Jim's Articles

The bizarre american history of circumcision

Circumcision and penis size : 1920: Shocked by the influx of immigrants from Southern & Eastern Europe, white upper class Americans have a crisis of cultural identity. They seek circumcision as a means of distinguishing themselves from poor immigrants that they perceived to be racially inferior, dirty, vulgar, & with disease carrying uncut penises. Circumcision elevated to a status symbol. D.L. Gollaher, (Phd, Harvard University), JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY, Volume 28, Number 1: Pages 5 – 36

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.

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. Find additional info on circumcision.

Circumcision’s psychological damage in childhood and adolescence has significant negative consequences. Following a traumatic event, many children experience anxiety, depression, and anger; and many others try to avoid and suppress these painful feelings (Gil, 2006). In addition, children often experience a debilitating loss of control that negatively affects their ability to regulate emotions and make sense of the traumatic experience (Van der Kolk, 2005). In a study of adults circumcised in childhood, Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault. Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age.

Founder Anthony Losquadro combined his leadership and marketing skills from both his military and business career to create a game changing organization. He amassed a reference library on circumcision, its history, anatomy, and hundreds of medical studies, data, articles, and books, from 1890 to the present day. He would apply that knowledge to this challenging cause where big money, habituated cultural practices, cognitive dissonance, sex, religion, and human rights are intertwined. This reach for profits was inflicting unnecessary pain and trauma upon innocent babies born in America. It places PROFIT over HIPPOCRATIC OATH. It damages and disfigures men’s bodies. It can affect quality of life. It can inflict emotional and psychological harm. Find additional info on this website.