https://circumcised.com/ Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:08:38 +0000 MyBB https://circumcised.com/Thread-History-of-intactivism Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:03:47 +0000 Old-guy]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-History-of-intactivism History of Intactivism
The practice of child circumcision for alleged medical reasons started in Victorian times in England but soon spread to other English-speaking nations. Certain British doctors claimed that masturbation caused mental disease. Circumcision was advocated by Cockshut (1935) to make masturbation impossible. Circumcision of boys was practiced to some extent in the United Kingdom in the early twentieth century.

Non-English speaking nations have never practiced circumcision for alleged medical reasons, although circumcision for religious reasons has been practiced for many centuries.

Medical Intactivism

Intactivism seems to have started when British paediatrician Sir James Calvert Spence asked his young assistant Dr. Douglas Gairdner to prepare an article about circumcision. Gairdner's article was published in London in the British Medical Journal on Christmas Eve, 1949.

The article seemed to have been well-received in the United Kingdom, where the new National Health Service had ruled out providing non-therapeutic circumcision. It also seems to have been well received in New Zealand where there was a sharp decline in the incidence of circumcision.

Gairdner's landmark article seemed to have been mostly ignored by medical doctors in Australia, Canada, and the United States. The 
practice of child circumcision was not questioned in the United States until the 1960s, when Morgan (1965) published a critical comment in JAMA.  This was followed the next year by Foley (1966) who published The Unkindest Cut of All.  

Patel (1966), working in Canada, studied the boys born in his hospital, of whom 48% were circumcised. Among the circumcised boys, he  reported 55% had a complication.  

Australian physicians were also starting to express concern. Dr. John D. Begg (1952) read a paper before the Melbourne Paediatric Society that questioned the practice. Morgan (1967) published a highly critical paper in the Australian Medical Journal. Wright (1967) also came out against circumcision of boys.  The Australian Paediatric Journal published a special issue in June 1970 with three articles critical of circumcision by Leith, Birrel, and Smith. After that the stage was set for a change of policy which occurred in 1971, when the Medical Journal of Australia published a letter by SP Belmaine, the Secretary of the Australian Paediatric Association, stating that boys should not as a routine be circumcised. The incidence of circumcision in Australia declined rapidly after that.

Preston (1970) in the United States then followed with his article, Whither the Foreskin, which appeared in JAMA.

Preston's paper received the attention of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who declared in 1971, "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." This may be the only correct statement regarding child circumcision ever made by the AAP.

David A. Grimes (1978) really slammed the practice of child circumcision, writing:

" The existing literature is inadequate to evaluate appropriately routine circumcision of the newborn infant. On the basis of limited data, however, circumcision of neonates appears to lack sufficient justification. Potential benefits may include facilitation of hygiene and diminution in the risk of cancer of the penis. Lying outside the province of modern surgery, however, the procedure frequently features illogical bases for patient selection, neglect of the requirement to obtain informed consent, an inappropriate operator, needlessly radical technique, disregard for pain, dubious objectives, and unknown cost-effectiveness. Long-term randomized trials will be required to evaluate adequately newborn circumcision and its alternatives. However, until the benefits of routine circumcision of the neonate can be proved worth the risk and cost, medical resources probably should be allocated to measures of demonstrated value."

Popular intactivism

The first recorded protest against child circumcision was staged by Van and Benjamin Lewis outside a hospital in Tallahassee in 1970.

The first known intactivist organization was the INTACT Educational Foundation in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, that was created by Jeffrey R. Wood.

Popular intactivism really got started when Marilyn Fayre Milos, R.N., organized the National Organization of Circumcision Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1985. NOCIRC has now merged its operations into Intact America, however the original website has been maintained.

Professor George C. Denniston, M.D., started Doctors Opposing Circumcision in 1995.]]> History of Intactivism
The practice of child circumcision for alleged medical reasons started in Victorian times in England but soon spread to other English-speaking nations. Certain British doctors claimed that masturbation caused mental disease. Circumcision was advocated by Cockshut (1935) to make masturbation impossible. Circumcision of boys was practiced to some extent in the United Kingdom in the early twentieth century.

Non-English speaking nations have never practiced circumcision for alleged medical reasons, although circumcision for religious reasons has been practiced for many centuries.

Medical Intactivism

Intactivism seems to have started when British paediatrician Sir James Calvert Spence asked his young assistant Dr. Douglas Gairdner to prepare an article about circumcision. Gairdner's article was published in London in the British Medical Journal on Christmas Eve, 1949.

The article seemed to have been well-received in the United Kingdom, where the new National Health Service had ruled out providing non-therapeutic circumcision. It also seems to have been well received in New Zealand where there was a sharp decline in the incidence of circumcision.

Gairdner's landmark article seemed to have been mostly ignored by medical doctors in Australia, Canada, and the United States. The 
practice of child circumcision was not questioned in the United States until the 1960s, when Morgan (1965) published a critical comment in JAMA.  This was followed the next year by Foley (1966) who published The Unkindest Cut of All.  

Patel (1966), working in Canada, studied the boys born in his hospital, of whom 48% were circumcised. Among the circumcised boys, he  reported 55% had a complication.  

Australian physicians were also starting to express concern. Dr. John D. Begg (1952) read a paper before the Melbourne Paediatric Society that questioned the practice. Morgan (1967) published a highly critical paper in the Australian Medical Journal. Wright (1967) also came out against circumcision of boys.  The Australian Paediatric Journal published a special issue in June 1970 with three articles critical of circumcision by Leith, Birrel, and Smith. After that the stage was set for a change of policy which occurred in 1971, when the Medical Journal of Australia published a letter by SP Belmaine, the Secretary of the Australian Paediatric Association, stating that boys should not as a routine be circumcised. The incidence of circumcision in Australia declined rapidly after that.

Preston (1970) in the United States then followed with his article, Whither the Foreskin, which appeared in JAMA.

Preston's paper received the attention of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who declared in 1971, "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." This may be the only correct statement regarding child circumcision ever made by the AAP.

David A. Grimes (1978) really slammed the practice of child circumcision, writing:

" The existing literature is inadequate to evaluate appropriately routine circumcision of the newborn infant. On the basis of limited data, however, circumcision of neonates appears to lack sufficient justification. Potential benefits may include facilitation of hygiene and diminution in the risk of cancer of the penis. Lying outside the province of modern surgery, however, the procedure frequently features illogical bases for patient selection, neglect of the requirement to obtain informed consent, an inappropriate operator, needlessly radical technique, disregard for pain, dubious objectives, and unknown cost-effectiveness. Long-term randomized trials will be required to evaluate adequately newborn circumcision and its alternatives. However, until the benefits of routine circumcision of the neonate can be proved worth the risk and cost, medical resources probably should be allocated to measures of demonstrated value."

Popular intactivism

The first recorded protest against child circumcision was staged by Van and Benjamin Lewis outside a hospital in Tallahassee in 1970.

The first known intactivist organization was the INTACT Educational Foundation in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, that was created by Jeffrey R. Wood.

Popular intactivism really got started when Marilyn Fayre Milos, R.N., organized the National Organization of Circumcision Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1985. NOCIRC has now merged its operations into Intact America, however the original website has been maintained.

Professor George C. Denniston, M.D., started Doctors Opposing Circumcision in 1995.]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Help-grow-circumcised-com Tue, 21 Jul 2026 01:34:34 +0000 ab]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Help-grow-circumcised-com https://circumcised.com/Thread-What-is-different-here Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:39:23 +0000 sgtkwol]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-What-is-different-here