Shared with National Secular Society

 I know that National Secular Society has been one of the few organizations brave enough to tackle this issue, and I appreciate it.

The issue that I'm addressing is male "circumcision."  I often avoid starting off with the euphemism because I know many people often stop reading as soon as they see the term.  It's probably the most contentious issue that stirs up more negative feelings in people than any other issue.  And this is true regardless of what your viewpoints are on the issue. However, if we do not discuss the issue and educate ourselves, the harms to individuals and society continue.

Many readers will respond, "what harm?" and stop reading.  This is a typical response from anyone who does not want to consider that they are harmed or that they have been involved in anything that causes harm.  I, myself, can't imagine how I would feel if my sons were irreversibly harmed.  It's hard enough to consider the mistakes that I've made as a parent.

So, you've already learned that I am a parent.  Becoming a parent is what led me down the proverbial rabbit hole on this issue.  My oldest son was born in 2005 when I was 35 years old.  My youngest was born the year after.  Readers may assume that I am "uncircumcised" and that makes me biased on this issue, but that is very far from the truth.  Part of my genitalia was removed when I was born in a US Navy hospital.  The fact that it was done by my government makes things even more concerning.

When my oldest was born, my wife was concerned about the pain that our son might endure during the procedure.  At this point in my life, I did not truly understand what "circumcision" is and how it affected me.  I unknowingly was in the biggest awakening of my life.

I assumed that we had technology that would prevent pain during such procedures, but I did not understand that there are limits to the amount of anesthetics that could be used, how long the surgeon needed to wait for the anesthetics to work, how deep into the tissues the anesthetics would go to be effective and that anesthetics are not required to be used by the surgeon.  I honestly do not like using the term "surgeon" because surgeons are supposed to "first do no harm" and only perform necessary surgeries or surgeries that are consented to by the individual.

There are many studies that show that things that occur to us before we are old enough to remember do affect us throughout life.  A book by psychologist Ronald Goldman, PhD, titled "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma" addresses these.  Another book titled "The Body Keeps the Score" also addresses this.  There has been much study on Adverse Childhood Events.  But let's just say that the pain could be completely prevented. And, I'm not just addressing the pain that would occur during the procedure, but the pains during the recovery period.  Would it be justified then?  Please read further...

Many claims about medical benefits have been made, many debunked.  At the time my oldest was born, the main claim was that it reduced the chances of HIV/AIDS.  This was a very scary issue during my life up to that point.  The thing that made me dismiss it was that the USA had a very high rate of infant "circumcision" while Europe had a very low rate, and the USA had much higher rates of HIV/AIDS.  While that could be attributed to other factors, I simply was not sold, and my wife and I decided to leave our sons intact.

This is likely to become more uncomfortable for you to read as it gets more direct into the specific anatomy.

As a young boy, my member (I'm avoiding the term that gets censored) was regularly incited to erection.  I did not know that this was abnormal, and my parents did not talk to me about it.  I learned that masturbation would get me to orgasm, and then I had a period of time where I could do other things and not have to worry about being discovered or distracted.  After going down the rabbit hole and learning about the anatomy (see Sorrels Fine Touch Pressure Thresholds), I have learned that I was cut in a way that left most of my inner mucosa and frenulum behind.  That is sensitive tissue that is supposed to be protected and against the glans.  Since it was not, it was rubbing against clothing and bedding.  The sensations from that are what elicited the erections.

It does not stop here.

When I was with my grandparents one summer, my grandmother noticed that i had an issue when I was urinating.  She took me to the doctor, and they found that I had a skin bridge crossing my meatus (end of the urinary tract).  After going down the rabbit hole, I found that this is something that happens to boys who were cut as newborns.  The glans is normally adhered to the inner mucosa of the prepuce (often wrongly referred to as "foreskin").  The prepuce protects the glans, and the adhesion breaks down over time.  Think kitten eyes, where they can't open their eyelids immediately after birth.  Forcing the separation of the glans and inner mucosa causes damage.  What is crazy is that one of the medical claims is that it reduces the chances of infection, but this very process of breaking the adhesion creates an opening for infection.  Parents/caregivers are taught to apply petroleum jelly (e.g., Vaseline) or other creams to the glans.  One reason for this is to prevent the wound and inner mucosa of what is left behind from adhering to the glans through scarification.  Another reason is to protect everything from infection, much like a bandage does.  As a man who has changed his sons' diapers as well as the diapers of boys who were "circumcised," I can tell you that this is insane.  Caring for my sons was much easier.  People just need to learn about the development of the genitalia.

I'm far from done.

When I became sexually active, I had issues with partners.  I had no idea that those issues were due to not having skin mobility.  This skin mobility issue does not affect every man who was "circumcised."  This is because there are actually several ways to do it.  Whoever did mine pulled way too much tissue into the clamp, leaving me with a very tight result.  This made initial entry difficult and would lead to chafing and/or tearing for my partners.  I eventually learned to be patient and spend more time with foreplay and/or use lubricants.  This lends itself to killing the mood.

Also, since I was cut so tight, I have penoscrotal webbing and craning.  Penoscrotal webbing is when the scrotum draws up onto the shaft.  Craning is when the skin between the shaft and body is so tight that things act like a crane - instead of the member being at a 90-110 degree angle, it can be nearly parallel to the body.  This all leads to certain sexual positions being uncomfortable.

I actually consider myself lucky compared to many men I have spoken with on this.  The newer bell tools (e.g. Gomco and Plastibell) tend to remove far more of the inner mucosa and frenulum.  While I have not seen a study that specifically looks into this, I get the idea that these men have far less sensitivity.  Some can't get to orgasm at all.  These bell tools were invented to address an issue that daunted the Mogen Clamp, which led the company that was selling them to be sued out of existence (in the USA) by attorney David Llewellyn.  While these bell tools might protect the glans from excision, they cause more of the sensitive tissues to be excised.

I'm done with the physical harms.  Although I could go into many other stories about how others have been physically harmed.  If you want, you can look into that yourself.  I don't think that these issues are all that rare; just not considered because we are practically born this way and just do not have a frame of reference.  And, most men don't want to talk about it out of fear of being labeled "gay" (homophobia).

The very existence of genital cutting rituals creates an additional divide in society.  We have enough reasons to be divided; it would be nice if this reason went away.

This topic touches on several of your campaigns:

Secular state - no other country uses public funding to perform this ritual on citizens, outside of countries that are run by religion.  The federal government should not be allowing or pressuring the ritual in military hospitals.  The federal government should put a stop to states allowing the use of Medicaid funding for the ritual.  I get that is complicated because different states take different approaches to the use of Medicaid.  The way that the AMA has written billing codes makes this more challenging.  States like New Hampshire block legislation to end the use of Medicaid for it due to views of the bill being anti-Semitic - this is odd considering that Judaism does it on the 8th day and does it as part of a Bris.  Some states see it as providing prophylactic benefits even though they have not been proven.

Secular education - this might not seem to fit for you, but hear me out.  I've been to multiple school sex education meetings because my sons attended different school districts during their high school years.  I was never able to see the books that they used for educating - they claimed that there were concerns about copyright infringement.  When I pressed the educators about discussing this issue, they were clearly afraid to discuss the issue with their students.  I'm not surprised, as I'm sure many parents might object to having their children learn the truth.  Anatomy books should not omit the prepuce of the male, and students should get honest answers when they ask, instead of "we all come in different shapes and sizes" when we aren't normally born without a prepuce.  I feel that I should have been taught before I was able to become a father and get asked the question.

Human rights - Most seem to believe that genital surgeries should wait until the person is old enough to consent themselves, when it comes to females. And, it doesn't seem to make a difference how minor the procedure/ritual is: even a ritual nick of the prepuce (aka "clitoral hood").  This became apparent when the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested it was acceptable, and later retracted due to backlash.  So, why is it that so many think that it is acceptable to completely uncover the male glans when a person is a baby?  Many ignore those who advocate to end female "circumcision" (aka Female Genital Mutilation), who also advocate to continue male "circumcision."  This makes me believe that it all has to be ended together.

Secular healthcare - The only medical claim that defends infant male "circumcision" is that UTI rates are reduced.  The other claims can be addressed at a later age when things are more developed and the person can have a say.  UTIs are already much lower in males than females and antibiotics work.  Maybe you prefer the definite harms of "circumcision" over the potential harms of antibiotics, but proper care and feeding of a baby boy also reduces chances of UTIs.  I get that doing something like "circumcision" in a healthcare setting feels safer than doing it in a synagogue, temple, etc., but those places can put the same safety measures into place that the healthcare field has put into place.  The healthcare field should not be using a euphemism taken from religion ("circumcision") for medical procedures.  There are far more appropriate terms like "preputioplasty," "posthectomy," and "partial penectomy" are examples.

