Sexual mutilation, a discriminatory moral order
Sexual mutilation, a discriminatory moral order
(problematics and basic concepts of the struggle against a barbarous puritanism)
"I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body."
Emma Watson at the UNO
"When you were a toddler, remember those marks,
They already taught you that enjoyment was the devil."
"It is not worthwhile saying
That children resemble us,
That they have the same scars
And that they're born with violence.
It really suits us to say that,
It helps us to educate them
In our image...
"This postulate: parents, learning, power,
And that cunning dictatorship
Which removes them from their initial beauty..."
"If you love yourself a little,
Then, you love others." Morice Bénin
I - Who and why?
(the agent of sexual mutilation: the moral order;
affiliation-submission through trauma)
"…not only does the child's body not belong to us but... their sex still less." Françoise Dolto1
"And circumcision, you think it is consistent with the respect of bodily integrity? And excision of little girls? We should submit since it is cultural?" Bernard This
"Feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory." Christine Lazerges
"The sex of the (child) appears well as a stake of possession, a symbol of submission."
after Simone Veil who had written “the woman"2
"Circumcision standardizes the bodies to communitarize the minds later and till the grave."
Mohamed Louizi (blog mediapart)
"Its first, totemic, phase already brings with it the prohibition against an incestuous choice of object, and this is perhaps the most drastic mutilation which man’s erotic life has in all time experienced." Sigmund Freud3
"Sexual violence is, with torture, what causes the most psycho-traumatic disorders."
"This commandment has not been prescribed to correct a physical deficiency but a moral one." Maimonides
"Feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory." Christine Lazerges
The moral order begins with sex. But it is for ethic, not surgery, to control sexuality. And the moral deficiency is parental repression of infantile sexuality. One may not control impulses by suppressing their source by mutilations that painfully deprive the human person, at an age where they are helpless, from the specific organ of autosexuality, hypocritically decreed immoral; the outcome risks being worse. An organ cannot be immoral and autosexuality has nothing immoral. We are in the presence of a puritan aberration. Seeming to want to lecture the whole humanity by a morality against nature, the distinguished Rabbi and philosopher Maimonides seems to be advocating a surgical eugenics in the name of a moral order that, under the guise of religion or tradition, aspires to make supermen. For them, the hastily said infantile sexuality is object of disapproval. That claim of collective, misguided, puritan, and of-divine-right moral superiority is sexist, discriminatory, and quasi-racist since founded upon a physical difference. Forbidding "eugenic practices, in particular, those aiming at selection of persons"4, article 3, 2, b of the European Union charter of fundamental rights (December 1st, 2009) strictly opposes it.
Similarly, at the end of the 19th century, excision and circumcision were introduced into the Anglo-Saxon world to prevent autosexuality. But in 1950, following Gairdner's alarming article, English medicine withdrew from circumcision overnight. In 2010, the Royal Dutch medical association took an adamant stand against nontherapeutic circumcision for the motive that, without necessity and at the price of sometimes-serious physical and psychological complications, it violates the right of the child to physical integrity. It was followed by the South-African medical association (2011), the Swedish paediatric society (2012), the German paediatric associations (2012), the ombudspersons for children of the five northern countries (2013), the Nordic association of clinical sexology (2013), the Danish medical society (2014), the Canadian urological association (2017). In 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians declared: "... the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand". But they did not know yet that first, the rate of autism is much higher with circumcised children, very particularly at birth, second, the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rate is significantly higher with circumcised babies. The exception is the American academy of paediatrics, which deserved American doctors the following remark from a Dutch doctor:
"We in Europe keep surgery as a last resort for dealing with disease, especially when… the patient cannot consent. But in America, your doctors start with surgery on healthy boys, and say, given this surgery, that treatable infections that he could have avoided anyway will he have slightly less risk of getting."
