During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in a rapidly changing medical and surgical world, circumcision rose in popularity as a means of prophylaxis in the Anglosphere.[6] Its primary justification was to promote cleanliness,[7][8][9] as well as reducing and preventing the incidence of disease.[10][11][12] Many medical professionals and advocates of the procedure also believed that it would reduce pleasure and the urge to masturbate, which was considered a social ill of the era, although their belief is considered false in modern times.[1][4][13][11][14][9]
Traditional proponents say that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases and confers sexual benefits.[1][15][4][2][16] By contrast, the majority of modern opponents, particularly of routine neonatal circumcision, question its preventive efficacy and object to subjecting non-consenting newborn males to a procedure that is potentially harmful with little to no benefit, as well as violating their human rights and possibly negatively impacting their sex life.[1][2][4][5][3][17][18][19][20]
Circumcision of Abraham's son Isaac. Regensburg Pentateuch, Israel Museum, Jerusalem (c. 1300).
The Book of Genesis explains circumcision as a covenant with God given to Abraham,[24] In Judaism it "symbolizes the promise of lineage and fruitfulness of a great nation,"[25] the "seal of ownership and the guarantee of relationship between peoples and their god."[26] Some scholars look elsewhere for the origin of Jewish circumcision. One explanation, dating from Herodotus, is that the custom was acquired from the Egyptians, possibly during the period of enslavement.[27] An additional hypothesis, based on linguistic/ethnographic work begun in the 19th century,[28] suggests circumcision was a common tribal custom among Semitic-speaking peoples (Jews, Arabs, and Phoenicians).
The Jewish and Islamic traditions both see circumcision as a way to distinguish a group from its neighbours.[29] The Bible records "uncircumcised" being used as a derogatory reference for opponents[30] and Jewish victory in battle that culminated in mass post-mortem circumcision, to provide an account of the number of enemy casualties.[31] Jews were also required to circumcise all household members, including slaves[32]– a practice that would later put them into collision with Roman and Christian law (see below).
As for the anti-circumcision law passed by Hadrian, it is considered by many[who?] to be, together with his decision to build a Roman temple upon the ruins of the Second Temple and dedicate it to Jupiter, one of the main causes of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), which was brutally crushed;[42] according to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.[42][43] He claimed that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the Emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and the army are in health.'"[42] Because of the great loss of life in the war, even though Hadrian was victorious, he refused a triumph.
Hadrian's policy after the rebellion reflected an attempt to root out Judaism: he enacted a ban on circumcision,[20][41] all Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem upon pain of death, and the city was renamed Aelia Capitolina, while Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina. Around 140, his successor Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE) exempted Jews from the decree against circumcision, allowing them to circumcise their sons, although they were forbidden to do the same on their slaves and proselytes.[20][41] Jewish nationalists' (Pharisees and Zealots) response to the decrees also took a more moderate form: circumcisions were secretly performed, even on dead Jews.[9]
However, there were also many Jews, known as "Hellenizers", who viewed Hellenization and social integration of the Jewish people in the Greco-Roman world favourably,[20][37][40] and pursued a completely different approach: accepting the Emperor's decree and even making efforts to restore their foreskins to better assimilate into Hellenistic society.[20][21][33][37][40] The latter approach was common during the reign of Antiochus, and again under Roman rule.[20][40] The foreskin was restored by one of two methods, that were later revived in the late 20th century; both were described in detail by the Greek physician Aulus Cornelius Celsus in his comprehensive encyclopedic work De Medicina, written during the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE).[40][44] The surgical method involved freeing the skin covering the penis by dissection, and then pulling it forward over the glans; he also described a simpler surgical technique used on men whose prepuce is naturally insufficient to cover their glans.[40][44] The second approach, known as "epispasm",[20][22][40][44] was non-surgical: a restoration device which consisted of a special weight made of bronze, copper, or leather (sometimes called Pondus Judaeus, i.e. "Jewish burden"),[20][40][44] was affixed to the penis, pulling its skin downward. Over time, a new foreskin was generated, or a short prepuce was lengthened, by means of tissue expansion.[20][40][44]Martial also mentioned the instrument in Epigrammaton (Book 7:35).[44]
The Apostle Paul referred to these practices in his letters,[20][40][44] saying: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised."[45] But he also explicitly denounced the forcing of circumcision upon non-Jews, rejecting and condemning those Judaizers who stipulated the ritual to GentileChristians, labelling such advocates as "false brothers"[46] (see below). In the mid-2nd century Rabbinical Jewish leaders, due to increasing cases of foreskin restorations in Roman Empire, introduced a radical method of circumcision, the periah, that left the glans totally uncovered and sew the remaining skin. The new method became immediately the only valid circumcision procedure, to ensure that a born Jew will remain circumcised for all his life and to make mostly impossible restoring the foreskin.[44] Operations became permanent and irreversible like today.
