Porn Studies

ISSN: 2326-8743 (Print) 2326-8751 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rprn20

‘The First Rip Off’: anti-circumcision activism in

men’s magazines

Jonathan A. Allan

To cite this article: Jonathan A. Allan (2018): ‘The First Rip Off’: anti-circumcision activism in
men’s magazines, Porn Studies, DOI: 10.1080/23268743.2018.1486225

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1486225

Published online: 27 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rprn20
PORN STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1486225

‘The First Rip Off’: anti-circumcision activism in men’s

magazines
Jonathan A. Allan
Department of English and Creative Writing and Program in Gender and Women’s Studies, Brandon
University, Brandon, MB, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article explores the rise of ‘intactivism’, a social movement Received 24 November 2017
which positions itself as being against circumcision, in the pages Accepted 5 June 2018
of Hustler magazine. Intactivism has largely been studied in terms
KEYWORDS
of letters to the editor of newspapers and online engagement, but Anti-circumcision activism;
in this article I explore pornography. Drawing on archival research, circumcision; foreskin; Hustler
this article considers articles published in Hustler in the 1970s, as magazine; intactivism
well as the letters that were submitted to Hustler about the
articles. As such, this article broadens the scope of analysis for
scholars of anti-circumcision to include the pornographic, about
which very little has been written.

Introduction
As I write this article, Iceland is debating banning circumcision. The debate would, as a
result, make it illegal for anyone to perform circumcision for non-medical reasons,
including sacred and ritual reasons. CNN reports that ‘Iceland’s proposed ban on male
circumcision upsets Jews, Muslims’ (Otto and McGann 2018). Likewise, Metro asks: ‘Ice-
land’s proposed ban on circumcision: Ending religious tolerance or promoting human
rights?’ (Segall 2018). In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of intactivism, which
is ‘broadly considered to be an anticircumcision movement that began in the early
1980s’ (Sardi 2014, 94). For David Wilton, author of The Intactivists: San Francisco Pride
2009–2010, an intactivist ‘is a person who supports the fundamental human right of
all people to intact genitals’ (2011). Wilton further explains that ‘while no gender or
person is excluded from those intactivists seek to protect through lobbying and political
action, infant boys are the most wide-spread victims of genital cutting in the United
States’ (2011). While the movement is broadly concerned with ‘genital integrity’, the
focus of argument has long been on male neonates. Amanda Kennedy, likewise,
observes that:
[i]ntactivism is a movement of (mostly) men, fighting against male circumcision. It is a global
movement, with activists around the (Western) world – in the U.S., England, Denmark,
Germany, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand. The movement emerged in the late 1970s/early
1980s in response to the high rate of neonatal male circumcision of in the U.S. (2016, 3)

CONTACT Jonathan A. Allan allanj@brandonu.ca 270 18th Street, Brandon, MB, Canada R7A 6A9
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. A. ALLAN

Circumcision, thus, becomes a focal point around which these activists galvanize. The goal
is for the medical community and parents alike to abandon circumcision, not just for
medical but also personal and religious reasons.
In their sociological work, Kennedy and Lauren M. Sardi observe that ‘the movement is
located primarily online, using social media and networking to disseminate their ideas’
and that ‘many images posted online of intactivists show them protesting outside of gov-
ernment buildings and medical conferences as well as along busy roads and highways’
(2016, 2). They also note that ‘much of their work is also conducted through social media
such as Facebook and Twitter, in the comments section of medical news articles, and in
online parenting forums’ (2016, 2). Given Sardi has noted that the movement began in
the 1980s, most notably with the publication of Edward Wallerstein’s (1980) Circumcision:
An American Health Fallacy, we know that the movement has not always been ‘online’. In
this article, therefore, I set out to consider the earlier moments in the movement, and
more especially the less academic spaces in which these discussions unfolded. In particular,
I set out to consider the place of circumcision debates in pornographic magazines.
In this article, however, I am interested in what might be called the ‘growing popularity’
of intactivism that unfolds during the 1970s and 1980s. In particular, I set out to study
articles and letters that appeared in Hustler magazine regarding anti-circumcision politics
and activism. The bulk of studies thus far which attend to intactivism and anti-circumcision
politics have focused on what we might understand as ‘mainstream’ materials. Laura Car-
penter, for instance, studied ‘letters to the editor’ of newspapers in her study ‘Influencing
Health Debates Through Letters to the Editor: The Case of Male Circumcision’ (2010).
Carpenter argues that ‘letters to the editor provide unique insight into the ways of acti-
vists, other stakeholders, and ordinary people seek to influence public health debates in
ways mediated by journalistic practices’ (2009, 519). Likewise, Kennedy (2016), in her dis-
sertation, undertook field work on the intactivist movement; for example, focusing on their
public protests. Lauren Sardi Ross’ (2009) dissertation provided an institutional ethnogra-
phy of male neonatal circumcision, which included interviews with intactivists as well as
content analyses of how intactivists have used social media. In later work, Sardi (2011)
has developed her analysis of the debate to focus on questions of social movements,
sexual citizenship, and human rights, the latter being a discourse that is quite common
in anti-circumcision activism. Finally, as already noted, Kennedy and Sardi (2016) have
focused on the ways in which social media has been mobilized by intactivists, as well as
providing a brief overview of a comic book called Foreskin Man, in which the hero
rescues infants and children from circumcision.1

The foreskin debate

In this article, I am interested largely in publications that appeared in the 1970s. As such, it
is worth recalling here that in the 1950s, nearly 90% of male neonates in the United States
were circumcised. Thus, we can assume that the majority of readers, given one had to be
‘of age’ to purchase the men’s magazines under consideration, would have been circum-
cised. It was only in 1971 that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reversed its pos-
ition on routine neonatal circumcision, and began to argue that there were no real medical
reasons for the procedure. Adam Henerey observes that ‘from 1971 to 1974, a series of
articles were published in Journal of Urology in an attempt to rally opposition to the
 PORN STUDIES 3

