Brian Morris

I’ve heard time and again that Brian Morris, an Australian professor who has been promoting circumcision for years, is a pedophile. Or a circumfetishest. Or both.  

For those of you unaware, a circumfetishest is a person who is sexually aroused by the act of circumcision. Many intactivists don’t even know what the term means, and use it to describe anyone who supports circumcision or parental choice (along with terms like cutter).  Many fetishists (of any stripe)  will trade photos, stories or videos of whatever the subject of their particular fetish is.  This includes circumcision.  I don’t support any fetish that involves children.   Even if it only involves them in story.  

Erotic literature has some pretty obvious tells.  Things that make it clear that it’s erotic literature. A story entitled “Darren”, which was not written by Brian Morris as far as I’ve seen, has been given as “proof” that doctors (or Brian Morris specifically)  masturbate or are aroused during circumcision. The story is just that.  A story.  A disgusting story, that makes me sick, but a story.  It has nothing to do with parents choosing to circumcise.  Most parents are doing the best they can, and have no ill or foul intent toward their children.  

The Gilgal Society is another “example” given of Brian Morris and his supposedly bad intentions toward children.  The owner Vernon Quantaince was recently arrested for and convicted of molesting 5 children and apparently had accumulated quite a lot of child pornography.  They use the fact that he appropriately distanced himself after finding out Vernon’s disgusting crimes as “proof” of involvement. 

If intactivists, any of you, have proof that Brian Morris is doing something wrong, you absolutely must step forward with it.  Sitting on evidence of a sexual crime against children is just as bad as perpetrating one.  

But if, on the other hand, you’re just repeating lies and innuendo you’ve heard, you are doing nothing but slandering and libeling a man who is, like you, trying to help people as he believes is how he should.

I have no interest in supporting someone who wants to hurt children.  But I’ve also seen no evidence that he does.  So if you have it , here’s your chance.  

The fact that I, myself, have been told that I’m a circumcised man (I’m not), with circumcised children (I don’t have any circumcised children), that I’m a circumfetishest, that I’m a child rapist, that I should be forcibly circumcised, that I should be killed, or raped, or tortured…well, those things certainly don’t help my skepticism of these claims.  

But here’s your chance to prove your claims.  


23 responses to “Brian Morris

  • Lawrence Newman

    “I have no interest in supporting someone who wants to hurt children. But I’ve also seen no evidence that he does. So if you have it , here’s your chance.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

    “The glans penis is primarily innervated by free nerve endings and has primarily protopathic sensitivity [43]. Protopathic sensitivity refers to cruder, poorly localized feelings (including pain, some temperature sensations and certain perceptions of mechanical contact) [44]. In the glans penis, encapsulated end-organs are sparse, and found mainly along the glans corona and the frenulum [43]. The only portion of the body with less fine-touch discrimination than the glans penis is the heel of the foot [45]. In contrast, the male prepuce ridged band (Fig. 7) at the mucocutaneous junction has a high concentration of encapsulated receptors [46]. The innervation difference between the protopathic sensitivity of the glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the prepuce is part of the normal complement of penile erogenous tissue.

    Every histological analysis in existence shows the foreskin to contain almost all the erogenous nerves and the glans to have virtually none. There is no hard science backing up the assertion FGM is worse in terms of sensory loss.

    I was cut at 14 unnecessarily for so-called phimosis (a common act of medical negligence). IT removed all my sexual pleasure as it is all in the foreskin’s ridged band, frenular delta and frenulum, which were all removed . Most circumcised men have all these structures removed, which leaves the penis devoid of erogenous sensation.

    Brian Morris is a freak. Going by his website, he seems determined to inform people immediately how heterosexual and happily married he is. Red flag. The man is quite clearly a homosexual paedophile. I’ve come across many homosexual men online who extol the virtues of circumcision for aesthetic purposes. Brian Morris is a ghoul.

    • paper0airplane

      I have seen all the available intactivist “evidence”. Unless you have caps or other proof, I’m afraid the accusations of pedophilia need to go. I have an actual cap of brother k asking for pictures of an infants genitals.

      That being said, i file them both away as creepers, personally.

