` The foreskin (or prepuce) is a man’s most sensitive erogenous zone, more well-developed in humans than in other species of mammal. It has unique sexual functions (more on that later), which circumcision effectively destroys — and this is intentional:

` Although foreskin-chopping was once a purely religious or cultural practice, it was introduced to American medicine in the late 1800s, as a ‘cure-all’, thanks to the trend of pathologizing (treating as illness) normal human sexuality and healthy genitalia.

` Painfully severing the man or boy’s most erogenous zone was recommended, and in orphanages, it was more common to sever the penile nerve as well. This was meant to traumatize and discourage him from masturbating, lest his health deteriorate from excessive ejaculations (which was diagnosed as “spermatorrhea”).

` Yes, really.

` There were many quack remedies in the 1800s to improve men’s virility and erections, and to keep them from losing semen via masturbating and nocturnal emissions. This was not considered a contradiction because a man’s purpose was thought to be saving his sperm for making babies.

` Typically, this was a “disorder” of women who didn’t have husbands, or whose husbands left them wanting in bed, and it was thought that the buildup of sexual fluids such as “female sperm” (ejaculate) were poisoning them.

` In order to relieve “hysteria” symptoms, the two-thousand year old wisdom of treating it involved “massage” techniques of the “womb” (vulva), in order to induce a “hysterical paroxysm” (orgasm).

` For doctors in the 1800s, this was hard work, so often they recommended a midwife to do this, and later on invented a number of vibrators and water jets that were much more effective.

` The fact that vibrators were the fifth household appliance to become electrified is a testament to the pathologization of women’s sexuality, not to their sexual freedom, as is popularly imagined. (That part happened later.)

` This is how masturbation (that is, without a medically-sanctioned device) could be thought of as causing illness in females.

` However, there was another, less popular “treatment” to discourage “irritation” and “over-stimulation” in females — excision of the external clitoris. In other words, medicalized ‘female circumcision’.

` Various forms of this practice appeared sporadically until the 1970s, and were even funded by Medicaid and promoted for the same reasons as male circumcision (appearance, cleanliness, health, etc).

` Indeed, the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant boys has continued to be medicalized in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Canada, due to such persistent beliefs.

` One example, thanks to Lewis Sayre, surgeon and pro-circumcision quack of the 1870’s, is the pathologization of completely normal infant foreskins:

` This continues today in hospitals, thanks to continued ignorance about penile gross anatomy: Attempts to ‘fix’ the child’s normal foreskin result in severe injury and pain. More about this shortly.

` As for the few cultures that continue to give routine infant penis-reductions a veil of medical validation, the justifications for it depend on the culture and era. In other words, it is based on local beliefs, not science.

` The scientific literature reveals the physical, neurological, and psychological harms of this tradition, but these are creatively ignored or glossed-over in much of the U.S. medical community.

Circumcision: At the intersection of Religion, Medicine, and Human Rights 

` I have handily rehashed most of what he says in the rest of my article, partly thanks to the notes I took — which you can see me doing in the center of the frame.

` Even anatomy books I’ve seen that include the foreskin do not have a detailed visual representation of it, nor do they have much description beyond saying it’s a ‘flap of skin’, or that it ‘covers the tip of the penis’.

` Both of these statements are inaccurate:

` The rest of the time, its specialized mechanisms cause it to spring back into place over the delicate mucus membrane of the glans (head), where it serves a protective function, much like your eyelids. Even in this position, it can easily be retracted simply by pulling the skin of the shaft toward the body:

` One of Geisheker’s jobs is tracking cases of American doctors who are so outrageously ignorant of intact penile anatomy that they cause serious pain and injury, usually to infants.

` They don’t even know the following basic facts, so read carefully:

` (The same is true of the prepuce and glans of the clitoris: The female foreskin is also called the ‘clitoral hood’.)

` Over the years, little ‘pearls’ of the membrane die off, thus gradually separating the foreskin and glans, creating the preputial space. (This is also true of the clitoris.)

` This anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal substance works its way toward the tip of the penis so that these ‘pearls’ can be ejected. It is still known by the Latin word for ‘soap’ — smegma.

` By around 10 to 15 years of age, the boy is able to fully retract his foreskin. This is an everyday fact in most people’s experience, except in cultures where infant circumcision is so common that doctors exist who have lost almost all knowledge of the foreskin.

` This injury can leave scar tissue, causing the foreskin to actually become abnormally tight. Such problems, as well as its natural non-retractibility, can be enough for the doctor to decide this part must be be defective and needs to be removed.

` These fibers relax when the baby urinates, keeping the foreskin wide open and pulled back, away from the urethra. At other times, they draw the end of the foreskin together to prevent contaminants (such as those found in his diaper) from getting inside.

