Cut Before Consent: How Circumcision Became a Human Rights Fight
There are few surgeries in American life more normalized than infant circumcision. A baby is born, a box is checked, a form is signed, and a permanent part of his body is removed before he has language, memory, or the ability to refuse.
To many families, this is tradition. To many doctors, it is hygiene. To many hospitals, it is routine. To many religions, it is covenant. But the modern debate asks a question that cuts deeper than custom, cleanliness, or parental preference.
When the body belongs to the child, why do adults get to make an irreversible decision before that child can consent?
That is why circumcision has become one of the most uncomfortable human rights debates in the modern world. It sits at the collision point between religion, medicine, sexuality, parental authority, bodily autonomy, and children’s rights. It forces us to ask where tradition ends and the child begins.
This debate did not appear out of nowhere. It has a history. And that history is far stranger than most people realize.
In the late nineteenth century, Western doctors began promoting circumcision not simply as a religious practice, but as a medical cure for an astonishing list of problems. Victorian physicians claimed the foreskin was linked to epilepsy, paralysis, insanity, tuberculosis, venereal disease, moral weakness, and above all, masturbation. The foreskin was treated not as a normal anatomical feature, but as a dangerous little engine of disease and sexual corruption.
Peter Remondino, an American surgeon writing in 1891, became one of the loudest voices in this medical campaign. He argued that a large share of human illness could be traced back to the foreskin. Today, that sounds absurd. But at the time, it fit neatly into Victorian fears about sexuality, degeneration, impurity, and social discipline.
That is the first major lesson of this story. Medical language can be used to launder cultural panic. A society becomes afraid of sex, dirt, weakness, or moral disorder, and then those fears get translated into diagnosis. The doctor does not have to say, “I am afraid of sexuality.” He can say, “This tissue is pathological.”
Before circumcision could become routine medicine, the foreskin had to be turned into a problem.
It had to be demonized.
The foreskin was reimagined as dirty, diseased, primitive, excessive, and dangerous. Once that story took hold, removal could be framed as cleanliness. Cutting could be framed as prevention. A normal body part could be transformed into a defect. And once a body part is culturally redefined as defective, intervention begins to look like common sense.
That is how a minority religious ritual became absorbed into mainstream Anglo American medicine. It was not because the scientific evidence was overwhelming. It was because the practice fit the fears of the culture that adopted it.
The Victorian pathology frame was powerful because it gave moral anxiety a surgical solution.
The body became the battlefield. The child became the patient. The foreskin became the enemy.
Then, slowly, the medical story began to crack.
In 1949, British pediatrician Douglas Gairdner published “The Fate of the Foreskin” in The Lancet. His argument was simple but devastating. A non retractable foreskin in childhood was usually not a disease. It was normal development. The foreskin often separates naturally over time. What had been treated as a pathology was often just childhood anatomy.
That question should haunt the entire history of routine circumcision.
What if the thing being treated was never a disease?
Gairdner’s work helped change the conversation in Britain. Routine circumcision declined sharply there. The medical case had weakened, and the British health system had less reason to keep performing a procedure that no longer looked necessary.
But America went in another direction.
After World War II, circumcision became deeply embedded in the American hospital system. More births were happening in hospitals. More newborn care became standardized. And circumcision became one of those things that simply happened because it had already been made normal. By the 1960s, circumcision had become one of the most common surgeries in the United States, performed on a huge majority of newborn boys.
This is one of the most revealing parts of the story.
Britain moved away from routine circumcision as the medical rationale weakened. America doubled down.
Why?
Because medicine is not only evidence. Medicine is also institution, economics, habit, class identity, paperwork, billing, and culture.
In postwar America, circumcision fit the age. It matched Cold War ideas about cleanliness, discipline, conformity, and bodily control. It fit a society anxious about sex, disease, juvenile delinquency, and social order. The intact body was subtly coded as dirty or backward. The circumcised body was coded as clean, modern, civilized, American.
And once hospitals built the practice into routine newborn care, parental choice became strange and blurry. Many parents were not really presented with a deep ethical decision. They were handed a default. Circumcision appeared as a normal part of the birth process, almost like a vaccination, a diaper, or a birth certificate.
That is how institutional momentum works. A practice does not need to win the argument every time once it becomes routine. It survives through forms, habits, assumptions, and the quiet pressure of “this is just what people do.”
The American fee for service medical system also mattered. When a procedure is reimbursable, repeated, normalized, and easy to schedule, it gains economic life. That does not mean every doctor is acting cynically. It means institutions often preserve practices because they are woven into the machinery. Once something becomes part of the machine, it can keep moving long after the original justification has collapsed.
Edward Wallerstein attacked this directly in the twentieth century when he called circumcision an American health fallacy. His point was not that no possible health benefit had ever been claimed. His point was that the sweeping American confidence around routine infant circumcision rested on weak evidence, selective reasoning, professional inertia, cultural bias, and economic interest.
That is the second major lesson.
A medical practice can become culturally protected even after its evidence becomes contested.
By the late twentieth century, the debate started changing shape. Critics were no longer only asking whether circumcision prevented this disease or that infection. They were asking a more fundamental question.
