Assorted Writings Page C

The foreskin (prepuce) is actually an extension of the penile shaft skin. This skin that covers the glans is really composed of two layers and types of skin. The outer foreskin and the inner foreskin; the inner properly referred to as mucosa. The outer foreskin folds over the mucosa when the foreskin is in a non-retracted state covering the glans. The circumference of the average man's erect penis is 5 inches around and the average foreskin length is 1-1/2 inches long. So you have 1-1/2 inches of outer foreskin and then another 1-1/2 inches of inner foreskin. Cutting off this skin approximates 36% of the male shaft skin!

An area of skin the size of a quarter contains more than 12 feet of nerves and over 40 nerve endings. [The Human Connection, Ashley Montague] Take a piece of paper and draw a rectangle with the size being 3 inches by 5 inches--this represents the average amount of inner and outer foreskin that an adult male has lost due to circumcision. Now take some quarters and see how many will fit in this rectangle. You'll find that 15 easily fit into this space, leaving plenty of space left over. That infant circumcision robs men of 240 feet of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings meant to enhance his and his partner's sexual pleasure.

There is an excellent report published in the British Journal of Urology (1996), 77, 291-295, The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa Of The Penis And Its Loss To Circumcision, by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor Department of Pathology, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, which gives a comprehensive overview of what has been (and is) cut off during a circumcision. These doctors exemplify the positive and ethical steps that many doctors are taking to provide their peers and others with information that pertains to infant male circumcision.

The foreskin of the male penis creates the penis' only movable part. The foreskin of adult males is free to move back and forth exposing and covering the glans. This has better become known as the "gliding mechanism." Men that have been circumcised, in the erect state, either have very little mobility in shaft skin, or the shaft skin is taut. Such a condition is not seen in men that have not undergone circumcision. The benefits of a mobile shaft skin can easily be deduced. During sexual activity less friction is created; often-circumcised men require the use of lubricants in aid of intercourse or masturbation. It has also been postulated that the movement and contact of the foreskin, back and forth, over the glans produces further sensations; many intact men have cited the pleasures afforded by this practice. Also, the truly obvious, but often-overlooked feature is that there is more to enjoy by both the male and female. As with sexual intercourse, many variations of method exist, this holds true with the manipulation of the foreskin.

The frenulum is a mucous membrane, richly endowed with nerves and blood vessels, which attaches the foreskin to the penis. It is located on the ventral (back) of the glans. Over and over again one can read that this is a sensitive area on the male penis. In one women's magazine they referred to this as the male "G-Spot." Most, but not all, circumcision methods destroy part or all of the frenulum--this ultra sensitive tissue (the G-Spot) is surgically removed. What is much more serious is that in many cases the doctor has taken extra steps to cut the frenulum off. This structure enhances a male's sexual enjoyment; sadly many have had their frenulum completely excised! Many intact males have indicated that the frenulum, when stimulated just by its self, can produce an orgasmic response.

To the men--do you have part or all of your frenulum? To the women--does your partner have part or all of his frenulum? If some frenulum exists do you know if you had more which was "trimmed" away?

The glans (head of the penis) was designed to be a protected structure--hence the foreskin. The foreskin covering the glans allows the glans to be kept moist and supple. The exposed glans tends to become dry and the skin layers thicken.

Nerves lay near the top of the skin membrane that covers the glans in intact men. Once circumcised the glans seeks to protect itself from abrasion against diapers and later underwear and other apparel; this is known as keratinization. Dr. Dean Edell has noted it, and others, that the skin cell thickness in circumcised men is double or triple that of intact men. This build-up of skin cells deadens and desensitises the nerve endings in the glans.

The glans of the circumcised male losses much of its color and becomes similar in color to that of the rest of the penis. The color changes are generally an indication of the glans trying to protect itself by building up skin layers. Generally the glans is a darker color more reddish or purple in color in the intact man--the color differential between the glans and shaft is often quite noticeable.

Many men, in fact thousands, are committing or have committed to foreskin restoration. As males and females we should support any man who desires to restore. Do we not support women who undergo reconstructive surgery for breasts lost to cancer? Of course we do and there should be no difference in support for men. The book, The Joy of Uncircumcising, by Jim Bigelow, published by Hourglass Publishing is an excellent resource for those interested in restoration. Various resources are available through the Internet. Please the Circumcision Facts On-Line World Resource Center.

Let's take a closer look at some of the most common reasons given for infant circumcision:

Look Like Dad

Hygiene

Phimosis

Penile Cancer

Urinary Tract Infections(UTIs)

HIV/AIDS

Look Like Dad

One of the most irrational excuses for infant circumcision is the notion that it is of such vital importance that a son's penis look like his father's penis that his foreskin must be amputated. When the circumcision frenzy began in earnest about 55 years ago almost all of the fathers were intact. The circumcision promoters told parents for over two decades that the father-son penile difference was so unimportant that it should not be a factor in the decision to circumcise. In most cases, if there were a consideration of the son having a foreskin like dad, the doctor went ahead and circumcised him without parental assent. Once more than 50% of males in the child rearing age were circumcised, the promoters began telling parents that it was important for the son's penis to look like his father's. It is very fortunate that any scars on the father's face or other parts of his body, missing fingers or other physical incidents which changed his physical appearance, and noticeable at most or all times, were not also important enough to maim infant boys in a similar manner to look like dad. In the 1980's and 1990's over 8 million circumcised fathers and enlightened mothers have taken the action to guarantee and protect the genital integrity of their sons and are raising healthy, happy intact boys. As one intact young man in high school replied when asked about looking different than his father and many of his friends, "Yes, delightfully different!" It will not be long before the grateful intact boys are the majority in the U.S. as they are in the rest of the western world.

It is much easier for a man with a circumcised penis to explain to his intact son why his penis looks different. Old excuses invalidated, exposure of the possible benefits as frauds, new information on the sensuousness of the foreskin and all of its parts and attachments, the importance of that moveable part, its function and protection, and that the father was denied all of this due to the advice given his parents and accepted by most people at that time. On the other hand, an intact father cannot tell, or will find it very difficult to tell his son, that he was circumcised because there is any benefit. The first question that will come to the boy's mind and remain there for years is, "If it is better, or there is some benefit, why don't you have your foreskin cut-off, too?"

There would be benefits for both the circumcised father and his son if the father restored a facsimile of his foreskin and insured his son's genital integrity. The father will realize sexual and physical gains by creating that new foreskin, the son will not be forced to suffer the loss, and their penises will look the same - if such a transparent physical similarity is that important to the father or mother.

Regardless of the foregoing, every person, male or female, has the basic human right to all of their body parts and any decision to remove, modify or alter any body parts must be the decision of the adult, reasonably informed owner of those body parts.

Hygiene

Many people continue to believe the myth that a circumcised penis is somehow cleaner than the natural, intact penis. In reality, the intact penis is cleaner due to Nature’s meticulous design of the foreskin and the protection it affords the glans and inner foreskin mucosa from all forms of harmful foreign substances detrimental to penile health. The natural penis was designed to be self-cleaning.

All body parts, external and internal, should be protected from natural and unnatural deleterious pollutants. The glans penis is an internal organ. The penis is not enhanced, but diminished by subtracting from this natural design. It makes no sense whatever to remove a seal, wrapper, cover, sheath, cap or lid until the time the protected product is ready for use. After use, the product is re-sealed, re-capped or re-wrapped to protect the contents until future use. A book without a cover quickly becomes soiled, deteriorates and falls apart. The same is true of any man made or natural object being protected from damage. The penis is no exception.

When the penis becomes erect, the glans is usually fully or partially exposed when the foreskin (sheath, cover, wrapper) removes itself (retracts), enabling the male to experience full sexual sensuousness. This includes the unique tactile sensations of the foreskin itself. The glans is then re-covered to protect it from foreign substances, cold, abrasive action of friction with clothing, etc. When bathing, after natural foreskin/glans separation, the foreskin is retracted for a couple of seconds, rinsed and replaced.

Dirt, all forms of dust and particles (soil, coal, metallic, wood), chemicals and other compounds and pollutants can easily be embedded in the exposed and toughened glans of the unprotected penis. Any embedment, sometimes quite deep, is caused by the friction between glans and clothing with the foreign debris acting as abrasive material between them. The head of the intact penis is untouched and a man simply washes any debris from the outer foreskin when bathing and retracts to was the naturally clean, undisturbed and naturally lubricated glans and inner foreskin. The circumcised peris of an infant and toddler is exposed to feces and other pollutants on his glans, urethral opening and scar tissue. Parents must be alert to anyone interfering with this protection by probing, stretching and retracting their son’s foreskin.

How does the circumcised penis protect itself? The constantly exposed glans grows layers of nerveless skin cells (cornification) in an attempt to protect itself and the head becomes an abnormal, unnatural, desensitized and toughened organ. Constant friction with clothing destroys most of the near surface nerve endings in the glans. The layers of skin cells that are grown for protection do not protect the glans from the dirt and debris that will continue to be embedded in the added layers of skin cells. Circumcised men have written of problems with accumulations of debris in skin tunnels and suture holes from their circumcision causing abscesses and “blackheads” that require constant attention, as well as sores on the scar and glans. Nature’s system of keeping the head of the penis clean, lubricated and protected is gone when the foreskin is amputated.

Does absence of of smegma mean a cleaner penis? A definition of smegma must be given as it is misunderstood and ill defined. Smegma is NOT the micro-fine film of natural which protects the glans, enables the foreskin to glide easily back and forth over the glans and insures the very soft , smooth texture. A dried out, rough glans and innerforeskin is not natural and just wouldn’t work very well! Smegma is NOT the fragrance released after the glans has been covered for a period of time. Some people mistakenly consider just the film of lubricant or the aroma as smegma. Smegma IS the substance created by discarded cells of the epithelium of the glans and inner foreskin mixed with the natural glans lubrication. All organs of the body undergo this constant process of cellular regeneration, the replacement of dead cells, and the penis is no exception.

Natural males seldom, if ever, experience smegma or “accumulation” of smegma. Most will only experience the lubrication and occasionally a very subtle aroma.

Females also produce smegma under the clitoral foreskin and in the folds of the labia minora and labia majora. Would this be a reason for female circumcision or infibulation? Of course not! This natural substance present among natural men and women is beneficial.

Joyce Wright, M.D., in an article for Sexology: HOW SMEGMA SERVES THE PENIS, “Nature’s Assurance That The Uncircumcised Glans Penis Will Function Smoothly Is Provided By Smegma.” relates, “Is smegma useful? Yes, certainly. It lubricates the cavity between the foreskin of the penis and the glans, thus allowing smooth movement between them during intercourse.” (The lubrication is not “smegma”)

In The Circumcision Decision, Edward Wallerstein says, “Not only is smegma not harmful, but beneficial, serving as a protective coating for and lubricant for the glans.”

“Wash, don’t amputate,” is the advice of Dr. Alex Comfort.

“Hygiene is another misplaced concern: The foreskin keeps itself clean by shedding dead cells.” says Dr. Marguerite Kelly in The Family Almanac.

Dr. Loraine Stern in Off to a Great Start, says, “It’s true that boys without foreskins don’t have these secretions, but that doesn’t mean that the foreskin is unclean.”

In Your Child’s Health, Dr. Barton Schmitt says, “The foreskin is not some cosmic error, it is there for protection, especially the sensitivity of the glans.”

Cleanliness is a mental state! There will be a certain percentage of people who will remain unclean. We may inspire good habits, but mostly a sense of cleanliness is a gift, which a certain number of humans, no matter where they may be found, whether in palaces, hovels, mansions, or huts, rich or poor, circumcised or natural, do not possess. A human with a sense of cleanliness, or one who is conditioned by good training and habits, will avail himself of a little soap or a handful of water to render himself clean. Men with a circumcised penis must practice genital hygiene as often as natural men. If a male, natural or circumcised, is constitutionally incapable of keeping himself clean, his penis is the least of his worries!

Circumcision was introduced to North America to aid male’s “moral hygiene,” to reduce, or prevent masturbation. They used penis and body restraints, acid and caustic solutions on the glans and foreskin to deaden and limit the penis and even castration and penis amputation to stop males from masturbating. They found that circumcision would produce the same results to the penis as acids and caustic solutions as well as limit movement of the shaft and promoted circumcision for the boys’ moral hygiene. But males didn’t masturbate any less. When that fact was discovered, the circumcision promoters changed the phrase from moral hygiene to physical hygiene, both hoaxes. Recent research (Journal of the American Medical Association) found that circumcised males masturbate and engage in anal intercourse more frequently than the intact males.

Parents, all males and females have the basic human right to whole, natural, sensuous and self-cleaning sex organs. Allow your sons to have the natural, normal, sensuous, protective and functional foreskin that Nature intended him to have.

Phimosis

Non-existent “phimosis” is widely used as a medically fraudulent excuse to circumcise many children, some teens and a few adult males. Phimosis is a rare condition of the foreskin that is widely misunderstood and very conveniently misdiagnosed. The myth that circumcision is the only solution to either a real or imagined pathology must be smashed. Medical treatment, not surgical intervention, should be the approach to a true diagnosis of phimosis.

We must have some definition that has some degree of accuracy and understand what phimosis is not. What is acquired phimosis, or iatrogenic (doctor caused) phimosis? How can doctors label early natural and normal fusion as phimosis when it is not? Is it a real concern, or does the presence of the foreskin trigger some psychic need to create a phantom diagnosis with circumcision the underlying intent? Is pathological or physiological phimosis rare? Is it a fact that medical treatment is often initiated when phimosis is not present due to physician ignorance of the intact penis? Do some doctors and nurses force retraction on purpose, fully aware it is damaging, in the hope of future circumcision due to that deliberate damage?

Definition? “The term phimosis (from the Greek word for muzzling),is often incorrectly applied to any foreskin that cannot be retracted. The underlying difficulty is the imprecision of the term phimosis.” 1 “This term used to be used in hospital records to justify social circumcision. It is easier to define what phimosis is not.” 2 It still is a term used to justify contraindicated circumcisions! “...a non-retractable foreskin beyond the age of 3 years.” 2 “Phimosis: Inability to retract the foreskin after the age of puberty.”3 Is this confusing? The doctor’s personal motives determine his particular definition and almost always it is incorrect.

