Welcome & FAQs
"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it." --Mark Twain I appreciate you stopping by and taking the time to carefully consider this often-trivialized but important issue with an open mind:-)
If you find any broken links, errors in my reasoning or if you have a question for me or need help finding resources, write to me here(you can do so anonymously if you prefer). I am glad to help:-)
Due to the large amount of articles and personal stories, you may find it helpful to use the Search Site option in the above right.
Also please feel free to repost any of the content assembled on my site on your own blog forum site or wherever.
*
So, how much do you really know about foreskin and its amputation? It is just a small useless extra body part that only causes problems, right?
If you are an American like myself, then you probably would answer the above questions by repeating the pro-cutting/anti-complete genitalia beliefs you automatically absorbed from our culture during the rare times this topic was mentioned. However there is an 'other side' to this issue. My site is here to help you explore that, which believe me, I know from personal experience, can make one feel quite uncomfortable to say the least. However considering that this surgery is irreversible and non-consensual, shouldn't we at least be aware of why others(in fact the vast majority of the 'civilized' world), don't do this? I believe we should.
Here is a fun and informative overview from a new father:
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/father
If you do decide to keep your whole baby, you should know that the biggest problem your child is ever likely to have, is that someone thinks there is a problem. This may include culturally-indoctrinated relatives friends and sadly even medical personnel who even today are often not aware of the proper care and treatment of whole genitalia(because they are not taught about it in medical school and often because they themselves or their spouse is missing that part of their body). Here is an excerpt from a recent message to me from my feedback page that is typical of what many other parents have experienced:
"During his stay at the hospital, you would not believe how many times I was asked by several nurses if I wanted to circumcise my baby. No matter how many times I said "NO," they kept pestering me and asking away! It was incredible! Finally, they just gave up and left it alone, so, with that being said, my son is whole."
How to properly care for your Uncut baby(It's easy!):
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/peron1/
Protecting your Intact Son from Medical Personnel:
http://www.wholebabyrevolution.com/Protecting-Your-Son.html
Questions:
Why is your site called Involuntary Foreskinectomy Awareness?
Isn't circumcision just an automatic decision?
Isn't every circumcision the same as every other?
Haven't Americans have always been circumcised?
Isn't circumcision is necessary for health reasons?
Don't fathers and sons need matching penises?
Would you describe a woman who has her entire body as 'unmastectomied'?
Don't parents have the right to cut off their daughter's clitoral hood?
Don't Christians have to be circumcised?
Isn't every 'civilized' person circumcised?
Isn't foreskin difficult to keep clean?
Aren't foreskin-problems inevitable?
Isn't amputated foreskin just thrown out in the trash?
Shouldn't irreversible amputative surgery be done to a baby?
Answers:
Why is your site called Involuntary Foreskinectomy Awareness?
Nearly all surgical procedures that involve the removal of part of the body end in -ectomy, such as mastectomy, tonsillectomy, appendectomy etc. The term circumcision is a euphemism that allows us as a society to distance ourselves and trivialize what actually happens. Using the term foreskinectomy makes it clear that part of the body is being cut off. I use the adjective involuntary to highlight that this is done without the consent of the person whose genitalia it is.
Isn't circumcision just an automatic decision?
In times past in America, it was almost impossible to learn any positive information about natural male anatomy. Only with the advent of the internet have most Americans been able to learn that only we practice secular infant circumcision on a majority of our newborn babies -- not any other Western industrialized nation. Even England, the country that helped give us the modern form of the ritual has stopped secular infant circumcision since the 1950s. Especially in the past, many American women weren't even given a choice -- they were just told by their doctors that their baby would be circumcised -- and only much later did they learn that it wasn't medically necessary. Today, there is every opportunity to learn -- the links on this page are a good place to start -- or just go to google and do your own research, so that when it comes time for the decision you can do so being fully informed.
Isn't every circumcision the same as every other?