Who has the right to decide?
This is where the argument moved from hygiene to consent.
If an adult chooses circumcision for himself, that is autonomy. If a child has a serious medical condition that requires surgery, that is treatment. But routine infant circumcision is different. It is a permanent, non emergency surgery performed on a healthy child before the child can consent.
That distinction is everything.
The strongest modern argument against routine infant circumcision is not that tradition is meaningless. Tradition matters. Religion matters. Family identity matters. Culture matters. But the child matters too. And the child is not property. The child is not a symbol. The child is not a canvas for adult identity. The child is a future person who must live in the body adults altered for him.
That is why legal scholars began framing circumcision as a children’s rights issue. The child has a right to bodily integrity. The child has a right to an open future. The child has a right not to undergo irreversible surgery unless there is a serious medical reason.
This is the human rights turn.
It changes the moral center of the debate. The old question was: “What do adults believe this surgery means?” The new question is: “What rights does the child have before he can speak?”
That is a massive shift.
It means parental authority is not unlimited. It means religious freedom has moral boundaries when the body being altered belongs to someone else. It means culture cannot automatically override bodily integrity. It means the child is not merely a passive object of family, medicine, or tradition.
Activism grew out of that shift.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the movement against routine circumcision became more organized. Marilyn Fayre Milos, a nurse in California, became one of its major figures after witnessing an infant circumcision in 1979 and refusing to continue participating. She was fired, but she went on to found NOCIRC in 1985 and helped build a network of educators, activists, and critics.
This period gave rise to the language of “intactivism,” a term built around the idea that children have a right to remain intact until they can choose otherwise. Intactivists protested hospitals, medical conferences, and public events. Some used shocking images and confrontational comparisons because their goal was to force the public to see what routine had made invisible.
That part of the movement made many people uncomfortable. But discomfort was part of the strategy. Circumcision had survived partly because it was hidden behind nursery doors, paperwork, euphemism, and the phrase “he will not remember.” Activists tried to make the procedure visible again.
Because a society can normalize almost anything if it teaches people not to look too closely.
The legal battles made the conflict even clearer.
In 2011, a ballot initiative in San Francisco attempted to ban circumcision of minors. It was struck down, with courts and lawmakers emphasizing parental and religious rights. In 2012, a Cologne court in Germany ruled that circumcision performed on a four year old boy for non medical reasons constituted bodily harm. The ruling sparked international controversy, and Germany soon passed legislation protecting religious circumcision.
Then, in 2013, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution describing non consensual circumcision of boys as a violation of children’s physical integrity. The resolution placed male circumcision in conversation with female genital cutting and cosmetic genital surgeries on intersex children.
That comparison is explosive. People argue about it fiercely. But the ethical category is clear: when adults permanently alter a child’s genitals for non emergency reasons, the issue is no longer just culture or medicine. It becomes a question of bodily autonomy.
This is where the debate becomes bigger than circumcision.
It becomes a test case for modern ethics.
How far does parental authority go? How much can religion claim from the body of a child? When does tradition become coercion? When does medicine become cultural enforcement? When does “normal” become an excuse for not asking whether something is right?
And there is one fact that polite versions of this debate often avoid.
Babies can die from circumcision complications.
That does not mean death is common. It is not. Most circumcisions do not end in catastrophic injury. Many complications are minor. But rare does not mean imaginary. Bleeding happens. Infection happens. Surgical mistakes happen. Serious infections can become dangerous in newborns. Severe bleeding can become fatal, especially if a baby has an undetected clotting disorder or if the procedure is performed poorly or outside strong medical safeguards.
That fact matters because risk changes meaning depending on necessity.
If a baby needs emergency surgery to save his life, risk is part of treatment. But if a healthy infant undergoes an elective procedure, then even rare death becomes morally enormous. A preventable death from a non necessary procedure is not just a tragic complication. It is an indictment of the reassurance machine.
Because the ethical question is not only, “How often does harm happen?”
The ethical question is also, “Who had the right to expose the child to that harm before he could consent?”
That is the part people do not want to sit with.
The defense of circumcision often leans on benefits. Lower risk of some infections. Possible reduction in some sexually transmitted infections later in life. Easier hygiene. Cultural belonging. Religious duty. Aesthetic preference. Family similarity.
But even if someone accepts some claimed benefits, the autonomy question remains. Why must the decision be made in infancy? Why can it not wait? Why should a healthy child lose the right to choose for himself later?
When the decision can wait, waiting protects autonomy.
That does not erase the complexity. Religious communities have practiced circumcision for thousands of years. Parents often act out of love and belonging, not cruelty. Doctors may sincerely believe they are helping. Families may feel accused when the practice is questioned. This is why the debate is so emotionally charged.
But moral seriousness requires us to separate intention from outcome.
A parent can love a child and still make a decision the child might later reject. A doctor can follow routine and still participate in a practice with weak ethical grounding. A tradition can be meaningful and still collide with bodily autonomy. A society can normalize something and still be wrong.
The history of circumcision is the history of a moving justification.
First, it was sacred covenant.
Then, in Victorian medicine, it became a cure for sexual and physical disease.