Acquired phimosis is the condition of non-retractability due to the ignorance of the doctor, ignorance of the parents or other care givers due to misinformation or no information from the doctor. Consequently, the infant’s foreskin opening (at the ridged band or “frenar band”) is probed and widened unnecessarily or the foreskin is partially or fully retracted by force causing slight tears in the foreskin. This invasion of the foreskin may narrow and constrict the foreskin opening when the tears heal, can obstruct urine flow, can scar the glans when the mucosa is torn away and cause re-adhesion of the mucosato the glans after the tearing apart.

Boys can also cause their foreskins to be quite snug to very tight, and in some cases unretractable (self-acquired phimosis) when they discover masturbation. 4 Instead of drawing the foreskin back and forth over their glans mimicking vaginal penetration and intercourse (using their glans as a natural dilator) which naturally increases the size of the opening and adding foreskin suppleness, some boys will masturbate by rubbing their glans under their foreskin and only pulling their foreskin forward instead of toward the pubis. This will sometimes result in a longer, narrower, more tubular (as in childhood) foreskin which can be more restrictive. 4

Parents should talk with their sons about the natural and normal pleasures of masturbation which virtually all males will indulge. Make a suggestion or suggestions of method (or if embarrassed to do so,leave some information around the house that he will find). If he does have a rather tight or restrictive foreskin, masturbation by stroking the entire shaft and glans, allowing the foreskin to travel back and forth over the glans and down the shaft, will relieve a restrictive opening. Some men have experienced self-acquired phimosis by stretching their foreskin in the desire to have a longer, more substantial foreskin.

The inner foreskin mucosa is naturally fused to the glans of almost every infant (96%)5 as the development of the penis is not complete at birth. The synechia is the membrane attaching the foreskin to the glans. The desquamation of the cells of the synechia will cause the foreskin to naturally separate from the glans in most boys by the age of 5 or 6 (90%), by early teens (99%) or later teen years. This fusion is a natural design of oneness to protect the glans and meatus from feces, urine and foreign debris and protection against infection which obviously prevents the foreskin from retracting over the glans. This is NOT phimosis, but natural fusion. It is, however, the leading excuse to circumcise young boys when their foreskin has not yet retracted.

“The time to pull the foreskin back is when the child is old enough to do this himself.”2 For parents of intact sons, please tell them, “No one should pull your foreskin back unless it’s OK with you. If your doctor wants to check it, you can slide it back yourself.”6

Phimosis, then, is the inability to retract the foreskin over the glans of older boys and men due to one of the following etiologies: Pathological, Physiological, Iatrogenic, or Acquired Phimosis. In almost all cases, a normal degree of retractability will be achieved through treatment.

Most of the circumcisions performed using the excuse of phimosis are fraudulent or “sham diagnoses” of children with perfectly normal foreskins which are still naturally fused to their glans. Such circumcisions are contraindicated and the perpetrators should be reported to their respective medical society, ethics committees, state medical boards and prosecuted. This is as evil and fraudulent as telling parents that their son’s foreskin is “redundant” (too long)! Circumcision for these hoaxes make as much sense as telling a well endowed man that his nine inch penis must be reduced by three inches due to penile redundancy!

It must also be stressed that some men with phimosis are perfectly happy with that condition, will not consider circumcision nor treatment to achieve retractability. This is and should be a personal choice. Treatment published in medical journal literature reports a 90% success rate with conservative treatment using a topical steroid (betamethasone valerate 0.5%2 or clobetasol propionate cream, 0.05%7). Some individuals in the 10% who are still unable to retract opt to leave their foreskin or their son’s foreskin alone. This is also a successful treatment for the restriction of the opening if urine flow is obstructed. Balloon dilation is another treatment that reported a 100% cure rate among 512 cases.8

Pathological phimosis, due to balanitis xerotica obliterans (lichen sclerosis et atrophicus), is usually not responsive to treatment and the patient or his parents must decide whether to leave it alone, try other foreskin saving options (surgical - see below), or circumcision. Physiological phimosis, perhaps a fibrotic disease, is not understood and may be iatrogenic or self-induced.

It appears that the vast majority of the phimosis diagnoses are false - either through ignorance on the part of the physician or an excuse used to fulfill some need to circumcise his patient without medical indication. In this case, the pathology of the circumcisers should be studied.

Investigating the literature and figures in journal articles and removing all misdiagnosis of phimosis of the naturally fused glans and inner foreskin as well as iatrogenic phimosis caused either intentionally or unintentionally, very few intact males will ever experience this. Perhaps one male per thousand will experience a totally unretractable foreskin. With treatment 90% successful, one intact male in 10,000 would have to make the decision to just leave it alone, try Prepucial Plasty or Y-V Plasties, other interventions, or circumcision. About 5% of our children are being circumcised because of this fraud!

Paraphimosis is the strangling of the penis behind the glans at the sulcus. This is a rare condition caused by a tight foreskin (ridged band) which passes over the glans, tightens, will not allow theforeskin to pass back over the glans and restricts blood flow. The same treatment for phimosis will cure virtually every case of paraphimosis. If a child’s foreskin is found to be in this position, apply pressure to his glans and slide his foreskin back over.

The Solution: Phimosis would be very rare if medical staff and parents would leave the foreskin of infants and children alone and physicians educate themselves on what is and what is not phimosis and the treatments available should they ever encounter a real case.

1. Gordon A., Collin, J., “Save the normal foreskin,” British Medical Journal, vol. 30, January 2, 1996.

2. Wright, JE., “Further to ‘the further fate of the foreskin’,” The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 180, February 7, 1994.

3. Ritter, TJ, MD, Denniston, GC, MD, MPH, Glossary, Say NO to Circumcision, Hourglass Publishing, 1996.

4. Beauge, M, MD, “Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents,” Faculty of Medicine, Saint-Antoine University, Paris VI, 1991. Translated by Dr. JP Warren.

5. Gairdner, D, “The Fate of the Foreskin,” British Medical Journal, December 24, 1949, p 1433-1437.

6. Noble, E, Sorger, L., MD, “The Joy of Being a Boy,” New LifeImages, 1994.

7. Jorgensen, ET, Svensson, A, “The Treatment of Phimosis in Boys,with a Potent Topical Steroid (Clobetasol Propionate 0.05%) Cream,” Acta Dermato-Vernereologica (Stockholm), vol. 73, No. 1, February, 1993.

8. From SURGERY, Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 175, No. 3, September, 1992. (He Ying and Zhou Xiu-hua, Chinese Medical Journal, 1991).

Penile Cancer

The following letter from the American Cancer Society to the American Academy of Pediatrics should end to the disproved claim that having a foreskin increases the risk of penile cancer in older men. This is not an "official" statement of policy from the ACS. However, the ACS official statements on penile and cervical carcinomas do not include circumcision as any preventative. After this letter is a discussion of how this hoax was begun, perpetuated and proven false.

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY NATIONAL HOME OFFICE February 16, 1996

Dr. Peter Rappo Committee on Practice & Ambulatory Medicine American Academy of Pediatrics 141 Northwest Point Boulevard P. O. Box 927 Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0927

Dear Dr. Rappo:

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting circumcision as a preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent suchcancers.

Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.

Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer.

Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.

Sincerely, Hugh Shingleton, M.D. Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D. National Vice President Vice President Detection & Treatment Epidemiology & Surveillance Research 1599 CLIFTON ROAD, N.E., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30329 404-320-3333

An unscientific paper by Abraham Wolbarst, published in the Lancet, January, 1932, began the fraud that penile cancer is found only among intact men. Wolbarst asked hospitals for the number of patients diagnosed with penile cancer and whether or not they were Jewish (not whether or not they were ircumcised). To achieve desired results, he added numbers from older studies (1907, for example). The birth dates of men with penile cancer in these "studies" were from 1830 to 1885, years when it was about as difficult to find a circumcised man in the U. S. as it was a circumcised horse. Nearly all cases in those years should have been intact men as almost all men were intact.

Circumcision promoters took the annual number of penile cancer cases at that time and multiplied by population increase and the number of years since 1930 and tell us, "Of 60,000 cases of penile cancer since 1930, only 8 (or 10, or 12) have been found among circumcised men." The paper by Wolbarst has been the source for this fraudulent claim for the past 65 years. The intent is clear - use a false cancer scare to convince parents to circumcise their sons.

For years neither parents nor circumcision promoters have asked why the rate among European men, virtually all intact, is the same or lower than the more circumcised male population in North America. A circumcised penis is at approximately the same risk as the intact penis. The only means of preventing penile cancer is the amputation of the penis. Any living tissue is at risk of cancer, and this fact should be evident to the physicians who continue to believe this hoax.

Dr. Robert Van Howe has written a case study of a circumcised man who was told by his urologist that the neoplasm on his penis was nothing to worry about because, "Circumcised males can't get penile cancer." After two years and the continued growth of the neoplasm, he consulted a dermatologist who took a biopsy and found the neoplasm cancerous. Dr. Van Howe asks, "Is there a pattern here?" There may be. It is pathetic that the promoters have convinced not only the public, but many physicians of this fraud. How many circumcised men with penile cancer, told they couldn't have it, lost their penises, or lives, due to this hoax? Today, how many men with penile cancer are going without treatment due to this deception? Doctors, what do you say to these men later who, thanks to you, now have advanced penile cancer? Oooops?

The promoters of circumcision use this"study" as a scare tactic to circumcise male infants, despite the fact that penile cancer is one of the rarest of all carcinomas. This year there will be about 7 cases of penile cancer per million males, 2 deaths per million. Is this the same odds as death by lightning strike? Using data from a six year British study (Gairdner, British Medical Journal, 1949), the odds of the death of an infant boy due to circumcision is 1 in 6,000, or 167 per million circumcisions! "It is an incontestable fact... there are more deaths from circumcision each year than from cancer of the penis." (Gellis, S.S., American Journal of Diseases in Children). Please see the answer to a question in the letters section of this newsletter for an explanation of how these deaths go unreported. Male breast cancer is more common than penile cancer (SEERS Cancer Statistics Review), 6 times that of foreskin cancers and higher than all penile cancers.

The findings of the first case/control penile cancer study (Maden et al, an on-going study) was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, January 6,1993. 37% of the cases were circumcised men (which is close to the true percentage of men circumcised in the age group of the cases, born between 1910 and 1945). This study found cancers on the foreskin in 17% of the cases, (one case per 800,000 males). By definition, the difference between an intact and circumcised penis is the presence or absence of the foreskin. Therefore, 83% of penile carcinomas would be found regardless of circumcision status. The incidence of cancers on the foreskin are off-set by the higher incidence of tearing on the circumcised penis. Leading the risk factors for penile cancer, according to the Maden study, are penile rash, odds ratio 9.4 times that of men reporting no such history; genital warts, 5.9; penile tear, 3.9; over 30 sexual partners, 3.4; smoking, over 45 pack-year, 3.2; penile injury, 2.3. The intact, compared to all circumcised was a low 2.0 (1.5 is considered "chance").

Using figures from the Maden study and adjusting for the increased number of circumcised men in the age group at risk, the calculation of a national incidence of penile cancer suggests that in 1996 about 550 intact men and 450 circumcised men will be diagnosed with penile cancer. In the year 2000, when about 55% of the males in the group at risk will have circumcised penises, the data will show about 55% of the cases will be among circumcised men. The average age at diagnosis is 67 years. The circumcision boosters dare not look at the Maden study as the number is 1,400 times higher than the boosters claim! The Seattle area had 8 times more circumcised men with penile cancer in eleven years than the entire country was supposed to have had in 65 years!

In an interview with Dr. Janet Daling, study epidemiologist, she told this writer, "Penile cancer should never be considered in a circumcision decision." She said this statement was also given to the media, but never published. Dr. Daling's son is intact and twin boys born to Dr. and Mrs. Maden during the study are intact, which should be an indication that penile cancer is merely a scare tactic and circumcision does not prevent this disease - at least in the eyes of the researchers.

Circumcision promoters disregard this study and pretend it doesn't exist. They pretend the letter from the American Cancer Society doesn’t exist. They pretend the intact men of Europe with the same or lower penile cancer rates don’t exist. They continue to use the old fraud, the old scare tactic and continue to parrot the same lie over and over and over....

Urinary Tract Infections

Two facts must be well understood before addressing the medical literature on the incidence of urinary tract infections between the intact and circumcised boys in the first years of life. The first is the fact that most urinary tract defects are caused by urinary tract birth defects and it makes no difference if the boy is intact or not. Second, if the foreskins of infant boys were not probed, manipulated and inspected there would be no difference between the two cohorts and the intact boys may well have fewer incidents of UTI. The foreskin is designed to keep foreign debris and bacteruim from the urinary tract and when disturbed there is a slight increase in risk of a UTI. Circumcision promoters have been using fraudulent UTI and foreskin presence risk factors for about 15 years and tell parents that an intact boy will be ten or twenty times at higher risk.

UTI’s are actually quite rare. Paediatrics and Child Health, Vol.2, Supplement A, Page 55A, May/June 1997 (Canadian Paediatric Society), found, in following 61,543 boys in Ontario for the first five years of life (61% intact, 39% circumcised) that 511 boys were presented for a UTI over the five year period. The researchers found that the incidence of intact boys was 3 times higher than the circumcised. If 100,000 boys were circumcised, perhaps 160 cases of treatable UTI could be prevented according to this study. Urinary tract birth defects were not addressed, so the number would be much lower. Does it make any sense to circumcise a hundred thousand boys to maybe prevent 160 UTI’s when there are over 5,000 serious complications per 100,000 circumcisions (including deaths)?

“Understanding Urinary Tract Infection”, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “UTI’s are rarely seen in boys and young men. UTI’s may occur in infants with abnormalities in their urinary tract.”

“Urinary Tract Infection in Childhood”, (Infect Urol 8 (4), 111, 114-120, 1995): “60% of children with UTI’s have anatomic abnormalities in their urninary tracts.... In older children, UTI’s are significantly more common in girls and become as much as 50 times more common in girls by the age of five years. 0.3% to 1.2% of all infants will develop sympotomatic UTI’s during the first year of life.”