AAP’ (2004, 270) and thus, in response, the AAP ‘created an ad hoc task force to investigate
the validity of its original statement and found its original suppositions and resolutions
regarding circumcision were correct’ (2004, 271). This position was reaffirmed in 1975,
and would only begin to face resistance during the HIV/AIDS crisis later in the 1980s.
Given this context, I am interested in exploring how the foreskin debate unfolded in
various magazines and thus extending the sites of analysis conducted by Carpenter,
Kennedy, and Sardi. I wish to argue then that medical discussions affected and influenced
debates in the public sphere, including in the pages of magazines that were largely,
although not exclusively, intended for men.
While the focus of this article is on two articles published in Hustler, there were certainly
others being produced. For example, the nudist publication ANKH, described itself as:
an educational, scientific, sociological, and cultural production, which illustrates the conviction
that the human body is clean and wholesome, and that increased public understanding of the
nudist view will contribute to the well-being and advancement of the public, whether practi-
cing nudists or not, as well as the American heritage of the free press. (ANKH information page)

ANKH published an article titled ‘All Right, Doctor, Drop that Knife’ by Ian MacDuff. In this
article, MacDuff provides an account of discussing, if not arguing, with a doctor about not
circumcising his sons. MacDuff speaks of ‘the circumcision sales pitch that must be mem-
orized by every doctor’s [sic] interne days’ (1968, 25). For MacDuff, there is no argument in
favour of circumcision.
In a 1970 issue of San Francisco Ball, readers found a short article called ‘Man’s Best
Friend … His Foreskin’, which began by declaring that ‘Circumcision is criminal!!!’ and
concludes ‘Don’t have your male infant cut and carved even if the doctor promises to
put scallops in the tissue. Keep it as it is – natural, protected, and lovely’ (Unknown
1970, 13). In this article, the unnamed author seeks to discredit the medical arguments
for circumcision, while also speaking to the eroticism of the foreskin and its role in sexu-
ality, noting that ‘my women like the feel of something more than a stripped down
totem pole’ (1970, 13).
In the British magazine, Accord, published in 1972 or 1973, John Chapman, in an article
titled ‘Foreskin: For or Against’, observes that:
few people realise how important the foreskin is with regard to both love-play and intercourse
itself. This half inch or so of seemingly surplus flesh, which apparently serves no other purpose
than that of covering the prepuce, is a vital part of the male make-up, and should be utilized to
the full. (1972–1973, 40)

His argument, as we might suspect, is clearly aligned with the ‘for’ side of the equation,
and he articulates an argument against circumcision that is deeply personal and erotic
in nature.
In April 1979, Velvet magazine published ‘The Great Foreskin Rip-Off’ by Richard Roller,
which declared on its first page that ‘the reasons for circumcision are as absurd and
unscientific as the practice itself’, and further notes: ‘religion, hygiene, beautification – a
deterrent to masturbation – even cancer prevention have all been involved to justify
applying the knife to your cock’s natural coverage. None of these reasons hold any
water’ (1979, 45). Interestingly, at a discursive level, the author is speaking directly to
the reader: ‘your cock’. This article, like those that appeared in ANKH and Accord, seeks
4 J. A. ALLAN

to show the importance, and value, of the foreskin to the normal function of the penis,
particularly in the realm of sexuality.

Hustler and the taboo of the foreskin

Hustler magazine, since its inception, has always pushed boundaries, whether it be in
terms of the images it produced or the articles it published. Helen Hester, for instance,
argues that ‘Hustler magazine had a long and noted tradition of publishing material
which, aside from being sexually explicit, appeared expressly designed to provoke a
diverse range of intense affective responses in its readers’ (2014, 77). In many ways, this
‘transgressive’ quality is what makes Hustler an interesting example of pornography,
because it moved beyond the ‘Playboy’ lifestyle and towards something different – some-
thing that was somewhere between, in the words of Laura Kipnis (1993), disgust and
desire. Hustler magazine, of course, has long held a reputation for exposing the taboo.
Kipnis notes that Larry Flynt’s ‘favored tactic was to systematically and extravagantly
violate, in the most profoundly offensive way possible, each and every deeply held
social taboo, norm, and propriety he could identify’ (1999, 123). In many ways, Hustler
has made its name in exploring and exposing taboos; for instance, it was the first magazine
to include pubic hair on its cover, and did so for the issue that marked the bicentennial of
the United States. Given the prevalence and normalcy of circumcision in America during
the 1970s, it might not be all that surprising that Hustler would tackle the taboo of the
foreskin.
To be certain, while some may laud the ways that Hustler exposed taboos, not all see
value in these ideas. Gail Dines and Elizabeth R. Perea have argued that ‘[i]n Hustler,
there are no articles to hide behind or interviews with ex-presidents to talk about’
(2003, 202); however, I would contend that at least in the early years, there certainly
were articles to talk about, and these articles were political and provocative. Indeed, it
seems to me that there is much remaining to be written about the articles in Hustler,
which, while not being the literary and scholarly articles that appeared in Playboy, are
nonetheless still interesting and important to the scholar of sexuality and pornography.
The articles themselves explored ranges of topics: the Prison Industrial Complex, which
was the subject of the May 1977 issue; sexual practices, such as the art of the blowjob
(August 1976); abortion (November 1978); and sexually transmitted infections like
herpes (May 1980). Hustler thus challenged many of the conventions of the time, and in
so doing sought to explore the taboo and controversial.2

