debunking the hysterical lies and downright deceit of the anti-circumcision cult.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS AND LIES MADE BY THE ANTI-CIRCUMCISION CULT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section addresses some of the inaccuracies that can frequently
be found on the websites and in the books opposing circumcision.
Medical references and links to more online information are provided
for the interested reader where available.



Allegation 1: The foreskin is the natural protective covering for the
glans and protects it from injury.

Allegation 2: Circumcision amounts to the "amputation" of a normal,
functional body part.

Allegation 3: Circumcision is a traumatic and painful experience for
the newborn infant.

Allegation 4: Circumcision is a dangerous surgical procedure.

Allegation 5: Infants who are circumcised can remember the pain for a
long time afterwards.

Allegation 6: Circumcision disrupts the mother-child bonding.

Allegation 7: Circumcision is to blame for many social and
psychological problems in adult males.

Allegation 8: Male circumcision is basically the same as Female
Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Allegation 9: An uncircumcised penis can be kept sufficiently clean by
proper washing.

Allegation 10: The foreskin plays an integral part in facilitating
intercourse and in experiencing sexual pleasure.

Allegation 11: Circumcision can lead to sexual dysfunction in later
life.

Allegation 12: Circumcision amounts to the "mutilation" of a sexual
organ.

Allegation 13: Infant circumcision violates the (human) rights of the
the child since it is done without his consent.

Allegation 14: Circumcision is a waste of money and resources that can
be better utilized for other purposes.

Allegation 15: If my child is circumcised he will be teased by his
peers.

Allegation 16: The circumcision rate in the USA is continuing to fall.

Allegation 17: Most men outside of North America are not circumcised.

Allegation 18: The fact that the majority of men around the world is
uncircumcised means that the operation must be unnecessary.

Allegation 19: Europeans don´t circumcise their infant children
because they are better informed.

Allegation 20: Europeans consider Americans to be "barbaric" for
circumcising their infants sons.

Allegation 21: Pediatric Societies around the world are against infant
circumcision.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation 1: The foreskin is the natural protective covering for the
glans and protects it from injury.
It is nowadays thought that the foreskin might have served as some
kind of protection from shrubs, rocks etc. when our ancestors were
still walking around naked and "all fours". In other words: it is a
by-product of evolution [1]. Since this is no longer the case, the
foreskin has become a liability: instead of offering any "protection",
the warm and moist area under the foreskin acts as an ideal breeding
ground for a host of bacteria, fungi and germs which are known to be
responsible for a variety of diseases and infections [1], [2], [20].

Back to the top


Allegation 2: Circumcision amounts to the "amputation" of a normal,
functional body part.
Calling circumcision an "amputation" is a deliberate exaggeration
that is used to to frighten prospective parents or instill a feeling
of dissatisfaction and loss in those who had been circumcised as
infants (see also the discussion below). Circumcision amounts to the
removal of between 20% - 50% of the foreskin depending on the method
used. It can therefore in no way be described as an "amputation".

The claim is sometimes made that a baby is born with a perfect body,
and that the foreskin must therefore serve a purpose like protecting
the glans of the penis. That might have been the case if humans were
still walking around naked. The question why human males are still
born with a foreskin can of course be asked. It should, however, be
born in mind that human beings have only been wearing clothing of any
sort for the last 10-20 thousand years. On the evolutionary time-scale
this constitutes a very brief period - certainly too short to have
given nature time enough to do away with the foreskin!

Another significant - and interesting - fact is that the only human
cultures to routinely wear no clothing are all uncircumcised: in many
of these cultures, a male with an exposed glans is considered "naked",
i.e. the foreskin acts as a kind of natural covering. Circumcision is
therefore exclusively associated with clothed man.


Back to the top

Allegation 3: Circumcision is a traumatic and painful experience for
the newborn infant.
The issue of how much pain infants experience during circumcision is
a very controversial and hotly debated subject [1], [2]. Even though
it is nowadays generally agreed that newborns experience pain more
intensely than was previously thought, there are still those who
regard the potentials dangers involved in administering anesthesia to
newborns to outweigh the benefits [3].

