The Right to Our Own Bodies
The History of Male Circumcision in the U.S.

by
Frederick Hodges and Jerry W. Warner Ph.D


Frederick Hodges is a medical historian and author. He is a recognized authority and consultant on issues of anatomy,
human rights, and medical ethics.  Jerry W. Warner Ph.D is a registered securities broker and insurance agent. He
represents NOCIRC and NOHARMM in Louisiana and presents seminars on the issue of routine infant circumcision.  

This article appeared in the November 1995 issue of M.E.N. Magazine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Introduction

The subject of male circumcision is highly taboo in America. Most men-and this includes doctors-would
prefer not to think about circumcision, and can become defensive when the subject is brought up.
Most American men have never even seen an intact human penis.

Circumcision is not a benign surgery. Besides destroying a significant segment of the male's sexual
equipment, it has a significant complication rate. According to an important medical study, one serious
complication-severe hemorrhage, infection, loss of entire penis, or death-occurs in every 500
circumcisions (approximately 3,700 in 1993).1 According to another study, "Death as a complication
from newborn circumcision has been estimated to occur in from 1 in 24,000 to 1 in approximately
500,000 [cases]. Some investigators have actively sought out complications by interview and have
recorded rates of 55%."2 These figures suggest that, with 1.2 million circumcisions performed in this
country each year, at least 3 boys die each year, and for no other reason than that they were born in
the United States. Prospective parents are not given these facts.

The U.S.is the only Western nation that surgically alters its males in this manner. In Europe and in most
of the world, [non-religious] circumcision is unknown, and intact males do not suffer from any of the
diseases and discomforts claimed by American proponents of circumcision. Genitally-intact Europeans
are often very amused to hear the notions circumcised Americans have about the normal human penis.
Notions about improved hygiene after circumcision appear ludicrous to intact men. The European
medical community condemns the U.S.for a practice they call a barbaric violation of human rights.3
Europeans believe that males have a basic human right to an intact penis, a right to keep the body
they were born with, and a right to body ownership and autonomy. For them it is a question of respect
and dignity.

Men's Bodies

The foreskin is one of the most erotically sensitive parts of the penis. It represents 50% to 80% of the
skin system of the penis, depending on the length of the penile shaft. It is a unique and highly complex
organ. The average foreskin has over three feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerve
fibers, and over 1,000 nerve endings. If unfolded, the adult foreskin would measure 20 to 30 square
inches.

The foreskin plays a large role in sexual function. When sexually aroused, its lips expand and unroll over
the glans. The glans stimulates the foreskin, and the foreskin stimulates the glans. The foreskin
functions much like the eyelid. The inside of the foreskin and the glans of the normal penis are
glistening and red, just like the inside of the mouth. Both the male and female foreskin has glands that
produce a natural moisturizer and lubricant which has the same purpose as tears do in the eye: it keeps
everything moist, clean, and lubricated.

Men's History

In the U.S.there is a myth that the natural human penis is a self-destructing time-bomb, ready to go off
at any time in an explosion of disease, filth, and horrible stenches, an inevitable disaster which only
immediate surgery at birth can prevent. Can this be true? Why and how did this practice of routine
infant circumcision begin in the United States?

Non-religious circumcision was introduced into this country on a very small scale in the 1860s for a
single purpose-to stop masturbation. Circumcision was used as a deliberate surgical intervention to
debilitate and desensitize the penis.

During the Victorian era, physicians began to believe that all sexual activity was dangerous to physical
and emotional health. Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of sexuality and was
named as the cause of every known disease, from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease,
tuberculosis, and death. With every credible American doctor and medical association issuing dire
warnings about masturbation, any step taken towards its eradication and prevention was deemed
justified.

"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts
as will cause too much local suffering to allow the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the
prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future
advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain
experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." 4

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The
operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic as the pain
attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with
the idea of punishment." 5

"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vice practiced among boys. I performed … circumcision. He
needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures". 6

By the turn of the century, circumcision had become a panacea. Amputation of the foreskin was
"scientifically proven" to cure and prevent diseases ranging from insanity to epilepsy, malnutrition, hip-
joint disease, paralysis, eczema, tuberculosis, headache, hysteria, alcoholism, criminality, and heart
disease.