‘A Foreskin is Missing’
One of the controversial issues that were discussed in the pages of Hustler was the politics
of circumcision. Indeed, in 1975, Hustler published its first article on circumcision simply
titled ‘A Foreskin is Missing’, written by Leo Rosenhouse. Circumcision was, at this point
in time, the norm and the vast majority of men had been circumcised and male neonates
were being circumcised, even if the American medical establishment had begun to ques-
tion the practice. Daniel M. Harrison, drawing on the work of Edward Schoen, observes
that, ‘it wasn’t until the 1960s that neo-natal circumcision received any sort of criticism
in the USA, from the medical community or US society at large’ (2002, 304). Circumcision
 PORN STUDIES 5

was a norm and, moreover, ‘in most social circles in the USA, the prepuce is viewed in
either a neutral or a negative light’ (2002, 308).
The August 1975 issue of Hustler is perhaps most famous for the publication of five
images of a naked Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Richard Jaccoma notes that ‘the issue
sold 1,000,000 copies nationwide’ (2005, 185). Contained within the issue is a lengthy
article, spanning six pages, titled ‘A Foreskin is Missing’ that asks about the nature of
the foreskin and why it is routinely removed. The author, Leo Rosenhouse, asks, ‘Ever
wonder how a man feels when his foreskin happens to be missing?’ (1975, 48). Almost
immediately, readers are drawn into the debates over who feels more, the circumcised
or uncircumcised man, and Rosenhouse admits that ‘the result is a mixed bag of
sensory feelings’ (1975, 48). Nonetheless, the article calls attention to the practice of cir-
cumcision. In the article, readers learn that ‘aside from religious reasons, you are going
to find a growing number of physicians who are opposed to removing the foreskin in
these times’ (1975, 92). Rosenhouse then asks his reader: ‘By now, you may be curious
enough to want to go to a mirror and get a good objective look at your organ. Is it
with, or without foreskin?’ (1975, 92). This is an interesting moment in the article, particu-
larly given the realization that the article has largely demonstrated the popularity of the
procedure in the United States. Nonetheless, we are invited to look closely at ourselves.
For those with a foreskin, Rosenhouse asks:
Have you mixed feelings about your foreskin? If you have bedded down with a number of
women, and at least a couple of them have said they would prefer you without your foreskin,
for whatever reasons they may have, give the matter real serious thought before you take any
action. (1975, 92 and 94)

In this instance, we are drawn into a fairly common discussion about women’s preferences
for the circumcised penis. Moreover, this kind of question immediately calls into attention
the differences in penises, and is able to create doubt, or at least curiosity, in the mind of
the reader about which penis is ‘better’. The article asks readers to think carefully about
their penises.
Additionally, it is in this moment that we witness an interesting ‘intactivist’ moment.
The author seemingly addresses the reader: ‘When you voluntarily have your foreskin
removed, you are partially raping yourself and depriving your body of a vestigial
organ’ (Rosenhouse 1975, 94). The removal of the foreskin, for whatever reason, is
seen as an act of violence. Certainly, there is much debate within anti-circumcision
circles about elective circumcision; some are only opposed to routine neonatal circumci-
sion, wherein the neonate has no say (Earp 2015a), and thus would prefer that the
decision be left to ‘the individual who must live with the consequences’ (Earp 2015b,
45). However, if one has the ability to consent, then the dynamics of circumcision
change. For instance, if one is able to consent to the procedure, is one then ‘raping
oneself’? A question such as this is not trivial, as Rosenhouse contends; rather, the fore-
skin is important and Rosenhouse encourages readers to ‘give the matter real serious
thought before you take any action’ (1975, 94). For Rosenhouse, the foreskin serves a
sexual function.
While there is certainly a recognition of violence here, there is also a valorization of the
foreskin; to lose the foreskin would be a real loss, the body would be ‘deprived’. The article
concludes:
6 J. A. ALLAN

How about your opinions about circumcision, and possessive attitudes regarding the foreskin;
or was yours taken away at a time when you had ‘no say’ about the procedure?

Just keep in mind that with or without the foreskin, you are just as much a man as ever. That
dangling piece of flesh on the end of the penis can create dilemma or joy. Nature really meant
for it to be purposeful, and of service to you. Maintaining a proper perspective about the fore-
skin is the way to go about it. Hopefully, that’s your attitude. (Rosenhouse 1975, 99)

The article closes on a fairly neutral note, although it is clear that the author has what we
would now call intactivist sentiments. What I mean by this is that the author values the
foreskin and provides reasons for keeping it, including a reference to ‘nature’; that is,
that the foreskin is natural and not a mistake. One additional and striking feature is that
Rosenhouse works to ensure that, whether circumcised or not, this has no effect or influ-
ence on one’s claim to masculinity and manhood. This aspect of the circumcision debate
becomes important particularly when considering questions of the sexuality of the fore-
skin, the preferences of partners and, more generally, the aesthetics of the foreskin.

Upping the ante: the first rip-off

In the spring of 1979, Hustler’s cover included the headline ‘Circumcision: Repressive
Mutilation.’3 In the May 1979 issue, an article titled ‘The First Rip-Off’ by Tom Conaway
spanned some six pages, along with a centrefold as its title page displaying a startling
image of a naked infant (probably a few months old in this image, and who, as my
research assistant noted, bears a striking resemblance to Larry Flynt), strapped down
and being held down by a doctor holding a scalpel. This article, in many ways, does pre-
cisely what Hustler does: offends. As Laura Kipnis has noted, ‘Hustler’s favored tactic is to
zero in on a subject, as issue, an “unsaid” that the bourgeois imagination prefers to be
unknowing about’ (1999, 140). To speak against circumcision at a time when the vast
majority of men were circumcised, and neonates were still being circumcised, was to
call into question an ‘unsaid’.
The article, however, has largely gone unnoticed by scholars of circumcision and anti-
circumcision activists, save for a brief mention in a footnote in Rosemary Romberg’s (1985)
Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. Conaway explains:
An estimated 1.3 million infant boys are circumcised annually in this country for a fee ranging
from $25 to $75. Doctors who routinely perform the surgery three or four times a week pocket
upwards of $5,000 a year for this unnecessary surgery. In other words, the medical profession
isn’t likely to give up a practice that nets an annual financial boost of nearly $32 million to $95
million. (1979, 94)