` This normal contraction of the foreskin’s muscle gives it a long and narrow appearance and can be misinterpreted as being “too tight” or “redundant”. Smegma also creates an oily, waxy barrier which protects the infant’s glans from the irritation of urine.

` Without these layers shielding the urethra from E. coli and other nasties, the infant is more predisposed to urinary tract infections.

` Both the normal fusion and muscular contraction of the infant foreskin is considered a disorder in American medical literature, called ‘phimosis’. This false diagnosis must be corrected repeatedly in the literature by doctors from abroad, as well as such organizations as DOC.

` Near the end of his presentation, he also reads a recent and heartbreaking letter he received from a woman whose pediatrician did this to her son, without even asking her first.

` The boy was traumatized by this, screamed in pain every time he urinated or was washed, and woke up screaming for five nights in a row. On top of this, she was billed $100 for ‘penile surgery’.

` An American Academy of Pediatrics survey in 1981 showed that 78% of pediatricians gave obsolete or dangerous advice concerning an intact penis. Recently, the organization has continued giving such advice:

` In 2012, the AAP’s recommendation for cleaning babies’ foreskins is to retract them — thus tearing the foreskin and glans apart — and to wash the bleeding wound with soap and water.

` The soap, of course, causes inflammation and can lead to infections and other serious problems. Yes, this is an erroneous example of “medical advice” for infants in the U.S., although in most of the world, the advice is, basically, “leave it alone, it takes care of itself”.

` In fact, a male should not use soap beneath his foreskin for the same reason that a female should not wash her own internal bits with it: It changes the pH of those areas and causes inflammation, which can lead to imbalances of microflora and infection.

` “I just find this astonishing,” says Geisheker, of the fact that there are still medical professionals who don’t understand this ordinary, basic bit of anatomy.

` Geisheker explains a bit of the history centered around the Jewish blood sacrifice of penile bits, and how it changed in Ancient Greece from removing the tip of foreskin to removing the whole thing.

` During the middle ages, Jews were discriminated against for this practice, which includes the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucking blood out of the wound with his mouth. Anti-semitic Christians invented superstitions about how this was how Jews drained babies of blood and ate their flesh.

` However, none of this explains the complete lack of foreskins from so much of the U.S. culture and population — which is only 2% Jewish.

` You know, the good ol’ days, when homeopathy was a better bet than some of the treatments of medical doctors. One outmoded belief was that people start with a certain amount of energy and inevitably run out.

` A pre-scientific model of disease based on this idea was called ‘Reflex Neurosis’, which pathologized genital stimulation. It literally meant ‘self-nerve overstimulation’: If you touched your highly-innervated genitalia (whether sexually or not), you would drain yourself of energy, and a disease would occur in your lungs, eyes, heart, etc.

` It was also believed that men would eventually run out of sperm, and that ejaculation was injurious to the health. Many people not only shunned masturbation, but were terrified of losing “life force” through nocturnal emissions.

` There were penis-cooling devices, contraptions with spikes on the inside, and even one that activated a phonograph player.

` Chastity belts were a product of this era, rather than medieval times, as is commonly believed. They were invented, along with armored night-wear, to sell to parents as a way to keep their kids from causing themselves “harm”.

` The trauma of genital mutilation, as well as the resulting loss of sensitivity, were meant to keep these adolescents from wanting to do it again, lest they make themselves sick. (This is clearly stated in Kellogg’s Treatment of Self Abuse and its Effects.)

` A bland vegetarian diet was believed by many to curb sexual feelings, and so Kellogg also invented Corn Flakes, and provided them at his sanitorium in Battle Creek Michigan — along with yogurt enemas and electrifying baths. (Yes, very much like in The Road to Wellville.)

` In girls, he preferred using carbolic acid to burn off the external clitoris, although later forms of medicalized ‘female circumcision’ were not as extensively harmful.

` When this was being promoted in the U.S. and some other countries, even the female circumcision rituals of foreign cultures were interpreted as being done to get rid of ‘foul-smelling’ smegma in females, thus ignoring their religious significance.

` This eventually came to an end in the twentieth century, partly because it was so widely believed that women had no sexual needs unless they were mentally deranged. As for male circumcision, the fact that we know sex is healthy is a great reason to stop doing it:

` This knowledge carried on into the 1800s, which is why the Americans (and later, other Anglophones) targeted it in their anti-masturbation crusade. Let’s take a look at its role in sexual function, as understood by modern medical science:

` A 2007 study, published in BJU international, mapped the fine-touch sensitivity regions on circumcised versus intact penises, concluding that:

“The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. 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. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.” (Emphasis mine.)

