Circumcision - Myths and Facts

Hawkeye

Active Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO CIRCUMCISE YOUR SON?

Circumcision is a painful, risky, unethical surgery that deprives over a million boys each year of healthy, functional tissue, while wasting health care dollars that could be spent on medically necessary services. Read the "Ten Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby" and learn why you should keep your newborn son intact.


10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy



  • Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.


  • Because the foreskin is not a birth defect. The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans), protects it from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.


  • Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from forced genital surgery, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy.


  • Because your baby does not want to be circumcised. Circumcision painfully and permanently alters a baby boy's genitals, removing healthy, protective, functional tissue from the penis and exposing the child to unnecessary pain and medical risks –for no medical benefit. What do you think your baby boy would say if he could tell you?


  • Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky, and harmful. We know babies are sensitive to pain. Many circumcisions are performed with no analgesic, but even when pain control is employed, the pain is not eliminated. As with any surgery, complications can and do occur with circumcision. These include infection, abnormal bleeding, removal of too much skin, loss of all or part of the glans, urinary problems, and even death. All circumcisions result in the loss of the foreskin and its functions, and leave a penile scar.


  • Because times and attitudes have changed. The circumcision rate in the United States is now below 40% (and much lower in some parts of the country), down from 81% in 1981. More than 60% of all baby boys in the U.S. leave the hospital intact, as more and more parents realize that circumcision is unnecessary and wrong.


  • Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America are often appalled to hear that American doctors and hospitals remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth. Approximately 75% of the men in the world are not circumcised and remain intact throughout their lives.


  • Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy. A natural, intact penis requires no special care, beyond gentle washing while bathing. Later, when the foreskin can be retracted (something that often does not occur until adolescence), a boy can be taught to pull back his foreskin to wash his penis. Forcible retraction of the foreskin results in pain and injury, and should not be done.


  • Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Over the years, the claims that circumcision prevents various diseases have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare.


  • Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.



myths and facts of infant circumcision

Myth – Circumcising baby boys is a safe and harmless procedure.
Fact – Surgically removing part of a baby boy's penis causes pain, creates immediate health risks and can lead to serious complications. Risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings.


Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip.
Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.


Myth – Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals.
Fact – No professional medical association in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is now the norm in the U.S., with circumcision rates well below 40%.


Myth – The baby does not feel any pain during circumcision.
Fact – Circumcision is painful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. The analgesics used for circumcision only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. Further, the open wound left by the removal of the foreskin will continue to cause the baby pain and discomfort for the 7-10 days it takes to heal.


Myth – If I don't circumcise my son, he will be ridiculed.
Fact – Times have changed and so has people's understanding of circumcision. Today, although the popularity of circumcision varies across geographical areas, more than 60% of all baby boys born in the U.S. will leave the hospital intact. Most medically advanced nations do not practice child circumcision. Three quarters of the world's men are intact.


Myth – A boy should be circumcised to look like his father.
Fact – Children differ from their parents in many ways, including eye and hair color, body type, and (of course) size and sexual development. If a child asks why his penis looks different from that of his circumcised father (or brother), parents can say, "Daddy (or brother) had a part of his penis removed when he was a baby; now we know it’s not necessary and we decided not to let anyone do that to you."


Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation.
Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.


Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children's genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.


Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life.
Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life.


Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV.
Fact – Claims that circumcision prevents HIV have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or false. Only abstinence or safe sex, including the use of condoms, can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.


http://www.intactamerica.org/
 

CitizenOfTheRepublic

Legendary Member
"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision" American Academy of Pediatrics - Newborn Male Circumcision

Beside that when talking about risk, one also need to mention that conditions such as phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and posthitis will require an adult circumcision if uncircumcised. Rare occurrences but still consider the cost.
 

Hawkeye

Active Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life


Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.


If a man is circumcised, he faces an increased risk of experiencing delayed orgasm, and his female partner has an increased risk of not feeling sexually fulfilled.
This is the clear-cut conclusion of a new Danish research article, which has received international attention.
Some 5,000 sexually active men and women were surveyed about their experiences and possible problems with their sex lives. With a specific focus on circumcised men and their women, the results are startling.
“Circumcised men are three times as likely to experience a frequent inability to reach an orgasm,” says one of the researchers, Associate Professor Morten Frisch from Danish research enterprise SSI.