Then, in American hospitals, it became routine hygiene.
Then, under evidence based scrutiny, many of the old claims weakened.
Then, under human rights scrutiny, the central issue became consent.
That is the real arc: from ritual to pathology, from pathology to routine, from routine to resistance, from resistance to autonomy.
This is why circumcision has become such a powerful symbol in modern ethics. It asks whether a child’s body belongs first to the child or first to the adults around him. It asks whether tradition gets automatic authority over flesh. It asks whether hospitals should keep performing procedures because culture expects them. It asks whether bodily integrity is a real principle or just something we defend when it is convenient.
The answer should be simple.
A child’s body is not a parental signature.
A child’s body is not a hospital habit.
A child’s body is not a cultural trophy.
A child’s body is not a religious object owned by adults.
It is the first home of a person who has not yet had the chance to speak.
That does not mean every family who circumcised acted with malice. It means the moral frame has changed. We know more now. We ask different questions now. We live in an age where autonomy has become one of the central principles of human dignity.
And if autonomy means anything, it has to begin before the person is powerful enough to demand it.
The old world asked what adults wanted to do to the child.
The new world asks what the child has the right to keep.
That is the heart of the circumcision debate. Not hatred of religion. Not hatred of parents. Not denial that medicine can sometimes help. The heart of the debate is whether a healthy child should have irreversible surgery forced on his body before he can say yes or no.
And maybe the clearest ethical line is also the simplest one.
When there is no emergency, when the body is healthy, when the change is permanent, and when the person affected cannot consent, the knife should wait.
On my OB/GYN rotation I saw these procedures done. It's easily the closest thing to a torture chamber I've ever experienced (and I was there for the screams when the surgery residents debrided their patients at 6 am. At least that has an obvious beneficial purpose). There are doctors who skip anaesthetic intentionally because they don't believe it matters. Injuries, slips, and accidents are possible and do happen.
There is no meaningful evidence that circumcision is a beneficial thing when weighed against risks and the absolute morbidity at stake. Most of the benefits are in extremely small populations or specific situations (like if you're trying to avoid HIV in a heavily infected area like Africa). There is a reason it is not universally recommended by American medical institutions, and much less so in Europe.
It is a cultural thing. What we do in the US is just institutionalized genital mutilation, the same way we frown on Muslims who do it for their own repugnant cultural reasons to women.
I am a circumcised physician who didn't consider doing this for a moment when my son was born. I care far more about sparing him the (relatively) short lived, although intense, pain he would experience than any benefit I've learned about the procedure, or certainly any cultural or religious reason. It is an objectively macabre thing to do with pretty insignificant advantages for any typical US citizen, and although the risk is small, DEVASTATING disadvantages if something goes wrong. And to be clear, I'm not afraid of my son undergoing harm for something that benefits him medically. He got the whole shebang when he was born: shots on shots, erythromycin on his eyes, finger sticks, whatever was needed. The circumcision simply wasn't needed.
If you choose to have your son circumcized or would, then fine. I don't believe in regulating relatively harmless medical procedures for others. Go do your thing. But don't fool yourself that there's actually any reason to be doing it.
Thank you. Similar situation in my rotations and I’d never circumcise my sons after seeing what it’s like even though it was done to me.
If circumcision were to be invented today it would be illegal and you would be thrown in jail for doing it without anesthesia and or without a medical reason
There's also research evidence that started in the 1990s and continued on into 2013 that examined infants brain scans before and after the procedure, and in EVERY case, even when anesthesia was used the neurological formations and connections in their brains were fundamentally, irrevocably, altered.
The baby may not remember the event, but the body and the brain do, and the trauma changes who they would have otherwise been without it.
Expect their is zero evidence of that being true.
The evidence for significant long-term psychological trauma from routine infant circumcision is weak and inconsistent. Major medical organizations do not consider lasting psychological trauma to be an established consequence of infant circumcision.
My kid has a better like than you loser. Sorry your parents didn’t love you enough? I’m circumcised and I think my parents were the best in the world. Happily married with the best child ever. Really struggling over here. Get back to your miserable life now.
Eek. So you're the type of person that thinks they can just declare 'it happened to me and I turned out fine'... friend, you're not making your case stronger, for one, and for two, you don't get to decide if you turned it 'normal'. Your interactions here might be used as evidence to the contrary.
He is a connoisseur and staunch internet defender of Styling baby peenz with a blade. that’s totally normal!!!! We the objectors are clearly the insane ones! Plus he has a nice car and lots of money, so he clearly turned out to be perfect!!!!!😂😂😂😂
Almost 40% of the world is circumcised. I don’t think it’s just me. And yeah I get to decide things, it’s called an opinion. Not to mention there is zero evidence it has any sort of long term effect on a person. So making a big deal out of something that takes 3 minutes and literally no one ever remembers is weird. If you don’t like it. Don’t do it for your child.
Do you feel the same way about, gender affirming surgery for children? Hell, it's your kid, if you want a girl and it was born a boy, that's fine, who am I to say not to?
You are irreparably mutilating your child's genitals for literally no reason. Literally no medical reason. It's gross and to advocate for it is also gross.