The ancient forms of the circumcision rite would often just remove the part of the foreskin that was beyond the glans(without separating the foreskin from the glans which are naturally fused together, which is also true for girls with their biologically analogous clitoris and clitoral hood), whereas the modern American hospital version with the advent of metal clamps which makes it easy to cut off all the skin covering the glans and also often removes the highly erogenous frenulum.
Also, how much and what is cut off can vary extensively depending the cutting tool and clamps, used and the doctor's own predilection. Some circumcised men with 'loose' cuts (ie less cut off) still have much of their foreskin and frenulum left, while others have 'tight' cuts (ie more cut off) removing all of the foreskin and frenulum. So it is important to remember that one's own experience as a cut male is not necessarily extrapolatable to the experiences of all cut males. There are some cut men out there with minimal damage that doesn't consciously detract from the quality of their sexual lives(presumably very 'loose' cuts), and there also are some cut men out there who have had nearly all the pleasure taken out of sexual acts(presumably very 'tight' cuts).
Haven't Americans have always been circumcised?
Around the turn of the 20th century in America, masturbation was thought to be the cause of many diseases including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and bed wetting. Since doctors of the time period, knew that the foreskin abets masturbation by providing a natural lubricant(circumcised men often have to use an artificial lubrication in order to masturbate without rubbing themselves raw with dry friction) and that it contributed to the pleasure-motive of masturbation since the whole underside of the foreskin is sexually sensitive to stimulation(as opposed to the non-sexual shaft skin), it appeared logical to them to introduce circumcision as way to decrease masturbation and hence disease. Only around WWII with the rise in hospital births(before this time most Americans were born safely at home), was circumcision marketed for the majority of infant boys. Around 1975, circumcision reached it's peak with about 85% of infant boys cut. Today in the US, only a little more than half of all boys are routinely circumcised.
Isn't circumcision is necessary for health reasons?
No medical organization in world recommends routine infant circumcision. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated neonatal circumcision is not justifiable for medical reasons; however they then go on to hedgingly say that if parents want it done for traditional cultural reasons that is fine with them -- I would like to know whether you think cultural tradition is an acceptable justification to cut off the clitoral hood(biologically analogous to foreskin) of baby girls(eg as certain Indonesians do because they believe that uncircumcised women are unclean and smell bad, that circumcised women have better health in terms of ease of keeping clean and particularly in having lower rates of birth complications, and that circumcised women have more attractive-looking genitalia to the opposite sex. Also they do not believe that circumcised women enjoy sex less because they are missing erogenous parts of their genitalia and in fact if you made that suggestion to them, they would get highly defensive).
Don't fathers and sons need matching penises?
Men with foreskin like their penises just as much as you like your circumcised one. Your son will not dislike his penis just because he has all of it. If the oft-cited father son comparison ever takes place, he will likely first notice other differences like hair and size, but if he asks you why his has more skin, you can just say "When I was born, people thought it was a good idea to cut part of it off, but now we know it isn't necessary to do that". If anything he will probably express shock that they cut off part of yours.
Would you describe a woman who has her entire body, as being 'unmastectomied'?
Then why do we describe men who still have their foreskin as being 'uncircumcised'? Calling a bodily-complete man uncircumcised implies that something that should be done was not done. This is how we use language to suggest that something that is the natural and normal way to be is somehow unnatural and abnormal. I have even heard a surgeon describe men with foreskin not as having foreskin which might seem the easiest and most obvious way to state it, but as "lacking circumcision", quite an interesting circumlocution of language for him to make when it is those who are circumcised who are in reality the ones lacking something. From a biological perspective having foreskin is the default state and natural way for a man to be, so a better description for having foreskin is intact and a more accurate term for those whose foreskins were cut off is foreskinless or foreskinectomied.
Don't parents have the right to cut off their daughter's clitoral hood?
What if the mother wanted her daughter's clitoral hood cut off because she had her clitoral hood cut off and she felt it was important that her daughter 'look' like her? What if the father wanted his daughter's clitoral hood cut off because he personally preferred women like that and he felt it it was important that his daughter have 'attractive' genitalia? What if both parents wanted to cut off their daughter's clitoral hood because their culture told them it was healthier? If these are not valid reasons to cut off a girl's hood, why are they often used to justify cutting off a boy's hood?
