Francelle Wax, the director and producer of American Secret: The Circumcision Agenda: “Nobody is trying to ban circumcision; people are trying to make an age of consent”

Francelle Wax is the director and producer of:

American Secret: The Circumcision Agenda

a documentary on the unfortunately pervasive cultural rite of circumcision in the United States. In an interview conducted by Tom Beasily of An American Atheist, she shares some of her views on circumcision; those who are interested in helping her spread the message of the Intactivist Movement are encouraged to contribute funding for her documentary's Kickstarter project. Here is a recording of the discussion, and a transcript follows.

Transcript
(slightly modified)

Tom Beasley

Today I'm joined [by] Francelled Wax, [who] is the director and producer of American Secret; this is a developing documentary on circumcision[.] Welcome to the show Francelle!

Francelle Wax

Thanks! Really good to be here!

Tom Beasley

So, this seems like a really touchy subject. What made you want to do a film on circumcision?

Francelle Wax

I was outside the country for about a week!

I'll jokingly say I was outside of the United States for 5 minutes, but [the point is that] in a very short time, I realized that [circumcision is] not common to the rest of the Western world; for some reason (not really any particular reason), I just assumed that [circumcision is common]—it was something I had associated as “modern” and as a health preventive measure, and when I learned that this [is] not the case, and when I learned that people [are] very surprised—and shocked—to learn that [circumcision has long been] the norm in the United States, it sort of began to emerge [in my mind] that this [is] a colossal cultural blind spot.

Any time there is something that's an overwhelming habit—and a habit that's not recognized—I'm intrigued by that, and I sort of want to push back there, and see what's behind that.

Tom Beasley

Yeah. I looked at some of the film promo stuff you [have] out already, [and] I guess it's kind of a relativism—like, different cultures just have these different ideas that people just don't seem to question, and I mean, that seems like it could be a problem; how do you deal with that?

Francelle Wax

Yeah. It's a huge issue.

I mean, if people were not already in the habit of performing circumcision, if another culture were to knock on our borders and try to pitch this [surgery] to us—even with [the] spurious health claims attached—we would be very slow, I think, to welcome that.

What do I do with that? I mean, I sort of look at what people's aversions are to looking at the evidence. [For usual issues], I think that most people would say: “Well, if you can make a compelling case for why I shouldn't do something, I will stop doing it.” [Unfortunately], there's a difficult issue with circumcision, in that it's not reversible.

There are certain measures people can take to minimize some of the damage: There's something called foreskin restoration, which I get into in the film, but [the most problematic aspect is that] people are not usually telling the truth when they say: “Well, if you change my mind, I'll stop doing this.” [That is], once you have a doctor who has done this [hundreds] or thousands or tens of thousands of times, [he does] not want to honestly come to the conclusion that [he was] wrong [so many] times.

You know, most people have a difficult time apologizing about little things, and most of us have a difficult time swallowing our pride about smaller stuff, even when we can make amends. You know, if I break into your house and I steal $50, I might feel guilty for a week, but I can give you that $50 back; if you've [irreparably wronged] your son, or you've [irreparably wronged] your patient, that's a harder one for you to get over.

Tom Beasley

So, kind of the premise—a hidden premise—of us talking about this so far is that [circumcision] is [even] a problem; I think some people don't view [circumcision] as a problem. Why is it a problem?

Francelle Wax

Right. So, sure. Thank you for leading me to address that.

Circumcision removes the most sensitive regions on a man; we know from fine-touch sensitivity tests that [for] intact men, the 5 most sensitive regions that they identify on their penile anatomy are all on the portion of skin that is removed during a circumcision. So, basically, a circumcised man is starting out with [only] the 6^th most sensitive possible feedback receptor available to him.