In a culture which at the time was circumcising about 65% of its neonates (Center for
Disease Control 2009), this article was a strong critique of the practice. But the critique
found in Conaway’s article is not just of circumcision, but also of the medical establishment
that profits from routine neonatal circumcision. This line of critique has become a fairly
common argument for intactivists. Jennifer Margulis explores this financial critique in
her chapter ‘Foreskins for Sale: The Business of Circumcision’, in which she asks: ‘is it an
ethical violation for hospitals to sell – or even donate – a baby’s foreskin to biomedical
companies so they can make tremendous profits without explicit parental knowledge
and consent?’ (2013, 133). In his article, Conaway argues that, while changes to medical
 PORN STUDIES 7

insurance policies may offer ‘some hope’, the better solution is to ‘change the way Amer-
icans view circumcision’ (1979, 94). However, he admits that:
this may be more difficult to bring about than one might think. One of the major factors in the
situation is the sexually repressive nature of our society, a situation affecting the medical com-
munity as well as the general public. (Conaway 1979, 94)

Such a perspective may well explain why this article appeared in Hustler and not, say, Time
Magazine. Over the course of the article, Conaway relies heavily on ‘Thomas J. Ritter, a
general surgeon in Pennsylvania’, who, as we learn, is ‘gradually becoming outspoken
against the practice of routine circumcision’ (1979, 94). By 1992, Ritter would publish
Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and
Keep Your Son Whole (1992) and, with George C. Denniston, Doctors Re-examine Circumci-
sion ([1992] 2002), which was formerly titled Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons
Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole. I highlight this here
because the former book was authored solely by Ritter, while the latter was co-authored.
But also, and importantly, because although the books are the same, they are directed at
different audiences (one seemingly directed at parents, the other at medical doctors),
which is an interesting marketing strategy, to be certain. Dr Ritter would become a fore-
most author in the circumcision debates, arguing against circumcision. The themes that
appear in the Hustler articles are themes that would appear throughout his work
against circumcision.
Ritter argues, in the article, that the reason circumcision is not discussed is because ‘the
average person has so many sexual-hang ups’ (Conaway 1979, 94). He argues that circum-
cision is irrevocably tied to sexuality – just as Rosenhouse did in his article. It is curious to
imagine that the circumcision becomes sexual, especially given they are ‘performed on
infant males within one week of birth’ (Conaway 1979, 94). However, throughout the
article, Conaway exposes circumcision to sexual questions, noting, for example:
But this ‘simple’ act takes away an area of skin whose underside, which faces the head of the
penis, is a mucous membrane, as is the head of the penis. After circumcision the skin of the
glans loses its mucous quality, becomes more like the skin of the rest of the body. Dr. Ritter
claims that this even desensitizes the head of the penis: ‘Even if it means only a loss of any-
where from 5 to 11 percent of nerve endings, it is still a loss of sensitivity in one of the most
sensitive areas of the body’. (1979, 94)

At this point, we are introduced to a second recurring theme in intactivist literature; that is,
the loss of sensitivity in the penis. This position at the time was in stark contrast to the gov-
erning opinion, namely that of William Masters and Virginia Johnson who had argued ‘No
clinically significant difference could be established between the circumcised and uncir-
cumcised glans’ during their studies of ‘35 uncircumcised males [who] were matched at
random with circumcised study subjects of similar ages’ (1966, 190). As such, the article
was advancing an argument that was certainly not without foes; however, the sensitivity
question was being debated long before Masters and Johnson, as early as the late nine-
teenth century (Gollaher 2000, 73–108; Darby 2005), and would continue to be debated
through to the present day. While scholars and researchers were debating the sensitivity
question, anecdotal evidence was certainly also influential and prolific. Conaway shows
some of the methodological problems of the study of Masters and Johnson, noting, for
instance, that ‘the study doesn’t mention if the testing was done on flaccid or erect
8 J. A. ALLAN

penises’ (1979, 94), a concern that continues to be echoed today by anti-circumcision

scholars (Earp 2015a).
The article further shows the failure to consider how ‘the male loses a natural gliding
mechanism helpful with the sex act’ (Conaway 1979, 95), another argument that is
common to the intactivist movement. Conaway continues and notes that:
even more important, the lubrication provided by the mucuous membrane of an uncircum-
cised penis is extremely helpful in coitus, especially for men who have sex with older
women, who may experience a dryness of the vagina in later years. ‘With the foreskin cover-
ing all or part of the glans, a man can insert his penis and move the erect shaft against the
outer skin without irritating the dry vagina,’ Ritter claims. This would also apply to anal sex.
(1979, 95)

