Circumcision Ethics and Economics

I've posted a rebuttal to this article here:

http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2011/09/rebuttal-to-part-4.html

Dear reader, please take a moment and read the entire series of Lillian Dell'Aquila's articles on circumcision. What you will find are logical, rational arguments why not to do this to your baby, why it's just simply wrong. You'll also find the science/evidence to back it up. Lillian clearly cares about the well-being of the child. Nothing more, nothing less. I would ask you to consider the motivations of someone who so badly wants all babies to have this awful procedure.

Jake is a circumfetishist. Yes, they exist. Please know that this isn't the blue team saying terrible things about the red team just because they are on separate sides. Google him. Google circumfetishists. The most vocal proponents of circumcision get off sexually on the idea of a human being having part of his penis surgically removed.

I would also like to add something else. As a father, there is something that I don't get, something that completely baffles me. The nine months of pregnancy are often a time of giddy happiness, hope and excitement. We imagine the life of this child, our future lives and how we will be changed/affected by this child. We whisper to them, we pray for their health, and we wish that time would move faster so that we could hold this baby now, not later. And then, after giving birth, after crying joyful tears and holding this gift from nature, we hand them over to a doctor and ask them to please cut of nearly half of his penis skin. Why this cruel welcome to the world? Please ask yourself, why do we do this? Why, in this moment of joy, do we do something harmful, painful, and irreparable? It simply makes no sense.

None.

Anonymous' response to my rebuttal is interesting. He doesn't explain what's wrong with my reasoning. Nor does he explain what's wrong with the evidence I cite, or offer evidence to the contrary. Instead, he responds with smear tactics.

Usually I prefer not to respond to this kind of thing (which, unfortunately, seems to be a standard anti-circumcision tactic these days), but I'll make an exception because this sort of behaviour really is appalling and one should speak out against it once in a while.

What evidence does Anon offer? Nothing except the suggestion that people might Google my name or "circumfetishists". By all means, do so. What you'll find is other anti-circumcision activists making the same claims about myself and others. In the case of one website, you'll find a source cited in support of the claim, which is superficially impressive until you actually read the evidence cited and find it says nothing of the kind. (Whether this is deliberate deception or mere incompetence is an interesting question.)

The irony of an person who has chosen to remain anonymous inviting people to Google my name is also worth mentioning here. I've always used my own name (or obvious variations on it) on the 'net, which does make me an easy target. But that doesn't justify these ridiculous and unjustifiable allegations. Am I really such a threat, is it so impossible to refute my arguments, that the only option is to try to portray me as some kind of bogeyman?

To libel a person because you disagree with him is among the most unethical ways one can treat another person.

Under Wikipedia's entry for ad-hominem you will find this:

"Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Jake may try to brush aside what we say about him as "ad-hominem," "libel," and/or "smear tactics," but the fact of the matter is, he is trying to convince his readers by claims of authority. Jake would like his readers to believe that he is "objective," "impartial," and... what's favorite word again... Oh yes! "Dispassionate." The facts we have about him, however, reveal that he is not this "dispassionate observer" as he would like his readers to believe. He has a serious conflict of interest that he consistently fails to disclose, and that he consistently denies.

We intactivists expose Jake, and will always continue to expose Jake, and other circumision advocates, because readers need to know exactly who these people are so they can appropriately evaluate the information given.

Jake Waskett is a passionate circumcision advocate whose interest in circumcision, one can observe, stems not from an interest in science, medicine or public health, but from a personal obsession with the circumcised penis. He is on record expressing that he has had this fascination since the age of 5, and he himself went ahead and got himself circumcised to fulfill his childhood fantasy. Jake's presentation of "the facts" is at odds with defending his own fantasy, and defending his own decision to get circumcised. Readers should know that he is not qualified to make any medical value judgement on circumcision, as he is neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist. He holds absolutely no degree in urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology.

"Anonymous' response to my rebuttal is interesting. He doesn't explain what's wrong with my reasoning. Nor does he explain what's wrong with the evidence I cite, or offer evidence to the contrary. Instead, he responds with smear tactics."

Jake's reasoning is heavily tainted by his own obsession with circumcision. The evidence he presents is often outdated, has been refuted by someone else, or he is actually twisting the facts and veiling them with scientific, matter-of-fact sounding jargon. Rather than take Jake's "rebuttals" at face value, readers would be wise to examine the evidence he presents themselves, keeping in mind Jake's convictions lie elsewhere.

"Usually I prefer not to respond to this kind of thing (which, unfortunately, seems to be a standard anti-circumcision tactic these days), but I'll make an exception because this sort of behaviour really is appalling and one should speak out against it once in a while."

(See Wikipedia reference above...)

"What evidence does Anon offer? Nothing except the suggestion that people might Google my name or "circumfetishists". By all means, do so. What you'll find is other anti-circumcision activists making the same claims about myself and others. In the case of one website, you'll find a source cited in support of the claim, which is superficially impressive until you actually read the evidence cited and find it says nothing of the kind. (Whether this is deliberate deception or mere incompetence is an interesting question.)"

Here, Jake is, as usual, encouraging readers to look beyond the evidence which his adversaries have collected on him. Actually, do visit our resources and judge for yourself if they're as "superficially impressive" as Jake suggests. Jake was not merely born in a vacuum; intactivists have been encountering him for quite some time, and we have saved accounts of what he says. It's not so much "incompetence" as much as, we're tired of Jake's deceptive tactics in trying to fool others into thinking he is something he is not. Readers must know what Jake's conflicts of interest are before the information he presents can be evaluated. Jake is known to cite only sources that suit him, and to twist the facts in favor of circumcision, and when one observes who he is, what he does, etc., it is clear why.

http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_waskett

"The irony of an person who has chosen to remain anonymous inviting people to Google my name is also worth mentioning here. I've always used my own name (or obvious variations on it) on the 'net, which does make me an easy target. But that doesn't justify these ridiculous and unjustifiable allegations. Am I really such a threat, is it so impossible to refute my arguments, that the only option is to try to portray me as some kind of bogeyman?"