So, some men will jokingly say: Well, I wouldn't want to be more sensitive! But it's not binary; it's just that when you have more fine-touch nerve receptors, you have more nuanced feedback. And 100% of the fine-touch receptors—which are the same receptors that humans have on their fingertips—[are] removed during a circumcision. [NOTE: If the circumcision scar is some distance from the head of the penis, then the “skin” between the scar and the head of the penis is actually what remains of the sensitive inner-foreskin; it is likely just the least sensitive portion, known as the smooth mucosa, though it is much more sensitive than the normal skin between the scar and the base of the penis. When the scar is placed as close as possible to the head of the penis—as with many Jewish circumcisions—then 100% of the fine-touch receptors are destroyed, leaving only the rather dumb head of the penis to provide pressure feedback and irritating protective sensations.]

So, a lot of what we say:

• Well, it's nervousness in somebody that's maybe impairing someone's sexual performance[.]

• [A] lot of the drying out which occurs over time [is part of] normal aging.

No!

These are conditions that we've created, and we're sort of mind-gaming people[,] making them think it's more psychologically their own issues to get beyond, when really we're kind of handicapping people from day one—literally from day one or from day two—and that we're robbing them of tissue that has evolved over time and has proven to be quite useful for sex!

Tom Beasley

Yeah. And besides that, [from] the small segments that I had seen of your work so far, I guess there's even some mortality rate involved with [circumcision]. Is that right?

Francelle Wax

Yes[.] I only just now addressed [how circumcision affects] adulthood, and how it can detract from sexual experience, but certainly in childhood and infancy, there are problems as well.

The foreskin accords some very protective functionality for a child who is not yet sexually active: The penis is actually meant to be [a partially] internal organ, and as I build up to the risks: Yes! When you're that young, almost no anesthetic is approved for somebody under 6 months, so [anesthetics] are either used off‑label, or they are not used [at all].

In many cases, anesthetics are used, [but] there's not really time for them to take effect, because there [are] just processes in hospitals—things are hurried along. It's also been suggested that to adequately—to truly adequately—anesthetize such a sensitive region, it would take about 8 injections, and that in and of itself is quite painful!

[So], yes, you have a risk of hemorrhage, you have a risk of infection, you have a risk of allergic reaction to the anesthesia, there are drops in blood pressure, [etc.] People are very quick to say that [circumcision] is not that painful:

“The child goes to sleep!”

No. What you're observing is a child actually going into shock.

It's difficult to obtain accurate mortality figures, because often times people write these deaths up as infection and hemorrhage[.] Not every hospital, but some hospitals have [protocols for specifying] primary cause of death [and] secondary cause of death, [and yet even when there's an option] they [frequently] [just] will not write that circumcision was the cause. So, it's difficult to get true estimates on [the mortality rate of circumcision].

Tom Beasley

I think that people [who] listen to this [might] say: “Well, OK, well, what you're saying sounds bad.” Maybe they'll say: “Well, some of [the benefits of circumcision] may be unfounded, but you know, there's some kind of calculus going on.” I think what they're weighing it against [are] the health risks—or the health benefits—that [a child will] have in terms of “cleanliness”, and “aesthetic appeal”, and a “reduction” in sexually transmitted diseases. How do you tackle that?

Francelle Wax

Right. So, in the last [6 or 7] years, people have been in a rush to point to these “studies” in Africa, and the “studies in Africa” is an unbrella-term for various [pro‑circumcision] studies in different parts of Africa, [and even though] there were different trial mechanisms in place, and different practices among tribes, [now many resources are being wasted in] trying to recreate [on whole populations the supposed benefits of circumcision as reported by these studies]—actually, I don't know that much about… there's something [involving] “Cochrane”; I should actually learn about that before I get into what I was about to say, but basically—in aggregate—[the policy application of] these studies [seems to have actually caused] spikes in HIV infection [among] women, which is very sad, and very unfortunate, because people were advised.

You know, there are populations where people are already looking for reasons not to use condoms, or there's already some folklore surrounding condom use (thoughts that [HIV] is in condoms, or that condoms are going to diminish a man's fertility/virility). So, even though men who were circumcised were told:

“You need to use condoms anyway!”

the fact is there was a decline in condom use [because men thought that being circumcised would prevent HIV infection], and so there were HIV spikes among women.

