DECLARATION OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CIRCUMCISION

Adopted March 3, 1989, Anaheim, California

 

We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.

We recognize that the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts.

Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia.

Physicians and other healthcare providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts.

The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure.

We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims.

In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure.

We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of the circumcision procedure upon unconsenting minors. We support any further studies which involve identification of the effects of circumcision.

Physicians and other healthcare providers do have a responsibility to teach hygiene and the care of normal body parts and explain their normal anatomical and physiological development and function throughout life.

We place the medical community on notice that it is being held accountable for misconstruing the scientific database available on human circumcision in the world today.

Physicians who practice routine circumcisions are violating the first maxim of medical practice, Primum Non Nocere, "First, Do No Harm," and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment . . .

BACK TO TOP

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF SCHOOLCHILDREN
Dear Mr. President:

Throughout the developed, industrial world, and in many developing nations, the use of corporal punishment against schoolchildren is forbidden. No European country permits the practice.

While the consensus of informed opinion in the United States concurs with informed opinion worldwide on this subject, our practices do not. There is a great gulf between what we know to be correct treatment of schoolchildren and our schools' actual practices. According to the best available statistics, more than one million incidents of corporal punishment occur in our schools annually. No credible argument has been raised that anything other than harm is achieved by these acts.

Pediatrician and Clinical Professor of Pediatric Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, Dr. Morris Wessel has written: "Beaten and battered children are more likely to become adults who have inadequate control of their aggressive feelings, who therefore strike out mercilessly against children, spouses, friends and sometimes even
other members of society. The violence inflicted on children by their closest relatives and caretakers has a long-lasting and horrifying effect. These children grow up with the idea that, when another person's behavior is displeasing to them, violent acts against that person are appropriate ways to deal with feelings of displeasure. In short, members of each adult generation tend to reproduce in their interpersonal relationships the violence which they experienced in their childhood."

The noted anthropologist, Ashley Montagu has written: "Any form of corporal punishment or `spanking' is a violent attack upon another human being's integrity. The effect remains with the victim forever and becomes an unforgiving part of his or her personality - a massive frustration resulting in hostility which will seek expression in later
life in violent acts towards others. The sooner we understand that love and gentleness are the only kinds of called-for behavior towards children, the better. The child, especially, learns to become the kind of human being that he or she has experienced. This should be fully understood by all caregivers."

The distinguished Harvard psychologist, B.F. Skinner has written: "Punitive measures whether administered by police, teachers, spouses or parents have well-known standard effects: (1) escape - education has its own name for that: truancy, (2) counterattack - vandalism on schools and attacks on teachers, (3) apathy - a sullen do-nothing withdrawal. The more violent the punishment, the more serious the by-products."

Because of government's symbolic importance in influencing the behavior of private citizens, it should set the highest possible standard for the care of children in its charge.
The legal right of school personnel to beat schoolchildren sends a message to child abusers in the community that their behavior is acceptable. It demonstrates to children that violence is an appropriate way to express disapproval or discharge anger.

Furthermore, corporal punishment in schools degrades the teaching profession. It contributes to an atmosphere of confrontation in schools that demoralizes many of our most capable teachers and forces them to abandon their calling. It infuses many schoolchildren with hostility towards formal learning as evidenced by poor academic performance and dropout.

There is no restriction on government power more important in distinguishing our constitutional democracy from tyranny than that which forbids the agents of civil authority to inflict battery as a routine administrative procedure. This protection has been gained by agricultural workers, factory workers, military recruits, apprentices,
domestic servants, psychiatric patients, convicts, suspects under interrogation, women, the developmentally handicapped, persons of color, the elderly, homosexuals - by every group except one.

Schoolchildren should be granted the same legal protection against battery that is enjoyed by every other class of citizen. Without this, all other educational reforms are hollow. For surely we will fail to foster in future citizens a respect for the rights of others if, in their formative years, we permit their rights to be trampled.

Mr. President, you have committed yourself to genuine educational reform. We, the undersigned, urge you to fulfill that commitment by taking a leadership role in assuring the right of every child to be safe from corporal punishment at school. We urge you to instruct the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to take expeditious and
forceful action to deny federal assistance to any school, school district or other educational entity that authorizes the use of corporal punishment.

