Comedian Lawrence Mooney thinks circumcision is no laughing matter

Australian comedian Lawrence Mooney makes people laugh for a living but his performance at the 2016 Melbourne International Comedy Festival showed that he is clearly not in the slightest bit amused by the fact that he was routinely circumcised as an infant.

Mooney assured his audience that he had done his research on the issue and he didn’t disappoint. In a wide-ranging rant, Mooney mocked the Abrahamic covenant with god which calls for all males to be circumcised, showed utter disdain for the notion of circumcision as a 20th century fashion statement and lamented about the impact that having a foreskin-free penis has on his sex life.

Mooney began his sketch by revealing that ‘When I was but a few hours old, my parents gave me to a complete stranger. And he took me into a room and hacked the top of my cock off. Let’s just sit with the loneliness and brutality for a moment shall we?‘ He concluded by saying ‘My knob has been rubbing against my undies for 50 years, and it is dead to the touch. Alright? It is. No seriously, you could hit it with a hammer and I wouldn’t bat an eyelid. I could bang you for two hours…and nothing.‘

Mooney’s performance was powerful but predictably awkward. Those assembled laughed sheepishly at times but appeared somewhat embarrassed about having such a sensitive issue unexpectedly foisted upon them.

It was a brave and commendable effort by Mooney. He somehow managed to seamlessly weave serious social commentary with disarming humour, which is always the hallmark of a quality entertainer.

Watch Lawrence Mooney’s anti-circumcision tirade below.

Anti-genital mutilation protester shut down at Oprah’s Adelaide show

An intactivist protester at Oprah Winfrey’s show in Adelaide tonight was apparently shut down by police only 2 minutes after arriving.

The man was objecting to Oprah Winfrey’s endorsements of a face cream derived from human foreskin.

A hand-written sign held up to crowds outside the Entertainment Centre read:

“Foreskin Facecream Oprah’s Shame”

He was apparently threatened with arrest, although the police could not provide information on the details of the charge, so he was allowed to leave with his sign tossed onto the footpath.

We understand this was the first anti-genital mutilation protest to be held in Adelaide. A facebook post of the short-lived encounter has been met with support, and generated interest in organising a larger protest in the future.

 

 

Canadian Paediatric Society faces potential child sex scandal

In order to maintain a perception of credibility, so-called ‘peak’ medical authorities in any modern society must ensure that they observe the highest possible standards when they disseminate information to the general public. The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has recently let itself down in this regard by referring to source material that was originally published by a person who is currently serving time in jail for multiple child sex and child pornography offences.

In September 2015, the CPS released an updated ‘position statement’ on the issue of newborn male circumcision. The document ultimately concluded that the CPS ‘does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male’ however the CPS position statement listed a brochure called ‘Circumcision: A guide for parents’ as one of its selected resources. The primary author of that brochure was Brian Morris, a prominent Australian pro-circumcision campaigner. The brochure was originally published by ‘The Gilgal Society’, a UK-based organisation which was principally maintained by Vernon Quaintance,

In April 2013, during a discussion that occurred on a Facebook page called ‘Response to Ignorance’, Morris confirmed that he had engaged Quaintance’s services in the publication of the ‘Circumcision: A guide for parents’ brochure. Morris badly contradicted himself during that conversation. In the first instance, he claimed that (quote) ‘I have never met Quaintance…nor have I ever spoken to (him)’. He then went on to confirm that (quote) ‘Quaintance offered to assist in production of professional quality brochures and I accepted his offer’.

In April 2012, Quaintance was convicted of possessing child pornography. The ‘Croydon Advertiser’ reported that Quaintance had been found in possession of three video cassettes which contained seven to nine hours of ‘graphic footage of child abuse ranked at the second-highest level of severity’. The court found that  boys as young as 11 years old engaging in sex acts were discovered on the videos. The judge in that case sentenced Quaintance to a 40 week suspended jail sentence. In October 2014, Quaintance faced court again, this time on multiple serious child sex offences. It was revealed that Quaintance had ‘targeted young boys and asked them to expose themselves’. On this occasion he was jailed for 2 years and 4 months.

