Genital mutilation : male vs female : 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.”
People are always amazed to learn about circumcision facts and myths. Are there real benefits to consider when making the circumcision decision, or is it just an illusion? As hard as circumcision promoters try to make the practice of genital cutting to be the “norm”, you may be surprised to learn that much of what many Americans think of as “fact” is actually just cultural “groupthink.” While some beliefs are rooted in ancient religious practices, most of what American’s believe is the “norm” has only existed in recent times when it comes to circumcision. In fact, you would be amazed at how many things you think are true that are simply false. Something important to consider when you review circumcision facts and myths.
There are essentially three stakeholders involved with the decision to circumcise an infant. The baby-patient, the parent-guardian, and the doctor. The physician is supposed to be bound by ethical principles of beneficence (serve the best interests of patients and their families) and non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”). The standard of “serving the interests of families” can be a slippery slope as doctors can be forced to do things against their better judgement to appease parents. Pro-circumcision or religious advocates typically want babies circumcised immediately because older children and adults would opt out if given the opportunity. Discover even more info on circumcision.
Circumcision is often performed on infants without anesthetic or with a local anesthetic that is ineffective at substantially reducing pain (Lander et al., 1997). In a study by Lander and colleagues (1997), a control group of infants who received no anesthesia was used as a baseline to measure the effectiveness of different types of anesthesia during circumcision. The control group babies were in so much pain—some began choking and one even had a seizure—they decided it was unethical to continue. It is important to also consider the effects of post-operative pain in circumcised infants (regardless of whether anesthesia is used), which is described as “severe” and “persistent” (Howard et al., 1994). In addition to pain, there are other negative physical outcomes including possible infection and death (Van Howe, 1997, 2004).
Intaction is the only intactivist organization with a large full time mobile education truck which not only displays our intact body positive campaign, but transports our exhibits and materials for the many events we host. Our past events have included disruptive protests, parade contingents, demonstrations, parental education events, and our celebratory event IMAGINE. We hold constant outdoor events with our mobile education unit to engage our fellow Americans. These exchanges provide a unique opportunity for us to keep a finger on the pulse of public opinion. We also use print media, social media, and online platforms to engage people with our ideas. We seek to give those that feel they have been harmed by circumcision the ability to contribute to the cessation of this abhorrent practice. Together we can forge a path to a better world for future intact generations. All are welcome to join with us. Read extra info on https://intaction.org/.