SIGNATORIES:
National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse
American Academy of Pediatrics
Children's National Medical Center
American Association of Retired Persons
National Congress of Parents and Teachers Association
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Mental Health Association
American Psychological Association
The Menninger Foundation
The National Exchange Club Foundation for the Prevention of Child Abuse
Parents Anonymous, Inc.
Association for Childhood Education International
CHILDHELP USA
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
National Association of Counsel for Children
National Parent Aide Association, Inc.
American Association of Physicians for Human Rights
Parent Effectiveness Training
EPOCH - USA (End Physical Punishment of Children)
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of Teachers of English
American School Counselor Association
National Committee for Rights of the Child
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.
Jefferson County (Alabama) Child Development Council, Inc.
California Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance
California Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
Greater Chicago Council for Prevention of Child Abuse
Coordinating Council for Children in Crisis, Inc. (A Connecticut organization)
Coalition for Children (A Connecticut organization)
Agenda for Children (An advocacy organization in Louisiana)
Massachusetts Committee for Children and Youth
Mental Health Associations of Illinois, Florida, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia
Voices for Children in Nebraska
The Child Assault Prevention Project of Washoe County ( A Nevada organization)
Child Abuse Prevention Committee of Greater Philadelphia
West Virginia Child Care Association Northen Tier Youth Services of West Virginia National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse chapters in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming Parents Anonymous chapters in: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Notice to Readers: You are invited to join the Signatories. Print this letter. Add your name and invite friends, colleagues and organizations with which you are associated to add theirs. Then mail to:

President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House,
Washington, DC 20500

(re-printed from Henry Helps http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2411/index.html)

BACK TO TOP

Environment

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993
From: fgg@asc.upenn.edu

The recent release of our study on "Women and Minorities on
Television; Casting and Fate" by the two major unions representing 120,000 performers and broadcasters, the American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists and the Screen Actors Guild, ushers in a
new era in cultural policy-making. Growing up in a free and fair
cultural environment will no longer be a pious hope, or even just a
noble cause, but the new frontier in the struggle for human rights.

The report is the most comprehensive record of television industry
performance ever assembled. It covers ten years and over 19,000
characters in prime-time, daytime, Saturday morning (children's)
television and news. It concludes that the world of television seems to
be frozen in a time-warp of obsolete and damaging representations that
rob millions of equal opportunities and potentials.

Women play one out of three roles in prime time television, one out
of four in children's programs, and one out of five of those who make
news. They age faster than men, and as they age they are more likely to
be portrayed evil and unsuccessful.

Seniors of both genders are greatly underrepresented and seem to be
vanishing instead of increasing as in real life. As characters age they
lose importance, value, and effectiveness. Mature women seem to be
especially hard to cast -- and hard to take. They are disproportionately underrepresented, undervalued, and undersexed -- but over-victimized.

African-Americans are less than 11 percent of prime-time and 3
percent of children's program casts. Latino/Hispanics, over 9 percent
of the U.S. population, are about 1 percent of prime time and half of
that of children's program casts. Americans of Asian/Pacific origin,
more than 3 percent of the U.S. population, and Native Americans
("Indians"), more than 1 percent, are conspicuous by their virtual
absence. A child viewer sees the fewest minorities.

The low-income 13 percent of the U.S. (and much larger percentage
of minorities and of the world's) population is reduced to 1.3 percent
or less on television. As the 43 million disabled Americans gain legal
rights of equal access and employment in real life, physical disability
is visible in only 1.5 percent of prime-time programs.

Programs designed specifically for children's favorite viewing
time, Saturday morning, present a world that is the harshest and most
exploitive of all on television. The inequities of prime time are
magnified Saturday morning. A child growing up with children's major
network television will see about 123 characters each Saturday morning
but rarely, if ever, a role model of a mature female as leader. The
Saturday morning viewer sees an elderly leading character, if at all,
about once every three weeks, and it is most likely to be a man.
Married and parent images are curiously rare and gloomy. Older women,
when seen, are most likely to play the villain. That is where witches
come from. At the bottom of fate's "pecking order" are characters
portrayed as old women and as mentally ill, perpetuating stigma of the
most damaging kinds. And all the mayhem in children's cartoons (32 acts
per hour) seems painless. Cartoon humor appears to be the sugar coating
on the pill of cool, happy violence.

Casting and fate also affect those who deliver the news, who are
referred to and cited in the news, and who are news. Women decline in
representation from 35 percent as newscasters to 20 percent as
authorities cited and17 percent as newsmakers. African-Americans make news as criminals at least twice as often as other groups do, despite
the fact that the vast majority of those convicted of crimes is white.

The significance of these findings goes beyond numbers and even of
traditional stereotyping and prejudice. The existing sales-driven and
cheap formula-dictated policy violates the producers' non-discrimination
and equal opportunity contracts with the unions. It also violates human
and civil rights.

