You’ve probably heard of the body-positivity movement, and that is a good thing, but have you ever heard of “intactivists”?

A portmanteau (your new word for the day) of “intact” and “activist”, intactivists are out to stop the circumcision of babies, arguing that it’s actually a violation.

Take Adam Zeldis, a 36-year-old software developer from New York who spoke with the Guardian, for example:

Many men circumcised as babies “have an epiphany when the cultural blinders come off”, he tells the Guardian. “I was a vulnerable 16-year-old when I realised how much skin was removed and that my bodily autonomy was violated.”

Georganne Chapin [below], who runs Intact America, hears about foreskin degradation often. “Men call us saying their wives think it’s ‘disgusting and dirty’ not to circumcise their sons. It’s sad,” she says.

Zeldis [says] “I felt immense loss and grief that I’d never be given the chance to experience sex the way nature intended it. And nobody in society cared. It was terribly isolating.”

Those who argue against the practice say it’s outdated and causes trauma, pain, and unnecessary health risks.

Zeldis’s adult perception of his operation is echoed in many of their stories: “Someone strapped me down and cut off part of my genitals with a clamp and knife, forever changing my sex life, for no reason. If you touch leftover tissue, it’s highly sensitive – and that’s the majority of what’s cut off. There’s no ‘cut here’ mark, so men are all left with different versions of the procedure.”

Some have gone as far as to call it  “male genital mutilation”, whilst others seek to keep the movement in line with the body-positivity ethos.

Of course, once the foreskin is cut off, that’s pretty much the end of that.

Dramatic music – or is it?

Part of the brand is foreskin restoration for men cut as babies. [45-year-old Damien] Williams realised the need to do it because of discomfort in his teens. “I was constantly irritated by my glans rubbing against clothing. I knew even from this age that I was supposed to have a protective covering,” he says.

Restoration techniques, which involve weighted tugging devices inserted on to the end of the penis, can be arduous. They didn’t work out for Zeldis. “It requires years of dedicated disciplined practice which I’ve been unable to give,” he says. “Those devices are uncomfortable to wear all day.”

But for Williams, it was revelatory: “After gaining enough restored foreskin, the main new experience for me in addition to the protection was the ‘rolling’ function, where the foreskin glides over the glans. I realised: ‘Oh, THIS is what a normal penis is supposed to do.’”

Religious reasoning aside, medical professionals often differ on the benefits, and dangers, of circumcision.

Take these informed opinions, for example:

Cheryl Gowar from the UK’s National Aids Trust says: “Medical male circumcision reduces the possibility of HIV transmission from HIV-positive women to HIV-negative men by around 50%. Circumcisionmay also decrease sexual transmission of HIV in men who have sex with men (for the insertive partner), although studies on this are inconclusive.”

The NHS, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Canadian Paediatric Department agree that studies about circumcision reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases are inconclusive and spurious because they were carried out in African countries such as Uganda, and the higher rates of STIs there are not comparable to western countries. None of these organisations recommends the routine circumcision of newborn males.

Paediatrician Dr Paul Bauert says the Royal Australasian College of Physicians believes the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision (penile cancer, HIV, STIs, UTIs) and the complication rates don’t warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand

Who to believe, and what to believe?

Clearly, for the intactivists, the health issues are just an aside from the emotional turmoil of the entire ordeal:

Intactivists and foreskin reclaimers are speaking up in higher numbers, but many will not.

Zeldis has a theory as to why: “The majority of circumcised men tell themselves it was good for them. The alternative to that denial involves admitting you were harmed and sexually maimed as a child in one of your most sensitive areas.

“Many men don’t want to psychologically deal with that. It’s overwhelming.”

To all the men out there, circumcised or uncircumcised, we can only wish you a pleasant day.

Sorry for bringing up circumcision so early on a Monday, too.

[source:guardian]