After hearing of Quaintance’s first conviction on child sex offences, Brian Morris attempted to distance himself from Quaintance and ‘The Gilgal Society’. He changed the name of the publisher of the ‘Circumcision: A guide for parents’ brochure to simply ‘Brian Morris’. He also deleted every reference to Quaintance and Gilgal from his website. This action represented nothing more than a desperate and futile attempt at re-writing history. It represented hopeless and cynical brinkmanship at its finest.

Great care, consideration and research are required when official documents are produced and published by ‘statutory authorities’. Referencing documents prepared by Brian Morris can never be a good look for any organisation which purports to provide balanced information to the public on the issue of male circumcision. Over many years, Morris has built himself a strong reputation for disseminating one-sided, agenda-driven propaganda on the issue. Professor Basil Donovan, a sexual/public health expert from the University of Sydney, has stated that Morris publishes information which is ‘dangerous’ and ‘amounts to a serious disservice to parents’. What is much more damning in this case however is that the Canadian Paediatric Society has referred to a document which was originally published by a twice convicted child sex offender. As such, the CPS has proven itself to be (at the very least) utterly careless in the preparation of its latest ‘position statement’ on newborn male circumcision.

Image sources:

1. ‘Canadian Paediatric Society’.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

2 and 6. ‘Circumstitions News’.

http://circumstitionsnews.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/sydney-brian-morris-fails-to-erase.html

3. ‘Response to Ignorance’ Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/responsetoignorance

4. ‘Croydon Advertiser’, April 21^st, 2012.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Croydon-circumcision-campaigner-caught-child-porn/story-15866127-detail/story.html

5. ‘Croydon Advertiser’, October 3^rd, 2013.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Upper-Norwood-circumcision-fetishist-jailed/story-23040107-detail/story.html

Dr Andrew Rochford gets closer to the truth on circumcision

Last month, Australian doctor, TV medical commentator and former ‘The Block’ winner Dr Andrew Rochford presented a report on circumcision on Channel 7’s news ‘The Healthy Truth’ segment, which was also packaged as a story on ‘Today Tonight’ in Adelaide.

The sentiments expressed in this latest report were significantly different to those expressed in Dr Rochford’s piece on circumcision on Channel 10’s ‘The Project’ in 2010.

This earlier report was in response to the publication of a journal article which suggested that circumcision should be promoted to lower the rate of HIV transmission in Australia. Much of the TV report showed the doctor repeating the opinions expressed by others, with most statements prefaced with phrases such as ‘some people believe’ or ‘some experts claim’.

Comments on the report on the station’s website and social media sites quickly highlighted the fallacies in many of those opinions, including the following:

– A number of issues with the African clinical trials which were used to support the claims in the journal article.

– Langerhan cells do not only exist in the foreskin.

–  A non-retractile foreskin is normal at birth and remains common until after puberty.

– The questionable credibility of the the authors Alex Wodak and Brian Morris.

– The absurdity of the ‘looking like Dad‘ reason.

– The lack of any discussion on ethical considerations.

This latest Channel 7 report showed a more confident and mature Doctor Rochford, who was unafraid to express his own thoughts, which in general were more strongly against the procedure. It may be that the feedback from the earlier report has shaped his opinion since then, or he may be reflecting the more recent public sentiments on circumcision, which has shifted away from the procedure, possibly due to more recent emphasis on ethical and bodily autonomy considerations.

While it’s disappointing that the Australian mainstream media is yet to highlight the functions of the foreskin, we applaud and thank Dr Rochford for bringing the ethical issues to the forefront, and bringing the Australian public one step closer to the truth on circumcision.

New intactivist website launched in Australia

We would like to congratulate our friends at ‘Intact Australia’, who launched their brand new website on August 1st 2014. ‘Intact Australia’ is a grass-roots organisation which has similar goals to those of us here at ‘Intactivists of Australasia’. Their mission statement quite rightly points out that ‘all human beings, regardless of age, sex, gender, ethnicity, size, background, family, or ability to defend themselves, come into this world with the basic human right to genital autonomy’. The ‘Intact Australia’ website is full of great information and resources including ‘intact care’, ‘functions of the foreskin’ and a ‘history of circumcision in Australia’. ‘Intact Australia’ are also seeking to create a list of ‘intact-friendly’ doctors across the country. We wish them all the best for their new venture and thank them so much for the work that they are doing to raise awareness about this important human rights issue. Click here to visit the ‘Intact Australia’ website.

