Circumcision prevalence with Intaction : 1947: Dr. Eugene Hand of the American Medical Association, said in Newsweek, ”where the promiscuous and uncircumcised Negro had an incidence of venereal infection of “almost 100%,… for the widely educated Jew, circumcised at birth, the venereal disease rate has remained the same or decreased.” 1870: The renowned Dr. Lewis A. Sayre of NYC’s Bellevue Hospital claimed to cure a boy’s paralyzed legs with circumcision. He also claimed to cure epilepsy, mental disorders, hip-joint pain, & hernias with circumcision. “Genital irritations” & masturbation were deemed to be the cause of these issues. Sayre was a leading figure in the popularization of circumcision in America. He was later elected to president of the American Medical Association.

This is a big myth about circumcision that proponents cite to make circumcision seem trivial. The foreskin is not an extra bit skin–that is not correct. First, it’s not “extra”, in fact it’s a highly complex piece of tissue that includes mucus membranes, muscle fibers, and erogenous nerve endings. It’s an essential part of the penis, not something extra. And second, it’s not a “bit”. It’s as much as 15 square inches (when unfolded) in an adult of amazing specialized skin. The reality is that claiming circumcision is safe is a dubious claim. To say it’s harmless is just flat wrong. Removing the foreskin can have many complications, such as life threatening bleeding, infection, meatal stenosis, disfigurement, excessive scaring, and severe skin bridge adhesions. Some circumcised boys need more than one surgery to attempt to fix these manmade problems. As bad as that sounds, things can get worse.

There are essentially three stakeholders involved with the decision to circumcise an infant. The baby-patient, the parent-guardian, and the doctor. The physician is supposed to be bound by ethical principles of beneficence (serve the best interests of patients and their families) and non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”). The standard of “serving the interests of families” can be a slippery slope as doctors can be forced to do things against their better judgement to appease parents. Pro-circumcision or religious advocates typically want babies circumcised immediately because older children and adults would opt out if given the opportunity. Read extra details about circumcision.

Circumcision is often performed on infants without anesthetic or with a local anesthetic that is ineffective at substantially reducing pain (Lander et al., 1997). In a study by Lander and colleagues (1997), a control group of infants who received no anesthesia was used as a baseline to measure the effectiveness of different types of anesthesia during circumcision. The control group babies were in so much pain—some began choking and one even had a seizure—they decided it was unethical to continue. It is important to also consider the effects of post-operative pain in circumcised infants (regardless of whether anesthesia is used), which is described as “severe” and “persistent” (Howard et al., 1994). In addition to pain, there are other negative physical outcomes including possible infection and death (Van Howe, 1997, 2004).

That every child has the inalienable right to an intact body. The foreskin is a special and unique part of the body that serves several important functions. We believe foreskin possesses “The Four Powers”: Pleasure, Protection, Lubrication, and Connection (between people and with oneself.) Both males and females are born with foreskin (equivalent to the clitoral hood). Even cut men were born with a foreskin, even if it was taken from them. Everyone has a stake in this issue and a reason to get involved. Intaction promotes an intact positive message so people understand and value the anatomical and psychological importance of an intact body. We seek to raise awareness on this issue in order to stop non-therapeutic, ritualized, medicalized infant circumcision and female genital cutting. Find extra information on here.