In the most recent report of the Task Force on Circumcision of the
AAP, issued in March 1999, three forms of pain relief was reviewed.
The methods deemed most effective was the use of either a local
anesthetic cream (applied about an hour before the procedure), or a
subcutaneous ring block [18]. Alternative forms of analgesia like
sugar coated pacifiers [4] or even a drop of alcohol (like wine, which
is often used at Jewish circumcisions) have also been advocated for
use in conjunction with the anesthetics named above.

Regardless of what kind of pain relief is used, parents can ensure
that the circumcision of their newborn is made as comfortable as
possible by on the one hand being there to comfort him, and also by
choosing a qualified operator to do the operation, which will minimize
the time needed to do the operation.

Circumcisions performed on newborns normally only take between 5 to
10 minutes. With the use of anesthesia and/or analgesia, the
discomfort and pain to the infant can be almost totally eliminated.
Under these conditions, the claim that circumcision is a "traumatic"
experience is clearly false and misleading.

Parents should also bear in mind that studies have shown that the
crying observed in babies during circumcision is often not
pain-related (if some kind of pain relief is used), but instead might
be caused by the discomfort of being strapped into a circumstraint
(the apparatus that is used to restrain the baby during circumcision).
However, these days more gentler ways of constraining the baby during
the operation are often used instead.

Back to the top


Allegation 4: Circumcision is a dangerous surgical procedure.
Circumcision is a surgical procedure - albeit a minor one - and
therefore inherently carries some risks. However, medical studies done
over the past decades have provided overwhelming evidence that, if
performed by an experienced operator, circumcision is a very safe
surgical procedure. Like all minor operations, complications might
arise for a number of reasons. The most common ones [6], [1], [24]
include:
(i) excessive bleeding (occurring in one in every 1000 cases) which
can normally easily be stopped by e.g. applying pressure or using a
locally acting agents;
(ii) local infections (which occurs in one to ten out of every
thousand circumcisions) which can easily be treated by antibiotics;
(iii) mortalities: according to medical records, three deaths were
recorded in the period 1954-1989 out of a total of more than 50
million circumcisions. It should be noted, however, that two of these
deaths occurred during at-home circumcisions by non-physicians [24].
Only one fatality has been reported since then in Miami. In this
instance, the death was due to the fact that excessive bleeding went
unheeded by the baby-sitter until it was too late. If the bleeding had
been noticed earlier, this death could have been avoided.

The statistics listed above clearly refute the statement that
circumcision is a dangerous surgical procedure.

Back to the top


Allegation 5: Infants who are circumcised can remember the pain for a
long time afterwards.
A recent medical study has shown that infants who were circumcised
without pain relief reacted more intensely to pain during immunization
injections at 6 months of age than those infants who were circumcised
using pain relief or were uncircumcised [23]. This study is (by the
authors´ own admittance) only based on a small statistical sample, so
more research into this subject is needed.

There is however no medical or scientific evidence that circumcision
has long term effects on how infants (or even adults) react to pain,
or that those who were circumcised (without pain relief) can remember
the pain. The allegations made by activists like Goldman [21] and
repeated on many of the anti-circumcision sites on the web are
therefore just wild and unsubstantiated claims that are not supported
by any credible medical studies whatsoever.


Back to the top


Allegation 6: Circumcision disrupts the mother-child bonding.
If the circumcision was done without effective anesthesia, it may
sometimes happen that the infant does not wish to suckle for a brief
period afterwards. Most observations of babies have shown that they
almost always calm down within 24 hours after the circumcision was
performed [5]. There is furthermore no scientific evidence that the
mother-child bonding is negatively influenced compared to the case for
uncircumcised infants. It should also be noted that if effective
anesthesia is provided, the infant is usually back to normal right
away.

Back to the top


Allegation 7: Circumcision is to blame for many social and
psychological problems in adult males.
During the past 20 years or so various "support" groups for of men
who were circumcised as infants have been formed. These groups claim
that they believe that have been harmed by circumcision, that they
feel psychologically damaged and mutilated by it and that their sex
lives had been ruined by the lack of a foreskin.

As discussed in a separate Section , it has been the aim of the
anti-circumcision lobby to make - and support - these claims in order
to further their cause of stopping circumcision. It is, after all,
hard to get people to change their views about a subject if they are
happy about it.

