NOHARMM Logo-Home Link










For Media



Quick links to products available in the Campaign for Genital Integrity . . .

Facing Circumcision  Eight Physicians Tell Their Stories
     Restoration in Focus  
Instructional Video for Foreskin Restoration
     They Cut Babies, Don't They?  
One Man's Struggle Against Circumcision
     Whose Body, Whose Rights?   Award-winning documentary seen on PBS!

Circumcision Exposed
Rethinking a Medical and
Cultural Tradition

The P.U.D.  new low pricing!
and The VacuTrac at special pricing!
plus the Foreballs device



NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

See also: Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (2012 to present)

  The 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Policy on Circumcision

1999 AAP Policy NOHARMM's response to the 1999 AAP policy
Critical analysis of the 1999 AAP policy  newyellow.gif (902 bytes) Cartoonists react to the 1999 AAP policy

  Recent Research on Male Genital Anatomy  The published research of Dr. John Taylor (below) demonstrates how circumcision destroys one-half of the skin and nervous system of the penis. Knowing the important lifelong functions of the prepuce (see Fleiss and Milos articles below), one can better understand how the loss of this densely-nerve laden tissue can adversely impact a male's sexuality and self-esteem, resulting in profound effects upon his life. The fact that increasing numbers of circumcised men are pursuing foreskin restoration methods, and have formed restoration support groups and counseling groups in the U.S. and other countries, is a clear indication that circumcision harms both the children upon whom it is imposed and the men they become.

"The fundamental biological sex act becomes, for the circumcised male,
simply satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience
that it was meant to be."
Falliers, C.J.  Circumcision. Journal of the American Medical Assn., vol. 214, 1970, pp. 2194-2195

  Adverse Consequences of Circumcision  There has been no research into the adverse physical, sexual or psychological consequences to men from this childhood genital alteration that most did not choose. The claim that circumcised and intact penises are equal in sensitivity and function is based on old, flawed research. See Why Masters & Johnson's 1966 Circumcision Study is Flawed. Most people do not realize that infant circumcision destroys not a "snip," but 15 square inches of erogenous tissue. Many non-intact (circumcised) men do not understand how they have been damaged by circumcision (see photo guide: How to Identify Circumcision Damage in the Adult Male). NOHARMM began to document this harm in 1993 with a standardized Harm Documentation Form. [Complete and return this form to NOHARMM if you wish to participate in this survey.] Initial findings from the first 300 respondents to the preliminary poll were compiled into a report titled Awakenings, available from NOHARMM. A synopsis of these findings was published as Long-term Consequences of Neonatal Circumcision in Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy by Plenum Press (1997). As of 1998, almost 600 surveys have been returned to NOHARMM. There are indications that at least one-quarter of men circumcised in infancy resent the forced alteration of their genitals  See: Body image surveys examine men's (dis)satisfaction with circumcision.

  Alternatives & Natural Remedies  Circumcision at any age is now virtually obsolete because of increasing anatomical and physiological knowledge, as well as use of Circumcision Alternatives to prevent and treat penile problems. For some male genital problems, safe, effective and natural remedies are offered in The Male Herbal.

  Call for Research  More research, however, is needed into the long-term outcomes of circumcision, as well as the psychological motivations for our human urge to cut the genitals of innocent children. NOHARMM has issued a Call for Research to those seeking to document the effects of circumcision. Please share with us any other research suggestions you may have.

  Female Circumcision and its Previous History in U.S. Medicine  Up until the late 1950s, the same rationalizations used for male circumcision today were expounded for females in reputable U.S. medical journals:


TopOfPage.gif (184 bytes)

Top of Page
| Home | Updates | FAQ | Research | Education | Advocacy | Litigation | Search | Ideas | For Media | Videos | Bookstore | FactFinder
Your Rights
| Attorneys for the Rights of the Child | Video Excerpt | Dads  | FGC Experts | Position Statement | Harm Form | Class Action

Last updated: 22 January, 2022
1998-2021 NOHARMM. All rights reserved.
  Questions, or problems using this site? Webmaster