Again, a fairly common intactivist argument is developed here, but, and importantly, the
magazine, perhaps on account of it being pornographic, is able to engage with topics that
would be unfathomable in the more mainstream press of the time, and perhaps even
today. Ritter then critiques arguments about cleanliness, asking ‘If we can teach a boy
to brush his teeth, clean his ear, and wipe his anus, […] would it be too much to teach
him to retract his foreskin and wash the head of his penis?’ (Conaway 1979, 95). All of
this seems fairly commonsensical, and yet this article was radically countering the prevail-
ing opinions favouring circumcision. Throughout the article, Conaway, alongside Ritter,
works to debunk many of the standard arguments for circumcision, including a 1932
study which claimed a ‘low rate of cancer of the penis in Jewish males’, as well as counter-
ing the idea that smegma ‘caused cervical cancer’ (1979, 96). Conaway does acknowledge
‘legitimate reasons’ for circumcision, such as phimosis and paraphimosis, but notes that
‘these conditions are rare’ (1979, 96).
Throughout this article, Conaway advances intactivist arguments, ones that have
become central to arguments against circumcision since the 1980s. He notes ‘There is a
growing body of evidence about the physical harm – or at least the risk – resulting
from circumcision’ (Conaway 1979, 97). Certainly, in the 1980s and 1990s, this would
become a central argument of anti-circumcision activists, for instance, in Wallerstein’s
(1980) Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy through to Rosemary Romberg’s (1985) Cir-
cumcision: The Painful Dilemma and Ronald Goldman’s (1997) Circumcision: The Hidden
Trauma, How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately All of Us.
Conaway, then, begins to hypothesize about the damage and harm of circumcision,
asking:
Could this early and unnecessary stress, coupled with cultural and environmental factors, later
lead to violence, even to child abuse, as a subconscious revenge for having encountered the
knife at an early age? The results of future investigations will be interesting to note. (1979, 97)

These kinds of hypothetical questions are in many ways the bread and butter of argu-
ments against circumcision. The questions rely not on facts, but rather on the what-ifs
and the potential for future answers. Conaway concludes his article:
So it is likely that routine circumcision will continue in America unless the public’s acceptance
of it as a common practice changes. And until the public’s attitude toward sex allows it to face
this subject without embarrassment, millions more infant foreskins will end up in hospital
incinerators each year. (1979, 97)
 PORN STUDIES 9

Conaway clearly had not yet imagined the foreskin as biomedical material, which is valu-
able to scientists. Circumcision, nonetheless, continues in the United States, but at a lower
and ever-declining rate.

Readers respond to Hustler

Readers of Hustler responded with a handful of letters in response to the two articles
about circumcision. These are another important aspect of the debates that unfolded
in these articles because they demonstrate an active readership that engaged with
the articles. In so doing, the authors of letters were able to express their own opinions,
either agreeing with the premises of the original articles or articulating defences of cir-
cumcision. In many ways, what these letters show is just how divisive the circumcision
debates were.
Following the article ‘A Foreskin is Missing’, Dr Robert J. Valentine responded and
accounted for his own circumcision as an adult. In his letter, he admits that:
I simply felt that I would be more comfortable without it, and I have been. It slowed orgasm at
first, because the inside layer of skin is super-sensitive. Later, it slowed orgasm as the glans
(head) became tougher from more constant exposure to air and clothing. (1974a, 8)

Valentine then advises readers: ‘If your foreskin bothers you, have it removed. But have a
good surgeon (not the family M.D.) do it; it will not be an ordeal’ (1974a, 8; original empha-
sis). Valentine’s letter is curious, because much of the wisdom at the time argued that cir-
cumcision did not affect sensitivity. Perhaps, as a cautionary note, Valentine concludes: ‘If
delayed orgasm is your only objective, circumcision will probably not work. Sexual
response is multifaceted, very subjective’ (1974a, 8).
Dr Valentine is another interesting figure in the history of debates over the foreskin and
circumcision. In 1974, he published ‘Adult Circumcision: A Personal Report’ in Medical
Aspects of Human Sexuality. This article remains one of the few treatments of circumcision
that is written from the perspective of a man who was circumcised as an adult, and who is
also a practising member of the medical profession. Perhaps the most interesting thing of
all is that the author opted to use a pseudonym (Valentine 1974b, 31; O’Hara and O’Hara
1999, 79), rather than his ‘real’ name. He creates a veil of secrecy, in a sense, between
himself and his reader. As such, little is known about Dr Valentine, but now we know
that he has published at least his scholarly study and a letter to Hustler magazine about
his circumcision.
The reaction to ‘A Foreskin is Missing’ is relatively quiet in comparison to Conaway’s
more provocative article. What is striking about Valentine’s letter, however, is that he
admits a reduction in sensitivity, suggesting that anti-circumcision activists are right in
their claims about the damage done to the penis; however, this presumes that one
does not desire a less sensitive penis. After all, some have seen circumcision as a potential
cure for premature ejaculation (Gallo 2014; Gao et al. 2015).
Reactions to Conaway’s article were more polarized. One reader writes: ‘I’ve been
buying HUSTLER on and off for several years, but Tom Conaway’s article on circumcision
(The First Rip-Off, May) was the first piece in your magazine that I’ve read from start to
finish’ (Anonymous 1979, 12). Another reader explains:
10 J. A. ALLAN

My son is the owner of this body. He was born with a foreskin, together with everything else. I,
as his father, have no right to decide what parts of his body he keeps or he loses. When he’s
old enough to decide for himself, he can make any decision he likes. (Anonymous 1979, 12)

Yet another reader, the first to include his name, George Venkade of St. Joseph, Michigan,
writes:
Your article on circumcision appeared too late to help me, but it wasn’t too late to help my
second son. I shoved your article in the stupid doctor’s face, saving myself $75, and I’m
pleased to report that my new baby seems to be more relaxed than his clipped older
brother. He doesn’t suffer from the glans irritation you mentioned, nor does he pee in my
face when I change his diaper, since his handy foreskin deflects the stream. HUSTLER,
you’re changing America from the bottom up! (Venkade 1979, 22)

These reactions were largely positive and allowed the letter writer to reflect on his own
situation, and oftentimes that of his children. Within these letters we see a growing inter-
est in the idea of genital autonomy; for instance, who gets to decide on circumcision. The
article succeeds insofar as it managed to get readers to think about circumcision, but we
also see how quickly articles about the foreskin become articles about circumcision. One is
tempted to ask, can we think about the foreskin without thinking about circumcision?
However, not all reactions to the article were positive. Indeed, at least one reader was
rather frustrated, if not angered, by the article. Ellen Moore writes:
A threefold comment to the schmuck who wants to abandon circumcision: First, teaching
hygiene to your boys does not guarantee performance. Most kids have been taught oral
hygiene since first grade, but they’ve still got more crap than teeth. What makes you think
the hidden penis will fare better?