The easiest - and most susceptible - targets for this propaganda are
those men who - for whatever reason - are unhappy with their lives
and/or with their bodies, and as a result suffer from low self-esteem.
To these people, circumcision becomes an easy target - and a
convenient scape goat - for all their problems [25] .


Back to the top


Allegation 8: Male circumcision is basically the same as Female
Genital Mutilation (FGM).
Male circumcision and female genital mutilation (sometimes also
incorrectly called "female circumcision") are two completely different
procedures. Circumcision of males, except if done for religious
reasons, is considered by most people as a prophylactic (health)
procedure. FGM - by its nature - usually results in the mutilation of
the female sexual organ, which makes it very hard for the person
involved to experience any sexual pleasure [7]. The equivalent of FGM
in males would amount to the complete amputation of the penis.

Back to the top


Allegation 9: An uncircumcised penis can be kept sufficiently clean by
proper washing.
As "cleanliness" is very often mentioned in conjunction with
circumcision, this subject has been a favorite target of the opponents
of circumcision, who proclaim that the implication that men cannot be
entrusted with maintaining their own penile hygiene is an insult to
them.

If humans only needed to use the bathroom once a day, there might at
least be some truth in the statement that proper cleaning of the
genital area once a day with soap and water is enough. However, since
this is not the case, and most men moreover either don´t have the
opportunity, inclination or time to clean themselves every time after
urinating - as is needed to ensure proper penile hygiene - the
statement is clearly false.

Most parents know how difficult it is to get their children to take
a bath or shower every day. Even if they do get them to bathe
regularly, parents often fail to instruct their children about proper
personal hygiene or see to it that it is also carried out in practice.
In uncircumcised boys the foreskin usually cannot be retracted until
the age of around six. Cleaning the penis in this instance not only
requires extra attention and effort, but becomes absolutely necessary
since the non-retractable foreskin can very easily trap dirt, bacteria
and germs which can lead to a variety of infections, which in infants
and young boys can have serious consequences [22], [26].

From the facts outlined above it is clear that personal hygiene in
uncircumcised boys often leaves a lot to be desired. What is more,
this situation does not improve in adolescent boys: a recent study of
boys in Germany [8] has shown that penile hygiene actually worsens as
boys grow older. The reason for this might lie in cultural attitudes
towards personal hygiene: in many European societies bathing on a
daily basis is not the norm. A recent article in Time Magazine [9] for
example mentioned that only 47% of all French men and women bathe on a
daily basis. Taking into account the fact that most males in Europe
are uncircumcised, the scenario discussed above paints a pretty dire
picture of (especially) male personal hygiene in those societies. Most
people will probably agree that this is hardly an ideal to strive for.
Most heterosexual women also have a preference for circumcised sexual
partners (see discussion below).

Back to the top


Allegation 10: The foreskin plays an integral part in facilitating
intercourse and in experiencing sexual pleasure.
The experience of pleasure during sexual intercourse by circumcised
and uncircumcised men is totally different, and therefore not directly
comparable. After circumcision the glans develops a thin but tough
protective layer of skin cells. This so-called keratinization process
results in a layer only 10 or so cells think - about as thick as Saran
Wrap. This is not enough to to significantly alter sexual intercourse,
but instead creates a barrier against viruses and pathogenic bacteria.

Opponents of circumcision allege that this protective layer of skin
on the glans makes it less sensitive. There is no proof of this
statement - many men circumcised as adults claim that once the glans
becomes moist (e.g. during sexual intercourse), it has nearly
identical sensitivity with that of the uncircumcised penis [10].

Many men have also reported that the foreskin, instead of
"facilitating" sexual intercourse, actually hinders it [10] because
the glans is covered for a lot of the time, thereby reducing the
sensitivity experienced by both partners. Even though the exposed
glans is less sensitive than in the uncircumcised case, the former
regains a lot of its sensitivity when the glans becomes moist (due to
the use of lubricants or naturally during intercourse). Also, contrary
to the claim often repeated by the anti-circumcision lobby, the
foreskin is not the only erogenous part of the penis! Another
advantage of circumcision is that the glans becomes enlarged (since it
is no longer restricted by the foreskin), which many women find
sexually very stimulating. Taking into account the factors mentioned
here, as well as the much improved hygienic state of the circumcised
penis, it should come as no surprise that a survey of women
demonstrated female sexual preference for circumcised men [11].

A recent study by researchers from the University of Chicago, based
on a survey of 1400 men, moreover indicated that circumcised men have
more varied sex lives [12]. This finding should not be surprising:
oral sex, for example, is more likely to be a cleaner and more
enjoyable experience for women if their partner is circumcised. The
facts mentioned here hardly support the premis that circumcised men
suffer from reduced sexual pleasure.


Back to the top


Allegation 11: Circumcision can lead to sexual dysfunction in later
life.
During the last few years, the claim that circumcision can cause
sexual dysfunction has been widely publicized by the opponents of
circumcision. This claim is, however, not supported by any credible
scientific studies. As a mater of fact, just the opposite is the case:
the study quoted above [12] showed that circumcised men suffer less
sexual dysfunction, especially if they are over the age of 45!

Many of the causes that may lead to sexual problems are directly
eliminated by circumcision. Some of the commonest of these include
phimosis, balanitis, genital infections (due to the presence of
bacteria or fungi under the foreskin) and premature ejaculation. Any
one (or combination) of these factors can have a negative effect on a
person's sex life.

Back to the top


Allegation 12: Circumcision amounts to the "mutilation" of a sexual
organ.
A well-known researcher has made the comment that "comparing
circumcision to amputation is akin to comparing a nose-job to
decapitation merely because both events occur above the neck!". It
should also be clear from the previous discussions that this statement
is utter nonsence.


Back to the top


Allegation 13: Infant circumcision violates the (human) rights of the
the child since it is done without his consent.
From the day that a child is born until it is old enough to make its
own decisions, it is the responsibility of the parents to look after
the welfare of their child. This means making decisions that they
believe will be in their child´s best interest. If parents are
convinced that circumcision will benefit their child, they have the
legal and moral right to make this decision for him. This is, after
all, what parenthood is all about [13]. In the light of this, some of
the comments made by those opposed to the procedure (e.g. that infant
circumcision "is an atrocity and a fraud; that it´s brutal, perverse,
outrageous violation ...") can only be described as being bizarre on
the one hand and totally misguided on the other. Some even equate
circumcision with child abuse. Comments like these are irresponsible,
not only because they are totally false, but also because they
trivialize real suffering and abuse.


Back to the top


Allegation 14: Circumcision is a waste of money and resources that can
be better utilized for other purposes.
Circumcision is by its nature a prophylactic procedure. As such it
is usually performed just after birth in order to prevent medical
problems from occurring later in life (adolescence or adulthood).
Performed on infants it is a very cheap procedure, costing only in the
region of $150-$200. Taking into account the number of problems that
can arise in later life due to the lack of circumcision and the high
costs involved, if e.g. an operation - or extensive long term medical
treatment - is necessary (not to mention the personal inconvenience
and potential embarrassment involved), it is clear that circumcision
is a very economic and cost effective procedure, that not only saves
money for the patient in the long term but also for the health
insurance companies.

Moreover, considering that the average delivery can cost anything
between $2000 - $6000 (depending on duration of stay, procedures
needed etc.), the cost involved for performing the circumcision is
almost negligible.

Back to the top


Allegation 15: If my child is circumcised he will be teased by his
peers.
Since the circumcision rate in the US at present is conservatively
estimated to be at least 60% (see below) just the opposite will be the
case. It is a well-documented fact [10] that young uncircumcised boys
get teased quite a lot when they are amongst their peers, most of whom
are circumcised.

Although the fear of being teased or made fun of should not be an
overriding reason for parents to circumcise their newborn, they should
certainly keep this fact in mind since it can cause psychological
problems for their son when he grows up. There has even been a
reported case where a boy circumcised himself (and had to be rushed to
hospital) because he could no longer stand the ribbing and teasing
inflicted on him by his peers [6].

Parents should also take note of a recent internet survey of teenage
boys which showed that uncircumcised boys are far less satisfied with
their status than their circumcised peers [14].