Justice - I saved this one for last, on purpose, and left it out where you combine it with human rights.  I co-founded Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF).  Many want to convince society to put an end to this without making doctors, parents, etc., into criminals.  As a parent who was willing to allow my son to be "circumcised" I certainly appreciate this.  At the same time, there are certain victims of genital cutting who advocate for punishment, including capital punishment.  I would gladly spend years of my life in prison if it meant that we were able to have our day in court.  As it is, a court in Cologne, Germany found "circumcision" to be "grievous bodily harm."  From that point until politicians voted to make it explicitly legal, "circumcision" was considered illegal.

If there is anything I could do to get you to further address this issue, please do not hesitate to reach out.

I may have fixed WebMD!

 I can't prove it, but the timing fits.

In June of 2022, I filed a complaint with WebMD:

This is a screenshot of the article from the last entry in the Wayback Machine (Internet archive):

It appears that the link stopped working and is now redirected to a new link as of October 20, 2022:

Here is the article that the link goes to now:

AND, there is NO mention of "circumcision!!!"

If you would like, here are the links so you can see for yourself:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221020160235/https://www.webmd.com/web/20221020160235/https:/www.webmd.com/men/news/20090325/circumcision-cuts-stds

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/sexual-health-stds

This just goes to show that you don't have to have a medical degree or have great political power to get things to improve.

Hate to see valuable information get buried

 The website "Sexually Mutilated Child" was created by the late John Erickson.  It became Marilyn Milos' responsibility once he passed, and Intact America's responsibility was once Marilyn joined them.  Intact America did not maintain the site.  

Hopefully, it will continue to be available via the Wayback Machine (web archive):

https://web.archive.org/web/20180809143143/http://sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

civilrights.justice.gov

Today I was pressed to file a complaint with the Department of Justice.  Thank you Eric Anderson for the encouragement (see https://youtu.be/7jfVEWOaWzk?si=xWoSvsbke1Jc7I-a).

If you have followed my blog over the years, you know that I have taken many actions to get law enforcement to do something about genital-cutting rituals performed in the USA.  DOJ is not one that I had considered up to this point and there's a specific website to submit such complaints.

The record number is 488879-BBR.

This is what I stated:

--------------

I do not have the exact time as I do not know how soon after I was born in the hospital that the act was performed. Many years ago I submitted a FOIA request for my medical records and never received them even though I did receive a receipt of the request. 

I do not know whether my mother, Glenda Lou Adkison (maiden name ****), consented to the act. Even if she did, I do not believe that the Bill of Rights permits the act. 

The act entails the removal of part of my genitalia. There was no medical indication requiring this action be taken.

The following existed at the time: 

-the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (“right of the people to be secure in their persons”), 

-the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution (“nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”) 

Since then there have been many developments that would further prevent such an act, but the act continues to occur in government operations. This includes the anti-FGM legislation, CAPTA, and the 14th Amendment. 

For further consideration:

"The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone." (Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 1891) "The Nuremberg Code... fully informed consent of the subject is an absolute requirement, coercion is absolutely forbidden.

While I am not seeking imprisonment for those involved with my specific case, I AM seeking the end of the ritual in the USA.

---------------

There have only been a few I know who have been brave enough to take actions like this.  Are you?  Or, are you of the belief that nothing will result from doing so?  It is going to take a number of us to do these sorts of things to get change.  Be one of that number.

August 9, 2024 UPDATE: their response is "...we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint."

I'm not surprised. However, if enough men were to do this they would have to take note.

Inventory of my trauma

Taking inventory of all the reasons that I believe I am feeling burnt out.  While I'm sure that those who read this have lived through their own traumas and I'm not interested in a competition, it helps me to write it down.

Sexually mutilated immediately after birth.

Sexually confused mother, likely due to puritanical Christian beliefs. Failed to be a good teacher of how I should interact with women.  

Pedophilic father.  He lied and manipulated to get his way.  He hated hypocrites but proved to be one of the worst hypocrites I have ever known.

I was confused about sexuality.  I saw females in an unhealthy way, which led me to treat them in an unhealthy way.  When I DID have sexual relations, the sexual mutilation that I did not understand at the time exacerbated my problems with relationships.

I was drawn to what I perceived as greatness: I approached and shook hands of Bill Gates.  Today I realize that humans are drawn to be surrounded by what they *perceive* to be great because they fail to see their own greatness.  And, they have yet to see the humanity of the person they perceive to be great.  Today Gates is the largest single contributor to the largest genital mutilation effort the world has ever seen; closely related to the genital mutilation I have come to hate was done to me.

A series of employment situations where I was tossed away when automation, outsourcing, and/or offshoring made me less valuable to the organization. And cases where the organization shrunk or went out of business and a system that provided an ineffective social safety net.

The first wife proved to be unfaithful and unappreciative.

The second wife with undiagnosed bipolar and gastrointestinal issues.

Inlaws who ended up with memory issues at the same time, which led my wife (who's an only child) and I to have to take extraordinary measures to take care of them and the stuff (hoarders) they left behind.

Our two children ended up with a severe auto-immune disease, which led to severe disruption of our lives.

Becoming a father led me down a trail of discovery about genital-cutting rituals and the effects of my own genital mutilation.  A series of traumas from realizations of the many ways I've been affected as well as hearing many stories of grief from others.  To make it worse, discussions with those who believe that the genital-cutting ritual is a good thing go on to gaslight those who have legitimate reasons to feel grief. While I realize that their attempts to gaslight are rooted in their own insecurities I end up seeing trauma all around.

Watching the homeless situation get worse and worse.  And, hearing the stories of people who ended up homeless as my wife and I work to help.

Numerous cases of theft.

Involvement in efforts to make the world a better place where some of the people in the efforts hinder the efforts due to selfish motives. 

Being a property manager of low-income housing where the system fails both the property owner and the tenant.  Top it off with being paid so low that my family is considered low-income.

Intactivism is disorganized, or is it?

Some say that intactivism needs to be organized better.  I say that it is as organized as it can humanly be.

The main reason that it appears so splintered is because of very different opinions (and knowledge) about the impacts of genital cutting as well as what to do about it.

I'm not going to get into the impacts here, but there are MANY things to do about it and different groups are focusing on just one or two of those many things:

Protest/demonstrate - let society know that we exist.  Bloodstained Men, Intaction, Cockfight and others do this.

Educate - Your Whole Baby does this with a website that approaches the topic in a way that attempts to be friendly (a difficult thing with such a contentious issue).  Your Whole Baby, and others, also host information booths at events such as baby expos.  We shouldn't need to do this, though - educational institutions, religious institutions, and healthcare institutions should be providing the information.  We *all* need to apply pressure on the institutions we personally work with.

Lobby government - ask government representatives to make laws.  Intaction has a separate arm (https://intaction.org/intactpac/) that has been taking this on in their state.  We need one in every state.  Healthcare in the USA is primarily handled at the state level.  However, some local governments (e.g. Austin, TX) do establish laws related to medical practices.

Get in the NEWS - The various organizations typically get into news media, some local, some national, some podcasts, etc.  One individual had the thought to push (instead of waiting for them to pull) information to the NEWS.  That individual created Next Level Intactivism and claims to have influenced the NEWS to cover the movement more.

Provide emotional support - Your Whole Baby, NORM (National Organization of Restoring Men), 15 Square, Intersex organizations, and others have been doing some things to support those of us who become distraught over the losses due to being genitally cut.  There remains much room for improvement here.  Most sexologists, psychologists, and counselors (not all) that I have spoken with are supportive.

Litigation - "US legal defense and education funds have been responsible for some of the most influential human and civil rights court cases in history" (credit: Dan MacClymont from GALDEF).  GALDEF (Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund) is an organization that I co-founded with Tim Hammond and several others.  Litigation certainly has not started with GALDEF, though.  There are many ways that litigation can impact this movement.  William Stowell obtained a settlement for his non-therapeutic genital surgery because his mother was dealing with the effects of anesthesia when they got her to sign consent forms.  The Lavine family (see circumcisionisafraud.com) has mounted litigation.  Myself and some others have taken steps "pro se" (without legal representation) to attempt to cause changes.

Is there room for improvement?  ABSOLUTELY!  Probably always will be until leaving people's genitalia intact when they are children becomes the norm.

Is any of this easy?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  All of these things involve time, risk, emotional stress, and funding.

Equating Genital Cutting

 It seems that many people see male "circumcision," female "genital mutilation," and intersex "normalization" as different things.  When discussions are happening about one, bringing up another is called out as "equating."

Are they equal procedures?

Of course not.  Neither are the different types of male "circumcision," female "genital mutilation," and intersex "normalization."  YES, there are different types of ALL of those.  Is one more harmful than another?  Of course, they are, but do we need an Oppression Olympics?

Are they equal in the sense of ethics and human rights?

My stance, as well as many scholars, is that they absolutely are.

Thus, when someone says "You can't equate those," you can say "From an ethics and human rights perspective, I can."

Why I Share the Status of My Children's Genitalia

I get criticized for telling the world that my sons are intact (not "circumcised").  Of course, that criticism always comes from people who defend genital cutting, but I am still compelled to explain the many reasons that it is important for me to share.  And, I DO get that many people don't want those images in their heads.