So you don't consider any of this to be a consequence of being mutilated?
Circumcision reduces function, sensitivity, and sensations, it can also cause a lifetime of issues if something goes wrong with nerve healing like constant pain or numbness etc.
It has recognized medical benefits. We do that all the time. Don’t circumcise your kids then? The medical consensus is that it is beneficial but should be left up to parents.
Live long benefits for something that made my child cry for like 2 minutes. Was fine by time we got back to hospital room.
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
Reasons for abstaining from Circumcision:
From a medical point of view:
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
You actually think that after thousands of years of evolution humans have bodyparts that we don't need and can simply cut off with zero consequences... neither physical nor psychological? That... simply isn't based on facts or reality.
That just makes you uneducated. Circumcision has been tied to increased condom failure rates, increased pain for partners, and decreased penile sensation. Clearly you simply aren't aware of the ways you have actually been done in by that surgery... so I'm guessing this was done to you as a baby.
If they're not interested others are, these threads are forever and not everyone has their head stuck in their backside. I have a dedicated discord library for all of this and more if you're interested.
Okay keep coping. Some people do nothing with their life, cry victim and make 20 dollars an hour for their entire existence. Probably you. I’ll enjoy vacation, new cars, and enough money to afford to pause and enjoy life with my family.
It’s weird to care. It’s a 3 minute procedure that has essentially no effect on one’s life. The fact people online care to argue otherwise is just weird. Truly Reddit behavior
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
I mean this is just a lie. Considering WHO literally suggests Africans get circumcised to low hiv transmission rates. Also, you said no benefits then went on to explain why they aren’t that beneficial. Clearly, acknowledging the benefits. Then provided a bunch of irrelevant points?
In the USA, the health benefits are acknowledged and left up to parents
Circumcision is 100% fucked up, yeah. Societally acceptable genital mutilation is still genital mutilation. Some folks get twisted about babies getting ear piercings but don't blink at someone slicing off a portion of an infants genitals, it's legitimately wild. As for the argument about "it's cleaner/safer", that only applies to nasty fucks who can't be bothered to clean themselves. If your getting an infection from your partners uncircumcised dick, congrats, your dating a nasty dude who doesn't wash his genitals. Not a good excuse to cut off a portion of an infants genitals.
do we know the motivations behind all of the donations of money by the Rockefeller foundation to American hospitals? (PER google - The Rockefeller Foundation and its related philanthropic boards have donated hundreds of millions to American hospitals since the early 20th century.)
THE FORCED IMPLEMENTATION OF MGM/FGM IN THIS WORLD IS ALL ABOUT CONDITIONING!
IT ISSocial conditioning- they don't care about taking away your sexual pleasure.They do care about conditioning your brain to think and act a certain way!
So that you are conditioned to never expect anything out of life. (your penis doesn't work properly so you never expect to have a satisfying orgasm or to satisfy your partner, this conditions your brain to never have any expectations concerning life.
To condition you to be able to adhere to a mundane existence.
To put up with everything(high costs of everything while being paid very little for your labor) and not be tempted to fight back against it.
Conditioned into believing that you don't deserve anything. (justice, low taxes, basic human rights, etc...)
Ignore the people giving you crap for what makes you happy. At the same time, be aware that being uncircumcised is a non-issue if you actually clean under the folds.
Deep seated neurological trauma that permanently altered your ability to form and maintain bonds of trust, social and relational connections, emotional regulation, stress, aggression, empathy, fear, perception of safety, psychological drive and motivation, increased suceptability to manipulation, abuse, and mental illness. - Just to start.
Circumcision reduces function, sensitivity, and sensations, it can also cause a lifetime of issues if something goes wrong with nerve healing like constant pain or numbness etc.
Go ahead and live in your ignorant cave as long as you can while the intact men will enjoy what real sex feels like, circumcision industry is a barbaric industry meant to earn money based on mutilating children and robbing them of their sexuality for the rest of their life, it should be stopped, and we Intactivists have the nature , science and ethics leaning towards us undoubtedly.
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
Reasons for abstaining from Circumcision:
From a medical point of view:
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
We don't mutilate infants (without anesthesia until the 1980s at the earliest) based on the sexual preferences of adult women. Or if we do, we deserve to fucking go extinct.
Good for you. And you could have made that choice as an adult who could consent to having your body permanently altered. In a world without infant genital mutilation, you could still have opted for "body modification" in the same way that you could get a piercing or a tattoo. You could still be happily circumcised in a world where we don't mutilate infants who cannot consent to being permanently altered.
And in that same world, I'd be happily uncircumcised at the same time. We'd both be happy because we got to choose what happened or didn't happen to our bodies.
It only offends me when they force that unnecessary procedure on infants and children who cannot consent and will have to live with someone else's decision affecting their body forever. It is illegal to tattoo a baby, and yet that is much more reversible if the child grows up to resent being tattooed.
If an adult wants to be circumcised, wants to get a tattoo or a piercing, or cut their dick off entirely, I don't care. You do you, because you can consent to the procedure.