I'm not sure about others, but people can google my name and "circumcision" or "intactivism" to find out who I am. I have no problem with people looking me up or finding things that I have said in the past. The handle I use for my human rights activism is Joseph4GI, although I also appear as Joseph Lewis, or simply just "Joseph." The fact that Jake has a problem with this speaks volumes. Is finding out Jake's past really such a bother to him he has to admonish others not look it up? Before people try to unravel his twisted arguments and logic, it is important for people to understand why he engages in them. As stated above, "audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source."

I have no problem admitting my own bias and conflicts of interest; I am an intactivist, I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, I myself am an intact male, and I have a bias against surgical intervention where none is needed, or when alternatives that provide the same "benefit" are already available. I have no problem with circumcision otherwise, such as when there is actual medical necessity, or when an adult man chooses it for himself, as in Jake Waskett's case.

When one sees who Jake is, what he does, one will find out that he is not as objective as he would like to paint himself to be.

"To libel a person because you disagree with him is among the most unethical ways one can treat another person."

And what is it to take a healthy person and forcefully cut off part of his penis?

I'm not sure if it works this way in England, where Jake is from, but in America, truth and fact are a defense to "libel."

Before posting openly on the internet for the whole world to see, Jake should have chosen his words more carefully.

Ever noticed how it's OK if someone says something, but then if you turn around and repeat what they said, you're "bashing" them? Remember that nothing is secret on the internet. Anything you type can be shared by others or used against you. Live your life in such a way that there's nothing wrong with people repeating what you say.

Jake's mentor, Brian Morris, could also benefit from this advice.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all."
~Sophocles.

"Jake may try to brush aside what we say about him as "ad-hominem," "libel," and/or "smear tactics," but the fact of the matter is, he is trying to convince his readers by claims of authority." -- actually, no. I base my arguments upon evidence and reason, not authority, and as such any faults in either can (and should) be challenged. If ever I argue by appealing to my own authority ("this is so because I know best"), I would expect others to point out the fallacy.

"Jake Waskett is a passionate circumcision advocate whose interest in circumcision, one can observe, stems not from an interest in science, medicine or public health, but from a personal obsession with the circumcised penis. He is on record expressing that he has had this fascination since the age of 5, and he himself went ahead and got himself circumcised to fulfill his childhood fantasy." -- age 5 is an exaggeration, as is "obsession" and "childhood fantasy" (and "circumcision advocate" isn't accurate either), but yes, I've never made any secret of the fact that I was circumcised by choice as an adult. It's not clear to me why you think I'm uninterested in science, medicine, and public health, though, and I'm struggling to understand why. Could it be that you're failing to distinguish between my interest in my own circumcision and my wider, academic interest in the subject of circumcision itself?

"Readers should know that he is not qualified to make any medical value judgement on circumcision, as he is neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist. He holds absolutely no degree in urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology." -- interesting. And what's your opinion about the author of this article, Joseph? Does Cannon hold any of these degrees? Do you, for that matter?

"Jake's reasoning is heavily tainted by his own obsession with circumcision. The evidence he presents is often outdated, has been refuted by someone else, or he is actually twisting the facts and veiling them with scientific, matter-of-fact sounding jargon." -- strong words, but you haven't provided any examples, so readers won't be able to confirm your claims. How about discussing some specifics?

"Here, Jake is, as usual, encouraging readers to look beyond the evidence which his adversaries have collected on him." -- actually, I'm encouraging readers to examine that evidence and subject it to scrutiny.

"Jake is known to cite only sources that suit him, and to twist the facts in favor of circumcision" -- surely, then, it should be possible to give some specific examples of that? Incidentally, if true, this nicely illustrates the fact that one doesn't need to resort to smear tactics: it is always better to point out the flaws in a person's argument than to point out perceived flaws in a person (even the most awful of people are capable of producing a good argument from time to time, so the latter doesn't imply the former).

"I'm not sure about others, but people can google my name and "circumcision" or "intactivism" to find out who I am. [...] The handle I use for my human rights activism is Joseph4GI, although I also appear as Joseph Lewis, or simply just "Joseph." The fact that Jake has a problem with this speaks volumes." -- I'm mystified by this statement. Where did I indicate that I had a problem with it? Are you the same person as the Anonymous who posted earlier in this thread?

"I have no problem admitting my own bias and conflicts of interest; I am an intactivist, I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, I myself am an intact male, and I have a bias against surgical intervention where none is needed, or when alternatives that provide the same "benefit" are already available." -- that's nice. Out of curiousity - and I hope you don't mind my asking - I believe you recently said elsewhere that when you first started looking up information on circumcision in the late 1990s (if I recall correctly) you intended to undergo adult circumcision yourself. Do you mind expanding on that at all? If you don't wish to, that's perfectly okay; I'm just interested, as I say, about why that was and why you changed your mind. You're an unusually intense anti-circer, and you remind me of the passion with which many former smokers advocate against smoking. Hence my curiosity.

"When one sees who Jake is, what he does, one will find out that he is not as objective as he would like to paint himself to be." -- so why is it so important to you that others should perceive me as something other than objective? Is the fact that I make well-reasoned arguments, based upon evidence, in measured, calm words really such a threat?

"I'm not sure if it works this way in England, where Jake is from, but in America, truth and fact are a defense to "libel." Before posting openly on the internet for the whole world to see, Jake should have chosen his words more carefully." -- so, to address Anon's specific allegations, where did I identify myself as a "circumfetishist"? Where did I say that I "get off sexually on the idea of a human being having part of his penis surgically removed"? I've endured variations of these allegations for years, and despite asking on many, many occasions, I've never seen any evidence. As I pointed out above, the circleaks site claims that I "discuss the erotic stimulation they [I] experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions", while dishonestly citing a source that says nothing of the kind!

Jake: Thank you for continuing to present objective evidence regarding infant circumcision and its medical and sexual effects. -- and for your ability to remain calm in the face of attacks on your character.