Removing 60% of cases with abnormailities, or urinary tract birth defects, the figures are now 0.12% to 0.48%. Removing the girls and circumcised infants leaves a figure between 0.04% to 0.18%, a mean rate of 0.11%. This means that there are 110 intact boys per 100,000 with a UTI in the first year of life. Since 70% of the male UTI’s in the first five years occur in the first year of life, there would be 157 in the first five years. Is it rational to circumcise 100,000 boys in an attempt to prevent or reduce 150 cases of a treatable UTI? And we must remember that these 100,000 circumcised boys are also at a risk of a UTI! Our studies are very close to the 160 per 100,000 in the Canadian study.

P These figures were checked against a study by Dr. Martin Altschul of 118,000 births and infants admitted with a diagnosis of UTI to Northern California Kaiser Permanente Hospitals. His finding for the intact boys is 120 per 100,000 in the first year of life. Although we do not have his figures for the first five years of life, using the 70% for the first year gives 170 cases.

Parents, allow your sons to have the natural, normal, sensuous, protective and functional foreskin that Nature intended him to have. Investigate the motives and agendas of the circumcisers and remember that a lifetime of very sensuous and complete sexuality and wholeness is in the balance. A complete penis not only enhances his sexuality, but there is the consideration of right and wrong and whose body it is that is being invaded. Subtraction does not add nor enhance.

HIV/AIDS

The suggestion that there is any correlation between the presence of a foreskin and a higher incidence in HIV infection is not only irresponsible, illogical and unethical, but totally false and dangerous. The promoters of circumcision have sunk to a new low grasping for another imaginary straw in their futile search to find a reason to justify circumcision. There is more conclusive medical literature that the absence of the foreskin may increase the likelihood of HIV infection. Should a male have either a natural or circumcised penis he must protect himself from exposure to this terrible disease by adhering to a monogamous relationship, 100% condom usage or abstinence.

This misadventure by a very small number of circumcision boosters in the medical community, but with an almost unlimited access to the media to espouse their claims, was not going to be addressed in this series. However, since they have not abandoned the atrocious claim, this fraud must be exposed, too. Thanks to Dr. Robert S. Van Howe and his extensive HIV Meta-analysis and Dr. George Williams, The NOCIRC Newsletter from NOCIRC of Australia (July-December, 1995 edition).

A relationship between increased incidence of HIV/AIDS and a natural penis suggested by the late Dr. Aaron Fink was answered ten years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine (11 June 1987) by Dr. Robert Enzenhauer. He wrote, “Circumcision removes the protection normally provided by the foreskin. The absence of circumcision may actually protect against the transmission of AIDS by protecting the urethral mucosa.” The C.D.C. in Atlanta was called and asked if they supported any claim that circumcision protects against HIV transmission. They do not support that claim.

Dr. Van Howe’s meta-analysis, completed in late 1996, combined all published articles in which data was included. “When the raw data is combined, the man with a circumcised penis is at higher risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV. In spite of these findings, several North American physicians persist in promoting the myth that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV-infection. Based on the studies published to date, a cavalier call for routine circumcision in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.”

The promoters of this correlation use small African studies only. A very insignificant study in Seattle is also quoted, where the HIV+ males were not examined to determine if they were circumcised or not. Two large studies in New York City found no correlation between HIV incidence and presence or absence of a foreskin and discovered another interesting fact. The men were asked whether or not they were circumcised and then, after physical examination, found that 15% answered incorrectly. They didn’t know what “circumcision” meant. The importance of physical examination among all study samples is obvious. If only two men in the Seattle sample answered incorrectly, the results would reverse!

If a population is going to be compared, it should have similar educational, medical and sanitary conditions; similar culture, religions and sexual practices; similar rates of intravenous drug use and size of the gay community. Western Europe is as close a mirror image as can be found. How can the fact that the predominantly circumcised males in the U.S. have an incidence of HIV infection four times that of a virtually intact European male population be so conveniently ignored? Although conclusions based on comparative epidemiology is considered less than reliable and unscientific, the comparison of the similar U.S. population and Western European population would be much more valid than would be the comparison of the U.S. population and the very different populations of Kenya, Rwanda, and Zaire.

In light of all of the above, The Backlash, issue 1994,carried an article by John Erickson which asks: “Does male circumcision contribute to the spread of AIDS? Isn’t it time we find out? One more question: If a positive correlation between AIDS and circumcision were in fact established, would it be fully and accurately reported by the media in this country, or, like so many other facts about the foreskin and circumcision, would it be distorted, censored and suppressed?”

“There is no evidence of a cause and effect relationship between having a foreskin and HIV infection. It has been strongly suggested that circumcision increases one’s risk of HIV because it creates a wound site.” Lancet, Vol. 345, March 18, 1995.

“The only logical means of protection against AIDS/HIV transmission is safe sex practices. By promoting circumcision as a protective measure against AIDS/HIV is irresponsible and could set a dangerous precedent for circumcised males who may ignore safe sex guidelines.” John Shanahan, The Newcastle Star, 6 September, 1995.

“Is someone really claiming that having an uncircumcised penis is a risk factor for HIV? Perhaps it depends on where you put it.” Dr. Brian Cheong, Australian Doctor, 27 October 1995.

The most compelling summary for this article is a post from Dr. Van Howe of October 7, 1996: “I just received ‘A Physician Guide to HIV Prevention’ published by the AMA in conjunction with a host of organizations. It does not mention MGM as a method of HIV prevention. Enough said.”

~*~

by Rosemary Romberg

Many concerned individuals believe that infant circumcision is child abuse. In any other context, if someone were to forcibly restrain a child and do something to hurt his genitals, most people would consider that child abuse. Yet we have legally and socially sanctioned that same act when performed by our nation's medical profession.

Organized groups that deal with recognized child abuse, however, have (so far) refused to take on infant circumcision. Certainly they encounter situations that are much, much worse. But perhaps many of their leaders are themselves parents of circumcised sons, or even doctors who perform the operation on infants, and therefore are shocked to hear of infant circumcision considered in that context.

It is jarring and difficult to step out of one's own cultural context and really look at what we are doing. It is so much easier to gloss over reality with cultural justifications and apathy. After all, the intent on the part of the adults is not the same. We consider ourselves loving, concerned parents - nothing like "them."

But the baby, strapped down to a board, knife to his genitals, knows nothing of the adults' intent.

"Child abuse" labels turn into angry accusations hurled every which way. Doctors, parents, and society in general react defensively. The choice: be an ostrich and refuse to see, or face the issue squarely and accept the pain of wrongness. For some that inner pain is too much to face. Better to hide the issue. If the pain is only the baby's, that is okay for he cannot speak.

Perhaps the term "child abuse" raises too many hackles to ever resolve the issue. Instead, we must temporarily set that matter aside, take a step back, and view the entire issue on a spectrum of an overall philosophy of how we treat our children. How do we truly view the parent-child relationship in our society?

My initial concern was that circumcision inflicted severe pain and trauma on a helpless infant. A glaring, hideous contradiction to any beautiful, sensitive philosophies of treating a child with love, gentleness, and non-violence. But my American middle-class upbringing left me with a deeply ingrained belief that males were somehow, better off circumcised. (Hence the "dilemma.") Months of intensive research found myth after myth debunked by clear-cut, documented fact. With great pain and difficulty I had to admit that what I had chosen for my own sons was wrong. (How I admire others who can come to that same place through their own inner resources, or after reading just an article or two.)

My earliest writings strongly emphasized the pain and trauma inflicted on an infant through circumcision. But as deeply as this alone has torn my heart, infant pain is actually a side issue. Doctors who have heard the uproar over infant pain have pulled out their hypodermics with local anesthesia and considered the problem "solved." Of course it isn't. There is still great trauma in being forcibly restrained, and much pain in healing for the infant. And the other issues have simply been swept under the rug.

What about medical risks versus benefits? It seems that we can go on and on and on. I have covered each in depth in my book. All of the common arguments such as prevention of cancer and sexually transmitted disease have been found unsubstantiated. The complications of the operation itself are shocking and devastating. Health risks of staying intact? Over and over again we must emphasize their preventability. Leave the baby's foreskin alone!! Attempts to retract a baby's foreskin are the cause of virtually all of the purported "problems" associated with non-circumcision - including the latest, urinary tract infections.

How did anything so utterly simple become so horrendously complicated? Entire populations have survived for thousands of generations with foreskins intact. Anything as horribly health hazardous as some pro-circumcisionists imagine would have been biologically selected against eons ago. Similar arguments over purported health hazards of other body extremities could easily be proffered. Amputative surgery of ears, toes, fingernails, etc. could come into vogue. Medical risks versus benefits" too are but a side issue that could keep us busy indefinitely.

We expound on the preferred "natural state of the body." There are benefits to having a foreskin. It has a protective role and function. This is the outcry from the men involved. The foreskin protects the more delicate glans from urine and abrasions. There are sensitive nerve endings in the foreskin itself. It has advantages for variations during masturbation and intercourse. But these are realities much, much too painful for most American circumcised adult males to hear. Here is where so many hearts and minds close and dismiss the whole matter as "nonsense."

Maternal protective instincts - exquisitely sensitive, yet powerful - almost always motivate informed mothers to refuse circumcision for their babies. But circumcised fathers so often want their sons to be "like them." Is this the only way a father can make his own circumcised state "okay?" He cannot allow his son to have something that he does not have himself? Otherwise he might have to come face to face with the painful reality of his own lack of foreskin? Some families have intact sons because the mother "won." Other families have circumcised sons because the father "won."

But even our claimed benefits of the natural state of the body, the advantages of having a foreskin, - these too are not the heart of the issue.

In a recent magazine article on "battered children" the following comments jumped out at me

"Why is physical abuse of children by their own parents allowed to go on in this country, even after it has been detected and documented? Why does it happen in the first place?

To answer those questions, the best place to begin might be with another question: Does a parent 'own' a child?" ....... " . . . there's a feeling that, even when parents do go too far and even if some parents don't love and protect their children, it's nobody else’s business.

‘We still think of children as their parents’ private property ----- and that is the heart of the problem,’ says Donald Bross, a lawyer and medical sociologist who is an advocate for abused children through Denver’s Kempe Center, which treats and researches child abuse." *

The article was addressing deliberate, recognized, types of child abuse, and not infant circumcision. But again, the entire issue exists on a spectrum of how we view and treat our children.

My first three sons were born during an era in which infant circumcision was something that "everybody" did and no one talked about. But today the issue is in the air. People do talk about it, and many are vociferously against it. Childbirth educators attempt to talk parents out of it. Some doctors refuse to perform the operation.

But many others are taking a "nice", "neutral", non-committal stand of "present the facts and whatever the parents decide is okay." Most disturbing of all are the many doctors who claim to agree with our views, yet still will circumcise babies if the parents insist upon it. I suppose this is the "safest" way out since the baby cannot speak for himself. It sounds good in theory. Activists are dismissed as obnoxious for not being more "understanding." We are admonished not to try to "influence" parents' decisions. "It's none of your business what they choose! It's their baby!"

Underlying all of this is the very frightening philosophy that the child is "property" of the parents. Parents are therefore free to surgically alter his body or not as they so choose. Society's sanctioning of this act opens the door a little farther for other types of more severe, deliberate child abuse.

But if we are to consider the child as a human being, with rights, needs, and feelings of his own - where does that leave us?

This then - not pain, not medical issues, not even the advantages of the natural state of the body - but the child's individual rights to all normally occurring parts of his body - is the true heart of the issue.

~*~

While all other relics of 19th century surgical quackery, i.e. blood-letting, trephining, routine tonsillectomy, routine appendectomy, adenoidectomy, clitoredectomy, have silently disappeared, the persistence of routine prepucectomy [prepuce- the male foreskin; prepucectomy then the correct term for circumcision] remains an enigma. Clearly, the answer to this enigma lies in the fact that the organ in question is the penis, that most powerful symbol of male self-identity and self-esteem. The circumcised male's irrational demand for all other males to undergo a similar surgical penile reduction is an indication of the intensely complex anxieties penile alterations create in the male psyche. Significantly, only circumcised men display feelings of hostility and loathing towards the prepuce, and describe it as a dangerous threat to health. Although such psychological neuroses may be endemic to all levels of American society, there exist many effective solutions to this problem.

Parental requests to alter permanently the genitals of their children are most often based on myths, erroneous science, and common societal sex-negative attitudes. Parental attitudes of discomfort towards the natural genitalia of their newborn sons are also indicative of serious sexual and psychological disturbances. Sexual repression, rationalizations, emotional insulation, avoidance of cognitive dissonance, feelings of competitiveness towards the child on the part of fathers, and transference to the child of anxieties and fears over nonconformity have been commonly noted. The psychological need to deny that the prepuce is part of the penis and the need to deny that its amputation has negative sexual consequences, or indeed the belief that amputation has positive sexual consequences is testimony to the seriousness of this problem. Clearly, the surgery is not performed on the child's behalf but is paradoxically performed to alleviate the sexual and social anxieties of the parents or the attending physician.

Undoubtedly the person in need of medical attention is not the child, but the parent. The reasonable prescription in this case is for a qualified psychiatrist for the parents, not a surgeon for the child. To this aim, Woodmansey made the following sound recommendation in a letter to the British Medical Journal:

"Something must be done to help the parents who show such an irrational need...Consider asking a colleague whose job is to help people with their emotional problems to try to discover and alleviate the parents' underlying difficulties, which not only impel them to demand this operation but which, if not adequately dealt with, may perpetuate difficulties in the parent-child relationship with the risk of later psychiatric illness in the child...This important kind of work can and should be undertaken by the medical social workers in a general or children's hospital, provided that they receive suitable psychiatric support." [Woodmansey AC. Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1965;2:419.]

As for physicians, one must ask what sort of person would actually choose to make his living sticking knives into the sexual organs of babies. One can hypothesize that a severe form of psychotic dementia can result from circumcision which impels the victim in later life to repeatedly reenact his own mutilation upon others. He assumes the role of the perpetrator. This role reversal can be a type of psychologic defense mechanism whereby the victim identifies with the perpetrator and his cause in order to rationalize the crime. He moves from a position of powerless victimization to an illusion of empowerment. It can also be a type of revenge by proxy. It can also be another form of defense mechanism whereby the victim diminishes the pain and personal identity of his victimhood by ensuring that as many others as possible suffer the same mutilation.