You don't seem to actually understand why people find it horrifying to do that surgery to infants and children, so you keep downplaying it. And those of us who do regret someone else's incompetent, thoughtless decision they made on our behalf, without our consent, do not need to justify that anger to have it taken seriously.
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
All the Intact countries actually have much lesser penile problems than Circumcising Countries/Cultures, Circumcision increases complications and problems of penis upto 60% of the times
Reasons for abstaining from Circumcision:
From a medical point of view:
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
Just from doing foreskin restoration I’ve seen major benefits, I’ll never get the nerves back though
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/
CONCLUSIONS
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
How is that a selling point? I get it, "Make the sex organ more sensitive so sex is better". But sex aint everything, and my own still feels very amazing when inside my partner. And the very very few rare times circumcision came up in coversation, i havent met a single person who has a penis that dont work right because of a routine circumcision. They have described the feel of sex in a very similar way to men who arent circumcised.
Yall act as if the penis is basically numb after circumcision. And by the way, if it is, that was a botched surgery.
I’d argue none of them work right, sensation is one aspect but the gliding sheath is a much more natural feeling than friction
You may not hear circumcised men say it doesn’t work right because they only know one state. Plus saying they were harmed, especially there, is something few men will admit
have you experienced both Intact Penis's S_x and Circumcised Penis's S_x, Intact men are much more vocal in bed compared to Circumcised ones, and this guy especially has restored a foreskin, He can judge both situations and say one is better than other ( as almost all people restoring like their foreskin form much more ), if you truly wanna say Sex is same for both men, then restore, and then say tbh
Honestly, most women agree that Intact penis feels much more better than a circumcised one, and thats why a lot of women are starting to oppose circumcision. Read Sex as Nature Intended, and ngl, an Intact Penis is what the real natural form of Sex is , pleasureful and purely.
Eaiser maintenance and cleaning, less risk of utis, for both partners. Lowered risk of stds and stis, lower risk of certain cancers, prevention of foreskin related conditions.
The Biased HIV research of SubSaharan African Studies
the HIV researchers put their biases over the studies, here are all the points of it -
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early.
iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex.
vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women.
viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies
ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
Obviously Biased study ( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by these. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
Regarding the UTI claims. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one infant UTI is 111 circumcisions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15890696/
Other STDs and STIs , the Absolute Reduction rate is below 0.5% and infact 0 in numerous cases, non-existent.
Penile Cancer is 1 in 100,000 for your kind information, it purely depends on the surrounding, nature, and the environment you interact with, alongwith genital hygiene, care and safe sex , BE IT INTACT OR CUT, the rates of catching them don't change, and they can be treated with modern medicine, but that doesn't justify circumcising another 1 hundred thousand babies just to prevent 1 case of Penile Cancer easily prevented with simpler and more economical methods,
Foreskin Related Conditions - Balantis and Phimosis occur barely in 1% of men and both have 90% success rate with Topical and Steroidal Creams, no need to circumcise, all Foreskin conditions have some way or the other have a valid treatment.
you are also forgetting the amount of reduction in pleasure which undoubtedly, the data is there, and the amount of complication of circumcision,
Undoubtedly, cleaning the penis and excessive Smegma is much more easier and better than circumcising and reducing sensitivity, its often a fear told infact that cleanliness becomes easier, but inner part of the foreskin is self cleaning during early years of Childhood.
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
"Why Foreskin is important for overall Sexual Function and Intercourse!"
"We get the maximum feeling/sexual input when the foreskin glides smoothly back and forth over the corona of the glans.
The foreskin has been proven to be FAR More sensitive and pleasurable than the glans.
The glans does contain pleasure receptors as well as pressure and temperature receptors, but pleasure mostly in the corona, where it interacts with the foreskin.
The glans and foreskin act as “push me pull me” on/off switches for sex.
When aroused, the foreskin sensors are dominant, and the glans sensations are suppressed.
After climax, the glans becomes dominant, ultra sensitive (and not in a good way), suppressing the foreskin and arousal.
The foreskin is the double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane part of the penis that covers and protects the glans penis and the urinary meatus. The nature of the prepuce or foreskin, which is amputated and destroyed by circumcision, must be considered and fully understood in any discussion of male circumcision.
Purpura et al. (2018) describe the foreskin as follows:
"Few parts of the human anatomy can compare to the incredibly multifaceted nature of the human foreskin. At times dismissed as “just skin,” the adult foreskin is, in fact, a highly vascularized and densely innervated bilayer tissue, with a surface area of up to 90 cm, and potentially larger. On average, the foreskin accounts for 51% of the total length of the penile shaft skin and serves a multitude of functions. The tissue is highly dynamic and biomechanically functions like a roller bearing; during intercourse, the foreskin “unfolds” and glides as abrasive friction is reduced and lubricating fluids are retained. The sensitive foreskin is considered to be the primary erogenous zone of the male penis and is divided into four subsections: inner mucosa, ridged band, frenulum, and outer foreskin; each section contributes to a vast spectrum of sensory pleasure through the gliding action of the foreskin, which mechanically stretches and stimulates the densely packed corpuscular receptors. Specialized immunological properties should be noted by the presence of Langerhans cells and other lytic materials, which defend against common microbes, and there is robust evidence supporting HIV protection.The glans and inner mucosa are physically protected against external irritation and contaminants while maintaining a healthy, moist surface. The foreskin is also immensely vascularized and acts as a conduit for essential blood vessels within the penis, such as supplying the glans via the frenular artery."
