The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

1 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

655

21
Tweet

18
Email

StumbleUpon

ShareThis

4k

Most Popular Articles

Black Seed - 'The Remedy For
Everything But Death'

Like

Posted on: Monday, April 27th 2015 at 7:00 pm

Written By: Spoony Quine

Turmeric's 'Smart Kill'

Properties Put Chemo &
Radiation To Shame

Research: Pineapple Enzyme

Kills Cancer Without Killing
You

Trending Articles
How To Detox From Fluoride

The Skin Healing Properties of

Black Seed Oil

Turmeric Produces
'Remarkable' Recovery in
Alzheimer's Patients

Originally published on Mad Science Writer.

GreenMedInfo.com
Like

The male prepuce, or foreskin, is a highly mobile and extraordinarily

sensitive double fold of tissue that is the end of the penis. Why do
Americans go out of their way to remove this part of human anatomy,
when the rest of the world does not?

265,692 people like GreenMedInfo.com.

Note: Never have I gotten so many comments and emails in response to a blog post, much less
rumors that I'm a man. I'll keep that in mind. And for the record, it wasn't until 2014 that I had the
opportunity to put a man's intact penis in my very much female vagina. This frictionless appendage

Facebook social plugin

made me realize that sex doesn't have to be painful or cause hazardous inflammation. And with
that image in your mind...
I was nineteen or twenty years old when a male friend of mine, we'll call him Bill, let me in on a
most shocking fact: He was missing part of his penis, and so were almost all boys and men that I
had ever seen in my entire life, as well as all the anatomical diagrams that I had ever seen. Ever.

Popular Threads
Mainstream Medical Myths /
Alternative Healing Pitfalls
4 comments 15 hours ago

Sure, I had heard of circumcision as a Jewish religious practice, but thought myself unlikely to ever

First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers

see its results. Little did I know, all the male genitalia I had seen both in real life and as depicted in

20 comments 10 hours ago

American anatomy books, had been edited in exactly the same way. The shock from this revelation
overwhelmed me for weeks, especially since I considered myself to be fairly knowledgeable about

The Foreskin: Why is it such a secret

in North America?

anatomy. (My interests included biology and drawing biological structures).

2 comments 2 hours ago

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

2 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

The Real Nuclear Threats

Why would anyone selectively remove foreskins, not just from real people but from scientific

1 comment 13 hours ago

anatomical texts, which I had thought were meant to represent the natural human form? And why

7 Health Benefits of Bee Propolis

did no one ever tell me about this? It was as though a basic feature that males (of all mammals)

5 comments 1 day ago

are normally born with was not to be understood or even acknowledged.

Support Free Media

I spent the next few weeks at the local library, immersing myself in primary and secondary source
materials on the relevant anatomy, medicine and history, before I was satisfied that I had an
accurate understanding of what was going on. To summarize what I had found:

Become A Sponsor
View Our Sponsors
Advertise/Collaborate

The foreskin (or prepuce) is a man's most sensitive erogenous zone, more well-developed in

Become a Member

humans than in other species of mammal. It has unique sexual functions (more on that later),

Become an Affiliate

which circumcision effectively destroys -- and this is intentional:

Link To Us
About Us

Although foreskin-chopping was once a purely religious or cultural practice, it was introduced
to American medicine in the late 1800s, as a 'cure-all', thanks to the trend of pathologizing
(treating as illness) normal human sexuality and healthy genitalia.
At the time, many doctors believed that sexual stimulation and ejaculation literally drained men of
their vitality and caused all manner of illnesses and mental problems. Semen was thought to take a
lot of blood to make, and losing one ounce was considered the equivalent of losing a quart of
blood. Painfully severing the man or boy's most erogenous zone was recommended, and in
orphanages, it was more common to sever the penile nerve as well. This was meant to traumatize
and discourage him from masturbating, lest his health deteriorate from excessive ejaculations
(which was diagnosed as "spermatorrhea").
Yes, really.
There were many quack remedies in the 1800s to improve men's virility and erections, and to keep
them from losing semen via masturbating and nocturnal emissions. This was not considered a
contradiction because a man's purpose was thought to be saving his sperm for making babies.
This may be a shock to some, although my readers may be more familiar with the ancient belief
that women suffered from a vague illness called "hysteria", especially if they experienced such
"symptoms" as sexual desire and vaginal lubrication. Typically, this was a "disorder" of women
who didn't have husbands, or whose husbands left them wanting in bed, and it was thought that
the buildup of sexual fluids such as "female sperm" (ejaculate) were poisoning them. In order to
relieve "hysteria" symptoms, the two-thousand year old wisdom of treating it involved "massage"
techniques of the "womb" (vulva), in order to induce a "hysterical paroxysm" (orgasm).
For doctors in the 1800s, this was hard work, so often they recommended a midwife to do this, and
later on invented a number of vibrators and water jets that were much more effective. The fact that
vibrators were the fifth household appliance to become electrified is a testament to the
pathologization of women's sexuality, not to their sexual freedom, as is popularly imagined. (That
part happened later.)
Importantly, this treatment was not openly considered to be sexual because it did not involve
penetration, thanks to the male-centered view of sex. This is how masturbation (that is, without a
medically-sanctioned device) could be thought of as causing illness in females. However, there was
another, less popular "treatment" to discourage "irritation" and "over-stimulation" in females -excision of the external clitoris. In other words, medicalized 'female circumcision'. Various forms of
this practice appeared sporadically until the 1970s, and were even funded by Medicaid and
promoted for the same reasons as male circumcision (appearance, cleanliness, health, etc).
It may come as a shock to find that in the U.S., many widespread popular beliefs about the penis
today are actually based on the same Victorian Era quackery rather than medical science. Indeed,
the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant boys has continued to be medicalized in the U.S., and
to a lesser extent in Canada, due to such persistent beliefs. Thanks to Lewis Sayre, notable
surgeon and pro-circumcision quack of the 1870's, one example is the pathologization of