Victims of severe childhood physical abuse often grow up to be child beaters themselves as adults. Are we not seeing the same psychological patterning in circumcisors? Is it not concievable that some psychotic circumcision victims have deliberately maneuvered themselves into positions and careers where they can have access to children's genitals so that they feed their psychotic compulsions? In the case of this particular psychotic compulsion, there is a socially acceptable arena for this compulsion to be acted out. There is no socially acceptable arena for the beating of children and those who do so are liable to punishment if caught. Circumcisors have no fear of being caught. They get paid to harm children. Some of the more demented circumcisors present themselves as medical experts and claim to be acting in the best interest of their victims. Many charge that they are being persecuted when sane individuals question circumcision. Thus, they insure that the enacting of their psychotic compulsion remains socially acceptable. Most psychotic circumcision victims, however are content simply to circumcise, to play out their compulsion. They stay quite just so long as they have access to a fresh supply of babies to mutilate.

To paraphrase John A. Erickson; It is not circumcision, but circumcisors that need studying.

~*~

The conditioning and conforming to various social fads or trends of a few years (or the past four decades) is a very powerful force in the decision making process for all sorts of issues which confront parents and individuals. Should people make decisions based upon this force, they are controlled by agents with particular agendas who maintain that control by the perceptions continuously repeated with a goal of making the natural appear unnatural, the abnormal appearing normal. The art of condition, conform and control, "The 3-C's," has been used for millennia, one person or group with a goal of controlling and directing the lives of others.

The power and persuasion of "The 3-C's" is most likely one of the greatest forces which perpetuate the practice of foreskin amputation in the U.S. One "reason" some mothers (and fathers) assent to the trauma, terror, pain, sensual loss and penile restriction caused by circumcision is the personal perception that an exposed glans "looks better." This visual perception, as the rationale to assent, must deny the factual. Unlike the vast majority of women throughout the rest of the world, the majority of women in the U.S. from age 18 to 55 have never seen, manipulated, or had sex with a man with an intact penis. Sexual experiences with only circumcised penises, visual representations of the penis in only the circumcised condition and reading the many of often repeated frauds written by circumcision promoters, result in the "looks better" perception. A "penis perception" is created without examination of the intact penis and conditioning has negated the desire to examine and compare. Conforming has almost reached the extreme of adulation in some areas of the country. How terribly limiting. Those with experience with intact penises have written that the leathery glans and the scar and discoloration on the shaft looks artificial, unattractive, is a visual reminder of damage. They share with us the perception that appearance is much less important than the sadness they feel for the men in their lives who had no choice in their own physical and sexual destiny.

There are important questions that must be asked. Will the owner of the penis like the looks, the mobility, the function and the feelings of a natural penis? Will the owner of the penis dislike or even be angry having his physical and sexual life altered without his consent? Since we don't have the arrogance to believe we know the answer to what he may like, shouldn't the owner be granted the right to decide the fate of HIS foreskin as an adult? The perception that it "looks better" is a very radical "reason" to damage the male's primary sex organ. Will the boy and man have his penis on display all his life, or is the penis a part of the body that will usually not be routinely exposed to others during the lifetime of the individual? A part of another persons body has been amputated because of the aesthetic perception of another, totally disregarding the basic human right to all people to all of their functional, healthy and, in this case, sensual body parts. Should a male decide to divest himself of the most sensuous part of HIS body as an adult and limit HIS penis by removal of HIS foreskin, frenulum and ridged band, it is HIS to do just that. If it were forcibly removed and as an adult HE would like to have what HE was born with, the important questions were never considered.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But does any person have the right to alter by amputation the body of another to satisfy what is perceived as pleasing to their eye? No. Do we change the appearance of eyes, ears, noses, chins, hands or any body part which is always visible to satisfy another's perception of beauty? No. We are considering the most personal, most erotic, most identifiably male part of the anatomy and altering it. One wonders if people with such perceptions have had much exposure to the world's great art treasures which glorify the beauty of the natural human body with all its wonderful parts including the intact penis. Please, let him decide if he wants his foreskin removed. One of the reasons circumcision is performed upon infants and children is that they are helpless. Almost all older males will not allow it to be done when they have the voice and the power to reject it. Give them all the choice over their bodies and sexual free agency.

~*~

It is the part of human anatomy most similar to the eyelid, being sensitive in and of itself, protecting a sensitive part of the body from abrasion and injury, made to slide and glide as part of its functions, and moving on a slightly moist mucous membrane. Yet in the United States, its routine removal a few days after birth is justified as a prophylactic medical procedure to prevent disease and dysfunction.

This practice began in the 1870s as male physicians moved to medicalize and hospitalize birth, pushed to outlaw the ancient practice of female midwifery, and introduced circumcision as a deterrent to male masturbation, thought to be weakening to health and responsible for countless afflictions. There was then only the bare start of a bacterial theory of disease and no understanding at all of viral and genetic afflictions. But it is remarkable that a tiny piece of a man's penis, and/or the excessive masturbation it was thought to incite, was identified as a major factor in, by one medical historian's study, more than 260 diseases. And the rest of the world's medical community looks on in amazement as U.S. medicine continues its century-old obsession with foreskin removal.

Today the largest secular circumcised male population in history lives in the United States. Europe (except for the United Kingdom), Asia, and Latin America never adopted the practice. The United Kingdom abandoned medical circumcision in the late 1940s. Some English-speaking nations like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia still have circumcision rates of 20 percent and more, but no nation matches the United States, where the infant circumcision rate steadily rose decade by decade through the 20th century, reaching 85 to 90 percent in the 1980s. Then it fell to around 60 percent nationally today, which still means about 3,000 un-anesthetized infant circumcisions daily, more than a million annually.

While much of the medical community has argued for the prophylactic effect of male circumcision, there have been increasing dissenting voices and studies in the past 20 years. And there is greater understanding that, like any other evolved part of anatomy, the foreskin has real and valuable functions, and its removal has real and negative consequences for individuals and society. All mammalian penes either are covered by a protective foreskin-like sheath or are protected inside the body. So why is the U.S.-born human male uniquely in need of surgical correction a few days after birth for evolution's presumed error? Since 85 percent of human males alive today still have their foreskins, why are they not suffering the dire consequences foretold by U.S. allopathic medicine for those who remain intact as nature made them?

In 1996, the first histological study of foreskin tissue was published by a team from the University of Manitoba. Contrary to mainstream medicine's continued claim that the foreskin is just a fold of skin covering the glans, the study found clear evidence of the protective and erotic nature of foreskin tissue, with a rich blood and nerve supply characteristic of erotic organs. And the foreskin contains Meissner's corpuscles, the type of pressure- and touch-sensitive nerve bundles that make the fingertips so instantly responsive. While physicians tell parents that circumcision only removes a tiny piece of skin the size of a quarter, the adult reality is that through normal growth, an adult man has lost 1/3 of his penile skin, about 15 square inches, and with it important areas of sensation and function. Since the glans has evolved as protected tissue, when the foreskin covering is removed, the glans develops multiple layers of keratinized cells, a kind of callus, rendering it ever less sensitive. Examinations of adult men show 12 to 24 layers of callus cells on their uncovered glans, and the light pink moist color of the intact glans of Caucasians becomes dark and dull.

The United States has high rates of teen pregnancies and STDs, and much lower rates of condom acceptance and use as compared with the largely uncircumcised populations of western Europe and Japan. So the question arises: Do U.S. men consciously or unconsciously resist condom usage to avoid adding a layer of latex over an already sensually dulled penis and thereby help create the high rates of STDs and teen pregnancies? And more and more women are reporting the differences they have experienced with intact and circumcised sexual partners. With the natural lubrication, slide-and glide-functions, and larger girth of the foreskin gone, circumcised men are often reported by women to be less sensitive and functional sexual partners. As men age and the keratinized callus cells on the glans accumulate in layers-a process unknown to most-they begin to complain that sexual intercourse just isn't good anymore, and this must be due to the birthing-overstretched vaginas of their partners. This is a baseless myth of male culture, when the real physiological culprit is their own callused penises.

A small but growing group of men are using simple, self-administered methods to stretch and restore their foreskin. While the lost nerve function cannot be regained, the glans can be re-covered and re-protected, thereby causing the callus cells to disappear. And the slide-and-glide function of the foreskin is also regained.

The U.S. medical establishment for more than a century has been highly resistant to new information and to the reality that medical circumcision is globally a rare and unique practice. Now it seems that U.S. medicine will have to be pushed by parents, dissenters in the medical professions, and citizen activists into facing the facts that the foreskin evolved as part of normally functioning male sexual anatomy, and that circumcision is a "phallusy."

~*~

As far as my parents can remember, that's the reason I was circumcised as an infant. It wasn't required by their religion, and they didn't have any strong personal feelings about it. They were trying to be good parents and follow medical advice, so they sent me to an operating room where a sizeable portion of the skin around my penis was cut off.

Unfortunately for me, the "medical advice" they were following was based more on custom and ignorance than on actual facts. Rather than benefiting me, the procedure left my penis scarred and desensitized (as it does for most men), and left me with a nagging wonder about what things would be like if I'd been left intact.

Like my parents, most new moms and dads don't spend much time thinking about circumcision. Whether or not to have a son's foreskin removed is a parenting decision that's often made hastily, without much consideration. It's common for parents to just follow the recommendations of their doctor or religious leader without question, or to circumcise a son just "so he'll look like his father."

If parents did spend a little time learning about what circumcision is and what it does, it's doubtful that they would put their sons under the scalpel so readily. There's no solid medical need for it, and parents who agree to it may well be committing their sons to diminished sexual enjoyment in the future.

Some parents are clearly getting the message. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), infant circumcision rates in the United States are down from 80 percent in the 1970s to 65 percent in 1995, and they are continuing to fall. But that means that over a million infants still undergo foreskin removal every year, and clearly it's without their consent. The United States is the only country that routinely circumcises infants for non-religious reasons, and it's time for this backward practice to stop. Removing healthy body parts from babies is just not acceptable.

What's Cut Away

Despite what some people think, circumcision is not a surgery without consequences. The foreskin that's removed contains about 20,000 nerve endings, and cutting it off it dramatically reduces the amount of sexual sensation a man can feel. In addition, removing the foreskin takes away the cover that protects the sensitive head of the penis. The penis's head is then left exposed to rub against clothing every day of this boy's life. Just as skin on the hands and feet thickens into calluses when it is repeatedly exposed to friction, the skin of the penis head will thicken and become less sensitive without its natural cover to protect it.

Removing the foreskin also removes the penis's self-lubricating capability, which can make sex more uncomfortable. Men who were circumcised as infants often have prominent scars on their penises, and some find that erections feel tight and uncomfortable. That's certainly been the case with me. Because so much skin was removed during my circumcision, erections are sometimes painful, and the skin that's left is stretched, making it very fragile and easily irritated. If I don't use artificial lubricant, I frequently have to stop masturbating or having sex altogether because the pain and irritation are so great.

No Good Reason

Some people believe that circumcising their sons will help them avoid penile cancer, but there is no scientific justification for this. It's now thought that penile cancer is linked to the STD human papillomavirus (HPV), and it's unlikely to have anything to do with circumcision. In a 1996 letter to American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Hugh Shingleton, M.D., and Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D., two representatives of the American Cancer Society, explained it this way: "Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer."

Circumcision is also not an effective way to prevent HIV or STD transmission. The intact foreskin may, in some cases, serve as an entry point for STDs (particularly HIV), but in no way does getting circumcised protect men from getting STDs. If it did, we wouldn't see such huge numbers of people getting infected in the United States, where circumcision is common. Rather than cutting up young boys' penises, parents should teach them about using condoms when they become sexually active.

There is evidence that circumcision can cause a small decrease in the number of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in infants, but, according the AAP, the link is less than clear. The group says that most of the studies which have linked circumcision status to urinary tract infections haven't rigorously evaluated other factors that could affect whether infants get UTIs, like prematurity or breastfeeding.

It's hard to find a professional medical association that still supports infant circumcision. The AAP is the most recognized group in infant health care, and its current stance on circumcision says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." The AMA has issued a statement saying that it also supports this ruling.

Circumcision is common in the United States in large part because of our Puritanical history. Historically, one of the main motivations for non-religious circumcisions was to inhibit masturbation. "A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," wrote famed anti-sex crusader John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

That may sound a little ridiculous today, but the justifications people use for modern day circumcision don't stand up much better. People say they want their sons to look "normal" or "natural," but isn't it more normal to be uncircumcised and look the way 85 percent of the men in the world do?

Religious Beliefs

Some religions, particularly Judaism and Islam, do promote infant circumcision. Parents' beliefs, however, cannot legitimately be used as a justification for doing unnecessary surgery on children. The procedure we are talking about, whether it's done in a hospital or in a religious setting, is a medical one, and decisions about its appropriateness and ethical acceptability must be made on the basis of its medical value. It is clear that circumcision offers very little in the way of benefits for infant boys, and can be the cause of significant harm. They should not be injured because of their parents' religious beliefs.

Men who want to be circumcised for religious or personal reasons can have the procedure done when they are old enough to consent to it of their own accord. No one, however, should be faced with getting a healthy, vital part of their most intimate anatomy sliced off without their permission. It's time for us to move into the modern age and leave infant circumcision behind.

~*~

Notable Quotes on Circumcision

Feel free to repost any of these quotes elsewhere. Many of the following quotes were culled from: http://www.med-fraud.org/

*

"There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

- Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, 5th edition. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. (1971). p.110.

*

The worst "foreskin problem" most intact males ever have is that someone thinks they have a problem.

- John A. Erickson

*

"Circumcision is not a medical decision. Preventing an improbably future infection is a spurious indication. The standard of care is antibiotics, not amputation."

- Eileen Marie Wayne, MD, Letters (Nothing to debate on circumcision), American Medical News, (27 July, 1998). P.27.

*

"My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."

- Benjamin Spock, MD World Famous Pediatric Author

*

"I believe the time has come to acknowledge that the practice of routine circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the only mammal in creation born in the condition that requires immediate surgical correction is the human male."

- Thomas Szasz, M.D

*

"It is strange that doctors in Western countries will not permit female circumcision, which involves removal of some or all of the erogenous tissue from the vulva ... but will permit, and in some cases encourage, the removal of the male prepuce, which is identical to the female prepuce in its embryological development, cell structure, and nerve and blood supply."

- E. Wallerstein, Circumcision: an American Health Fallacy

*

"The forced amputation of a healthy part of an infant's or child's genitals without his consent, whether in the name of medicine, religion or social custom, is a violation of his human rights."

