While it is absurd to needlessly perform a ritual to avoid a small risk of needing it later down the line, humans are still susceptible to fear-mongering about the "what if?" scenario. If it can be demonstrated that cutting a healthy boy actually increases the risk of needing a surgery later down the line, then I think that can be a solid talking point.

I'm searching for a solid source (ideally pubmed) on how often boys cut at birth will require any sort of corrective surgery later down the line. And another source for how common it is for intact boys to be cut later down the line (or one source that explores both). Can anyone help me out?

Set aside the fact that foreskin problems (e.g. pathological phimosis) may be over-diagnosed in intact boys, and that non-surgical options may be under-prescribed as treatment.

As an aside, phimosis is possible complication of cutting healthy boys (affecting 2.9%), so it may actually increase his risk of phimosis. I think it's easy for intactivists to grant cutters assumptions without even realizing it (like the idea that it prevents phimosis).

Ignorant people out there have compared male foreskins to wisdom teeth to justify circumcision on completely healthy children. They say foreskins are vestigial and useless. I have to disagree.

Here is a study proving that humans' foreskin is not vestigial like wisdom teeth, in fact, humans' foreskin is an evolutionary advantage.

In this long [Study], they concluded:

The results of this study demonstrate that the human prepuce is not vestigial but is, in fact, an evolutionary advancement over the prepuce of other primates.

[...]
Removal of the prepuce disturbs normal copulatory behaviour in mammals, including humans

According to them, mammals' penile glans is covered by the foreskin/prepuce when flaccid for several reasons:

• Protection: The foreskin acts as a protective layer, shielding the sensitive glans from friction, abrasion, and environmental irritants.
• Sensory Function: The foreskin contains a high concentration of nerve endings, making it an erogenous zone that enhances sexual pleasure.
• Hygiene: The foreskin helps to maintain moisture and cleanliness, reducing the risk of infections.
• Evolutionary Advantage: In many species, the prepuce may have provided an evolutionary advantage by protecting the glans during movement and other activities.

Almost all mammal species have prepuce/foreskin. Only a small number of mammal species lack a prepuce. Specifically, monotremes, which include the platypus and the echidna, do not have a prepuce. Monotremes are egg-laying mammals and are quite distinct from other mammals in several ways. In monotremes, although they do not have prepuces, their penises are still stored internally & their glans are only exposed when they have erections [Source]

There are good reasons why mammals have foreskin, and there are even better reasons why humans (still) have foreskin just like other mammals.

Here are some proven foreskins' fuctions in humans:

1. Foreskin covers and protects the glans (the pink head of the penis) from: fabric friction, unwanted stimulations, keratinization, and from desensitization. Having your glans constantly exposed and rubbed against fabrics all the time will result in desensitization and keratinization. Can you see how rough the fabrics you wear are compared to the internal canal of the female genitalia (vagina)?
2. Foreskin has a gliding function that acts like lube. Foreskin gliding up and down feels much more pleasurable and is more convienient than using lube.
3. Foreskin keeps in moisture, prevents drying. It keeps the glans plump, smooth and shiny.
4. Foreskin also has cells (such as Langerhans cells) that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies & antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.
5. Foreskin itself has plenty of nerve-endings. It has coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles, dorsal nerve branches, and specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types.
6. Foreskin itself has plenty of veins and blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, which increases blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis.

Foregen is all done with animal trials! They will be starting the human clinical trials next year. I am personally looking forward to it. Check out this video for more on this and other intactivist news going on in December!