` The glans is less of an erogenous zone and more of a device to hold the foreskin in its proper shape and to keep the inner surface moist: Its presence only makes functional sense when one considers it is meant to work with the foreskin.

` As the penis becomes erect, the foreskin is pulled back, rolling inside-out, everting its most sensitive areas, and (usually) exposing the glans. It can also be retracted simply by pulling the skin of the shaft toward the body. (You can view an animation and videos here.)

` When fully retracted, the foreskin is just about sufficient to cover the entire shaft: Although the length varies, it makes up approximately one half of the skin on the penis.

` What is removed by circumcision is about three inches long and five inches in circumference — think of a 3×5 index card. That’s the actual size. Although it is sometimes described as a ‘tiny little piece of skin’, this is only true of tiny little infants, not sexually-active men.

` I was once inspired to show a few such people two pictures of the same intact member — one hanging and one standing tall — and most of them thought that the erect one was missing its foreskin. They didn’t realize that it retracts!

` This relates to misconceptions I’ve heard that the glans is most sensitive, that the foreskin impedes sexual function by covering the glans during intercourse, and even that circumcised men have more sensation and a richer sex life because of this.

` This is maddeningly contrary to the facts, as we shall see, with a detailed understanding of what this sexual structure is and does:

` So, we must ask ourselves, why would millions of years of natural — and sexual — selection, result in humans having an unusually large and highly-developed foreskin (and a larger glans to work with it), if it were somehow harmful, disadvantageous, or “vestigial” as is popularly believed?

` This inside-out motion, partly aided by the foreskins’ own muscular action, is unique in human physiology: It allows the man to roll the skin of his penis against itself, either during sex or just by grasping his shaft with two fingers and thumb.

` This creates a gliding sensation that is not abrasive or drying to the partner. Indeed, the foreskin adds its own lubrication and erotic scent from smegma, which is laced with pheremones.

` This scent is revealed only when the man gets an erection, so it’s not as though he always smells, as my friend Bill had imagined. It is important in chemical signaling for the female, just as female smegma is an important signal for the male.

` In most cultures, the smell of smegma is widely considered a turn-on in both females and males. It is unclear exactly how important this is to human sexuality, but it is interesting to note that circumcised male lab rats have trouble finding a mate.

` Another common complaint is that the non-moving skin of the circumcised penis (even with a condom) creates friction and even microtears in the vagina or anus of the partner. This, as you may guess, can precipitate the transmission of HIV and STDs in general.

` However, the movement of the foreskin (with or without a condom) prevents any friction at all. This is generally preferred by sexual partners who have had experience with both, although this varies somewhat by culture.

` The most erogenous tissue of the foreskin is to be found in the frenulum and ridged band. A frenulum is a cord-like fusion of flesh which holds a moving structure to a fixed structure, like the one found under your tongue.

` The penile frenulum anchors the foreskin to the underside of the glans and is highly sensitive to stretching (which it does a lot of during intercourse and masturbation). It is partly or totally removed with circumcision.

` While engaged in vaginal intercourse, the ridged band is rolled far back on the penile shaft, facing outwards. This may be to encourage deeper penetration, thus getting the sperm closer to the eggs.

` Much like condoms with large ‘ribs’, the outwardly-projecting ridges stimulate the sexual partner. The ridged band also ‘catches’ on the clitoris and inner labia of the female, suggesting that these structures co-evolved for this purpose.

` On the out-stroke, the ridged band is pressed between the partner and the coronal ridge of the glans. The ridged band is usually removed entirely by circumcision.

` Another technique involves pulling the foreskin forward and outward and directing a jet of water to flow underneath it. Even just pinching the foreskin shut during urination, allowing it to ‘balloon’, activates its stretch sensors in an unusual way.

` (This also can happen naturally when a boy’s foreskin is partially separated, which is harmless, but sometimes confounds parents.)

` Such inflation can also be achieved with air — a different type of “blow job”, shall we say? It is also possible to use the muscular tip to stimulate the nipples, clitoris, or other parts of the partner:

` In the case of male-on-male sex, there is the practice of ‘docking’, which means to pull the foreskin forward so that it envelops the partner’s glans. If both partners are intact, they can do ‘double-docking’, with one foreskin within the other.

` In fact, stimulating only the most erogenous areas are enough to elicit an orgasm. Indeed, the foreskin is thought to play an important role in controlling and modulating male orgasm.

` No matter what I said, he insisted that the part’s only function was to protect the glans, and is no longer needed because humans wear clothes. What I discovered at the library was that the glans is covered in mucus membrane and is meant to be an internal structure which can be exposed, like the tongue:

` When left exposed to the outside world for weeks, the glans develops a layer of dead, dry skin — especially when there is clothing rubbing against it — thus blocking the sensitivity of the underlying nerves.