- Paul M. Fleiss. MD, MPH

*

"Those who would circumcise, implicitly suggest that they know better than nature, God, or whatever power created us and our world."

- Ronald Goldman, Ph.D, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma

*

"Childhood genital mutilations are anachronistic rituals inflicted on the helpless bodies of non-consenting children of both sexes."

- Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989 Author of "Prisoners of Ritual"

*

"When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. The perception of the infant of

her culpability and willingness to have him harmed is indelibly emplaced. The consequences for impaired bonding are significant."

- Rima Laibow, M.D., April 30, 1991 "Circumcision and its Relationship to Attachment Impairment"

*

"We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right. Parents or guardians do not have the right to

consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's genitalia. Physicians and other health care providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts."

- First International Symposium on Circumcision May 3, 1989

*

"Justification of circumcision in order to save a boy later locker room embarrassment seems unrealistic. This is the latter half of the 20th century, a time supposedly to celebrate individuality and freedom of choice."

- Capt. E. Noel Preston, MC, USAF "Whither the Foreskin?" JAMA, p. 1853, Sept. 14, 1970

*

"To me, the idea of performing 100,000 mutilative procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd."

- George Denniston, M.D. "Unnecessary Circumcision" The Female Patient, p. 14, July, 1992

*

"Risks of newborn circumcision are under reported and ignored factors in this argument. Often a poor surgical result is not recognized until years after the event. Adverse long-term consequences of infant circumcision on the sexual health of American men must be recognized by physicians, parents and

legislators."

- James Snyder, M.D. "The Problem of Circumcision in America" The Truth Seeker, p. 39-42, Jul/Aug 1989

*

"All of the western world raises its children uncircumcised and it seems logical that, with the extent of health knowledge in those countries, such a practice must be safe."

- C. Everett Koop, M.D., Former Surgeon General Saturday Evening Post, July, 1982

*

"Circumcision is not primarily a medical issue but rather has its roots in deeply held religious and social customs that defy rational and humane understanding."

- James Prescott, Ph.D. "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure" The Truth Seeker, p. 14-21, Jul/Aug 1989

*

"Their penises are taken to the blade of a knife and cut. This is done to the male child prior to the age of consent. The fact that we do not know the long term impact of this surgery and have not asked to know tells us about our attitude toward males."

- Warren Farrell, Ph.D. "Why Men Are the Way They Are" p. 232-233, 1986

*

"Doctors who still perform circumcision are violating the first rule of good medical care - primum non nocere - first do no harm".

- George Denniston M.D., M.P.H. University of Washington School of Medicine.

*

"Even if you found that there were absolutely no harmful psychological effects, it would still not justify doing an unnecessary procedure".

- Paul Fleiss M.D. University of Southern California Medical School

*

"In addition to the obvious discomfort involved, there are now serious concerns this routine procedure may actually deprive adult males a vital part of their sexual sensitivity".

- Dean Edell M.D. National Radio Host

*

"Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue... Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue for no medical reason has ethical implications: circumcision violates the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

- Leo Sorger, to American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Stop Circumcisions, Ob Gyn News, (1 Nov., 1994). p.8.

*

"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

- The Fetus and Newborn Committee and the Canadian Paediatric Society. March 15, 1996 Recommendations published - CMA Journal.

*

"It cannot be ethical for a doctor to amputate normal tissue from a normal child. In the case of disease, circumcision should only be used when there is evidence that conservative treatment is unlikely to be effective or when it has failed."

- John P. Warren M. D. - British Medical Journal - Volume 312, February 10, 1996. (Dr. Warren co-signed with other 20 signatures.)

*

"Newborn circumcision raises serious ethical and legal questions. Do parents have the right to choose medically unnecessary and harmful cosmetic surgery for their children? I do not believe so."

"The United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child, recently ratified by Australia, guarantees the rights of children of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture. However, the Convention also calls for all parties to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolish traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children." Circumcision is prejudicial to the health of children, so its practice should be condemned."

- Dr. George L. Williams, M.B., Ch.B., F.R.A.P. Pediatrician/Perinatologist: Presentation to the Second International Childbirth Conference - "Reclaiming our Heritage: Creating our Future" University of Sydney October 7, 1992.

*

"Dr. Margaret Somerville from the McGill Centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law in Canada (in her personal correspondence to The Honourable A. Kim Campbell, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, June 10, 1992) questions the legality of male circumcision on present medical evidence. She stated that any wounding -- and clearly circumcision involves this -- is 'prima facie' illegal unless it can be justified. For a male infant, the informed consent of an adult is not possible. Circumcision is non-therapeutic and involves irreversible consequences or harm. She concluded that both female and male circumcision should be prohibited on legal grounds."

"Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. In his classic History of Surgery, Welch has defined surgery to include: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs (e.g. sympathectomy). Routine newborn circumcision eludes classification. If it is not surgery, what is it?"

- George C. Denniston M.D., M.P.H. Preface to the Second Edition of "Say No to Circumcision" by Thomas Ritter M.D.

*

"Historians of the future will find it incredible that we mutilated babies by cutting off the end of their penises in the name of medicine. There are now serious concerns this routine procedure may actually deprive adult men of a vital part of their sexual sensitivity."

- Dean Edell, MD - NBC Television Medical Advisor

*

"Besides all these harmful aspects, nonreligious circumcision, male and female, is a basic human rights violation - a violation by one person of the right of another person to an intact body."

"The solution to this ethical and human rights dilemma is simple. Do not perform circumcision on infants. By ceasing to perform infant circumcision, nothing is lost. Any adult with fully informed consent, may have a circumcision whenever he wishes. Most hopeful of all, caring physicians are reviewing this operation in the light of their own ethical standards and are ceasing to perform infant circumcision."

- George C. Denniston M.D., M.P.H. Circumcision and the Code of Ethics - Humane Health Care International, Volume 12, No. 2, April 1996.

*

"Whatever is done to stop this terrible practice of circumcision will be of tremendous importance. There is no rational, medical reasons to support it".

- Dr. Frederick Leboyer : Author : Birth Without Violence.

*

"The thoughtless, wanton amputation of an exceedingly valuable segment of male genital anatomy never ceases to amaze me. It has always been difficult for me to understand why anyone would wish to subtract one iota from genital pleasure".

- Thomas J. Ritter M.D. : Author, "Say No to Circumcision".

*

"My feeling is that it is a traumatic experience and I am opposing traumatizing the baby. I'm opposed to inflicting an operation on an individual without his permission. My feelings became more concrete when I talked to Dr. Leboyer and saw his birth film. It seemed so incongruous to have an non-violent birth and then immediately do violence to a baby by circumcising him."

- Howard Marchbanks M.D.

*

"Circumcision is a very cruel, very painful practice with no benefits whatsoever".

- Asheley Montagu Ph.D.

*

"Take that poor penis. Take a knife--right? And start cutting. And everybody says, "It doesn't hurt." Everybody says, "No, it doesn't hurt." Get it? That's an excuse, of course, a subterfuge. They say that the sheaths of the nerves are not yet developed. Therefore, the sensation in the nerves is not yet developed. Therefore, the child doesn't feel a thing. Now, that's murder!

Circumcision is one of the worst treatments of children. And what happens to them? Just look at them. They can't talk to you. They just cry. What they do is shrink. They contract, get away into the inside, away from that ugly world. I express it very crudely, but you understand what I mean. "

- Dr Wilhelm Reich in his book Children of the Future

*

"There are speculations that the father who insists that his son be circumcised, in the absence of convincing medical or "social" arguments may be afraid to allow his son to have something that he himself lacks. Some male doctors and other practitioners who avidly endorse circumcision may not be doing so out of "glorified contentment" over their own circumcised state but instead may have a subconscious drive to deprive all other males of their foreskins".

- Rosemary Romberg Author: "Circumcision: the Painful Dilemma".

*

"What a tragic statement of our society that we still continue such intrusion upon physical and psychological integrity as an 'acceptable form of child abuse!' ".

- Dave McKnight D.C., D.P., D.C.P.

*

"In summary, universal ablative surgery of normal structures in non-consenting infants can no more be justified than universal mastectomy, hysterectomy, or removal of ears for the prevention of sun-induced cancer."

"The problem lies in the fact the American literature has already lost credibility to a significant degree as a result of selective avoidances and suppressions related to the acrimony of the circumcision issue, and malpractice litigation more generally. For an accurate and meaningful account of the protective function of the foreskin in early life , you'll have to consult the British, and learn why they abandoned circumcision, and why you should too".

- John G. Swadey M.D. - St. Petersburg Florida.

*

"The part of the baby that we have been throwing out with the bath water is the birthright of the child and should not be destroyed by the collusion of physicians and parents.

"In parting, I would like to paraphrase the words of Emperor Charles V who viewed the destruction of the Great Mosque of Cordoba and said, "What you have done could be done anytime - but what you have destroyed can never be replaced".

- James Leigh Snyder M.D., FACS, Past President of the Virginia Urological Society. Presentation to the California Medical Association Scientific and Educational Activities Committee - Anaheim, California

*

"What these folks are supporting is the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to torture newborn babies (of their own sex) because, as a society, we are too morally bankrupt, disorganized, and / or lazy to conduct thorough sex education. We are told that all boys should have a mutilating and excruciating experience in their first days of life, to prevent a few men (who have the understanding to deal with the operation and the guarantee of receiving anesthesia) from having cancer or VD, which can be prevented in a cheap and painless way. One can only guess at the sort of fundamental emotional outlook which can calmly rationalize this cold-blooded, wholesale cruelty".

- David S. Bates M.D. Letter to Medical Tribune

*

"We in the United States are culturally acclimated to regard the foreskin as nonessential and even pathologic. We must not forget that the burden of proof is on the circumcision advocates. (To justify removing it) they must show cause and effect."

- Martin Altschul M.Sc., M.D. Pediatrician

*

"It is an incontestable fact that there are more deaths each year from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis".

- Dr. Sydney Gellis M.D.

*

"The best way to stop the complications of circumcision is to stop doing them". Mitch Ryder M.D.

"Widespread circumcision is a relic of a time when patients were not provided much of a voice in medical decision making. That era my be rapidly becoming to an end. It this case, the old dictum that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems to make good sense. Submitting your son to the procedure to prevent urinary infections makes only a little more sense that buying insurance against being gored by a unicorn in Riverside".

- Eugene Robin M.D. Stanford University Medical School

*

"Were girls so treated, there would be widespread protests. In my opinion the socially tolerated abuse of males is one of the primary cause of unconscious male anger and violence."

- Aaron Kipnis Ph.D. Author : "Male Privilege or Privation?"

*

"I remember how inflamed and painful it seemed to be to my brother...There is a compulsive inability to leave infants alone. The compulsive issue must be explored and addressed".

- Eileen Wayne M.D.

*

"We urge you to protect unconsenting infants and children from surgical alteration of their genitals. As nurses who formerly participated in neonatal circumcision, we have had the occasion to witness many 'botched' jobs where the penile shaft was grossly denuded. Upon consideration of the issues, we have come to the conclusion that every routine circumcision is a 'botch' job, since it is a brutal assault on the child's sexuality and a violation of a child's right to a whole intact body".

- Betty Katz Sperlich R.N. and Mary Conant R.N. (Nurses for the Rights of the Child) in an open letter to pediatricians and the AAP.

*

"Finally, we should ask ourselves whether it is likely that nature, in her wisdom, would permit every male child to be born with a useless appendage, the presence of which according to some, frequently leads to serious consequences, including death. Why do men in Europe live so long despite not being raped at birth?"

- William K C (Keith) Morgan M.D., FRCP (Ed), FRCPC, FACP, in his letter published in the November 1993 issue of the Canadian Medical Association - Journal 149 (10)

*

"For its part, Canada and Canadian physicians cannot consistently espouse the principle of respect for people on one hand, and then agree to the practice that violates that principle. Canadian physicians cannot consistently accept the principle of respect for people in the name of medical ethics, and then perform procedures they know to be medically inappropriate, harmful and demeaning only because they do not want to offend a misplaced cultural sensitivity."

"With due alteration of detail, the same ethical reasoning holds for male circumcision. There rarely are medical reasons for performing the procedure; personal preference or religious values of parents usually underlie the request. If these are insufficient to justify the circumcision of girls then unless there are distinguishing medical reasons, they are also insufficient to justify the circumcision of boys. To argue differently is to be guilty of discrimination on the basis of sex. The fact that female circumcision is more serious intervention does not alter the situation. Both involve what in other contexts would be called nonconsensual mutilation of a minor for non-medical reasons".

- Eike-Henner Kluge Ph.D. Professor with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Victoria , B.C., in his article on "Female circumcision: when medical ethics confronts cultural values" published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal - January 1993, 148 (2)

*

"It is high time that the medical profession took a more definitive stand on the issue of circumcision. I agree with Kluge's reasoning and conclusion that the circumcision of girls and boys is unethical and is "nonconsensual mutilation of a minor for non-medical reasons".

- Mary E. Lynch M.D., FRCPC, in her letter to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 1993, Male and female circumcision in Canada

*

"Children who are legally too young to give consent to treatment must still be treated as individuals whose rights as members of society are not solely dependent on the legal definition of the day. Every child shall be protected from unnecessary medical treatment".

- JP Shield (Research fellow) and JD Baum (Professor of Child Health) Article entitled : " Children's consent of treatment" British Medical Journal, May 1994.

*

"Despite the great concern about child abuse among scholars and legislators in the past twenty years, the same type of cultural astigmatism which prevented past generations from perceiving or acknowledging the most widespread form of child abuse today: child mutilation through routine neonatal circumcision of males ....from the perspective of a neutral outsider, neonatal circumcision is as barbaric as female circumcision, the removal of earlobes, fingers or toes, the binding of infant feet or other disfiguring practices around the world".

- W.E. Briggman, Professor of Law at the University of Louisville School of Law, Statement in the Journal of Family Law, Volume 23, No.3

*

"Criminally, the circumciser is guilty of assault, battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, mayhem and child abuse. As children come to age and become aware of this, we should see many suits filed against those who took part in the bit of butchery. Parents who have consented based upon the advice of their physician might now reconsider, have themselves appointed as 'guardian ad Litem' and seek to recover for their sons the dollar value of the horror the innocent children suffered. The doctors and hospitals must might get financially circumcised".