Anonymous and Joseph: Thank you for demonstrating that opponents of infant circumcision routinely resort to hysterical claims about the procedure and ad hominem attacks about proponents.

American Association of Pediatrics: "Because circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks. Circumcision may be more risky if done later in life, so parents should decide before or soon after their son is born if they want it done."

"As I pointed out above, the circleaks site claims that I "discuss the erotic stimulation they [I] experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions", while dishonestly citing a source that says nothing of the kind!" -- This is amusing. I just checked your CircLeaks article, and it looks like you are talking about citation number 7, as that's the source given as evidence of your circumfetishism (see reference 8 for a definition of that word).

Reference 7 points to a message you (Jake) sent to circlist (a circumfetish group) that said the following:
"What a pleasure to see Circlist e-mails in my inbox again. ...Circlist will always be *the* pro-circumcision list, at least for me. It must mean something different to everyone, but I will never forget finding Circlist. ...I read -- no devoured -- the site... I will never forget the feeling of not being alone, being among like-minded people. Circlist for me has always been a place to have intelligent, thoughtful discussion about circumcision, and a place to talk to like-minded individuals."

The CircLeaks wiki site gives evidence of Circlist's nature in the first two sentences of that article, and gives citations to backup those claims.

So, what's libel exactly? That's right, it's not libel, it's (at best) character assassination, but that's really stretching it. It would be like reading a well put together WikiPedia entry (with every claim backed up with citations) on a person, and then saying that this is character assassination. Talk about a stretch.

Libel? I don't think so. In American law (where the site is located), facts and evidence protect against libel, and libel isn't taken seriously in court anyhow (free speech). Facts aren't libel. This is quite a desperate attempt to discredit a site, when all claims are backed up with evidence, and the reader can check said claims by scrolling to the bottom of the page.

If something is incorrect, why don't you go to the site and edit it? It looks like Brian Morris went there and vandalized his page, without even discussing anything on the talk page. You (as a WikiPedia editor) should know better than to use tactics like that. Go there and make some edits if you think it's wrong, just be sure to backup your claims with sources, and to explain why something is wrong on the talk page before you attempt to remove something.

BTW, the site doesn't say that you get off on watching children get circumcised. However, it's pretty easy to assume that you do after reading all the things YOU have written, which are posted there.

I was particularly struck-back by this statement of yours (quoted on the site):
"Even if we suppose, for sake of argument, that it is proven that proponents of infant circumcision are motivated by some strange kind of fetish, it’s certainly distasteful, but I don't think it actually violates any laws."

Are you for real? I feel like I was just dropped into a nightmare. Where do you people come from? Why/how could anyone be this sick? Why/how could anyone be so horrible?

"Jake: Thank you for continuing to present objective evidence" -- Jake, objective? That's the funniest thing I've EVER read! Hahaha!

Even the sources Jake provides are from non-objective parties with agendas, which you can verify at circleaks.org by checking the citations. Check some of the authors of his sources at the site, such as Brian Morris (http://tinyurl.com/brianjmorris), Edgar Schoen (http://tinyurl.com/edgarjschoen), or Daniel Halperin (http://tinyurl.com/danielthalperin).

Pathetic, and sad. But also scary.

"This is amusing. I just checked your CircLeaks article, and it looks like you are talking about citation number 7, as that's the source given as evidence of your circumfetishism (see reference 8 for a definition of that word)." -- that's correct. At the time, the sentence read: "Jake Waskett is one of these individuals.[7]" (The current version of the sentence doesn't make much sense; presumably it's in the middle of being edited.)

"Reference 7 points to a message you (Jake) sent to circlist (a circumfetish group)" -- let me stop you there. Circlist wasn't a circumfetish group (at least it wasn't while I was a member). It described itself as a pro-circumcision list, and discussions took place about a variety of circumcision-related subjects, with an emphasis on helping men through the difficult process of adult circumcision.

"that said the following: "What a pleasure to see Circlist e-mails in my inbox again. ...Circlist will always be *the* pro-circumcision list, at least for me. It must mean something different to everyone, but I will never forget finding Circlist. ...I read -- no devoured -- the site... I will never forget the feeling of not being alone, being among like-minded people. Circlist for me has always been a place to have intelligent, thoughtful discussion about circumcision, and a place to talk to like-minded individuals."" -- exactly. Nothing there about erotic stimulation, fiction, or videos.

"The CircLeaks wiki site gives evidence of Circlist's nature in the first two sentences of that article, and gives citations to backup those claims." -- but it doesn't get those right, either. It's difficult to make sense of the first citation, the text of which is "Ben Winkie. (2005, June) International Circumsexual Symposium, Washington, D.C.", but the link leads to a glossary by Hugh Young. My guess is that the authors probably intended to cite Young's definition of "circumfetishist", in which he includes the apparent quote "Circlist has always permitted, and will continue to permit, circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise. Individuals may use CIRCLIST to make contact with one another, including for sexual purposes. The list is not just a medical interest list, but rather all things circumcision, including circ-fetish, sexual info, medical info and a place to meet up with fellow circumcision enthusiasts and proponents." (Young doesn't cite a source for the quotation. I spent some time searching for the source of this quote at archive.org, but couldn't confirm that it was ever present.) But even if we assume that was what was intended, and if we assume that the quote was ever accurate, there's a difference between a discussion group in which fetish material is permitted and a "discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions". It's like saying "the USA is a country populated by people who support the death penalty": some do, but to say that all do is both an oversimplification and a hasty generalisation. The 2nd citation, as far as I can tell, has nothing whatsoever to do with Circlist, so its inclusion is inexplicable. And that's just the first sentence.

"So, what's libel exactly? That's right, it's not libel, it's (at best) character assassination, but that's really stretching it. It would be like reading a well put together WikiPedia entry (with every claim backed up with citations) on a person, and then saying that this is character assassination. Talk about a stretch." -- but it is libel and character assassination, because many of the claims are both false and clearly intended to defame a person.

