Join the discussion with Rich, Janel, Patricia Robinett, and Marilyn MIlos

L. Janel Martin wrote:

Do you know of studies and stats on the incidence of violence against women comparing circ’d and uncirc’d men? Domestic violence, men in prison, etc?

Marilyn answered:
No, Janel, as far as I know, those studies have never been done. It’s about time, doncha think?!

Love, Marilyn

Janel wrote to Marilyn, Rich, and Patricia Robinett:
So, how can we say we are more violent because of circ if there’s no “proof”. And humans apparently have been brutal forever … I can’t help but think the circ actually docilates men from being the fierce warriors they were. Definitely, as men have become civilized over time, uncir’d men are kinder maybe as Patricia said on the air and it’s still true that circ’ing has added a whole new dimension to the brain of the modern man.


Here’s my take: MGM teaches fear and rage. The rage is suppressed. The fear causes passivity and disempowerment in the face of “authority”thus promoting mass social organization (i.e. warmaking). The rage can come to the surface either at the direction of authorities (torture etc) or in the absence of authority figures (i.e. when with friends and family). Sexual frustration, domestic difficulties and the link between sex and violence makes lovers especially vulnerable.

Marilyn Milos:

Hi Janel,

Karl Menninger said, “What we do to children, they will do to society.” It’s the infliction of a primal wound that affects the male throughout life. And, of course, not all circumcised males are violent, but every circumcised male is affected by his circumcision, whether he knows it or not. Sometimes, as Michel Odent has spoken about at a couple of my symposia, when excruciating pain is inflicted without the victim being able to fight or flee, the fight or flight hormones, without an outlet for expression, become destructive to the victim’s own body. This is the genesis of “learned helplessness.”

After Obama was elected, one Black, circumcised man said to me, “Obama must be intact. Look at his kind, gentle nature, his easy smile, his mellow demeanor. He’s too relaxed a man to have been circumcised.” There is a difference, too, with intact boys, who don’t have the edge their circumcised brothers have. Now, I know there are other reasons for males to act out or be aggressive. Look at non-circumcising Germany; yet, we know the needs of German babies was not met. Infants were kept separate, by themselves, to cry it out… Alice Miller, of course, talks about the horrific ways in which German babies and children were raised and how it adversely affected them, how easily they became soldiers who followed orders.

According to James DeMeo and James Prescott, humans haven’t always been violent. The earliest cave drawings showed peaceful societies, breastfeeding mothers, man and animal living together without harm. DeMeo claims that it was the desertification in sub-Saharan Africa that introduced hunger and then the fighting began. First, the fight was against the animals and then it was man against man. Perhaps we’ll never really know what happened at the dawn of civilization, but we do know that when we birth babies peacefully and answer the needs of our children, they will thrive not just survive, and, isn’t that our work, i.e., to work toward making the planet a peaceful place again by how we bring our children into the world? For, as Gandhi said, “If we are ever to have real peace, we must begin with the children.”

With love and appreciation, Marilyn


hmm… that’s interesting, janel.
i think that circumcision could go either way…
either to ‘cow’ the person or to enrage her/him
like an angry bull. 🙂

i personally do not think that humans — men —
are created angry, violent, or withdrawn… i think
the ‘personality’ is made — perhaps a carryover
from another lifetime, but you can always see
good ‘reasons’ why people are the way they are
from just this lifetime… .

i think this is an important discussion.

not all people will respond in the same way to ‘fear’
(lack of love). but still, ‘fear’ (tension) will reign
in that person’s life, rather than ‘love’ (ease)
when one is overpowered… when a person feels
powerless, they are as far from their true nature
as it is possible for them to get.

i think of the causes of trauma as anything that
overpowers another… circumcision, sexual abuse,
the birth process itself, rape, physical violence,
mental oppression, and so on. people hold the
‘less than love’ in their bodies and are chronically

from my humble observation, it appears that
there are three primary modes that traumatized
people will enter. they are all coping strategies for
protecting oneself from abusive ‘authority figures’:

1) acquiesce to authority (withdraw, hide)
2) rail against authority (attack)
3) BECOME the authority (join them)

no one who has been abused really trusts authority.
they all see authority as dangerous.

a psychologist i know here in town has done a study…
he says only 5% of the population is ‘violence-prone’
or ‘warmongers’… i would call ‘violence-proneness’
or ‘warmongering’, symptoms of sociopathy.

circumcision is a violent act.
it teaches violence.
it teaches people to circumcise.
a circumcising culture is a violent culture.

people pass the violence on that was done to them.
or they bury their heads in the sand…
or they fight for the rights of children.

thank you all for fighting for children’s rights.

love, patricia

What do you think?