New petition demands government action on male circumcision

Intactivists of Australasia have launched a new petition on change.org which calls for Australian governments (at all levels) to take action to prevent the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. Click here to sign the petition and show your support for this important human rights cause. If we reach our target of 100 signatures, the petition will be forwarded to all Federal, State and Territory health ministers. The timing of this petition is important, since the Federal Government is currently undertaking a review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule.

The Intactivists of Australasia petition reads as follows:

It is important that Australian Federal and State Departments of Health support the human rights of all people, regardless of their age or sex. Infant Male Genital Cutting (IMGC or “circumcision”) raises human rights issues. Many men hate that it was done to them before they could resist. Its medical benefits are highly debatable – slight reductions in rare and/or late onset diseases that can be better prevented by other means and/or treated as they occur. In the 1950s, IMGC was nearly universal in Australia and is now done to fewer than one boy in 8. Over the generation that this has happened, men’s health has improved and none of the ailments for which it was supposed to be effective have shown any significant increase.

No national medical association in the world (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) recommends IMGC, but the AAP’s position was so ambivalent and culturally biased, 38 paediatricians (heads and spokespeople for the paediatric associations of Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and senior paediatricians in Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland) were prompted to write a rebuttal to the AAP journal “Pediatrics” (1) which concluded that:

“There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm”.

Resources:

1. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/…/12/peds.2012-2896

2. http://www.circinfo.org/Medicare_circumcision_review.html

Recommendations:

1. Withdraw any support for non-therapeutic infant genital surgery (including circumcisions done for “cultural reasons”) from all medical facilities in the Federal and State Departments of Health’s charge.

2. Ensure that the non-therapeutic circumcision of minors is not included in Medicare rebates.

3. Ensure that medical students in all teaching hospitals and medical schools are appraised on the structure and functions of the foreskin, and on proper care of normal boys, especially the avoidance of premature forcible foreskin retraction and unnecessary circumcision.

60 Minutes segment raises concerns that male circumcision is child sexual abuse

The Nine Network’s ‘60 Minutes’ program has tackled the issue of routine infant circumcision again (Sunday March 3rd, 2013). Participants in the segment included former Tasmanian Commissioner for Children, Paul Mason, who made the point that circumcision ‘is child abuse, it’s sexual abuse’ and Elwyn Moir, who highlighted the negative impacts that being subjected to genital cutting as an infant have had on his (and many other men’s) life. Presenting a pro-circumcision opinion (which directly contradicted the stance of Australia’s peak medical bodies) was Brian Morris. 60 Minutes has aired several segments on this issue in the past. Do you think that this latest installment sufficiently took into account the mounting evidence against infant circumcision as an ethical ‘surgical’ procedure?

Click on the link below to see a preview of the segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_AHvKiKas8

Should Australians have the right to decide which parts of their genitals they keep?

Here is an outrageous idea. Or, at least, an idea that may seem foreign to many Australians. I believe that I should have the right to choose which parts of my genitals I keep and which parts I want to have sliced off and thrown into the medical waste bin.

But it seems that many Australians don’t agree with me. Or that is what it seems when they support the act of pinning down an infant boy and cutting off part of his penis. Most call it circumcision, but I prefer to avoid this euphemism and call it what it really is: genital cutting, partial penis amputation, or even (brace yourselves) genital mutilation. ‘Oh no’ I hear you gasp. ‘It’s only mutilation if we do it to a girl, right? Even if its a tiny symbolic nick. If we cut off 30-50% of the penile skin, surely that can’t be called mutilation. And besides, we do it in Australia, and the Government pays for it through Medicare, so it can’t be mutilation. Can it?’