Second, the ritual circumcision is not barbaric. The baby is mildly sedated with sugared wine
and cut at feeding time – hence sleep.

Finally, if surgeons are indeed the butchers you make them out to be, then campaign for them
to be trained by mohels (those persons certified to perform the ritual circumcision of Jewish
babies). Who ever heard of a mutilated Jewish baby? (1979, 22; original emphases)

Moore’s letter is one which returns to the question of religious and sacred reasons for cir-
cumcision rather than the concerns of the articles, which were, secular reasons for circum-
cision. One of the consistent challenges of anti-circumcision arguments is the divide
between the religious/sacred and the secular. Indeed, nowhere is this more obvious,
perhaps, than in Ronald Goldman’s (1998) Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective.
Below this letter is a comment from, presumably, the editors of the magazine, which
reads: ‘You ever hear about Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka?’ (Moore 1979, 22). This
comment is, of course, highly problematic, but does speak to the vexed politics that sur-
round anti-circumcision movements. Often any debate about circumcision becomes a
debate about religion, but the focus in these articles has largely been on the secular
and cultural reasons that Americans, in particular, circumcise. The reasons, by and large,
are not religious, but cultural: to look like dad (Brodbarnemzer, Conrad, and Tenenbaum
1987, 276; Freeman et al. 2014, 334; Mitchell and Beal 2015, 189) or to avoid the ugly fore-
skin (Allan 2018).
One common critique of intactivism has been either a latent or an overt anti-Semitism
(Kennedy 2016, 19), and increasingly, we are seeing discussions move towards anti-
 PORN STUDIES 11

Semitism and Islamophobia. Certainly, in some manifestations of the current climate, there
are issues of anti-Semitism; for instance, Kennedy and Sardi have shown that Foreskin Man,
a comic book, has an inherently anti-Semitic view of circumcision that includes the villain,
‘Monster Mohel’, who they call ‘a gruesome looking creature’ (2016, 20). A challenge,
however, is that circumcision is not just a Jewish tradition, and yet it has become synon-
ymous with Judaism. As such, in this example Hustler’s response is undoubtedly anti-
Semitic, which is not necessarily surprising given the magazine’s history. In another,
sense, however, Moore proves Conaway’s point about the difficulty of changing perspec-
tives on circumcision, especially in the United States. Moore provides a defence of the
practice by drawing on questions of how we raise our children, and by suggesting alterna-
tives to the medicalized practice of routine neonatal circumcision. Moore remains com-
mitted to circumcision, not in terms of routine neonatal circumcision, but in terms of
the religious rite, despite Conaway’s arguments.

Conclusion
Studying intactivism remains a relatively nascent area of inquiry; however, by expanding
the sites of analysis to include pornography, there is much to be gleaned. Each of the
articles considered sought to reframe the discussion of circumcision by focusing on
what is removed. Indeed, while this study has focused chiefly on the articles that appeared
in Hustler in the 1970s, articles about male circumcision have appeared in numerous other
publications, such as those noted. Nonetheless, the articles by Rosenhouse and Conaway
remain important documents in the history of intactivism because they show that these
discussions were, at least partially, unfolding in pornographic spaces, and how readers
engaged with these texts. This article, thus, has sought to reintroduce these articles to
the study of intactivism, which have largely remained absent from this historical record.
One of the most significant aspects of the discussions in these articles has been a shift
away from circumcision and a movement towards the erotics and the aesthetics of the
foreskin. To focus on the sexual nature of the foreskin is a significant shift in the discourse
and reminds readers that the penis is indeed sexual and erotic, and these discussions, in
many ways, benefited from the frankness of pornographic publications. Perhaps one of the
biggest reasons for circumcising one’s child is not about health or religion, but about aes-
thetics (Allan 2018). In this way, these articles are doing something quite interesting and
provocative by placing aesthetics alongside the circumcision debates.
This article has largely focused on publications aimed at straight men. Much remains to
be said of gay male publications, which attended to the foreskin and the circumcision con-
troversy. Drummer magazine, for example, published ‘history of the foreskin’ written by
Bud Berkeley, which extended over three issues (54, 55 and 56). The 1980s saw the pub-
lication of Foreskin Quarterly, about which very little has been written. Foreskin Quarterly’s
history is interesting because it began as a kind of ‘activist-pornography’ in which the
magazine featured both ‘activists’ concerns, while also eroticizing and celebrating the fore-
skin. Blueboy published an article on the foreskin in 1984. In addition to tracking how these
publications spoke about the foreskin, future research will need to consider how these
debates changed during the HIV/AIDS crisis, especially with regards to the way the foreskin
is framed as a ‘sponge for the virus’ (Andriette 2007, 69) and a ‘magnet for HIV’ (Bollinger as
quoted in Seppa 2004, 213).
12 J. A. ALLAN

Discussions of the foreskin, particularly with regards to the rise of intactivism, remain an
important site of analysis, especially at a time when we continue to debate the practice of
circumcision. The foreskin is, as we are seeing, highly complex and complicated, not least
because foreskins are, as James Boon has argued, ‘cultural facts – whether removed or
retained. Absent versus present, prepuces have divided many religions, politics, and
ritual persuasions’ and, further, ‘(non)circumcision involves signs separating an “us” from
a “them” entangled in discourses of identity and distancing’ (1999, 43; original emphasis).

