Erickson argues that a boy must be left intact until he reaches an age where he can make a rational, educated choice about his own body. In this regard, Erickson seems grounded both in terms of logic and humanity. The author is a bit misguided, however, in his efforts to portray circumcised penises as inherently handicapped. As with any surgical effort, this possibility exists. But to suggest that all men circumcised as infants will experience sexual dysfunction is a biased and illogical generalization.
Many men live very fulfilling lives without a foreskin.
Erickson's extremely thorough approach, at times, serves to contradict his viewpoint while unintentionally revealing an almost fanatical, seemingly anarchic fringe of the anti-circumcision movement. Erickson includes an excerpt from American Medical News about a physician sentenced to a year's probation for masturbating during a rectal exam. Despite its shortcomings, Deeper Into Circumcision is a fascinating read. I couldn't put Deeper Into Circumcision down, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in foreskin, the intact male, the process of restoration or the right to govern one's body. My fundamental point is that infant circumcision is foreskin amputation by force and should therefore be outlawed.