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

3 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

completely normal infant foreskins.

This continues today in hospitals, thanks to continued ignorance about penile gross anatomy:
attempts to 'fix' the child's normal foreskin often result in severe injury and pain. More about this
shortly.
Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys by medical professionals did spread to a few other countries
-- most of which have long rejected it on the grounds that it is extremely harmful, with no
significant medical benefit. As for the few cultures that continue to give routine infant penisreductions a veil of medical validation, the justifications for it depend on the culture and era. In
other words, it is based on local beliefs, not science. The scientific literature reveals the physical,
neurological, and psychological harms of this tradition, but these are creatively ignored or
glossed-over in much of the U.S. medical community.

This past April 28th, the Seattle Atheists invited John Geisheker to correct some of these myths. He
is Executive Director and General Counsel for Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), an
organization which opposes the unnecessary genital surgery of any child.
His presentation was video-recorded and uploaded on YouTube, so if you're interested, you can
open the link in a new tab before reading on:
Circumcision: At the intersection of Religion, Medicine, and Human Rights

I have handily rehashed most of what he says in the rest of my article, partly thanks to the notes I
took -- which you can see me doing in the center of the frame.
So, how did an anti-sexuality practice of the Victorian Era ever become normalized and
progressive? And, what was missing from all those anatomy books, anyway? Even anatomy books
I've seen that include the foreskin do not have a detailed visual representation of it, nor do they
have much description beyond saying that's skin that covers the tip of the penis. But it isn't.

An anatomy lesson that a medical professional should not

need:

While Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and most other people may wonder why anyone would need
to explain this most mundane fact, the truth is that the foreskin is not well-understood in U.S.
culture and medicine. One of Geisheker's jobs is tracking cases of American doctors who are so
outrageously ignorant of intact penile anatomy that they cause serious pain and injury, usually to

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

4 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

infants.
They don't even know the following basic facts, so read carefully:
At birth, a boy's foreskin is fused to his glans via a membrane called the balano-preputial
lamina (BPL). Much like the membrane that fuses the fingernail to the finger, it acts as a living
'glue'.
The same is true of the prepuce and glans of the clitoris: The female foreskin is also called the
'clitoral hood'.
Over the years, little 'pearls' of the membrane die off, thus gradually separating the foreskin
and glans, creating the preputial space. (This is also true of the clitoris.)

In 2012, the AAP's recommendation for cleaning babies' foreskins is to retract them -- thus
tearing the foreskin and glans apart -- and to wash the bleeding wound with soap and water.
The soap, of course, causes inflammation and can lead to infections and other serious
problems. Yes, this is an erroneous example of "medical advice" for infants in the U.S.,
although in most of the world, the advice is, basically, "leave it alone, it takes care of itself."
In fact, a male should not use soap beneath his foreskin for the same reason that a female
should not wash her own internal bits with it: It changes the pH of those areas and causes
inflammation, which can lead to imbalances of microflora and infection.

The AAP also said that "adhesions" (the natural fused condition of the foreskin) will "resolve" by 2
to 4 months of age. As I've mentioned, the foreskin doesn't fully retract until around puberty, when
the boy is most ready to use it.
"I just find this astonishing," says Geisheker, of the fact that there are still medical professionals
who don't understand this ordinary, basic bit of anatomy.

So, how did all this ignorance start, anyway?