Also, [consider] all of these other countries that are more similar to the United States with respect to access to hygiene, access to health care, and access to condoms and attitudes towards condoms; we're not looking at the data from those countries, and the data from those countries show that they have lower HIV infection rates than [the United States], and that's after controlling for infection through needle use. So, it seems very strange that the United States and Israel are the ones making this big push in Africa [and from Africa]. In Scandinavia, in Australia, in the United Kingdom, [etc.], we're not actually seeing the data that the [pro-circumcision] American doctors want us to find.

I would say we should be looking to countries that have all those other variables more in line with the United States than most of the regions in Africa, where they are doing these inconclusive trials.

Tom Beasley

Something also that struck me from watching some of your earlier materials is that [circumcision] is sort of a profitable industry for the people involved—

Francelle Wax

Yes. Yeah. This can be very profitable; there are physicians who, over the course of a career, become millionaires on circumcisions alone. You can definitely make above 6 figures [per] year just on circumcisions—absolutely! Not everywhere in the country, but in many places.

Tom Beasley

But, isn't this normally, like, nurses or something [who are] doing this?—

Francelle Wax

Oh, no—

Tom Beasley

or, do they have doctors all the time? Like, will a doctor—just that will be, like, his job: “I'm the circumcision doctor”?

Francelle Wax

Well, there are sometimes nurses who do it—certainly. But, no.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty confident in saying that the majority are performed by physicians, in [most] cases by [OB/GYNs] if it's at the hospital [after a birth]—which is a bit ironic, because these are people who have grown up to specialize on adult female genitalia, and [yet] they're performing circumcisions [on infant male genitalia]. Also, pediatricians [are practitioners]. Also, sometimes urologists, though that is a little bit more common [when] somebody is intact and brought in at a later point because of some sort of infection—which is not to say [that] circumcision is the correct course of action [in those instances], but in an American climate, odds are very good that any physician in America goes through much of his tenure only seeing “circumcised” men, and so [such physicians] will pathologize the natural body, because they don't understand it.

So, we have [in the United States] the overdiagnosis of phimosis (which is where the foreskin doesn't retract easily); the overdiagnosis in childhood is astonishing, because in about 80% of boys, the foreskin does not retract before age 10 [years], and that's not a pathology; that's just natural, healthy growth! The child doesn't need to be using his penis sexually, and so it's protected by the foreskin to preserve the moisture and basically keep it an internal organ, and [yet] you get urologists who are very quick to want to cut because they think this is a problem.

Tom Beasley

So, I'm wondering what you think a good solution to this is, then. Because, San Francisco—for a while—was entertaining the idea of a circumcision ban. [NOTE: It was not a ban, but rather an age-restriction.]

Francelle Wax

Yes. Yes, it was. [San Francisco] got very close; there was consensus in the community—to its credit—and that did pass, and then Governor Jerry Brown and the ACLU went out of their way to rely on a piece of legislation that was not intended to stymie progress on the human rights front[.] [NOTE: It has been ruled that only state-wide law may restrict circumcision because only state-wide law may restrict the declawing of cats.]

This was very disappointing, because the ACLU turns down cases all the time; I mean, they get approached by everybody. They took this [case], they won it on [this] technicality, and [yet] they didn't have to take it—and at the end of the day, [the ACLU] lost the real war for [the right to] bodily integrity and the real war for civil rights for children. So, I don't know why they spent their time and resources on that.

Tom Beasley

So, we were talking a little bit before the show, and you identify as “atheist”; is that right?

Francelle Wax

I do; I say I'm a “practicing Atheist”. [laughter]

Tom Beasley

OK. A “practicing”... OK, yeah! I watch television, and do all sorts of [“atheist”] things like that, too! [laughter]

Francelle Wax

I actually do mean that more in [the sense] that searching out the “correct” religion was kind of my agenda from, like, early childhood; I was very convinced at a young age that there must be a god—a benevolent god.

I was born and raised Jewish, so explored it.

Whatever I became convinced of ethically, I kind of did pretty full‑out. So, now that I'm atheist, I'm pretty full‑out atheist, but that was a really useful time in my life—the time I spent actually as a believing person; I think that I asked better questions as an atheist and in a more intentional and more deliberate [way] as an atheist because of the church community that I was in for a year and half.