"If something is incorrect, why don't you go to the site and edit it? It looks like Brian Morris went there and vandalized his page, without even discussing anything on the talk page. You (as a WikiPedia editor) should know better than to use tactics like that. Go there and make some edits if you think it's wrong, just be sure to backup your claims with sources, and to explain why something is wrong on the talk page before you attempt to remove something." -- it's plainly operated as an attack site, so it's reasonable to suppose that any edits making it more accurate would be swiftly undone.

"BTW, the site doesn't say that you get off on watching children get circumcised. However, it's pretty easy to assume that you do after reading all the things YOU have written, which are posted there." -- frankly that seems a very weird assumption to make.

"Are you for real? I feel like I was just dropped into a nightmare. Where do you people come from? Why/how could anyone be this sick? Why/how could anyone be so horrible?" -- I'm afraid I don't understand your response. What's horrible or sick about reasoning about the law?

1. Jake admits it is "tehnically" true that "No national medical association in the world recommends infant male circumcision," but then he changes the subject with a play of words by saying: "but routine infant circumcision means, literally, circumcision of all newborn boys. Consider what would justify such a recommendation: there would have to be an enormous net benefit to warrant taking such a decision out of the hands of parents." Of course this is a red herring. Obviously, "routine" in this instance isn't meant to mean "without parental consent," but "without a specific medical reason." No national medical association recommends circumcising baby males absent such a condition. The British medical association clarified the term "routine" by saying: "routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended." The context was not about parental consent. It was about whether it is medically justified. Specifically, the report said: "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non‐therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. . . . Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."
www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

And the Dutch medical association said: "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."
www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

Obviously, by "routine" they're talking about circumcision without a medical reason.

2. CDC study: Jake refers to a CDC study that looked at the 3 African studies regarding HIV. Jake doesn't mention that the study was based on an *assumption*, that is, the study "assumed 60% efficacy of circumcision in reducing heterosexually-acquired HIV over a lifetime," and the study then stated "More data on the long-term protective effect of circumcision on heterosexual males as well as on its efficacy in preventing HIV among MSM would be useful." It does not *conclude* that circumcision is a cost-saver other than based on that assumption, for which it admits more data is needed. And the assumption is based on the 3 African studies that are contradicted by others. For example:

www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

This recent study found no association between circumcision in Kenya and HIV rates. www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015552?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+New+Articles%29

USAID found in 2009 that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were more likely to have HIV than their intact counterparts. www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

The South African Medical Association called infant male circumcision unethical and expressed "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission." www.icgi.org/Downloads/SAMA-NOCIRC-2011-06-25.pdf

Renowed Jewish physician Dr. Dean Edell called the African/HIV conclusions "silly" and warned, "it will backfire." www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

3. Jake repeatedly says circumcision is not harmful, and even asks, "By what logic?" such a claim is based. He says, "Removal of tissue isn't inherently harmful." Of course, he is again ignoring the national medical associations. The British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons' 9/09 report declared: "Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death."
www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians report, backed by numerous other medical associations in Australia and New Zealand, stated: "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure." www.nocirc.org/position/racp2002.php

The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded: "Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical or psychological complications." www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

I believe the national medical associations. They represent large associations of medical experts. When none of them recommend infant circumcision and more than ten say it is not medically justified and it's harmful, I think that's pretty credible.

4. Jake says: "Conversely, if you don't have him circumcised, he might regret that, too. And adult circumcision is much riskier, requires a long period of abstinence, and results in inferior cosmetic results. There's no way to guarantee that he won't resent the decision, unfortunately."

I see more and more men complaining online and in more and more groups about having been mutilated as babies (e.g., see "Men Do Complain," the websites for foreskin restoration, etc.), and I see taht number increasing as awareness increases (the U.S.has not covered covered the issue accurately, so it's taking time. I don't see websites proliferating with men resentful about not being circumcised, mainly because if they want to they can do it. Men in South Korea are often circumcised as adults out of tradition, and that's their right as adults, even though a study found half of them said they lost significant erogenous pleasure. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x/abstract

Jake admits it is "tehnically" true that "No national medical association in the world recommends infant male circumcision," but then he changes the subject with a play of words by saying: "but routine infant circumcision means, literally, circumcision of all newborn boys. Consider what would justify such a recommendation: there would have to be an enormous net benefit to warrant taking such a decision out of the hands of parents." Of course this is a red herring. Obviously, "routine" in this instance isn't meant to mean "without parental consent," but "without a specific medical reason." No national medical association recommends circumcising baby males absent such a condition. The British medical association clarified the term "routine" by saying: "routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended." The context was not about parental consent. It was about whether it is medically justified. Specifically, the report said: "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non‐therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. . . . Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."
www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

And the Dutch medical association said: "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."
www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

Obviously, by "routine" they're talking about circumcision without a medical reason.

Thanks Jake,

We may not agree on much of anything, but you suggested something was wrong on the entry, and I fixed it to say that "Jake Waskett associates with these like-minded individuals, and participates in their activities." I'd say that's pretty accurate.

See, we care about being accurate Jake. I think that's what bothers you the most.

Routine Male Infant Circumcision is wrong on so many levels. Any adult male who wants to do it to himself is free to make that choice..... and NO ONE CARES! Defenseless infants, on the other hand, cannot make such a personal choice and cannot sign any informed consent. this alone is enough to just accept that RIC is wrong. There isn't really an argument to be made if you peel off the garbage that is tied to this barbaric procedure, it's actually very clear. The really sad part about this is that doctors (AAP) have just unethically given a decision about a medical surgery over to a non medical professional. That is ridiculous! A doctor wouldn't say, oh I can do this or that surgery on you, if you just choose it. And if one did, they should be banned from being a physician or sued for malpractice. A medical consent form is supposed to contain information about how the procedure is supposed to treat a "medical condition". If there is no medical condition present, how can a consent form be valid? The fact that hospitals "sell" baby boy foreskins to research companies and cosmetic companies for big bucks should make anyone wonder about their interest in keeping this horrible practice going! Parents must wake up and get the facts.