Yes, it is THEIR genitalia and THEIR lives that are exposed (also proves the point of genital autonomy), but I'm exposing something about myself like it's a badge.  Some people put things like "PhD," or "MA" after their name.  I used to put "MCSE" after my name.  If there was an official acronym for what shows that I have done the study, I would likely use it.

I think that a parent who truly loves their child will do anything for that child; and, I have TWO.  So, what about sharing that is doing something for my sons?  Multiple things:

1. I made absolutely sure that it was best for their physical health.

So many have gotten this belief that if a human male is not "circumcised" (prepuce amputated) that they are definitely going to have problems and that there is no harm in doing it.  After years of second-guessing myself, I kept digging.  I've only come to realize that is something people tell themselves to justify the practice and that the truth is actually the opposite.  In other blogs and vlogs I've explained how the cognitive dissonance of those in the cutting cultures is extremely deep.  It ultimately comes down to having a higher chance of having problems because one less body part is removed and there are several body parts that have higher chances of problems and are unnecessary body parts.

2. I am doing everything I know to make sure that it was, and is, best for their mental (including social) health.

In some cultures, being "uncircumcised" is severely looked down on.

For instance, in the Philippines, nearly all adult males are cut.  I recently come to find out that they are often given options about how they are cut, though.  So, in that sense, they are better than those who cut babies.  However, they have a derogatory term for those who do not get cut:  "SUPOT."  If we were living in that part of the world, I would be exposing them as "SUPOT."

In certain tribes of Africa, mobs of men will literally tackle a man who has avoided getting cut and cut him right then and there.  In the U.S.A. I believe that the mob would get charged with sexual assault and battery.

I'm very thankful for the Internet and social media as it allows more discussion on this topic from people in both cultures who cut as well as those who do not.  I know my sons can respond to anyone who attacks them (hopefully only verbally) that they are the ones with normal dicks and that the attacker is culturally conditioned.  However, I'm still not satisfied.

As much as I don't want males who were cut as babies/minors to feel bad about their status, I want my sons to feel lucky and proud of their bodies.  I want them to feel confident as they go into the world as adults.  I also want the people who are missing part of their genitalia to speak up so that the next generation gets to keep all of theirs.

Therefore, until people stop needlessly cutting the genitalia of children, I'm going to continue advocating for my sons and the next generation across the globe.

People Do Not Care About Ending Sexual Abuse

 I decided to put up a survey on Twitter to see what people think.  I spent a little over $50 to promote it to make sure I wasn't getting just my followers (who probably agree with me).

Over 86K views!  I don't know, may I should have said "survey" instead of "thread of polls?"  I figured this would catch some attention, right?

Not so much!  Only 397 votes on the very first poll!  This tells me that people just don't care.  Why not?!  I've come across tons of women who are victims of rape.  I would think that certainly, they would care enough to participate.  Out of 86K I would think I would at least get 4-digit engagement!

I started off with something that I would think would get a 100% "Yes" vote.  Surprisingly, no.

I figured that FGM might get some "No" votes considering that there IS a certain percentage of the world that prescribes to female "circumcision."  Let this be evidence that at least 6% of the world is OK with it!

The child molestation makes me feel good, but, I imagine those who might click "No" are too afraid to as who knows what law enforcement is watching.

The forced marriage results blow my mind.  How is it that more people vote "Yes" for child molestation than forced marriage?!

I'm suspecting that most people don't even know what Tuli does and what age the boys are.  But, still, boys are less "sensitive" than girls, right?

Looks like intersex people have a lot of work to do still.

I'm really not surprised.  Are you?  It's better than I would have expected 4 years ago, though.  We're making progress.

Squirrels With No Tails

On a beautiful island in the middle of the ocean exists a tribe of squirrels.  The squirrels are all fat and happy.  They sing, dance, and play every day.

When a baby squirrel is born, they perform a ritual where they name and cise them.  "'Cise' - what's that?" little Johnny Squirrel asks.  

Doc Squirrel replies, "That's where we remove the after-body."  

"Why do we do that?" little Johnny Squirrel asks.  Doc Squirrel replies, "It's cleaner, reduces chances that it will cause us problems, and our leader told us to remove it."  Doc Squirrel continues, "Besides, it just gets in the way."

One day, a ship arrives.  It has individuals on board that look just like those that are on the island, with one exception: They have big bushy after-bodies!

Little Johnny Squirrel is the first to meet them.  He asks, "What are those big things at the end of your body?"  

One of the visitors replies, "You mean our tails?"  

Little Johnny Squirrel responds, "Is that the same as your after-body?"

The visitor responds, "I guess you could call it that."

Little Johnny Squirrel says, "We remove those from our babies."

The visitor responds, "Why would you do that?"

Little Johnny Squirrel echoes all of the things Doc Squirrel told him.

The visitor responds, "We don't have much trouble with all of those things, and when we do, we just take care of it."  The visitor continues, "Besides, it actually helps us."

Little Johnny Squirrel says, "How does it help you?"

The visitor says, "Well, it makes it easier for us to jump and keep our balance."

Little Johnny Squirrel retorts, "No!  I don't have my after-body, and I can jump and balance JUST FINE!"

The visitor responds, "I'm sure you can, but can you jump and balance as well as I?"

Little Johnny Squirrel retorts, "I'm not going to compete to find out, that's just silly!"

The visitor asks Little Johnny Squirrel, "Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?"

Little Johnny Squirrel says, "No, what is that?"

The visitor explains, "It's when a person is presented with information that conflicts with the information they already have in their brain."

Little Johnny Squirrel says, "Are you saying that is what I have?"

The visitor explains, "It seems so."

Little Johnny Squirrel exclaims, "My parents, ancestors, and leaders wouldn't be removing it if it wasn't a good thing!"

The visitor responds, "I'm sure they wouldn't, but do you know what Stockholm Syndrome is?"

Little Johnny Squirrel responds, "No, what is that?"

The visitor explains, "It's when one has positive feelings, like love for someone who harmed them.  It's very difficult to accept that someone you love and supposedly loves you would cause you harm, isn't it?"

Little Johnny Squirrel responds, "So, they were harmed by the ones that love them, and they were also harmed by the ones that love them; it's just a circle that goes back to the beginning of time!"

The visitor responds, "Exactly!"  The visitor goes on, "So, don't be upset at those who removed your tail, just end the cycle with you."

Little Johnny Squirrel, in excitement, exclaims, "I have to go tell my parents!  They are going to be thrilled that they don't have to remove after-bodies, I mean tails, any longer!"

A little while later, Mayor Squirrel tracks down the visitor and exclaims, "What poo did you fill Little Johnny Squirrel's head with?!"  Mayor Squirrel goes on, "We are just fine without our after-bodies!  We have been removing them forever, and we will continue to do so!  Go back to where you came from!" 

The visitors leave out of fear for their lives.

Little Johnny Squirrel attends another ritual where they remove another tail from a baby squirrel all while thinking, "Gosh, I would really like to know what it's like to have my tail!"

*The End*

Oh, were you expecting a happy ending?  Sorry, the adult squirrels weren't brave enough to have an honest conversation.  Fear rules the day.

CPT Codes for "Circumcision"

 "Circumcision" made its way into the medical field in the late 1800s when there were beliefs that touching one's genitalia was a source of ailments.  To this day there are claims that you may or may not believe.  Whether you believe the claims or not is not important here.

CPT codes are used in the medical field to handle billing for medical services.  They are maintained by an editorial panel of the American Medical Association:

"Circumcision" continues to be done without a pathology present.  In the USA it is more often done in the medical field as a preventative measure and/or to meet parents' religious and/or cosmetic beliefs.  The challenge with the CPT codes is that there is no differentiation between addressing an existing pathology and when there is not.  This makes it impossible for insurance companies (including Medicaid) to be able to only cover medically needed procedures.  You would think that the insurance companies would apply pressure on the AMA to correct this.

In 2022 there was a lawsuit in Massachusetts to stop Medicaid from paying for the non-therapeutic procedure:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-challenge-to-medicaid-circumcision

Due to the Federal government's protection of Medicaid so that they do not take on any undue administrative burden, it failed and Medicaid in Massachusetts continues to cover the procedure.  If separate CPT codes were used, this administrative burden would not exist.

Here are the codes as they exist:

"Circumcision" is a euphemism that stems from the religious texts that state "circumcise the flesh of the foreskin."  When considering anatomical diagrams, what is removed is part or all of the prepuce.  I request that the CPT Editorial Panel add codes for prepuce amputation.  This would give the insurance companies the ability to continue covering medically necessary procedures (like a prepuce amputation or "posthectomy") and deny those that are not.

I have created the following petition to convince the AMA to do so:

https://chng.it/4zRQPnpYbW

What makes me particularly good at genital autonomy advocacy

There have been several events in my life that have led me to become an avid advocate for genital autonomy.  I feel the need to document these, so here they are:

My prepuce was amputated shortly after birth. (I was "circumcised.")