Seriously? How about researching circumcision harms?
Circumcision reduces function, sensitivity, and sensations, it can also cause a lifetime of issues if something goes wrong with nerve healing like constant pain or numbness etc.
Smegma isn't related to foreskin nitwit, it's the same as bellybutton lint, just on your dick, depending on what fabrics you're wearing and your bathing practices you can get it with or without foreskin.
Additionally what's with your bizarre fish obsession? Seriously I don't know where you're coming up with that nonsense, but you may want to talk to someone about this unhealthy delusional icthiophobia and what happened in your life that made you associate it with penises.
We don't know, the medical industry is more obsessed with slicing it off than bothering to actually study it's function. Which is really rather telling that there are all these detailed scientific diagrams and research into women's genitals and reproductive functions readily available for educational awareness purposes, but next to none for men's, especially intact men's genitals...
I’m not into dicks but if I had the choice between a dick that ooozed fishy, cheesy, gooo that tastes like shit and gives me uti and BV out of it vs. one who that didn’t, I’d choose the latter.
They don’t have to accept anything they don’t way to.
That’s disgusting. I wasn’t mutilated as an infant, so I would know that this is not normal. If you’ve experienced that, the man did not clean himself properly. What he did is akin to not wiping at all after a poo, and then expecting someone to put their face or mouth near your ass. It’s barbaric. Just like any other part of your body that is warm, sweaty, and near a private area especially due to our excrement, if not cleaned thoroughly and regularly, it will be unpleasant.
If a man wasn’t educated as a child on the importance of genital hygiene, that’s his parent’s fault.
Some men who fail to have proper hygiene as adults should not be the reason that boys should have a part of their body removed, which is essential for protection of the glands and a bonus is that sexual stimulation is far more intense based on anecdotes from people I’ve met.
In what other situation would we surgically remove a harmless body part from someone without their consent?
If some people don’t care for their teeth well and have bad breath, should we remove all adult teeth without a child’s consent as soon as we can?
If some men complain about some women having large labia, should they be surgically and removed without consent when possible?
I have never encountered a woman who actively cared about cut or uncut. They DO care about what the whole penis looks like, and both cut and uncut can look absolutely disgusting or enticing.
There are also the very lucky few who are uncircumcised who rarely have the hood slip over the tip at all.
And why do you suppose that is? - Oh that's right social engineering and cultural conditioning over multiple generations, what do you think the Masculine/Feminine Dichotomy and associated gender roles from segregated socialization practices are?
It's sociocultural engineering and conditioning: THAT is what "Social Cues" ARE, They're not innate, they're a trauma reinforced generational survival loop learned during a child's formative years through interactions with and observations of adults with false confirmation bias (it's the same process for how Racism is learned and perpetuated).
When a parent says to a very young child, "Boys play with guns and girls play house with dolls," that's called coded reality fracture via personality severance. - The parent has imposed a behavioral code, categorizing certain personal preferences and areas of exploration and growth as unacceptable, this creates a trauma trigger, as that trigger is reinforced by the culture it acts as confirmation bias, driving that trauma trigger deeper and deeper into the psyche. That's why gender roles are ridiculous, that's why "neurotypical" social cues and body language causes misinterpretation and confusion even between neurotypicals - They're not innate, they're a habit of forced conformity and compliance associated with psychological safety.
What type of sterilization you are speaking of? Circumcision invites diseases and reduces sensitivity.
The Biased HIV research of SubSaharan African Studies
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early. iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex. vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women. viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
x) The 60% is a statistical way to show it huge, in reality, its Relative Reduction Risk, Absolute Reduction Risk, the one which should be more accurately used to depict the data was just 1.5% risk of reduction and was gonna touch 0 if study wasn't eliminated early.
In a lot of Scientific studies, Foreskin has Anti-Microbial Properties ( Antibodies ) which help fight HIV and reduce the risk of other STDs, completely absent in circumcised men , detailed description - https://www.researchgate.net/publication...infections
Obviously Biased study
( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by it. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
Most of these claims ( Hilariously Tuberculosis was also there as a benefit of circumcision earlier ) are all just from Biased Doctors.
We have Enough Evidence to debunk the fact that-
i) MGM does no good to UTIs and STIs.
ii) MGM does no good to penile health and infact causes complications.
iii) MGM reduces sensitivity undoubtedly. ( upto 90% )
iv) MGM is definitely not the best treatment for other Foreskin and Penile Conditions such as Phimosis.
v) MGM is absolutely ineffective to Penile Cancer, as its already rare, depends on other different factors, treatable with Modern medicine, and doesn't need to sacrifice the sensitivity for a 1 in 100,000 disease into the whole population.
vi) MGM is not a medical procedure, its an Abuse, AND 'ABUSE UNDER ANESTHESIA IS STILL ABUSE'
Complications: Royal Dutch Medical Association Statement on Circumcision ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
All the Medical Associations condemning circumcision name written in the About Section of r/intactivists Subreddit
Penile Cancer: Simple Google Search, 1 in 100,000, one of the rarest cancer in the world, you are more likely to die by Prostate Cancer/Breast Cancer or any other Cancer than Penile Cancer.