Finnish criminal justice (2006), then the German one (2012), judged circumcision unlawful. June 14, 2013, in La Sorbonne, opening the founding meeting of "Excision, parlons-en", Mrs Christine Lazerges, the president of the French national consultative commission of human rights, declared that she would mention in her next report to the President of the republic that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory. Indeed, it is an auto-exclusion of sectarian ethnic groups that do not only discriminate the child and the community but also and the rest of humanity. 1st October 2013, for the first time in history, an important political assembly: the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, condemned circumcision as mutilation in the same way as excision. But, pronounced with a strong majority, its decision in favour of the respect of the right of the child to physical integrity provoked such an outcry from Muslim and Jewish religious, and the chief of the Israeli state that the 2 December 2013 report of the French NCCHR did not hold Madame Lazerges' promise. But as soon as 1989, the first symposium of NOCIRC5, followed by Alice Miller in 19906, had qualified both sex sexual mutilation "the greatest crime against humanity".
Perceived by the child as parental and very particularly maternal betrayal, the torture of that first step to eviration (the Hottentots went further through cutting the left testicle at the age of ten years old andthe eunuchs of harems were totally evirated till the 19th century) makes a lifelong threat not of castration, as Freud thinks7 but well of eviration present. That threat is particularly serious since consisting in a beginning of realization. Beyond the assault to physical integrity, it is an assault to psychical integrity. It is the tool of a tyrannical order that, by the black pedagogy of the: "It’s for your own sake!", tends to normalize the human person, dominate them, and submit them to the established order8.
Verbal repression complements those atrocious tortures. Likening pleasure to vice, it forbids lightly said infantile sexuality and before-wedding sexuality. Sole present in the rest of the world, that mental sexual mutilation similarly subjects the individual to hypocritical puritanism. Maybe less irreversible than physical excisions, mutilation of minds through speech also is fearsome; it has the same aim of making the individual meek through traumatizing them by setting up the aberrant law of the ban of pleasure. Under threat of loss of love, and thus exclusion, a stupid decree makes autosexuality the original sin. That both parental and societal lie is fierce and dangerous. Operating through imbuing from the youngest age, it creates a genuine taboo. It is all the more difficult to eradicate from minds that it is set up by a violence that erects the reason of might as a rule.
II - How? (sexual mutilation: the height of repression of infantile sexuality)
"At night, before going to bed, they all had to m.......te, in order well to know what they were going to lose…" Gérard Zwang (preface of "The drama of excision" by Dore-Miloch L.)
"Do not throw your seed amongst thorn-bushes. Try to circumcise yourselves..."
Jeremiah, 4: 3-4
Albeit his circumcision trauma that made him commit grave clinical and theoretical mistakes9, Freud rose up against that universal taboo. The discovery of the autosexuality of the foetus by ultrasounds brings him strong backing but autosexuality is still repressed. Imagine a being that has freely practised it in its mother’s womb: you. Once out of this Eden, while having your bath, you are suddenly glowered at: "Why is it so? You touched it?", as if that against-nature ban had been uttered before. To crown it all, everybody around you condemns nudity and disparages your act of self-love by referring to it through reproachful terms. The root of the most common one: stupratio, denotes trouble and refers to "turpitude". "Autosexuality" must replace that making-guilty term. Wanting to fight sexual crime, pedocriminality notably, is illusory without acknowledging that autose-xuallity is not debauchery but natural and healthy behaviour.
The discoveries of psychoanalysis: on the one hand, infantile sexuality and the unconscious, and, on the other hand, infantile traumas and their ravages (cf. Freud and Alice Miller), stand against those abuses. Violence in education, rather than tender care, has catastrophic results; breeding psychosomatic disease, neurosis, psychosis and perversion, violence, depression and addiction. The child perceives the repression of infantile sexuality as a death threat through loss of love (forsaking). Outlawing pleasure in an aberrant way, that threat opposes the resolution of the Oedipus complex: adherence to the law. So, it is likely to block their growth. Numerous mental diseases are the direct consequence of the hypocritical public reprobation of what everybody merrily does in private. Only the perverse: seducers, rapists, and paedophiles, use their victims to "masturbate", granting them the same treatment they endured in their childhood autosexuality. That compulsive need will not exist any longer when autosexuality will be socially accepted. Transcultural studies of American anthropology have, with absolute statistical correlation10, checked the observations of psychoanalysts upon whole ethnic groups. They report that pain is inhibited by pleasure and reciprocally, and that violence stems from a lack of tenderness in infancy and of the prohibition of premarital sexuality.