    • Lawrence Newman

      All real scientific evidence shows circumcision to be male genital mutilation, just as damaging as FGM, if not more so. But then you need to be completely objective and understand what REAL science is. REAL science is neurology. We know the foreskin has essentially all the erogenous nerves. No erogenous nerves = no pleasure. I know from bitter experience. History also backs me up because we all know why circumcision was introduced–to sexually suppress.

      Of course, I understand there’s no point debating people like you, because you have a bizarre sexual fetish and aren’t arguing from a scientific and human rights standpoint.

      When you read Brian Morris’s site and listen to the nonsense he spouts–not to mention his affiliation with the gilgal society–it’s very obvious he is not a well man. It’s very likely he’s a homosexual paedophile, though he might just be a sadist who likes the thought of hurting boys.

      • paper0airplane

        Scientific evidence can’t “prove” anything to be mutilation. Mutilation is a term of moral equivalance. “Just as damaging”…as which type of FGM? Real science is utilizing the scientific method to prove or disprove something objectively and which stands up to repeated attempts to do so. There’s a reason you see the same names on studies about circumcision over and over. On both sides. There are simply people who have a vested interest in portraying one side of the issue. You are one such, which is why you THINK my blog is pro-circumcision when it is not. I also don’t have any bizarre sexual fetishes and certainly not for circumcision. But then that’s a common claim by certain extremist activists.

        • Lawrence Newman

          You’re not pro-circumcision yet you spend your life opposing people who fight for the human rights of children to not be mutilated. You are ill.

          Circumcision is mutilation , by definition, as is FGM. You cannot alter form without altering function. This is a fact. MGM is more damaging in terms of sensory loss than any formally recognised FGM. I’m talking about relative loss of total erogenous tissue. A man’s erogenous tissue is all on the foreskin. A woman’s erogenous tissue is not all on the external genitalia (the vaginal canal has erogenous sensation).

          But nobody cares about males. We live in an age of newspeak and doubletalk.

          • paper0airplane

            I dont spend my life fighting anyone. Even when I invested the absolute most of my time to this I still wasn’t spending that much time doing it.

            Sorry you’ve completely and utterly lost my interest though. If you feel like coming up with an original thought then I’ll entertain you further but no at this point I’m bored. When you’re done copypastaing incredibly basic intactivism and MRA soundbytes, I’ll be right here. Good luck.

          • Lawrence Newman

            You’ve lost interest because you’ve been shown up. You think cutting parts of kids for no reason is less damaging than sticking something in their anus/vagina for a few minutes. No sane person takes you seriously. Luckily for you, there are lots of insane people around you can have a circle jerk with. Though it won’t be enjoyable as circumcised men can’t feel anything.

          • paper0airplane

            Yes so lucky for me that you completely misunderstand my views and motivations because you’re a simple mind with no understanding of complexity or subtlety. In your capability of understanding only ‘circumcision is all the bad things and only bad people support it and anyone who doesn’t parrot all the things I parrot supports it!’ Is comprehensible. Unfortunately that’s not the reality of the situation. But best of luck to you.

  • Lawrence Newman

    Circumcision destroys sexual pleasure. This has been proven because histological analysis shows almost all erogenous nerves are in the foreskin. Brian Morris is seriously mentally ill and most likely a homosexual paedophile.

  • Lon Strickland

    The desire to delete a comment like that reveals everything I need to know about the pro-circ agenda here. Thanks!

  • Lon Strickland

    I think Morris falls into the wrong place at the wrong time. He’s someone advocating circumcision based on highly controversial evidence that continues to be dissected by credible sources -revealing for some more questions than answers, for others a flow of confirmation of instinctual feelings -circumcision is an error.

    The internet has made it possible. Before the web, you could not quickly acquire the data necessary to abolish the myth. Now all it takes is a little curiosity and your world view can be shattered.

    When trying to get to the absolute truth of any subject, we do face the philosophical challenges of being human. We are after all emotional beings. We get embarrassed, we get angry, and some of us are pretty stubborn too.

    This is not a subject of passionless debate. It can be difficult to separate your feelings from fact, especially when the human rights of children are at stake.

