Samuel Murrian's picture

"American Circumcision" Is The "Definitive" Documentary On The Topic

Some of us have a preference for an uncut c*ck, some of us like the look of a cut one, and there are those of us who don’t really have too much of a partiality.

Brendon Marotta’s new documentary American Circumcision is clear in its motives: it argues for the end of circumcision in the United States.

The talking-heads doc presents that, among other reasons, the surgery itself is traumatizing to young infants, who don’t get to choose whether or not to keep their foreskin, and that the procedure is painful. The doc suggests that this leads to lifelong and trust issues.

The filmmakers call themselves “Intactivists” (intact meaning they have a foreskin) who fight for a man’s right to choose the fate of his c*ck.

As a circumcised man, I for one have a hard time taking any of this seriously. I certainly don't remember the operation. And if someone tried to tell me I’m not intact because I don’t have a foreskin I’m not sure if I’d be offended or if I’d just dismiss them as insane or both. Right now I’m in kind of a “choose your battles” mindset.

In the trailer, American Circumcision bills itself as “the award-winning definitive documentary on the issue.”

Here’s the official synopsis:

“Circumcision is the most common surgery in America, yet America is the only industrialized country in the world to routinely practice non-religious infant circumcision. Why does America continue to cut the genitals of it's newborn baby males when the rest of the world does not? American Circumcision explores both sides of the circumcision debate, including the growing Intactivist movement (intact + activist), which believes all human beings have a right to keep the body they were born with intact. This is the first documentary of its scale to comprehensively explore this cutting edge issue, which involves sex, politics, and religion, all in the most personal way possible.”

American Circumcision is now available to stream. Visit, the website here, where you can also watch the trailer: circumcisionmovie.com

What are your thoughts on circumcision? Are you an Intactivist? Sound off in the comments and let us know.

h/t: The Advocate

 

Comments

+1
0
-1
[-]

Poor kids. #MeToo violence to the young has consequences. It is torture. America is violent. Dip-shits believe it's ok; no common sense.

+1
0
-1
[-]

Try looking down the next time you take a shower.  That might help you remember.

+1
-1
-1
[-]

Bahaha circumcision will never ever be banned.  It's a benefit for boys . Like in European the let parents choice. Some can afford it some can't and do it later. But circumcision is the best choice for a boy. He wont remember it and the recovery is so much faster, then being an adult. The did try this in European but we are smart and wouldn't ban something this positive and beneficial to boys. American are just weird and try to control people as much as possible the don't even care if the have to kill for it or bully someone for it.  Anti circumcision people call uncircumcised man nasty and dirty if someone tells them the story with uncircumcised man. But it's better and here the are still many having infection and problems with there forskin lol . Or uncircumcised man speak of there experiences and how the hate it but to scared to get circumcised are being bullied? . The fact is, it has benefits and it will never ever be banned. For religion reason but also heath reason.  So safe u son a life time of shame and infection and circumcised them . Let the start a heathy life without worries .

+1
0
-1
[-]

1) "Benefit for boys"??  Health reasons??  Three national medical organizations (Iceland, Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be *banned*, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they'd support a ban if they didn't think it would drive the practice underground.

"Routine" circumcision is *already* banned in public hospitals in Australia (almost all the men responsible for this policy will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%).

2) Almost no-one is circumcised in Europe unless their parents are Jewish or Muslim, but Europeans are healthier than Americans.

3) Almost no-one actually given the choice chooses to get circumcised.

4) If you're happy to be circumcised, that's great, but personally, I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised.  Why would I want the most sensitive and pleasurable parts cut off?  That little bit of skin makes a big difference.

Why don't we just let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they want irreversible genital surgery?  It's their body after all.  It's not like it can't wait.  I think it's only the USA (at around 60% and dropping) and Israel where more than half of baby boys are circumcised.  Other countries circumcise, but not till anywhere from the age of seven to adolescence.  Only about 12% of the world's circumcised men were circumcised as babies.  Around two thirds of the world's men (88% of the world's non-Muslim men) never get circumcised.

