Circumcision makes the penis smaller

Like it or not, we have to face the awful truth about what has been done to North American males.
The International Symposium on Genital Integrity has just wound up in California and this report has come out of the presentations.
http://www.icgi.org/2010/07/circumcision-makes-the-penis-smaller-says-doctor/

Circumcision Makes the Penis Smaller says Doctor

July 31st, 2010 by ICGI

Circumcising babies in America always causes disfigurement in men, a family physician told an international conference this afternoon.

“By any cosmetic or surgical-outcomes criteria, their penises are harmed—twisted, bent, or scarred,” Christopher Fletcher, MD of Santa Fe said, “And though it is counter-intuitive, they are smaller and skinnier than those of intact men.”

Assistant clinical professor of family and community medicine at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Dr. Fletcher’s conclusions arise from a study of men 18 years and older seeking medical care. The vast majority of the circumcisions had been done soon after birth for non-medical reasons.

Dr. Fletcher told the 11th International Symposium on Genital Integrity at the University of California, Berkeley, that these men are almost universally unaware of their disfigurements and think of their penises as completely normal.

“This obvious physical damage is universally ignored by the patient, his parents, and physicians,” he said.

Another study found that the adult penis of men circumcised as children is 8mm (3/8″) shorter.

Dr. Fletcher has delivered more than a thousand babies and dissuaded the parents of all but 10 of the boys from having them circumcised.

Speakers have come to the symposium from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, England, Ireland, Italy, and New Zealand.

For more information: Marilyn Milos, RN, www.nocirc.org

About gloria

I live and work in Vancouver BC Canada. I've been in the childbirth business for 30 years. I teach midwifery and doula courses both online and in person.
This entry was posted in Intactivism, Newborn care. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Circumcision makes the penis smaller

  1. Mary says:

    Has any independent researcher ever done a study about circumcised and intact males regarding their pain tolerance levels? Seems the men who have been cut are less able to handle pain vs the intact ones.

  2. gloria says:

    Here’s a study that was published in the Lancet on newborn pain:
    http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

  3. GI Meaney says:

    It is horrible and these men should be offered free or low cost services to regain as much as they can.Phalloplasty to increase the length and girth of the penis,foreskin restoration surgery or devices,any medicines or surgeries to deal with impotence etc.And their partners should be informed that the penis is less sensitive but the rest of the body more sensitive and to stimulate the whole body.

    • gloria says:

      thanks for your reply, GI Meaney. I agree about devices for restoring (stretching remnants of the skin) the foreskin but am against adding surgery to fix a problem that was caused by unnecessary surgery. Any surgery carries risk and one can end up with worse problems. The ‘medicines’ to deal with impotence carry a great deal of risk, too. There is a large movement of men who share information on foreskin restoration. One of the best sites is that of Ron Low, manufacturer of an inexpensive device called the “TLC Tugger”. I recommend that those interested in cures for this mutilating surgery look at this info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLC_Tugger

  4. edouard says:

    One would think that after 120 odd years of routine infant circumcision, there would be studies of a stratified random sample of adult male genitalia, including a clinical examination, with a view to finding any consequences and complications of infant circumcision. The harsh truth is that there never has been such a study. Almost everything we know about penises damaged as a consequence of RIC, we know thanks to victims talking and writing to intactivists. I conclude that American medicine simply has its head in the sand.

    • gloria says:

      thanks for your comment, Edouard. The gold standard science on the importance and function of the foreskin (prepuce) is the work of Canadian pathologist, Dr. John R. Taylor. Dr. Taylor was concerned that his grandsons might be cut and so he looked for research to convince his sons-in-law to keep any boys intact. When he couldn’t find any, he set about to do the work. Here’s something from another website: “John R. Taylor and colleagues published a landmark article in 1996 that described original research into the anatomy and histology of the foreskin. The research showed that the foreskin is highly innervated tissue with the characteristics of a sensory organ designed to provide erogenous sensation.19

      The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a joint statement, reclassified neonatal circumcision from “routine” to “elective” in 1997.23 The change in policy was announced the year after the publication of Taylor’s important article that describes in detail the injury inherent in every circumcision. This action removes any suggestion that circumcision is beneficial or that it is recommended by medical authorities. It may also be an attempt to shift legal liability for the injury that is inherent in every child circumcision from the doctor to the parents.” From http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

  5. Tina says:

    The worst part is that in all of the discussion lately about circumcision (male genital mutilation), THIS honest approach focusing on penis size may actually garner the necessary attention needed to change the cutting rates in the U.S. I’ve read so many articles on the topic and scrolled down to the comments section to be horrified that the vast majority of people seem to completely overlook a)the unnecessary surgery b)the pain caused to the infant c)the risks associated with it and focus on the perpetuated myth that it is somehow more ‘hygienic’ to remove a portion of a fully functioning part of the male anatomy, or worse yet, ‘looks better’ that way. I hate to say it, but I hope this focus on penile SIZE will draw more people toward the intactivist movement. In the long run, the ‘why’ isn’t as important as the outcome.

  6. Liz says:

    Well, whatever it takes to get people’s attention. It’s more about the functioning. My boyfriend is 59, whole, and the best lover I’ve ever had. Shouldn’t we want our sons to eventually be in fulfilling relationships? Shouldn’t we allow them the pleasure of satisfying their partners too?

  7. Chris says:

    It makes sense since the shaft skin is very tight and often painful for a cut guy as it begins rapidly growing during puberty, it creates a force trying to hold back growth, while an intact man freely grows.

    Ideally guys should just be left alone so they can have that extra skin to freely grow into so there isn’t unnecessary growing pains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>