https://youtu.be/AlnRVoke3fw

https://www.zeffy.com/fundraising/end-of-year-4x-match

I am an avid Intactivist living in Europe. My parents had my brother circumcised as an infant because a doctor told them he had phimosis, so it is safe to assume that they would've done it to me had I been a boy. I have had sex with circumcised men and I encounter the same problems every time: it feels like a dildo and not like a penis, I get chafed quickly, it feels like someone is scraping out my insides with a spoon, it is not as stimulating, I don't get excited because I know the sex will be underwhelming and painful after maybe 10-15 min. The way I describe it is the best sex with a circumcised guy is maybe at 60%, otherwise it starts at 60%. Often I am in pain for days after the fact which is really uncomfortable. I have tired using extra lube but the exposed head just scrapes out my insides. I was told to try to make the condom roll off like foreskin during sex. I am currently not dating anyone, but this is a huge deal breaker for me. I can't really tell men because I will hurt their feelings. It is so weird to me because I know tons of women who feel no difference and have active sex lives with circumcised men. My vagina just won't have any of it. Is there anything I can do?

Fixed title: How was circumcision originated?

So I had a whole argument on r/changemyview, and I said this:

"Removal of the male prepuce (circumcision) started as a religious practice to remove as many nerve-endings as possible from male genitalia without making it dysfunctional. Its core is to make men feel as little sexual pleasure as possible and make it harder to masturbate. Removal of the female prepuce had the same religious purpose: to reduce sexual pleasure."

And I have seen a lot of people disagree with my argument. They said this:

In hot and arid climates, where hygiene practices were limited, medical problems with a foreskin were common. Treatment for these problems was circumcision and it was quickly discovered that having the foreskin removed as a baby was far more practical than waiting for the problems to develop. The purpose of it is not to restrict sexual pleasure, it was healthcare

Which I completely disagreed...

As far as we knew, circumcision had already been a thing thousands of years ago. Some evidence suggests that circumcision was practiced in the ancient Near East as early as the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt (c. 2345–2181 BC).

Surgeons and doctors did NOT routinely wash their hands, sterilise their equipment or clean the operating table until the mid-19th century and they would proceed straight from dissecting a corpse to delivering a baby. The idea of handwashing to prevent infectious diseases was controversial at the time. [Source]

The discovery that diseases are caused by microorganisms occurred in the 19th century. [Source]

So back when circumcision started, thousands of years ago, when humans were oblivious about the concept of germs and certainly did not even wash their hands or their instruments before, during, and after the procedures, circumcision would cause more infections and deaths to be considered 'healthcare' in the first place. The risk of infections from circumcision would outnumber the risk of infections from just having an intact penis.

And for someone who has already had penile problems, getting their foreskin removed with non-disinfected tools, by non-disinfected hands, then being left with a circumcised wound in the year 2345 BC would definitely not solve any problems. Circumcision has botched more penises than saving penises. It has caused more infections than preventing infections.

Circumcision was not first created to treat or cure diseases. Circumcision was not created out of good intentions. It was not created to improve hygiene.

Also, foreskin also has cells (such as Langerhans cells) that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies & antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme. [Source] Even in today's world, middle Eastern countries with low circumcision rates do not have higher penile problems compared to ones with highest circumcision rates.

I wish people would stop being in denial and start to accept the truth about it.

By the way, Reddit removed my post on r/changemyview, but the comment section is still there. People use the most ridiculous excuses to justify circumcision. It was extremely emotionally draining arguing with people's ridiculous arguments.

There were a few comments who had no idea that circumcision had opposition. While some of those people laughed or were disgusted at BSM, a few were interested and wanted to learn more. Imagine how many potential circumcisions I prevented because of this post! I even told one person about American Circumcision (2017) on Amazon Prime, and they said they were intrigued enough to watch it!

Even better, I got a shout-out from Brother K on Instagram, making me a certified intactivist!