    Brian Morris has been targeted. Not all of the shit flung his way has been carefully considered. He is after all, just a man, like so many men, alive in the modern era, where circumcising male children is common place.

    He represents a voice some people seek when confronting education about the normal intact penis for the first time. To submit that what was done to you at birth was in error, that your penis is less than what nature intended, or that you, your friends, and family have all participated in some kind of human failure… well, it’s not an easy pill to swallow.

    Fear not. Brian Morris is there to keep your world view intact! He’s got all the stats and “official” scientific proof you ever needed to keep cutting that no good part of the penis off… but what about that “no good” part of the penis? Where do we go to learn about what that really is?

    There is a lack of education around the normal intact penis. Many proponents for and against circumcision are both guilty of failing to understand what the foreskin actually is. As an intact male, I have witnessed it all my life. People don’t know what it is. And I’m not talking about microscopic levels of science. I’m talking about one person saying hands have five fingers and another saying it’s a fin. There is a frightening ignorance on the subject on both sides.

    What we need is a martyr. We need a man to stand on a hill, surrounded by cameras as he masturbates. The cameras need to zoom in, and closely observe the mechanics at work. This man then needs to make a sacrifice. He must have a complete circumcision, heal up, and get back on the hill six months later to masturbate for the cameras again. They will capture the fact that the skin doing the primary ejaculation of the glans penis will be gone. It won’t be there any more.

    Let me try and make that clear for you with an analogy. As we walk, our big toe absorbs about 40% of our body weight. If you were to remove both of your big toes, 40% of your body weight would need to be balanced elsewhere. You would eventually compensate for the loss, but that does not undo the fact that your toes are gone. In fact, some people may have more trouble compensating than others, depending on how much of the big toes were actually removed. Is that starting make any sense when thinking about your foreskin?

    The martyr’s before and after videos need to be studied side by side, and then and only then will the world understand the fallibility of this statement:

    “Claims of adverse effects on sexual function, sensitivity, and satisfaction are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    Not only is this untrue, it doesn’t even need to be called science. This is common sense. It’s like saying a pianist’s performance would not be affected by the removal of his thumbs. There is no need for a debate. The intactivists are simply pointing it out. All you really have to do is look… or you can go become Facebook friends with Brian Morris. It’s up to you.

    • paper0airplane

      Honestly you’ve said nothing I’m not aware of, and your comment only barely touches on my question, instead, you chose to make bullshit comments about circ. If common sense was all that was necessary to discern something, we wouldn’t need studies. Common sense says placebo shouldn’t heal. Nocebo shouldn’t kill. But they do.

      Here’s your comment. I can take much longer than this to approve comments sometimes. Up to you if you don’t want to read.

  • stevem660

    Many of the attacks on Prof. Morris are ad hominem, innuendo and “guilt by association” rather than attempts to address the technical issues. This crude character assassination suggests to me that those making the attacks either have not the technical knowledge or understanding to take on the technical issues, and/or that the scientific evidence is not in their favour. It is so much easier to go after the person than the evidence, after all. Circumcision stands or falls on its merits or shortcomings and these, in turn, should be determined by evidence, not insults and abuse. It does the intactivists no credit at all when they resort to name-calling, and is one reason I have come to really dislike them. For the record, Prof. Morris has addressed some of the personal attacks against him in the course of the debate in the Journal of Medical Ethics following the recent AAP policy change. It is freely available on-line here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/08/16/medethics-2013-101614/reply#medethics_el_16791?sid=da9e5164-03f4-4534-833b-a47158737e88

    • Dreamer

      Steve, Paperoairplane’s entry was about the accusations given to Morris, so of course any replies will address those accusations and not the technical aspects. The technical aspects have been debated by people with the knowledge to do so, even if they are summarily disregarded by the pro-circ camp. Morris often falls in the same kind of ad hominen, guilt by association, emotional response when it comes to talk about those who criticize him.

      This discussion is however relevant because you need to understand the motivation of people to lean one way or another on a debate so emotionally charged. Morris has made some foolish decisions about associating with some people, posting some content on his website and linking to some content online which allows people to question his motives.