` If the foreskin is restored and the glans is re-internalized, this callus will actually dissolve within two weeks, improving sensitivity. (BTW, this can be done via ‘tugging’ devices or even tape, which expand the tissue without surgery. Such techniques are becoming popular as awareness of these facts spreads.)

` As I have hinted at already, this layer is also found in the foreskin, which allows it to close over the glans and pull it inward. This is handy in cold water, and even helps to prevent frostbite.

` The smegma of the inner surfaces also contains chemicals and immune cells which protect the penis from microorganisms and viruses. For more information (and citations) on foreskin functions, you may want to start here.

` Indeed, removing half of penile nerve feedback causes a number of problems, from erectile dysfunction to premature ejaculation, which are more common in circumcised men.

` Although the literature shows that men who are circumcised work harder for sexual satisfaction, and to this end must practice more types of stimulation, this is misinterpreted in popular culture to mean that circumcised men have more fun and get more oral sex.

` As they become more experienced with Danish men, who are almost all intact, they find this not to be the case. I actually wrote about this near the bottom of this post.

` Indeed, there are a few studies that purport to show that circumcision has no effect on penile sensitivity or sexual function: That is because of fatal design flaws, including that the scientists are measuring everything but the foreskin:

` So, half the penis’ sensitivity is entirely omitted and ignored, rendering this research worthless. To conclude that removing the foreskin doesn’t affect the penis is to pretend that the foreskin is not part of the penis.

` This page gives a pretty good analysis of these studies in detail, as well as the effect on sexual partners, and comparing infant versus adult circumcision on sexual function.

` The rear windows were fogged, and the person next to me made a mark by touching the glass, saying “I think I’ll draw a penis.” Because it is difficult to draw anything in a moving vehicle, the drawing turned out a bit mishapen, so he said, “Well, it can be an uncirumcised penis.”

` Something clicked in my mind. To him, a penis was always circumcised, unless it had a foreskin “added” to it.”

` Wait… what?

` That would explain why I often heard the foreskin described as “extra” skin, or that it was unusual for “the penis itself” to be harmed by circumcision.

` This parallel reality was no doubt created as a way to make this operation more palatable to people who don’t want to believe they or their loved ones were harmed by it.

` Many adult men who chose circumcision for themselves have regretted it, and some who have chosen it as medical treatment were misled into thinking that it was the only or best treatment option when it was not.

` For example, a genuinely tight foreskin can be fixed with stretching, different masturbation techniques, or even surgery which does not remove tissue. Some guys, unfortunately, were misled by their doctors into thinking that foreskin removal was their only hope.

` After the pain had finally subsided for good, he found that he had lost a lot of sensation, responsiveness, intimacy, and confidence. He had to learn how to achieve orgasm all over again. He had traded a medical condition for an overall decrease in sexual satisfaction.

` He felt a very strong sense of loss and grief for two years before he was able to pull himself back together and adapt, which you can read about on my ancient blog post here. It’s just one anecdote among many, but along with the scientific data, it shows that there can be a real difference.

` This permanently retracts the foreskin and gives the look of circumcision, while exposing the most erogenous tissue on the outside. Although this is still damaging and painful, it shows that the people of some cultures value the foreskin too much to cut it off.

` I am talking about the infant, usually screaming in pain, or the young boy who only knows what others tell him about what is being done to him. Most intact men would not choose this for themselves.

` Although circumcised boys are usually told what was done to them and that it was for the best, some reach adulthood before they learn what was done to them. If this was so shocking for me to learn, imagine how shocked they must be at the ignorance of their own bodies!

` “The foreskin can’t have any real function,” he said, “otherwise they wouldn’t cut it off.” 

(“Appeal to Consequences“, anyone?)

` In his presentation, Geisheker brings up the 1881 assassination of James A Garfield by the insane lawyer, Charles Guiteau. Famously, Guiteau danced to the gallows, recited a poem, and shook hands with his executioner before hanging.

` Upon autopsy, it was discovered that his foreskin was tight, and so his insanity was blamed on that. Such was the mentality of the people at the time.

` I wouldn’t have, either.

` In 1870, Sayre gave a speech about the harms of normal foreskins, which he called ‘congenital phimosis’ (cannot be retracted) and ‘Adhered Prepuce’ — in other words, the normal fusion found in boys until at least ten years of age.

` Today, there are still some doctors who apparently think that a normal, healthy foreskin is ‘adhered’ in ‘congenital phimosis’, or even ‘redundant’ for its long, tapered look.
` In the billing book for medical procedures, a Code 605 refers to “redundant prepuce and phimosis, adherent prepuce, phimosis congenital.”