Hurting human autonomy, independence and dignity by violating intimacy, obsessive rituals perpetrated upon the child: sexual mutilation, ear piercing, etc., are a height of that repression. Denuding someone to mutilate their sex is a revolting humiliation.
In olden days, branding used to be a mark of stigmatization of criminals. But nowadays, a whole fringe of the youth unconsciously stands up against the repression of autosexuality through the absurd realization upon themselves of caricatures of those markings: tattoos, piercings, etc. The adornment symbolizing the sexual organ, those provocative, perverse (fetishism), and discriminatory auto-mutilations are symptomatic of an unconscious expression of both guilt and rebellion against the taboo of autosexuality. That new popular snobbism sometimes qualifies itself "ethnic" without realizing that it is a revolt by reductio ad absurdum against the stigmatization of autosexuality.
III - What? (a definition)
"The glans is very sensitive. If it remains hidden inside the foreskin, it strengthens pleasure during mating. If the foreskin is cut off, the glans hardens and pleasure weakens. That is the best for our law: lessening pleasure without suppressing it totally, a balance between excess and carelessness." Al-Razi
The preservation of the clitoris and the foreskin is founded on six facts that illustrate their essential-to-life character.
First fact: minors. Sexual mutilation the most often aims at minors. But fighting feminine mutilation alone in a sexist way11, 12, Western feminists, at the vanguard of the struggle, make it a gender affair and a contest between sexes. They reproach men for imposing excision on women who realize it (!) and accuse non-sexists of confusing excision and circumcision, stupidly since excision only exists in land of circumcision. So doing, they forget that dads have been circumcised with the complicity of their mothers. We shall see that excision is only the most scandalously visible tip of the iceberg of sexual mutilation. Instead of approaching the latter in a dynamic, historical, and transgenerational, rather than static perspective, they conflate violence against adults with violence against minors. But the war of the sexes is a war of "adults ignoring the child within themselves" (according to Maud Mannoni), and the war of generations begins with war on children. The fact is that, to avoid all resistance, excision is now practised at birth, and in the hospital albeit the forbidding of the OMS. Following Mrs Albagly (Director of the DDASS of the Rhône) at the 02.26.2007 FSM colloquium of the Gynécologues sans frontières in Lyon, we affirm: "The right to the respect of the physical integrity of all children is not negotiable."
Second fact: sexual. The specific organs for autosexuality (the clitoris and the foreskin) are not genital organs but organs of pure pleasure, without other function for the clitoris. Unlike the ablation of the glans, excision, if it impedes sexual pleasure, does not impede reproduction. For seventy or ninety-nine per cent (clitoris) of the world population who enjoy those organs, the particular, possibly extreme pleasure they provide is indisputable. Excision suppresses, lessens, or turns pleasure into pain. The destruction of clitoral pleasure often entailing that of vaginal pleasure, two-thirds of the excised are frigid. With man, the loss is the most often limited to preputial pleasure, notably that of little orgasms13, by no means insignificant. Recent anatomical discoveries bring scientific basis to this empirical affirmation. In 1996, John Taylor highlighted the part of exquisite erogenous mechanism of the terminal ring of the foreskin. That discovery contributes to ending the tale according to which the lip protecting the erogeneity of the glans, man's mini-vagina in autosexuality, would not be an organ. Not having been awarded the Nobel Prize it deserves, it remains ignored though experimentally confirmed by Sorrells' sensitivity inquiry. At last, the third sexual function of the foreskin – that of a gliding cushion reducing friction in coitus – has also been emphasized. It explains why African women with circumcised partners are much more hit by HIV than men, which strengthens the contest of the WHO's circumcision campaign in Africa. Several inquiries have shown that the circumcision status does not influence the transmission of STIs, except AIDS but in the medium term only. In any case, bioethics forbids preventive mutilation and circumcision may not be practised without very serious medical motive, upon minors as adults.
