Circumcision debate with intaction.org
Circumcision prevalence with intaction.org : 1901: In the American Practitioner and News, Dr. Earnest G. Marks MD wrote, “An advantage of circumcision is the lessened liability to masturbation. A foreskin leads the child to touch it to produce pleasurable sensations from the extremely sensitive foreskin leading to masturbation” 1914: Dr. Abraham Wolbarst wrote Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is a well known fact that the foreskin is a frequent factor in masturbation, not alone in children but in adults as well…Circumcision has become recognized as a most effective remedy.”
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.
Circumcision Controversy: The decision to circumcise is a controversial topic for many people, with strongly held opinions on both the for and against sides. Those for circumcision speak to alleged medical benefits and tradition. Those against it raise issues of risk, complications, loss of the sensitive foreskin, pain, trauma, psychological harm, and rights of individual consent. For those against, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. See additional information on circumcision.
Over the last decade there has been a movement of men who were circumcised as infants and have articulated their anger and sadness over having their genitals modified without their consent. Goldman (1999) notes that shame and denial is one major factor that limits the number of men who publicly express this belief. Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).
Intaction is funded via private donations and volunteer assistance primarily by men and women that have been adversely affected by genital cutting. We promote the benefits of an intact body and the harm of genital cutting. We seek to achieve our goals through education, advocacy, and activism. We empower our members by providing them a constructive way to address the physical and emotional harm that was inflicted on them. Action is in our name. Foreskin is in our DNA. We accept the challenges of creating change, we meet our goals, and then chart new ones. We have no highly paid directors or staff like some big name popular causes. In fact, we are not paid at all. Our compensation is the satisfaction we receive from the many people whose lives we have touched. We help assure parents that keeping their son intact was the enlightened decision. We’ve helped many babies to stay intact. We help build body positive confidence in intact men so they can appreciate their own natural body. We’ve helped many cut men, essentially victims of genital cutting, to feel like they now have a voice, when as infants they didn’t have a choice. See more info at https://intaction.org/.