Changes

The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of [[intact ]] genitals is a [[human rights| human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of [[circumcision ]] often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of [[skin]], but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].

Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/The prepuce: specialized [[mucosa]] of the [[penis]] and its loss to circumcision]. ''Br J Urol'' {{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996;77:291-295.}}</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.

The traceable story of the legend of "20,000 nerve endings" began in October '''1997''', when the article "The Case Against Circumcision"<ref name="Fleiss">{{REFjournal |last=Fleiss, |init=P |author-link=Paul M. [Fleiss |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/ |title=The case against circumcision]. '' |journal=Mothering Magazine'' ( |location=Santa Fe). |season?Winter |date=1997.}}</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">{{REFjournal |last=Bazett |init=HC, |last2=McGlone |init2=B, |last3=Willams |init3=RG, |last4=Lufkin |init4=HM. [ |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ |title=I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity]. '' |journal=Arch Neurol Psychiatry'' |date=1932; |volume=27( |issue=3): |pages=489-517.}}</ref>

The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[{{REFweb |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM |title=film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] |publisher=YouTube}}</ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>

The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision|DOC(D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>

However, in the article by Bazett et al. (1932),<ref name ="bazett1932" /> no number is given for the nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] as a whole. Only a count of 212 nerve endings in a 1 cm² piece of a single prepuce tissue is given (see Table 1, p. 492). The 29-page Bazett article of 1932<ref name="bazett1932"/> to which Fleiss refers as a source for his "20,000", without mentioning the page, is only provided with "Conclusions" at CIRP: "For both technical reasons and perceived lack of general interest, CIRP will not present these parts and will only transcribe the conclusions." – — the entire article is available in the archive of "The JAMA Network"<ref name="JAMA">http://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/645191</ref>. The article may be available in 2019 but it was not available in the spring of 1997.

1995, in the film "[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]"<ref name="WhoseBody" /> starting from Montagu's description of the number of nerve endings in normal [[skin]], the number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] was calculated as follows: “15 square inches comfortably fits 15 quarters. This analogy helps us to understand that the adult [[foreskin]] contains … over 1000 nerve endings …" (15 × more than 50 = more than 750), which NOHARMM supplements to "Since Dr. Taylor's research suggests that the [[foreskin]] is '''more densely enervated innervated than "normal" [[skin]]''', a [[circumcised ]] man likely loses many times more than 1,000 nerve endings.”<ref name="circumcisionharm" />^b 

It is time to take leave of the exaggerated number of 20,000 nerve endings in the [[foreskin]].<ref>If you want to name a number, you should only specify the order of magnitude >3,000 <10,000. The number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] is probably at least 4,000, since the [[Glans penis|glans]] already has 4,000 and the [[foreskin]] is more sensitive – — but this is not qualitatively differentiated, for instance between sensitivity to [[pain ]] or touch.</ref> This legend is very wide spread by the opponents of [[circumcision]]. As long as the number cannot be scientifically proven, it is sufficient to say that the prepuce is very densely innervated and for fine touch is more sensitive than the [[Glans penis|glans]]<ref name="Approvals" />,<ref name="Appendix" />. Otherwise, the credibility and persuasive power of the [[Intactivist ]] movement suffers and makes itself unnecessarily vulnerable. Unfortunately, this can also be seen on the Internet.

}}</ref> - In the link to Bazett ''et al'' . there is not no such a number.

* [[Morten Frisch]] (Sexologist, main author of the AAP replica, Copenhagen)<ref>On 12.10.2017 the German and English first version of the article were posted with an accompanying text on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/248240545511361/534302533571862/. Morten Frisch shared and linked the article on Facebook on 28.10.2017 and wrote a post in which he called to mention no exaggerated numbers, thanked the author and recommended reading the article. He then received 93 likes, including 89 from [[Denmark]], Marilyn F. Milos, Lloyd Schofield (president of Bay Area Intactivists), Brian D. Earp and Georg Zimmermann ({{UNI|University of Osnabrück|UOS}}, formerly [[human rights ]] activist at intactivism); please refer: https://www.facebook.com/morten.frisch/posts/10214297927219433?pnref=story .</ref>