Under the first Christian emperor, Constantine, the two rescripts of Antoninus on circumcision were re-enacted and again in the 6th century under Justinian. These restrictions on circumcision made their way into both secular and Canon law and "at least through the Middle Ages, preserved and enhanced laws banning Hebrews from circumcising non-Hebrews and banning Christians or slaves of any religious affiliation from undergoing circumcision for any reason."[20]
Today, many Christian denominations are neutral about ritual male circumcision, not requiring it for religious observance, but neither forbidding it for cultural or other reasons.[53] While in some African and Eastern Christian denominations (such as the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches) male circumcision is an established practice,[23][54] and require that their male members undergo circumcision shortly after birth as part of a rite of passage.[23]
In the early 7th century, Muhammad welded together many Semitic tribes of the Arabian peninsula into the kernel of a rapidly expanding Muslim movement. Male and female circumcision were already well established among these tribes, and probably had been for more than 1,000 years, most likely as a fertility rite. Herodotus had noticed the practice among various Semite nations in the 5th century BCE, and Josephus had specifically mentioned circumcision as a tradition among Arabs in the 1st century CE.[28] There are some narrations attributed to Muhammad in which he approves of female circumcision; many scholars believe that these narrations are weak and lack authenticity.[61][62]
The practice of circumcision is sometimes characterized as a part of fitrah as mentioned in the hadith (Prophetic narrations).[63][64]
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many Jewish reformers, doctors, and physicians in Central and Eastern Europe proposed to replace circumcision with a symbolic ceremony, while others sought to ban or abolish circumcision entirely,[66] as they perceived it as a dangerous, barbaric and pagan ritual of genital mutilation[66] that could transmit infectious diseases to newborns.[66] The first formal objection to circumcision within Judaism occurred in 1843 in Frankfurt.[66][65] The Society for the Friends of Reform, a group that criticized traditional Jewish practices, said that brit milah was not a mitzvah but an outworn legacy from Israel's earlier phases, an obsolete throwback to primitive religion.[65] With the expanding role of medicine came further opposition; certain aspects of Jewish circumcision such as periah and metzitzah (drawing the blood from the circumcision wound through sucking or a cloth) were deemed unhygienic and dangerous for the newborns.[65][66] Later evidence that syphilis and tuberculosis– two of the most feared infectious diseases in the 19th century– were spread by mohels,[66] caused various rabbis to advocate metzitzah to be done using a sponge or a tube.[65] Among the secular, non-observant Jews who chose to not circumcise their sons there was also Theodor Herzl.[67]
Ephron reports that non-Jews and also some Jewish reformers in early 19th-century Germany had criticized ritual circumcision as "barbaric" and that Jewish doctors responded to these criticisms with defences of the ritual or proposals for modification or reform. By the late 19th century some Jewish doctors in the country defended circumcision by saying it had health advantages.[68] Today the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Modern Orthodox rabbis, endorses using a glass tube as a substitute of metzitzah.[69]
However, a growing number of contemporary Jews and Intactivist Jewish groups in the United States and Israel, both secular and religious, started to question overall long-term effects, psychological and psychophysical consequences of trauma caused by circumcision on Jewish children,[70] and choose not to circumcise their sons.[71][70][72][73][74] They are assisted by a small number of Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist rabbis, and have developed a welcoming ceremony that they call the Brit shalom ("Covenant [of] Peace") for such children,[71][70] also accepted by Humanistic Judaism.[73][75]
Middle Ages to the 19th century
Judaism and Christianity
Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica questioned why, if under Jewish doctrine circumcision removed original sin, Jesus was circumcised– as Jesus had no original sin. Steve Jones suggests there is a theological tradition that Jesus regained his foreskin at the Ascension. "Had he failed to do so, the Saved would themselves have to be operated upon in Paradise so as not to be more perfect than their Saviour."[76]