Circumcision was intended by God to graphically illustrate man’s depravity. Ever since sin entered the world through Adam, humans have passed on our fallen nature to our children. Because our nature is passed on through procreation, God chose a part of the body that would reflect and illustrate that reality. So, circumcision was primarily a symbol, picturing man’s need to be cleansed from sin at the deepest root of his being.

https://www.wisdomonline.org/blog/why-did-god-mandate-circumcision?lang=English#:~:text=Because%20our%20nature%20is%20passed,deepest%20root%20of%20his%20being.

the name of the book is 'I don't want to talk about it: overcoming the secret legacy of male depression' by Terrence Real. However, sadly MGM isn't really brought up at all (although it's a fairly old book)

Link: https://chng.it/LXTPmswpRB

Lets get these disgusting subreddits taken down asap. Teach these assholes a lesson.

https://preview.redd.it/gyj6ekfage6e1.jpg?width=1123&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e24c234231bf0207f005635e220eef8798e265d

I live in Texas. More specifically, Austin. And I am more than excited to see the Bloodstained Men in person even if I only have time to glance at them in the car to give them a thumbs up. They'll come here on December 14th from 2-4 pm.

Here's the link to the MySA article: https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/hill-country/article/texas-circumcision-protest-bloodstained-men-19973673.php

• Reason 1: Parents believe foreskins are useless

The truth is foreskins are not useless. Here are some proven foreskins' fuctions:

1. Foreskin covers and protects the glans (the pink head of the penis) from friction, from unwanted stimulations and from desensitization. Having your glans constantly exposed and rubbed against fabrics all the time will result in desensitization and keratinizing: Can you see how rough the fabrics you wear are compared to the internal canal of the female genitalia (vagina)?
2. Foreskin has a gliding function that acts like lube. A retractable foreskin gliding up and down is much more pleasurable and more convenient than using lube. It is our penis's built-in gliding function.
3. Foreskin keeps in moisture and prevents drying. It keeps the glans plump, smooth and shiny,
4. Foreskin also has cells (such as Langerhans cells) that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.
5. Foreskin itself has plenty of nerve-endings. It has coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles, branches of the dorsal nerve, and specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types.
6. Foreskin itself has plenty of veins and blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, which increases blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis. Your penis with foreskin will have more veins than your penis without foreskin.

Circumcision might also remove a part of the frenulum (which looks like a string) and might make the frenulum less visible. The frenulum area is one of the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis. You don't want less frenulum, trust me.

• Reason 2: Parents believe the 'circumcision prevents STDs and penile cancer' myth

Circumcision is proven not to prevent STDs or penile cancer. It is harmful to spread this 'circumcision prevents HIV' myth. It is possible that many circumcised men out there believe this myth and have unprotected sex because they think they are immune to STDs. Condoms are cheap and effective. To immoral billionaires who pretend to care about the AIDS pandemic, you better encourage men to use condoms, or at least give men free condoms instead of promoting genital mutilation.

So the 'it prevents diseases' reason is completely imbecilic. Also, it is unethical, harmful, and ineffective to amputate a healthy part of a completely healthy person's body because they want to prevent cancer and diseases.

• Reason 3: Parents think circumcised penises look better

It is cruel, vain and disgusting to use circumcision as a cosmetic surgery on your children.

Society is very hypocritical. Cosmetic surgeries have been frowned upon, they are getting less frowned upon as time goes by but they are still frowned upon. People get extremely upset when they find out parents are letting their teenage daughters get cosmetic surgeries and injections. When people found out Kylie Jenner had lip fillers at 15, they were extremely upset at Kris Jenner for allowing her to do that. They called Kris a terrible parent. I agree with them. I think parents should not allow teens to have cosmetic surgeries and injections. But it is so unfair to young boys that barely anyone shows concern for them. Let me explain to you, society is more okay with giving 30-minute-old newborn boys circumcision as a cosmetic surgery, yet is totally upset that 15-year-olds are getting lip fillers. One is a non-reversible amputation, one is a reversible injection. Imagine giving newborn girls lip fillers!? Circumcising newborn boys as a cosmetic surgery is a billion times worse than that. If it is wrong to give little girls cosmetic surgery, then it is wrong to do the same thing to little boys.

And by the way, there is no reason for a newborn boy to have an exposed penis glans, especially all the time. It is sick that people want their young sons' genitals to look like sexually active men's erected penises. It is extremely predatory and sick to circumcise your sons because you like the look of a penis that always has an exposed pink glans.