I was born in a time when there was no public internet and no books existed that discussed what "circumcision" was other than religious texts.  In fact, it wasn't until the following year that the American Academy of Pediatrics made its first statement regarding the fact that there was no medical indication for the procedure.  It's very interesting that there were so many baby boys getting cut during that time when there was no medical indication for the practice.  This shows how it became popular for other reasons including but not limited to the capitalistic healthcare system in the USA and I dare say that there is a connection to the war.

Thus, I have a hard time finding fault with my parents for allowing it to occur.  My own father was cut as an infant as well and clearly never critically analyzed the practice.  I imagine being in the military, where individuals are given very little agency, it probably never even occurred to him that there was any other way.

Nightmares that seem to be connected to the event re-occurred throughout my childhood and young adult life.

I wasn't one to cry or scream as an infant, toddler, or child.  I DO remember having the same nightmare frequently.  There were only two other nightmares that re-occurred during my childhood.  This particular nightmare repeated well into my late 20s.  The nightmare involved me being unable to move and something was approaching me that was going to harm or kill me.  Of course, I would always wake up just before it happened, and I would wake up in a cold sweat.  That something was vague: I never had a clear vision of what it was.  This makes sense considering how limited the vision of a neonate is.

This challenges the idea that humans do not develop memories at such young ages.  I know other men that have reported similar nightmares as well.

Vivid memory of my brother getting the Vaseline treatment.

Certain memories from my early childhood really stuck with me.  My mother putting Vaseline on my brother's penis is one of them.  I guess I always wondered why you would have to do that.  Of course, NOW I understand.

Tight erections

Looking back at my childhood after figuring out how the loss of my prepuce affects the normal operation of a penis, I have come to realize that the physical feelings I experienced during erections (which happen without an attraction, in case you didn't know) were not normal.  Yes, intact males can have tight erections too, but for very different reasons.  These physical feelings drove me to do something about them whereas I believe that something would have been completely different if I was left intact.

I have often been able to step outside of myself and look at my life and choices as though I was looking from someone else's perspective.  One day I woke up thinking about that boy and the tight erections he experienced throughout his youth and I felt very sad for that boy.

I've said this before, but those tight erections have caused physical issues throughout my life.  One was the tightness of my scrotum which drew up my testes so much that one would often get pressed to the point of being very uncomfortable.  Another is that the tightness on the other side would cause a bend, which is not something that an erect penis does very well.

Meatal stenosis

Another clear memory was having urine not spray in a stream but spread in a way that I would sometimes make a mess.  My grandmother wasn't having it and took me to the doctor.  The doctor found that tissue grew across my meatus (where the urine exits the glans).  While I don't remember it being painful, it was another one of those odd things that didn't make sense to me at that time.

Since I have been studying intact and cut penii, I have noticed that intact men do have a larger opening in most cases.  Stenosis just means narrowing.  It seems that many, if not most, males that had their prepuce removed at an early age have a degree of stenosis.  I often wonder whether the sharp feeling I get when I urinate would be that sharp if I was intact.

Christian upbringing

I went to several different churches during my youth.  Sometimes Baptist, sometimes Assembly of God, and sometimes another.  As my current wife (Jennifer) was brought up Lutheran, I have attended some of those.  I have also attended a "Religious Science" church. Jennifer has also attended a Lutheran college.  Jennifer and I have had many conversations about the Judaic family tree (Islam and Christianity as limbs of that tree).

As there are many things about this religion that don't make sense to me, the whole sacrifice idea completely fails for me.  As a parent, I would never want my children to make a sacrifice to me that involved harming themselves.  Today I have come to see religion as a man-made thing that has simply developed over time.

Religions can be abusive in many ways, but there is no abuse worse than making permanent body modifications to a child.  Even if they might not remember the event, they can look at the modification later in life and have extreme emotions about it.

Met a Mohel

I have actually met a couple mohels, but there's one in particular that sticks out in my memory.  Now, before I go any further, I suspect you may be one to think "oh, he's just anti-Semitic."  To me, an anti-Semite is a person that advocates for the oppression of Semites simply because they are Semites, not a person that challenges a religious doctrine.

In case you don't know what a mohel is, it's the individual in the Jewish religion who performs the Brit Milah (the "circumcision").  Ever since they decided that the glans (head of the penis) needs to be laid bare (you can look up "lay bare the glans"), they had to keep a sharp thumbnail in order to break the connection between the glans and the inner part of the prepuce (aka "foreskin").  As a teenager, I noticed a thumbnail that was shaped like the end of an arrow (speaking of archery here).  I never knew why this person kept his thumbnail that way until I learned more about this topic.

Appendicitis/appendectomy

You're probably thinking "what does this have to do with genital autonomy?"  It is often brought up that parents have to make choices for their children, so the claim that the child cannot consent does not apply. But, IT DOES!  "Circumcision" is a ritual, not a medical practice even though they use the term.  A prepuce amputation, posthectomy, or preputioplasty are surgical terms instead of a euphemism for a ritual.  "Circumcision" is not a choice that a parent "has" to make unless they are so religious that they believe that they have to.

Another thing that is brought up is that it's better to do it early so they don't have to deal with the pain of doing it later.  The chances that a person will need an appendectomy are much higher than ever needing a prepuce amputation.  The pain from the appendicitis was excruciating for me and the recovery took several weeks.  Today we have better methods through laparoscopy, so recovery today would probably be much shorter.  However, the point is that this logic about the possibility that they will need it later in life can be applied to many things like the appendix.  You may be thinking "that's far more invasive than a prepuce amputation."  Maybe, but the appendix has far less value than the prepuce.  And, I bet they could perform a laparoscopic procedure on an infant that would have far fewer adverse effects than prepuce amputation.  It comes down to the views of the value of the prepuce.  Most men in the world would never consider removing it; thus, it clearly has value.  Those living in cultures where genital cutting is common, most males obviously hold it as something with little or no value.

Married someone that became a trauma therapist

I supported my first wife while she obtained her master's degree in behavioral science.  I was dragged through her learning process, thus, learning many things about human behavior myself.  As I have gone through my own cognitive dissonance, trauma, and grief from learning about my loss, I have been able to self-monitor and look at myself through the lens of someone that has received such education about human behavior.  I believe this has helped me stay sane and objective.

Married someone else who attended a Christian school

As I noted earlier, Jennifer attended a Christian school. She has also developed into a career that involves mental health and is working at a non-denominational church.

While I can get into the weeds with someone that considers themselves religious, I find myself very dismissive of the religious beliefs that drive people to harm others.

Became a father of sons

Being a father of two boys, who I changed diapers on and have had several candid discussions about this topic, I consider this my greatest value as an advocate.  I often jump into conversations between people where there is no one like me and let them know that I am a cut dad of two intact sons and those who think they know something suddenly stop interacting or quickly change their tune.  They have to be careful what they say around me because they will find themselves insulting me or insulting my sons if they are not.  Thus, I think it pushes people to stay more objective about the topic.

Dealt with cognitive dissonance and Stockholm Syndrome too

I watch so many people come up with the same arguments I did.  The main difference is that I'm an introvert and did not voice the arguments out loud; I simply asked people questions and did research to verify whether my arguments were good ones or based on lies.  And, it's not just one layer of cognitive dissonance that has to be dealt with, particularly when one holds strong religious beliefs.  It's particularly difficult to consider that the arguments are based on lies because it means that one has to acknowledge that those who you love and were supposed to love you are the ones that had it done to you (thus, Stockholm Syndrome).  Not everyone has the same number of layers of cognitive dissonance, thus, some move through it faster than others.  Those who went through the cognitive dissonance themselves seem more patient with those who are going through it now.

Vasectomy

Yes, I got the vasectomy after our youngest son was born.  *I* CHOSE IT!  The person that performed it made absolutely sure that I was not being coerced.  I just wish medical professionals were as careful when asking mothers of newborns (or not ask at all!)!

Vasectomy is brought up sometimes as a comparison.  I still have not seen a good reason for it to be brought up.  However, since I did get one, it puts me into a great position to address it along with all of these other things.

Technologist

My work as an IT guy has affected my ability to network and disburse information.  I could create a huge list here of all the things I have done on the internet, but I don't see the point.  Anyone that follows me closely knows.

Work in big pharma

Many consider intactivists anti-science and compare us to anti-vaxxers.  I worked in a pharmaceutical company for over 5 years.  For much of that time, I drove and rode a vanpool van with many PhD scientists.  Conversations often occurred discussing what made for "good science."

I don't want to get in trouble for talking bad about the company I used to work for, but, capitalism clearly drives people to do selfish things.  People sometimes bring up that the USA does more study and research to develop medical treatments.  When you consider that most other countries operate social healthcare programs, that makes complete sense.  When there is potential for great gains, investors WILL invest.  Bill Gates has made huge investments into biotech and is the largest contributor to the WHO second only to the USA government.  It's hard to trust anything when there are conflicts of interest like that.  I think that the COVID pandemic has highlighted how little trust people have for these entities and the governments due to financial interests.  And I have NO doubt that financial interests (as well as others) have negatively affected the information that is provided to the general public about "circumcision."