Hi Jake,

I have some questions for you, and they aren't very personal (don't worry). I'd just like to hear your opinion. All 3 questions are related, yet different.

My first question is regarding research and biological function. Do you think there needs to be more research on the biological function of the male prepuce? If so, what kind? If not, why not?

My second question is also regarding biological function, but pertaining to ethics and medical evaluation. Do you think it's appropriate to consider removal of a body part that is otherwise healthy, to reduce the risk of disease that COULD occur in that body part, even if (hypothetically) we don't fully understand the function of that part?

What is your take on those who claim their foreskin gives them pleasure? Do you think this is a placebo effect? If a man touches his foreskin, and it feels good, do you think that's all in the brain? If not, how do you rationalize removing that feeling from someone without their consent? Or do you (not) think consent of the individual is needed at all?

Thank you in advance,
Anonymous reader

Marc, you posted your response to my rebuttal both at my blog and here. To avoid redundancy, I decided to respond there.

"We may not agree on much of anything, but you suggested something was wrong on the entry, and I fixed it to say that "Jake Waskett associates with these like-minded individuals, and participates in their activities." I'd say that's pretty accurate." -- Why on earth do you think it's accurate? "These like-minded individuals" can only be intended as a reference to those discussed in the previous sentence (ie., those who share videos, etc). However, the message you cite makes no reference to such people. The "like-minded people" that I referred to were, quite clearly, those who had been or considered being circumcised as adults, and those who appreciated intelligent, thoughtful discussion about circumcision. Similarly, "participates in their activities" is surely intended to imply trading in videos, etc, which again the message you cite says nothing whatsoever about.

If you genuinely care about accuracy, then my suggestion is this. Cite the source as evidence that I'm a former member of Circlist, then add a sentence saying something like "CircLeaks believes that all former members of Circlist are/were slavering perverts" (or whatever it is that you actually believe).

Hello Anon,

"My first question is regarding research and biological function. Do you think there needs to be more research on the biological function of the male prepuce? If so, what kind? If not, why not?" -- I don't think any is needed, no, though obviously research of almost any kind tends to enhance our knowledge, so I wouldn't oppose it. The reason why I don't think research is needed is that if there were such functions, then I'd expect their loss through circumcision to result in significant adverse consequences. I don't see evidence of such consequences, so I'm inclined to doubt the notion that there are significant functions. This suggests that if unknown or poorly-researched functions do exist, they're sufficiently minor that learning about them is of a fairly low priority.

"My second question is also regarding biological function, but pertaining to ethics and medical evaluation. Do you think it's appropriate to consider removal of a body part that is otherwise healthy, to reduce the risk of disease that COULD occur in that body part, even if (hypothetically) we don't fully understand the function of that part?" -- I think there are several issues here. First is the absence of complete knowledge. It is always possible that the foreskin has some undiscovered function that means that circumcised males are disadvantaged, but lack of knowledge works both ways. It's equally possible that there is a presently unknown means by which the foreskin is a risk to its owner. I don't think the consequences of any medical or surgical procedure are fully understood, so to my mind the question is whether our knowledge is good enough to have reasonable confidence.

"What is your take on those who claim their foreskin gives them pleasure? Do you think this is a placebo effect? If a man touches his foreskin, and it feels good, do you think that's all in the brain?" -- I think the placebo effect is probably a factor in some cases, particularly those who've absorbed a lot of what they've been told by anti-circumcision websites. But it probably doesn't explain every case. Like most things in nature, there are a lot of variations, and the pleasure-giving capability of the foreskin probably obeys a normal distribution. So it may well be the case that while for most men it's nothing special, the 'tail' of such a distribution would contain a relatively small number of males with unusually sensitive foreskins.

"If not, how do you rationalize removing that feeling from someone without their consent?" -- I must admit that I'm a bit perplexed by the question; it seems to be an odd fixation on one relatively small aspect of the circumcision issue: the contribution of the foreskin itself. A broader (and, to my mind, more important) question is whether and how overall sexual pleasure is affected. Then there are equally important questions such as risks and benefits.

"Or do you (not) think consent of the individual is needed at all?" -- I think individual consent is desirable, but it's not achievable with infants. The question, then, is whether the "pro" of individual consent is worth the "cons" associated with delayed circumcision (greater risks, fewer benefits, cost, time off work, abstinence, fears, anxieties, and embarrassment, etc). I don't find the case for individual consent to be sufficiently compelling, I'm afraid.

I think Jake's replies to anon are most revealing of who he is. Jake displays a very dismissive attitude towards the normal intact penis, but after reading about who he is, it shouldn't be to surprising.

I critique his "rebuttal" to anon here:

"I don't think any is needed, no, though obviously research of almost any kind tends to enhance our knowledge, so I wouldn't oppose it."

Isn't it important to know about what you're cutting off? Only someone interested in the disposal of a body part is disinterested in learning more about it.

"It is hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

"The reason why I don't think research is needed is that if there were such functions, then I'd expect their loss through circumcision to result in significant adverse consequences.

Or, as somebody who had a fantasy of being circumcised as far back as the age of 5, he WOULDN'T expect their loss to result in significant adverse consequences. On the contrary, he would expect it to be all good and wonderful, and you would be inclined to deny any loss.

"I don't see evidence of such consequences," (not surprisingly) "so I'm inclined to doubt the notion that there are significant functions. This suggests that if unknown or poorly-researched functions do exist, they're sufficiently minor that learning about them is of a fairly low priority."

In other words, if there was any loss, he simply doesn't want to know.

"First is the absence of complete knowledge. It is always possible that the foreskin has some undiscovered function that means that circumcised males are disadvantaged, but lack of knowledge works both ways. It's equally possible that there is a presently unknown means by which the foreskin is a risk to its owner. I don't think the consequences of any medical or surgical procedure are fully understood, so to my mind the question is whether our knowledge is good enough to have reasonable confidence."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"I think the placebo effect is probably a factor in some cases, particularly those who've absorbed a lot of what they've been told by anti-circumcision websites."

The same placebo effect that would be a factor in those who have absorbed a lot of what they've been told on websites like circlist.