If I'd been circumcised at birth, and you'd been left intact though, I can see how we might be on opposite sides of the argument...

+1
1
-1
[-]

My body.  My choice.  The United States is the only country in the world that does this for non-religious reasons - 17 out of 20 babies circumcised in the world are American.  And what ARE the reasons?  To prevent masturbation and reduce sexual pleasure thought to cause all sorts of disease.  The hygiene and medical rationalizations happened after the procedure was already entrenched in 20th century American culture.  The United States also has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world.  The practice kills about 120 babies through infection and bleeding every year.  Probably another 300 die of shock from the procedure with the deaths attributed to other causes.  But the deaths aren't the whole story.  What about the amputations and the hernias and broken eardrums caused by crying?  How about permanent brain changes which look remarkably like ADHD brains in MRIs?  Are there medical reasons?  No.  Socio-economically similar countries in the world have lower rates of virtually every sexually transmitted disease including HIV.  Doesn't it make you want to bitch slap American obstetricians who use the fees to make payments on their Jaguars?

+1
1
-1
[-]

Being born without a foreskin is a birth defect called Aposthia. Thus, MGM (known by the euphemism "circumcision") is most definitely, accurately described as male genital mutilation because it is in fact mimicking a birth defect in which a part of the penis (the prepuce) is missing. You are definitely not intact. Doctors and religious leaders soliciting MGM will never tell you about Aposthia because they would then get very few signing up their sons. In fact some doctors even tell parents of boys born with Aposthia "he has a natural circumcision". This is rather like saying someone born with no breast buds has a "natural mastectomy". 
I am genuinely pleased for you that you do not feel harmed or not whole etc. But that doesn't mean all men and boys are required to share your feelings. The point is many don't and they have a rock solid argument that what was done to them violates medical ethics, human rights and equal rights (since it is a Federal crime to make even a ritual nick of a girl's genitals) and that they have suffered harm in many ways (look up botches, complications and psychological damage of MGM). If people want to alter their healthy genitals for whatever reason, they are free to do so as adults. 75% of the world's men are intact and the vast majority choose to stay that way. They are just as happy as you. The difference is that if they are not happy with their whole genitals, they have a choice to alter them. What choice does the cut man have if he is unhappy with his status?

+1
0
-1
[-]

Why don't we just make it that at 18 anyone can get circumcised.  If you want a "pretty dick" then get one, if not than we can call you "anteater" for the rest of your life.  End of discussion.   I had my appendix removed as a teenager and I can still function as a man, the same is true for the rest of me.   

+1
0
-1
[-]

Totally agree. Give them the choice, but outright ban is not the answer. If it's banned, it will be a slippery slope to forbid the Jews and Muslims from practicing their faith.

+1
-1
-1
[-]

I see the intactiloons got a hold of your article and stormed the comments section. It's what they do when someone doesn't agree with them. Act like children throwing a tantrum, bully, and call their friends to bully you until you shut down comments are eventually agree with them. They are disgusting individuals and no where near the human rights activists they like to fancy themselves.

+1
0
-1
[-]

Oh Nicole,

It’s so sad that you can’t see the truth of the harm an infant endures when they have their foreskin ripped back, probed, and cut off without any anesthesia. It is a human rights issue, and I haven’t seen one comment bashing the author, just educating about this horrible and unnecessary procedure. 

Of course intactivists are storming the comments section, because this is a HUGE issue. Do you advocate for FGM? If not, please don’t advocate for MGM.

+1
0
-1
[-]

So commenting in a comments section is wrong now?

"intactiloons"??  Three national medical organizations (Iceland, Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be *banned*, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they'd support a ban if they didn't think it would drive the practice underground.

"Routine" circumcision *is* banned in public hospitals in Australia (almost all the men responsible for this policy will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%).