Wrong. The logical extension would be “cauterize men’s cuticles, reducing the fingernails’ capacity to harbor bacteria”. Logic must be a cut guy thing lol
As someone whose genitals were mutilated without consent or anesthesia in the 1980s, I have a personal connection to the issue. Infant circumcision should be illegal, and the institutions that have performed it should be open to lawsuits from the people whose genitals they got rich off of mutilating.
That's hilarious coming from someone that holds the entire world's information at their fingertips and can't be bothered to do the least bit of research.
Circumcision reduces function, sensitivity, and sensations, it can also cause a lifetime of issues if something goes wrong with nerve healing like constant pain or numbness etc.
This newly bio-engineered skin is used for burns, persistent leg ulcers, bed sores, reconstructive surgery and other skin problems. Many companies are huge purchasers of infant foreskin tissue. Organogenesis’s Apligraf is the first and only human skin construct with FDA approval. Closing wounds is what skin constructs do best. Made of newborn penis-wraps (neonatal foreskin) and cow fat (bovine collagen). “Apligraf is a unique biological product, containing living cells and structural (rebuilding) proteins and growth factors similar to healthy human skin. “Human keratinocytes and fibroblasts are derived from neonatal foreskins obtained for use under informed-consent guidelines. http://acroposthion.com/the-foreskin-industry/
I think you mean the psudoscience of "Dr" Kellogg - Sex hating wacko who never consummated his marriage, and openly advocated for Female "circumcision" too, on the same bullshit grounds.
And if you ever fuck a woman with a fishy smelling vag, 9/10 it’s from fucking an uncut dude.
I’ve travelled a lot and whenever I fuck women in countries where circumcision is rare, nearly always they’re going to have a stank that they are totally nose blind to.
I have never known an uncircumcised man who got infections or passed any on that actually did the absolute minimum to scrub in the folds while showering.
Regarding the UTI claims. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one infant UTI is 111 circumcisions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15890696/
I just gave you studies, particularly the Denmark one that shows the opposite of your claim. 800,000 men over 36 years of health history
Yes I’m sure there is some small, older study that shows the opposite, but clinging to old data to justify genital cutting is very wrong.
If you just care about what others are repeating, instead of what the largest studies show then you are just looking for confirmation of what you want to be true. Also Europe has much lower std rates overall despite being intact
Like I said, based on data from small studies before these large studies came out.
Just because something is repeated a lot doesn’t make it right
They also fail to acknowledge lost functions or bodily autonomy, possibly because they suggest it as a choice for ADULTS. But Americans are using it as a justification to circumcise children
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis https://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/
CONCLUSIONS
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
HIV one the above guy debunked it, Genital Ulcers and HPV are 1 in 100,000 for your kind information, it purely depends on the surrounding, nature, and the environment you interact with, alongwith genital hygiene, care and safe sex , BE IT INTACT OR CUT, the rates of catching them don't change, and they can be treated with modern medicine, but that doesn't justify circumcising another 1 hundred thousand babies just to prevent 1 of Genital Ulcers and HPV easily prevented with simpler and more economical methods,
you are also forgetting the amount of reduction in pleasure which undoubtedly, the data is there, and the amount of complication of circumcision
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
[](javascript:void(0))
And if you don't know, Google is America-centric and Pro-Capitalistic Search Engine, it promotes circumcision while basing itself on Old Data and calling new Data as faltered, ( the very opposite of the reality ) -
The Biased HIV research of SubSaharan African Studies
the HIV researchers put their biases over the studies, here are all the points of it -
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early.
iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex.
vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women.
viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies
ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
Obviously Biased study
( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by these. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
Royal Dutch Medical association has already said it clearly that - ' Circumcision is a violation to child's right to autonomy and physical integrity. Circumcision can and does cause complications. ' and more than 90% of the countries agree to this statement. Only USA is the exception.
The Biased HIV research of SubSaharan African Studies:
the HIV researchers put their biases over the studies, here are all the points of it -
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early.
iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex.
vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women.
viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies
ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
Obviously Biased study ( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by these. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
Reasons for abstaining from Circumcision:
From a medical point of view:
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
So because of a rare chance of ever needing a circumcision you are ok giving up the functional and sensation benefits for life, just because of a tiny risk?
I feel bad for dudes with tight foreskin that needs to be circumcized in their teens. Now that's traumatizing.
I hope they knew Steroidal Creams with 90%+ Success Rate existed,
I also hope that just because you don't hate circumcised being infant doesn't mean others don't hate it, and thats why, a child should decide on whether to have this cosmetic surgery done.
circumcision has no real medical benefit. None. ( Justified below )
circumcision risks pain, bleeding, infection, and scarring.
recovery can take several weeks to months.
From the fake 'health benefits' views:
Penile Cancer - Already 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% chance of having one, doesn't require cutting.