Television, unlike other more selectively used media, comes into
the home and provides the inescapable human environment for growth.
Those who say "you can turn it off" are unrealistic. Few will, and they
get it through the others who don't. No, the new cultural environment
is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of public policy. The
objective is not to ban or censor; that is what we have now. The
objective is to assure basic rights for media professionals to create
and viewers to grow up in a fair cultural environment. What we need is a
new cultural environment movement to claim and secure that right.

You can receive the full copy of the report by sending a large envelope and $3.00 to

George Gerbner at The Annenberg School for Communication
3620 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6220
http://www.cemnet.org/

BACK TO TOP

9 Things to do Instead of Spanking

By Kathryn Kvols

Research confirms what many parents instinctively feel when they don’t like to spank their child, but they don’t know what else to do. The latest research from Dr. Murray Strauss at the Family Research Laboratory affirms that spanking teaches children to use acts of aggression and violence to solve their problems. It only teaches and perpetuates more violence, the very thing our society is so concerned about. This research further shows that children who have been spanked are more prone to low self-esteem, depression and accept lower paying jobs as adults. So, what do you do instead?

1 - Get Calm First, if you feel angry and out of control and you want to spank or slap your child, leave the situation if you can. Calm down and get quiet. In that quiet time you will often find an alternative or solution to the problem. Sometimes parents lose it because they are under a lot of stress. Dinner is boiling over, the kids are fighting, the phone is ringing and your child drops the can of peas and you lose it. If you can’t leave the situation, then mentally step back and count to ten.

2 - Take Time for Yourself. Parents are more prone to use spanking when they haven’t had any time to themselves and they feel depleted and hurried. So, it is important for parents to take some time for themselves to exercise, read, take a walk or pray.

3 - Be Kind but Firm. Another frustrating situation where parents tend to spank is when your child hasn’t listened to your repeated requests to behave. Finally, you spank to get your child to act appropriately. Another solution in these situations is to get down on your child’s level, make eye contact, touch him gently and tell him, in a short, kind but firm phrase, what it is you want him to do. For example, “I want you to play quietly.

4 - Give Choices. Giving your child a choice is an effective alternative to spanking. If she is playing with her food at the table ask, Would you like to stop playing with your food or would you like to leave the table?” If the child continues to play with her food, you use kind but firm action by helping her down from the table. Then tell her that she can return to the table when she is ready to eat her food without playing in it.

5 - Use Logical Consequences Consequences that are logically related to the behavior help teach children responsibility. For example, your child breaks a neighbor’s window and you punish him by spanking him. What does he learn about the situation? He may learn to never do that again, but he also learns that he needs to hide his mistakes, blame it on someone else, lie, or simply not get caught. He may decide that he is bad or feel anger and revenge toward the parent who spanked him. When you spank a child, he may behave because he is afraid to get hit again. However, do you want your child to behave because he is afraid of you or because he respects you? Compare that situation to a child who breaks a neighbor’s window and his parent says, “I see you’ve broken the window, what will you do to repair it?” using a kind but firm tone of voice. The child decides to mow the neighbor’s lawn and wash his car several times to repay the cost of breaking the window. What does the child learn in this situation? That mistakes are an inevitable part of life and it isn’t so important that he made the mistake but that he takes responsibilty to repair the mistake. The focus is taken off the mistake and put on taking responsibility for repairing it. The child feels no anger or revenge toward his parent. And most importantly the child’s self-esteem is not damaged.

6 - Do Make Ups. When children break agreements, parents tend to want to punish them An alternative is to have your child do a make-up. A make-up is something that people do to put themselves back into integrity with the person they broke the agreement with. For example, several boys were at a sleep-over at Larry’s home. His father requested that they not leave the house after midnight. The boys broke their agreement. The father was angry and punished them by telling them they couldn’t have a sleep-over for two months. Larry and his friends became angry, sullen and uncooperative as a result of the punishment. The father realized what he had done. He apologized for punishing them and told them how betrayed he felt and discussed the importance of keeping their word. He then asked the boys for a make-up. They decided to cut the lumber that the father needed to have cut in their backyard. The boys became excited and enthusiastic about the project and later kept their word on future sleep-overs.

7 - Withdraw from Conflict. Children who sass back at parents may provoke a parent to slap. In this situation, it is best if you withdraw from the situation immediately. Do not leave the room in anger or defeat. Calmly say, “I’ll be in the next room when you want to talk more respectfully.

8 - Use kind but firm action. Instead of smacking an infant’s hand or bottom when she touches something she isn’t supposed to, kindly but firmly pick her up and take her to the next room. Offer her a toy or another item to distract her and say, “You can try again later.” You may have to take her out several times if she is persistent.