"But it probably doesn't explain every case. Like most things in nature, there are a lot of variations, and the pleasure-giving capability of the foreskin probably obeys a normal distribution. So it may well be the case that while for most men it's nothing special, the 'tail' of such a distribution would contain a relatively small number of males with unusually sensitive foreskins."

But he wouldn't be interested, as he implies above. Jake is known for quoting older flawed studies that never measure the function nor sensitivity of the foreskin, but using a flimsy letter he and his mentor Brian Morris to "debunk" the latest study, the Sorrells study, which is the most extensive study conducted on the sensitivity of the penis, circumcised and intact. The study found that the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. He nor his circumcision-crazed mentor liked the results, so they apply the Bonferroni correction (a controversial correction in and of itself) to produce results that were more favorable to them. Absolutely nobody recognizes their "rebuttal", and it was refuted later on by Hugh Young, but he and his mentor cite their letter as "ultimate proof" that the studies are invalid. Once again, Jake will only cite the sources he sees fit, and dismiss those that don't support his cause. The foreskin may be one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, but this is not something he wants to hear. After learning about who he is, it's easy to understand why. (Sour grapes, buyers remorse, etc., etc...)

"I must admit that I'm a bit perplexed by the question;"

Feigned dissimulation...

"...it seems to be an odd fixation on one relatively small aspect of the circumcision issue: the contribution of the foreskin itself."

The contribution of the foreskin itself is at the crux of the circumcision issue. It is easier to dispose of a body part if one believes it has absolutely no use or function, and medically unethical to dispose of a body part that has known function. That the foreskin is useless and a cause of problems is something that Jake Waskett, or any advocate of circumcision, must establish if they are to make any case for its removal.

"A broader (and, to my mind, more important) question is whether and how overall sexual pleasure is affected. Then there are equally important questions such as risks and benefits."

It is all in Jake's mind. The most important question is whether or not a surgical procedure or amputation is medically warranted. Whether the "benefits" of a procedure can be achieved by other means (ie, whether a doctor can offer a better solution), and whether or not a diseased body part damaged beyond repair, or can be salvaged.

The standard of care for most, if not all surgery, requires that the medical benefits of the surgery far outweigh the medical risks and harms or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures cannot be used where alternative, less invasive techniques are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

"I think individual consent is desirable, but it's not achievable with infants. The question, then, is whether the "pro" of individual consent is worth the "cons" associated with delayed circumcision (greater risks, fewer benefits, cost, time off work, abstinence, fears, anxieties, and embarrassment, etc)."

The question is, actually, whether there is any medical indication for surgery. Without one, there is no "pro" or "con" comparison. Jake's assumption, or at least what he tries to "prove" with "evidence" is that a man will indeed grow up to need circumcision, or will grow up to elect the surgery for themselves. In reality, very few men ever need circumcision, and the supposed "benefits" are already easier and more effectively achieved by other means, which Jake will conveniently fail to talk about, because the ultimate goal is circumcision.

"I don't find the case for individual consent to be sufficiently compelling, I'm afraid.

I'm mighty glad Jake isn't on any respectable medical board...

To aid Marc, regarding policy statements, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West, within and outside of the United States.

Jake can argue all he wants, but he defies all of Western medicine.

Remember that Jake will never EVER see cutting off part of someone's penis as "harm" because of his conflict of interest. (If circumcision harms, then he is harmed, and this can't happen.)

Jake says: "Conversely, if you don't have him circumcised, he might regret that, too. And adult circumcision is much riskier, requires a long period of abstinence, and results in inferior cosmetic results. There's no way to guarantee that he won't resent the decision, unfortunately."

Jake talks about leaving a child intact as if this were an "active" procedure where a parent asks a doctor to sew a foreskin on a healthy, non-consenting child. An adult circumcision is of course, much riskier, requires a long period of abstinence, and results are inferior to cosmetic results, but this assumes that most children grow up to want to be circumcised. Most intact males in the world don't get circumcised. In fact, the greater majority of males are forcibly circumcised as infants or children for their parents' religious appeasement.

A circumcised man can restore, but it requires an even longer period, and the cosmetic results my not be what he wanted. But why should a circumcised man have to go through this, when a penis with a foreskin is what he was born with to begin with? Especially if the procedure wasn't even medically necessary?

Jake's reasoning is, of course, flawed and twisted, and his conclusion will always be in favor of circumcision, no matter how hard you try to convince him. But after reading about who he is, what he does, it shouldn't be too surprising.

The bottom line is this:
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

"I think Jake's replies to anon are most revealing of who he is. Jake displays a very dismissive attitude towards the normal intact penis, but after reading about who he is, it shouldn't be to surprising." -- argumentum ad hominem no. 1.

"Isn't it important to know about what you're cutting off?" -- we already know essentially what the foreskin is. Actually, we probably know more about it than many comparable tissues; as Dunsmuir and Gordon pointed out, its availability has led to it being a favourite of those performing basic research.

"Only someone interested in the disposal of a body part is disinterested in learning more about it. "It is hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair" -- argumentum ad hominem no. 2.

"Or, as somebody who had a fantasy of being circumcised as far back as the age of 5," -- (I've already corrected this) -- "he WOULDN'T expect their loss to result in significant adverse consequences. On the contrary, he would expect it to be all good and wonderful, and you would be inclined to deny any loss." -- argumentum ad hominem no 3.

""I don't see evidence of such consequences," (not surprisingly)" -- indeed. The scientific literature gives little sign of them.

[Re "I don't think the consequences of any medical or surgical procedure are fully understood, so to my mind the question is whether our knowledge is good enough to have reasonable confidence."] "Argumentum ad ignorantiam." -- no, pragmatism. Refusing to take action because information isn't complete would have the consequence that we wouldn't take any actions; since this would necessarily include life-saving surgeries it's clear that such an extreme position would do more harm than good. A more moderate position is therefore indicated.

"The same placebo effect that would be a factor in those who have absorbed a lot of what they've been told on websites like circlist." -- plausibly so, yes.