I went from Judaism to Christianity to atheism—

Tom Beasley

Oh, wow!—

Francelle Wax

Yeah—

Tom Beasley

Interesting—

Francelle Wax

With some brief interludes with Mormonism and then Orthodox Judaism—

Tom Beasley

You seem like you were very confused! [laughter]

Francelle Wax

Well, I was very curious! Yeah.

Tom Beasley

So, here, I have this question for you, then. So, you (a now athiest) are trying to take from a group—let's talk specifically about Jews (although Muslims and [some] Christians do this as well, as Abrahamic tradition). You are trying to take a piece [of] Jewish culture—[of] a historically oppressed minority—and legislate away their culture “identity”… That's what some people might say to you; what do you say about that?

Francelle Wax

Right. So, what I would say is the notion that there's been completely unrestricted religious freedom in [the United States] (and that [restricting circumcision] would be the first curbing of religion) is completely untrue. I mean, we already have several stipulations about what you may or may not do in the name of religion—we don't let people do a range of things. This includes [Jewish traditions]; there are certain old texts and commandments that people would not be permitted to engage in (apart from [circumcision]).

I think, you know, if you see that my next movie has to do with trying to force people to eat bread on Passover, and the movie after that has to do with trying to force people to drive on Saturdays, you might have a case that I'm actually anti-Semitic, but I think that people will recognize that [cutting up children's penises] is a very specific practice that we're going after.

Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses in most states are not allowed to practice their religion to the fullest extent that they would [like], and I'd say this is a good thing! In most states, the state will say you cannot deny this child a blood transfusion, and you cannot deny this child life‑saving surgery, and we should be doing more of that in this country, not less of it.

Nobody is trying to ban circumcision; people are trying to make an age of consent; I have no interest in policing—and I speak for 99% of the movement when I say this—I have no interest in policing what people do to their [own] bodies as consenting adults. I mean, I love that in most cities I've lived in, you can pierce and tattoo whatever you want; you can stud whatever you want. You can do it for religious reasons; you can do it for ethnic reasons; you can do it for no reason—and I don't care! But [I think] that [nobody] should have the right to make a permanent bodily alteration on another person who isn't choosing that for himself or herself.

Tom Beasley

Yeah. I think that's a good analogy you make to piercing ears. For example, if we pierced a baby's ears—I've read articles where people are freaking out because [someone has] pierced an infant's ears, and [yet], to permanently remove a piece of someone's [penis]… Don't you think that's a little bit more extreme [than piercing an ear]?

Francelle Wax

Yeah. I think that sometimes people try [to] make the circumcision issue more benign [by saying]: “We pierce children's ears!” I mean, I don't know anybody who feels as emotional about their earlobes as they do about their genitals.

So, I do think because of the risk of infection—and [the possibility of] actually having chronic infection—and given how many people are allergic to the metals in the [earrings], that actually people should be more thoughtful about [piercing an infant's ears]. [However], it's not something I would make a movie about; it's probably not a harm I would personally invest a lot of legislation in, myself. But, I do think there's a case to be made that you also shouldn't be piercing ears.

Certainly, permanenently altering [a body part] that ties in with somebody's sexual pleasure—[a decision] that's going to affect that person and that person's partners for the rest of their lives… I think that speaks for itself!

Tom Beasley

Yeah. There [are] interesting implications [in thinking] about it being kind of a cosmetic plastic surgery kind of mentality that we're imposing on children—

Francelle Wax

I mean, [circumcision] is really 2 combined felonies!

If somebody bumps into me on a subway, and [he brushes] up against my earlobe, I don't think twice about it! [However], [if] somebody gropes me in a crowded subway, that's a real problem! I mean, we already have laws on the books that say circumcision basically is illegal—

Tom Beasley

For women, you mean—

Francelle Wax

No! I would say that we actually have laws that are on the books that say circumcision [for any sex] is illegal—[they] just [aren't] enforced—

Tom Beasley

Oh, I see—

Francelle Wax

If you go up to a child right now, and you touch that child [on the genitalia in a way] that alters nothing—if you touch a child who doesn't [even] have conscious memory yet in a way that alters nothing—that is a felony.