Notes
1. In issue 3, readers are introduced to Vulva Girl, who, like Foreskin Man, saves children from
female genital mutilation.
2. Pornographic texts have an interesting role to play in debates over circumcision, including
female circumcision. In 1973, in the first year of its publication, Playgirl magazine published
an article endorsing female circumcision, in which the author, Catherine Kellison, speaks of
‘greater sexual sensations, closer communication with one’s partner, higher levels of
orgasm’ (1973, 76). Later in the article, Kellison notes that ‘female circumcision is strictly
done for pleasure. And it works in most cases’ (1973, 124). To be certain, Kellison here is
not speaking about female genital mutilation, but rather about circumcision as an elective
surgery. After doing research, she elects to have the surgery done, and admits that:
there were no start, bells, or strains of angelic chorus in the background. I saw no
fireworks, heard no organ music, and was still aware that I was where I was. But the
orgasm as I had known it, had suddenly been elevated to a new position of glory
and lofty power.
She concludes: ‘So it would seem that this wonder of modern science, coupled with True
Love and total Trust might be a step in the right direction’ (1973, 125). For more information,
see Kellison (October 1973). Likewise, in 1975, Viva magazine published an article on female
circumcision, which included the subtitle ‘Operation Orgasm.’ The article begins by noting that
‘some scorn it as a fad or a male-masterminded myth, but for many women it has proven to be
the biggest sexual boon of their lives’ (Schultz 1975, 53). In the article, readers learn about the
procedure, in relation to male circumcision,
During her next gynecological exam, she mentioned ‘this frigidity’ to her doctor, who
suggested that circumcision might solve her problem. Doris agreed to try it, and
allowed the doctor to remove a tiny snip of skin from the prepuce, which covers the
tip of the clitoris just as the male foreskin covers the tip of the penis. (Schultz 1975, 53;
original emphasis)
Doris is able to tell readers that:
I get incredible feelings of exultation and ecstasy that were never there before. Now, at
last, I am truly having fun in sex, experimenting with positions so that we can best
stimulate my clitoris. I even plan my housework and the children’s schedules to allow
my husband and me as much time as possible for sex. (Schultz 1975, 53)
The article, of course, provides critiques noting that ‘much of the controversy around circum-
cision stems from its cruel history’ (Schultz 1975, 104). For more information, see Schultz
(March 1975, 52–53 and 104–105).
3. If a million readers read the August 1975 issue, by 1979 the periodical had even more readers.
Dennis R. Hall, writing in the early 1980s, has noted that ‘a recently published estimate put the
monthly sales of Hustler magazine at 2.5 million copies’, adding that ‘with the recent publicity
arising from publisher Larry Flynt’s religious conversion and shooting, sales are now doubtless
closer to 3 million, which likely represents a readership of 7 million people’ (1982, 150). I cite
 PORN STUDIES 13

this here to give an understanding of the breadth and popularity of Hustler. This magazine was
not read by only a handful of people, but, rather, millions of readers. Unlike other porno-
graphic texts, say Honcho or Stallion, both of which have published articles on the politics
of circumcision, Hustler’s readership was significant. For Hall, ‘Hustler is the indisputable
king of the mountain of sexual publishing in America in the 1970s’ (1982, 150).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Canada Research Chairs [Grant Number 950-230022]; Brandon Univer-
sity Research Committee [Grant Number 22031]; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada [Grant Number 430-2016-00059].

References
Allan, Jonathan A. 2018. ‘The Foreskin Aesthetic, or Ugliness Reconsidered.’ Men and Masculinities.
Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17753038.
Andriette, Bill. 2007. ‘Cocks Aquiver.’ The Guide 27: 69–70.
Anonymous. 1979. ‘Cutting Remarks.’ Hustler (August): 12.
Boon, James A. 1999. Verging on Extra-Vagance: Anthropology, History, Religion Literature, Arts …
Showbiz. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brodbarnemzer, Jay, Peter Conrad, and Shelly Tenenbaum. 1987. ‘American Circumcision Practices
and Social Reality.’ Sociology and Social Research 71 (4): 275–279.
Carpenter, Laura M. 2009. ‘Influencing Health Debates through Letters to the Editor: The Case of Male
Circumcision.’ Qualitative Health Research 19 (4): 519–534.
Carpenter, Laura M. 2010. ‘On Remedicalisation: Male Circumcision in the United States and Great
Britain.’ Sociology of Health & Illness 32 (4): 613–630.
Center for Disease Control. 2009. ‘Estimated Number of Male Newborn Infants, and Percent
Circumcised during Birth Hospitalization, by Geographic Region: United States, 1979–2008.’
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/9circumcision/2007circ9_regionracetrend.pdf.
Chapman, John. 1972-1973. ‘Foreskin: For and Against.’ Accord: 40–41.
Conaway, Tom. 1979. ‘The First Rip-Off: Report on Circumcision.’ Hustler (May): 36-38: 94–96.
Darby, Robert. 2005. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of
Circumcision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dines, Gail, and Elizabeth R. Perea. 2003. ‘From the Playboy to the Hustler: Class, Race, and the
Marketing of Masculinity.’ In A Companion to Media Studies, edited by Angharad N. Valdivia,
188–209. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Earp, Brian. 2015a. ‘Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumcision: Toward an Autonomy-Based
Ethical Framework.’ Medicolegal and Bioethics 5: 89–104.
Earp, Brian. 2015b. ‘Sex and Circumcision.’ The American Journal of Bioethics 15 (2): 43–45.
Freeman, Jennifer J., Ariel U. Spencer, Robert A. Drongowski, Cosmas J. M. Vandeven, Barbara Apgar,
Daniel H. Teitelbaum. 2014. ‘Newborn Circumcision Outcomes: Are Parents Satisfied with the
Results?’ Pediatric Surgery International 30 (3): 333–338.
Gallo, Luigi. 2014. ‘Patients Affected by Premature Ejaculation Due to Glans Hypersensitivity Refuse
Circumcision as a Potential Definite Treatment for Their Problem.’ Andrologia 46 (4): 349–355.
Gao, Jingjing, Chuan Xu, Jingjing Zhang, Chaozhao Liang, and Xiansheng Zhang. 2015. ‘Effects of
Adult Male Circumcision on Premature Ejaculation: Results from a Prospective Study in China.’
BioMed Research International 2015: 1–7. Doi:10.1155/2015/417846.
Goldman, Ronald. 1997. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, How an American Cultural Practice Affects
Infants and Ultimately All of Us. Boston: Vanguard Publications.
14 J. A. ALLAN