In 1928, the American Medical Association published an editorial in its journal calling for the routine
circumcision of all male infants at birth. The primary justification for routine circumcision was the
prevention of masturbation. 7

"I suggest all male children be circumcised. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in
the circumcised." 8

During World Wars I and II, many soldiers were forcibly circumcised by military doctors under threat of
court martial. Returning WWII veterans were now conditioned to believe that circumcision was the
correct thing to do. They were told it was hygienic, that it prevented disease, and that conformity was
necessary. Young parents did not object when their newborn boys were automatically circumcised
after being delivered in hospitals, though in reality they had no choice. Hospitals did not require
anyone's consent to perform this surgery.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, this abusive situation was reformed. Hospitals and doctors were
required to obtain informed consent from patients for any medical or surgical procedure. Circumcision
now required consent before a doctor was legally allowed to amputate, but since a baby is unable to
give his consent, parents were assumed to have the power to give consent on behalf of the baby.

By the early 1970s, over 90% of newborn boys were automatically circumcised. In 1971, the American
Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the medical literature on circumcision and determined that
circumcision, after all, was not medically valid. The circumcision rate began to fall dramatically. New
medical excuses continue to be invented for the surgery, but all have been disproved by European
studies.

Men's Awakening

In the 1980s, an awakening began in the psyches of American men. Many began to realize that they had
been alienated from their bodies. Many began to question the myths which told them that their
genitals were inherently "dirty" and in need of surgical reduction. Today, American men in increasing
numbers are becoming aware that they had a right to all of their reproductive organs and that no one
had the right to remove part of their body. Men are now demanding the right to control their own
sexual organs.

Marilyn Fayre Milos, a registered California nurse, founded the National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. NOCIRC is now the nation's leading human rights
organization for body ownership rights. The National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine
Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) was founded by Tim Hammond in 1992 in San Francisco, and has
awakened millions of men to this men's movement issue. One recent NOHARMM survey of hundreds of
victims of circumcision proves the lifelong negative consequences of this sexual alteration.

Founded respectively by Wayne Griffiths and Dr. James Bigelow, the National Organization for Restoring
Men (NORM) and the UNCircumcising Information and Resources Center (UNCIRC) have given hope to
thousands of American victims of circumcision wishing to restore their foreskin.

Dr. Bigelow's revolutionary book, The Joy of Uncircumcising, shows men how they can gently stretch
their remaining penile shaft skin to cover their glans. Restoration cannot give back the erotogenic
nerves amputated at birth, but can create a more natural-looking penis. The restored foreskin
functions as the original might have; it enables the glans to heal, soften, and return to a much higher
and normal level of sensitivity. Restoration has been very therapeutic option for some men. It improves
body image, improves self-esteem, dispels feelings of victimization, and empowers men to make
choices about their own sexuality.

Men's Destiny

American men are beginning to realize the truth that Nature knows more about designing the penis
than do American doctors. Parents do not have the right to force circumcision on their sons. The only
person who has the right to consent to the amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part is
the person who must live with the consequences. Many circumcised American males unnecessarily feel
uneasy and threatened by the men's pro-choice movement. The movement against infant circumcision
is no threat to circumcised men. The men's pro-choice movement is fighting for the freedom of
American males to keep the sexual organs nature intended them to have. Parents have nothing to lose
and everything to gain by leaving their sons intact. Permitting their offspring the dignity of an intact
body and protecting the basic human right to self-autonomy is both good and noble. Everyone has the
right to an intact body.

In the spirit of brotherhood, American men are now empowering themselves to fight the taboos which
for decades have prevented them from speaking out against the violation of their basic human right to
control their own reproductive organs. The men's pro-choice movement empowers men to fight to
protect the rights of future generations. By saying "no" to circumcision, American men are saying "yes"
to men's rights. We are wrenching the stainless-steel scalpels from the hands of the circumcisers and
beating them into silver spoons for our sons.

History will forever thank us if we act now.



1 Gee, WF. and Ansell JS., "Neonatal Circumcision: A Ten-Year Overview." Pediatrics. (1976) pp. 824-
827.)

2 Enzenauer, RW. Smith AG., "Circumcision: Needless Risks, No Medical Benefits." RN. (1983) 4:99-100.

3 Fleiss, P., "Circumcision." British Medical Journal. (1995) 245:927.

4 Athol, A.W. Johnson, "On an Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood,"
The Lancet, vol. 2 (April 7, 1860): pp. 344-374.

5 John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects," Plain Facts for Old and Young.
Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). p. 295.

6 N. Bergman, M.D., "Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision." Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7, no. 6
(December 1898) pp. 249-51.

7 Editor, "Routine Circumcision at Birth?" Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 91, no. 3
(July 21, 1928): p. 201.

8 R.W. Cockshutt, "Circumcision." British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (October 19, 1935) p. 764.