If you go up to a child and you graze that child's skin—even slightly—with a small blade or some sort of box cutter [or scalpel], and [yet] you don't do permanent damage [in even] a non-sexual place, that is a felony.

[Now], you combine these 2 [felonies] together, and you dress somebody up in [a doctor's] scrubs, and you have [that somebody] cut on a sexual organ for non‑therapeutic reasons, [then] suddenly everbody's fine with it!

Tom Beasley

So, we've used different words to talk about circumcision, and when I first started thinking about this issue, it was through Christopher Hitchens; he's great—

Francelle Wax

Yeah. He's great—

Tom Beasley

He calls [circumcision] “genital mutilation”. Do you think that's an effective term? Do you think it's an accurate term? Do you think we should use it even though it is accurate, or maybe it's too [extreme]—what do you think about that?

Francelle Wax

I love how you parse the question. So, yes: I don't necessarily think that what is accurate is necessarily the most effective communication tool and outreach.

So, [in] this interview, I would say it's hard to argue with the fact that [by performing circumcision], you are seriously disfiguring and deforming the state [of the penis]—people [in the United States] don't think of it that way, because they are used to seeing [“circumcised” penises], but you are disfiguring, you are cutting, you are carving [the penis].

So, does “mutilation” [apply]? It's not really good practice [to start off with that terminology when] engaging somebody who is not yet onboard [with the intactivist view]. So, I think that I would say: Strategically, [“genital mutilation”] is not a useful opener when engaging people in conversation.

Tom Beasley

Do you find that [this] is sort of the tension throughout trying to work on [this subject]? [You] want to shock people and show people that [circumcision] is really awful, but you don't want to do that too much too soon, because you're just going to turn them off to the whole issue.

Francelle Wax

Yeah. I've been involved in other forms of activism apart from this one, and you know, I kind of have a saying about any activism generally:

First you get angry, then you get active, then you get effective.

It shouldn't be that order, but it usually is for most of us—it was for me. You sort of have to look at the evidence around you, and see who is actually able to hold the ear of the passerby when [handing] out a leaflet: What do people respond to in your messaging? Are you turning them off? The people in the pro-intact movement—the anti-circumcision movement—often refer to themselves as “intactivists” (you know, [the words] “intact” and “activist” combined), and I would say that there are intactivists who I think are pursuing strategies that are not really very successful, and there are those who are very good with people from a variety of backgrounds, and they really sort of hear [a] person's questions, and they're not confrontational.

You find that [distinction], though, in every form of activism, I think, whether it's gun legislation, whether it's religious evangelism—you get [some] people who are just great at messaging, and you get [some] people who are… challenged in that area.

Tom Beasley

Right. I mean, to confess, I'm fairly onboard with the idea [of intactivism]. I've talked about it before; I'm pretty open to it. But, when people start saying something like “intactivist”, or they, you know, some of their rhetoric is somewhat poor, I sort of have to walk away from those people.

Francelle Wax

So, when you say “walk away from them”, I don't really know what you mean by that; I assume you don't mean that you [change] your mind out of spite—

Tom Beasley

No—

Francelle Wax

Do you mean you just… on this issue specifically? I'd be curious to know more [about] what you've encountered.

Tom Beasley

Right, I mean, it's just sort of alienating to me to have people—even who have similar positions to [mine]—for example, if you talk about atheism, some people who are atheists will adopt a kind of rhetoric that seems less effective, and I try to shy away from that, too! So, I just sort of think that it's sort of a difficult issue because, unfortunately, I think, even what you are saying about this issue, you appear insane to the general public.

So, basically, I just think it's a tough issue to straddle. I have myself been finding myself sort of saying [that] people who become so adamant about the issue, you know, if they start calling themselves, for example, "intactivists", it just seems very alienating to me.