Third fact: physical mutilation. Circumcision is a mutilation for three reasons: the skin is an organ, the foreskin is not dead-skin, it is neither a flap of skin but a double-layered organ (skin outside, mucosa inside). It is the lip protective of the glans and, therefore, a sexual organ in itself, to say nothing of its erogeneity.
Fourth fact: trauma. Highlighted by Freud, traumas bearing on infantile sexuality provoke the formation of the unconscious and are the great cause of mental disease. Assaulting the image of the body, the ablation of the organs for autosexuality has strong emotional repercussions and, through stunning and dissociation, creates a grave trauma, the most often unconscious. Autosexuality, the very first, natural, innocent and harmless sexuality is all the more heavily made guilty that circumcision threatens boys of eviration. But even in non-excising cultures, girls too, unconsciously suffer from the threat associated with circumcision. If the sheath of the glans is destroyed, what then is going to happen to the very little clitoris? Besides, a symbolic threat is enough and the passing of a knife over the child's body is sometimes substituted for excision. That criminal performance illustrates the presence of the death threat in sexual mutilation.
Fifth fact: the taking of possession of the individual by the group through terrorist violence. The human sacrifice of a part of the body implements a powerful psychological mechanism of enslavement. Indeed, for the unconscious as for the fetishist, primitive or infantile soul, the part is equivalent to the whole (cf. the abuses of Voodoo that, after the prohibition of sexual mutilation by slave drivers, "possesses" its victims to the point of forcing them to prostitution through merely cutting a lock of hair off). Founded upon a perverse impulse of control, those abuses of power imply an unacceptable possessiveness: "I know, therefore I have the right to determine what is done to your body."
Sixth fact: discrimination and exclusion. Performed to warrant an alleged moral superiority, sexual mutilation isolates the ethnic group through an artificial racism, in the aim of favouring endogamy and possession of women. It is also a means of enslavement by exclusion of opponents.
Sexual mutilation rites are the worst ordinary educational violence. By terrorizing the human person at the age when they are the most vulnerable, they impose adultism, the law of force and the ban of pleasure. Barbarian methods of banning infantile sexuality and making pleasure guilty, those possessory amputations exert a perverse sway of the group over the still minor individual to force them to work, reproduction and war. Vexatious, it humiliates through condemning personal pleasure by the castration of its specific organs. It frequently makes sexuality inexistent and painful for women and impoverishes male sexuality and autosexuality. The atrocious pain, the terror of the operation and the permanent reminder of the related threats of eviration, exclusion and death deeply traumatize, the most often unconsciously. So, it is one of the most obnoxious techniques of enslaving the individual, responsible for virulent fanaticism, warlike violence and suicidal terrorism. Socializing through warranting an alleged moral value sometimes endorsed by God in person but destroying human identity in its most intimate part, its illusory superiority discriminates foreigners and opponents by an artificial racism.
IV - The consequences: segregation, exclusion,
discrimination, racism and violence
"If hate creates the object, it is also what the most violently threatens its existence. Because it makes of the identity of oneself to oneself an exclusive and even fetishized concept, hate carries in itself the rejection of all otherness. When it makes itself the ally of narcissism of little differences, it becomes the carrier of a purity that no longer tolerates any variegation, any mixing. Purity of the race, purge, ethnic cleansing, the pure and hatred dwell in the same countries." Jacques André and Isée Bernateau
"An uncircumcised is not a man." (African saying)
Sexual mutilation is a deviant, sadistic, and dangerous behaviour. Like all perver-sions, it pretends to credibility, carry authority, and therefore, be reproducible, and even backs itself upon the great number, when it is not upon a divinity that cannot do anything about it. Its deep features are: selection, elitism and feeling of superiority (enabling the sexually handicapped to fight depression), auto-exclusion, barrier to marrying outside the group (a great concern of the racist), and finally, forbidding the burial of intacts in community cemeteries, or even in the national ground (Saudi Arabia), but for posthumous circumcision (Jews).
