5 Lies Intactivists Told Me

The decision not to circumcise my son wasn’t one that I took lightly. It involved deep introspection and careful evaluation of the science on both sides. It also meant breaking myself away from herd mentality: both my Jewish background, which strongly encouraged me to circumcise, and my involvement in the communities of gentle parenting, which strongly encouraged me not to circumcise. Eventually, just a few months before my son was born, I decided not to circumcise him. What it boiled down to was this: I can’t justify a permanent alteration of the body of someone who can’t consent, unless there is irrefutable scientific evidence of the benefits of doing so.

That evidence exists for vaccines. It does not exist for circumcision.

But, unfortunately, as with all too many factors in “crunchy” culture, I found that “intacvitist” communities on the internet were positively overflowing with misinformation and pseudoscience. Here are the five most ridiculous lies and statements I encountered during my misadventures with intactivism:

1. “Circumcision of newborn boys is just as bad as female genital mutilation, or worse.”

What a way to insult survivors of FGM! There are different forms of femalegenital mutilation, but they all share several traits in common: they are absolutely condemned by science, they cause severe and irrevocable damage to sexual function and urogenital health, and they have no medical benefits whatsoever.  Circumcision, on the other hand, has the intended goal of promoting human health. Girls who are mutilated are often strapped down so hard that they break limbs trying to escape, while elders cut off their labia or clitorises with sharp and rusty razors. They often bleed to death or die of infection. If you think a baby boy snipped in a clean American hospital is a victim on the same level, you need a fast and serious reality check.

2. “Circumcision is a modern invention. Circumcision in ancient times didn’t even involve removing skin. That’s why Michelangelo’s ‘David’ and paintings of baby Jesus show foreskins.”

If we assume that Renaissance artwork can be counted on as historically accurate, it would follow that unicorns must be real and that people had  habit of standing around near objects that were symbolically appropriate to every occasion. “David” and historical paintings of Jesus show foreskin because Renaissance artists used non-circumcised models and because it was considered more aesthetically pleasing at the time. Circumcision is absolutely ancient: there is artistic and written documentation of it as far back as the fifth century BCE in ancient Egypt, and is specifically commanded and described in the Torah, which was written during roughly the same time period. Rewriting history to fit an intactivist agenda doesn’t help anyone.

3. “Babies die from circumcision every single day in the U.S.”

Bull. Death from circumcision is extraordinarily rare, estimated at about 1 in500,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. Your baby’s chances of dying of circumcision are slim to none, yet it’s a common intactivist tactic to make up bogus statistics. Some that I’ve heard include, “Your baby has a 1 in 50 chance of dying of circumcision”—really?—and “A baby dies from complications of circumcision every 10 minutes.” Nope, not at all. Sorry, guys, but you can’t make up statistics just to sound scary.

4. “Circumcision destroys sexual function. Men who are circumcised have 80% less sensation than men who are not circumcised.”

Just how do they think that was measured, I wonder? All evidence to date actually shows that circumcision has essentially no impact on sexual function. None. There was a massive review in 2010 that investigated several studies and couldn’t find evidence of any sexual dysfunction caused by circumcision. Circumcision didn’t affect rates of premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, difficulty with orgasm, sexual desire, or pain during sex. There’s no evidence that circumcised men suffer sexually because of it.

5. “Babies almost never need to be circumcised for medical reasons.”

This intactivist lie is often followed with the claim that a baby is more likely to die from circumcision than to medically need a circumcision. And, again, that’s just not true. Medically necessary circumcisions aren’t uncommon at all. One of my relatives needed one shortly after birth during surgery to correct a birth defect known as hypospadias. A friend of mine who is now an adult was circumcised as a child to make it easier, safer, and cleaner to use his catheter (he is incontinent).  One of my friends’ sons needed a circumcision at three because of severe recurrent yeast infections. To call these people “mutilated” or “ruined,” or to erase the reality of their experiences, is hurtful—not to mention inaccurate.

 At the end of the day, I don’t regret my decision not to circumcise my son—and I hope that he doesn’t regret it, either. But, unlike other intactivists, I don’t feel a need to bury my head into pseudoscience and lies in order to justify the decision I made regarding my child’s body, and I don’t feel a need to shame or attack men who have been circumcised or parents who choose to do it. As long as the science says that there’s not enough evidence to fully support or condemn circumcision, I think it’s about time we reach an agreement: let’s stop arguing and obsessing over baby penises. You take care of your kids and I’ll take care of mine.