The book A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain is a critical look at why male infant circumcision became prevalent in Britian.

The Victorian era is examined, along with the medical establishment's idea at that time that the foreskin must be excised as a routine precaution against every imaginable sexual dysfunction, from syphilis and phimosis to masturbation and bed-wetting. Why Britain adopted a practice it had traditionally abhorred and then abandoned it after only two generations is the subject of A Surgical Temptation.

The author reveals that circumcision has always been related to the question of how to control male sexuality. Many men in the US claim that their infant circumcision has not affected them in any way. Unfortunately, men cut at birth have no way of telling how their sexual pleasure has been affected by their infant circumcision. This book attempts to add a ray of light to the circumcision controversy.

Article by C.J. Cold, MD, and J.R. Taylor published in British Journal of Urology (now BJI International), Vol. 83, Supp. 1, pp. 34-44, 1983. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x  The authors describe the prepuce as a common anatomical structure of both male and female genitalia. The authors discuss the embryology, anatomy, and function of the prepuce.  Based on the complex anatomy and the function of the prepuce, or foreskin, the authors advise against neonatal (infant) circumcision. The state that the removal of normal genital anatomy in children and infants should be deferred until the individual can make their own informed choice.

An article by Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., and Frederick M. Hodges about the male foreskin. The two provide a detailed description of the foreskin and how it functions with the rest of the penis.

The article discusses what is the foreskin, how big is the foreskin, what does the ridged band do, why is the foreskin attached and not retractable for young children, and what are the specialized nerver receptors in the foreskin. With the circumcising culture in the United States, very little is known about the foreskin, how it works, and why it is there. Dr. Fleiss and Fred Hodges answer many of the questions people have about the foreskin.

Article from the LA Times published March 31, 2008. The news article reports various facts:

• Penile cancer affects only 1 in 100,000 men
• In the first year of life, 1 in 100 uncircumcised boys will develop a urinary tract infection. Only 1 in 1,000 circumcised boys will. "While that's a tenfold reduction, you have to keep in mind that the risk was only 1% to begin with," says Dr. Andrew Freedman, pediatric urologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Proper hygiene can prevent most infections.
• In 1965, 85% of boys born in the United States were circumcised
• as of 2005, 56% of newborn boys were circumcised, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• 75% of boys born in the Midwest were circumcised, 65% in the Northeast, 56% in the South and only 31% in the West
• Worldwide, only 25% of males are circumcised, and that is mostly for religious or cultural reasons.

Article published in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 / Spring 2010. doi 10.3149/thy.0401.78.

Author Dan Bollinger presents a study regarding circumcision deaths. Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed by circumcision. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these circumcision deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

A news video about infant circumcision in the Untied States. The reporter documents that the infants feel pain during circumcision because doctors do not like to use general anesthesia and, instead, use a topical pain relief, which has been proven to be ineffective. The reporter concludes that infant circumcision is unnecessary because there is no medical reason to perform routine infant circumcision.

Dr. Christine Northrup writes about how male infant circumcision is a risky, painful, and unnecessary procedure.Dr. Northrup points out that the male foreskin is richly innervated and hyperelastic and is there for a reason. The book Sex as Nature Intended It is referenced as a guide to explain why the foreskin is there and how it provides sexual pleasure for both men and women.

The July/August 1989 issue of The Truth Seeker, a Freethinker's Publication, deals entirely with genital mutilation. The publication provides very good articles and information on the harms of circumcision, both for infant boys and prepubescent girls.

The link is to a pdf file of the 68 page publication.

Article published in Humane Health Care International, Volume 12, Number 2: Pages 78-80, April 1996. Circumcision is the act of one person removing a part of the penis of another person.

• Infant circumcision violates the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Many pro-circ advocates say it is necessary to circumcise infants because adults will not want it done).
• Infant circumcision violates a major tenet of medical practice: First do no harm.
• Infant circumcision violates all seven Principles of Medical Ethics.

Dr. Dean Edell discusses the misleading and unsound arguments in the current drive to circumcise Africa. See the video below.