1) The exclusion of opponents
The African saying implies casting out the opponents, considered as minors, debauched and cowardly, and the systematic sanction of the absence of mutilation is exclusion from the community.
2) Eugenics of auto-exclusion, exclusion from the human species, and discrimination of other ethnic groups
Maimonides emphasized that circumcision is discriminatory in its intention and not only its materiality:
"It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them."14
If a collective particular sign creates a social link, that link only indicates a belonging (an alteration of identity is not an identity) and collective mutilation is a collective auto-exclusion. Allegedly providing a moral, physical and even sexual superiority, sectarian mutilation separates the group from humanity. Antisexual, anti-democratic, xenophobic, it discriminates neighbouring groups.
Saint Thomas Aquinas confirmed:
"But a private person may not perform such an ablation (of a member), even with the patient's consent; it would be committing an injustice to society, to which man belongs with all his limbs." Saint Thomas Aquinas
The motivation of the father of the Church is identical to that of the tenth principle of the International declaration of the rights of the child of the United Nations:
"The child shall be protected from practices that… may foster racial, religious or any other form of discrimination..."
Racism is more arrogant when it stands on mutilations that aim at ensuring oneself the possession of women. So, the three great myths of circumcision: moral superiority (virtue, chastity, fidelity, purity, spirituality), hygiene superiority, and sexual superiority, aim at convincing young women to favour endogamy. That is still more obvious for excision.
Sexual mutilation is not properly racist but founding a collective identity upon an assault against that of the human species is not only degrading in itself, it is also discriminatory. It aims at making supermen through alleged community superiority by surgically imposed differentiation. It is artificial racism, more racist than racism, power-of-ten racism, some neo-Gobineau enacted by Mengele. Peoples who carve out an identity through knife for themselves upon the body of their children offend the rest of humanity. A height is reached in chapter 17 of Genesis where that racism takes the dimension of a divine obligation that promises hegemony to Abraham and his people:
"… you will be the father of a multitude of nations…" (Genesis, 17: 4)
That hegemony is confirmed by the absolute ethnic superiority of the myth15 of divine election:
"... if you keep my covenant, you will be my treasure between all peoples..." Exodus, 19: 5
Since sexual mutilation rests upon antique customs and is committed for the sake of the child, within love and without the intention of harming, the only means of criminalizing it is exposing the will of discrimination and segregation, under threat of exclusion of opponents, of that crime against humanity.
3) Sexual mutilation and racism
Freud showed that the antiJew racism finds its source in extremely powerful unconscious motivations:
"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."16
His most elaborate thought about circumcision affirms that, as a threat of castration, it is particularly destructurating:
"The results of the threat of castration are multifarious and incalculable; they affect the whole of a boy's relations with his father and mother and subsequently with men and women in general."17
The footnote discreetly suggests, in a way biased by the vague theory of submission – which is not submission to the father but submission of the parents to society, notably to grandparents – that circumcision is one of those destructurating threats:
"(1) … The primaeval custom of circumcision, another substitute for castration, can only be understood as an expression of submission to the father's will… " (p. 190)
If that destructuration concerns the circumcised, whose trauma is accompanied with sideration and traumatic amnesia, it also concerns, to a smaller extent, of course, their intact neighbours.
Racism towards mutilating peoples and that of those peoples towards the intact is dissymmetrical. The first one is founded on respect of the human body, of which we just saw that the violation inevitably provokes racism without, of course, justifying it, the second one lies upon a cultural barbarity.
The issue is complex and Freud was right to justify the racism of intact children:
"... 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." 18
Sexual mutilation being collective madness19, we would prefer saying a reason rather than a right. Intact adults can only feel repulsion for the mutilation and empathy towards its victims.