The Jews were expelled from England by Edward I in 1290, ostensibly over social tensions concerning usury. But the public imagination had been gripped by blood libel since at least the 12th century: "So pervasive was the belief that Jews circumcised their victims ... that Menasseh ben Israil, the Dutch Rabbi who sought from Cromwell the readmission of the Jews in 1656, had to dwell at considerable length in his Vindiciae Judaeorum at refuting the claim."[77]
In 1521, Cortés defeated the Aztec empire in Mesoamerica, which was followed by a large influx of Spanish clergy, whose writings provide most of information about pre-conquest Aztec life and customs largely assembled from interviews with those who survived the invasion and subsequent epidemics, and their descendants. Diego Durán, a Dominican friar, was convinced that the Aztecs were one of the lost tribes of Israel, with a crucial piece of supporting evidence being that they had practised circumcision.[79]
So influential was this notion that 300 years later Bancroft in his monumental Native Races[80] began his discussion of circumcision by writing: "Whether the custom of circumcision, which has been the great prop of argument in favor of the Jewish origin of the Aztecs, really obtained among these people, has been doubted by numerous authors," concluding that it probably existed in a "certain form among some tribes" (p278). The key being "a certain form", since Bancroft makes clear in a footnote that the majority of his sources, including Clavigero, Ternaux-Compans, Carbajal Espinosa, Oviedo y Herrera, and especially Acosta, believed Durán and others "confounded the custom of drawing blood from the secret organs with circumcision", and "the incision on the prepuce and ear to have been mistaken for circumcision", adding that this blood-letting rite[81] was "chiefly performed upon sons of great men" (p279). The case was not helped by the fact no reports of seeing a circumcised adult Aztec existed in the literature. Remondino says it is "a matter of controversy" whether the foreskin had actually been removed (p46).[9]
In regard to the Mayans, Bancroft says that in 1858 Brasseur de Bourbourg reported finding "traces" [82] of circumcision in the sources, despite Cogolludo having reported that "circumcision was unknown to the Indians of Yucatan" (pp279, 679).[80] But in 1864 Brasseur published his French translation of Diego de Landa's recently recovered 1556 ethnographic manuscript, which decisively rejected the notion of Mayan circumcision, and in a footnote he acknowledged there had probably been a "mistake", an admission that never found its way into the English-language literature[83] although modern ethnography has long since understood the nature of these rituals.[84] However, the Aztecs and Mayans are included by many authors from other disciplines among the list of pre-modern people who practised circumcision. Examples of such sources include UNAIDS,[85] Kaplan,[86] and Weiss.[87]
Later times
Countries that do not circumcise have often held antipathy for those that do. Being circumcised was often seen as a sign of disgrace.[9] According to Darby, it was also seen as a serious loss of erogenous tissue: "During the Renaissance and 18th century the centrality of the foreskin to male sexual function and the pleasure of both partners was recognised by anatomists Berengario da Carpi, Gabriello Fallopio and William Harvey, in popular sex manuals like Aristotle's master-piece, and by physicians like John Hunter, who also appreciated the importance of the foreskin in providing the slack tissue needed to accommodate an erection."[88]
In 1650, English physician John Bulwer in his study of body modification, Anthropometamorphosis: Man Transform'd, or the Artificial Changeling, wrote of the loss in sexual pleasure resulting from circumcision: "the part which hangeth over the end of the foreskin, is moved up and down in coition, that in this attrition it might gather more heat, and increase the pleasure of the other sexe; a contentation of which they [the circumcised] are defrauded by this injurious invention. For, the shortnesse of the prepuce is reckoned among the organical defects of the yard, … yet circumcision detracts somewhat from the delight of women, by lessening their titillation." The English historian Edward Gibbon, author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to the practice as "a painful and often dangerous rite", and a "singular mutilation" practiced only by Jews and Turks.