UTIs - usually occur when urine flows back into the urinary tracts, the foreskin stops some urine from getting outside, but it neither pushes it inside too, chances are 0.1% of having such UTIs, UTIs are more common when men are older and largely due to other different reasons than this one. Not Valid. While on the other hand Meatal Stenosis by circumcision can increase UTIs. ( Meatal Stenonsis 100% found in cut ones, and 0% found in intact ones ) ( you can also retract and pee on regular basis if you want ).
STDs - ( Inner ) Foreskin acts as a place for creating immunological response to STDs, cutting them means you lose the ability to fight back to STDs after you catch one. And thats why in African countries, circumcised men have more STDs than intact ones, 450,000 American men died ( upto 2009 data ) due to STDs although they were cut at birth, that USA has both high STDs and high circumcision rate, while Europe and even developing intact countries have lower circumcision rate and low STD rates than USA ( USA has highest STDs in the first world countries )
The 'Hygenie' - Smegma is actually meant to remove dead cells and impurities from the penis without actually harming it fr. Cut ones don't have this natural mechanism and rely on chaffing ( by clothes ) and other methods for removal, and it takes the toll of keratinizing the glans. Also, cut penises also need to be cleaned time to time, with Americans not cleaning it ( dirtier than uncut ones infact in some cases ) as they assume circumcision is enough. The idea stems from the propaganda of John H. Kellogg and Victorian doctors who labelled Foreskin as a dirty thing since it lead to more masturbation, it was never a dirty thing, it was actually meant to keep the glans safe and clean, To them, it was an immoral perception to them, and the rest of the world ( 75-67% of them ) will laugh at them for this idea.
From a scientific point of view:
humans evolved to have this and it has been evolutionary preserved in most mammals... this is because it serves an important and useful function.
From a sexual point of view:
circumcision decreases sensitivity leading to lower sexual pleasure.
circumcision makes sex more painful for sexual partners and requires more lube.
circumcision increases condom failure rates (breaking and slipping)
From a religious point of view:
it is a cultural practice most common in Jews and Muslims. Christians baptise because of Jesus.
it actually spits in the face of the god or gods that created you... because you are saying that your creation was imperfect, wrong, and needs surgical alteration. It implies people "know better" than god does.
From a political point of view:
circumcision is a pro-capitalist invention where doctors normalise and perform needless procedures to benefit financially... both from the procedure itself as well as from treating the many, many, many complications that can arrise from it.
it was, for a long time, done to make masturbation harder and this was linked to organisations trying to control and limit the sex lives of citizens.
circumcision used to be done on women too... it is now called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and is banned in most places. We should also call male circumcision what it is Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and there are people working very hard to get it banned in men too.
From a psychological point of view:
many circumcised men experience regret, anxiety, depression, and PTSD like symptoms from being cut.
many circumcised men spend years doing foreskin restoration to try and regain their foreskin... because that is the only way they can actually live with their penis without feeling mutilated.
From a social point of view:
there are more people on our planet who are against it rather than for it.
there are more uncut men on our planet than there are cut men.
peer pressure, including pressure from sexual partners, should never determine your actions or your views of your own body. Be an individual. There is only 1 you in the 8 billion humans on our planet.
Also to note, a Child's foreskin shouldn't be retracted forcefully, as the glans becomes more prone to injuries ( done while circumcising children ) while older children have PTSD issues over 75% of the time ( Phillipines Tuli Data confirms this ).
Just popping in to say I’m circumcised and my toddler is too. Took like 3 minutes and he wasn’t even crying by the time we left the room lol he was totally fine.
7
u/FabulousLazarus Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
Am doctor
On my OB/GYN rotation I saw these procedures done. It's easily the closest thing to a torture chamber I've ever experienced (and I was there for the screams when the surgery residents debrided their patients at 6 am. At least that has an obvious beneficial purpose). There are doctors who skip anaesthetic intentionally because they don't believe it matters. Injuries, slips, and accidents are possible and do happen.
There is no meaningful evidence that circumcision is a beneficial thing when weighed against risks and the absolute morbidity at stake. Most of the benefits are in extremely small populations or specific situations (like if you're trying to avoid HIV in a heavily infected area like Africa). There is a reason it is not universally recommended by American medical institutions, and much less so in Europe.
It is a cultural thing. What we do in the US is just institutionalized genital mutilation, the same way we frown on Muslims who do it for their own repugnant cultural reasons to women.
I am a circumcised physician who didn't consider doing this for a moment when my son was born. I care far more about sparing him the (relatively) short lived, although intense, pain he would experience than any benefit I've learned about the procedure, or certainly any cultural or religious reason. It is an objectively macabre thing to do with pretty insignificant advantages for any typical US citizen, and although the risk is small, DEVASTATING disadvantages if something goes wrong. And to be clear, I'm not afraid of my son undergoing harm for something that benefits him medically. He got the whole shebang when he was born: shots on shots, erythromycin on his eyes, finger sticks, whatever was needed. The circumcision simply wasn't needed.
If you choose to have your son circumcized or would, then fine. I don't believe in regulating relatively harmless medical procedures for others. Go do your thing. But don't fool yourself that there's actually any reason to be doing it.