Trigger Warning: Discussion of the mechanics of sex and self-pleasure, genital cutting.
Cutting a person’s penis, or any part of their body, is harmful under most circumstances. Let us examine the harm of circumcision, and put to rest the baseless cultural belief that this is an instance where cutting a person’s penis is non-harmful (Frisch et al., 2013).
During circumcision, a child experiences tremendous pain. At birth, the foreskin is fused to the glans by the same type of membrane that fuses your fingernails to your fingers (Dekker, 2019). As the child grows, this membrane dissolves and the foreskin can move freely. Circumcising an infant, however, involves forcibly ripping the bond between foreskin and glans, creating pain that sends many infants into shock. This leaves psychological trauma. A study compared the pain response of circumcised and intact infants during their 6 month vaccinations. Six months after being circumcised, infants showed a stronger response to pain, suggesting that their nervous system was carrying trauma (Taddio, Katz, Ilersich and Koren, 1997).After circumcision, a person will never regain a vital part of their sexual anatomy. This includes 20,000 nerve endings, a third of the skin on a person’s penis, the ridged band of muscle at the tip of the penis, and the fine touch receptors (Meissner’s Corpuscles) that cover the foreskin (Dekker, 2019). The glans, which is naturally smooth, soft and shiny becomes keratinized. It develops a rough layer of skin that makes it less sensitive to touch.
Males masturbate by gliding the foreskin back and forth across the glans. Circumcised people cannot do this, and many masturbate with lotion to compensate for the excessive friction created when one masturbates without a foreskin. During penis in vagina sex, the penis can move back and forth inside the foreskin, stimulating the partner’s G spot. A circumcised penis does not provide this level of G spot stimulation. The partner of a circumcised person may also experience vaginal dryness, because another function of the foreskin is to keep wetness from escaping the vagina (Frisch, Lindholm and Gronbaek, 2011).
Infants communicate pain through body language, crying and screaming. An infant must be strapped down during circumcision, because they will resist harm to their body unless they are forcibly overpowered. The number of adults who choose to be circumcised is low - circumcising an infant takes choice from a person who probably would never have chosen to remove their foreskin. It is one thing for a person to say they do not mind that they were circumcised as an infant. By default, a person will not object to an event that they are unable to remember, or to missing a body part that they have no recollection of ever having. It is another thing entirely to imagine yourself as you are now having part of your penis removed without need, and it requires great compassion to imagine this suffering. For millennia, there have been circumcised adults who have practiced a technique known as foreskin restoration, where the remnant of the foreskin is gently stretched until it resembles an intact foreskin. People invest countless hours doing this just so they can regain what was taken from them (Collier, 2011).
People are subjected to pain and the loss of complete sexual anatomy when they are too young to be involved in the decision. We must ask whether there is any benefit to making this decision for an infant instead of letting anyone who wishes to alter their penis do so when they are able to choose for themselves. An often cited reason is that some people will experience a urinary tract infection in the first year of life. Approximately 7 out of every 1000 boys will develop a urinary tract infection during their first year. When all of these boys are circumcised, this number drops to 2 out of every 1000 (To, Agha, Dick and Feldman, 1998). The normal treatment for a UTI is a course of antibiotics. Performing an invasive surgery on 1000 children instead of giving 5 children antibiotics is the very definition of the cure being worse than the disease. From a purely medical standpoint, infant circumcision as a prophylactic measure is a very poor choice.
Federal law prohibiting female circumcision states that it is illegal to cut any part of a female child’s clitoris or labia (18 U.S. Code § 116). This sets two precedents:
A. Parental preference is not justification for cutting a child’s body.
B. There is not a lower limit of harm that must be reached before cutting a child’s genitals is unacceptable. Federal law recognizes the smallest cut to a female child’s genitals as a violation of that child’s rights.
There is no reason why a male child needs fewer protections, but those protections cannot exist until we as a culture open our hearts to the infants whose first experience of their sexuality is torture level pain, and give our compassion to the adults who just want to experience the full range of sensation in sexuality that their body was designed for. Researchers estimate that over 100 infants per year die in the US as a result of circumcision (Bollinger, 2010). On behalf of those lives, and the lives of every person who has been impacted by circumcision, it is time to ask how much harm to male children is too much.
References
Bollinger, D., 2010. Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 4(1), pp.78-90.
Collier, R., 2011. Whole again: the practice of foreskin restoration. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(18), pp.2092-2093.
Frisch, M., Aigrain, Y., Barauskas, V., Bjarnason, R., Boddy, S., Czauderna, P., de Gier, R., de Jong, T., Fasching, G., Fetter, W., Gahr, M., Graugaard, C., Greisen, G., Gunnarsdottir, A., Hartmann, W., Havranek, P., Hitchcock, R., Huddart, S., Janson, S., Jaszczak, P., Kupferschmid, C., Lahdes-Vasama, T., Lindahl, H., MacDonald, N., Markestad, T., Märtson, M., Nordhov, S., Pälve, H., Petersons, A., Quinn, F., Qvist, N., Rosmundsson, T., Saxen, H., Söder, O., Stehr, M., von Loewenich, V., Wallander, J. and Wijnen, R., 2013. Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision. Pediatrics, 131(4), pp.796-800.
Frisch, M., Lindholm, M. and Gronbaek, M., 2011. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(5), pp.1367-1381.
Taddio, A., Katz, J., Ilersich, A. and Koren, G., 1997. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet, 349(9052), pp.599-603.
To, T., Agha, M., Dick, P. and Feldman, W., 1998. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. The Lancet, 352(9143), pp.1813-1816.
p
Circumcision is Harmful to Boys: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8kZlRmO0278
Trigger Warning: Discussion of the mechanics of sex and self-pleasure, genital cutting.