Summary

I have been wondering why I have become such an influence in the movement for genital autonomy.  Now that I have written it out, I see that there are many reasons.  It's as if I have been preparing for this my entire life (or divine intervention has been preparing me).

Are Lawsuits A Good Use of Resources to End Genital Cutting Rituals?

Georganne Chapin of Intact America recently wrote this:

https://intactamerica.org/dyk_why-lawsuits-wont-end-mgc/

If you read my blog posts, you may have read this one:

https://johnadkison.blogspot.com/2020/04/suit-against-usa-federal-government.html

as well as the preceding one related to it:

https://johnadkison.blogspot.com/2019/06/filed-suit-against-usa.html

Yes, I failed to get a settlement.  However, was it a complete waste of time and resources?  Not in my opinion.  In this case, I only spent a little more than $400 to file it.  The primary reason the case was dismissed is that the FTCA states that we cannot sue the federal government for things like assault.  I was not aware of that, were you?  You see, education alone is valuable and I passed it on to you for free!  But, that's not all! (are you sensing my sales voice?  😆)  Several individuals ALSO got educated about the fact that there are #mendocomplain!  At the very least, a judge, an attorney, and the individuals who handled the tort claim at the US Navy now know.  Also, fellow #mendocomplain, like David Wilson, who was also cut in the military as an infant now know that they will have to take a different approach if they wanted to take some sort of legal action.  If I would have known about the FTCA issue, I may have chosen to put down the US Navy instead of the Federal government.  If I knew who the individual was that did the cutting, I may have chosen to include that individual.  I may have been able to change the complaint.  However, I took on this legal action without legal representation.  Even if David Llewellyn (thecircumcisionlawyer.com) would have decided to represent me without financial support, I don't think he has any experience suing entities like the Federal government or a military entity either.

Thus, just like the attempts in San Francisco, Denmark, and Iceland to ban the practice (specifically MALE genital cutting rituals), I DO see efforts like mine as a step forward.  Even the Cologne (Germany) ruling that led to the creation of WWDOGA was a step forward (2 steps forward, 1 step back).  The determination by a federal judge in Michigan that the Federal anti-FGM law was unconstitutional has been useful in determining future steps (aim for the states, not the localities or the federal government).  Numerous numbers of people have been confronted with the fact that this is a serious issue and have been learning about the many reasons that genital autonomy is important.

There are more and more individuals wanting to take legal action.  Many of those individuals have joined the ranks of GALDEF (Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund).  Eric Anderson attempted to get an injunction in Florida to stop it (https://circumcisionisahatecrime.com/blog/).  Ron Goldman, Ph.D. has been leading the charge to end state funding of the rituals.  The Lavine family has been taking action (circumcisionisafraud.com) with much support from Peter Adler who wrote the book "Circumcision Is A Fraud: And The Coming Legal Reckoning."  David Llewellyn has been successful with many actions.  Has any of this ended the practice yet?  No, not yet.  Are they having an effect?  I certainly believe so.

Georganne's blog highlights the fact that very few lawyers are willing to take on cases.  I, however, believe that most of those are not willing because they don't have the knowledge to have the bravery and confidence that David Llewellyn has.  And, this is why I am co-founding GALDEF.  One of the desires of GALDEF is to educate legal counsel.

GALDEF has been ironing out many details to be founded as a well-organized and professional organization.  Please consider donating or notifying us that you will make a donation once specific goals are met.  Currently a Facebook page exists HERE.  A website is in the works.  I am the treasurer, so contact me for donation current donation information.

DISCLAIMER: Everything here is my thoughts and opinions, only my personal thoughts and opinions, and does not represent GALDEF.

American Circumcision Documentary

If you have not watched the documentary, please read no further and go watch it.  I have a very high regard for Brendon Marotta for spending over 5 years of his life collecting and assembling this excellent documentary and I believe he deserves compensation for that work.  I hope that, if he earns more than he needs, he will consider donating some to the organizations that were involved in the documentary.  Those organizations include Doctors Opposing Circumcision (John Geisheker), Intact America (Georganne Chapin), Genital Autonomy America (Marilyn Milos) and....

I decided to write this because I've been thinking lately that many people are probably watching this without the background knowledge I already had and are missing much of it.  This is one of those shows that has so much in it that you can watch it many times and continue to pick up more understanding.

The documentary starts out with an infant being strolled down a hallway and being strapped to an circumstraint.  Makes sense considering that you don't want the child flailing about while someone is about to cut off a part of their body and you don't want an accident to occur.  I think, however, that the intent is to make it clear that this child is not willingly going through with the procedure.

Before you see the procedure move forward, Brendon introduces the documentary.  He starts out saying that "Circumcision is the most common surgery in America."  I have multiple issues with this statement...

First of all, I know that "circumcision" is the term people think of, but, it's far from an accurate term.  "Neonatal preputial amputation" is the technical term.  Sometimes I refer to it as a "prepucectomy." The original term "circumcision" may be more appropriate for the original procedure performed during the Bible's old testament (or Torah's) times where they only cut of the part that is only forward of the penis.  The procedure typically practiced now involves the entire prepuce.  This is discussed more as we get deeper into the documentary.

Second of all, I don't know how this can be considered a "surgery."  Are surgeries not requisite of a medical diagnosis?!  OK, maybe one can all it a "cosmetic surgery."  In fact, that's what many of the states in the U.S.A. call it and why it is not a covered procedure under the state's healthcare insurance.  What other cosmetic surgery is allowed on a child where the parent consents to it?  Not sure if you can consider ear piercings cosmetic surgery, but that is the closest I can think of.  Personally, based on the simplicity of the procedure, I don't think of the procedure as more than what a butcher does for the meat that you may eat (if you're not a vegetarian).

He notes that it affects "the majority of American men in the most intimate way possible."  Marilyn Milos will identify why it's not just the men.

I also take issue with the term "American."  Are those in South America, Mexico or Canada "American?"  The majority of those Americans have not had their prepuce removed.

Georganne Chapin then discusses how people "might not ever want to talk about it..."   Well, I can't imagine why?  I mean, it's an extremely difficult thing to face up to.  We are talking about babies, we are talking about genitalia and we are talking about cutting part of it off.  Anyone that does want to talk about it may be thought of as pedophiles and not many people are OK with being thought of in that way.

And "it's not an important issue."  Why is it that female genitalia (FGM/female circumcision) an important issue and male genitalia (MGM/male circumcision) is not?  I believe it's due to the fact that females are usually put through a procedure (and there are many types) when they are old enough to remember and a larger percentage complain.  Maybe it would be thought of as an important issue if more men were complaining, but why is it that they aren't?  To understand better, check out my older article: Why more circumcised men aren't complaining.

Jonathan Friedman then defines "intactivism."  He frequently protests with www.bloodstainedmen.org and has been seen with Intaction.org.

Then, Norm Cohen expands on that.  Norm is the manager of NOCIRC of Michigan.

Andrew Freedman from the 2012 AAP task force on circumcision chimes in and validates that he understands the feelings of the intactivists.  He sums it up quite well.  More to come about him....

Georganne notes how "it might not have been the right thing" is "a mortifying feeling" for a parent. Think that may be why some get defensive?  Definitely not something one may want to face.

A demonstrator and a pedestrian that is unaware of the details of the procedure are talking.  The pedestrian thinks it's just an incision and the intactivist explains that "the five most sensitive parts" are removed.  As I understand it, it's 4 to 5, depending on the exact procedure.  One of the things I'm disappointed with is that those parts aren't covered.  I really think that if more men understood those parts, more would be upset.  To find out details, check out www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and look at the anatomy section.

Another pedestrian exclaims that "it's hygienic."  I never understood this thinking.  I guess, since it has to do with the part that you urinate from, it must need more attention to hygiene and it must be difficult to keep clean.  Believe me when I say, you're going to have much more trouble getting your children to keep their teeth brushed properly than making sure that area is kept clean.  Seriously, that is the person's favorite toy!  Cleaning it is FUN!  Feels GREAT!!!

The same pedestrian argues how females have "sensitive nerve endings."  It's really a shame how many people think of the "foreskin" as just "extra skin" or a "flap of skin" that doesn't have any value.  This pedestrian is a perfect example of a regular reaction I have seen more times than I can count on the topic.

Georganne points out that "it's a potentially awful thing to think about."  Yep, it is!  I would not say "potentially."  When my first son was born, I started coming face-to-face with it myself.  When I look back on the dozen years between that time and my first blog article in January 2018 about the topic, I believe that I went through multiple rounds of grief over it.  The reason it was multiple rounds is because I would realize how it affected me in one way, then, later, another way, and another.  Grief can take time.  While I was in the denial stage of grief, I hunted and hunted for a good reason to justify what was done.

Georganne also points out how men will say "I don't remember."  Funny, I'm reminded every single day when I notice I don't have my prepuce protecting my glans, keeping it moist and providing lubrication for sexual activity.  Also, since it is not there to provide for the natural/normal elongation (like a telescope) during an erection, my scrotum is drawn up instead.  This causes for half my shaft to be hairy (scrotum skin) and for the scrotum to occasionally pull my balls up into my body, which mildly feels like getting kicked in the balls.  Sorry if this is graphic, but the whole topic is graphic.  If it's ever going to be put to an end, us adults need to face the graphic.