      But I’ll humor you in something: In “Circumcision Rates in the United States: Rising or Falling? What Effect Might the New Affirmative Pediatric Policy Statement Have?”, Morris, Wiswell and Bailis cited a rate of mortality of 0.00001% which is equivalent to 1 in 10 million. The American Academy of Family Practitioners estimates one death in 500,000, a number 20 times larger. Any idea why they chose such a different number?

  • dreamerleoguy

    Ok, you mention the Darren story. Yes, it’s fiction, it was most likely not written by Brian Morris (but there is no attribution either to anyone). However, considering that Morris’ website is supposed to be “An Evidence-Based Appraisal MEDICAL, HEALTH & SEXUAL” according to his headline, why is it relevant that he would include a link on his links page (http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_websites_online_discussion_groups.html) to the page where that and other equally obscene stories are? (link #16, which leads to http://www.icon.co.za/~hugot/circum/circum.htm )

    There is no known evidence that Brian Morris is a pedophile or that even for the matter that he would be a fetishist, but it is bizarre that he would link to a page with those fetishistic stories, some of which describe sexual actions involving minors.

    Now, on his links you will also find a link to James Badger page (link #1). Except, James Badger does not exist. There are plenty of reasons to believe that James Badger is really an alias for Guy Cox, fellow emeritus professor at University of Sydney with specialization in microscopy and nothing to do with pediatrics, urology, sexology or anything having to do with circumcision. Guy Cox wrote a paper about hypothesis on the function of the foreskin and evolution, and cowrote with Morris as well. But under the name Badger, he ran surveys that were published in non-peer reviewed magazines and on circlist, and which are used as references by Morris and by Cox himself. As Badger, he also wrote a fiction book with erotic scenes and circumcision (“airport encounter”). And anonymously, he and his son run a website where thy offer a sort of chastity belt for boys and recommend high and tight circumcisions to make masturbation more difficult (http://www.boyguard.com)

    Morris also includes a link (link #6) to Pierre LaCock’s website, a supposed American doctor. Except, Pierre LaCock does not exist, and evidence points to it being an alias of a doctor called Alex Shteynshlyuger, who is in fact a urologist. But strangely enough. Shteynshlyuger’s website barely mentions circumcision, but as Pierre LaCock he offers a lot of “physician verified” information with no supporting references.

    So, those things are circumstantial but they show that Brian Morris seems to enable and condone a behavior that is far from transparent. Fake names, fake doctors offering medical advice and playing around like teenagers on the internet.

    If you look at Brian Morris’ friend list on facebook, you can also see that the people who gravitate towards Morris seem to have a less than medical interest in circumcision and this behavior seems to be condoned and accepted by Morris. Friends like “Cut Eurasian”, “Glanz Out”, “Wants Tobecut” (clever names) and users with acorns and mushrooms as their profile show an innuendo which, if Morris opposed, he could simply refuse to be involved with them.

    As I said, this doesn’t prove that he is pedophile (I don’t think he is) or circumfetishist, but it shows that he does not shy from associating with people who are circumfetishists and false doctors who lie about their identities and achievements in order to promote circumcision.

    The links below, obviously to intactivist blogs, show step by step the connections and evidence of the facts I have here mentioned.

    http://circwatch.org/circumcision-lies-and-fetishism-at-the-university-of-sydney/

    http://circwatch.org/another-fictitious-doctor-friend-of-brian-morris/

    http://circumcisiondiaries.blogspot.com/2014/03/brian-morris-circumcision-advocates.html

    I hope you find this information useful and look forward to your opinions on the matter.

    • paper0airplane

      So you had to click on a link on his page, then click on a link on that page and somehow he’s responsible for that?

      I wish I could get an honest answer from him. But I can’t.

      But I can’t get anything but innuendo from the intactivists. Unless someone has managed to get proof of something other than his friends list looks funny ? I need proof. I don’t interact much with the guy anyway, but he comes across as a not very social media savvy and not very tech savvy guy.

