CIRCUMCISION

As you probably know by now, I firmly stand against the circumcision of infants and young boys. I believe that it constitutes genital mutilation and that it is barbaric that this practice continues without strong legal and social consequences. I don't care whether it is your religion or your culture, circumcision is wrong. I don't care what grown adults do with their bodies, although I would also advise them not to get circumcised.

For many of us, it is obvious that circumcision is a bad idea. However, there are several groups that have worked hard to convince the public that circumcising their child is the best choice to make. Don't fall for their tricks! Today, I'd like to discuss the common arguments made for circumcision, and why they are incorrect.

Before we begin, a quick survey. How do you feel about the circumcision of babies and young boys?

Circumcision prevents STIs and STDs

It is commonly said that circumcision is "cleaner". The logic is that the foreskin, with its many folds, traps dirt, leaving you more susceptible to infections and diseases. With the foreskin removed, it is easier to wash the peepee and prevent dirt from accumulating. According to this logic, men with foreskin are more likely to develop smegma and to infect their partners with bacteria and viruses.

More specific medical claims are also made, and it would be useful to outline them all. Firstly, it is said that circumcision reduces the rates of UTIs, or urinary tract infections. This is noteworthy, because while UTIs are normally easily treatable, they can lead to kidney complications in some instances. It is also said that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. This has been the motivation to encourage circumcision within African populations where individuals are at high risk of being exposed to the virus. Lastly, there are claims that circumcision reduces the odds of one acquiring penile cancer.

What's the truth?

When it comes to arguments for circumcision, the hygiene line of reasoning is perhaps the easiest to debunk. It is ridiculous how much data there is disproving most of these talking points, yet people act as though research stopped in the 90s. It is sad, and it is an indication that even our medical institutions are not immune to propaganda.

Where do we begin? Let's begin with the general argument that circumcision is cleaner. It is true that the lack of foreskin makes the peepee easier to clean. However, this is simply due to the fact that there is less surface area to clean. This is like saying: "if you cut off your fingers, your hand will be cleaner". Of course it will, there is less hand to get dirty! Besides, if one considers the ease of washing your peepee, it is ridiculous that anyone would think you need to remove skin to keep it clean. It certainly isn't worth mutilating a child over.

Next, let's get into the more specific claims. Firstly, many circumcision advocates argue that circumcision reduces the rates of UTIs. Well, it is true that circumcision reduces your odds of acquiring a UTI. This is what the evidence bears out. However, it is useful to zoom in on the research to get a clearer picture of what's going on. What we find is that the risk of getting a UTI during childhood is a measly 1%! Not worth mutilating a child over. This is pretty much the conclusion of a study published by the National Library of Medicine. They claim that:

Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI

As we've discussed, only 1% of boys are at risk of getting a UTI, so the number that is a "high risk" is minuscule. Should these boys get circumcisions? Maybe, but other solutions to UTIs should be considered first. Circumcision is a drastic measure.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15890696/

It is also worth noting that circumcision of infants may be the very thing that causes a UTI! When an infant is circumcised they are left with a wound that can be irritated by faeces and urine in the diaper, leading to infections. In short, just leave the darn foreskin alone.

As previously mentioned, circumcision advocates also claim that circumcision reduces the odds of one contracting HIV. If true, this would be an important discovery, as it could lead to us making headway in the HIV/AIDS epidemic that has gripped the African continent. So, what does the research say? Well, most studies claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 60% for men. This is also the number cited by the World Health Organisation.

https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/voluntary-medical-male-circumcision

According to one study:

Circumcision reduces both the total bacterial load on the peepee and also specifically reduces the relative abundance of these anaerobic genera associated with HIV acquisition. Significant penile microbiome changes are apparent within 6 months of circumcision, and anaerobes continue to decline significantly for at least 2 years post-operatively, mirroring the progressive declines seen in IL-8 levels.

https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12981-017-0167-6

With this evidence at hand, it would seem that we should rush to circumcise all Africans to end the HIV epidemic. Let's get started.