9 - Inform Children Ahead of Time. A child’s temper tantrum can easily set a parent off. Children frequently throw tantrums when they feel uninformed or powerless in a situation. Instead of telling your child he has to leave his friend’s house at a moment’s notice, tell him that you will be leaving in five minutes. This allows the child to complete what he was in the process of doing.

Aggression is an obvious form of perpetuating violence in society. A more subtle form of this is spanking because it takes it’s toll on a child’s self-esteem, dampening his enthusiasm and causing him to be rebellious and uncooperative. Consider for a moment the vision of a family that knows how to win cooperation and creatively solve their problems without using force or violence. The alternatives are limitless and the results are calmer parents who feel more supported.

Copyright INCAF 1995. Kathryn Kvols is the president of the International Network for Children and Families and the author of Redirecting Children’s Behavior. She is also a national speaker and workshop leader.

BACK TO TOP

MALE HEALTH
Sex, Lies, and Circumcision

by Tim Hammond

 

Infant circumcision begins by tearing apart prepuce and glans, the first act in the destruction of normal penile development. Left intact, the prepuce separates and provides the mobile skin necessary to accommodate full erection. The prepuce grows to an average circumference of five inches, with an average length of 1-1/2 inches each along its inner and outer lining, forming a total tissue area of about 15 square inches, the size of this 3x5 box. Beginning as "just a little piece of skin," the prepuce eventually comprises one-third or more of the adult penile shaft skin.

  Recently a gym buddy and I were in the sauna discussing our European vacations. We both marveled at how "The Continent" strikes a balance between preserving its long, rich history and pursuing that which is modern and progressive. As steam rose, conversations wound their way through architecture, athletic clubs, and eventually to differences in European and North American physiques. When I casually remarked that most European men sport a foreskin, my friend quipped, "Yeah, they're so modern, but so backwards about circumcision!" In North America, especially the US, this belief that circumcision is "advanced" seems common.

  Globally 80% of the world's males remain genitally intact¹, including the medically-advanced nations of Europe and Japan. As a "hospital ritual," circumcision is practiced on large numbers of children only in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Current national rates are 15%, 20% and 60% respectively.² In the US alone, more than 1.25 million babies annually are genitally altered-over 3,300 daily, one every 26 seconds-at an annual cost to the U.S. health care system of more than $200 million.³ From 1940 to 1990, at least 66 million infant males in the U.S. had been subjected to circumcision.

  These alarming statistics aside, one might still assume this surgery is beneficial, or at worst, benign. One should not presume, however, that adverse outcomes don't exist or are trivial, especially as no studies have been undertaken to determine long-term outcomes of neonatal circumcision. A true assessment of adverse outcomes can only be made with a full understanding of the structure and function of that which is routinely amputated and destroyed.

  The male prepuce, which is histologically analogous to the female prepuce (clitoral hood), protects the internal glans (penile head) throughout life, keeping it moist and sensitive. During infancy, the prepuce and glans share a common tissue (synechia), essentially making them one structure. To protect the glans from urine, feces and abrasive diapers, the infant prepuce normally does not retract. A child's foreskin should never be forcibly retracted.⁴ It will separate naturally between infancy and adolescence.⁵ It has been shown that a piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than 12 feet of nerves and over 50 nerve endings.⁷ The above 3x5 box easily accommodates 15 quarters. Infant circumcision therefore robs adult males of approximately 240 feet of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings. The anatomical research of Dr. John Taylor at the University of Manitoba shows the prepuce to be even more densely enervated and vascularized than normal skin, constituting the most erogenous portion of the male genitalia. Dr. Taylor has labeled the glans "a dumb organ" when contrasted to the prepuce.

  The mechanical action of the prepuce gliding over the glans enhances sexual function by stimulating both the glans and the erogenous inner preputial lining.⁹ Awareness of its protective and gliding functions has sparked renewed interest in the role of the prepuce in male sexual response.

  Another structure, the frenulum, attaches to the underside of the glans, holding the prepuce in place when flaccid. According to Taylor's research, this too is a densely nerve-laden, semi-muscular area. The October 1994 issue of Men's Health cited the frenulum as a male "G-spot," to which many intact males attest. The frenulum, however, is often destroyed during circumcision, joining the prepuce in the medical waste bin.