Cutting a person’s penis, or any part of their body, is harmful under most circumstances. Let us examine the harm of circumcision, and put to rest the baseless cultural belief that this is an instance where cutting a person’s penis is non-harmful (Frisch et al., 2013).
During circumcision, a child experiences tremendous pain. At birth, the foreskin is fused to the glans by the same type of membrane that fuses your fingernails to your fingers (Dekker, 2019). As the child grows, this membrane dissolves and the foreskin can move freely. Circumcising an infant, however, involves forcibly ripping the bond between foreskin and glans, creating pain that sends many infants into shock. This leaves psychological trauma. A study compared the pain response of circumcised and intact infants during their 6 month vaccinations. Six months after being circumcised, infants showed a stronger response to pain, suggesting that their nervous system was carrying trauma (Taddio, Katz, Ilersich and Koren, 1997).After circumcision, a person will never regain a vital part of their sexual anatomy. This includes 20,000 nerve endings, a third of the skin on a person’s penis, the ridged band of muscle at the tip of the penis, and the fine touch receptors (Meissner’s Corpuscles) that cover the foreskin (Dekker, 2019). The glans, which is naturally smooth, soft and shiny becomes keratinized. It develops a rough layer of skin that makes it less sensitive to touch.
Males masturbate by gliding the foreskin back and forth across the glans. Circumcised people cannot do this, and many masturbate with lotion to compensate for the excessive friction created when one masturbates without a foreskin. During penis in vagina sex, the penis can move back and forth inside the foreskin, stimulating the partner’s G spot. A circumcised penis does not provide this level of G spot stimulation. The partner of a circumcised person may also experience vaginal dryness, because another function of the foreskin is to keep wetness from escaping the vagina (Frisch, Lindholm and Gronbaek, 2011).
Infants communicate pain through body language, crying and screaming. An infant must be strapped down during circumcision, because they will resist harm to their body unless they are forcibly overpowered. The number of adults who choose to be circumcised is low - circumcising an infant takes choice from a person who probably would never have chosen to remove their foreskin. It is one thing for a person to say they do not mind that they were circumcised as an infant. By default, a person will not object to an event that they are unable to remember, or to missing a body part that they have no recollection of ever having. It is another thing entirely to imagine yourself as you are now having part of your penis removed without need, and it requires great compassion to imagine this suffering. For millennia, there have been circumcised adults who have practiced a technique known as foreskin restoration, where the remnant of the foreskin is gently stretched until it resembles an intact foreskin. People invest countless hours doing this just so they can regain what was taken from them (Collier, 2011).
People are subjected to pain and the loss of complete sexual anatomy when they are too young to be involved in the decision. We must ask whether there is any benefit to making this decision for an infant instead of letting anyone who wishes to alter their penis do so when they are able to choose for themselves. An often cited reason is that some people will experience a urinary tract infection in the first year of life. Approximately 7 out of every 1000 boys will develop a urinary tract infection during their first year. When all of these boys are circumcised, this number drops to 2 out of every 1000 (To, Agha, Dick and Feldman, 1998). The normal treatment for a UTI is a course of antibiotics. Performing an invasive surgery on 1000 children instead of giving 5 children antibiotics is the very definition of the cure being worse than the disease. From a purely medical standpoint, infant circumcision as a prophylactic measure is a very poor choice.
Federal law prohibiting female circumcision states that it is illegal to cut any part of a female child’s clitoris or labia (18 U.S. Code § 116). This sets two precedents:
A. Parental preference is not justification for cutting a child’s body.
B. There is not a lower limit of harm that must be reached before cutting a child’s genitals is unacceptable. Federal law recognizes the smallest cut to a female child’s genitals as a violation of that child’s rights.
There is no reason why a male child needs fewer protections, but those protections cannot exist until we as a culture open our hearts to the infants whose first experience of their sexuality is torture level pain, and give our compassion to the adults who just want to experience the full range of sensation in sexuality that their body was designed for. Researchers estimate that over 100 infants per year die in the US as a result of circumcision (Bollinger, 2010). On behalf of those lives, and the lives of every person who has been impacted by circumcision, it is time to ask how much harm to male children is too much.
References
Bollinger, D., 2010. Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 4(1), pp.78-90.
Collier, R., 2011. Whole again: the practice of foreskin restoration. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(18), pp.2092-2093.
Dekker, R., 2019. Evidence and Ethics on: Circumcision. [online] Evidence Based Birth®. Available at: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-and-ethics-on-circumcision/ [Accessed 4 January 2022].
Frisch, M., Aigrain, Y., Barauskas, V., Bjarnason, R., Boddy, S., Czauderna, P., de Gier, R., de Jong, T., Fasching, G., Fetter, W., Gahr, M., Graugaard, C., Greisen, G., Gunnarsdottir, A., Hartmann, W., Havranek, P., Hitchcock, R., Huddart, S., Janson, S., Jaszczak, P., Kupferschmid, C., Lahdes-Vasama, T., Lindahl, H., MacDonald, N., Markestad, T., Märtson, M., Nordhov, S., Pälve, H., Petersons, A., Quinn, F., Qvist, N., Rosmundsson, T., Saxen, H., Söder, O., Stehr, M., von Loewenich, V., Wallander, J. and Wijnen, R., 2013. Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision. Pediatrics, 131(4), pp.796-800.
Frisch, M., Lindholm, M. and Gronbaek, M., 2011. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(5), pp.1367-1381.
Taddio, A., Katz, J., Ilersich, A. and Koren, G., 1997. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet, 349(9052), pp.599-603.
To, T., Agha, M., Dick, P. and Feldman, W., 1998. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. The Lancet, 352(9143), pp.1813-1816.
More options
Context Copy link