Goldman, Ronald. 1998. Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. Boston: Vanguard

Publications.
Gollaher, David L. 2000. Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. New York:
Basic Books.
Hall, Donald R. 1982. ‘A Note on Erotic Imagination: Hustler as a Secondary Carrier of Working Class
Consciousness.’ The Journal of Popular Culture 15 (4): 150–156.
Harrison, Daniel M. 2002. ‘Rethinking Circumcision and Sexuality in the United States.’ Sexualities 5
(3): 300–316.
Henerey, Adam. 2004. ‘Evolution of Male Circumcision as Normative Control.’ Journal of Men’s Studies
12 (3): 256–276.
Hester, Helen. 2014. Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Jaccoma, Richard. 2005. ‘The Original Redneck Hustler.’ Vol. 5 of Dian Hanson’s History of Men’s
Magazines, 179–205. Cologne: Taschen.
Kellison, Catherine. 1973. ‘Circumcision for Women—The Kindest Cut of All.’ Playgirl 76: 76–77.
124–125.
Kennedy, Amanda. 2016. ‘Intactivism: Understanding Anti-Male Circumcision Organizing in the US.’
PhD diss., SUNY Stony Brook.
Kennedy, Amanda, and Lauren M. Sardi. 2016. ‘The Male Anti-Circumcision Movement: Ideology,
Privilege, and Equity in Social Media.’ Societies Without Borders 11 (1): 1–30.
Kipnis, Laura. 1993. Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, and Aesthetics. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Kipnis, Laura. 1999. Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America. Durham:
Duke University Press.
MacDuff, Ian. 1968. ‘All Right, Doctor, Drop That Knife.’ ANKH 2 (1): 24–31.
Margulis, Jennifer. 2013. The Business of Baby: What Doctors Don’t Tell You, What Corporations Try to
Sell You, and How to Put Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Baby Before Their Bottom Line. New York:
Scribner.
Masters, William H., and Virginia E. Johnson. 1966. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.
Mitchell, Teri M., and Claudia Beal. 2015. ‘Shared Decision Making for Routine Infant Circumcision: A
Pilot Study.’ The Journal of Perinatal Education 24 (3): 188–200.
Moore, Ellen. 1979. ‘Cutting Remarks.’ Hustler, August 22.
O’Hara, Kristen, and J. O’Hara. 1999. ‘The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the
Female Partner.’ BJU International 83 (Suppl. 1): 79–84.
Otto, Claudia, and Hilary McGann. 2018. ‘Iceland’s Proposed Ban on Male Circumcision Upsets Jews,
Muslims.’ CNN. February 20. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/health/iceland-circumcision-ban-
reaction-intl/index.html.
Ritter, Thomas J. 1992. Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His
Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole. Aptos: Hourglass Book Publishing.
Ritter, Thomas J. and George C. Denniston. [1992] 2002. Doctors Re-Examine Circumcision. Seattle:
Third Millennium Publishing.
Roller, Richard. 1979. ‘The Great Foreskin Rip-Off.’ Velvet 44–45: 77, 94.
Romberg, Rosemary. 1985. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. South Hadley: Bergin & Gravey
Publishers.
Rosenhouse, Leo. 1975. ‘A Foreskin is Missing.’ Hustler (August): 47-48, 92-95, 99.
Ross, Lauren S. 2009. ‘Contradictions in Power, Sexuality, and Consent: An Institutional Ethnography
of Male Neonatal Circumcision.’ Ph.D. Dissertation., University of Connecticut.
Sardi, Lauren M. 2011. ‘The Male Neonatal Circumcision Debate: Social Movements, Sexual
Citizenship, and Human Rights.’ Societies Without Borders 6 (3): 304–329.
Sardi, Lauren M. 2014. ‘Intactivism.’ In Cultural Encyclopedia of the Penis, edited by Michael Kimmel,
Christine Milrod, and Amanda Kennedy, 94–95. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schultz, Terri. 1975. ‘Female Circumcision: Operation Orgasm: The Perils and Pleasures of Female
Circumcision.’ Viva 52–53, 104–105.
 PORN STUDIES 15

Segall, Eleanor. 2018. ‘Iceland’s Proposed Ban on Male Circumcision: Ending Religious Tolerance or
Promoting Human Rights?’ Metro.co.uk. https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/21/icelands-proposed-ban-
on-male-circumcision-ending-religious-tolerance-or-promoting-human-rights-7328646/.
Seppa, Nathan. 2004. ‘Better-off Circumcised.’ Science News 165 (14): 212–213.
Unknown. 1970. ‘Man’s Best Friend … His Foreskin.’ San Francisco Ball No. 8, 13.
Valentine, Robert J. 1974a. ‘August Thoughts.’ Hustler (December): 8.
Valentine, Robert J. 1974b. ‘Adult Circumcision: A Personal Report.’ Medical Aspects of Human
Sexuality 8: 31-55.
Venkade, G. 1979. ‘Cutting Remarks.’ Hustler, August 22.
Wallerstein, Edward. 1980. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. New York: Springer.
Wilton, David. 2011. The Intactivists: San Francisco Pride 2009–2010. CreateSpace.