6 thoughts on “Join the discussion with Rich, Janel, Patricia Robinett, and Marilyn MIlos”

  1. Dear Janel,

    Violence against women shows very little in the police statistics, particularly since ethnic statistics, necessary in Europe where the circumcised are mainly of foreign origin, are forbidden in most countries.

    However, Professor Inger Hofvander said at the 9th NOCIRC symposium in Seattle that in Norway, 60% of the rapes are committed by 2% of the population who are circumcised.

    Also, the rate of rape in the USA where most men are circumcised has been of 115/100.000 in 2002/2003 against 82/100.000 in France where only 15% of men are circumcised.

  2. About violence in general, the only study is mine and I'm afraid it totally contradicts Janel:

    Genocides, wars, the death penalty, excision, rape, and circumcision

    Marilyn is to publish it as an annex of my lecture "Sexual mutilation and the moral order" in the Keele NOCIRC symposium.

    Here are my main conclusions:

    Of the eleven genocides of modern times: Congo, Hereros, Armenia, Jews, gipsies, Biafra, Cambodia, Hutus, Tutsis, Bosnia, Darfur, nine, of which four as actors, implied circumcised on one side or the other and two on both sides.
    Between 1996 and 2002, but for one civil war (Sri Lanka), all wars involved at least one circumcising country; they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries.
    The death penalty is more than twice more common in them.
    Torture is more widespread in them.

    The feminicide in Eastern Congo is the work of circumcised Hutu looters who destroy after use those who have functioned as a foreskin for them.
    Excision, practised in half of circumciser countries, practically exists with them only. It is always financed by dads who have themselves been circumcised with the complicity of their own mums.
    In Norway, 60% of the rapes are committed by 2% of the population who are circumcised.

  3. I believe Obama is circumcised. He has a stiff way about him. Though his tribe doesn't circ. Hawaii certainly mostly does. I also have big problems of him appointing New York's Dr. Thomas Friedan. From CircumcisionAndHIV:

    "You may remember Friedan from his premature statements following the release of the African circumcision trials. He said that the New York City Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene would consider promoting circumcision among gay men despite the fact that at the time there was no evidence that circumcision would lower HIV rates among men who have sex with men. Shortly thereafter, three studies showed that gay men receive no protection from circumcision against HIV.

    Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group representing restaurants and food companies, is quoted in Bloomberg as saying that “Friedan doesn’t simply blur the line between what is the government’s responsibility in regulating health and what is the individual’s responsibility; he barely recognizes its existence.” Wilson has gone on to say that Friedan is an “overzealous activist who doesn’t give any consideration to the importance of personal responsibility or privacy.” While it's true Wilson represents those who have a lot to lose from the ban on smoking in public places and the ban on trans-fats served in restaurant food, his point is one with wide application.

    One doesn't have to think too long or hard to imagine a man like Friedan unwisely pushing for circumcision on a hunch and little proof or thought about the rights of the individual to choose or refuse the procedure – just as the individual can choose or refuse smoking and trans-fats. Admittedly, a key difference is that second hand smoke is a recognized hazard and smokers can still smoke elsewhere. However, banning trans-fats is harder to justify."

    Not too many years ago a congressional report cited the Us as the most violent nation on earth. This follows James Prescott's Origin of Violence.

  4. I think it is about time to do those studies to see if there is any correlation/causation between circumcision and violence.

    I was circumcised at birth and I am restoring my foreskin. See and for details on my restoration efforts.

    I have noticed that as my foreskin is restored, I have changed. I feel more confident and have a sense of wholeness. Also, I am more emotional, where before I was emotionally distant. Before restoring, I used to avoid touching people and was uncomfortable around strangers. Now that I have been restoring a while, I am better able to connect to others.

  5. Restoring Tally, Thank you for sharing that information. Would you be interested in being on the show? Men need to hear this.

    Thanks, Sigismond,
    I'll read your link later tonight. For now, I want to say I am confused about your statement of contradicting me. It seems you are saying that circumcision IS related to violence, war, plundering, etc which is what I suspect. It's what I am looking at and wondering about and suspect … although the most brutal man in my life, a spouse, a physician, was not circumcised. There are always exceptions, but I suspect that our collective male mentality in the US (he was not American), is a direct result of the final blow of circumcision of the male children after a series of boundary violations from labor through first hours of life, including the separation of him from his mother and the disruption of breastfeeding. I think the combo of bottle feeding AND circumcision is the most damaging.
    Could you clarify how your study contradicts my question to others? Thanks for posting.

    December 6, 2009 2:25 PM

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.