Modern debates
Tengrism
Tengri Turks, a neo-paganist term for Turks who practice the ancient faith of Tengrism, categorically oppose male circumcision. Fathers who are circumcised themselves no longer have their sons circumcised, since it is not an original old Turkish tradition, but has found its way through Islam.[89]
The ethical view of circumcision varies by country. In the United States, which has a high circumcision rate, the American Medical Association stated in 2011 that they "will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients".[90] In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report and a policy statement on non-therapeutic infant circumcision, stating that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure, although the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, and that parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child.[16]
After the release of the position statement, a debate appeared in the journal Pediatrics and the Journal of Medical Ethics.[91][92] In 2013, a group of 38 Northern European pediatricians, doctors, surgeons, ethicists, and lawyers co-authored a comment stating that they found the AAP's technical report and policy statement suffered from cultural bias, and reached recommendations and conclusions different from those of physicians in other parts of the world;[17] in particular, the group advocated instead a policy of no-harm towards infants and respect for their rights of bodily integrity and age of consent.[17] Two authors stated that, in their view, the AAP's 2012 analysis was inaccurate, improper, and incomplete.[92] The AAP received further criticism from Intactivist groups that oppose circumcision.[93][94]
The American Academy of Pediatrics responded that because about half of American males are circumcised and half are not, there may be a more tolerant view concerning circumcision in the US, but that if there is any cultural bias among the AAP taskforce who wrote the Circumcision Policy statement, it is much less important than the bias Frisch et al. may hold because of clear prejudices against the practice that can be found in Europe. The AAP then explained why they reached conclusions regarding the health benefits of circumcision that are different from the ones reached by some of their European counterparts.[95]
In 2017, the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics published two articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.[96][97]
History
Circumcision spread in several English-speaking nations from the late 19th century, with the introduction of anesthesia and antisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice.[6] Doctors such as Sir Jonathan Hutchinson in England wrote articles in favour of the procedure on medical and social grounds, popularizing it in his home country, as well as the Anglosphere.[8]Peter Charles Remondino, a San Diego physician, wrote History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present: Moral and Physical Reasons for Its Performance (1891), to promote circumcision.[98]Lewis Sayre, a prominent orthopedic surgeon at the time, was another early American advocate and is generally credited with popularizing the procedure in the United States.[12][99] However, the theories on which many early claims were made, such as the reflex theory of disease and the alleged harmful effects of masturbation, have long since been abandoned by the medical profession.[99]
An early British opponent of circumcision was Herbert Snow, who wrote a short book called The barbarity of circumcision as a remedy for congenital abnormality in 1890.[100] But as late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[101] The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949, when the Scottish neonatologist and pediatricianDouglas Gairdner published The Fate of the Foreskin in the British Medical Journal;[102] according to Wallerstein, this began to significantly affect the practice of circumcision in the United Kingdom.[4]
According to Darby and Cox, the persistence of circumcision in the US has led to more vigorous protest movements.[103] A 1980 protest march at the California State Capitol was reported in an Associated Press article.[104] The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) was formed by Marilyn Milos, R.N., in 1985.[citation needed] The organization's stated objective is to secure the birthright of male, female, and intersex children and babies to keep their sex organs intact. Protest rallies have been held in the US and other areas. NOCIRC have consistently criticised the American medical community's circumcision guidelines.[105] According to Milos and Donna Macris, "The need to defend the baby's right to a peaceful beginning was brought to light by Dr. Frederick Leboyer in his work, Birth Without Violence".[105]
This period also saw the formation of anti-circumcision organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Activists began creating websites in the mid-1990s, and this process has continued. One such organization distributed questionnaires to men who felt harmed by their circumcisions. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction.[106] Prominent men known to be unhappy about being circumcised include Sigmund Freud,[107]A. E. Housman, W. H. Auden, Geoffrey Keynes and his brother John Maynard Keynes, the economist.[103] In 1996 the British Medical Journal published a letter by 20 men saying that "we have been harmed by circumcision in childhood"; they argued that "it cannot be ethical for a doctor to amputate normal tissue from a normal child".[103]Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903 – 1998), whose Baby and Child Care is the biggest selling American single-author book in history, originally supported circumcision but changed his mind near the end of his life.[108]
Medical controversies
United States medical view
A restraining device used to immobilize infants during circumcision
In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the newborn period (where there is reasonable disagreement about the balance between medical benefits and harms, where there are nonmedical benefits and harms that can result from a decision on whether to perform the procedure, and where the procedure is not essential to the child's immediate well-being), the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States, where parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account their own cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.[110]
The term "genital integrity" refers to the condition of having complete and unaltered genital organs. Genital integrity is the norm in Latin America and the Caribbean, all European states except for three countries in the Balkans with large Muslim populations: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, and in most Asian countries.[111]
A lobby against routine infant circumcision on Chicago's Pride Parade
T Hammond (1999) is of the view that every person has a right to a whole intact body and that, where minors are concerned, "the unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession." He opines that such interventions are violations of individual bodily rights, and "a breach of fundamental medical ethics principles".[106] Many opponents[who?] of circumcision see infant circumcision as unnecessary, harmful, and unethical;[citation needed] some want the procedures prohibited.[112]
Current laws in many countries, and both United States federal law as well as laws in several U.S. states, prohibit the genital modification and mutilation of female minors, with some exceptions based on medical need. Opponents of male circumcision assert that laws against genital modification and mutilation of minors should apply equally to males and females.[citation needed]
Women protest against routine infant circumcision in front of the White House in 2013; captions read: "All Babies Are Born Perfect. Keep Them This Way."