Research into the effects on women is unique

This is one of only a few studies of the sexual consequences of male circumcision, and in one area in particular it is groundbreaking:
“Previous studies into male circumcision have looked at the effects it has on the men. But scientists have never really studied the effects this has on the women's sex lives,” says Frisch.
“It appears that women with circumcised men are twice as likely to be sexually frustrated. They experience a three-fold risk of frequent difficulties in achieving orgasm, and an eight-fold risk of feeling pain during intercourse – also known as dyspareunia.”


Circumcised men prefer it rough

There appears to be a very simple reason why circumcised men and their partners are having problems with their sex lives.
The circumcised man develops a thin layer of hard skin on his penis head, which decreases the sensitivity. This means that in order to reach an orgasm, he needs to work harder at it, and that can lead to a painful experience for the woman.
“We conducted a survey, but the data does not explain why these problems occur. There are, however, some good suggestions in the scientific literature,” he explains.
When the penis enters the vagina, the foreskin is pulled back. And on its way out again, the foreskin goes back to cover the penis head. This way the foreskin stimulates both the man and the woman.
The gliding in-and-out movement of the foreskin, combined with the in-and-out movement inside the vagina, constitutes what is known as ‘the gliding movement’.
“When a circumcised man moves in and out of a woman without 'the gliding movement' caused by the foreskin, it can have a painful effect on the woman's mucous membrane. This could explain the pain and the tendency towards dryness that some women with circumcised men experience.”


Sources of error were filtered out

A vast majority of the circumcised men in the study were circumcised based on a doctor's estimate.
“Only five percent of all Danish men are circumcised, yet we have statistically valid evidence that male circumcision can be associated with sexual problems.
The study did not involve many religiously circumcised men – Jews and Muslims, for example. But even with these factors taken into account, the data pointed in the same direction. The statistical analyses also took a long list of additional relevant factors into account, including:

  • Age
  • Cultural background
  • Religious background
  • Marital status
  • Levels of education
  • Household income
  • Age at first intercourse
  • Number of sex partners
  • Frequency of sexual activity with one partner in the past year
“We adjusted for all these factors in an attempt to ensure that circumcision is the actual cause, and that the link isn’t attributable to other factors.”


Bottom-line results were clear

Frisch mentions an example of how things get muddled up if researchers do not adjust for possible sources of error when they work with statistics:
“If, for instance, you look at people who drink lots of beer, you'll see that they face an increased risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who don't drink much,” he says. “But it's not the drinking itself that causes the lung cancer. There just happens to be a correlation between drinking and smoking, and it is actually the smoking that causes the lung cancer.”
These kinds of error sources were taken into account, and the bottom-line results were clear:
“We’re seeing a consistent picture. Even though most circumcised men – and their women – do not have problems with their sex lives, there is a significantly larger group of circumcised men and their female partners who experience frequent problems in achieving orgasm, compared to couples where the man is not circumcised.”
In addition, there are significantly more women with circumcised men, who experience vaginal pains during intercourse or feel that their sexual needs are not met.


Further studies needed

Frisch hopes this new study will be replicated by researchers in other countries and cultures.
“That way we can ascertain whether this phenomenon applies to Danes only or whether it extends into other cultures too,” he says. “All in all, I have a humble approach to our findings, so I would also like to see whether other Danish studies would reach the same conclusions.”


Study resonates internationally

According to Frisch, the study has received a great deal of international attention. For example, he has been contacted by politicians in California, who are very pleased with the results of the study because they want to ban circumcision in their federal state.
Others are less excited, saying the research is controversial.
“This is a highly sensitive issue, and some people oppose the publication of this kind of research. Some people have actually tried to stop the publication of our article,” he explains.


A question of ethics

Certain groups and individuals are lobbying in favour circumcising all men, explains Frisch. Not necessarily out of religious concern, but because they believe that circumcision has a health-promotional effect. In Africa, for instance, there are indications that circumcision could reduce the risk of HIV infection.



http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life

 

Libnene Qu7

Super Ultra Senior Member
Orange Room Supporter
Funny enough, anything related to religion falls under the myth category. This is not a coincidence.
 

CitizenOfTheRepublic

Legendary Member
If we talk strictly about the medical aspects, modern hygienic practices have made infant male circumcision less of requirement. In past years and eras recurrent infections were a common sight whereas nowadays this is less of a problem because proper hygiene became the standard. There are still medical benefits to circumcision as noted by the AAP article, however, the risk/benefit difference is not wide enough to make a recommendation.
 

Reynold

Member
most women I know do not like uncircumcised penises, they also feel its unclean to give oral sex to.
But that might be because they are preconditioned in America to think circumcised is better.