+1
1
-1
[-]

Go watch a VIDEO of what YOU and millions of other men in the US alone went through as infants, watch how your body was cut and torn, without anesthesia and without YOUR CONSENT and then just right the issue off as "no big deal."  >>> I'll wait right here while YOU GO WATCH IT.

American men's DENIAL is the number one problem when it comes to male genital mutilation in the US. They don't remember their TRAUMA, and they are so deep in denial about it all that they won't educate themselves on the issue ..with abject cowardice, they hand their sons off to be, likewise, mutilated because, after all, they "want their boys to look JUST LIKE THEM..." Men perpetrate this barbarity, men perform the "procedure" and men are the most deeply affected by it all.. so when are you all going to MAN THE HELL UP and DEMAND that it stop...?!

+1
1
-1
[-]

It's a very simple issue of basic human rights. ALL children, male, female and intersex have the right to their natural body, without unnecessary alterations.

+1
1
-1
[-]

So many have commented on your dismissive statement about your own status as a cut man. But, I sympathize with you - it's not just dismissive, it's defensive. I just watched a vdeo of a teenage boy who titled his statement "My life is destroyed", in which he describes his obsessive attention to his status as cut now that he is aware of what it is about, how it affects him. Defense mechanisms protect us from this kind of troubled mind. It doesn't protect us from the harm done to our bodies, our sexual experiences, our relationships, our physical, mental and emotional health (unless your defense mechanism is very strong. Thank you for promoting this film and inviting comments - even though many of them are directed at you.

+1
1
-1
[-]

"As a circumcised man, I for one have a hard time taking any of this seriously. I certainly don't remember the operation"

Ah, so that's the only criteria? As long as you don't remember something, it's okay for someone to do it to you? 

How 'bout I stop by your house, spike your drink to knock you out, and amputate your left arm while you're asleep? No worries, you won't remember it, so it must be okay ... right? 

By this logic, rape is also fine as long as the woman doesn't remember it -- couple o' roofies, and you're good to go! How about child about (which, incidentally, genital mutilation IS)? As long as the kid's too young to remember, it's okay? 

Slippery slope there, pal ... 

+1
0
-1
[-]

Sorry, slopping typing: Should say "How about child ABUSE" 

+1
1
-1
[-]

Not sure if I care if Samuel "takes this seriously" or not. Millions of people do.

+1
0
-1
[-]

I'm not sure from this piece if Samuel has actually watched the film, or just the trailer. Not much of a review of the documentary - more a short piece in defense of his denuded and functionally impaired penis. But as he's never known anything else and it works good enough for him all these intactivists should find something better to do with their time than protecting the rights of babies. 

After all, parents should apparently have the right to hand their newborn boy (sorry, no girls allowed as they're protected) to an ethically-challenge medical 'professional' to strap him down. Then with minimal or no anaesthetic, have the medic literally prise the foreskin (fused at birth to the head of the penis ) with a blunt metal probe (yes  that's what they have to do before they cut) and finally slicing it off, having guessed how much they should take off (no dotted line saying cut here on the foreskin. Because foreskins are apparently so unhygienic, they then wrap the raw bloody stump in gauze and have the wound sit in a diaper in piss and shit while it heals. For this the doc is paid handsomely and also gets to keep the tip - which he sells on (yes, there's a market for foreskins) to the makers of Oprah Winfrey's face cream - Oprah's face deserves the magical properties of foreskin, not the foreskin's owner.