"But he wouldn't be interested, as he implies above. Jake is known for quoting older flawed studies that never measure the function nor sensitivity of the foreskin, but using a flimsy letter he and his mentor Brian Morris to "debunk" the latest study, the Sorrells study, which is the most extensive study conducted on the sensitivity of the penis, circumcised and intact. The study found that the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. He nor his circumcision-crazed mentor" -- argumentum ad hominem no 4.

"liked the results, so they apply the Bonferroni correction (a controversial correction in and of itself) to produce results that were more favorable to them." -- wrong, actually. Even before applying the Bonferroni correction it was obvious that Sorrells' claim re five points was false: a statistically significant difference only occurred at a single point.

"Absolutely nobody recognizes their "rebuttal"," -- actually, it was cited by Paul F Austin in "Circumcision": Current Opinion in Urology, 2010; 20(4): 318

"and it was refuted later on by Hugh Young," -- more accurately, Young offered a weak counterargument.

"Once again, Jake will only cite the sources he sees fit, and dismiss those that don't support his cause. The foreskin may be one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, but this is not something he wants to hear. After learning about who he is, it's easy to understand why. (Sour grapes, buyers remorse, etc., etc...)" -- argumentum ad hominem no 5.

"Feigned dissimulation..." -- pointless accusations...

"The contribution of the foreskin itself is at the crux of the circumcision issue. It is easier to dispose of a body part if one believes it has absolutely no use or function, and medically unethical to dispose of a body part that has known function." -- not sure if I'd agree with that statement. It would depend upon the known function, how substantial or significant it is, and how that weighs against the benefits of removal.

"It is all in Jake's mind. The most important question is whether or not a surgical procedure or amputation is medically warranted." -- I disagree.

"It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive." -- but that's a moot point, because we're not talking about surgery for therapeutic reasons. At least, my understanding is that we're talking about neonatal male circumcision, which is very rarely performed therapeutically.

"The question is, actually, whether there is any medical indication for surgery. Without one, there is no "pro" or "con" comparison." -- this claim is startlingly unrealistic: not only do parents weigh pros and cons, but this is recommended by several medical associations. By all means that this shouldn't be the case, but to argue that it isn't seems out of touch.

"Jake's assumption, or at least what he tries to "prove" with "evidence" is that a man will indeed grow up to need circumcision, or will grow up to elect the surgery for themselves. In reality, very few men ever need circumcision," -- actually, the best evidence available to us is a comprehensive review of acceptability studies by Westercamp and Bailey. What they found is that a median of 65% of men would elect circumcision if it were available.

"To aid Marc, regarding policy statements, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States." -- on the contrary, recent trends (with the curious exception of the Dutch) have tended towards more positive statements. For example, the RACP added pro-parental choice language in their recent revision of their policy, the AUA added a recommendation that it should be presented as an option for health benefits, and the WHO recommended circumcision in certain contexts.

"No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks." -- interestingly, a recent CDC consultation report recommended that "Medical benefits outweigh risks for infant MC, and there are many practical advantages of doing it in the newborn period."

"Remember that Jake will never EVER see cutting off part of someone's penis as "harm" because of his conflict of interest. (If circumcision harms, then he is harmed, and this can't happen.)" -- argumentum ad hominem no 5.

"Jake talks about leaving a child intact as if this were an "active" procedure where a parent asks a doctor to sew a foreskin on a healthy, non-consenting child. An adult circumcision is of course, much riskier, requires a long period of abstinence, and results are inferior to cosmetic results, but this assumes that most children grow up to want to be circumcised." -- as noted above, best available evidence indicates otherwise.

"A circumcised man can restore, but it requires an even longer period, and the cosmetic results my not be what he wanted. But why should a circumcised man have to go through this, when a penis with a foreskin is what he was born with to begin with? Especially if the procedure wasn't even medically necessary?" -- that's rather like arguing that someone has a right to be uneducated because they were born without schooling and because it wasn't necessary. It's a nonsensical argument used to essentially argue that the feelings of one group of people (those who would rather be uncircumcised) matter, and those of another group do not. My position - which recognises that any decision will lead to some dissatisfaction, unfortunately - is more realistic.

"Jake's reasoning is, of course, flawed and twisted, and his conclusion will always be in favor of circumcision, no matter how hard you try to convince him. But after reading about who he is, what he does, it shouldn't be too surprising." -- argumentum ad hominem no 6.

Thank you, Ms. Narvaez, for this excellent series. It's interesting, probably inevitable, to see apologists for genital mutilation posting here. There will be sick and twisted people in every generation, I suppose, but anybody else will be able to see the force of your arguments.

There is absolutely nothing to gain from talking to Jake.

He was, is and will most likely continue to remain in absolute denial. He either knows the truth but denies to accept it himself or he knows the truth and continues to act otherwise, basically making a fool out of all of us who genuinely care about the issue.

The "Waskett is also known to lurk in parenting forums and blogs, attempting to convince expectant parents to circumcise." and "Jake Waskett is not a doctor or medical professional of any kind." is all any reasonable parent needs to know to make the right choice.

It does not matter what you give him - be it evidence (he will deem it not credible or biased) - be it a psychological issue (he will not see the point in it and refuse to educate himself on it) - be it a human rights issue (he will continue to argue elsewhere) - be it his own bias (he will view it as ad hominem and dismiss the actual implications which make it viable) - be it biological (he will base his conclusions on his own experience of NOT having a foreskin). No matter what you say he will always pick out the bits and pieces to make you seem wrong. A quick and easy example of a technique similar to what he's doing would be for you to make a continous "Why?" statement.

Eg.:
My name is Richard.
Why?
Because my parents gave me that name.
Why?
Because that's the name they thought of for me.
Why?
Because they had to give me a name.
Why?
Because that's the way things are in our society.
Why?
So that others could call me by my name and so that I could use it to identify myself for official or non-official purposes.
Why? - Why? - Why?
So that I'd know they're calling me and not someone else.
So that an official institution would be able to discern me from other clients.
So that I could meet more people who would use my name for the reason stated above.
Why? - Why? - Why?
etc.