I'm circumcised, I never had a problem down there nor have I heard complaints, but i know a guy who had to do it as a teenager because of an infection, he couldn't walk right for a couple of months.

bottom line, it's the parents' choice, banning it will only make people do it in another state or country.
 

shreek

Well-Known Member
most women I know do not like uncircumcised penises, they also feel its unclean to give oral sex to.
But that might be because they are preconditioned in America to think circumcised is better.

I'm circumcised, I never had a problem down there nor have I heard complaints, but i know a guy who had to do it as a teenager because of an infection, he couldn't walk right for a couple of months.

bottom line, it's the parents' choice, banning it will only make people do it in another state or country.

Yes but the skin in an uncircumcised male 'rolls back' to expose the head. So an uncircumcised penis can appear circumcised if you will.
 

Dalzi

Legendary Member
If we talk strictly about the medical aspects, modern hygienic practices have made infant male circumcision less of requirement. In past years and eras recurrent infections were a common sight whereas nowadays this is less of a problem because proper hygiene became the standard. There are still medical benefits to circumcision as noted by the AAP article, however, the risk/benefit difference is not wide enough to make a recommendation.
Proper hygiene is 'proper' for healthy active people only. If something happens to you that affects your mobility, you are at a higher risk of developing an infection. You could get stuck in war and have no access to water. Anything can happen.

The 'only' reason for religious circumsision is 'tahara' = hygiene. Jesus was circumcised. Don't even think twice, circumcise your son. No Jew or Muslim is complaining of problems coz of that.

Besides, what if he wants to convert to Judaism or Islam? :p If he makes it alive out of your house, he'd need to get circumcised :D Save him the trouble.
 

shreek

Well-Known Member
Proper hygiene is 'proper' for healthy active people only. If something happens to you that affects your mobility, you are at a higher risk of developing an infection. You could get stuck in war and have no access to water. Anything can happen.

The 'only' reason for religious circumsision is 'tahara' = hygiene. Jesus was circumcised. Don't even think twice, circumcise your son. No Jew or Muslim is complaining of problems coz of that.

Besides, what if he wants to convert to Judaism or Islam? :p If he makes it alive out of your house, he'd need to get circumcised :D Save him the trouble.

With Jews and Muslims the religious aspect is paramount not hygiene.
 

Dalzi

Legendary Member
With Jews and Muslims the religious aspect is paramount not hygiene.
There is a reason for everything religion asks. Here circumsision is for hygeinic purposes ONLY. We call it 'tatheer', which is the religious term for 'cleaning'.
 

shreek

Well-Known Member
There is a reason for everything religion asks. Here circumsision is for hygeinic purposes ONLY. We call it 'tatheer', which is the religious term for 'cleaning'.


Well you may be right, since circumcision is not mentioned at all in the Quran and it is mostly traditional in aspect.
have you heard of the Quran Only movement? It wants circumcision banned saying it is unislamic.
 

Dalzi

Legendary Member
Well you may be right, since circumcision is not mentioned at all in the Quran and it is mostly traditional in aspect.
have you heard of the Quran Only movement? It wants circumcision banned saying it is unislamic.
Most Islamic ritual practices (prayer wash, prayer conditions... etc) aren't described in detail in the Qur'an because it focuses on the core basics and leaves elaboration and teachings to the Prophet.

Qur'an only when there's contradiction to the Qur'an, like slaughtering infants for example. The Prophet, his household and all Muslims were obliged to circumcise boys when he lived and after. No one can change the Prophetic Sunnah now.

These anti-circumcision arguments dismiss the fact that all Jews and Muslims are circumcised. As if it's some new 'experiment', or as if those poor Muslims and Jews are suffering lol
 

shreek

Well-Known Member
Most Islamic ritual practices (prayer wash, prayer conditions... etc) aren't described in detail in the Qur'an because it focuses on the core basics and leaves elaboration and teachings to the Prophet.

Qur'an only when there's contradiction to the Qur'an, like slaughtering infants for example. The Prophet, his household and all Muslims were obliged to circumcise boys when he lived and after. No one can change the Prophetic Sunnah now.

These anti-circumcision arguments dismiss the fact that all Jews and Muslims are circumcised. As if it's some new 'experiment', or as if those poor Muslims and Jews are suffering lol

So Muslims do not rely on Sola Scriptura, inno Scripture Alone is the defining rule of faith (as in scripture only found in the Quran).
i know Shia draw upon Imam Ali's (as) sayings as well as your own Hadith or narration a such as Al-Sadiq.
 