A Unique Erogenous Zone
Although the technical details are known today, the foreskin was already well-understood by
Renaissance anatomists as to be the most erogenous part of the penis, while the glans was
known to be the dullest. This knowledge carried on into the 1800s, which is why the Americans
(and later, other Anglophones) targeted it in their anti-masturbation crusade. Let's take a look at
its role in sexual function, as understood by modern medical science:
The Semmes-Weinstein esthiometer is used to test skin sensitivity for patients with burns or
neuropathy. The readings from a man's foreskin, particularly the mucus membrane of the 'lip' and
inner surface, go off the high end of the scale.
A 2007 study, published in BJU international, mapped the fine-touch sensitivity regions on
circumcised versus intact penises, concluding that:
"The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of
the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the
internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and
more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

5 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." (Emphasis
mine.)
The authors' fine-touch maps can be seen below, but first a bit of explanation about what is
pictured in their illustration.
The foreskin is packed with fine-touch nerve endings called Meissner's corpuscles. You can sort coins
by feeling the edges using the front of your hands, which are dense with Meissner's corpuscles,
whereas this is not true for the backs of your hands. In the U.S., the glans is popularly imagined to
be the most sensitive part of the penis, but in fact it is dominated by free nerve endings, which
primarily sense pain. It has about the same fine-touch sensitivity as your earlobe, and wouldn't be of
much use for penile coin-sorting (if you're into that). The glans is less of an erogenous zone and more
of a device to hold the foreskin in its proper shape and to keep the inner surface moist: Its presence
only makes functional sense when one considers it is meant to work with the foreskin.

As the penis becomes erect, the foreskin is pulled back, rolling inside-out, everting its most
sensitive areas, and (usually) exposing the glans. It can also be retracted simply by pulling the
skin of the shaft toward the body. (You can view an animation and videos here.)
When fully retracted, the foreskin is just about sufficient to cover the entire shaft: Although the
length varies, it makes up approximately one half of the skin on the penis.
What is removed by circumcision is about three inches long and five inches in circumference -think of a 3x5 index card. That's the actual size. Although it is sometimes described as a 'tiny
little piece of skin', this is only true of tiny little infants, not sexually active men.
The most erogenous tissue of the foreskin is to be found in the frenulum and ridged band. A
frenulum is a cord-like fusion of flesh which holds a moving structure to a fixed structure, like
the one found under your tongue.
The penile frenulum anchors the foreskin to the underside of the glans and is highly sensitive to
stretching (which it does a lot of during intercourse and masturbation). It is partly or totally
removed with circumcision.

I have also learned of many pleasurable acts that can be done with a foreskin that circumcised
males cannot do. For example, a partner can pull the foreskin forward over the glans and slip
his/her tongue between them, thus stimulating two surfaces at once. Another technique involves
pulling the foreskin forward and outward and directing a jet of water to flow underneath it. Even
just pinching the foreskin shut during urination, allowing it to 'balloon', activates its stretch sensors
in an unusual way (this also can happen naturally when a boy's foreskin is partially separated,
which is harmless, but sometimes confounds parents). Such inflation can also be achieved with air
-- a different type of "blow job", shall we say? It is also possible to use the muscular tip to
stimulate the nipples, clitoris, or other parts of the partner. In the case of male-on-male sex, there
is the practice of 'docking', which means to pull the foreskin forward so that it envelops the
partner's glans. If both partners are intact, they can do 'double-docking', with one foreskin within

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

6 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

the other. In fact, stimulating only the most erogenous areas are enough to elicit an orgasm.
Indeed, the foreskin is thought to play an important role in controlling and modulating male
orgasm.
Geisheker challenges the audience to find a book in the University of Washington medical library
that says the foreskin is the seat of sexual sensation. Most medical books do, but all the books at
UW he has seen have incorrectly said it is the glans.
This is also what Bill had told me, back in 2002, after revealing his shocking news. (But who could
blame him? He got that from a medical text!) He also said that the foreskin was the least sensitive
part of the penis, which is also a common belief I have heard. He insisted that the part's only
function was to protect the glans, and is no longer needed because humans wear clothes. What I
discovered at the library was that the glans is covered in mucus membrane and is meant to be an
internal structure which can be exposed, like the tongue. When left exposed to the outside world
for weeks, the glans develops a layer of dead, dry skin -- especially when there is clothing rubbing
against it -- thus blocking the sensitivity of the underlying nerves. If the foreskin is restored and
the glans is re-internalized, this callus will actually dissolve within two weeks, improving sensitivity.
(BTW, this can be done via 'tugging' devices or even tape, which expand the tissue without
surgery. Such techniques are becoming popular as awareness of these facts spreads).
Bill had been right in saying that the foreskin has a protective function, but he was wrong about the
details: One aspect of this function involves the dartos fascia, the layer of muscle fibers that pulls
the scrotum towards the body. As I have hinted at already, this layer is also found in the foreskin,
which allows it to close over the glans and pull it inward. This is handy in cold water, and even
helps to prevent frostbite. The smegma of the inner surfaces also contains chemicals and immune
cells which protect the penis from microorganisms and viruses. For more information (and citations)
on foreskin functions, you may want to start here.
To say that circumcision has no effect on sexual pleasure or function is to be dishonest about
how the penis works, or neurology, for that matter. Indeed, removing such an extensive amount of
penile nerve feedback can cause a number of problems, from erectile dysfunction to
premature ejaculation, which are more common among circumcised men, and which can develop in
men after circumcision. Other problems include tingling, numbness, a significant decrease in
sexual sensation, and even debilitatingly painful over-sensitivity. Results vary because the cause
involves destroying and damaging complex, densely-innervated structures, the remainder of which
must then heal and re-wire themselves to the brain in one fashion or another.
Although the literature shows that men who are circumcised work harder for sexual satisfaction,
and to this end must practice more types of stimulation, this is re-interpreted by pro-circumcision
advocates to mean that circumcised men have more fun and get more oral sex.
At TAM 2012, I talked to a man from Denmark, who told me that some girls get the idea from
American porn that vigorous motion and lots of lubricant is needed to stimulate a man. As they
become more experienced with Danish men, who are almost all intact, they find this not to be the
case. I actually wrote about this encounter near the bottom of this post. Indeed, there are a few
studies that purport to show that circumcision has no effect on penile sensitivity or sexual function.
That is because of fatal design flaws, including that the scientists are measuring everything but the
foreskin.
What they found was that the sensitivity of the glans and shaft skin are not that much different
whether or not you have a foreskin, yet they are completely silent about the sensation that comes
from the foreskin itself. So, nearly half the penis' sensitivity is entirely omitted and ignored,
rendering this research worthless. To conclude that removing the foreskin doesn't affect the penis
is to pretend that the foreskin is not part of the penis. This page gives a pretty good analysis of
these studies in detail, as well as the effect on sexual partners, and comparing infant versus adult
circumcision on sexual function.

