University of Maryland College Conference Center in College Park, Maryland. The physical, sexual and psychological effects were compiled in 1993 in a national survey of over 300 men who are aware of being harmed to some degree by the surgery.The adverse long-term effects of infant circumcision were reported Monday (May 23, 1994) in a press conference at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision held at the University of Maryland College Conference Center in College Park, Maryland. The physical, sexual and psychological effects were compiled in 1993 in a national survey of over 300 men who are aware of being harmed to some degree by the surgery.
The report, entitled Awakenings: A Preliminary Poll of Circumcised Men, is the result of the first year of an ongoing national poll of men and is the first known survey of its kind. According to National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males ( NOHARMM) founder and survey coordinator Tim Hammond, The male prepuce (foreskin) is a functional and valuable genital organ that provides lifelong protection and enhances sexual pleasure for the male and his partner. It is astounding that there have been no formal, scientific studies of the negative effects on men of this needless violation of their natural genital integrity.
Mr. Hammond further commented that The forcible amputation of a part of an unconsenting child's healthy and functional genitalia, regardless of gender, clearly has consequences on healthy sexual and emotional functioning later in life. Many men are living with these consequences and may not connect these problems to their circumcision or are too embarrassed to talk about such issues,
he explained.
Some of the harmful effects reported by survey respondents included prominent scarring, skin tags and bridges, meatal stenosis (constricted urinary opening), recurrent non-specific urethritis, progressive sensitivity loss from keratinization (callusing) of the glans, tight or painful erections from excessive skin loss, various degrees of sexual dysfunction, and feeling of parental violation, mutilation, betrayal, or low-self esteem from lack of natural wholeness. The survey found that over 60% of respondents had not sought professional help for their harm due to fear of ridicule. Half the respondents were involved in uncircumcision (foreskin restoration) methods.
The report does not claim to be a random sampling. Hammond states that it would be difficult under current conditions to get such a sampling in a culture where many men are led to believe infant circumcision may be beneficial, do not yet know how to indentify such harm, believe such adverse effects may be normal,
or otherwise deny that harm exists. Using birth and circumcision data, the group conservatively estimates that between 1940 and 1990, well over 66 million male infants were circumcised in the U.S. It also notes that while the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that the circumcision complication rate is 0.06%, the AAP acknowledges that the exact incidence of postoperative complications is unknown.
A recent British Journal of Surgery article however, noted that a realistic figure is 2%-10%. According to Hammond, This means between 1.3 and 6.6 million American males born in that period carry some form of circumcision complication, with an as yet unstudied incidence of related sexual or psyc[hological consequences.]
Hammond hopes the NOHARMM survey will provide a foundation for further research. He also noted that an independent body image survey conducted in 1992 by the men's quarterly Journeymen,
found that 20% of its circumcised male respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their circumcision, versus only 3% of intact men describing dissatisfaction. The as yet unpublished study also found that 78% of intact male respondents were happy with their intact status against only 38% of satisfied circumcised males, leaving a sizable 41% of circumcised men indecisive about how they view the procedure. Hammond says this lends credibility to the NOHARMM survey and the need to study long-term consequences to men of infant circumcision.
In addition to a report of the survey findings, other speakers at the press conference addressed wider issues related to infant male circumcision. Cultural anthropologist James DeMeo, PhD, spoke on the global incidence of childhood genital mutilations of both sexes, noting that in almost all cultures which practice female circumcision, males arealso subjected to circumcision.
DeMeo estimates that over 500 million of the world's males, or 20%, have been subjected to some form of genital mutilation ranging from simple incision, to the more harsh practices of circumcision and subincision. Subincision was primarily practiced by aboriginal peoples and is the cutting open of the underside of the penis. According to DeMeo, both male and female circumcisions are euphemisms for genital mutilations; since both amputate healthy genital organs of an unconsenting child in an attempt to enforce social conformity. He also stated that both reflect adult anxieties over children's sexuality, although they are often rationalized with specious arguments of improved health, family tradition or cultural ritual.
George Denniston, MD, a University of Washington School of Medicine professor, spoke about the life-long protective function of the male prepuce, its value in facilitating coitus, and its role in enhancing sexual pleasure for the male and his partner. According to Denniston, recent research by Dr, John Taylor, reveals the foreskin is a more complex and erogenous organ than the glans (head) of the penis. He stated the amount of inner and outer foreskin a man loses to the little snip
in infancy grows to an area of about 12 to 15 square inches, or one-third of the adult male's total penile skin.
Personal testimony of circumcision hard was offered by Scott Kremer and Jed Diamond. Kremer is a 42 year old building contractor from California who has had penile complications since being circumcised at birth. Diamond is a licensed clinical social worker and author of the newly released book The Warrior's Journey Home: Healing Men, Healing The Planet.
Diamond gave personal testimony of the adverse effects of circumcision and as a man who happens to be Jewish. He went on to speak about how circumcision functions in dominator cultures to disrupt the maternal-infant bond and to desensitize males to pain and emotion. He further stated that circumcision teaches men that their bodies and lives are subservient to the culture, an essential element he says, to societies that viewmen as expendable.
Jim Bigelow, PhD, the author of The Joy of Uncircumcising! Restore your Birthright and Maximize Sexual Pleasure,
a book on foreskin restoration, spoke about the psychological mechanisms that blind men to the effects of circumcision and inhibit them from revealing such harm. He stated that many men who are ignorant of the foreskin's function and value are culturally indoctrinated with the mythical benefits of circumcision so that few ever question the practice. Never having experienced being intact,
such men are not unlike circumcised females who find it hard to believe that they've been sexually deprived. He added that masculine self-image, as well as shame, denial, repression, and fear of ridicule are factors that inhibit men from acknowledging their circumcision harm to themselves and discussing it with other men. Bigelow noted that after this awareness is confronted, one way by which many men begin the process of healing is the regaining of their body integrity through uncircumcision methods.
Internationally known surgeon, obstetrician and researcher, Dr. Michel Odent, then spoke about the recent controversy of using infant circumcision to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) and he questioned American birthing practices. Dr. Odent says that natural vaginal birth, as well as rooming-in and breastfeeding, innoculate newborns with bacteria of maternal origin, thereby preventing UTI and making circumcision unnecessary. He noted that because of an increase in Caesarian births and a decline in breastfeeding in the U.S., hospital strains of E. Coli bacteria are winning the race to colonize the newborn's gastrointestinal tract, resulting in a higher incidence of UTI. Dr. Odent also cited infant circumcision trauma as being counter-productive to a healthy, nurturing newborn environment. He stated that such early genital trauma has undoubtedly damaging, but as yet unstudied, lifelong effects.
At the end of the press conference, two maternal-child nurses from St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe, NM, explained why they joined 22 other nurses at their hospital to form the nation's first group of R.N. Conscientious Objectors to Infant Male Circumcision. Betty Katz Sperlich and Mary Conant descirbed the infant circumcision surgery as painful, medically unnecessary, and a violation of the unconsenting child's human right of body ownership. They stated their actions are consistent with the nurse's role as patient advocate. Instead of assisting with the surgery, they now educate parents about the value of their son's intact genitalia. Both expressed increased peace of mind through living their ethics.
Sponsored by the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, the May 22-25 symposium convened international experts from medical, psychological, legal and anthropological fields to discuss effects of global genital mutilation practices on male and female infants and children.
Contact: Tim Hammond 415.826.9351
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.
© CIRP.org 1996-2024 | Filetree | Please visit our sponsor and host: IntactiWiki.