  Understanding the structural and functional value of the prepuce prompts the obvious question, how does infant circumcision affect male sexual health? The answer is found in the writings of contemporary authors, and the history of this practice in North American society. Alex Comfort, MD, author of The New Joy of Sex, forcefully states, "If you haven't one, there is a whole range of covered glans nuances you can't recapture."¹⁰ The author of The Male Sexual Machine: An Owner's Manual, Kenneth Purvis, Ph.D., further clarifies,"Sex with a circumcised penis has been likened to trying to appreciate one of Goya's masterpieces by looking at a black and white photograph."¹¹In other words, a child born color-blind can still see, yet never comes to appreciate the richer depth and beauty of one's full visual capabilities.

  If you haven't one, there is a whole range of covered glans nuances you can't recapture.

  In English-speaking cultures at the turn of the century, experience with the prepuce's erogenous value prompted Victorian-thinkers to call for childhood circumcision, as a form of sexual blinding.¹² Because the true etiology of many afflictions was unknown, masturbation by either gender was believed to cause wide-ranging physical and mental maladies, including tuberculosis, epilepsy and insanity.¹³ To protect children from the ills of onanism, various interventions were recommended to curb the sexuality of girls and boys. Carbolic acid on the female clitoris and circumcision of males were two such treatments.¹⁴ Eventually, the masturbation theory of disease surrendered to "modern" arguments for hygiene. Female circumcision in the U.S. subsided after World War II,^15,16 yet male circumcision proliferated. Sanity prevailed in the 1970s when the American Academy of Pediatrics declared there was "no absolute medical indication for circumcision of newborns."¹⁷ Yet, with no proven medical value,^18,19 circumcision continues unabated, prompting one researcher to conclude that "The circumcision decision is emerging as a cultural ritual . . . more an emotional than a rational decision."²⁰ Another researcher confirmed, "Circumcision is a custom in our society,"²¹ while another explained, "The cultural, social and historical imperatives surrounding routine neonatal circumcision seem to be in control for both physicians and parents."²²

  Ludicrous as we find them today, early arguments for circumcision enjoyed as much medical and popular credibility as today's excuses for hygiene or prevention of urinary tract infection, AIDS, and "locker room embarrassment." Prophylactic circumcision is rejected as medically unsound and unethical by European and world medical organizations. The British Medical Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society recommend against routine infant circumcision,²³ while the Australian Medical Association calls it "unnecessary, mutilating surgery."²⁴ Having demystified the important structure and functions of the prepuce, one could surmise that infant circumcision indeed adversely affects male sexual and psychological health. Yet, why do we not hear this from circumcised men? Perhaps best answered by the author of The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell, Ph.D. writes, "Society can not hear what men do not say. Men can't say what we don't feel; and we can't get in touch with our feelings until we raise our awareness of an issue." Strong cultural influences, such as macho sexual sensibilities and homophobia, isolate men and inhibit sharing of these intimate problems, especially with each other. Some refuse to discuss their circumcision seriously and can only joke about it. Most circumcised men do not know how to identify circumcision-related harm. Indeed, many are not aware they have a scar on their penis, even when the scar is painfully obvious to others in gyms, medical offices or the bedroom.

  Society can not hear what men do not say. Men can't say what we don't feel; and we can't get in touch with our feelings until we raise our awareness of an issue.

  As we gain insight into the phenomenon of female genital mutilation (FGM), we learn the most effective form of tyranny over the bodies of the masses is to inflict harm so early that the affected individuals see the affliction as normal. Cultural indoctrination then reinforces the harm as a bestowed benefit. In cultures where FGM is the norm and Western influence is minimal, it is almost unheard of that circumcised women would express any awareness of harm, sexual deprivation, or dissatisfaction with their circumcision.²⁵ Similarly, the majority of circumcised men in North America remain blind to adverse outcomes of infant circumcision, until they become aware of the benefits of intact genitalia, learn how to identify circumcision harm, and are introduced to the concept of the inalienable human right of body ownership.

  While a growing number of men are aware of circumcision problems and are voicing these concerns, they are often dismissed or even ridiculed by physicians. Many letters to the American Urological Association over the past two years from men attesting to their circumcision harm have gone unanswered. The past president of the Virginia Urologic Society, James Snyder, MD, asserts, "Adverse long-term consequences of infant circumcision on the sexual health of American men must be recognized by physicians, parents and legislators."²⁶ These outcomes remain uninvestigated, as no study has yet followed the circumcised male into his second, third or fourth decade of life to determine what types of physical, sexual and psychological problems manifest in men, or how these conditions might affect their partner(s). A preliminary U.S. survey by a men's organization, however, does reveal the quality of circumcision's adverse health effects. Adverse long-term consequences of infant circumcision on the sexual health of American men must be recognized by physicians, parents and legislators.