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

7 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

As for the idea that the foreskin is not part of the penis, this is actually a deeply-rooted cultural
belief. I remember this occurring to me in 2006 when riding in the backseat of a friend's car one
rainy night. The rear windows were fogged, and the person next to me made a mark by touching
the glass, saying "I think I'll draw a penis." Because it is difficult to draw anything in a moving
vehicle, the drawing turned out a bit misshapen, so he said, "Well, it can be an uncirumcised
penis." Something clicked in my mind. To him, a penis was always circumcised, unless it had a
foreskin "added" to it.
Wait... what?
That would explain why I had heard the foreskin described as "extra" skin. If it's normal (standard
equipment), how is it extra? This parallel reality was no doubt created as a way to make this
operation more palatable to people who don't want to believe they or their loved ones were harmed
by it.
Some have said that I'm against letting a man have the freedom to harm himself in this way if he
wants, but this is not so: I would, however, insist that he understand the consequences, as he will
have to live with them. Many adult men who chose circumcision for themselves have regretted it,
and some who have chosen it as medical treatment were misled into thinking that it was the only
or best treatment option when it was not. For example, a genuinely tight foreskin can often be
fixed with stretching, steroid cream, different masturbation techniques, or even surgery which does
not remove tissue. Some guys, unfortunately, did not educate themselves and were misled into
thinking that foreskin removal was their only hope.
In 2005, I interviewed a guy who had at age two, bizarrely, retracted his own foreskin. The injury
this caused to his frenulum led to pain and bleeding during sex, and his doctor told him that it
needed to be removed, along with the rest of the foreskin. He went along with the operation, if
reluctantly. After the intense pain had subsided, he found that he had lost a lot of sensation,
responsiveness, intimacy, and confidence. He had to learn how to achieve orgasm all over again.
He had traded a medical condition for an overall decrease in sexual satisfaction. He felt a very
strong sense of loss and grief for two years before he was able to pull himself back together and
adapt, which you can read about on my ancient blog post here. It's just one anecdote among
many, but along with the scientific data, it shows that there can be a real difference.
In European, Japanese, and other cultures in which circumcision is very rare, they have developed
a substitute surgery called a 'sleeve reduction', or removal of a section of penile skin from the
shaft. This permanently retracts the foreskin and gives the look of circumcision, while exposing the
most erogenous tissue on the outside. Although this is still damaging and painful, it shows that the
people of some cultures value the foreskin too much to cut it off.
When a man voluntarily has his own genital bits cut off, it is his choice, based on the information
that he knows. But how can we justify his doing it to another human being who has no idea of what
is going on and cannot defend himself?
I am talking about the infant, usually screaming in pain, or the young boy who only knows what
others tell him about what is being done to him. Most intact men would not choose this for
themselves. Although circumcised boys are usually told what was done to them and that it was for
the best, some reach adulthood before they learn what was done to them. If this was so shocking
for me to learn, imagine how shocked they must be at the ignorance of their own bodies!
Because Bill was a hardcore believer in the myths his parents taught him, he was so stunned at the
information I found that he refused to believe any of it for some time. I brought him photocopies
and printouts of journal articles and medical texts, but he rolled his eyes at them.
"The foreskin can't have any real function," he said, "otherwise they wouldn't cut it off." ("Appeal
to Consequences", anyone?)