Then the doctor walks into the sunset with the cash leaving the boy to deal with it for the rest of his life. Around 10% will get meatal stenosis, a condition almost exclusively suffered by circumcised boys  as a result of their procedure. Another doctor will make a ton of cash fixing that and the boy gets to experience his second (or sometimes third ) genital surgery. Did I mention the botched circumcisions affecting some unlucky boys, sometimes only manifesting as issues (real painful life changing issues  at puberty when the growing penis discovers there isn't enough expanding skin left to accommodate the erection of the teenager, who then has to suffer (mostly in silence ) painful erections or a hideously bent penis. When cut guys body shame their intact 'ant-eater' friends they don't think that the huge scar round their 2-tone penis, nor the rough  numb keratinized glans (with or without skin tags or adhesions) is anything but American Beauty. Some cut guys are lucky enough to get a bit of their frenulum left behind as a source of exquisite pleasure. It's a bit of a lottery though so don't bank on there being any kind of consistency. Remember the guy who did the procedure, he's long gone and doesn't have to deal with the appalling fall out from the circumcision which some men have to deal with throughout the rest of their lives. 

Hopefully soon, men like Samuel will realize they have been wronged and they've been violated and the cycle of cut dads cutting their sons will finally end. But maybe watching the documentary would be a good place for Samuel to start learning what he's been missing all his life. 

+1
1
-1
[-]

Circumcision was declared universally necessary by Dr. Maimonedes because males after that have diminished sexual desires and therefore could spend more time studying Torah. 

Well if Maimonedes was right then of course circumcision diminishes sex for men. But moreover, it turns a soft tissue into a hard tissue and hurts women. Take it from women who have had sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men, natural is far superior.

The male should not be retracted until it is normally retracting, and the male should clean under with water during shower. 

Men, circumcision is ridiculous. Men, if you want to please your woman, be natural, and raise your sons naturally. Jewish couples, hold baby naming ceremonies instead of bris events. 

+1
1
-1
[-]

I think most men that were circumcised as infants have no clue what they're missing down there.  It's like being born without vision.  You have no idea what it's like to see and if no one tells that person what it's like to be able to see, you never miss it.  Guys don't typically talk about their junk.
I went until I was 35 before I started learning anything about "foreskin."  I quote the word because there's no definitive place where it ends on the penis and different surgeons/doctors cut it off differently.  I was circumcised as an infant and thought that my experiences with my penis was probably just typical and I assumed that there was good reason for the practice.  When I became a father, my wife insisted that I look at the information with her and I make the decision with her about whether to have our son (now 13 and we have another that's 11) circumcised.  In some ways, I'm happy she pushed so we made the right decision to keep him intact.  In another way, ignorance is bliss and now I know that I'm missing something valuable and have realized more and more how I am harmed.  The lack of skin causes my scrotum to draw upward during erections, which sometimes leads to my balls getting squashed, which feels similar to getting kicked in the balls.  There are a couple other negative impacts, but I'll leave it at that.

+1
1
-1
[-]

"As a circumcised man... if someone tried to tell me I’m not intact because I don’t have a foreskin I’m not sure if I’d be offended or if I’d just dismiss them as insane or both" - Samuel Murrian

Let's look up the definition of the word "intact":
1) not altered, broken, or impaired; remaining uninjured, sound, or whole; untouched;unblemished
2) not changed or diminished; not influenced or swayed:Despite misfortune, his faith is still intact.
3) complete or whole, especially not castrated or emasculated.

You were born with a whole penis, not altered, broken, impaired, uninjured, untouched, unblemished, not changed or diminished. You were born intact. Then, part of your penis was surgically amputated.

Your penis was altered. The part of your penis that remained was red and bloody. You received an injury and you had an open wound on your penis. Your penis can no longer self-lubricate, your sexual function is impaired. The head of your penis is dried out, calloused. You less of penis than than you would have if you were intact.

And, here's the kicker: you are emasculated too. Someone sexually violated you--cut off part of your manhood--and you don't even have the balls to stand up for your human rights! You are as good as castrated.

You're not intact, and neither am I. I have a mutilated penis, too. And I'm strong enough of a man to admit it. When you realize that it is more important to protect children from sexual abuse than to defend your ego, you might become an intactivist too. Until then... it's you who is offensive and insane.