An intactivist describes how "it has ruined their life" and it "fundamentally changes you forever."  Personally, I often wish I was still blissfully ignorant on the topic.  However, if I wasn't, I wouldn't be speaking out for the next generation now.  Learning about the topic certainly has changed me.  The fact that I have a good idea of what I'm missing now, I imagine it's like losing other body parts half way through one's life.  Whether you become OK with being an amputee or not, you will always miss that body part.

John Geisheker (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) speaks about how he went "through an obsessive epiphany."  If you have a thirst of knowledge, this is one book that is hard to put down.  It's like reading the most thrilling horror ever.  I got to meet John at the screening of the film at the Social Justice Film Festival in Seattle.

He goes on about all the perspectives.  It's not just religious and medical, but, anthropological, sociological, legal and bioethical.  To me, this is a simple issue: unless there's an immediate medical need, you don't amputate a body part.  Even if someone wanted a body part removed just because they don't like it, an ethical doctor would send you a psychologist.  But, since there are all these other things, it's made complex.  Honestly, if it was never invented as a way to deal with slaves or as a religious covenant, I think it would be completely laughed at if someone suggested it even for the medical benefits that are purported today.

Dean Edell, MD, a physician and radio talk show host, points out how Marilyn Milos was a nurse at the time his fourth child was born.  Leonard Glick and Mark Reiss also note Marilyn Milos' intactivism.  Marilyn started NOCIRC, which was later renamed to Genital Autonomy America.  This is related to the Genital Autonomy organization based in Europe as Marilyn gave permission to use the logo with the circle covering the crotch.  Please note how these organizations are not limited to male genitalia.  I did create a website by the name of Genital Autonomy Society as a space for individuals and organizations to register as members and volunteers in the movement.

Note how Marilyn's last rotation as a nurse was in 1979.  This year, that marks 4 decades that she has been speaking out!

Marilyn speaks about her experience taking care of babies that went through the process.  While things may have changed since then, the improvements in technology still does not resolve the issue that the procedure removes a valuable body part.  There are many medical professionals, of recent, that are also intactivists.  A notable intactivist nurse is Jessica Rigdon.  There are groups on Facebook of medical professionals that support genital autonomy.  There are medical professionals registered at Your Whole Baby.

Marilyn quotes a doctor stating that "there is no medical reason..."  Please pay attention to the difference between medical benefits and medical need.  The regular go to is that there are medical benefits.  There are medical benefits to removing many body parts, but no others are suggested at infancy.  And, no, you can't claim that the umbilical cord is cut off because it falls off on its own if it is not cut off beforehand.

Marilyn goes on speaking about how she was relieved of duty because some parents were upset by the information.  I hope that the opposite will become the larger concern as more parents become upset by the LACK of information.  If you're a regret parent, I sincerely hope that you will take time to complain to the hospital or clinic that you were not provided sufficient information before providing consent.  You may even go as far as complaining to your government representatives that the "informed" in informed consent is completely lacking.

As early as 1982, there was a lawsuit in the U.S.A. to protect a child from the procedure.  Did you hear any reference to an actual law?  I didn't.  This must be what set the "parent's choice" precedence.

1989 - AAP circumcision statement with Edgar Schoen, MD chairing the committee: "reason they formed the task force was because the American Academy of Pediatrics actually put its foot in its mouth in 1971."  "Somebody wrote a single sentence..." "saying that there are no valid medical indications for newborn circumcision."  Make sure you're clear as to what "indications" means.  Unless an infant is born with a defect, an injury or disease, there is no "indication" that makes the amputation of the prepuce necessary.

John Geisheker notes how the 1971 statement captured the attention of those that had been performing the procedure.  Note that at that time, an extremely high percentage (somewhere around 90% from what I've seen) of newborn boys were getting their prepuce amputated.

Edgar Schoen states that the "anit-circs" go back to the 1971 statement.  The new statements only address what preputial amputation benefits exist and those benefits are about pre-emption against potential diseases and the benefits of satisfying religious and cultural practices.  Thus, the 1971 statement has not been deemed incorrect, just not included in the other statements.

John Geisheker points out that the AAP has a vested interest in not angering the 70 million men that are circumcised (prepuce amputees).  Hmmm, I wonder who would get sued if and where all the money would come from?  Is it the doctors that are completely culpable here?  Or, is it the colleges that failed to teach them properly?  Or, the makers of the text books?  If the doctors get sued, their insurance companies would be doling out a ton of money.  I wonder if they're doing anything to prevent that?  Conspiracy theory?

Edgar Schoen: "...function of the committee was to show that there are indications."  Does he understand the definition of "indications?"

Edgar Schoen: "Evidence has been accumulating in favor..."  In favor of the fact that removing a body removes the chances that the body part will ever become diseased.  Keep in mind that you can do a study on any body part and find that removing the body part will remove chances of disease.

Edgar Schoen:  "There's one guy who keeps sending me new papers."  Note how the video switches over to a presentation by Brian Morris.  I believe the idea is to show you that the papers were coming from Brian.  Also note that Brian is a professor at the University of Sydney.  Keep an eye out for studies that come from that University.   It's also quite interesting the stance on the topic by the healthcare in Australia (Sydney is in Australia in case you didn't catch that).

Brian Morris:  "...I'm passionate about science and evidence-based medicine."  "...individuals in society that are anti-science."  I spent 5 years working for a pharmaceutical organization and spent much time around scientists.  There's one thing that was commonly discussed: good science vs. bad science.  The intactivists aren't anti-science, they just consider Brian's kind of science bad science.

Brian Morris:  "...retaining the foreskin..."  Note the complete lack of consideration for the anatomy and function of the prepuce (foreskin makes it sound like it is just skin).  I often use this sentence when discussing this topic:  "The only person that should be promoting circumcision is a doctor trained in these things that both enjoyed sex before their foreskin was removed and after - I bet you can't find one!"  I'm pretty sure Brian does not fit the description.

Brian Morris:  "...those who oppose circumcision are causing needless deaths..."  Those supporting/promoting genital mutilation is causing needless genital mutilation, needless preputial amputation, needless reduction of sexual enjoyment and needless discomforts of people's genitalia.  He goes on to refer to deaths from HIV/AIDS, but people who had their prepuce removed as infants have died from HIV/AIDS.

Brian Morris:  "Deaths from penile cancer."  Males have a higher chance of dying from breast cancer (yes, men get that too).  More to come on this....

Brian Morris:  "...deaths from cervical cancer."  In case you are unaware, cervical=cervix, which is the female anatomy.  I understand this is due to HPV transmission, which has a vaccine.

Brian Morris:  "All preventable from circumcision."  You can still get these things! Thus, not preventing them, are they?

Andrew Freedman: "call that cultural, religious, aesthetic, family tradition, personal experiences..." Is the AAP in the business of making medical recommendations on the basis of these items? "...non-medical consideration are a valid part of their making this decision." What other non-medical considerations can we use to justify removing body parts? How about the same sorts of considerations to justify scarification, foot binding or putting rings around girls necks to stretch them out?

Leonard Glick, MD, PhD, is a cultural anthropologist with a medical degree and author of Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. "...may have evolved as a substitute for child sacrifice." There is much evidence that the practice started before Abraham in the Bible or Torah.

Leonard Glick: "...a fairly simple removal of the front part of the foreskin and no more. It was only later that that practice evolved further, first because Jewish men during the Hellenistic period wanted to perform an athletic contest naked, and they didn't want to seem to be circumcised, so they pulled the remaining foreskin back -- what's now called restoration -- they pulled the remaining foreskin back and clipped it, actually, in front so as to have a normal-looking penis again." "...the Rabbis then instituted a second phase..." "identical to what is done in the United States." So, it used to be just the part "fore," in the word "foreskin," the penis. Later, the part that is attached to the glans during much of childhood (I consider it the prepuce as indicated in medical texts), started getting separated from the glans (the head of the penis) and cut away below the Coronal Ridge. Why? How? Keep watching.

Leonard and Marilyn go into the New Testament. While it may be important to some religious people, it's very simple to me. Everyone deserves the right to choose their own religious beliefs and taking away a body part that does not grow back because they were born into a family that chooses a particular religion for themselves is giving that person a life sentence. That does not meet the religious freedom rights promised to us in the Constitution of the USA as well as laws in many other nations.

Leonard: "Circumcision is an American procedure." Again, why? How? "...late 19th century..." I find it fascinating how some things just stick around no matter how old those ideas are. There are many other old medical ideas that have been done away with: bloodletting and lobotomies, for example. How is it that this procedure has hung on so long?

John Geisheker: "In the 1960s, it began to disappear as an idea." (referring to curbing masturbation as a reason for the procedure) So, again, why didn't the routine stop there?