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Dalzi if circumcision was for hygiene, ya3ne it means one day we should stop it. But no, circumcision is for religion reasons, ya3ne even if it's no longer needed for hygiene, we should still do it.
 

Dalzi

Legendary Member
Dalzi if circumcision was for hygiene, ya3ne it means one day we should stop it. But no, circumcision is for religion reasons, ya3ne even if it's no longer needed for hygiene, we should still do it.
Why do you think religion asks for it? Manzar?
Religion commands it for hygienic purposes. You can't stop it for both reasons. As long as you have body waste to dispose of, you will always 'need it for hygiene'.
 

Dalzi

Legendary Member
So Muslims do not rely on Sola Scriptura, inno Scripture Alone is the defining rule of faith (as in scripture only found in the Quran).
i know Shia draw upon Imam Ali's (as) sayings as well as your own Hadith or narration a such as Al-Sadiq.
Can one book cover every single detail about life, existence and beyond? You need one book to explain Wudu2 (Islamic washing), for example. You can't fit 'Islam' into one book.

We rely on the Scriptures as core setting the foundations, beliefs and principles, and on Prophetic teachings and practices (called Al Sunnah Alnabawiyah - not Sunnah as in the sect) for fine details and elaboration.

Our Shiaa sources differ from those of Sunnis. We have 12 infallible Imams who were voted into leadership as teachers by the Prophet first and each other after. We then have scholars who continuously study and develop religion to suit time (which is one of Imam Ali's teachings). However, we cannot deviate from the core. We have to evolve, but not contradict the Qur'an. Our Shariah is not static. It's a legal system open to development and changes. If little has been done, it's because of men, not the religion itself.
 

eLad

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Can one book cover every single detail about life, existence and beyond? You need one book to explain Wudu2 (Islamic washing), for example. You can't fit 'Islam' into one book.

We rely on the Scriptures as core setting the foundations, beliefs and principles, and on Prophetic teachings and practices (called Al Sunnah Alnabawiyah - not Sunnah as in the sect) for fine details and elaboration.

Our Shiaa sources differ from those of Sunnis. We have 12 infallible Imams who were voted into leadership as teachers by the Prophet first and each other after. We then have scholars who continuously study and develop religion to suit time (which is one of Imam Ali's teachings). However, we cannot deviate from the core. We have to evolve, but not contradict the Qur'an. Our Shariah is not static. It's a legal system open to development and changes. If little has been done, it's because of men, not the religion itself.

you need one book to teach you how to wash? :eek:

i may understand the need for circumcision for hygienic reasons and to prevent infections 1500 years ago for people living in tents deep in the desert with few drops of water to spare every day. but this argument is not valid anymore

the anti-circumcision doctors are totally against this practice for many reasons, their main arguments are: it's unnecessary in terms of hygiene, it's very painful for babies and might have severe complications, and adults who have been circumcised as babies experience much less pleasure than uncircumcised adults due to the loss of sensitivity caused by the removal of the foreskin.

i hate to turn this thread to another religious thread, but sticking to this practice (among others) that may have been necessary hundreds years ago and totally useless today makes you more salafi than you ever thought.
 

Libnene Qu7

Super Ultra Senior Member
Orange Room Supporter
you need one book to teach you how to wash? :eek:

i may understand the need for circumcision for hygienic reasons and to prevent infections 1500 years ago for people living in tents deep in the desert with few drops of water to spare every day. but this argument is not valid anymore

the anti-circumcision doctors are totally against this practice for many reasons, their main arguments are: it's unnecessary in terms of hygiene, it's very painful for babies and might have severe complications, and adults who have been circumcised as babies experience much less pleasure than uncircumcised adults due to the loss of sensitivity caused by the removal of the foreskin.

i hate to turn this thread to another religious thread, but sticking to this practice (among others) that may have been necessary hundreds years ago and totally useless today makes you more salafi than you ever thought.

Even historically there was no need for it. The millions of Native Americans, ancient Chinese, and non-desert dwellers never cared for it. Fact is, most people on earth never got circumcised, and they were ok. Religious teachings on circumcision is purely supersticious and like all religious matters, it is related to the self-mutilation cult of thinking.
 

eLad

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Even historically there was no need for it. The millions of Native Americans, ancient Chinese, and non-desert dwellers never cared for it. Fact is, most people on earth never got circumcised, and they were ok. Religious teachings on circumcision is purely supersticious and like all religious matters, it is related to the self-mutilation cult of thinking.

by historically i meant for people living in desert (arabs) or wandering the desert (jews) i read it was practiced by arabs even before islam
 
Top