+1
1
-1
[-]

I was sexually violated as a baby when part of my penis was cut off and thrown in the garbage. What makes me an intactivist is that I take action to protect the human rights of all children: male, female, and intersex to keep their whole bodies in one piece. My body doesn't belong to my parents, or to the religion of my parents. I am an American. My body. My penis. My rights.

+1
1
-1
[-]

By definition a cut penis is NOT intact. It has been mutilated, ie permanently damaged by the removal of the foreskin, an integral part of the WHOLE penis, including 20,000+ specialized fine touch nerve endings and numerous protective, immunological and sexual functions!

Male and female genitalia evolved together and complement each other perfectly in their INTACT state... not mutilated! When any functional part of either male or female sexual organ is missing, someone always has to compensate!

It’s a disgusting American habit and a gross Human Rights violation of children! ALL children ... girls AND boys... deserve to grow up with their WHOLE bodies, including their intact genitals! 

+1
2
-1
[-]

"As a circumcised man, I certainly don't remember the operation, if someone tried to tell me I’m not intact because I don’t have a foreskin..."

Just because you don't remember being violated by having the most sensitive part of YOUR body cut off due to ignorance, greed and ego, does not make it go away. You had an important and functional part of your body cut off at birth.

How you feel about it is irrelevant, YOU ARE NOT INTACT, that is a fact.

+1
2
-1
[-]

Female genital mutilation is illegal in so many countries. Continuing to mutilate boys with circumcision is simply wrong. As so many have said before. Once you are an adult and make this choice then that’s a right that should not be challenged. 

+1
2
-1
[-]

As someone who has dealt with strong negative emotions towards his circumcision since childhood, I found this documentary to be exquisite. I thought it delicately touched on a very sensitive subject and did a great job of showing all sides on the matter. 

You can’t make someone feel something they don’t. I know that there are many circumcised men out there who couldn’t care less about whether or not they have foreskin, but for a good majority of us - it does. For me, it comes down to “the choice”. Whether you’re 5, 12, or 27, if you choose to be circumcised that’s your decision. I didn’t get a choice and I firmly wish I had. 

+1
2
-1
[-]

I was once a mother filled with righteous indignation toward the "intactivist" movement that DARED call this simple, safe, clean procedure "mutilation".

So filled with rage by another mother's comments one day, I set out to find solid, medical, PROOF that cutting was absolutely whatsw best.

Instead... I was the one proven wrong. And I had to be mature enough to admit that. My son was born two years ago and he is intact because of this movement. God bless this Documentary. I hope all of your readers watch it, so that more boys can be saved.

+1
2
-1
[-]

If the author is happy to be circumcised, that's great.  It's not like he ever had the choice though.  I do, and I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised or have my son circumcised.  Why would I want the most sensitive and pleasurable parts cut off?  That little bit of skin makes a big difference (it's not just there to protect the glans).

Why don't we just let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they want irreversible genital surgery?  It's their body after all.

It's not like it can't wait.  I think it's only the USA (at around 60% and dropping) and Israel where more than half of baby boys are circumcised.  Other countries circumcise, but not till anywhere from the age of seven to adolescence.  Only about 12% of the world's circumcised men were circumcised as babies.  Around two thirds of the world's men (including 88% of the world's non-Muslim men) never get circumcised.

If I'd been circumcised at birth and the author hadn't though, I can easily see how we might be on opposite sides of this argument.  I'd be the one who didn't know what they were missing.

Many intactivists are circumcised btw, so intactivists are pro-intact, but not necessarily intact themselves.

Plenty of doctors agree with them too.  Three national medical organizations (Iceland, Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be *banned*, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they'd support a ban if they didn't think it would drive the practice underground.  "Routine" circumcision *is* banned in public hospitals in Australia (almost all the men responsible for this policy will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%).

+1
2
-1
[-]

The author talks about choosing one's battles but totally ignores that circumcising babies denies men exactly that choice. What a joke.

Add new comment