- Richard W. Morris LL.B., Ph.D. Practiced law in California and the US Federal Courts. From his well publicized article:"A New Area of Liability for Physicians, Hospitals and Parents"

*

"Perhaps one day we will grow weary of sticking skewers through man's noses and ears, cutting off his foreskin, tattooing his skin, and even 'conditioning' his mind and decree, and leave him free to develop what he has and where he wants it".

- Geoffrey Parker M.D. British Medical Journal

*

"People still cling to their faulty old pre-1980's cliché complaining that men are insensitive and unfeeling or less intuitive, and yet these are the very same people who cannot find it in their hearts to tolerate an honest sensitive discussion of how we had a portion of our capacity for sensitivity and feeling (literally) surgically removed at birth."

"Not only do they offer no empathy for our feelings, but they offer no empathy for our feelings about our own circumcisions, circumcisions in general, nor do they offer any support in opposing its practices. The obvious bodily scars that we carry around with us have no place in their world view. The topic is simply ignored, repressed, forbidden, banned from the table, excised off, amputated and thrown in the dumpster."

"Now at last, we see the bitter truth about the women's movement. Despite what they say, they do not really want to acknowledge our sensitivity or capacity for feeling, except when they approve of it and it serves their goals. After all, as long as the world keeps us unaware of our full capacity for feeling, as long as we can be kept unconscious of the fact that a portion of our capacity for feeling was permanently taken from us by circumcision, then we will be more likely to remain safe feminist-supporting males who never go off seeking our own rights, questioning our own roles, staging our own rebellions, getting in touch with our own feelings. The perverse truth is that the feminist revenge of "keep them barefoot and pregnant has actually gone full circle and become "keep them circumcised and insensitive". LETTER FROM HAWAII to an anti circumcision activist."

"We are tired of seeing parents misled by doctors. We men are tired of being lied to and ignored by doctors on this issue. As men who were circumcised as infants and who live with the long-term physical and psychological consequences of a surgery we did not choose, we have a right and a responsibility to speak up about a practice we know has harmed us and continues to harm others."

MEN WILL NO LONGER BE SILENT

- Tim Hammond, Founder of NOHARMM National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males. See Links Page for NOHARMM Web Site

*

"Throughout his hapless history the circumciser has been wrong on all counts. And tragically on the basis of his incredible record, many millions of children have been sacrificed upon the altar of genital mutilation".

- Nicholas Carter Author: "Routine Circumcision: The Tragic Myth". Mr. Carter was a TV news anchorman in Los Angeles, California.

*

"Thus, there is the continuing need for clarification to overcome the confusion generated by Fink and Wiswell. The worldwide rejection of routine nonreligious circumcision provides overwhelming evidence that this is the correct course to follow. In the United States, every relevant medical society has taken a public position in opposition of routine circumcision. No medical society has taken a position in support of the practice".

- Edward Wallerstein Author: "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy" (1980)

*

"There is another psychological benefit to keeping our sons intact. The work of Dr. Rima Laibow concludes that a man carries unconscious rage against his own mother for betrayal, abandonment, and the assault itself. In other words, the unconscious mind of the son blames his mother for his circumcision, not "tradition, the circumciser, or the father who wanted his son to look like himself" only the mother. It's just like some bad Jewish mother joke."

"Indeed, for a newborn, his world is mother. If she cannot protect him from violation in the beginning, a baby loses trust. And isn't lack of trust an issue relationships between the genders? Can sexuality be healed on a very deep, unconscious level during the prenatal period?"

"A connection exists between crimes of sexual violence, rape for example, and circumcision. The first heterosexual encounter - with a female nurse prepping the infant male - as well as betrayal by the mother, is revenged in sexual assaults against women. As Marilyn Milos, founder and director of NOCIRC says, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time".

- Jeannine Parvati Baker : "The Hand That Rocks The Circumstraint Board"

*

"Circumcision. There is something very, very wrong and very frightening about a society that systematically tortures and mutilates babies".

- Mark Hulstrunk: American Cartoonist. 1989.

*

"Another important question to bear in mind is: Do we, as parents, have the right to make this life lasting decision for our sons? Shouldn't they be free to choose for themselves whether of not they may be circumcised when the are mature enough to seek out the facts and decide their own fate?"

"It would seem that based on the facts concerning circumcision, the total elimination of this inane procedure would be a positive step towards the evolution of human-kindness. We can no longer excuse ourselves with the bliss of ignorance when it is obvious that many of the routine practices performed on children have been proven hazardous to their well-being. The information is available - it is high time we come out of our dark ways and seek the light of truth".

- Barbara J. Raibeck :"Circumcision: A Wound Which Lasts A Lifetime"

*

"Until now, most Americans of every political persuasion categorically refused to recognize the gross human rights violation of circumcision. While some may grudgingly accord the female the right to control her own reproductive organs, the male is denied such rights. We who know the truth of the intact penis must speak up. History will brand us as collaborators with a system of oppression if we do not act now to stop the circumcisers. We will be silent no longer".

- Frederick Hodges, A medical historian.

*

"The procedure done to millions of babies, girls and women around the world that is euphemistically called "circumcision" is horrible and Ms. Goodman should be commended for speaking out against it. I do, however, take exception to one line: "Our bizarre analogy made between "female circumcision" and "male". Why does she consider this analogy to be so "bizarre"? There is really no difference, it's only a question of degree. It is just wrong to change another person's healthy genitals without their permission. Every baby born has the most basic human right to a whole body, and that includes intact genitals."

"The removal of healthy, erogenous, sexual tissue from another human being, male or female, without their expressed consent may someday be considered to be a crime. Until then, it remains a national and worldwide shame."

- Susan Peer, East Stroudsburg, PA Letter to the Editor.

*

"We ... cannot allow females or any group of patients to be mutilated. I'm afraid that this is even more basic than religion."

- John C. Nelson, MD, AMA Trustee (in American Medical News, Vol 39, no. 40, October, 1996)

*

"The fallacy of the circumcision mystique is that the foreskin -- uniquely specialized, uniquely sensitive,

uniquely functional erogenous tissue -- is demonized as abnormal, dangerous, and harmful; and circumcision -- which literally censors a male's life by irreversibly destroying that tissue -- is extolled as normal, safe, and beneficial."

"One can only wonder about the effects of such a misrepresentation over several generations on an entire nation -- much less on a single human life."

- John A. Erickson

*

"The subject of circumcision is dark and deep. Some aspects are *so* dark and *so* deep -- so remote from the average person's experience and awareness -- that there is almost no way for the average person to become aware of them."

- John A. Erickson

*

"Consent given by a person of good will to circumcise a baby can never be -- and never has been -- informed. The only informed choice possible for a person of good will to make about the foreskin of a baby is the choice that the baby himself, when old enough to understand what his foreskin is and what would have been done to it had he been circumcised, is most likely to be glad was made for him. That choice, beyond any reasonable doubt, is to let him keep his foreskin intact."

- John A. Erickson

*

"Sharing the awareness that the human penis is designed correctly the way it normally comes into the world: with its foreskin intact; that a male's possession of his own penis - including his foreskin - is his inviolable birthright; and that a child's chances for health and happiness throughout his life are greater - by far - if he is allowed to keep all of the penis he is born with."

- John A. Erickson

*

~*~

The Ultimate Circumcision Complication

by W E Martin

Most of us have played the state lottery, especially if we live in a lottery state. We all think we have a chance to win. We also play a lottery of sorts when we circumcise a child. The odds of a child dying from his circumcision injuries are at least 1,750 times greater than winning the lottery. On the long odds, we bet a dollar. On the short odds, we bet a life. We celebrate the winner of the state lottery and someone gets paid. We deny the "winner" of the circumcision lottery and an innocent life is lost. In the state lottery we all think we have a chance of winning otherwise we wouldn't give up our hard earned money. In the circumcision lottery we deny there is a chance of "winning" and risk losing a son.

Some babies die of complications of circumcision.[1] There has been a need to assemble in one convenient location information concerning death from complications of circumcision. This page is designed to fill that need.

Deaths occur secondary to loss of blood or systemic infection from the circumcision wound.

A few deaths are reported in the medical literature. Other medical literature discusses the frequency of those deaths. A few deaths are reported in the popular press.

There is reason to believe that many deaths from circumcision are attributed to other causes. For example, if a baby were to die of meningitis that was contracted through the circumcision wound, the death may be attributed to meningitis while ignoring the fact that the baby would not have had meningitis if he had not been circumcised.

Circumcision originated before the dawn of history. There was no knowledge of sanitation or the need for a sterile operating environment. Jews have traditionally performed circumcision on the eighth day after birth for many thousands of years. The medical literature was still reporting numerous deaths from ritual circumcision in the early twentieth century.[2, 3] There must have been vast numbers of babies who died under those conditions through the centuries. Jewish law allows parents who have had three sons die from circumcision to leave the fourth son intact.[5]

Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary6 non-therapeutic[7] operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.[8] Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one is seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.

Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s.[9] Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.[10] There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.[11]

There are several case reports of death in the medical literature. These are deaths from various infections.[2,3,4,12-14]

There are several newspaper accounts of boys who have died after circumcision. These are from bleeding and from complications of anesthesia.[15-24]

The coroner's report on the death of a previously healthy one-month-old infant, Ryleigh Roman Bryan McWillis, less that 48 hours after his circumcision, is available. Baby Ryleigh died of hypovolemic shock, after exsanguination caused by hemorrhage at the circumcision wound.[35, 36] Ryleigh's mother said, "I unplugged his life support at 5 a.m. on the 22nd of August, one month and one day after he was born."[37]

Many African tribes have initation ceremonies in which a youth or young man is initiated into manhood. The youths are sent to a camp in a remote area where initiation ceremonies, including circumcision, take place. The circumcisions are carried out by persons without medical training. African tribal ritual circumcision produces reports of death or serious injury every year.[25-34] The Mail and Guardian reports seven dead in the Fall of 2003 and a total of 250 dead since 1995.[34]

Some victims of circumcision are known by name. They are:

* Aleck, Baby Boy: Died June 10, 1910, Island County, WA

* Roland Albert McCarty: Died 1932, Jacksonville, Florida

* Christopher Dolezal: Died November 1982, Des Moines, IA

* Steven Christopher Chacon: Died November 1986, San Francisco, CA

* Allen A. Ervin: Died July 8, 1992, Spartanburg, SC

* Demetrius Manker: Died June 26, 1993, Carol City, FL

* Jeremie Johnson: Died July 18, 1995, Houston, TX

* Dustin Evans: Died October 1998, Cleveland, OH

* Ryleigh Roman Bryan McWillis: Died August 22, 2002, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada35

Rest in peace young men. Your short lives were not in vain. Some will learn the lesson.

References:

1. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of Circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993; 80: 1231-1236.

2. Holt LE. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA 1913;LXI(2):99-102.

3. Reuben MS. Tuberculosis from ritual circumcision. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Medicine 1916; (December 15): 333-334.

4. Rosenstein JL. Wound diphtheria in the newborn infant following circumcision: report of a case. J Pediatr 1941;18:657-8.

5. The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Number 251. Volume XIII.B: Tractate Yebamot, Chapters 4-6. Program in Judaic Studies Brown University. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1992.

6. Denniston GC. Unnecessary Circumcision. The Female Patient 1992: 17: 13-14.

7. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.

8. Hodges FM, Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS. Prophylactic interventions on children: balancing human rights with public health. J Med Ethics 2002;28(1):10-16.

9. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. Br Med J 1949; 2:1433-1437.

10. Gellis SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168.

11. Baker RL. Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous. Sexual Medicine Today 1979;3 (11):35-36.

12. Sauer LW: Fatal Staphylococcus broncho-pneumonia following ritual circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 46:583, 1943.

13. Scurlock JM, Pemberton PJ. Neonatal meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1977;1(10):332-

14. Cleary TG, Kohl S. Overwhelming infection with group B beta-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision. Pediatrics 1979;64(3):301-303.

15. Peter Rachter. Grand jury to probe death of baby after circumcision. The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Saturday, November 20, 1982.

16. Boy in coma most of his 6 years dies. The State, Columbia South Carolina, July 10, 1992: F21.

17. Baby bleeds to death after circumcision. Miami Herald, Miami, Florida, June 26, 1993.

18. Lyndia Lum, Ruth Sorelle. Boy's death to be probed. Houston Chronicle, Houston, Texas, Friday, July 28, 1995, page 28A.

19. Circumcision That Didn't Heal Kills Boy, NewsNet5, Cleveland, OH, October 20, 1998.

20. Omskuren treåring dog av bedövning [Circumcised three-year-old died from anaesthesia]. Aftonbladet, Stockholm, Sweden, Friday, 9 February 2001.

21. Paul Stokes. Patient died 'because surgeon guessed dose'. Daily Telegraph, Friday, November 30, 2001.

22. Sandra Vogel-Hockley. Death of local baby subject of investigation. The Penticton Western, Penticton, B.C., Volume 36, Issue 69, 31 August 2002.

23. Man hunted after death of circumcision baby. Online.ie, Dublin, 20 August 2003.

24. Infant dies after home circumcision. Munster Express, Munster, Southeathern Ireland, Friday, 22 August 2003.

25. Initiation Horror as Four Dead. Eastern Province Herald, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Friday, July 19, 1996.

26. Chris McGreal. Botched circumcision kills boys. The Guardian, London, 7 January 2000.

27. Dumisane Lubisi, African Eye News Service. Boy bleeds to death after circumcision. News24, South Africa, 26 June 2001.

28. Steven Kretzmann. Hospitals Struggle Against Odds to Treat Septic Initiates. East Cape News, Grahamtown, Eastern Cape, South Africa, 01 August 2001.

29. Dumisane Lubisi. 11-year-old dies after botched circumcision. Daily Mail and Guardian, South Africa, Thursday, 16 August 2001.

30. Sarie Van Niekerk. Five teens die during initiation. Natal Witness, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, Wednesday, 26 June 2002.

31. Fourteen dead after initiation rituals in S.Africa. The Times of India, 5 July 2002.

32. Circumcision leaves 24 dead, 100 in hospital. The Star, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, 17 July 2002.

33. Madoda Dyonana. 'Errant surgeon will be found'. Business Day, Saturday, 7 December 2002.

34. Law vs tradition in circumcision debacle. The Mail and Guardian. Johannesburg, South Africa, Monday, 8 December 2003.

35. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner's Service, Monday, 19 January 2004. [HTML file]

36. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner's Service, Monday, 19 January 2004. [PDF file]

37. Suzanne Fournier. Lack of post-surgery info angers grieving parents. The Province, Vancouver, B.C., Friday, 13 February 2004.

38. Circumcision school initiate dies. South African Press Association (SAPA), 8 July 2004.

~*~

By Glenn Epps

If any male is considering circumcision, he should educate himself sufficiently on the anatomy and dynamics of the intact penis, specifically his foreskin. Most intact men do not know what they have. This decision, if carried out, will have lifetime consequences which most males, intact and circumcised, are not aware. Intact men will become fully aware of the consequences if they follow through with the excision (circumcision) of their foreskins'.

Untold thousands of men in North America have restored or are restoring a facsimile of their lost foreskins in an attempt to regain some of what circumcision took away. The idea of deliberately excising such physically and sexually significant tissue for any considerations, social or other perceptions, might likely be a profound loss. A very significant number of males who have chosen this surgical intervention dearly regret it--immediately or a few years later.

Most men around the world have never been circumcised and never give any serious thought to ever submitting themselves to such a procedure. Occasionally some men do give serious consideration to getting circumcised. These are men who generally are living in a heavily circumcised (non-religious circumcisions) society.

Such a situation is almost endemic to that of the United States but exists to lesser degrees in other countries that previously had higher rates of non-religious circumcision such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Many parents simply elect circumcision either out of lack of knowledge or because others are doing it. Basic empathy is lacking--many parents are willing to submit their healthy newborn sons to traumatic genital surgery because they feel "pressure" to do so and just don't say "no." Those who have not been circumcised can be thankful to their parents for not going along with a "group mentality." If anything, your parents demonstrated their respect for your body--allowing you to be able to make this very personal decision as an adult.

Many who promote circumcision say that this is one of the oldest operations. It is true that genital alterations have been performed for millennia but only a tiny fraction of the world's males have been subjected to it. We also know is that throughout this long-standing history there have been thousands of men who have resorted to various methods to restore their foreskins!

While male circumcision may be one of the oldest operations known to man we also know that throughout humankind's history there has always been a "fascination" with the genitals of both sexes and arguably more so with the infamous "phallus" (the penis).Given that we are talking about sexual organs, the altering of such organs on non-consenting males' or females' has profound psychological consequences.

Likely, most of these men have done a "number on themselves" likely as a result of lack of information and "tools" to deal with such situations. When one is considering circumcision one should also consider a number of other issues--this resource attempts to provide some insight, thoughts and tools for such a person.

A great many intact (uncircumcised) men have usually never spent any time to really understand the function and purpose of the penile structures that are typically lost to circumcision. These men have often not paid much attention, if any, as to where the feelings and sensations they get from sexual interaction. Simply, they take for granted their "intactness" or don't appreciate or truly comprehend the benefits of not having been circumcised (i.e. being intact). It's probably a classic case of, "you don't appreciate what you have got until you haven't got it."

A circumcision generally removes most of the foreskin (inner and outer) and part or all of the frenulum. Also, the foreskin is actually two separate structures. The inner foreskin is a mucosal membrane and not just "skin." The most erogenous and pleasure sensitive nerves found in the penis are found in the foreskin (tactile nerve endings, including Meissner corpuscles). These are concentrated in the frenar band (corrugated bands at the juncture of the inner and outer foreskin and these bands are behind the sulcus when retracted during erection) the frenulum, where it is attached to the inner foreskin. The frenar tissue itself which is like a web between the inner foreskin around the bottom portion and the shaft and hemispheres of the glans and the small tendon-like structures from the inner foreskin and the area on each side of the midline of the upper shaft just below the glans and attached to the shaft below. Also, the foreskin is designed to stretch down the shaft during the in stroke and all the parts mentioned above are "excited." On the outstroke it accumulates behind the glans and acts as an O-ring to keep the natural lubrication within the vagina. (The intact penis and a woman's vagina really work in harmony. These are just more features of the human body, which has so often been referred to as the "incredible machine.") Intact men and their partners often do not need any lubrication for sexual activities.

Make sure you have "explored" the feelings that you get from the structures of your penis--the frenulum, the frenar band, the movement of the foreskin and the unique sensuousness of these tissues; each part should be separately and sensuously explored. In doing this you are likely to learn something yourself but you'll also be able to share this with your sexual partner. It's also important to do this as intact men report different feelings, that is, some find the frenulum to be extremely sensitive, others may find the tip of the foreskin very pleasurable, it might be the movement the foreskin back and forth over the glans and so forth. You will lose some or all of these sensations and the question is: Are you willing to give these sensual feelings up?

.

ALTERING THE DYNAMICS OF A MALE'S SEXUAL

ORGANS--CIRCUMCISION

The vast majority of circumcised males have said little about their state. It is only now that more and more of circumcised men are beginning to speak up revealing the psychological and physical harm done to them. The silence of the "circumcised" is being broken but one must remember that many circumcised males will find it difficult to speak up. Why? First, they did not have a choice in the matter but they must live with the results--they can't opt for a circumcision as an intact man can. Circumcision, particularly in the United States, has been so pervasive that many circumcised males do not encounter intact males regularly. How does a circumcised male know what he is missing? A glance in the change room will provide little information. They must work by sound reasoning and logic--the foreskin moves, the foreskin is loaded with nerves, the frenulum is loaded with nerves--by deduction it must provide unique sensations and feelings.

What can a circumcised man do? He can use lotions to try and help increase sensitivity of the glans or at least help offset decreases in sensitivity. He can start a regime of foreskin restoration by stretching. And, most importantly, he can make a positive change and not submit his sons to circumcision--allowing them to make an informed choice as adults.

What about those men or boys who tease or make fun of another man or boy who has not been circumcised? Many men, when they start to think about it, realize that if it did occur it wasn't that many who did the teasing or it was a situation where one or two boys started it. We are only beginning to explore the reasons behind teasing. Teasing by those who have been subjected to circumcision who are "making fun of" another who has not been subjected to genital surgery has deep psychological implications. One man wrote a letter saying that he was very angry that he was circumcised in the years when few boys were circumcised and all of his friends and peers were intact. He said he has always been grateful to the intact boys who never teased him for having a different appearing penis, "his penis being chopped-up."

Do these boys/men have a problem with self-esteem? Are they distressed that they have had a portion of their penis removed? Ultimately they will know that they are different from an intact male because it was they who had a surgery. Does the teasing give themselves the illusion that since they are circumcised it is good? The search for justification for them may have just begun--justification of their circumcision. If you were teased think back to the situation. Was it a situation wherein it might have been the boy's (man's) or a group of boys (men) first or more rare occasion to have come across a intact boy/man? This of itself may put the situation into perspective.

Here is how some intact men have handled a "tease" type of situation (Remember, some situations well may be with friends who don't intend to make either a circumcised man or an intact man feel bad--it is more of a mechanism used to deal with the phenomenon of infant circumcision):

Some intact men relate, when speaking with circumcised men about their "intact" state, "At least a third to a half of my penis has not been cut off," or, "Well, I've got an inch on you guys." One fellow told of his first year of high school and the way some of the other boys were staring at his intact penis, that he asked them, "You mean you got chopped-up and don't even question it?" Or, "You guys are all hard tops. I have the combination, convertible and (retracting his foreskin) hard top."

Teasing may also be an inquisitive probe! Remember that circumcised males have little means of knowing what being intact is like. Such curiosity or inquisitiveness only seems natural given that a circumcised man will likely be aware that he was born like the intact male.

The "Oh, so I see you aren't circumcised" comment may be nothing more than a statement of fact or some form of curiosity. The question is how do you handle this type of comment, other comments or a glance? If you take these as negatives could you be a victim of your own devices? Does the following, quoted from a song by country singer Clint Black, "The trouble I found could have never found me....I use to think my way into some hard times...now here I go thinking again" perhaps apply to you?

Most intact men never consider the fact that as many or more men with a circumcised penis feel bad that they aren't intact, or at least be able to experience an intact penis. Intact men also rarely consider the fact that these circumcised men, either curious or angry over having had their foreskins taken from them, do not have the choice later in life that the intact man has.

"The power of conformity often overwhelms the individual, preventing many from investigation or objective reality, and is difficult to change. Blindly following particular ideas, practices or concepts, which may be harmful to the individual and the society, is a common human failure that often takes a long time to correct. I wonder if individualism is becoming a thing of the past. Is trusting what we believe in our hearts and our minds being discarded and neglected because of what others are saying and doing? Do we neglect investigating what is important, if there are motives or particular agendas behind the perpetuation of practices? If we are ruled more by our perceptions of what others MAY think of us or our actions than how we perceive ourselves and our actions, we are in some profound problems with self-image, self-esteem, self-reliance and emotional self-sufficiency. This applies not only to circumcision, but many of life's perplexities and dilemmas" --Ken Derifield, The Intact Network.

Ultimately you are free to make a decision as to whether you would like to remain intact or to get yourself circumcised. I dare say that few intact men realize that thousands of circumcised men wish to be able to have the right and the ability to decide.

~*~

Genital mutilation, the alteration or removal of the external genitalia for non-medical reasons, takes a wide variety of forms and is performed for a number of different reasons. For example, some persons choose to alter their genitals as a form of expression; this is known as body art or modification. There are also cases of elective procedures performed with patient consent for aesthetic reasons. These forms of genital alteration are not of concern because they are done for personal or medical reasons and are performed with the consent of the individual. Medically indicated procedures used to treat certain rare conditions are not considered mutilations for they have a solid medical purpose. However, neonatal circumcision is a form of genital mutilation which is performed without the consent of the patient and without solid medical justifications. Parents who give consent for the procedure by proxy may feel coerced by tradition or tenuous medical claims. Therefore the routine practice of neonatal circumcision should end.

A History of Routine Neonatal Circumcision

Religious ritual circumcision is antecedent to the modern tradition of non-religious (or not specifically religious) neonatal circumcision. The ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision for religious reasons as did various other cultures though out history. According to the book of Exodus God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and all of his male descendants as part of the covenant between God and Israel. Any man marrying into Judaism and any slave purchased by an Israelite was also to be circumcised. The Abrahamic faiths Judaism and Islam both explicitly call for circumcision based upon this covenant. The penalty for not observing the circumcision covenant was to be cut off from Israel. In Hebrew the word ’arel’ for uncircumcised is also the word used for that which is unclean or forbidden. Non-Israelite peoples are often negatively referred to as uncircumcised in the bible. Male circumcision either in infancy or adolescence is still practiced by most Jewish and Islamic communities. Ritual circumcision very rarely involves the use of anesthetics as these procedures are usually not performed by medical professionals.

Neonatal circumcision of males is the most common surgical procedure performed in U.S. hospitals.[1] Based on the latest statistical data it is estimated that about 1.2 million infant boys are circumcised annually in the U.S. or about 63% of all newborn males. The percentage of newborns circumcised has been steadily decreasing since the mid 1970s, when circumcision reached its peak in the U.S., with about 85% of all newborns being circumcised. 70% (approx. 102 million men) of the current male population in the U.S. has been circumcised.[2] Before the 1900s routine circumcision in the U.S. was uncommon, usually being routinely practiced only by religious minorities.

Circumcision gained popularity in the U.S. mainly due to the belief that it made masturbation less pleasurable, thereby deterring the behavior. Masturbation was once commonly thought to cause myriad health problems and deviant behavior; insanity, blindness, neuroses, epilepsy, impotence, gonorrhea, and criminal acts such as rape or sexual assault were all once thought to be linked to masturbation. The prevailing religious belief in the U.S., Christianity, surely played a role in demonizing masturbation because most Christians view any sexual act without the intent to fertilize, as sin. Masturbation phobia reached its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, producing a number of torture-inflicting chastity devices and radical surgical procedures, such as clitoridotomy, clitorectomy, infibulation, and ovariotomy for females and cutting of the penile dorsal nerves, blistering of the glans, castration, full excision of the genitalia, circumcision, and surgical implantation of electrodes for males.[3] Circumcision was viewed as the most humane method of achieving the desired effect of decreasing the urge to masturbate by most physicians.

The Purported Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision

Routine circumcision prescribed as a medical prophylactic procedure is a relatively recent invention, beginning in the late 19th century. During this time when little was known about the etiology of disease, circumcision was justified medically as a preventative measure against insanity, depravity, and a whole slew of medical conditions which today we know share no link to the anatomy of the penis. Today there is a continuing trend to try to justify the procedure in a medical context – it is often touted as a way of decreasing the risk of penile cancer, decreasing the incidence of urinary tract infection in newborns, and a guard against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The prevention of penile cancer is the most easily discredited claim of a medical justification for routine circumcision. Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000),[4] and the incidence of this disease is similarly low in countries which do not practice routine neonatal circumcison.[5] As Sydney Gellis, M.D. writing for the American Journal of Diseases in Childhood states, "There are more deaths each year from circumcision than from cancer of the penis." [6] The American Medical Association corroborates, "because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified." [7]

Some studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. One study (which is now widely discredited) shows a ten-fold decrease in the incidence of UTI in circumcised infants.[8] These studies are often used to cite a solid, medical benefit of neonatal circumcision. But "the reliability of these studies has been questioned due to the lack of controls for potential confounders such as prematurity, extent of breastfeeding, and the method of urine collection used to identify bacteriuria (presence of bacteria in the urine)."[7] Premature babies and babies born ill are usually not circumcised due to their health; in these immunocompromised infants there is a higher risk of UTI. This would account for some of the higher incidences of UTI in the uncircumcised. The method of urine collection used to collect samples from uncircumcised infants, catheterization, may cause false bacteriuria, an error overlooked by the researchers. Also, some of the UTIs in these hospital studies are thought to be iatrogenic (unintentionally caused by hospital staff or parents), due to the ill-advised instruction by doctors and nurses unfamiliar with the hygienic care of an intact penis, to forcibly retract the foreskin (which is naturally adhered throughout infancy and early childhood) and scrub the glans and underside of the foreskin. The reported preventative benefit of circumcision appears to be negligible when considering the overall low incidence of UTI in uncircumcised male infants (0.4%-1%)7 – it appears approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.[9,10] After factoring in the rate of circumcision complications and the ease of treating UTIs, routine amputation of normal penile anatomy for a small reduction in UTI risk (if one exists) is not even close to being medically justifiable.

There are similar problems with the findings which show a decreased risk of HIV infection in circumcised men. In these studies there has been shown to be a correlation between areas of sub-Saharan Africa where circumcision is commonly performed and a decrease in the incidence of HIV infection. As the medical historian, David L. Gollaher points out, "Circumcision is not random. It remains an expression of powerful cultural and religious ideas. Knowing this, we are apt to wonder whether the circumcised practice different hygiene, engage in different sexual behaviors, or even eat different foods than the uncircumcised." He also points out "the same mapping technique (which shows a correlation between circumcision and HIV infection in Africa) applied to North America would reveal the opposite correlation. The United States has far higher per-capita rates of both circumcision and HIV infection than Canada, but no one has pointed to circumcision to explain the difference."[11] In fact America leads the industrialized world in STI (including HIV) infections and circumcision. If circumcision provides protection why do we see such a high incidence of HIV infection? One theory proposes that the desensitization caused by circumcision leads men to promiscuity in an attempt to achieve satisfaction.

There are many other questions: Could the desensitization caused by circumcision make men less likely to wear condoms? Will uneducated men view this purported protection circumcision offers as more of a protection than it really is and endanger themselves by foregoing the use of condoms? Does female genital mutilation (FGM) offer any protection against HIV or other STIs - if foreskin tissue creates a greater risk for HIV in men what about the labia or clitoral hood (or prepuce) of females? If FGM offered protection it is unlikely that it would be implemented due to its stigmatization in the west, which shows that there is a cultural bias at work. If we are willing to genitally mutilate infant boys for equivocal (at best) protection from disease why should we not consider similar procedures on women?

Even if circumcision is shown to provide a significant protection against HIV infection, it is surely unethical to amputate body parts from unconsenting patients. Sexual education and distributing and encouraging the use of condoms is a more sensible and ethical way to prevent HIV infection than routine genital mutilation. Would we recommend routine neonatal mastectomy to prevent the risk of breast cancer? In the end, the American Academy of Pediatrics provides a fair summary, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."[12]

Routine Male Neonatal Circumcision; What Is It and What Does It Do?

Routine neonatal circumcision of the male is the partial or complete removal of the foreskin (prepuce), which protects the sensitive glans penis (head of the penis) and urinary meatus (urethral opening) when the penis is not erect. The procedure is performed soon after birth. There are several methods by which circumcision may be performed, most involving the use of a clamp which fits around the foreskin to aid in cutting and hemostasis (the stoppage of bleeding) and a scalpel blade. No matter which method is used, they all accomplish the same end – amputation of the foreskin and occasionally the prepucial frenulum – an erogenous zone that is similar to the anchoring flap of skin on the underside of the tongue. Prior to the procedure the infant is commonly placed on a circumcision restraint board with straps for securing the infants limbs. All neonatal circumcision techniques begin by ripping away the foreskin, which is naturally adhered to the glans in infants and young boys in much the same way a fingernail is adhered to the nail bed. This is done by inserting a probe into the opening of the foreskin, and forcing it in between the glans and the foreskin and then slowly moving all the way around ripping the tissues apart. After the glans is free from the foreskin, the foreskin is excised. The baby usually reacts to the procedure by screaming and crying. Shock may cause the child to run risk of choking or of having breathing difficulties.[13] Occasionally the baby will become withdrawn and quiet entering a state of neurogenic shock which is often mistaken for calmness or sleep.[14] After excision of the foreskin the glans appears reddened and is extremely sore. Urine (which is naturally acidic), feces and the abrasive diaper surface cause horrible pain when they come in contact with the inflamed glans. Up to 96% of neonatal circumcisions are performed without any type of anesthesia.[13,15] A 1997 study on the pain associated with circumcision was stopped early rather than subject any more babies to the pain of circumcision sans anesthesia. During the study the researchers found that babies not only experience severe pain but also have an increased risk of choking and breathing difficulty, due to the pain.[13,15]

The low percentage of anesthetic use in neonatal circumcision is primarily due to the long disproved belief that infants do not feel pain, and the ignorant and insensitive view that it does not matter because they will not remember the procedure. Other factors that contribute to low-usage of anesthetics are the patient’s age, which precludes the option of general anesthesia, and problems associated with local anesthetics such as injection pain and reactions to the anesthetic. Topical anesthetics are frequently used (when anesthetics are used at all), but they are almost completely ineffective at controlling the pain of circumcision.[15] Most people would view performing a surgical procedure on a fully conscious adult as an unconscionable act. For some reason this view does not apply to American babies for they are routinely forced to endure an extremely painful procedure with no anesthesia and no regard for their consent, because ’they will not remember it anyways’ and their inability to voice a worded-protest.

Psychologists now know that the brain is highly formative in the infant stages. Although there is an inability to recall memories of infancy the experiences of infancy will shape how the child develops mentally and psychologically. It has been shown that painful experiences during infancy, such as circumcision, can cause psychological trauma which has a profound and lasting effect on the individual. A May 2002 study published by the Journal of Health Psychology concludes that men who were circumcised as babies can go on to suffer a host of psychological problems including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In response to the study the US Attorney warned doctors that, "The foundation is well laid for lawsuits." The study states, "PTSD may result from childhood circumcision, just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape," and that "some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault." The study also found that men who were circumcised as babies reported lower self-esteem, feelings of personal vulnerability and experienced problems with rage, depression, phobias, panic and anxiety disorders more commonly than their genitally intact counterparts.[16] Another study showed that circumcised men more commonly experience "shyness, anger, fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and sexual shame."[17]

The foreskin is not just extra tissue as some people believe, nor is it a vestigial part of the human anatomy. If the foreskin served no practical purpose, or was detrimental to health, it would have slowly disappeared (or be in the process of doing so) from the human phenotype as a natural process of evolution – we do not see evidence of this occurring. The foreskin is present in the human phenotype because it is an important and functional part of the genital anatomy. It is the most sensitive area of the penis[18] with unique and specialized functions.

Below is a list of the unique structures, cells and tissues lost to circumcision (from "The Lost List" - http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.html):

* The Taylor "ridged band" [sometimes called the "frenar band"], the primary erogenous zone of the male body. This unique, highly specialized and exquisitely sensitive structure is equipped with soft ridges designed by nature to stimulate the female’s inner labia and G-spot during intercourse.

* The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped tethering structure on the underside of the head of the penis. (The frenulum may be either partially or completely removed during circumcision; in some men, it is left largely intact)

* Between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight variations in pressure and stretching, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.

* Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles, which are also found in the fingertips.

Also lost are:

* The foreskin’s gliding action, the non-abrasive gliding of the shaft of the penis within its own sheath, which facilitates smooth, comfortable and pleasurable intercourse for both partners.

* The "subpreputual wetness" which protects the mucosa of the glans (and inner foreskin), and which contains immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme, a potent HIV killer which is also found in tears and mothers’ milk.

* Estrogen receptors, the purpose of which is not fully understood.

* The foreskin’s apocrine glands, which produce pheromones.

* The protection and lubrication of the erogenous surface of the penis, which is designed by nature to be an internal organ like the vagina. Natural sex involves contact between two internal organs.[19]

The glans penis is covered with mucosa, a type of tissue that lines internal organs such as the intestines and the inside of the mouth – mucosa is not meant to be constantly exposed to the outside environment. The glans penis of a circumcised individual is noticeably hardened and is less sensitive than the glans of an intact male. There is therefore a decrease in pleasurable sensation produced by masturbation and sex. This is due to the constant exposure of the glans, which is normally ensheathed in the foreskin that protects it from friction and dryness. In order to protect the sensitive glans the body begins the processes of keratinization (or cornification) – moving the tough fibrous protein, keratin, to the surface (much like a calloused hand or foot). The foreskin also provides a natural lubricant and gliding action which makes sex more pleasurable for both partners and makes penetration much easier. Many men circumcised in adulthood report that sex with their partners now requires lubricants and their female partners reported a loss of pleasurable sensation, an increase in vaginal dryness (during sex) and an inability to achieve orgasm.[20,21] It has been hypothesized that the ridged band, which is lost to circumcision, improves female arousal by stimulating the Gräfenberg spot (G spot). The foreskin also eliminates a significant amount of friction which preserves a woman’s lubrication.[19,20] The common female complaints about not being able to produce enough lubricant, or achieve an orgasm during sex (Female Arousal Disorder or FAD) may be related to male circumcision and not dysfunction in the female.[20,21] A fine touch pressure study performed at Michigan State University has shown that not only does circumcision ablate the most sensitive parts of the penis, it also causes a decrease in the sensitivity of the glans.[18] The peer-reviewed urology journal, Urology Today, states: "This study suggests that the transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. It appears that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." [22]

There are many complications associated with circumcision. The exact complication rate of the procedure is unknown. Excessive bleeding and infection are the most common complications. Bleeding may be severe if the patient has a clotting disorder – which are not screened for pre-operatively. Infection can lead to sepsis, a serious and potentially fatal infection in the bloodstream.[7] Especially during infancy there is an increased risk of meatitis, meatal stenosis and meatal ulceration.[23] Studies have shown a link to many different types of sexual dysfunction including impotence, desensitization which makes ejaculation difficult or impossible, painful erections, painful intercourse, premature ejaculation, and chordee (curvature of the penis).[24] The use of local anesthetics during circumcision can cause anaphylactic reactions, necrotic reactions, and systemic toxicity.[7] Accidents during surgery can result in lacerations of the glans, and accidental amputation of parts of the penis which may require sexual reassignment of the individual. Death from routine circumcision is rare but has been documented.[25] Other complications include skin bridges – adhesions formed between the circumcision scar and the glans, hypospadias and epispadias (abnormal positionings of the urethral opening), skin tags, cysts, psychological problems, ulceration of the glans, lymphedema, secondary phimosis, urinary fistulas, and more. [25]

Putting an End to Neonatal Circumcision

In the past few decades there has been a large international effort made by organizations and individuals to end the atrocity of FGM while male genital mutilation such as neonatal circumcision has been largely ignored. It is time that organizations and individuals who oppose FGM end this hypocrisy by opposing all genital mutilations regardless of severity of the procedure or gender of the victim.

People may prefer to not hear the truth about genital mutilation. Many men report feeling uncomfortable, angry, or violated after becoming conscious of what has been done to them by circumcision, they may wish to return to their previous state of ignorance about the issue. Some people may dismiss the controversy over circumcision as not a big deal. Others may maintain a pro-mutilation position, in order to avoid feelings of guilt for their complicity in the genital mutilations of their children. It is important to face these feelings, become aware of what has been done, and come to terms with the pain or the guilt so we may use these feelings constructively. We cannot change what has been done but we can fight to ensure that a future generation does not have to go through this traumatic and unnecessary procedure.

Addendum: Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation, female genital cutting, and female circumcision are all terms that refer to any procedure "involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

"Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone such procedures, and 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Female genital mutilation has been documented in 28 countries in Africa and in several countries in Asia and the Middle East. Some forms of the practice have also been reported from other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in Central and South America. There is also evidence of increasing numbers of girls and women living outside their place of origin, including in North America and western Europe, who have undergone or may be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation." – The World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) puts FGM into four different classifications: Type I, II, III, and IV.

Type I: This form involves removal of the clitoral hood – "hoo..omy" (or "clitoridotomy") with or without excision of the clitoris.

Type II: This type involves excision of the clitoris and the labia minora. It is called khafd (reduction) in Arabic speaking countries.

Type III: Is known as infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision. It involves removal of all external female genitalia and the suturing of the vaginal opening. Only a small hole is left open for the draining of urine and menstrual flow. This opening is sometimes re-opened by the woman’s husband for intercourse or by midwives during childbirth, it is subsequently re-sutured.

Type IV: Is the miscellaneous category for mutilations which are non-traditional or obscure.

FGM types II and III are considerably more severe mutilations than male circumcision, Type I (without removal of the clitoris) is analogous to male circumcision.

1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project – http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk7/factbk7b.htm.

2. Population .. U.S. Bureau of the Census; Circumcision .. Wallerstein.

3. H. Tristram Engelhardt, "The Disease of Masturbation: Values and the Concept of Disease," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 48 (1974), 244-5.

4. Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr (eds): Third National Cancer Survey: Incidence Data. National Cancer Institute Monograph 41. Bethesda, Md, US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975.

5. Wallerstein, Edward. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.

6. Gellis SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978; 132: 1168-9.

7. American Medical Association, Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal circumcision.

8. Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1986; 78: 96-99.

9. Thompson RS. Is routine circumcision indicated in the newborn? An opposing view. J Fam Pract. 1990;31:189-196.

10. To T, Mohammad A, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study of circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary tract infection. Lancet. 1998;352:1813-1816.

11. David L. Gollaher, "Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery", pg 103-104.

12. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Circumcision Policy Statement", Pediatrics, 103(3):686-693, March, 1999.

13. Circumcision study halted due to trauma -http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic.

14. Romberg, R. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985.

15. J. Lander et al, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada "Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial" http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/lander/

16. Gregory J. Boyle, Phd, Ronald Goldman, Phd, Ephrem Fernandez, J. Steven Svoboda, MA, JD, "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma, and Psychosexual Sequelae" Journal of Health Psychology, Volume 07 Issue 03 - Publication Date: 1 May 2002, http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/.

17. Rhinehart, J, "Neonatal Circumcision Revistited," Transactional Analysis Journal 29 (1999): 215-221.

18. Sorrells, M, et al., Michigan State University, "Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis," BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.

19. "The Lost List" - http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.html

20. Bensley GA, and Boyle GJ: Effect of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 116: 595–596, 2003. - http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/

21. O’Hara K, O’Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1:79–84. - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

22. Reuters (2007, June 28). Does Circumcision Remove The Most Sensitive Parts Of The Penis? ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627144210.htm

23. Freud, Paul (August 1947). "The ulcerated urethral meatus in male children". The Journal of Pediatrics 31 (2): 131-41. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(47)80098-8. Retrieved on 2006-07-07.

24. Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction - http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

25. Kaplan, George W., M.D. (August 1983). "Complications of Circumcision" (HTML). UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA 10 (3): 543–549. Retrieved on 2006-09-29. - http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/

~*~