Plus, cosmetic surgery is supposed to make things look better. But circumcision does not make anything look better. If you are an adult and you want to circumcise yourself for cosmetic purposes, please read this: Circumcision tends to leave scars and discoloration. It also might remove a part of the frenulum and make it less visible. It leaves the glans keratinized and dried when there is no foreskin to keep moisture and protect the glans from fabric frictions. Just pull the foreskin back and it will look like a circumcised penis (minus the scars, discolorations, missing veins, missing nerve-endings and keratinized glans).

• Reason 4: Parents believe it is cleaner

Children's foreskin is attached, or 'fused' to the glans usually until around puberty, leaving nothing underneath to clean. In a newborn male, the foreskin cannot be retracted and can only be separated from the glans by force.

Also, cleaning an intact adult penis is faster than cleaning your face or brushing your teeth. Amputating a part of your sexual organ because you want it to be cleaner is an imbecillic thing to do. And it is not difficult to clean an adult penis that has phimosis either, unless it is way too severe.

• Reason 5: Parents use it as a treatment for phimosis before considering other safer options

In healthy male children, foreskins are 'fused' and attached to the glans, it cannot be retracted and can only be separated from the glans by force. Usually, during puberty, the foreskin will start to retract itself. Some boys and men retract in their late teens and it is not a problem.

Children having their foreskin attached to their glans is not a diseased condition. So it is normal for young males not to retract/fully retract their foreskin.

So it is ridiculous to circumcise an 8-year-old boy because his foreskin cannot retract fully. The exposure of the glans is supposed to be for sex. Foreskins usually start to retract during puberty is the way our bodies start to give us the ability to expose our glans to prepare for adulthood sex. It is normal for children not be able to have exposed glans since they are not supposed to be sexually active.

Also, force retraction on children is extremely painful and damaging. Foreskins are never supposed to be retracted by anyone other than themselves and their owners.

Also, there are plenty of safer solutions for phimosis, such as stretching. Amputation of tissue is the last ditch effort of medical treatment. There is no other treatment more severe, except for more amputation. Circumcision should be the last resort in all situations.

There are plenty of men with severe phimosis who began with extremely tight foreskin (the size of a pinpoint) and loosened their foreskin over time with stretching and other methods, ending up successfully retracting their foreskin completely without surgery.

If circumcision is used as the last resort in most severe cases of adult phimosis where the foreskin is way too tight to even see the urinary meatus (the pee-hole/slit). Doctors still should not remove all the foreskin they can possibly remove. Doctors should minimize the amount of nerve endings and veins removed and avoid removing the frenulum. They can just remove a very small part and the patient can do stretching afterward to minimize the amount of tissue removed.

• Reason 6: Some parents believe in religious freedom for only themselves, but they don't believe in religious freedom for their young sons

It is okay for you to have any religion you want, but you cannot force it upon your helpless sons. He deserves religious freedom as well.

• Reason 7: Some parents hate men/have internalized misandry so they put their frustration and anger on their son

It is wrong to put your anger and frustration on your son. You might be mad at yourself, or maybe at his father, or at random men out there. But the son himself does not deserve such barbaric harm.

Hypocritical society wrongly teaches boys how important consent is by slicing off a part of their penises when were just 30 minutes old, or still children.

This is very interesting and about how routine circumcision was ended in Australia. Surely helpful for US Intactivists, the Aussies achieved what Intactivists want

Australian Circumcision on YouTube

Support meeting for men harmed by circumcision.

I will be holding a peer support meeting via Zoom for men harmed by circumcision at 4.00pm Australian western time on Sunday December 8.

For those interested, please message me for the Zoom link.

This meeting is open to all men who have been harmed by circumcision.

https://chng.it/tGycHzBsGh

those are just the documented circumcision deaths also, as circumcision related death is sadly rarely brought up and easily swept under the rug.