` Many healthy children are fraudulently diagnosed and subsequently circumcised under this billing code — because there is nothing wrong! Wait, what?

` In reality, the younger a child is, the more pain he or she experiences, and it is especially acute in newborns. These facts, and their relation to infant surgery, did not begin to be explored until the 1980’s.

` The erogenous tissue is torn from the infant’s glans and crushed, excruciatingly, into goo. When the clamp is removed ten minutes later, the wound doesn’t bleed.

` The shallow bell is actually meant to maximize the amount of erogenous tissue that is lost. And yes, it is commonly used today in U.S. hospitals, with little pain relief, if any: This is because anesthetics are dangerous and not fully effective in infants, including nerve block techniques.

` Another circumcision device is the Plastibell clamp, which strangles the erogenous tissue over an entire week. The pain and discomfort from this process commonly interferes with breastfeeding, sleep cycles, and parental bonding.

` Whatever the method used, the glans is afterward revealed as a raw, open sore, and the infant is almost never prescribed pain relievers. When he urinates, the ammonia severely burns the glans and he screams in distress.

` This wound takes weeks to heal, and complications (besides the intended damage) are not as uncommon as widely assumed.

` Typical pain responses include an extremely fast heart rate, very high levels of cortisol (stress hormone), and high-pitched screaming, sometimes until the infant turns blue from lack of oxygen. The fragile newborn’s heart, lungs, and other organs can be damaged or ruptured from being overworked.

` Although some parents may believe that their own son “slept through” his circumcision, this is what they are told when their baby goes into shock and doesn’t respond to any stimulus.

` These are exactly the type of responses that we would expect in an adult whose genitals are being torn apart, yet this may be framed as ‘discomfort’. Wouldn’t ‘torture’ be more appropriate?

` It doesn’t matter whether the individual has any conscious (“explicit”) memory of this because most types of memory are stored outside of conscious awareness in the involuntary (“implicit”) systems of the brain and body.

` Similarly, circumcised infants, as with preemies given a heel stick or scalp IV, show neurological changes that cause a permanent increase in sensitivity to pain. In other words, intense pain in an infant re-wires the brain for life.

` I should also note that compared to intact boys, the circumcised ones tend to be more irritable, have trouble eating, sleeping and thriving, and demonstrate a significant increase in ‘colic’ (crying for no apparent reason) for up to a year after this ‘procedure’.

` A whole spectrum of emotional reactions to being put through this in one’s infancy become evident later on, and they (naturally) include a sense of loss and grief.

` Although foreskin reconstruction is becoming more popular today, with its own market, it was only in 1990 that desiring one’s lost foreskin was suggested to be a form of “body dysmorphia”.

` Infections can also, more rarely, cause brain damage and death. Even if this procedure goes ‘right’, the penile skin often attempts to re-fuse itself together, resulting in abnormal adhesions, which require further tearing apart.

` In the long-term, the boy’s penis may grow too large to fit within the skin that is left, and may bend or even tear open when he gets an erection. This may require further surgery to add skin to his penis.

` Indeed, a seemingly long prepuce in infancy can turn out to be quite short in the adult. This cannot be predicted in infants, which is another good reason to wait on this question, and leave the decision to the person who is affected by it.

` As we shall see, this misunderstood and vilified body part has not been shown to be a vector for disease. If it was, our ancestors wouldn’t have evolved it in the first place, much less a particularly extensive one.

` Indeed, you don’t see other species scrubbing their penises — not even bonobos.

` However, when all the literature over the years is taken together (including many reviews), it shows that circumcision slightly increases one’s chances of getting certain STDs, while slightly decreasing the chances for others, and there are different statistics between cultures. All in all, it’s a wash.

` Child circumcision was not common in the early 20th century, but because of the STD-prevention belief around World War I, the militaries of English-speaking countries were all but forcing sailors and soldiers to be circumcised — as most of them refused to go along with it.

` (In Geisheker’s audience, one guy said his uncle was an aircraft mechanic, but at 45 years old he wasn’t allowed on a Naval aircraft carrier to do work unless he was circumcised for some health and safety code. So, he was, and regretted it. Scary stuff.)

` By the start of World War II (during which we find the sand myth), newborn circumcision was beginning to become popular in the U.S., and almost as popular in Britain, although this changed when the U.K. was devastated by the war.

` With so few resources, U.K. doctors didn’t see any point in continuing unnecessary and dangerous surgery, so they put an end to it. At the same, the practice took off in the U.S., because it was funded by most health insurance packages, and fueled by advice from the popular press.