      • paper0airplane

        Sorry this comment had a typo, and now apparently my blog is being screen capped and line by line minutia is being debated so I want to make sure there’s no confusion or conspiracy theory because I delete or edit the comment lol.

        I said “I wish I could get an honest answer from him, but I can’t”

        I meant to say “I wish I could get an honest answer from them, but I can’t”

        My apologies and carry on.

      • Dreamer

        I never said he is responsible for the content of the link. But he is responsible for deciding to place a link to that content.

        What I said is that when you, as a scientist, choose to place a link on your website, there has to be a reason for it. If the content on a website makes your message look foolish and perverted, you just don’t link to it. Why would you? Why does he?

        And it’s not click on a link and then on a link. His link is to a password protected portal. He knows what he did in linking it, and whoever created the portal knows what the content is and had a reason to password protect it (even if they did a shitty job and didn’t bother to change the password after it became well known and documented online).

        Now, why does a scientist include links on his website to pages created by non-existent persons, by fakes? And includes those websites on his printed brochures? And uses the data of one of those fakes as references in his writings and powerpoint presentations? How does that not detract from the seriousness of his message?

        And he obviously knows that James Badger is a fake name, he said it himself on his book! Guy Cox, his coworker, the real identity behind James Badger, the real identity behind BoyGuard, also happens to be the person providing hosting service to Morris’ website. Do you think all those things are coincidence?

        I said all this is circumstantial and all it shows is that he tolerates a behavior that is less than serious, less than evidence based and less than transparent.

        I don’t care what other intactivists say. I said it openly here. I don’t think he is a pedophile. He has not been legally accused or judged, so he must be presumed innocent. Arrogant and authoritarian, sure, but that’s not illegal. But he provides a space for people who are less than transparent, and he does nothing to disassociate from them.

      • Dreamer

        When Quaintance was arrested, Morris rushed to remove the references to the G site. He also removed the much criticized humor page with the picture of the naked boy with a flip phone closed on his foreskin and the poem by good old Vernon. He has had his website redesigned a few times over the course of the years. So he is capable of having his site reviewed and updated.

        And if he can do that, his links to websites by fake doctors and his link to a password protected portal of circumfetish literature, must still be on his website for deliberate reasons. He must consider them relevant for something.

        But what are those reasons?

        I don’t have an answer. Your guess is as good as mine.

        • paper0airplane

          Dreamer, you’re guess is as good as mine is a legitimate statement. I wish that were how it were normally phrased. Instead of a statement of fact, questions and expression of discomfort. That’s legitimate. I have real questions about him too.

          The question I have is why, under so much scrutiny, has he left such a stupid trail? A very mixed message.

          And scientists are people. That’s all I can say as far as my guess. Not much of one.

          I know that, myself, I feel uncomfortable. But that doesn’t translate into proof of wrongdoing. And that’s a hard and awful accusation to make. I know. I’ve made it. And it wasn’t easy.

          Dreamer, I do appreciate you. Refreshing in the midst of crazy eyed misplaced rage.

          If you want, I’d let you post here as a guest author.

        • paper0airplane

          I also just re-read this and realized I’d not addressed your question.

          Why did he rush to remove it? I’d guess because of the PR issue. That is the saavy thing to do; disassociate and claim (whether truly or falsely) that you didn’t know what the guy was up to, and you were just doing him a favor, as Morris has already said.

          He’s one of the biggest ‘scientific’ voices out there amongst the ‘pro’ (and ACTUALLY pro) circumcision movement, which isn’t a very big movement. Believing everyone should be circumcised is not the same as believing that there isn’t enough evidence to attempt to outlaw or legislate the issue. He has to be careful of what he says, and the fact that he’d take such a risk as he already has and has NOT come under scrutiny by the media when they publish their fluff circumcision pieces is a bit beyond me. Everyone loves a good drama or ‘outing’. I assume once that point comes, that questions that SHOULD be asked are asked, he will either answer or lawyer up. I’m interested to know. It’s a clear conflict of interest if that is, in fact, where his sexual interests lie.

          That being said? IF the science is solid the science is solid. If Van Howe put out a great study that was rock solid and high powered and replicable, well…then it would have to be a piece of evidence to be used.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: