Is male circumcision barbaric?

Answer 1

I am circumcised and yes I feel that it is barbaric! There is only one real reason to do it and that is if there is a health issue involved if you don't get it done (the skin is too tight and doesn't pull back). I wish I had never been cut! Circumcising and boy means that he will lose a lot of sensitivity in his penis! The only way that it is more hygienic is if an uncut guy never washes, but same goes for a cut guy, if you don't wash, it's gonna be gross! As far as spreading diseases, well if you don't wear protection, you're gonna spread diseases anyway!
The benefits of being cut DO NOT outweigh the benefits of being fully intact. This is a procedure that should be made when the male is an adult and he can decide for himself! I and many other men wish we had never been circumcised, I wouldn't wish it upon anyone!

Answer 2

Hmm, I might not say "barbaric," but certainly unnecessary. Circumcision is rarely medically necessary, and may not provide all of the "benefits" supporters claim.

It is painful on infants (link 1) and even if anesthesia is given, recovery and urination will be painful for about a week or so (link 2). Furthermore, proponents of circumcision have a tendency to understate the possible risks and complications involved (link 3, 4). In fact, the probability of something going wrong is about the same as the probability of a problem involving the foreskin (though, most foreskin problems are very minor).

And honestly, what benefit circumcision "might" provide against getting STDs can be easily obtained from maintaining proper hygiene (which is quick and easy) and practicing safe sex (which the guy should anyway). And most studies actually show no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regards to getting STDs/infections.

Also, because circumcision removes the foreskin and there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin, it makes sense that the sensitivity might be reduced afterwards (links 5, 6). Furthermore, some studies seem to indicate that the foreskin may be beneficial to the sexual satisfaction/pleasure of both the man and woman (links 7, 8, 9).

It might be worth noting that no one ever probably died directly due to some problem with his foreskin. It's the foreskin's fault if a person isn't clean and/or doesn't practice safe sex and gets HIV, he'd probably get it eventually even if he were circumcised. But many people have died directly as a result of circumcision, though it's statistically rare (in a sterile hospital/clinic setting).

You can see the remaining links and decide for yourself if you consider circumcision barbaric, especially if you have the stomach to watch one (it's the only procedure that really bothers me).

Answer 3

If it isn't barbaric what the heck is?

They strap a helpless baby down and rip his foreskin loose from his glans so that they can put the plastibell on, the foreskin is fused to the glans like your thumbnail is fused to your thumb. If the gomco clamp is used, after the foreskin is ripped loose they have to cut a slit in the foreskin before the clamp can be applied, then the screw is tightened pinching off the foreskin this takes several minutes.

They cannot use enough anesthetic on an infant to insure that there is not pain, horrible pain.

For about a week after this, each time the boy urinates it burns like setting fire to his penis.

And all this for no proven benefit!

When a person is under stress the body produces cortisol (the well known stress hormone) this hormone has many harmful effects in the body. After circumcision, boys have cortisol levels similar to those a person who has been tortured would have.

Barbaric is really to weak a word.

Answer 4

If it's done without anesthesia, yes it is barbaric.

Circumcision is a weird practice, and will probably eventually fall out of fashion, which probably isn't a bad thing. However, I'm glad I was circumcised. I'm too much of a wimp to get a tattoo or any piercings... I kind of like having my own "body modification".

Answer 5

I believe when performed on babies without their consent, yes, it is barbaric. Since the 1800s people have been coming up with reasons to try and justify it, and yet none of these have stood up to rigorous testing, and nowadays it's nothing that can't be prevented by proper hygiene and safe sex.

Answer 6

Yes, definitely. Doing any irreversible cosmetic surgery on an infant is barbaric. And if you watch a video of the procedure, you will have no doubts whatever that mutilating a boy's penis is a horrible thing to do to him.

Answer 7

It depends. I think that doing it without anesthetic on kids (newborns in the USA, and young kids in Muslim nations) is extremely barbaric. But I do think that circumcision's benefits are often stretched or even lied, because they've all been proved false in the end. That, and as an optional surgery, it has risks, too.

Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.

Answer 8

Yes it is a barbaric mutilation.

A study published in the British Journal of Urology (April 2007) proved that "circumcision" removes the five most sensitive areas of the penis and that no area on a "circumcised" penis compares to that which was cut off. The glans (tip of the penis) is actually the least sensitive area of the penis and that is what is left after "circumcision" for a boy to feel pleasure with. They don't allow you to remove "only" 75% of your daughter’s sensitivity so why can you do it to your son?

Male genital mutilation (circumcision to some of you) does result in anorgasmia (the inability to orgasm from intercourse) in some males; others suffer from delayed orgasm (inability to achieve orgasm before fatigue, most often her fatigue, I might add)

Many boys die each year from "circumcisions" not all boys are mutilated in sterile hospitals, most are done in mud huts and groups are done with shared rusty knives and scissors. Hundreds die or are deformed making sex nearly impossible in their future. But nobody gives a damn because they are just boys.

A boy is more likely to die from complications from "circumcision" than cancer of the penis. 37% of men with cancer of the penis were circumcised; the most likely area of the cancer is on the "circumcision" scar. These cancers require more aggressive surgery (they have to chop off more of your penis)

A boy is more likely to suffer complications from "circumcision" than get a UTI. Girls get nine times more UTI's than natural boys get. What part do they cut off of girls? They use antibiotics and cranberry juice for girls, they work just as well for boys. Many "circumcised" men have to use cranberry juice too, so it doesn't prevent all UTI's for males.

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV; it is transmitted in the semen of infected men whether or not they have a foreskin. HPV, herpes and genital warts can only be avoided by faithful use of condoms and safe sex. "Circumcised" penises actually are more prone to genital warts, predominantly along the scar, which seems to be more susceptible to the virus invasion. Genital warts may be a factor in cancer of the penis.

Most of the "problems requiring circumcision" are actually due to inappropriate medical treatment. Many US health care providers do not know (or do not want to know) how to properly care for an intact male; most of this is because they make more money from surgery than they would from selling a $5 tube of ointment. In many cases the problem is caused by the doctor, accidentally (yea right $$$$$)


85% of the males on earth are not "circumcised" and they will live their entire lives that way, they will not flock to the doctor to have their penises mutilated. Boys will not do that, the only way they get "circumcised" is if you strap them down and ignore their screaming. (An AMA survey found that only 40% of doctors use pain relief for neonatal circumcision.) If most males would not have it done to themselves, why do parents do it to them?

Maybe you don't like the looks of a natural penis, so what? You will only be looking at it for a few months, he will be trying to love his mate with it for years; What if it won't work right after the surgery, (many don't) What are you going to tell him, "I know you are living the life of the damned, but it sure was cute when I changed your diaper"?

Oh and the AIDs thing, just don't go to Africa and screw around without a condom. A new study shows that the infection rate is linked to the number of prostitutes in a country regardless of the "circumcision" status of the male population. Unregulated prostitutes have a high infection rate, so what if a "circumcised" male has a 50% less chance of becoming infected from an encounter, after 10 or 100 encounters that advantage is meaningless because he is infected. These guys frequent prostitutes, that is why the disease spreads.

Teach your child hygiene, and safe sex; teach your child life. If you can't take time to teach him how to clean his penis (it is not that difficult) how can you guide him past smoking, alcohol and drugs?

I regret not realizing the truth until after my son was born and "circumcised"

"Circumcision" is mutilation.

Answer 9

Not at all circumcision is beneficial.

Answer 10

i am circumcised and i don't think it's barbaric, i'm glad it was done