` This includes the influential child expert, Dr. Benjamin Spock, although to his credit he later recanted his position. By the end of the 1950’s, almost all newborn boys in the U.S. were subjected to this procedure, whereas almost none were in the U.K.

` Although child circumcision had spread to a number of English-speaking countries during the early 20th century, nowadays this practice is long-gone from most of them. And then there’s South Korea.

` At the library way back when, I remember reading a very detailed report about the history and cultural beliefs about this South Korean phenomenon.

` Most of the South Koreans who were surveyed believed that people from all developed countries practiced routine circumcision — which is a popular belief in the U.S. as well.

` These South Koreans also believed that if it wasn’t done, they had a very high chance of developing ‘phimosis’ and needing to be circumcised anyway. So popular was this misconception that they called it ‘the phimosis operation’.

` I also recall that many adults in South Korea had this done to themselves, partly due to a combination of collectivist culture and public baths — everyone must do the same or else be looked down upon!

` Interestingly, those men who said that they experienced sexual problems after this operation were able to describe what was wrong, whereas the relatively few men who said it helped their sex life did not explain how. Were they just saying what was expected of them?

` The Filipinos have their own unique cultural myths about medicalized routine circumcision, such as that it stimulates growth in the boy, and that it will increase his virility as an adult.

` When you think about it, this is just as silly as the myth that a normal infant’s penis has a medical problem, that females don’t produce smegma, or that the foreskin gets in the way of sexual pleasure — and I am surrounded by people who believe these things!

` It is worth mentioning that most Jews in South America and parts of Europe don’t bother with this ritual anymore. As for the handful of Jews in N.Z., they fly mohels in from Australia for $5,000.

` And, before you start accusing Doctors Opposing Circumcision of being anti-semitic, it should be noted that the VP is an observant Jew who has restored his foreskin.

` The practice of withholding medical treatment from children, especially when they have cancer, diabetes, infections, etc. is widely looked down upon as religious abuse. So are ‘female circumcision’ rituals.

` During my first library endeavors, this became clear to me when I noticed a very interesting difference between relevant entries in an American medical encyclopedia and a very similar-looking British medical encyclopedia:

` Both contained nearly the same information — basically, highlights of what I’m covering in this post — but the American version was written with a completely neutral tone whereas the British one had a distinct note of relief at the news that Americans are finally starting to learn not to chop at their infants.

` It is worth pointing out that New Zealand, where Geisheker is from, they stopped routine infant circumcision 40 years ago and have lower rates of STDs than the U.S.. Clearly, there are scientifically valid ways of prevention, such as sex education and condom use, which is often lacking in the U.S..

` This connection was first proposed in a 1986 letter, by Canadian urologist Aaron Fink, who had self-published a book advocating circumcision. He promoted the unsupported claim that the callus that forms over the glans of circumcised males creates a barrier to HIV.

` In February 1996, Scientific American printed an article about the Caldwell retrospective analysis of HIV and its prevalence in those African populations who circumcise versus those who do not.

` They concluded that HIV is more prevalent among those who are intact, although they did not examine any of the patients. Vincenzi and Mertens (1994) pointed out serious flaws in the design of this study.

` This was pointed out in two letters to Scientific American, but they were heavily edited for publication, and the criticisms went unaddressed by the Caldwells in their rebuttal.

` Due to publication bias, studies which are purported to show a connection between HIV and circumcision are more likely to be published than studies which show no correlation at all.

` Dozens of such studies did not take into account other confounding factors such as the practice of ‘dry sex’, which creates lots of friction and tears in the vagina, nor genital ulcer disease, viral load, or female circumcision, which is also done in cultures which practice male circumcision.

` Also, it is worth pointing out that researchers who are white males of nations that have had a history of circumcision are the main proponents of this correlation.

` A 2003 Cochrane review points out all these flaws, and “found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men.”

` The researchers used an HIV antibody test, which only gives results from three months since the last exposure. However, they did not wait long enough to administer the test, so that many of the HIV cases they detected had been contracted before the study had started.

` Also, the duration of the experiment started when half of the volunteers were circumcised at random. While the intact men went off to have sex, the circumcised group had to wait four to six weeks, as they were in too much pain for intercourse.

` Also, they had to come back to the clinic twice more to make sure they were healing properly, where they got additional safe sex counseling and condoms. Not only that, but this study also did not control for blood exposure or homosexual intercourse.

` Based on this dubious data, the conclusion is that heterosexual men are 60% less likely to catch HIV from infected females with each exposure. And how was this determined?

` So, the 60% rate is relative, not absolute. If this were a vaccine, it wouldn’t be considered very effective. And the Gates Foundation is funding this.

` On top of that, this newest wave is inspiring journalists and even some doctors to spin fanciful tales that these African studies justify doing circumcision to infants living in quite different conditions in the U.S..