Back to the top


Allegation 16: The circumcision rate in the USA is continuing to fall.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) - the
body responsible for collecting national statistics - the circumcision
rate in the USA reached its peak in the early seventies and then
started to fall. This decrease is often ascribed to the statements
from the Task Force of the AAP at the time (see below). Current
statistics compiled and issued by the NCHS show that for the USA as a
whole, the hospital based circumcision rate is around 60%. This number
has remained stable throughout the nineties.

In order to save money, health care providers normally require
mothers to leave the hospital within 24 hours after having given birth
(unless there were complications or the health of the mother or baby
is in doubt). As a result, a large number of circumcisions are
performed in out-patient clinics (e.g. doctors´ offices). These
circumcisions are not included in the NCHS statistics, since this body
only compiles the statistics obtained from hospitals. Furthermore,
adding those circumcisions that become medically necessary in
adolescence due to problems like phimosis etc. [15] as well as those
which are done for personal reasons, the actual circumcision rate in
the USA is very likely much higher than value quoted above. A more
careful reading of the statistics furthermore shows that in most
regions of the US, the rates are far higher than 60%, with the lowest
rates reported in California. This low rate is most likely due to the
fact that a sizable portion of population are of Hispanic origin,
where circumcision is relatively unknown.

Back to the top


Allegation 17: Most men outside of North America are not circumcised.
The circumcision rates around the world vary greatly according to
geographical region, culture and religion. While it is true that most
men in Europe and South America are not circumcised, this is certainly
not the case in the Middle East, large parts of Asia and most parts of
Africa [16].

For example, in Africa circumcision is performed either as a
religious rite - mostly in the predominantly Muslim regions in
Northern and Western Africa - or as as a cultural rite (an initiation
into manhood) in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The
circumcision rate around the world has been estimated to lie between
30-40% [16], which can hardly be considered a negligible percentage.

Back to the top


Allegation 18: The fact that the majority of men around the world are
uncircumcised means that the operation must be unnecessary.
Those opposed to circumcision often state that e.g. in Scandinavia,
where the circumcision rate is around 5%, men seem to cope very well
without being circumcised. However, in reality the situation is
totally different. Adolescent males - and even adults - often have to
put up with years of discomfort and suffering due to the effects of
phimosis, balanitis and a host of other complications, because the
societies they live in are unaware of these problems and therefore
unable to deal with them. This ignorance is often reinforced by
cultural and/or religious taboos about discussing any subject
involving a sexual organ.

To make matters even worse, these physical problems often causes
sexual dysfunction (which, for example, often happens in the case of
phimosis), which in turn can give rise to psychological problems. The
incidence of phimosis, especially in adolescent boys, is so widespread
in uncircumcised males that there is even a website [17] which deals
with the problems associated with it. Those who are lucky get help
(usually by being circumcised as adolescents or adults), but many are
destined to suffer unnecessarily their whole lives without ever
realizing that the problems they are experiencing are not normal and
can easily be treated by circumcision.

Back to the top


Allegation 19: Europeans don´t circumcise their infant children
because they are better informed.
The reason why infant circumcision is rarely performed in most
European countries is not because people there made a well-informed
decision based on scientific facts and medical evidence. Instead just
the opposite is the case - the majority of Europeans have little or no
knowledge about the procedure except what they might have gleaned from
religious instruction, namely that it is done exclusively for
religious reasons by Jews and Muslims.

This ignorance about circumcision is, moreover, not restricted to
the general public: circumcision as a surgical procedure is hardly
ever taught at medical schools, which means that most medical personal
(doctors and nurses) are also unaware of circumcision as a standard
surgical procedure.

Back to the top


Allegation 20: Europeans consider Americans to be "barbaric" for
circumcising their infants sons.

Since most Europeans are ignorant about the topic of circumcision
(see above), it is hard to imagine that they will have any views or
opinions on the subject either way.

Back to the top


Allegation 21: Pediatric Societies around the world are against infant
circumcision.
During the seventies the circumcision rate in the US started to fall
after the Task Force of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Committee for the Newborn reported that "there are no valid medical
indications for circumcision" (1971). However, in the light of
increasing medical and scientific evidence of the benefits of infant
routine circumcision - due also in no small measure to the problems
that were starting to develop because of the drop in the number of
circumcisions (and were absent before) - the subsequent statements
have been modified substantially to "new evidence has suggested
possible medical benefits ..." (1989).