Edgar Schoen: "...benefit to risk ratio ... is 14:1" If you do some digging, you'll find that the risks are unknown. And, I always find it interesting that they don't say "benefit to harm." They pretend that there is no cost in doing the procedure. One thing I wish was better covered in this documentary is the harm.

Edgar Schoen: "10x the risk you're gonna get a urinary tract infection as a baby." Let's keep this in perspective. Even if this is true, females still get far more UTIs and as Marilyn pointed out, anti-biotics are used.

Edgar Schoen: "...lower risk of HIV..." "less human papillomavirus." Are babies at risk of these things? Not likely, and if they are, probably a higher chance of getting it through a blood transfusion or dirty needle. Do we know the sexual habits of this person when they are an infant? Is HIV the death sentence it used to be? Isn't there a vaccine for HPV? Maybe better solutions will be available for HIV before the child is old enough to have sex?

Edgar Schoen: "...some of them life threatening." There are parts of the body that are more likely to kill your child than their penis: appendicitis and breast cancer, for example. Why aren't we removing those body parts? The appendix supposedly has less value/function than the prepuce of the penis.

Mark Reiss, MD, Doctors Opposing Circumcision: "These claims are irresponsible, and it's a scare tactic." I don't know about you, but when doctors do not agree on the value of a procedure that involves removing a functional body part, I have to question the validity of that procedure. This IS an MD. Maybe your MD recommends it, but, if you were being suggested by your doctor to have a part of you removed, would you get at least a second opinion? Would you consider that more doctors oppose the suggestion than those that support it?

Dean Edell, MD: "I don't think there's a lot of evidence for benefits, and even if there were some benefits, this is a radical-- a radical solution." Once again, this is from an MD! Be sure to pay attention to the words "benefits" and "need." All the benefits refer to things that MIGHT happen. There are benefits to having all the fingernails removed to avoid potential infections. It would definitely be much cleaner (better hygiene). Fingernails don't even have sensitive nerve endings. The child won't remember it if we get them removed early. We can use anesthesia so they don't feel pain. Oh, but they have function? Have we not discussed the functions of the prepuce?

Leonard: "Medical justification for this is a very interesting subject .... that it's the disease that is most of interest at the moment ..." I would think that this would make people skeptical of the claims that are made. Why would scientists and doctors continue fabricating reasons to support this as a medical practice? Is it, potentially, the desire to be able to say "hey, I found a cure" so they can further their own career?

Marilyn: "...penile cancer is a rare disease of elderly men." Knowing what I know now about how the natural/normal/intact/whole penis works, I would rather take my chances that I'll catch this cancer as an elderly man and enjoy the best years of my sexual life with my entire package vs. not. I know some women get their breasts removed when they are considered high-risk for breast cancer, but, that's normally after they're done using them for bearing children. Males even have a higher chance of breast cancer than penile cancer.

Marilyn: Discussing the purported benefits for STDs - "... high rate of all of them in America, as you know, where most men are circumcised, so that's ridiculous." I am without my prepuce (aka circumcised), I got an STD and it was easily treatable. I guess it didn't protect me, now did it? I wonder what percentage of men that contracted HIV/AIDS didn't have a prepuce before contracting it. Even if the chances of getting a deadly STD was 1 in 10, I still think I would rather take my chances. According to the CDC "Deaths per 100,000 population: 1.9" of HIV in 2016. Do you think those are high enough odds to warrant having a functional body part amputated? From things I've read, HIV/AIDS is on the decline due to antiretroviral therapy.

Leonard: "But as soon as one claim disappears, the next one appears." Since there's a vaccine for HPV and antiretroviral therapy seems to work for HIV/AIDs, I wonder what excuse is going to pop up now.

Leonard and Marilyn discuss the UTIs excuse and how we don't cut off parts of girls to avoid them. Well, I have heard this reason by the cultures that do perform female genital mutilation.

The documentary points out the three randomized controlled trials that were conducted in Africa to see if circumcision could reduce HIV transmission. Maria Wawer, MD MHSc, Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Ronald Gray, MD MSc, Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Discuss these randomized trials where they identified men that are not infected with HIV and how circumcision gained a 60% lower infection rate. The documentary uses multiple voices to connect how a large amount of money influenced these studies; particularly with the involvement of Bill Gates (Microsoft co-founder and multi-billionaire). Hillary Clinton touts how "PEPFAR will provide $40 million." I think that's plenty of money to convince people to go cut off parts of men's dicks.

These African studies are publicly available. I looked at one of them. I'm shocked that anyone can consider them good science. People in the documentary go into some of the flaws. I am particularly dubious considering the fact that these men thought that they would be protected from HIV/AIDS since they were circumcised and didn't need condoms any longer. Even if that wasn't the case, since they weren't getting as much feeling from sex, there's even less desire to use condoms considering the fact that they reduce sexual pleasure as well. Go check them yourself, if you need. Also, consider the environment in Africa compared to the environment in the USA. Even if you found the methodologies of the studies to have merit, the ability to keep oneself cared for in the USA is much better than Africa.

Ryan McAllister, PHD: "99% of the people who get the measles vaccine and its boosters become permanently immune to measles." In the many discussions I've been involved in, I'm constantly surprised by how many people put the procedure on par with vaccines. The effectiveness (if you even believe that there is any) is no where close. Ryan is the man that speaks in the video "Elephant in the Hospital" easily found on YouTube.

Jonathan Friedman, Intactivist: "Researchers attempted to dispel this claim and did a study showing that 'No, actually the men who were circumcised are -more likely to use condoms." Ronald Gray, MD MSc: "-If anything, what we're finding is that the men who choose not to come for circumcision have a higher risk profile. They tend to be the cowboys who don't take care of themselves and then try to mitigate risk." Jonathan: "Well, if the men who were circumcised are more likely to use condoms -- go back to those original three studies -- isn't that what's preventing the HIV?" You see, no matter which side of this discussion you attempt to argue for, using correlation to determine whether circumcision is effective or not is highly problematic. Correlation does not identify causation. The theory is that the fact that there is more space for the virus to grow increases the likelihood of it being transmitted. Wouldn't that make the vagina the largest space for the virus to grow? What about the mouth for oral sex?

John Geisheker is going through flaws of the studies. Note how the documentary jumps from flaw numbers all the way up to flaw number 13 as there's not enough time in the show to include all of them; it's just to give you an idea. Remember that John is with Doctor's Opposing Circumcision and you can check out the website if you want to go further down the rabbit hole.

J. Steven Svoboda, MS JD: Echoes that the USA has "the highest rates of HIV among any industrialized country" while also having the highest percentage of males without their prepuce (aka circumcised). Mr. Svoboda is part of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.

John Geisheker discusses how they have gone from "voluntary circumcision for men to semi-voluntary circumcision for young men to involuntary circumcision for infants..." I hope that gets you thinking. Isn't it easier to keep people from complaining about something that they're not even going to remember compared to something where the people have an idea of what they are missing afterward?

J. Steven Svoboda: "... a study that found ... that female genital cutting might possibly help in the fight against HIV." Why wouldn't that be true? If the basis is that there's a breeding ground for the virus to grow under the prepuce, there's easily a basis that there's plenty of breeding ground in the flaps and under the clitoral hood too! Why would this be a surprise to anyone that understands a vagina?

John Geisheker references other studies that found the reduction in HIV/AIDS to be much lower. Georganne Chapin shows little regard for the HIV claims. At this point, I hope you, like me, are well past the whole STD reduction reasoning at this point.

Glen Callender, Founder of the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project, goes into how people look at benefits and risks (which the AAP refers to in its 2012 statement) but fail to factor in the harm/damage/loss, or, in his words "the lifetime of pleasure" lost. He's also pictured providing a speech on the benefits. I have heard from some that they don't believe this guy. Fine, don't believe him, go ask other men that have their whole penis still intact - however, I would recommend you check with men that grew up in areas where intact males are the norm as I believe too many intact males in the USA were damaged due to the idea that their prepuce must be forcefully retracted to clean underneath it during childhood.

Glen Callender: In his speech, he refers to a couple parts of the prepuce: the frenulum and the ridged band. This is only a sample of the 5 parts. I hope this gives you the curiosity to understand the anatomy better. Again, I linked earlier to the Doctors Opposing Circumcision site to dig deeper.

Brian Morris: "A claim like that is just in the imagination" - I assume this is referring to Glen's statements about the benefits of the prepuce. I wonder how he knows? The only person that should be promoting "circumcision" is a doctor trained in these things that both enjoyed sex before their foreskin was removed and after - I bet you can't find one! "...it's not supported by any form of evidence." We're going to get into the evidence next, but, seriously, how many men with their natural penis do you need to agree with Glen to be considered "evidence?"

Mark Reiss, John Geisheker and Marilyn Milos get into a study that was done to identify the sensitivity of various parts of the penis. Surprise, surprise, there's sensitivity! It's live tissue! It has nerve endings!