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

8 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

Fraudulent Diagnoses, False Benefits, and Questionable

Ethics
As we know, the reason it is cut off is because it has a very definite function, which was most
threatening to many Americans of the Victorian era. Even more, a tight foreskin was thought to cause
all manner of illness, from hydrocephalus to lunacy. In his presentation, Geisheker brings up the 1881
assassination of James A Garfield by the insane lawyer, Charles Guiteau. Famously, Guiteau danced to
the gallows, recited a poem, and shook hands with his executioner before hanging. Upon autopsy, it
was discovered that his foreskin was tight, and so his insanity was blamed on that. Such was the
mentality of the people at the time.

This 'diagnosis' can largely be blamed on a medical doctor named Lewis Sayre, who claimed to
have cured a boy of Polio by circumcising him. Like many others of his ilk, he had no proof of this,
he just assumed so because the patient never returned.
I wouldn't have, either.
In 1870, Sayre gave a speech about the harms of normal foreskins, which he called 'congenital
phimosis' (cannot be retracted) and 'Adhered Prepuce' -- in other words, the normal fusion found in
boys until at least ten years of age.

Today, there are still some doctors who apparently think that a normal, healthy foreskin is
'adhered' in 'congenital phimosis', or even 'redundant' for its long, tapered look. In the billing book
for medical procedures, a Code 605 refers to "redundant prepuce and phimosis, adherent prepuce,
phimosis congenital." Many healthy children are fraudulently diagnosed and subsequently
circumcised under this billing code -- because there is nothing wrong! Wait, what?
The process of circumcising infants has been brutal, especially since it was once assumed (also
thanks to 1870's pseudoscience) that infants do not feel pain. That's right -- even open-heart
surgery has been performed on infants with zero pain control.
In reality, the younger a child is, the more pain he or she experiences, and it is especially acute in
newborns. These facts, and their relation to infant surgery, did not begin to be explored until the
1980's.
In 1934, the Gomco clamp was invented to minimize the likelihood that the infant would bleed to
death if someone other than a surgeon did the operation, and without any type of pain control.
The erogenous tissue is torn from the infant's glans and crushed, excruciatingly, into goo. When
the clamp is removed ten minutes later, the wound doesn't bleed. The shallow bell is actually
meant to maximize the amount of erogenous tissue that is lost. And yes, it is commonly used today
in U.S. hospitals, with little pain relief, if any: this is because anesthetics are dangerous and not
fully effective in infants, including nerve block techniques.
Another circumcision device is the Plastibell clamp, which strangles the erogenous tissue over an
entire week. The pain and discomfort from this process commonly interferes with breastfeeding,
sleep cycles, and parental bonding. Whatever the method used, the glans is afterward revealed as
a raw, open sore, and the infant is almost never prescribed pain relievers. When he urinates, the
ammonia burns the open sore. This wound takes weeks to heal, and complications (besides the
intended damage) are not as uncommon as is widely believed. Meatal stenosis isn't counted as a
'complication' because it doesn't occur until three months after the procedure, and sexual problems
of course do not count because they become evident much later on. And there are more problems
which are not mentioned.
Ironically, the study of anesthetics on infants during circumcision has had to stop because it is
considered to be grossly unethical. The intense pain (measured in infants' stress responses) is far
too high to justify further study.

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

9 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

Typical pain responses include an extremely fast heart rate, very high levels of cortisol (stress
hormone), and high-pitched screaming, sometimes until the infant turns blue from lack of oxygen.
The fragile newborn's heart, lungs, and other organs can be damaged or ruptured from being
overworked. Although some parents may believe that their own son "slept through" his
circumcision, this is what they are told when their baby goes into shock and doesn't respond to any
stimulus. These are exactly the type of responses that we would expect in an adult whose genitals
are being torn apart, yet this may be framed as 'discomfort'. Wouldn't 'torture' be more
appropriate?
This extreme trauma is known to cause a sort of PTSD in infants, similar to the effects of other
types of surgery or a traumatic birth, and can lead to a variety of psychological and emotional
problems later on in life. It doesn't matter whether the individual has any conscious ("explicit")
memory of this because most types of memory are stored outside of conscious awareness in the
involuntary ("implicit") systems of the brain and body. Similarly, circumcised infants, as with
preemies given a heel stick or scalp IV, show neurological changes that cause a permanent increase
in sensitivity to pain. In other words, intense pain in an infant re-wires the brain for life. I should
also note that compared to intact boys, the circumcised ones tend to be more irritable, have trouble
eating, sleeping and thriving, and demonstrate a significant increase in 'colic' (crying for no
apparent reason) for up to a year after this 'procedure'. A whole spectrum of emotional reactions
to being put through this in one's infancy become evident later on, and they (naturally) include a
sense of loss and grief. Although foreskin reconstruction is becoming more popular today, with its
own market, it was only in 1990 that desiring one's lost foreskin was suggested to be a form of
"body dysmorphia".
For more information, and citations, you may want to start here.
As though that wasn't bad enough, what about unintended injuries and trauma? Surgical mistakes
and infections can result in more problems, from an inability to urinate, to even more tissue being
excruciatingly cut away from the infant, sometimes his entire penis or more. Infections can also,
more rarely, cause brain damage and death. Even if this procedure goes 'right', the penile skin
often attempts to re-fuse itself together, resulting in abnormal adhesions, which require further
tearing apart. In the long-term, the boy's penis may grow too large to fit within the skin that is
left, and may bend or even tear open when he gets an erection. This may require further surgery
to add skin to his penis. Indeed, a seemingly long prepuce in infancy can turn out to be quite short
in the adult. This cannot be predicted in infants, which is another good reason to wait on this
question, and leave the decision to the person who is affected by it.
More popular myths that Bill told me was that the foreskin is prone to disease and is too hard to
clean under to be worth the bother. In reality, the easily-retracted adult foreskin only needs to be
briefly rinsed in the shower; therefore, it is easier to clean than behind one's ears. As we shall see,
this misunderstood and vilified body part has not been shown to be a vector for disease. If it was,
our ancestors wouldn't have evolved it in the first place, much less a particularly extensive one.
Indeed, you don't see other species scrubbing their penises -- not even bonobos.
The cleanliness myths began in the late 1800s, with the idea of 'moral cleanliness' in the eye of
God as he watches you masturbate. By the early twentieth century, the meme had changed to
physical cleanliness and preventing STDs. However, when all the literature over the years is taken
together, it shows that circumcision slightly increases one's chances of getting certain STDs, while
slightly decreasing the chances for others, and there are different statistics between cultures. All in
all, it's a wash.
Child circumcision was not common in the early 20th century, but because of the STD-prevention
belief around World War I, the militaries of English-speaking countries were practically forcing
sailors and soldiers to be circumcised -- as most of them refused to go along with it. (In
Geisheker's audience, one guy said his uncle was an aircraft mechanic, but at 45 years old he
wasn't allowed on a Naval aircraft carrier to do work unless he was circumcised for some health and