  In 1993, the organization NOHARMM (National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males) conducted a national survey of 313 men who were aware of circumcision harm.27 The most common physical complaint was progressive sensitivity loss (55%), primarily because the lack of a prepuce causes the normal mucosal surface of the glans to toughen in a cumulative process called keratinization. Prominent scarring (29%) and being circumcised too tightly (26.8%) were the next most common complaints. Sexually, 38% of respondents reported the need for excess stimulation to reach orgasm (also due to keratinization) and 11% complained of painful erections from excessive skin loss. Of psychological significance, 62% reported feelings of mutilation and 54.3% were angry over having been subjected to circumcision. Nearly 70% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with being circumcised and 47% reported circumcision as a factor contributing to their diminished self-esteem and sense of inferiority to intact males. Unknown to NOHARMM at the time, a body image survey was conducted a year earlier by Journeymen.28 Over 190 men responded to questions on everything from height and body weight to muscularity and circumcision. Of the 85% who were circumcised, 20% expressed dissatisfaction with it, while only 3% of the intact respondents expressed dissatisfaction with having a foreskin. Satisfaction levels between circumcised and intact respondents were 38% and 79% respectively. Seventeen percent of intact respondents registered ambivalence. Significantly, 41% of circumcised males could not decide if what had been done to them was good or bad.

  Demographics of the two surveys were similar, with a large response from men in their late thirties to mid-forties. This age group seems better-informed and more keenly aware of circumcision problems. The NOHARMM survey also solicited open-ended comments, some of which follow.

• Have to be at the point of abuse and pain to my penis to reach orgasm, it is so desensitized from circumcision.
• The physical scar is hideous but the emotional scar equates to rape.
• Left with a sense of impotence, powerlessness and fear about the power of others to hurt me grievously.
• Glans is callused and numb to subtle sensations.
• Painful erections, scar tissue, insecure (don't feel complete).
• Constant continual chafing and desensitization of glans.
• My penis is unnatural this way!

  Why had these men previously remained silent? The survey found 60% of respondents never sought help because they felt no recourse was available (39%), were embarrassed (20%), or feared ridicule (16%). Similar factors likely silence many men who are dissatisfied with a circumcision they did not choose.

  In the men's movement, those concerned about male health issues are speaking against circumcision and raising awareness. In Male Privilege or Privation? Aaron Kipnis, Ph.D. states, "Sexual mutilation of male infants is, in my opinion, one of the primary causes of unconscious male rage and violence."²⁹ Jed Diamond asks in his recently published book, The Warrior's Journey Home: Healing Men, Healing the Planet, "Could the trauma from this event have anything to do with . . . our frozen feelings or the male ability (liability?) to ignore pain?"³⁰ Writing in The Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are The Way They Are, Warren Farrell, Ph.D. clarifies the problem by asserting, "What is the long-term impact (of infant circumcision)? Unstudied. The fact that we do not know, and have not asked to know, tells us about our attitude toward males."^31,32

  What is the long-term impact (of infant circumcision)? Unstudied. The fact that we do not know, and have not asked to know, tells us about our attitude toward males.

  Child development specialists have added their own concerns. Dr. Frederick Leboyer has warned, "No one is aware of the deep implications and lifelong effect of circumcision. All that takes place in the first days of life on the emotional level shapes the pattern of all future reactions."³³ Rima Laibow, M.D. recognizes "When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible, regardless of mother's intent. The consequences for impaired bonding are significant."³⁴ While no prospective studies have yet focused on lifelong effects of neonatal circumcision to confirm these concerns, significant data are accumulating that perinatal experiences, especially intense ones, affect later perceptions and behaviors.

  NOHARMM's survey confirms that adverse circumcision outcomes manifest both sexually and interpersonally, not only among circumcised males, but also among their partners. This suggests that women both benefit from Nature's wise design of the intact penis and are adversely impacted by the circumcised status of their male partner(s). This becomes clearer when one understands how the intact penis functions during coitus and how circumcision affects men's self-esteem and interpersonal relationships.   During sexual penetration, the male prepuce retracts, exposing its sensitive inner lining to direct erogenous contact with vaginal walls, and rolls forward with outward motions. The penis remains essentially inside the vagina, gliding in and out of its lubricated preputial sheath, retaining valuable female lubrication internally.³⁵ The circumcised penis extracts these precious fluids with each withdrawal, exposing them to the outer environment where they dry. This often leads to vaginal dryness and genital abrasion to one or both partners. This was a common complaint among female partners of respondents to the survey. Also, intact males receive additional stimulation from the sensitive foreskin and frenulum, which experience teaches them to protect from damage during sex. To reach orgasm, they have little need or desire to resort to violent or painful thrusting, which many circumcised respondents found essential for generating sufficient stimulation to their keratinized glans.