Edgar Schoen refers to another study about sensitivity, but, John Geisheker identifies that they only tested "the glans, the little fireman's hat..." Marilyn echoes John. How much more do you need to be convinced that the prepuce (aka foreskin) is an erogenous zone? In John Geisheker's words "main erogenous zone..." Dean Edell backs this up. OK, so, we're up to 3 doctors, an RN and a man with an intact penis against Edgar and Brian (probably both without their prepuce since infancy).

Brian Morris attempts to shut down the idea that the touch receptors (Meissner's Corpuscles) have "anything to do with sexual sensation. They just touch." I don't have my prepuce, in fact, I believe I got more removed than the average male, but I completely do not believe this guy. This totally destroys any credibility I have for this guy. Does he even understand the word "sensual?" A word that is regularly used when it comes to physical intimacy? It is ALL about touch! This guy strikes me like a man that says sex is only for pro-creation and not for enjoyment at all. I have to believe that someone like that probably does not enjoy sex at all. That actually makes me feel sad for them.

Jonathon Cone, Bay Area Intactivists: "...it's not just about sensation. The foreskin allows the penis to glide in and out of itself in a way that minimizes friction, so it decreases drying during intercourse, and it decreases friction for both the man and his partner." Wait, what? You mean there's more?! Jonathon, Marilyn and Glen continue explaining the big impact of this aspect. You'll have to see the show or find other sources to understand this better - remember: you weren't supposed to read this before watching the show!

I love this part because Edgar Schoen and Brian Morris is not even in agreement on this... The documentary brings female genital cutting (FGC/M) into the mix.

Yes, the word "circumcision" is also used in this. And, can you guess where that word came from when referring to it? Abrahamic religion. From what I've read, it's only certain Islamic tribes/sects that perform it.

Pay attention to how Edgar doesn't see it as a "public health measure" while Brian appears to support it as such. Pay attention to how the AAP even supported it for a short period.

Soraya Mire, FGM survivor and activist, sides against while Fuambai Sia Ahmadu, PhD Anthropologist argues that women should be free to choose it even after sharing how she remembers the pain. Aubrey Terron, intactivist, and Georganne discusses the relationship between genital cutting of males vs. females. Brian Morris discusses how it's (FGC/M) is "minor ... it's not gonna have any long-term...harmful effects." I don't think Brian even understands the various kinds of FGC/M that occurs. If the AAP was a political figure, they'd be called a flip-flopper. Brian Earp has done some speeches more recently about this; here's one: https://youtu.be/_D1LPT_P7_o

Ronald Goldman, PHD, Psychologist, Director of the Circumcision Resource Center and Marilyn go into how it's been proven that infants DO feel pain. Edgar Schoen acknowledges this, but, still justifies it as "they get over it very quickly..." and then he says "...the procedure is painless." I've watched this documentary dozens of times and while writing this, I actually just now caught the inconsistency! I guess he's saying that yes, babies feel pain, but, they cry for all sorts of things and still claims that the procedure is painless. Personally, I don't care if there's pain or not; sometimes we have to go through pain to end up with something better afterward. It's the fact that I do not get to experience what nature intended for me!

Edgar Schoen brings up "the baby sleeps through the procedure" piece I often hear. I wish there was a test that could identify when someone goes into shock. I've watched many television shows where doctors say "they're going into shock." I full believe that's what happens. A fellow intactivist has a mother who performs the procedure. She explained in one of her YouTube videos how she watched as a baby boy went through the procedure. The baby was asleep at the beginning, woke up during the procedure and then fell back to sleep. Sounds like a horror movie to me!

Ronald Goldman speaks about how men (MGM victims) avoid information on the topic. He said that he asked "Please estimate the size in square inches of an adult foreskin." He got a range of responses from one-half square inch to up to maybe about six or eight square inches. He goes on explaining why there was such a spread, but, really, do you need it explained? Ronald Goldman is the author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma It's sitting in the background alone on his bookshelf, in case you didn't catch that.

Multiple men explain why men are afraid to talk about it. Again, I wrote an article previously about it: Why more circumcised men aren't complaining

The documentary jumps into restoration. I'm not going to get into this section other than the fact that, as William Stowell puts it: "...doesn't actually have any of the sensory and neurological benefits that a real foreskin would have."

Brian Morris says that foreskin is not important for sex and that "men that got circumcised as adults can tell the story best..." Then, Nickolas Kusturis goes on to explain, as one that was circumcised at age 18, that he is NOT happy about his. I have spoken to multiple other men that got cut later in life as well and, also, are NOT happy. There have been some men that I have come across that are good with the results. I think this continues to support the idea that it should be left up to the individual and that doctors should provide plenty of information before accepting the request.

The film continues on into botches, side effects, yada yada yada. Edgar Schoen presents some numbers, but John Geisheker also points out that there's no standard for reporting. IMHO, 100% of neonatal preputial amputations are botched from the get go because they are not medically needed. There are tons of horrible and sad stories, you don't have to look very far to find them. Let's just not do it any longer; isn't that a good solution?

They show the procedure. It's censored/blurred out on Netflix, but you can see the non-censored version on other options. The doctor performing the procedure points out that another doctor told him that "...you don't really need to do anesthesia because they just go into shock..."; but, don't have the nurses tell the parents that. Tell the parents that he just slept through it. That might make the parents feel better about doing it, but, is that the job of the medical professional? Are they supposed to tell the truth or attempt to control the parent's feelings?

Doctor: "That's where he felt me teasing it off the glans." If you haven't learned at this point, here it is: The prepuce (aka foreskin) is adhered to the glans (the head) during the child's early years. The medical professionals give parents directions to put Vaseline on the glans every time they change the diaper. Why? To keep any tissue that is left from attempting to re-adhere; which is the bodies attempt at healing itself. I think about a newborn kitten's eyes when they aren't open yet. You're not supposed to force the kitten's eyes open before they are fully developed and ready to open. I believe this is the same for the human penis. It might not be until the child reaches puberty. This gets to another issue: Phimosis. Phimosis, for a natural penis, cannot be diagnosed on a prepubescent because it's supposed to be attached. If you have Phimosis as an adult, that may be a different issue and resolving it may or may not require the partial removal of the prepuce. If you look at many of the textbooks that are used in colleges, there's very little (if any) about the detail of the prepuce. I've heard of some that even ASSUME that every penis the healthcare professional will encounter will be prepuceless (aka circumcised)! Is it any wonder they forcefully retract it?

The next thing is the 2012 AAP statement. You can look at the old statements too and look at how they changed over time. The thing that bugs me the most, and clearly bugs Eric Clopper (see his video "Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story"), is the fact that they bring up religion and culture. Andrew Freedman clearly supports this part of the policy. Is the AAP supposed to be a medical organization? One that sticks to science and not social issues? Again, "benefits outweigh the risks..." What about the harm? The only benefit that applies while the individual is a child would be UTIs, which, again, can be treated with anti-biotics. The other benefits can easily be weighed by the individual when they are of age to look at the benefits, risks and harms themselves. And, who knows, by that time there may be some super medical breakthrough that throws the whole idea out the window anyway. Even Andrew states the AAP is about the science; then, why talk about a tribe? Just because someone is born into your tribe, they don't deserve the right to choose their own body modifications?

Oh, how I wish more young men would jump on this bandwagon: Remember William Stowell? He's shown up in this many times. Guess what! He sued and got a judgement! There's a couple big challenges with doing this successfully. 1. Statute of limitations. You may only have a couple years or so (depending on your state) to take action upon turning 18. You may be able to request a stay for that statute considering that you had only learned what happened to you recently. 2. Your parent probably signed a consent form. In his case, his mom signed it while under the influence of medications. No matter what, I strongly urge men to submit a complaint to the hospital or clinic where it was done and maybe even file a criminal complaint with the local law enforcement. Maybe they'll just laugh at it, but, that doesn't matter. The fact that people will see it means that they will think about it every time they do it again. Maybe they'll start questioning the practice. Hopefully, they'll think "there are more important things that doctors need to be doing."

On to the legislative piece. Lloyd Schofield attempts to pass a law in San Francisco. Well, that didn't make it to the voting booths. Let us look at something else that has happened since the documentary was made: the Federal anti-FGM law was struck down as unconstitutional. Why? Because the judge felt that this sort of law should only be enforced by the states such as assault and rape cases are. Hmmm, "assault and rape..." Could the procedure be considered rape? Battery? Child abuse? Why not? It fits the definitions and there's no laws that give explicit permission for doctors to perform these procedures just because doctors deem it a medical practice. I've certainly not seen laws permitting it due to religious beliefs. But, what prosecutor is going to be gutsy enough to tackle such a case? Many states (just over half) have their own anti-FGM laws. I have been pursuing, along with several of my co-residents, the state legislature to pass a law that protects everyone. Well, you can imagine how that's going

Edgar Schoen: Brendon (the director) asks him what does he say to the men that are unhappy with being cirumcised and Edgar's response is "...get a life!" "There's a 120 million males in this country that have been circumcised and are perfectly fine." Hmmm, I wonder how many of those have intimate knowledge of the natural penis. Brian Morris: "All emotional, not good." Maybe Brian should work with machines. Once again, check out my article: Why more circumcised men aren't complaining