It's estimated that 80 percent of males in the world are intact.

The societal norm of circumcision in the United States, and especially in the Midwest, where fewer boys are left intact, heavily influences the trend. When fathers are asked to decide whether or not their sons should be circumcised, many end up wanting their boys to look like them.

The academy cites reduced incidents of urinary tract infection and lowering one's likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, but its policy seems to disregard the idea that antibiotics for babies and safe-sex practices taught to adolescents might be equally beneficial, without the loss of a healthy and valuable foreskin.

And it is valuable. The foreskin, or prepuce, isn't merely an extra flap of skin, but a highly innervated organ in its own right. It offers protection, comfort and a barrier between the outside world of irritants and the glans (the bulbous structure at the end) it covers, as well as several sexual advantages later in life.

"I would much rather my sons be angry with me for not getting it done than to take something away from them that they can never get back," Griffiths said.

"Girls get many more urinary tract infections, and we don't ever consider cutting off a part of her body to solve that problem. We give her antibiotics."

"There's really nothing more to do than we teach all boys," Garrett said. "Wash your penis. Only with intact boys, that includes an extra two-second step of retracting their own foreskin before washing."

"I expect the downward trend of circumcision to continue," Garrett said. "As a culture of medical practice, we seem to be skewing more towards the 'less is more' approach, and I think that will definitely cross over into the circumcision debate."