Circumcision facts with Intaction : 1896 Dr. R.N. Tooker wrote a popular book, All About The Baby, which advised mothers that circumcision of baby boys was “advisable in most cases.” He recommended the operation mainly for preventing “the vile habit of masturbation.” 1894: Dr. Peter C. Remondino in the National Popular Review advocated; “the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race is an efficient remedy in preventing their predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that [Negro] race.”
Living in America in the beginning of the 21st century, it’s easy to see how this notion got ingrained in the cultural consciousness: it’s common , and it’s common, so it must be common everywhere, always. Right? Wrong! Most of the world doesn’t practice circumcision. In fact, most of the world has never practiced circumcision. The truth is that the United States is the only country that circumcises the majority of babies, and we’ve only done it for a few generations. And on top of that, we’re doing it less and less: fewer than 60% of male babies in the US are circumcised these days.
Circumcision Prevalence: The practice varies geographically around the world. It is more common in the Middle East, the Muslim world, and Israel. Other areas where the practice is popular is in South Korea, parts of Southeast Asia, and some tribal areas in Africa. It was commonly practiced in the United States from 1940’s onwards, however here the practice started declining after 1980. By 2020, American rates for the surgery are retreating to 50%. Infant male circumcision is rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa and most of non-Muslim Asia. The rates are also low in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, especially since their respective medical associations rebuked the practice decades ago. See more details about circumcision.
As psychologists, we are deeply concerned by the recently announced U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines promoting circumcision for American males. We are concerned about circumcision’s psychological damage that can arise from the traumatic pain of this unnecessary procedure. It is not well established that traumatic pain to infants causes psychological harm and emotional damage. The CDC guidelines are based on a sharply criticized 2012 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 2012 statement was condemned by a large group of physicians, medical organizations, and ethicists from European, Scandinavian, and Commonwealth countries as “culturally biased” and “different from [the conclusions] reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada and Australia” (Frisch et al., 2013).
Intaction is funded via private donations and volunteer assistance primarily by men and women that have been adversely affected by genital cutting. We promote the benefits of an intact body and the harm of genital cutting. We seek to achieve our goals through education, advocacy, and activism. We empower our members by providing them a constructive way to address the physical and emotional harm that was inflicted on them. Action is in our name. Foreskin is in our DNA. We accept the challenges of creating change, we meet our goals, and then chart new ones. We have no highly paid directors or staff like some big name popular causes. In fact, we are not paid at all. Our compensation is the satisfaction we receive from the many people whose lives we have touched. We help assure parents that keeping their son intact was the enlightened decision. We’ve helped many babies to stay intact. We help build body positive confidence in intact men so they can appreciate their own natural body. We’ve helped many cut men, essentially victims of genital cutting, to feel like they now have a voice, when as infants they didn’t have a choice. See even more info on https://intaction.org/.