But what about the medical benefits? You can put forward an argument for amputating any body part based on the medical benefits of doing so. You could amputate a baby’s big toe to reduce the risk of ingrown toenails, or cut off their ears to reduce skin cancer. I challenge you to suggest one body part where there wouldn’t be a benefit in chopping it off (please suggest a body part as a comment below if you are up for the challenge). But with all these other body parts, the use of that part is considered, and medical ethics and plain old common sense prevail. The penis seems to be exempt from all of these concepts.

And by the way, even if there was any truth to these so-called medical benefits, most of them are related to sexually transmissible diseases, and I didn’t have sex when I was a baby. In fact I didn’t have my first serious sexual encounter unti l was 20. And my partner in this encounter has been my only partner and now wife for the last 12 years. I was hardly at risk of HIV or other STD’s which the pro-cutting crowd try desperately to prove are more prevalent in men who have all of their genitals. Besides, at the age of 20, even if I had decided to lead an ‘at risk’ lifestyle, I could have decided to either get myself circumcised for a marginal reduced risk at best, or wear a condom.

But getting back to my ‘outrageous’ statement. I wasn’t wasn’t given the right to choose for myself. And it seems that most Australians think that’s OK. Otherwise, like me they would be joining the intactivist movement and lobbying government to bring an end to the practice. But the most important thing they could do would be to simply stop cutting their babies. Most have, with rates now less than 1 in 5 and shrinking every year. But it seems that many who wouldn’t circumcise their own children will still support parents who decide to do it to theirs.

Maybe I am wrong. In this age of gender equality, self-determination and the growth of the human rights movement, perhaps Australians do support the concept of genital autonomy. Where do you stand?

Image courtesy of Jeroen van Oostrom / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Australian women discover foreskins not ‘useless’ after all

While most of the younger generations of Australian women understand how useful foreskins are from enjoying them on their intact partners, it appears that older generations may have finally found a use for them as well.

But while the traditional benefits of being with an intact partner, such as having a more comfortable and enjoyable sexual experience,  are now well known, this new less conventional ‘use’ comes in the form of a cosmetic face cream.

The irony is that many of these older women who may have been conditioned by society, or convinced by their doctors in the past to believe that ‘foreskins are gross and useless’ are now smearing their faces with a product that is apparently ‘engineered’ from infant foreskin.

When the Australian retailer of SkinMedica products, Advanced Skin Technology, was challenged on the use of foreskins in its products, it was quick to clarify on its Facebook page that its products do not contain actual human tissue. But they were silent when questioned further on what the key ingredient was actually derived from.

We are left to rely on the extensive information on various human rights and anti-circumcision (or pro-intact) websites, where there are claims of a lucrative trade in infant foreskins to supply bio-engineering and cosmetics companies. Looking specifically at the SkinMedica products it appears that foreskins are not being continually harvested for their products, although it is clear that at least one infant’s foreskin was used as part of the creation process.

According to SkinMedica’s webiste, their “TNS Recovery Complex” product contains “Human Fibroblast Conditioned Media”, or their own trademarked version of this called “Tissue Nutrient Solution (TNS)”.  This ingredient has been promoted as a “physiologically balanced, naturally secreted and stabilized growth factor blend that helps improve the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, and overall skin tone and texture”.

Oprah Winfrey, when promoting this product, has described the ingredient as being “engineered from human foreskin”. Dr. Pat Wexler, a cosmetic dermatologist, also confirmed on the Oprah Winfrey show that a baby foreskin was used in the creation process.

I’m no scientist, but to me the difference between a product that contains actual human foreskin tissue and one that contains something that was “engineered” from human foreskin tissue is minimal. And considering that the original owner of the foreskin would not have consented to its removal and use in this way, from a human rights perspective they are one and the same.

To buy the products would not only endorse the forced circumcision of baby boys, but would also support the concept that it is OK to sacrifice the bodily integrity of another individual for the purpose of personal vanity. The Australian sales figures will show if older Australian women feel the same way, or if they are finally ready to embrace the idea that foreskins really are useful, albeit for this unintended purpose. We can only hope that they now understand that the real use and value of a foreskin is to the person it is attached to.