  Problems of insufficient lubrication and coital pain affect a significant percentage of American women, according to a recently published national survey.³⁶ With high rates of infant circumcision among North American males, it's probable these women's partners have no prepuce. In such instances, genital abrasion and bleeding are not uncommon, raising new questions about the role of male circumcision in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the U.S. faces both an epidemic of circumcision and STDs, including AIDS.

  To remedy this, over half of the NOHARMM respondents were quietly and successfully involved in uncircumcision (foreskin restoration) through non-surgical skin expansion methods. With guidance from The Joy of Uncircumcising!, the popular yet scholarly 'how-to' book, these men and their female partners reported that restoration made additional foreplay options available and sexual intercourse more comfortable, stimulating and longer-lasting. Restored men frequently reported enhanced self-esteem and increased sexual response both during and after restoration. Many men had joined groups for moral and technical support sponsored by the National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM), a network founded in 1990 with chapters throughout North America, Australia, and most recently, Europe.

  Interpersonally, many respondents recognized that their female partners bring to lovemaking a whole body with intact genitals. Circumcised respondents were sometimes painfully conscious that they could not bring the same degree of genital and psychological wholeness to the relationship. One highly aware respondent poignantly summarized this imbalance: "It has limited my natural sexual response and kept me searching for 'more' while feeling inadequate about myself. It has created fear, ambivalence, and anger in all my intimate relationships . . . and contributed to keeping my anger toward women alive."

  Fear and anger were not confined only to respondents' intimate relationships. Many men expressed a deep mistrust of the medical community, whose ethics, they say, should not allow amputation of the healthy foreskin from an unconsenting child. Mistrust was also expressed by men circumcised as adults who, after learning of medical treatments less radical than circumcision, felt deceived by and angry at physicians. Several respondents claimed they would never set foot in a doctor's office for fear of being taken advantage of again. This raises profound questions about the indirect impact of coercive circumcision on overall male health, i.e. if a man feels violated by a needless circumcision, he may avoid the medical community altogether, foregoing regular health screenings or delaying treatment for serious health threats such as prostate cancer or heart problems.

  In summary, circumcising cultures rationalize their practices under the guise of health, aesthetics or social conformity. The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause breaches the fundamental code of medical ethics and is a primitive anachronism which violates human rights.37,38 After a century of pseudo-medical circumcisions, North Americans are witnessing increasing numbers of men objecting to what they view as childhood genital mutilation. Long-term, adverse health outcomes of infant circumcision must be investigated by those who are both knowledgeable and sensitive to these concerns. As a society, we must recognize when a custom endangers the health of our citizens, assume responsibility for the error, and provide measures to ensure the safety and rights of our people, especially those too young to protect themselves.

Tim Hammond founded NOHARMM in 1992 to raise men's awareness of the adverse health and human rights impact of routine neonatal circumcision. He coordinates an ongoing poll of circumcised men, preliminary results of which were published in 1994 in a 177-page report entitled Awakenings.

