettre, ce qui serait une privation stupide et malsaine. On ne peut, surtout dans la lutte contre le SIDA, surtout à l'échelle d'une population entière et avec l'usage des médias, renforcer insidieusement le dénigrement coutumier de l'autosexualité. Cela porte atteinte à la santé physique et psychique des peuples. Pour lutter contre le SIDA et les mutilations sexuelles infantiles, il faut abandonner toute hypocrisie.

La répression de la sexualité dite – bien à la légère – infantile résulte de ce tabou universel. Un interdit contre nature vous fait brusquement passer du paradis terrestre de la matrice à l'enfer de la répression, de la culpabilité, du trauma. La culpabilité inconsciente qu'il génère est une des origines des maladies mentales : névrose ou dépression par intériorisation de la culpabilité, conduites violentes rejetant la culpabilité sur autrui, ou apaisement de la tension produite par la culpabilité dans les perversions et addictions. Les enfants ou les jeunes gens perçoivent affectivement la répression de la sexualité comme une menace de mort par perte de l'amour et donc par abandon. Contraire à la loi naturelle, une telle menace ne peut que s'opposer à l'heureuse résolution du complexe d'Œdipe qui implique l'adhésion à la loi sociale. Le contrat social repose sur l'acceptation de la loi par des individus libres et égaux, il ne doit pas être imposé par la force ou l'intimidation. La répression de la sexualité, et tout particulièrement de la sexualité infantile, est susceptible de bloquer l'enfant ou l'adolescent dans son développement. Elle le soumet à une loi contraire à la loi naturelle, mettant le plaisir hors la loi. Certains seront inhibés dans l'exercice d'une autorité vraie ou la révolte contre les abus de l'autorité, d'autres seront poussés à la dissidence. Les perv

Main Page

From Peaceful Beginnings

Contents

Peaceful Beginnings (the original website)

Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma — Rosemary Romberg

Collaboration of the week

Fight Sexual Mutilation WebRing