Francelle Wax

Well, that's good feedback to have, because I wouldn't have thought that would be—I know sometimes people sort of roll their eyes when they hear that, and they're like “Oh, that's a silly term!”, but I [didn't] know that that one has offended people before—or I have not heard that before, but I've definitely heard [that] likening [circumcision] to “genital mutilation” or referring to [circumcision] as “genital mutilation” [does] seem to cost people the opportunity to get into a deeper discussion about it, and I would say there's probably a way to engage people without using that word. So, again, it's not what I lead with.

Personally, on the activism front, I would say I'm not very good at being patient when I'm speaking with other people [whom] I meet in circles like the aspiring rationalist circle or the atheist circle, and that's because I just sort of expect people who have become at least a hobbyist around the area of critical thought and rational thought [to] get it sooner on this [issue]—like, when I say “This is obviously a cultural blind spot”, I sort of expect them to come around to that [realization] sooner, and so I'm less patient when I meet somebody—at maybe a conference—who seems to have motivated skepticism [in general, but who cannot perceive the problem with forcibly circumcising a completely healthy child].

I would say I've gotten pretty good at being patient with your average Joe, [though].

Tom Beasley

Right. Yeah, because I would think even some atheists have trouble with the issue, but—

Francelle Wax

Anybody in the United States who [was] circumcised, or who made this decision for somebody else—a woman who has had a son circumcised, or somebody who has performed it—they are usually not very ready to deal with 100% of the truth about circumcision—

Tom Beasley

Well, yeah, because if a mother, for example, made a decision for [her] male child, [she] might harbor guilt if [she realizes she was] actually wrong or did something incorrectly.

Francelle Wax

Yeah! I actually want to experiment with this; I doubt it will be in my budget to do it, but I would like to experiment with showing the film to people who start out neutral on the subject, and to poll people after who have only had female children, and compare them with people who have had sons, and see what the findings are.

I think part of the reason my family came around on this [issue] is that my sister and I would have had brisses [had we been boys] [(a bris is a Jewish circumcision ritual)], but my parents happened to have daughters; I've seen the response from people who have had sons, and it does seem… angrier.

I think that it is easier to change your mind about what you would have done [rather] than about what you [actually] did.

Tom Beasley

Yeah. You mention that word, too: “bris”. I kind of think that's one of the worst words of all, because it sounds just like a little word[,] so it just seems sort of to really make it a de minimus issue—or try to—by using that word. But it's also culturally loaded.

Francelle Wax

Sure. I certainly did not mean to minimize or to suggest that—

Tom Beasley

No—obviously—

Francelle Wax

The way that [circumcision] is performed ritually, I [definitely] do not think is an improvement on the way [circumcision] is done in a secular setting; I just meant—speaking to my own experience—that I do know what it's like to have people close to me be angry about my work on this subject, and I know what it's like to see people, you know, be on one side of this and then eventually to change their minds about it, because those were my own parents.

Tom Beasley

So, You mention there [exists] a restoration process—

Francelle Wax

Yes—

Tom Beasley

How effective is this? [laughter] I remember I was watching Penn & Teller a couple years ago—

Francelle Wax

Right—

Francelle Wax

and they had an episode where they actually showed this guy in his “restored”… glory… [as it were]. Right?

Francelle Wax

Yes. [Yup]—

Tom Beasley

Why don't you tell me a little bit about that, and how effective it is.

Francelle Wax

Yeah. So, I've been very privileged to [have been] invited to video tape—I got to participate at a… I refer to it as [an] approximation of a NORM meeting; “NORM” stands for National Organization of Restoring Men, and there are chapters throughout the United States, and Canada, and the United Kingdom—and probably beyond that, but those are the ones I know for certain. There's a NORM-UK, [and] there's norm.org, so people should definitely check those out.

So, one of the most popular devices is actually going to be a reward for the crowd-funding campaign we have, and that is called the TLC Tugger. [NOTE: This reward is no longer being offered on the crowd-funding site; Kickstarter does not allow rewards to be “personal care” items.] Basically, all of the different forms of restoration involve stretching the skin; it's no different than [when] you see people pierce their ears and they try [to] stretch [the lobe] by putting an increasingly larger piece of something in [the hole] (usually something circular) to stretch the hole. [Foreskin restoration] is just that same principle.