` There is also evidence in industrialized cultures that circumcision does not decrease HIV transmission, simply because the U.S. has both the highest circumcision rate and highest HIV incidence of any industrialized nation.

` This idea started in the early 20th century from the circumcision-promoting Dr. Wolbarst, who proposed that smegma is carcinogenic (which was disproven), and that circumcision stops “epileptic fits” (actually orgasms) in boys.

` Of course cutting off a body part will prevent it from getting cancer — you can’t get cancer on what isn’t there! However, penile cancer is extremely rare, even more rare than earlobe cancer.

` If we think that the risk of penile cancer is worth cutting the foreskin off, then why don’t we cut off our earlobes if that is even more likely to help? Also, why don’t the folks at the American Cancer Society agree that this is a reason to circumcise infants?

` According to them, “it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.” That’s a pretty extreme health measure, don’t you think?

` She said that when debating this issue with a urologist, she brought up breast cancer, which 1 in 12 women will eventually develop. “Would you remove breast buds off a girl?” she asked.

` The urologist said, “You’re right, we shouldn’t do it.” Besides, infants are more likely to die of the circumcision itself than to die of penile cancer as adults.

` What is most outrageous with this claim is the idea of causing significant and irreversible harm to an unconsenting infant, in anticipation that it may have some effect on a hypothetical female sexual partner in the future.

` It’s not meant to help the unconsenting infant who’s being operated on, but rather, someone he may never meet. He may, for all we know, turn out to be gay. Also, such a concern of HPV should be outmoded, since there is now an effective vaccine against it.

` There were a few fatal flaws in this study, including instructing the parents of the intact boys to repeatedly retract the foreskin and wash under it. Which, as we know, is a known cause of infection — this includes UTIs.

` There is also no evidence that foreskinless prevents UTIs in adults, even though it is sometimes recommended for chronic ones. It shouldn’t be, because chronic UTIs are caused by internal problems, not external ones.

` In any case, it is ludicrous to put weight on foreskin-chopping in infancy as a treatment for such a minor and treatable problem, even if the literature did show a benefit.

` Out here in Seattle, and other U.S. locales where circumcision is not nearly as common, the children are no sicker than the ones in the Midwest.

` Also, the rate of circumcision in Australia has plummeted in recent decades, while at the same time, health among children has improved, due to better healthcare.

` Geisheker also works with European and Australian doctors, who think that Americans are a bit backwards when it comes to chopping babies’ perfectly healthy genitals. According to most doctors of the world, it’s a bad idea:

` The parents don’t want to hear that they, or loved ones, have been harmed, and so are more willing to believe that it’s for the best.

` In one African culture that I have heard of, it is believed that when a woman gives birth and the baby’s head touches her clitoris, both will die. We know this is ridiculous, since we see that it doesn’t happen.

` In the same way, outsiders ridicule the “disadvantages of a foreskin” that I hear all around me, since they don’t have these “problems” with their foreskins.

` When they saw a pregnant teenage girl, they would say, “See? Americans need to circumcise their daughters. I would not let my daughter keep her clitoris!”

` If this is shocking to you, then good: This is basically how most people of the world regard parents who say their son needs to have his most erogenous zone cut off.

` Many of the immigrant women did not know what a clitoris is, nor what they were missing. This may seem dismaying to you, and it is equally so to me when I am asked by a full-grown man what a foreskin is.

` Even worse is the ones who won’t admit that they don’t know what one is.

` As per Egyptian culture, some doctors recommended removing the prepuce of the clitoris, with the belief that there was medical evidence that this protects against HIV.

` They called this procedure ‘female circumcision’, but they called removing the entire clitoris ‘genital mutilation’. Other doctors said that was an unfair characterization and that all of this is female genital mutilation.

` The title should give you a clue — Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. 


` It’s about how people solve their cognitive dissonance between their image of themselves as a generally good person, and facts which seem to contradict this.

` The book opens with the Nuer and Dinka tribes, and a much stranger coming-of-age ritual: Surgically extracting the front teeth with fishing hooks — two on the top, and up to six on the bottom.

` It is thought to have been their solution to an outbreak of tetanus, in order to keep children from starving to death through clenched jaws. Over the years, it became a coming-of-age rite, ‘normal’ for everyone in the tribe.

` Now the general opinion amongst tribe members is that people who have all their teeth look frightening like cannibals, or silly like donkeys. They also say they prefer the whistling sounds they make when they talk.

` This very same point is repeatedly made by researchers concerning the U.S. bias against foreskins, and the billion-and-a-half dollar industry based on cutting them off.