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

10 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

safety code. So, he was, and regretted it. Scary stuff.)

In the 1930's, childbirth had become medicalized, and those doctors who were experts in female
health (yet knew little about male health), were enthusiastic in promoting and performing
circumcision on the newborn males. Their inexpertise was what the Gomco clamp was invented for.
By the start of World War II (during which we find the sand myth), newborn circumcision was
beginning to become popular in the U.S., and almost as popular in Britain, although this changed
when the U.K. was devastated by the war. With so few resources, U.K. doctors didn't see any point
in continuing unnecessary and dangerous surgery, so they put an end to it. At the same, the
practice took off in the U.S., because it was funded by most health insurance packages, and fueled
by advice from the popular press. This includes the influential child expert, Dr. Benjamin Spock,
although to his credit he later recanted his position. By the end of the 1950's, almost all newborn
boys in the U.S. were subjected to this procedure, whereas almost none were in the U.K. Although
child circumcision had spread to a number of English-speaking countries during the early 20th
century, nowadays this practice is long-gone from most of them. And then there's South Korea.
During the Korean War, MASH doctors imposed circumcision on the South Koreans, claiming that it
improved cleanliness. Now South Korea has one of the highest penile abridgement rates in the
world, and it is typically done as a rite of passage at age twelve. At the library way back when, I
remember reading a very detailed report about the history and cultural beliefs about this South
Korean phenomenon.
Most of the South Koreans who were surveyed believed that people from all developed countries
practiced routine circumcision -- which is a popular belief in the U.S. as well. These South Koreans
also believed that if it wasn't done, they had a very high chance of developing "phimosis" and
needing to be circumcised anyway. So popular was this misconception that they called it "the
phimosis operation". I also recall that many adults in South Korea had this done to themselves,
partly due to a combination of collectivist culture and public baths -- everyone must do the same or
else be looked down upon! Interestingly, those men who said that they experienced sexual
problems after this operation were able to describe what was wrong, whereas those (fewer) men
who said it helped their sex life did not explain how. Were they just saying what was expected of
them?
And then there is the medicalized circumcision of the Philippines, which is partly influenced by
Americans. Slitting the foreskin of eight-year olds (without removing tissue) has morphed into
outright foreskin-severing as a rite of passage. The Filipinos have their own unique cultural
myths about medicalized routine circumcision, such as that it stimulates growth in the boy, and
that it will increase his virility as an adult. When you think about it, this is just as silly as the myth
that a normal infant's penis has a medical problem, that females don't produce smegma, or that
the foreskin gets in the way of sexual pleasure -- and I am surrounded by people who believe these
things!

Culture versus medicine

Both contained nearly the same information -- basically, highlights of what I'm covering in this
post -- but the American version was written with a completely neutral tone whereas the British
one had a distinct note of relief at the news that Americans are finally starting to learn not to
chop at their infants.
As for today, infant circumcision rates in the U.S. are continuing to drop, and are now around
50% or lower.
Even so, the Americans who have not learned have instead been inventing and recycling ideas each
decade in order to justify continuing it. This includes the continuation of the old idea that it
prevents sexually transmitted diseases. It is worth pointing out that New Zealand, where
Geisheker is from, they stopped routine infant circumcision 40 years ago and have lower rates of
STDs than the U.S.. Clearly, there are scientifically valid ways of prevention, such as sex education

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

11 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

and condom use, which is often lacking in the U.S..