However, linking male circumcision to FGM is highly controversial. Organizations involved in combating FGM have been at considerable pains to distinguish the two, as this UNICEF document explains: "When the practice first came to be known beyond the societies in which it was traditionally carried out, it was generally referred to as 'female circumcision'. This term, however, draws a direct parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices."[117] This stance has been largely echoed by Western medical and political authorities.[citation needed] A Royal Dutch Medical Association viewpoint says that the form of female genital mutilation that resembles non-therapeutic circumcision the most is rejected unanimously throughout literature. The Association also says "FGM takes many forms. There is the most severe form, infibulation, in which the inner and outer labia are stitched together and the clitoris is removed. However, there are also much milder forms of FGM, in which only the foreskin of the clitoris is removed."[118]
In the United States, the organization MGMbill.org has sent a proposed bill to the US Congress and 15 state legislatures every year since 2004 in order to extend the prohibition on genital modification and mutilation of minors to include male and intersex children.[112]
Though the issue of infant circumcision is generally not discussed by U.S. politicians,[119] circumcision controversies have occasionally arisen in the U.S. political system.
In 2011, anti-circumcision activists in San Francisco gathered over 12,000 signatures to put a measure on the city's ballot in November that would ban circumcisions of males under 18.[120] Proponents of the ban argued that circumcision is not medically necessary and that the choice should be left up to the child rather than the parents, while opponents of the ban, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Jewish Committee, argued that circumcision is a recognized medical procedure with clear health benefits and that the measure would violate religious freedoms and cause unnecessary religious strife.[121][122] The measure was ultimately removed from the ballot, as a court ruled that it would violate a state law leaving the regulation of medical procedures up to the state rather than cities. Following this, California governor Jerry Brown signed a law preventing localities in California from banning circumcision.[123]
In 2019, then-candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nominationAndrew Yang declared himself "[a]gainst the practice" of routine infant circumcision.[124] This received coverage from several outlets, as major politicians discussing circumcision has been rare, with Yang being the only candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to talk about it. Though Yang said he would push for giving parents more information about this decision if elected, he also stated that he supported the parents' choice to have their child circumcised for religious or cultural reasons, and would not support a ban on the practice. Intact America's Georganne Chapin speculated that Yang's support of parental choice was likely a result of political pressure.[119]
Other contemporary controversies
Controversy in Israel
Opposition to circumcision[125] exists among Jews in Israel. Protests for children's rights have occurred there.[126] Even though there is often pressure from family on parents to circumcise their sons, "more and more families" are preferring to abstain from circumcision.[127]
Controversy in South Africa
In the Xhosa areas of South Africa, the large death toll from traditional circumcision provides a constant source of friction between traditional leaders, who oppose medicalised procedures, and health authorities. In 2009 in the Eastern Cape Province alone, 80 boys died and hundreds were hospitalized after attending initiation schools.[128] The controversy looked set to spread in 2010 to the Zulu, whose present-day king Goodwill Zwelithini has called for the reintroduction of customary circumcision after it was banned by Zulu king Shaka in the 19th century.[129] Similar issues, though on a smaller scale, have arisen with traditional circumcision of Aborigines in remote areas of central Australia.[130]
Controversy in Germany
On 26 June 2012, a court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that circumcision was "inflicting bodily harm on boys too young to consent", deciding that the practice contravenes the "interests of the child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs".[131] The decision was based on the article "Criminal Relevance of Circumcising Boys. A Contribution to the Limitation of Consent in Cases of Care for the Person of the Child"[132] published by Holm Putzke, a German law professor at the University of Passau.[133][134] The court's decision that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights applied only within the jurisdiction of that court, the city of Cologne. The ruling was condemned by Jewish and Muslim groups in Europe.[135] A broad majority of German lawmakers passed a resolution asking Angela Merkel's government to clarify the ruling so as to allow Jews and Muslims to continue to practice their religion. On 12 December 2012, following a series of hearings and consultations, the Bundestag adopted a law explicitly permitting non-therapeutic circumcision to be performed under certain conditions by a vote of 434–100, with 46 abstentions.[136]
Some anti-circumcision activists, sometimes called intactivists (a portmanteau of intact and activist),[137] consider circumcision to be genital mutilation, and celebrate the foreskin as a natural, beneficial, and functional part of the penis.[137] Various organisations have been set up specifically for the purpose, and other organisations have stated their support for the movement.