HANG ON!

Before we start snipping off Black foreskins, we need to consider a few things. It is worth noting that there are parties within the medical field who have a vested interest in ensuring circumcision continues. After all, it is a source of income for hospitals, and foreskins are purchased by the cosmetics industry to make skincare products.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-beauty-industry-is-part-of-a-baby-foreskin-flesh-trade-anti-circumcision-activists-warn/

This is horrific, but it is important that you understand this so you can accept that much of the research surrounding circumcision is deeply flawed and skewed to promote the practice. However, there are a few dissenters willing to speak the truth, and through them, we learn about some of the shortcomings of common circumcision research. As we previously discussed, most papers claim that circumcised men enjoy a 60% decreased risk of contracting HIV. This may be a tempting statistic to believe, but you should be cautious. As one paper points out:

the clinical trials were rife with various types of bias, such as attrition bias (the number of participants who dropped out vastly outnumbered those who became infected), duration bias (the trials were not long enough to determine if the positive effect would plateau) and expectation bias. Some of the primary investigators had already called for mass circumcision, Travis writes, so it is no surprise that they got the results they expected to see. This expectation of positive results may also explain why all three trials were terminated early.

The paper also warns that promoting circumcision as a form of protection against HIV is dangerous. It is explained that:

mass circumcision could lead to problems in some settings. It could discourage the use of condoms, for example. Also, circumcised men are "likely to present themselves, especially to poor or illiterate village women, as rendered surgically immune to HIV."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3255200/

Most importantly, consider this: if you are circumcised, is it wise to have unprotected s*x? No! So the choice is either to wear a condom or cut your peepee and wear a condom anyway. Why cut your peepee?

Lastly, we need to address the claim that circumcision reduces the chances of a man acquiring penile cancer. This is probably the most abhorrent one, as the claim is that circumcision is effective at preventing penile cancer IF it is performed on an infant. The same effect is not noted in adult men who are circumcised. As one metastudy notes:

We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer

BUT this paper also discovers the following:

In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis.

In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer

You should also be aware that penile cancer is exceptionally rare to begin with. In the USA, less than 1% of the male population acquires penile cancer. So ask yourself, is it worth mutilating a baby over? I say protect the foreskin because I'm for skin. Read that again.

When circumcision is mandated by religion and culture

For some, the arguments for circumcision have nothing to do with health or hygiene. Instead, they believe that circumcision should be done for religious or cultural reasons. Let's go through a few common religious and cultural arguments.

As you all know, circumcision is a part of Judaism. Circumcision is part of a ritual known as the Brit Milah. They circumcise infants because they believe they are adhering to a covenant between God and Jewish people. The following verse is often cited:

"This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:10)

Personally, I would not worship any God who wanted me circumcised. That's gross! Anyway, the ceremony involves a "trained" specialist known as a mohel (usually a Rabbi) who is supposed to ensure the procedure is done in a way that adheres to Jewish laws. Sometimes, the mohel will perform what's known as the Metzitzah B'peh, which involves sucking the blood of the infant straight from the peepee after making the incision. After the circumcision is performed, there is a great celebration.

Jews aren't the only ones who practice circumcision. For example, Muslims also believe that cutting the foreskin is the right thing to do. It is not mentioned in the Quran though believers point to the Sunnah and Islamic tradition as justification for the practice. Many Muslim boys are circumcised at birth, though some are circumcised during puberty as a coming of age ritual.

The obligation to get circumcised isn't just a part of religion. Many cultures around the world have adopted circumcision as well. In South Africa, for example, Xhosa boys participate in Ulwaluko. This is a ceremony held in the mountains yearly, and it is part of a coming of age ritual. The entire ritual lasts about a month, and the boys are circumcised without anaesthetic.

What's the truth?

This is nonsense! These are by far the worst arguments for circumcision. In short, I don't CARE what your religion or culture says about circumcision. We know that it is genital mutilation, and therefore we should stop the practice immediately, at least when it comes to babies and young boys.

Furthermore, we must understand that religions and cultures are based on traditions that were forged long ago. As we advance and gain new knowledge, our cultures and religions should adapt to reflect this. You don't have to abandon your religion or culture - I get that it's part of your identity. However, you do have to cut away the harmful aspects if you wish for your religion or culture to flourish.

Sometimes, it is worth noting that an aspect of your culture is just silly. This is especially the case in the USA where the widespread propagation of circumcision is due to propaganda from a cereal manufacturer. Let go of this depravity!

While we're on the topic of culture, we might as well address the cultural belief that "cut" peepeees look better than uncut ones. This is nonsense. Firstly, circumcision leaves the peepee with an ugly scar. Secondly, it's not worth cutting your peepee to please women. Thirdly, and most importantly, it it deeply depraved to claim that you prefer mutilated genitals. Anyone that expresses such a preference should be ashamed of themselves.

Circumcision is harmless!

When all else fails, this is what circumcision advocates lean back on. They essentially claim that the foreskin is useless, and that removing it is an arbitrary act. This is also what many men who have been circumcised believe. I understand why - it's a comforting belief, far more comforting than confronting the truth that your parents mutilated you at birth!!! So keep coping if it keeps you sane. There isn't much to elaborate on here. It's a relatively simple claim.

What's the truth?

Good Golly, it is completely false that circumcision is harmless. In fact, the act is very harmful. It is psychologically harmful, as you are violating a child's bodily autonomy. That is a horrible thing to do, and you shouldn't do it, man!

Here's what you should know - circumcision decreases penile sensitivity. Yes, that means s*x feels less pleasurable when you are circumcised. Nobody has a right to interfere with your s*x life like that, which is why every man should fight to eradicate circumcision. There is plenty of research on this topic. For instance there is one paper that states the following:

For the glans peepee, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans peepee). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans peepee, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.

This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

Contrary to popular belief, the foreskin is NOT useless. It covers the peepee head, ensuring it remains moist and the nerve endings are protected. When the foreskin is removed, the peepee head is exposed, and it begins to callous, leading to a loss of sensitivity. This is why circumcision is mutilation.

It is also worth considering the times that circumcision goes wrong. I have spoken about the case of David Reimer, a boy whose peepee was burned off during a botched circumcision. You will also be aware of the shocking number of deaths that come as a result of circumcision within the Xhosa culture. Furthermore, when Jewish rabbis put their mouths on a child's peepee, they run the risk of spreading herpes to the youngling. All these risks can be avoided by simply saying no to circumcision.

Conclusion

Most of the arguments for circumcision come from 2 sources:

1. Cope

Many men have been circumcised and they cannot accept that they have been mutilated, and that their penile sensitivity has been decreased. Hence they cling onto any argument they can that circumcision is harmless, or that it is actually preferable to being intact.

2. Medical profits

People in the medical field stand to gain a profit from performing circumcisions, so they want the public to believe that circumcising babies is good for them, and that you are a good parent for circumcising your child. They typically ask the mother if she wants to circumcise the child straight after birth. The mother, who may be drugged, and is exhaused from childbirth, is overloaded at that point and she can't always make a clear, educated decision. This is wrong, and people in the medical field need to stop taking advantage of women in this way. Firstly, women know nothing about peepeees, it is not their place to say whether a peepee should be cut or not. Secondly, even if the mother said yes, it is against the hippocratic oath to perform circumcisions because doctors are supposed to "do no harm". Cutting off the foreskin when no medical condition necessitates it is definitely doing harm.

That's it for today. I hope you all learned a lot about circumcision, and are equipped with the knowledge you need to fight against circumcision propaganda. Remember, circumcision bad!

Truly, I say this as a feminist ally.