More importantly, I feel that I should point out the obvious -- that infants don't have sex. Would it
not be more appropriate to wait until the individual is old enough to make a judgment about his
own sex life?
The same could be said in the case of sexually transmitted HIV prevention, which is re-gaining
popularity in the U.S. as an argument for circumcising infants. This connection was first proposed
in a 1986 letter, by Canadian urologist Aaron Fink, who had self-published a book advocating
circumcision. He promoted the unsupported claim that the callus that forms over the glans of
circumcised males creates a barrier to HIV. In February 1996, Scientific American printed an article
about the Caldwell retrospective analysis of HIV and its prevalence in those African populations who
circumcise versus those who do not. They concluded that HIV is more prevalent among those who
are intact, although they did not examine any of the patients. Vincenzi and Mertens (1994) pointed
out serious flaws in the design of this study. This was pointed out in two letters to Scientific
American, but they were heavily edited for publication, and the criticisms went unaddressed by the
Caldwells in their rebuttal.
Even since then, most similar studies have a small sample size and contain many flaws, including
guessing whether or not a subject is circumcised, based on which culture he is from. Dozens of
such studies did not take into account other confounding factors such as the practice of 'dry sex',
which creates lots of friction and tears in the vagina, nor genital ulcer disease, viral load, or female
circumcision, which is only done in cultures where male circumcision is practiced. This is
compounded by the fact that studies which are purported to show a connection between HIV and
circumcision are more exciting, and thus more likely to be published than studies which show no
correlation at all -- a phenomenon called publication bias.

A 2003 Cochrane review points out all these flaws, and "found insufficient evidence to support an
interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men." Also, it is worth
pointing out that researchers who are white males of nations that have had a history of
circumcision are the main proponents of this correlation.
The resurgence of this meme is based on three recent and incomplete studies, which were done in
Africa, partly because the ethics committees in other parts of the world would not approve. Only
one of these studies (Auverts, 2006) was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal. The clock
for the experiment started when half of the volunteers were circumcised at random. While the
intact men went off to have sex, the circumcised group had to wait four to six weeks, as they were
in too much pain for intercourse. Also, they had to come back to the clinic twice more to make
sure they were healing properly, where they got additional safe sex counseling and condoms. Not
only were the circumcised guys unable to have sex for most of the duration of the study, but blood
exposure and homosexual intercourse were not controlled for. On top of this, the researchers used
an HIV antibody test, which only gives results from three months since the last exposure. However,
they did not wait to administer the test, so half the cases of HIV came from before the study even
started.
Based on this dubious data, the conclusion was that heterosexual men are 60% less likely to catch
HIV from infected females with each exposure. And how did Auverts et al determine this? As
Geisheker explains it, this study showed a very low incidence of HIV in the intact subjects, and a
slightly lower incidence in circumcised subjects. It's like comparing 1.5% versus 1%, and declaring
that there's a huge difference between the two. So, the 60% rate is relative, not absolute. If this
were a vaccine, it wouldn't be considered very effective. And the Gates Foundation is funding this.
Contrast this with condom use, which is almost 100% effective at preventing the transmission of
HIV. Also, condoms protect women as well, whereas pro-circumcision researchers themselves say
that circumcision only protects the man. If circumcision did protect men as they claim, the condom