Further reading:
Foreskin Facecream
The Foreskin in Oprah’s Facecream

If only I had ‘meowed’ when I was born: how cats are protected more than boys in Australia

In Australia, the declawing of cats has never been common. In at least some States specific legislation exists that prohibits declawing unless there are exceptional circumcstances (for example, the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996). While specific legislation for other States is difficult to find, the Australian Veterinary Association  has effectively banned the procedure under its policy of only performing surgical procedures for legitimate medical reasons:

“Surgical alteration to the natural state of an animal is acceptable only if it is necessary for the health and welfare of the animal concerned. Performance of any surgical procedure for other than legitimate medical reasons is unacceptable.”

So the Vetinary Association ‘gets’ that “surgical alteration to the natural state of an animal” is unacceptabe, except for legitimate medical reasons.  But while surgical alteration to kittens has been banned, apparently non-medical surgical alteration to human baby boys is perfectly OK.

The key to understanding this situation is in the first sentence of this post. It appears that the Government and other organisations will act to stop abuse and cruelty where it is uncommon, such as declawing and female circumcision. But these groups will look the other way if the cruelty and abuse is common and part of our culture, like male infant circumcision.

Below are some the snippets of some of the news releases and other webpages on this subject. The parallels to infant circumcision are remarkable, yet the cats are given more protection under the law. I’ve added a few comments in red:

One of the proponents of the laws is http://www.straypetadvocacy.org. Their byline is: To Speak for Those Who Have No Voice. (Day-old infants don’t say much either…)

They say: “The U.S. and Canada are the only countries where declawing is commonplace. In many countries declawing is illegal or is considered inhumane, and you would be hard-pressed to find a veterinarian who would agree to do the operation. In the U.S., it’s quite easy to declaw preemptively, i.e., even in the absence of any scratching problem. We’ve turned medically unnecessary amputation, done for the convenience of the human, into something routine.” (Gee, that all has a familiar ring…..)

A popular cat website in Australia says: “Occasionally there are medical reasons in which it will be of benefit to the cat to declaw but these are few and far between.” (Amputate only if there is a medical reason? Cat owners have put more thought into this than many parents…)

This site continues to state: “I like to think that cat owners would accept their cats behavior warts & all & would hope that people consider that cats come with claws prior to adopting them.” (Just as baby boys come with foreskins….)

The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and Cat Fanciers’ Association do not want the procedures prohibited by law. The VMA objection is that “the choice to have the procedure is a private matter between a client and veterinarian.” (Or maybe your support is because your members need to make a decent living, just as Doctors don’t get paid when they just leave it alone…)

Declawing is now banned in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, San Francisco, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica. The West Hollywood ban was recently upheld by an Californian appeals court in a challenge by the CVMA. (Way to go your Honour!! Thanks for protecting all those innocent little kittens…)

This cruel procedure is also illegal in 25 nations, including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Brazil, Norway and Germany. Anti-Declaw advocates (often called “Pro-Claw”) have been crusading for many years for similar bans in the United States. They believe that cats’ claws are there for a purpose (sort of like a foreskin?), and that to deprive them of their basic form of defense, as well as their necessary tools for exercise and mobility is cruel and inhumane. Although consumer education has made slow progress, they believe anti-declaw laws are necessary. (Let’s see, first educate the owners (and parents), but when that fails, just work to get it outlawed. Sounds like a plan.)

It is commonly performed using a guillotine-type blade, and is always done under general anesthesia. Because of associated post-operative pain, pain control medication is often prescribed for the recuperating cat. (Well, how sweet is that… The cats ALWAYS get anesthesia, and pain meds for post-op. We sure don’t want Snowball in any pain now, do we…)

How is it that advocates for the rights of the cat can get laws passed on such issues, yet we’ve got the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Australian Government who think that our boys don’t deserve the same protection?

Well, you’ll have to excuse me now. I’m going to go shred the side of my sofa with what’s left of my penis.

(Thanks to a member of a related site for the original idea and much of the content for this post, used here with his permission.)