Isn't foreskin useless?
Some functions of the foreskin are protecting the head from abrasion, providing a natural lubricant for masturbation and intercourse(We circumcised Americans, tend to buy much more KY jelly than men from cultures where circumcision is not done.), and adding to pleasure as the whole underside of the foreskin is sexually sensitive skin(if you are circumcised you can check this by noting the skin from your scar line to your head as being sexually sensitive).
Don't Christians have to be circumcised?
Christians are under no religious obligation to circumcise as Paul in the New Testament makes clear. In fact most of the Christian men in the world have their foreskin.
Isn't every 'civilized' person circumcised?
America is the only country in the world to practice secular infant circumcision on the majority of their babies. If you and I were in practically any other modern civilized industrialized country, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it would just be assumed that if you are having a baby boy, you would let him keep his entire penis he was born with.
Isn't foreskin difficult to keep clean?
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently states: "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. No special care is required. No attempt should be made to forcefully retract the foreskin [of a child whose foreskin is not yet retractable]."
Aren't foreskin-problems inevitable?
Most of the men in the world, including the vast majority in industrialized modern first world nations, have their foreskin and there are no great foreskin-caused epidemics plaguing their societies; in fact in Europe for example where secular circumcision is rare, they actually have lower HIV, STD and penile cancer rates than us circumcised Americans. The most common foreskin problem, phimosis(tight foreskin), can almost always be treated with exercises and creams, but here in the US, doctors(who are usually circumcised themselves) will often diagnose the need for circumcision in these cases where doctors(who usually still have their foreskin) from a non genital-cutting culture would prescribe non-surgical treatments.
Isn't amputated foreskin just thrown out in the trash?
Some hospitals have undisclosed motives for encouraging infant circumcisions, in that they will sell for profit the baby's amputated foreskin to biomedical companies for research and for use in the manufacture of certain cosmetic products like wrinkle creams and collagen for lip plumping injections.
Shouldn't irreversible amputative surgery be done to a baby?
I support an individual's right to choose circumcision to be done upon their own body.
Is it reasonable to assert that you, I or anyone have the right to amputate part of someone else's genitalia without the explicit consent of that person whose genitalia it is?
Most American males have part of their penis cut off before they ever reach the age and ability to offer consent. Their parents mistakenly believed they were making a medical decision when really they were inadvertently forcing irreversible cosmetic surgery on their infant son's penis. This alone, should be enough for us to conclude that circumcision should be a choice made only by the individual -- whose body it is -- when he reaches an age where he can decide what is best for himself.
Is it reasonable to assert that you, I and everyone have an innate right to keep all of or cut off part of our own genitalia according to our own discretion?
How can I help?
The best way to help is to reach out within your own social circle. When discussing circumcision with others, keep in mind the perspective they are coming from -- most Americans consider circumcision normal, healthy, clean and necessary. For circumcised men being circumcised is an integral part of their identity; so much so, that if you say anything negative about being circumcised or anything positive about foreskin, they will react as if they are being personally attacked. Mothers as well, may be highly offended by any implication they have lessened their son's penis or that their husband's penis is missing something even though this is literally true. Facing the reality of involuntary foreskinectomies, for anyone directly involved in its perpetuation is emotionally painful with most facing tremendous internal pressure to rationalize and justify why it was done or needs to be done.
If you describe circumcision as mutilation and tell them that they should not be allowed to cut off part of their baby's body, they may no longer be open to anything you have to say. Instead I recommend, being respectful and polite as you encourage them to research both sides for themselves, offer them helpful links, and ask them socratic questions. Inform them non-judgementally of the American medical history of this surgery, how many other countries have routine non-religious infant circumcision(hint: None) and of the functions of foreskin.
Thank you for viewing my site, I hope you have found it helpful:-)
~*~
Back To Top