REFERENCES

1. Wallerstein, E. Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma. Symposium on Advances in Pediatric Urology, Urologic Clinics of North America, February, 1985;12(1):123-132.
2. Rates compiled from NOCIRC of Australia, provincial offices of Health and Welfare Canada, and the National Center for Health Statistics of the United States.
3. Rockney, R. Newborn Circumcision. Amer Acad Fam Phys, October,1988;38(4):151-155.
4. Newborns: Care of the Uncircumcised Penis - Guidelines for Parents. Brochure of the American Academy of Pediatrics (1/94). AAP Div. of Publications, P.O. Box 927, Elk Grove, IL 60009-0927
5. Gairdner, D. The Fate of the Foreskin. A Study of Circumcision. Brit Med J, December 24, 1949;1433-1437 and Øster, J. Further Fate of the Foreskin. Arch Dis of Childhood, 1968;43:200-203.
6. Ritter, T. Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole. Aptos, CA, Hourglass Publishing, 1992;18-1.
7. Montagu, A. and Matson, F. The Human Connection. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1979.
8Taylor, J. The Prepuce: What Exactly is Removed by Circumcision? Presented at NOCIRC Second International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco, May 1, 1991.
9. Ibid.
10. Comfort, A. The New Joy of Sex. New York, Crown Publishing, 1991.
11. Purvis, K. The Male Sexual Machine: An Owner's Manual. New York, St. Martin's, 1992.
12. Paige, K.E. The Ritual of Circumcision. Human Nature, May, 1979;40-48.
13. Wallerstein, E. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. New York, Springer, 1980;32-40.
14. Kellogg, J.H. Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, IA, Segner & Co., 1888;295-296.
15. McDonald, C.F. Circumcision of the Female. GP, September, 1958;18(3):98-99.
16. Rathmann, W.G. Female Circumcision, Indications and a New Technique. GP, September, 1959;20(3):115-120.
17. Report of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics, October, 1975;56(4):610-611.
18. Lawler, F.H. et al. Circumcision: Decision Analysis of Its Medical Value. Fam Med, 1991;23(8):587-593.
19. Ganiats, T.G. et al. Routine Neonatal Circumcision: A Cost-Utility Analysis. Med Decis Making, 1991;11:282-293.
20. Brown, M.S. and Brown, C.A. Circumcision Decision: Prominence of Social Concerns. Pediatrics, August, 1987;80(2):215-219.
21. Herrera, A.J. Parental Information and Circumcision in Highly Motivated Couples with Higher Education. Pediatrics, February, 1983;71(2):233-234.
22. Stein, M.T. et al. Routine Neonatal Circumcision: The Gap Between Contemporary Policy and Practice. J Fam Pract.,1982;15(1):47-53.
23. Williams, N. and Kapila, L. Complications of Circumcision. Brit. J. Surg., October, 1993;80:1231-1236 and Circumcision in the Newborn Period - Statement by Foetus and Newborn Committee of Canadian Paediatric Society, 1975.
24. Personal correspondence from Dr. P.S. Wilkins, Asst. Secy. General of Australian Medical Association, 31 May 1994.
25. Lightfoot-Klein, H. Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa. Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, 1989;75.
26. Snyder, J.L. The Problem of Circumcision in America. Truth Seeker, July, 1989;1(3):39-42.
27. Hammond, T. ed. Awakenings: A Preliminary Poll of Circumcised Men. NOHARMM, P.O. Box 460795, San Francisco, CA 94146, Spring, 1994;64-100.
28. Boynton, P. ed. Journeymen, 513 Chester Tpke., Candia, NH 03034, 1992.
29. Kipnis, A. Male Privilege or Privation? ReSource, 705 College Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95404, Summer, 1992;1.
30. Diamond, J. The Silent Knife: Why Isn't Circumcision a Men's Issue? The Warrior's Journey Home. New Harbinger, Oakland, 1994;139-149.
31. Farrell, W. The Myth of Male Power. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993;222-223.
32. Farrell, W. Why Men Are the Way They Are. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1986;232.
33. Leboyer, F. Birth Without Violence. NewYork, Knopf-Random House, 1975.
34. Laibow, R. Circumcision and its Relationship to Attachment Impairment. Presented at NOCIRC Second International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco, May 1, 1991.
35. Bigelow, J. The Joy of Uncircumcising! Aptos, CA, Hourglass, 1992;17.
36. Laumann, E. et al. Sex In America: A Definitive Survey. New York, Little-Brown, 1994.
37. Milos, M.F. and Macris, D. Circumcision: A Medical or Human Rights Issue? J Nurse-Midwifery, March, 1992; 37(2):87S-96S.
38. Toubia, N. Female Genital Mutilation and Responsibility of Reproductive Health Professionals. Int. J Gynecol. Obstet., 1994;46:127-135.

Further Reading

Awakenings: A Preliminary Poll of Circumcised Men Tim Hammond (1994) NOHARMM NOHARMM, P.O. Box 460795, San Francisco, CA 94146

The Joy of Uncircumcising! Jim Bigelow, PhD (1992) Hourglass Publishing, Aptos, CA or from UNCIRC, P.O. Box 52138, Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (1989) Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY or from Lightfoot Associates, 5051 N. Sabino Cyn. Rd., #1246, Tucson, AZ 85715

Say No to Circumcision! Thomas J. Ritter, MD (1992) Hourglass Publishing, Aptos, CA or from NOCIRC, P.O. 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979

Circumcision: What it Does Billy Boyd (1990) Taterhill, San Francisco, CA or from C. Olson & Co., P.O. Box 5100, Santa Cruz, CA 95063

Resource Organizations

Victims Of Infant Circumcision Enounce (VOICE), P.O. Box 427, Midland, Ontario L4R 4L1

National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM), P.O. Box 460795, San Francisco, CA 94146 USA

National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM), 3205 Northwood Dr., #209, Concord, CA 94520 USA

 

Copyright& Credits

WebWeaver