4) The outcomes: fanaticism and hatred
Such a radical exclusion calls for fanaticism and hatred. Spinoza and Freud exposed circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples. That hatred is reciprocal. The contempt of the "un"-circumcised goes along with a veritable racism source of continuous tribal wars: Hutus against Tutsis, Zulus against Xhosas, Kikuyus against Luos. An extremely serious collective pathology (transgenerational and collective syndrome of Münchhausen by proxy, aggravated Stockholm syndrome), circumcision generates particularly high violence. Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-seven genocides of modern times (their intention having been merely political, Cambodian mass slaughters are not included and the Gipsy exception is moot since some of them are circumcised): Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Tziganes (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), inhabitants of Borneo-East (1975-79), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), Nigeria Christians (2018), twenty-six (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side of the conflict and six on both sides. The circumcised perpetrated fifteen, more than half, of them, of which eight against intacts. That strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of arrogant superiority in those who practise it and the inverse feeling with the others. The holocaust of the foreskins is responsible for all others. Between 1996 and 2002,all wars without exception involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. The death penalty is twice as frequent in them and they are the only ones to practise excision. In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed all the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians (thanks to antiracist ethnic statistics). Circumcised Congo holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over one year. Sexual mutilation separates the child from the mother at the age of bonding. That is monstrous, the result is catastrophic; circumcision is the breeding ground of paranoia, sexism, fanaticism and group or state terrorism. It makes the equilibrium of terror and the fortune of gun merchants. The cause of a worldwide systemic racism, sexual mutilation, circumcision very particularly, is a cancer that gnaws at the planet.
More fascist than fascism since it aims at the child, sexual mutilation is unbearable to fascists. But democrats may not tolerate those ordeals. Taking the festivities of folklore for an alibi, it is imposed by military and religious elites with adolescent behaviour (cf. the conclusion of Medicine Nobel Prize George Wald's article against circumcision20. Societies that advocate them are affected by a strong propensity to patriarchy, tyranny, communitarianism, fundamentalism, and domination over women. It has a sexist character. It considers women and children as objects of a right of property. It does not welcome the child into a society regulated by the difference of sexes and ages but socializes or affiliates through the trauma of a barbarous military initiation that enlists for war. So, it is encouraged by tyrannical regimes which use it as an induction to violence and a sign of rallying. The community sign is always a call for nationalism, a sign of war, of possession of the individual and exclusion of foreigners. Sexual mutilation makes the people carry the can (the hat in the French expression!) of a non-existent guilt: scarf, veil, burka, kippa, tattoos, forced obesity, breast ironing, stretched oral or vulvar labia, scarification, filed or knocked off teeth, bound-feet, cut off clitorises, foreskins, uvulas and tongue fraenums, the death penalty, to arms et cetera…, the escalation of the techniques of manipulation of the minds by marking and mutilating the bodies – the worst tools of the war of generations – channels human needs at the service of the interests of the ruling classes and generations. Sexual mutilation is the most monstrous technique of domination of peoples ever imagined.
Regarding the human body, inviolable and sacrosanct, culture must respect nature. Sexual mutilation is barbarous discrimination, adultist, sexist and racist by pretention of puritan moral superiority. It is the height of ordinary educational violence that teaches the reason of force. For the third of humanity to which infantilization, lack of respect, humiliations, slaps, spanking, and blows are not enough, the sadistic repression of the first sexuality is the absolute weapon. There is no biological sign of passage to adulthood, it is insane to set up as a testimony of it the destruction of the specific organs for autosexuality. Stigmatizing the latter is taking the opposite of natural initiation to sexuality. Sexual mutilation gives the right to marriage through certifying a passage to adulthood accomplished within submission to the established order; it is a false certificate that Mandela denounced. On the contrary, we may fear that numerous maimed persons do not reach genuine maturity, characterized by a deep acknowledgement of the difference of sexes. The latter enables as well a true desire of the other sex as equality of the sexes and thus democracy. As long as the puritan repression of autosexuality and the sexism that sets one gender up against the other instead of gathering them in the defence of toddlers will prevail, it will be impossible to eradicate.