The statement issued by the AAP Task Force on Circumcision in March
1999 stated that circumcision has some health benefits, but that it
should not be a routine surgery. Many people - including most of the
media - misinterpreted this statement to mean that the AAP no longer
recommends infant circumcision. This is, however, not the case. The
statement goes on to say that the procedure should not be routinely
done, but that parents should consult with their doctor, i.e. they
should base their decision on an informed choice [18]. In other words,
the decision should not be an automatic one, but should instead be
based on the available information about the benefits and risks
involved.

In the 1996 report of the Canadian Pediatric Society no
recommendation is made either way. Their statement says that the
benefits and harms are evenly balanced, but that parents should be
advised of the present state of medical knowledge about the procedure,
and that cultural and personal preferences should be taken into
account [18].

In other parts of the world, the working group of the Australian
College of Pediatrics has issued a statement in 1995 urging medical
practitioners to inform parents about the benefits of circumcision.

Back to the top





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
1. See B.J. Morris, The Medical Benefits of Circumcision
(http://www.circinfo.net), and references therein. Additional
information can be found in the book In Favour of Circumcision.

2. G.N. Weiss and A.W. Harter, "Circumcision: Frankly Speaking"
(Wiser Publications, 1998). To read excerpts, see here.

3. H.J. Stang and L.W. Snellman, Circumcision Patterns in the United
States Pediatrics 1998; 101(6):e5 See also the discussion and links in
the Section Preventing Circumcision Pain.

4. N. Haouari, C. Wood, G. Griffiths M. and Levene, The analgesic
effect of sucrose in full term infants: a randomised controlled trial,
BMJ 1995; 310:1498-500.

5. to be added.

6. T.E. Wiswell, Neonatal Circumcision: A Current Appraisal, Focus
Opin Pediatr 1995; 1:93-9.

7. See the Discussion and Links in the Section Female Genital
Mutilation.

8. See: "Analysis of German Study Shows Penile Hygiene Worsens as
Child Matures" on CIRCLIST
(http://www.circlist.com/critesgermany.html).


9. Time Magazine , February 15, 1999; page 18.

10. See the Testimonials on this site, ICIRC , and CIRCLIST .

11. M.L. Williamson and P.S. Williamson, Women´s preferences for
penile circumcision in sexual partners
J Sex Educ Ther 1988; 14(2):9-12.

12. Report published in JAMA and reported in CNN Health , April 1997.

13. For a very interesting discussion, see also: I. Goodhart, Parental
Rights - Parental Duties on the ICIRC website.

14. See: Teen circumcision survey in the Section "Personal Preferences
and Experiences" on the CIRCLIST website.

15. T.E. Wiswell, H.L. Tencer, C.A. Welch and J.L. Chamberlain,
Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period Pediatrics 1993;
92:791-793.

16. See the Section Circumcision Practices around the World, and the
Section "Circumcision Rites, ..." on the CIRCLIST website.

17. R. Stuart, "From Innocence to Ignorance"
(http://members.tripod.co.uk/origins/index.html).

18. For more Information see the Section Policy Statements from
Pediatric Societies.

19. R. Dagher, M.L. Selzer and J. Lapides, Carcinoma of the Penis and
the Anti-Circumcision Crusade, J of Urology 1973; 110:79-80.


20. G.N. Weiss, Prophylactic neonatal surgery and infectious diseases
Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997; 16:727-34.

21. R. Goldman, Circumcision - the Hidden Trauma.

22. W. Schoberlein, Significance and incidence of phimosis and smegma
Munch Med Wochenschr 1967; 108:373-7.

23. A. Taddio et al., Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response
during subsequent routine vaccination, Lancet 1997; 349(9052):599-603.

24. See the Section The Risks and Disadvantages of Circumcision.

25. B.J. Morris, In Favour of Circumcision, USW Press, 1999.

26. B. Kalcev, Circumcision and personal hygiene in school boys,
Medical Officer 1964; 112:171-173.

Back to the top