"Our nonprofit educational organization raises awareness, helps healing, and informs about sexual, psychological, and traumatic effects, medical issues, and cultural bias."
Merged with Intact America in 2021. Previously called National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC). Based in San Anselmo, California.
Circumcision has been the political party's primary campaigning issue since 2014, and the topic is covered in the party's 2015 general election manifesto.[142]
The Seminal Church actively opposes both male and female circumcision worldwide. It commits time and funding toward ending the practice of circumcision worldwide.[148]
The brit milah or bris is the ceremony of circumcision in Judaism and Samaritanism, during which the foreskin is surgically removed. According to the Book of Genesis, God commanded the biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his male descendants on the eighth day of life, symbolizing the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Today, it is generally performed by a mohel on the eighth day after the infant's birth and is followed by a celebratory meal known as seudat mitzvah.
Laws restricting, regulating, or banning circumcision, some dating back to ancient times, have been enacted in many countries and communities. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, proponents of laws in favor of the procedure often point to the rights of the parents or practitioners, namely the right of freedom of religion. Those against the procedure point to the boy's right of freedom from religion. In several court cases, judges have pointed to the irreversible nature of the act, the grievous harm to the boy's body, and the right to self-determination, and bodily integrity.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the cutting or removal of some or all of the vulva for non-medical reasons. FGM prevalence varies worldwide, but is majorly present in some countries of Africa, Asia and Middle East, and within their diasporas. As of 2024, UNICEF estimates that worldwide 230 million girls and women had been subjected to one or more types of FGM.
Foreskin restoration is the process of expanding the skin on the penis to reconstruct an organ similar to the foreskin, which has been removed by circumcision or injury. Foreskin restoration is primarily accomplished by stretching the residual skin of the penis, but surgical methods also exist. Restoration creates a facsimile of the foreskin, but specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be reclaimed. Actual regeneration of the foreskin is experimental at this time. Some forms of restoration involve only partial regeneration in instances of a high-cut wherein the circumcisee feels that the circumciser removed too much skin and that there is not enough skin for erections to be comfortable.
Genital modifications are forms of body modifications applied to the human sexual organs. When there's cutting involved, genital cutting or surgery can be used. The term genital enhancement seem to be generally used for genital modifications that modify the external aspect, the way the patient wants it. The term genital mutilation is used for genital modifications that drastically diminish the recipient's quality of life and result in adverse health outcomes, whether physical or mental.
Infibulation is the ritual removal of the vulva and its suturing, a practice found mainly in northeastern Africa, particularly in Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan. The World Health Organization refers to the procedure as Type III female genital mutilation.
Phimosis is a condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot stretch to allow it to be pulled back past the glans. A balloon-like swelling under the foreskin may occur with urination. In teenagers and adults, it may result in pain during an erection, but is otherwise not painful. Those affected are at greater risk of inflammation of the glans, known as balanitis, and other complications.
A mohel is a Jewish man trained in the practice of brit milah, the "covenant of male circumcision". Women who are trained in the practice are referred to as a mohelet.
Circumcision likely has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, Egypt, and Arabia, though the specific form and extent of circumcision has varied. Ritual male circumcision is known to have been practiced by South Sea Islanders, Aboriginal peoples of Australia, Sumatrans, and some Ancient Egyptians.
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis.
Male circumcision reduces the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission from HIV positive women to men in high risk populations.
Circumcision is a procedure that removes the foreskin from the human penis. In the most common form of the operation, the foreskin is extended with forceps, then a circumcision device may be placed, after which the foreskin is excised. Topical or locally injected anesthesia is generally used to reduce pain and physiologic stress. Circumcision is generally electively performed, most commonly done as a form of preventive healthcare, as a religious obligation, or as a cultural practice. It is also an option for cases of phimosis, other pathologies that do not resolve with other treatments, and chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs). The procedure is contraindicated in cases of certain genital structure abnormalities or poor general health.
The prevalence of circumcision is the percentage of males in a given population who have been circumcised, with the procedure most commonly being performed as a part of preventive healthcare, a religious obligation, or cultural practice.
The circumcision controversy in early Christianity played an important role in Christian theology.
Khitan or Khatna is the Arabic term for circumcision, and the Islamic term for the practice of religious male circumcision in Islamic culture. Male circumcision is widespread in the Muslim world, and accepted as an established practice by all Islamic schools of jurisprudence. It is considered a sign of belonging to the wider Muslim community (Ummah).
There is a widespread view among practitioners of female genital mutilation (FGM) that it is a religious requirement, although prevalence rates often vary according to geography and ethnic group. There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which the practice's continuation is influenced by custom, social pressure, lack of health-care information, and the position of women in society. The procedures confer no health benefits and can lead to serious health problems.
In male human anatomy, the foreskin, also known as the prepuce, is the double-layered fold of skin, mucosal and muscular tissue at the distal end of the human penis that covers the glans and the urinary meatus. The foreskin is attached to the glans by an elastic band of tissue, known as the frenulum. The outer skin of the foreskin meets with the inner preputial mucosa at the area of the mucocutaneous junction. The foreskin is mobile, fairly stretchable and sustains the glans in a moist environment. Except for humans, a similar structure known as a penile sheath appears in the male sexual organs of all primates and the vast majority of mammals.
Foreskin Man is a comic book created by Matthew Hess to protest against circumcision. The comic centers on Foreskin Man, a superhero who saves babies from being circumcised and fights their would-be circumcisers.
Circumcision surgical procedure in males involves either a conventional "cut and stitch" surgical procedure or use of a circumcision instrument or device. In the newborn period, almost all circumcisions are done by generalist practitioners using one of three surgical instruments. In the US, the Gomco clamp is the most utilized instrument, followed by the Mogen clamp and the Plastibell. They are also used worldwide.
Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision or female genital cutting, includes any procedure involving the removal or injury of part or all of the vulva for non-medical reasons. While the practice is most common in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, FGM is also widespread in immigrant communities and metropolitan areas in the United States, and was performed by doctors regularly until the 1980s.
1 2 "Male circumcision is one of the oldest surgical procedures known, traditionally undertaken as a mark of cultural identity or religious importance. With advances in surgery in the 19th century, and increased mobility in the 20th century, the procedure was introduced into some previously noncircumcising cultures for both health-related and social reasons."
↑ The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012) addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision. Sadeghi-Nejad et al. "Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Doyle et al. "The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Perera et al. "Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction. Dave S, Afshar K, Braga LH, Anderson P (February 2018). "Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (full version)". Canadian Urological Association Journal. 12 (2): E76–E99. doi:10.5489/cuaj.5033. PMC 5937400. PMID 29381458. There is lack of any convincing evidence that neonatal circumcision will impact sexual function or cause a perceptible change in penile sensation in adulthood. Shabanzadeh DM, Düring S, Frimodt-Møller C (July 2016). "Male circumcision does not result in inferior perceived male sexual function - a systematic review". Danish Medical Journal (Systematic review). 63 (7). PMID 27399981. Friedman B, Khoury J, Petersiel N, Yahalomi T, Paul M, Neuberger A (September 2016). "Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 22 (9): 768–774. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.07.030. PMID 27497811. Bañuelos Marco B, García Heil JL (March 2021). "Circumcision in childhood and male sexual function: a blessing or a curse?". International Journal of Impotence Research. 33 (2): 139–148. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-00354-y. PMC 7985026. PMID 32994555. Staff. "Statement on Newborn Male Circumcision". American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Archived from the original on 21 March 2023. Retrieved 21 March 2023. Some parents also may worry that circumcision harms a man's sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction. However, current evidence shows that it does not. Shezi MH, Tlou B, Naidoo S (February 2023). "Knowledge, attitudes and acceptance of voluntary medical male circumcision among males attending high school in Shiselweni region, Eswatini: a cross sectional study". BMC Public Health. 23 (1): 349. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15228-3. PMC 9933013. PMID 36797696. It was interesting to note that the young males in this study had misconceptions about sexual pleasure post male circumcision... Sorokan ST, Finlay JC, Jefferies AL (8 September 2015). "Newborn male circumcision". Paediatrics & Child Health. 20 (6): 311–320. doi:10.1093/pch/20.6.311. PMC 4578472. PMID 26435672. ...medical studies do not support circumcision as having a negative impact on sexual function or satisfaction in males or their partners. World Health Organization, UNAIDS, Jhpiego (December 2009). "Manual for Male Circumcision Under Local Anaesthesia" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 January 2012. ...there are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure. Others think that circumcision will cure impotence. Let me assure you that none of these is true. Alt URL Archived 30 March 2023 at the Wayback Machine^
1 2 3 Neusner, Jacob (1993). Approaches to Ancient Judaism, New Series: Religious and Theological Studies. Scholars Press. p.149. Circumcised barbarians, along with any others who revealed the glans penis, were the butt of ribald humor. For Greek art portrays the foreskin, often drawn in meticulous detail, as an emblem of male beauty; and children with congenitally short foreskins were sometimes subjected to a treatment, known as epispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
1 2 3 N. Stearns, Peter (2008). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World. Oxford University Press. p.179. ISBN9780195176322. Uniformly practiced by Jews, Muslims, and the members of Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, male circumcision remains prevalent in many regions of the world, particularly Africa, South and East Asia, Oceania, and Anglosphere countries.