` Indeed, there are a million infant circumcisions done in U.S. hospitals each year — it is the most common surgery in the United States.

` That’s right — genital parts ripped from uncomprehending infants are made into Apligraf Magic Skin Treatment, and even Oprah has been criticized for pushing a skin cream made from baby penile cells.

` It seems that in the U.S., the male prepuce is valued more as a commodity than as a rightful part of a person’s own body. (Yet, the reverse is true for the female prepuce.)

` There’s a difference between donating an organ and stealing an organ. Which is this? Whose body is it, anyway?

` Although I had previously talked with her about this subject, twice, it evidently had no effect. She personally didn’t like the look of a normal, intact penis, and wanted her boy to match his friends.

` I explained to her that only 30% of newborn boys are circumcised in the Seattle area, so he would actually be unlike most of his friends.

` She replied, “So?”

` Then I told her why most other societies in the world look down upon chopping off the most sensitive part of the penis.

` She said, “Who cares what they do in other countries? I want to do what Americans do!”

` I switched tactics and asked her, “Whose penis is it? Is it yours? What if your dad had part of your genitals cut off because he didn’t like the way they looked? How would that make you feel?”

` Unable to answer in a rational manner, she started screaming about how it was her right as a parent to make this decision and how dare I tell her what to do, or even care about it at all, as it was none of my business.

` “It’s my child, it’s my choice!” she shouted, and stormed out of the room, slamming the door. Although her emotional reaction was quite strong, it is not that different from more typical incidents I have heard of.

` Displayed on their front pages are comments from parents along the lines of “I have never regretted my choice,” and “I agree, parents should be the ones to decide.”

` What about his choice? Can it wait until he is old enough to fill out a consent form? He will probably prefer to keep what he was born with, thanks. Most do.

` Sound familiar?

` Geisheker mentions the 14 year old boy by name of Bolt, whose father had converted to Judaism and wanted his son’s penis to match his. Bolt’s case was turned down by the Supreme Court, but by then, he was old enough to testify in court. He escaped unharmed and went to live with his mom.

` Defending male children from genital mutilation is tough in the U.S. because no medical license is required — it can be done by mohels, midwives, nurses, or parents. That’s partly because it’s not medicine.

` In New Male Studies, Geisheker published an article about this, called The Completely Unregulated Practice of Circumcision.

` In the 1960’s, doctors in New Zealand ended the practice by not bringing it up to parents, and if anyone asked about it, they said that it was an obsolete procedure that came from England. That was usually enough to dissuade them.

` One had circumcised his own son on his kitchen table; one was a doctor in Seattle at the children’s hospital who promoted female circumcision; one was an expert in medical financing; and one refused to reign in a mohel for giving babies herpes via sucking their penis wounds.

` He comes to the same conclusion that I grasped many years ago: It is plastic surgery, a phrase that means ‘adult’.

` The first time I discussed this with a non-U.S. person, a man from Ireland, he said he had no clue of this practice until he saw a variety of American pornography. He reported feeling repulsed by the strange, vigorous way that mutilated genitals had to be stimulated.

` The people from Europe that I have talked to on this issue have all told me that in their countries, male and female circumcision are both regarded as pointless and culturally backwards.

` I think that much of this is related to the deeply-embedded cultural attitude that the foreskin is not part of the penis. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve seen this phenomenon in person, as well as on TV and in movies.

` Another example is Robin Williams’ comedy routine about how wonderful the male member is, yet his only allusion to the hyper-developed erogenous zone was “an optional covering”. That is like saying that your lips are an optional covering, rather than a functional part of your mouth.

` I once even saw the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit on this topic, and laughed hysterically when the doctor actually said they use a clamp so as not to “hurt the baby’s penis”, while he screams in agony (or “tolerates extremely well”).

` It would be quite a feat to be able to amputate a huge section of any appendage without harming it, yet that is essentially the claim here.

` In 2011, someone I’ll call ‘L’ posted this video on Facebook in response to his brother and wife’s adopting what was about to become most-of-a boy.

` The wife claimed that this is a religious practice required in Catholicism, which is anything but true, yet is a common belief.

` The brother, who admitted to knowing nothing at all about the subject, said that he was satisfied in the amount of research he had done that he was making the right choice.

` Instead of clicking on the video, they simply raised a fuss, calling it a ‘family crisis’, and forbid L from ever meeting the boy.

` The truth is, I want everyone to be protected from having chunks of them cut off for other people’s benefits, male, female, and otherwise.There’s a difference between donating body parts and having body parts stolen from you as a child:

` I know something of the anguish and impairment that social surgery can have on a person, and it goes beyond normal males.

` If I’d completed this article by then, and thus was able to link to it, this wouldn’t have happened: