by Kurt Johmann
Written: February 2002
Monotheism is the belief in a single God. In the world today, there are three well-known monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Imperialism is the enslavement of nations. In effect, imperialism denies the right of different peoples to live apart from each other, having their own independent governments. In effect, an imperialist says: what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine.
A belief in a single God is consistent with a belief in a single controlling authority for mankind. Thus, monotheism and imperialism are, as the saying goes, like two peas in a pod. Monotheism and imperialism go together. Regarding the imperialist tendencies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
Judaism is an exclusionary religion that teaches that Jews are God’s “chosen people” who are entitled to rule over other people.
This declaration of an entitlement to rule over non-Jews is an obvious declaration of imperialism. However, unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism does have an element of nationalism, because Jews are born, not made: to be a Jew, one must have a Jewish mother.
Christianity teaches that those who believe in God’s son (Jesus) are saved and going to heaven (which lasts an eternity), while those who do not believe in God’s son are doomed and going to hell (which also lasts an eternity).
Unlike Judaism, the imperialism of Christianity is more subtle: Jesus is claimed to be the savior of the whole world, and, given a choice between either an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, national freedom and independence are not allowed to stand in the way of the “good news” about Jesus and his saving powers. Thus, for this all-important task of bringing the “good news” about Jesus to other peoples, Christianity has a history of trampling on the rights of other peoples to their own beliefs.
Islam teaches that there is only one God, and Mohammed is his prophet. Those who submit to God and his prophet are going to heaven (which lasts an eternity), while those who do not submit to God and his prophet are doomed and going to hell (which also lasts an eternity). The word Islam means submission: one must submit to God and his prophet.
The imperialism of Islam is very overt: Islam’s long history of being “spread by the sword” began with its founder Mohammed, whose book, the Koran, details his murderous campaigns against the “unbelievers”. Islam teaches that to die in battle for Islam gives the highest reward in heaven.
The anti-national nature of Islam is plainly stated by those who advocate Islam. For example:
This concept of nationality is against ISLAMIC teachings as all muslims are brothers, but once this concept penetrates the minds of the muslims, then muslims of Iran will kill muslims of Saudia; thus the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is forgotten.
Of these three monotheistic religions, Judaism is the oldest (allegedly founded in the second millennium BC), Islam is the youngest (founded in the 7th century AD), and Christianity is inbetween (founded in the 1st century AD). Christianity is clearly rooted in Judaism, since Jesus and his early followers were Jews. In effect, the development of Christianity can be seen as the development of a kinder, gentler monotheism (Christianity rejected the genital mutilation practiced by the Jews), that is suitable for non-Jews (Christianity discarded the national idea of being born into the religion). Just as Christianity is rooted in Judaism, Islam is rooted in Christianity: both religions have a single God, and a single man who has a special connection to God. In effect, Islam replaced the gentle miracle-working Jesus with the violent warrior Mohammed.
One can say that with Islam, monotheism has reached its final form: overtly imperialist; overtly against all forms of nationalism; overtly requiring that its subjects submit to those in power. The whole idea of the need for submission is imperialist: the slavemaster always wants submission from his slaves.
Because imperialism is a violation of nations, and the family is the root of nations, it is not surprising that the two worst monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, both attack the family by advocating and practicing genital mutilation.
Judaism mutilates the genitals of its male children. Islam mutilates the genitals of both its male and female children (all males are mutilated, and some females are mutilated), and Islam also forces women to cover themselves so that they cannot be seen by men.
Genital mutilation weakens the bonds between men and women by making sex between them less satisfying. The following statements by men who were circumcised as adults make the destructive and harmful nature of genital mutilation clear:
Wearing a condom or wearing a glove ... sight without color would be a good analogy ... only being able to see in black and white ... rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an orgasm with a foreskin and without. There are feelings you’ll just never have without the foreskin. (Paul Tardiff, circumcised at 30, NOCIRC Circumcision Video, by Marilyn Milos, RN, and Sheila Curran, RN)
My newly naked glans [after the circumcision] was protected from irritation with bandages ... Slowly the area lost its sensitivity and as it did I realized I had lost something rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy had relatively little effect ... The acute sensitivity never returned. Something rather precious to a sensual hedonist had been lost forever ... My experience ... is ... that circumcision destroys a very joyful aspect of the human experience for both males and females. (NOCIRC Newsletter)
I did decide to get circumcised at age 28, mainly because I had heard that it was much easier to keep clean ... I found that the negatives of circumcision far outweighed the minor benefit of a slight improvement in hygiene. I wound up being very sorry that I had become circumcised because of a major loss of sexual enjoyment after the circumcision. I found that the loss of my foreskin led to a drying out of the head of my penis and a resulting loss of sensitivity ... But the biggest factor in the loss of sexual enjoyment was that I no longer had a foreskin to massage the head of my penis during intercourse and masturbation. I no longer had skin moving tightly back and forth across the head of my penis, which had provided a great deal of pleasure previously. I still consider the decision to get circumcised the biggest mistake in my life. (R.P.[the initials of the man making the statement], Tulsa, The Joy of Uncircumcising!, by Jim Bigelow, PhD, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1995)
My wife would chew on my foreskin. That would drive me out of my mind. Now I think someone could chew the head off and I might not feel it. (Private communication from a man circumcised in his early 30’s) 
In some cases the effects of genital mutilation are downright painful, such as for women when the man is mutilated. The following statements by women who have had sex with both natural and mutilated men make the destructive and harmful nature of genital mutilation clear:
There is a huge difference in sex with uncut [natural] and cut [circumcised] men, and most women who’ve had both, prefer uncut. I’ll never have another cut partner. My body can’t handle the rough painful sex they need in order to finally squeeze out a cum, because most of the feeling has been cut away, and they’ve been left dried out and insensitive.
Intercourse with a circumcised man and intercourse with an uncircumcised man are two entirely different experiences. I can always tell from the feeling alone whether or not a man is circumcised. Circumcised men take longer to ejaculate. They have to work at it. (From a conversation with a prostitute) 
I became obsessed with the idea that my boyfriend should be circumcised. We were very happy together, and much in common, and best of all we were very compatible in bed. But I refused to get married until he was circumcised—and he gave in.
That little operation completely destroyed our life together. Before he had fabulous staying power, but after the operation he would have an orgasm in five minutes and leave me high and dry. To make things worse, sex became very painful to me. Twice I had to see a doctor due to minor infections from the chafing. Our beautiful sexual togetherness became a nightmare of staying creams, lubricants and frustrations.
He says he will never forgive me, and we no longer speak to each other…but I cannot forget what a stupid mistake I made which altered the life of a lovely person. (Carolyn LaRoc, letter to Playgirl, February 1975) 
One of the keynotes of the book [Sex As Nature Intended It, by Kristen O'Hara] is its unique survey of [138 American] women who have had the comparative experience of sexual intercourse with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. If you’re like the majority of women in the survey, you’ve found intercourse with your “natural” partner a highly rewarding experience—much more pleasurable than the intercourse you experienced with circumcised men. …
The aforementioned survey of women—women who have had sexual experience with both types of penises—unearthed many mind-boggling revelations. Such as these:
- Women were more than 4 times likelier to achieve vaginal orgasm when the man had a natural penis.
- Women experienced considerably more discomfort during intercourse when the man had a circumcised penis.
- Premature ejaculation was significantly more common with circumcised partners.
- Surveyed women overwhelmingly preferred sex with the natural penis by a margin of 9 to 1.
One riveting aspect of the book is the author’s own tastefully erotic, dynamic story about her “circumcised experiences” and her discovery of the wonders of “natural sex.” ,,
During my circumcised intercourses, I felt violated or used—like I was just a piece of meat—even with my husband.
With my current natural partner, I feel warm, tender, soft, and beautiful. But during circumcised intercourse, I would often get aggravated emotionally. I have cried after many of my circumcised sexual experiences—feeling so empty and not knowing why. I have never cried or felt this way with a natural partner.,
Monotheism advocates a single God, which is consistent with advocating a single authority over all mankind. Thus, monotheism and imperialism are compatible beliefs and are often found together. In effect, a belief in monotheism gives psychological support to those who want to dominate people different from themselves. Instead of saying that monotheism leads to imperialism, it is probably more correct to say that imperialism leads to monotheism: those who enslave other people can justify their crimes by claiming that their sole authority over their slaves is a reflection of God’s sole authority over the universe.
The close association that monotheism has with genital mutilation is a consequence of monotheism being a psychological prop for imperialism. Genital mutilation weakens the family, which in turn weakens nations composed of families. In effect, genital mutilation attacks the enemy of imperialism, which is nationalism. In general, those who are mutilated are more open to imperialist thinking, because their own existence within their nation has been damaged and diminished.
Besides attacking the family, genital mutilation has other effects, including contributing to the concentration of wealth. See the discussion in my American Culture essay. Also, for the psychological effects of genital mutilation, see my The Psychological Harm of Male Circumcision essay.
 This quote is taken from a news item (dated February 12, 2002) by Azzam Publications (an Islamic news source), titled US Forces Start Recruiting Afghan Youth for Military Training, at http://220.127.116.11/~acom/afghan/news/news.php?id=100.
 These four statements by men circumcised as adults, as well as additional similar statements, are at: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/sight.htm
About these four statements by men who were circumcised as adults, one person who commented on this part of my essay suggested that:
Circumcised babies don’t necessarily evolve the same as natural babies, so I’m not sure that later they really feel the same as men who were circumcised as adults. Those men only know how being circumcised as adults is, and whether they think that is a good idea (or not). The truth is, there is nobody who can know both sides of the baby-version.
It is not true that “there is nobody who can know both sides of the baby-version,” because of what is known as foreskin restoration. Many men who were circumcised as babies have restored their foreskins by causing growth of new skin to cover the head of the penis. The typical foreskin-restoration method, which takes many months, applies a constant pull on shaft skin causing the shaft skin to grow until eventually there is enough extra shaft skin to cover the penis head when the penis is not erect. Men who have restored their foreskins typically report very substantial increases in their sensitivity, and a very substantial improvement in the sexual experience.
Although foreskin restoration does not completely give the man back his foreskin (certain nerves, muscles, and tissues, that are in the natural foreskin, are not in the restored foreskin), foreskin restoration does allow the head of the penis to regain much of the sensitivity it had lost as a result of always being exposed (the head of the penis is supposed to be an internal organ covered by the foreskin, that only comes out occasionally, much like the tongue in one’s mouth).
 From a guestbook comment by an Australian woman at: http://venus.beseen.com/guestbook/r/139927/guestbook.html
 At: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/raw.htm
 Quoted from an article by Wayne Hampton, at: http://www.eskimo.com/%7Egburlin/mgm/hampton1.html
 At: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/femalepartnermanforeskin/
O'Hara, Kristen. Sex As Nature Intended It. Turning Point Publications, 2001.
The survey results are based on 138 completed and returned questionnaires. The survey was conducted by Kristen O'Hara, who had placed classified ads over a period of several years in various local and national publications, inviting women who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and uncircumcised men to participate in a survey [Ibid., p. 229]. The printed survey questionnaire was mailed to participants, and had more than 40 questions (the survey questionnaire is reproduced in the book’s Appendix D). The survey participants had an average age of 37, and sexual-intercourse experience with a median of 8 circumcised partners and 2 natural partners [Ibid., p. 247].
Besides appearing in her book, the survey results were published in the British Journal of Urology (BJU International, January 1999, Volume 83, Supplement 1, pp. 79–84). This journal article is reprinted in the book’s Appendix E.
Although the exact numbers in America of circumcised men and natural men are not known, the survey’s median of 8 circumcised men for every 2 natural men approximates a rough estimate—based on data presented by Dan Bollinger in his November 2000 article Normal versus Circumcised: U.S. Neonatal Male Genital Ratio (at: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger3/)—that about three-fourths of the adult American males who were born in America and are alive today, are circumcised. Note that almost all circumcised men in America were circumcised when they were babies, and that the standard circumcision done to male infants in America completely removes all of the outer foreskin and much of the inner foreskin, all of the frenulum, and some of the shaft skin. For more details see the relevant section in my Psychological Harm of Male Circumcision essay: The Standard American Circumcision: What it Destroys.
 The survey result that premature ejaculation was significantly more common with circumcised partners, seems to contradict the previously quoted statement by a prostitute that circumcised men take longer to ejaculate. However, the explanation is that the surveyed women were not prostitutes.
The last thing a guy with a prostitute has on his mind is trying to please her. After all, she is only doing it for the money. On the other hand, intercourse in a non-money relationship is more of a mutual experience, and the man is free to make the experience last as long as he wants, assuming his partner is also pleased by it. There is none of the implicit rush that a prostitute has, which is to get her current customer to orgasm so she can move on to the next customer.
What seems to be the case is that during intercourse the average natural man can orgasm more quickly and easily than the average circumcised man, if he wants to, and likewise during intercourse the average natural man can delay orgasm more easily than the average circumcised man, if he wants to. The explanation is that the natural man has what he was born with, giving him more control over the sexual experience during intercourse (the natural penis and natural vagina are made for each other, and work together to please both partners). Unlike the average circumcised man, the average natural man does not “have to work at it” to achieve orgasm during intercourse (many circumcised men have trouble reaching orgasm during intercourse, because they need a more forceful stimulation of their insensitive penis than provided by intercourse).
 Regarding the survey result that women preferred sex with the natural penis by a margin of 9 to 1, Kristen O'Hara, in her book, details various reasons why the survey was not 100% in favor of the natural penis (14 of the 138 survey respondents preferred the circumcised penis), and she concludes by saying:
Essentially, even though these women indicated they favored circumcised, they “damned it with faint praise.” [O'Hara, op. cit., p. 249.]
 O'Hara, op. cit., p. 22. (Kristen O'Hara is quoting one of the 138 respondents to her survey of women who have had sexual intercourse with both natural and circumcised men.)
There are many such quotes in her book, in which women express in various ways their delight with natural intercourse, and their suffering from circumcised intercourse. Besides often quoting the women who had answered her survey, and detailing and discussing the survey results, there is also a very detailed and extensive coverage of the physical differences between natural and circumcised intercourse, and why these physical differences make circumcised intercourse a poor experience for women. Here is a brief summary of two of these physical differences:
The circumcised penis on the outside is a harder object (primarily because the remaining skin is stretched tight during an erection), and the penis head’s hook-like coronal ridge acts as a scraper inside the vagina. A natural penis is softer (because it has all of its skin, and this skin covering is still loose and moveable during an erection), and the penis head’s hook-like coronal ridge is lessened in its scraping effect because the foreskin bunches up behind the coronal ridge during the outward stroke by the natural man.
The circumcised man has a longer and more forceful stroke than the natural man. The reason for this longer and more forceful stroke is because the circumcised man is doing his best to stimulate his insensitive penis. This longer stroke means that there is less total contact time between the man’s body and the woman’s clitoral mound, and when this contact happens it happens more forcefully. Unfortunately for the circumcised man, what feels like the right way to stroke for him is the wrong way to stroke for the woman.
 In her book, Kristen O'Hara also makes the point that the high divorce rate in America, which is more than twice the rate in Western Europe, is very probably largely a consequence of the kind of sexual intercourse that women get with circumcised men (most American men are circumcised; most European men are natural). And she even gives the example of her own parents:
In my childhood, my mother and father often had heated arguments. She was clearly dissatisfied with him for several reasons and was always saying, “You just wait until these kids grow up, I’ll divorce you so fast it’ll make your head spin.” She eventually did divorce him. However, I was very close to my mother and I know that she really wanted to love my father, but she didn’t really like having sex with him (she talked about it quite openly to me). Now that I know what I know, I believe that with good, natural loving she could have become putty in his hands. Instead, she took out her sexual frustration and resentment in periodic arguing and bickering. It’s so sad to watch how love goes bad when it could have grown into a beautiful thing.
During one particular argument (it was long after my bedtime and I’m sure they thought I was asleep), my mother shouted, “I wish I’d never married you. I should have married John. I’d be happy now, instead of being miserable with you.” My father growled back, “Oh, sure…John this…John that…. You wouldn’t have been happy with him.” To which my mother yelled back, “Yeah, well at least when I had sex with him, it didn’t feel like he was shoving a broomstick in and out of me, like it does with you.” [O'Hara, op. cit., p. 64.]
June 2002: a few additions to the footnotes.
March 2002: a few additions.