You can never see the end to it and the person questioning (eg. Jake) only needs to know three letters of the alphabet to irratate you endlessly.

So I hope anyone reading this post will make up his or her mind and decide to ignore Jake. I tried long and hard to reason with him, gave him all the chances he needed to be reasonable but he denied each and every one of them. I might have seemed foolish to many for even insisting to reply to him for this long but I do that a lot - try to reason with people and give them lots of chances to prove they can reason too. I have a thing for understanding where people are coming from, that's what I do - I try to understand their view, walk in someone elses shoes. But I know now that this time the road won't take me anywhere and so I leave you with the choice to decide for yourself on how to think of this matter - I hope you at least learned something from my try that can be viewed here.

Best regards all.

On Jake's page I posted my reply to Jake's reply to me but I'm having trouble posting, maybe because of the word limit.

I believe non-therapeutic circumcisions in infants is inane and it absolutely blows my mind that anyone thinks it is anywhere near a reasonable idea to do it. That it is even a topic of discussion at all makes me feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. My views are based on instinct, a bias toward non-intervention in medicine and a respect for teleological explanations of physiology.

However, I often hesitate to advocate against infant circumcision because I am often embarrassed by the tactics and behavior of intactivists. I do not agree with any part of Jake's arguments. Yet, he comes across as very reasonable, logical and polite. Some of the "rebuttals" against him do seem, on the surface, petty. It disappoints me. Intactivists, please, have some perspective. You are biased (as am I). You often cite research from biased sources. It is hypocritical to say you have the advantage in these areas. It does the cause a great disservice because critical readers are more likely to dismiss the sound parts of your arguments when they see you make contradictory and spurious claims.

Try to imagine how someone who accepts circumcision as normal thinks about the subject and respond in a way which will not alientate them. That is the only way they will open up and truly consider the facts.

This series of articles is a model for the type of approach I would like to see intactivists take in the future.

"However, I often hesitate to advocate against infant circumcision because I am often embarrassed by the tactics and behavior of intactivists."

Please reconsider this position. In a open forum there is nothing you can do about the behaviour of others (where it falls short of reportable abuse), only counterbalance it by your own good behaviour. By hanging back, you give those who embarass us (and their opponents) free reign.

It is a pity that so much of the above discussion does nothing to counter those who come from a mindset in which cutting part of a baby's genitals off is considered normal. Breaking the grip of that mindset should be our first priority (whether the babies are male or female or intersexed).

The rage on here is alarming, but completely regular for intactivists.

As a circumcised man, I find it alarming that you ignore basic facts. I was circumcised twice, because the first doctor removed too little skin, wanting not to remove my sensitivity.

First, re the sexual sensitivity argument, it's a rare man who would honestly say he wishes he would orgasm faster, and it's an even rare partner.

Second, re medical benefits, the majority of studies intactivists cite cover only STI risks. They ignore basic issues of cleanliness and routine infections, all of which are generally avoided by circumcision.

Finally, it is ignorant at best to suggest that adult men can make the decision for themselves. Even when medically necessary, the cost of circumcision as an adult is prohibitive for the incredible majority of the population. Beyond the basic costs of surgery and medication, it requires weeks of missed work for the healing process, incredible pain aside. Quite a contrast to the few days required for a baby to heal.

Jake may not be objective, but neither is any intactivist on this forum. You cannot be, when your argument (the author of the argument aside) is based almost entirely on principle over reality. You cannot be (author of the argument included) when you either are ignorant of the complementary facts or intentionally omit them from your writing.

This is not an easy decision for most parents. The angry "if you do this you are a horrible and ignorant person" arguments are beyond unhelpful; they are cruel and serve only to increase confusion. I find the article and the majority of responses here irresponsible and closed minded, and an intentional effort to shut down any real discussion by painting anybody who disagrees or is simply undecided as an evil abuser who flagrantly stomps on the rights of an infant.

If you really want people to make educated decisions, you provide more than only your perspective.

so let me get this straight: A man is not capable of making a personal decision for his body when he is an adult due to #1: it's too expensive #2: it is too painful #3: he might miss out on work days so let me see, what you are saying is it's "easier" to cut the genitals of a newborn and much cheaper! Really? Your point of view is alarming and your criticism of Intactivists very unfairly stated. It seems you are the one in need of an education on circumcision! I suppose you would also be in favor of cutting off other body parts in the name of cleanliness and risk of infection? I sure am glad you are not a doctor!

Intactivists are so weird. Their obsession with other people's children's penises is just bizarre. Even more creepy when they are womyn.

So tell me again how Intactivists are weird for wanting infants rights to be respected ??? Tell me again how it's NOT weird, obsessive, as well as perverted to think that cutting the normal genitals of children is acceptable??? That's what I thought.

Weird – ‘what is weird’ is that Humans in the 21st century are still ‘obsessed’ with slicing up the genitals of children. It is the people that believe in / practice non-therapeutic circumcision of children that are obsessed with penises of others.

‘What is weird’ is how non-religious circumcision started. It began with Victorian era values and the desire to stop children from masturbating – look up John Harvey Kellogg in Wikipedia and read about his influence in the promotion of circumcision in North America in the 19th century.

Intactivists are concerned with interference of with the birthright/human right of every individual to have autonomy over his or her body (unless there is true immediate medical justification). That is definitely not a perverted obsession.

Dr Anne Lindboe the Ombudsman for Children In Norway started an initiative that led to on September 30, 2013 five Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) to pass a resolution that formally declares non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors to be contrary to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

On October 1, 2013 the Council of Europe representing 47 European nations (parent to the European Court of Human Rights) passed a resolution ‘Children’s Right to Physical Integrity’ – Document 13297 that formally declares non-therapeutic male circumcision of children to be a Human Rights violation.

‘What is weird’ is that 21st century mankind has to have intactivists, declarations/resolutions to make clear that the slicing up of the genitals of children is morally/ethically wrong and an abuse of human rights.