So, you can take your remaining foreskin and basically pull it forward, and there's [a device] that presses it into place—I don't feel I'm going to succesfully describe this in a way that makes it sounds painless. [laughter] [I] don't have first hand experience, but the men say that it's pretty painless, and that it starts to feel good quite quickly. [NOTE: It is not necessary to employ a device; it is quite possible to peform the stretching using just your own hands, a process known as manual tugging. Indeed, such manual tugging may be necessary to loosen a tight circumcision before a device can even be used.]

Having your glans covered once you do that, you have that preference for having it be covered, and then once it's uncovered, you have more moisture there; so, if you leave it covered before sex, that's an advantage that some of them start to see kind of quickly. It can take between 1 to 4 years for most men to gain full coverage of their non-erect [(“flaccid”)] penis.

Tom Beasley

Now, do they notice a sensation increase, or… What sort of benefits do they get from doing this other than [a different] visual?

Francelle Wax

Sure. So, yeah. Most of them aren't actually doing it for the visual benefit; I would say they are doing it because they want the moisture—they want the slack skin for the sort of ribbed element of pleasure that it provides for a partner[.] [NOTE: The slack shaft tissue also acts as a mechanical “lubricant”, reducing unwanted friction with a rolling and gliding action. Also, as with a foreskin, pumping the slack tissue along the shaft stimulates the man by stretching and compressing any mechano-receptors that still exist after circumcision, and it stimulates the pressure-sensitive head of the penis as it rolls across]

At this point, we cannot regenerate the nerve endings [that were lost due to circumcision]. So, the ridged band, which contains the Meissner's corpuscles—the fine-touch nerve receptors—those are gone, but having the glans covered more [is something that] on its own stops it from drying and callusing and becoming desensitized from being exposed to the elements—from being exposed to air, and being exposed to somebody's shorts or [his] jeans or his boxers or whatever it is.

So, obviously, [people who “restore” their foreskins constitute] a smaller sample size, and obviously the people who get into this have an interest in doing that[;] they and their partners are usually very happy with the results.

Tom Beasley

I see. So, how much of this do you think is a secular push back? Do you think there's a strong religious push back to this, too? Or, is this sort of a mixed cultural issue?

Francelle Wax

You know, it's kind of mixed culturally. It's more of a secular push back, I would say. [As with] most social justice causes, the Jews are actually over-represented in the pro-intact movement; there are a variety of Jews from different denominations and different backgrounds—I mean, there are not tons and tons of Orthodox [Jews], but there are Conservative, [and] Reconstructionist, [and] Reform Jews who consider themselves pro‑intact, and they go to marches, they have websites like Beyond The Bris—I'm going to be giving an interview to [that site]—and [Jews] are very active. That's, again, I don't think very surprising, because Jews do have a pretty good tradition of challenging ideas and creating a splinter branch where they feel that's warranted. So, many of them are having naming ceremonies for sons that do not include the cutting, you know?

I should also add that American Secret's [web] page has been “liked” by atheist groups, pro-intact Jewish groups, a pro-intact Muslim group, a pro-intact Mormon network—so, [I'm] very pleased to see the leadership in the various religious movements on this.

Tom Beasley

So, now you're trying to do crowdfunding for this, is that right? So, where can people go to find out more about your developments and how the project is coming along?

Francelle Wax

[For right now], people can find out the information at:

americansecret-themovie.com

All information will be up there, and we may even have [that] redirect directly to the crowdfunding site[.] You can also go to:

facebook.com/AmericanSecret.TheCircumcisionAgenda

[where] you'll get at least as much information if you “like” and check in on the page as going to the actual website; we definitely maintain updates on Facebook.

Tom Beasley

All right. Great. Well, it was a pleasure having you. Again, it's Francelle Wax; you can check it out: American Secret. She's [the] director and producer. Check it out—it looks great! Thanks for being with us!

Francelle Wax

Thanks so much for having me!