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

12 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

would still be needed. However, condoms are so effective that any small positive effect from
circumcision, if real, would be superfluous. Thanks to government campaigns for always using a
condom in Lesotho, Tanzania and Thailand, there are dramatic reductions in HIV. This could not
and has not happened with circumcision and HIV.
There has long been plenty of evidence against the foreskin/HIV connection, even for adult men
who might want to protect themselves from HIV in Africa. Even worse, some of these circumcised
men believe they are protected from HIV and don't necessarily need a condom at all. On top of
that, this newest wave is inspiring some journalists and even doctors to spin fanciful tales that
these African studies justify doing circumcision to infants living in quite different conditions in the
U.S.. There is also some evidence in industrialized cultures that circumcision does not decrease
HIV transmission, simply because the U.S. has both the highest circumcision rate and highest HIV
incidence of any industrialized nation.
Another popular justification for slicing infant dicks which is trumpeted to this day is the claim that
it protects against penile cancer. This idea started in the early 20th century from the
circumcision-promoting Dr. Wolbarst, who proposed that smegma is carcinogenic (which was
disproven), and that circumcision stops "epileptic fits" (actually orgasms) in boys. Of course
cutting off a body part will prevent it from getting cancer -- you can't get cancer on what isn't
there! However, penile cancer is extremely rare, even more rare than earlobe cancer. If we think
that the risk of penile cancer is worth cutting the foreskin off, then why don't we cut off our
earlobes if that is even more likely to help? Also, why don't the folks at the American Cancer
Society agree that this is a reason to circumcise infants? According to them, "it would take over
900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country." That's a pretty extreme
health measure, don't you think?
An oncology nurse in Geisheker's audience said that there isn't any association at all between
penile cancer and foreskins. It's just a meme, but if you're a lazy journalist, you'll pad your article
with these types of dubious claims and statistics. She said that when debating this issue with a
urologist, she brought up breast cancer, which 1 in 12 women will eventually develop. "Would you
remove breast buds off a girl?" she asked. The urologist said, "You're right, we shouldn't do it."
Besides, statistically, infants are more likely to die of the circumcision itself than to die of penile
cancer as adults.
Indeed, infants don't get penile cancer at all, men do, especially older ones, so again, it would
make more sense to wait and let the individual judge this matter for himself.
A similar argument has been made that circumcision prevents transmission of HPV, and thus
cervical cancer, in women. This is also completely untrue and based on fatally-flawed studies,
which you can read more about here. What is most outrageous with this claim is the idea of
causing significant and irreversible harm to an unconsenting infant, in anticipation that it may have
some effect on a hypothetical female sexual partner in the future. It's not meant to help the infant
who's being operated on, but rather, someone he may never meet. He may, for all we know, turn
out to be gay. Also, such a concern of HPV should be outmoded, since there is now an effective
vaccine against it.
Then, of course, there is the the tired old argument that foreskinlessness prevents urinary tract
infections. This began with the Wiswell study (yes, really), which compared the rate of UTIs
between circumcised with intact babies. There were a few fatal flaws, including instructing the
parents of the intact boys to repeatedly retract the foreskin and wash under it. Which, as we know,
is a known cause of infection -- this includes UTIs.
The larger picture here, of course, is that UTIs are generally no big deal -- they are easily treated
with antibiotics. In fact, young girls are four times more likely to get UTIs than intact boys, and no
surgery is recommended for them. There is also no evidence that circumcision prevents UTIs in
adults, even though it is sometimes recommended for chronic ones. It shouldn't be, because

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

13 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

chronic UTIs are caused by internal problems, not external ones. In any case, it is ludicrous to put
weight on foreskin-chopping in infancy as a treatment for such a minor and treatable problem,
even if the literature did show a benefit. The treatment is far worse than the sickness!
Interestingly, in the United States, the highest rate of circumcision centers around Michigan, home
of Kellogg -- coincidence? Of course, the Midwest also has more Medicaid subsidies that pay for it.
Out here in Seattle, and other U.S. locales where circumcision is not nearly as common, the
children are no sicker than the ones in the Midwest.
In New Zealand, Geisheker's home country, they completely gave up routine circumcision 40 years
ago, and NZ children are healthier than U.S. children today. Also, the rate of circumcision in
Australia has plummeted in recent decades, while at the same time, health among children has
improved, due to better healthcare. Geisheker also works with European and Australian doctors,
who think that Americans are a bit backwards when it comes to chopping babies' perfectly healthy
genitals. According to most doctors of the world, it's a bad idea:

Continue to Page 2
Pages :

A science-oriented writer in Seattle, whose main concern is protecting people's

bodies and minds from harm, and helping people to expand their minds and think
for themselves. View her work at MadScienceWriter.com.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views
expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Internal Site Commenting is limited to users that have a Friend or Professional Membership.
Disqus commenting is available to everyone.

To comment:
Login if you have a membership
Sign up for a Friend Membership
Sign up for a Professional Membership

Recommended Related Articles

Formula for
Disaster: The
Clinically Confirmed
Dangers of
Breastmilk
'Alternatives'
10,625 views

5/1/2015 3:29 PM

The Foreskin: Why Is It Such A Secret In North America?

14 of 14

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foreskin-why-it-such-secret-north-a...

Sexual Health
Infant and Children's Heatlh
Health Guide: Parenting

Print Options
Some features are currently member only features. If you are already a member, please login.
Otherwise, click here to become a member.
Printer-friendly version

Send to friend

PDF version

Disqus
2 Comments

Gary Harryman

Great article. Good to see intelligent conclusions based on facts resulting from solid research.

RogerLowrey

Brilliant. Long overdue

GREENMEDINFO

First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers

The Real Nuclear Threats

We all know Ebola builds natural

immunity, along with many other viruses!

A Daily Cup of Cocoa Helps Prevent Flu

Thank you for making this so

very clear to even ones with basic common
knowledge. It must be difficult to carry this

Eating Your Greens Makes Your Body's Cells

Solar-Powered, Research Finds

Excellent article. One thing however, that

needs to be kept in mind whether consuming
cocoa, dark chocolate or both, is

Privacy Policy

Thank you, Sayer Ji, for passing

along this fascinating insight on an unexplored
variable of cellular energy dynamics. Very

Return Policy

About Us

Contact Us

Sitemap

5/1/2015 3:29 PM