If the fight against circumcision is well under way in the United States where the rate of circumcision has fallen from 90 to 55% thanks to NOCIRC, that against deadly excision (5 to 15% immediate deaths, 20% at delivery) progresses only in dribs and drabs and, in a scandalous paradox, its medicalization south of the Mediterranean is followed by its restoration north of it. That is because symptoms are cured without getting to the root: treatments of the child like an object, denial of the right to pleasure, and making autosexuality guilty, so that circumcision is not fought, which would bring real efficiency to the fight. The use of the term "abstinence" in official recommendations for the prevention of AIDS shows that autosexuality is still considered a shameful, infantile or profligate behaviour. That every human being is an ageing child and that those unable to regress cannot progress either seems being ignored. Sexual mutilation strikes the fundamental right of more than one billion persons. Attacking excision only neglects the great majority of the victims.
Feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is the sole crime against humanity about which, due to the age of victims, nobody complains. It issues from a puritan moral order that believes itself superior. Characterized by discrimination and exclusion, it is the expression of the worst of racisms, that of a serious moral weakness that precisely consists in being lulled into the belief of moral superiority. One of the causes of fanaticism, suicidal terrorism and redoubtable tyrannies, it is incompatible with democracy. Cultures or political systems (the whole planet) that tolerate it do not deserve the name of civilization or democracy. Irreversible, it harms the whole population. Perpetrated under various alibis: religion, tradition, hygiene, folklore, it imposes the adults' way of living on the child by an odious torture. Founded upon a perversion of ethics distorted into moralizing morality, it pretends to give lessons to the people but creates neurosis within it to give a social basis to that of the rulers. It is for their profit. It is the worst expression of a patriarchy that makes its domination present for life through a threat of death engraved in the very flesh of the individual. It is the paradigm of the persecution of the individual by society. Its abolition is a stage in the fight against the repression of sexuality and for the human person's right to the free access to their own body and the respect of their physical, emotional and mental integrity, autonomy and dignity. Medicine may not be used as a pretext for barbarity; in the absence of "very serious medical motive" (article 41 of the French Code of medical ethics), mutilating is contrary to bioethics. In a civilized society, not a single hair of a child must be touched. The abolition of corporal punishment must be extended to children. The right to the body must be mentioned in article 1 of the Universal declaration of human rights:
"All human beings are born free and equal in rights, in the first place, the rights to the body and pleasure in their three dimensions of integrity, dignity and autonomy."
"The steel that maims from the satin,
Our useless wounds far away,
We’ll change our gates into lanes
And make our cities gardens."
Jean-Jacques Goldman (Il suffira d’un signe)
Given as a lecture ) 4 September 2008 at the 10th Symposium of NOCIRC in the University of Keele (UK, this text has been published by AgoraVox and CaféBabel. It has been saluted by Mrs Najaud-Belkacem, spokeswoman of the French government, and quoted by Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, ex-President of the children court of Bobigny and member of the International bureau of the rights of the child, in his 7 July 2012 article against excision and circumcision.
1 Les jeux sexuels de vos enfants. Interview par Pierre Bénichou. Planning familial, octobre 1969 (3), 9.
2 Veil S. Préface du supplément au Bull. Acad. Natle. Méd 2004, 188, n° 6. 7-8.
3 Freud S. Civilization and its discontents. Ch IV.
5 Prescott J. http://montagunocircpetition.org/
6 Miller A. Introduction aux considérations sur les mutilations sexuelles, in La connaissance interdite : affronter les blessures de l'enfance dans la thérapie. Paris : Aubier ; 1990. p. 164.
7 Freud S. An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 189-191.
8 Immerman R., Mackey W. A biocultural analysis of circumcision: a kinder gentler tumescence. Soc Biol 1997; 44(3-4), 265-75. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman2/
10 Prescott J. Body pleasure and the origins of violence. The bulletin of the atomic scientists, 1975, 10-20. violence.de.
11 Earp B. Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse
12 Carmack A. Female genital mutilation,” “circumcision,” “gender-conforming surgery”: why the double standard?
14 Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.
16 Moses and monotheism. 1936. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXIII, p. 91.
17 An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 189-191.
18 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.
Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.