1 2 3 4 Kohler, Kaufmann; Hirsch, Emil G.; Jacobs, Joseph; Friedenwald, Aaron; Broydé, Isaac (1906). "Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 January 2020. Retrieved 4 January 2020. Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus IV Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
1 2 3 Kasher, Aryeh (1990). "2: The Early Hasmonean Era". Jews and Hellenistic cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE). Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum. Vol.21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. pp.55–65. ISBN978-3-16-145241-3. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
1 2 Bolnick, David; Koyle, Martin; Yosha, Assaf (2012). "Circumcision in the Early Christian Church: The Controversy That Shaped a Continent". Surgical Guide to Circumcision. United Kingdom: Springer. pp.290–298. ISBN9781447128588. In summary, circumcision has played a surprisingly important role in Western history. The circumcision debate forged a Gentile identity to the early Christian church which allowed it to survive the Jewish Diaspora and become the dominant religion of Western Europe. Circumcision continued to have a major cultural presence throughout Christendom even after the practice had all but vanished.... the circumcision of Jesus... celebrated as a religious holiday... [has been] examined by many of the greatest scholars and artists of the Western tradition.
↑ Bechtel, Florentine (1910). "Judaizers". Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company. Archived from the original on 21 December 2018. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
↑ Pitts-Taylor, Victoria (2008). Cultural Encyclopedia of the Body [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p.394. ISBN9781567206913. For most part, Christianity does not require circumcision of its followers. Yet, some Orthodox and African Christian groups do require circumcision. These circumcisions take place at any point between birth and puberty.
↑ Gruenbaum, Ellen (2015). The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press. p.61. ISBN9780812292510. Christian theology generally interprets male circumcision to be an Old Testament rule that is no longer an obligation ... though in many countries (especially the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa, but not so much in Europe) it is widely practiced among Christians
↑ Peteet, John R. (2017). Spirituality and Religion Within the Culture of Medicine: From Evidence to Practice. Oxford University Press. pp.97–101. ISBN9780190272432. male circumcision is still observed among Ethiopian and Coptic Christians, and circumcision rates are also high today in the Philippines and the US.
↑ "Circumcision protest brought to Florence". Associated Press. 30 March 2008. However, the practice is still common among Christians in the United States, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines, the Middle East and Africa. Some Middle Eastern Christians actually view the procedure as a rite of passage.
↑ Ellwood, Robert S. (2008). The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Infobase Publishing. p.95. ISBN9781438110387. It is obligatory among Jews, Muslims, and Coptic Christians. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians do not require circumcision. Starting in the last half of the 19th century, however, circumcision also became common among Christians in Europe and especially in North America.
↑ Wylie, Kevan R. (2015). ABC of Sexual Health. John Wiley & Sons. p.101. ISBN9781118665695. Although it is mostly common and required in male newborns with Moslem or Jewish backgrounds, certain Christian-dominant countries such as the United States also practice it commonly.
↑ Cohen, Jonathan (June 2011). Male circumcision in the United States: The History, an analysis of the discourse, and a philosophical interpretation (Thesis). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. p.29. CiteSeerX10.1.1.854.2776. Unlike the Bible, there is not a lot of mention of circumcision in the Qur'an, but male circumcision is also deeply rooted in the Muslim tradition. Gollaher explains how "Muhammad is reported to have prescribed cutting the foreskin as a fitrah, a measure of personal cleanliness" (Gollaher, p. 45). Also, just as within the Jewish tradition, modern Muslims see this religious practice as not only morally but medically beneficial. A conference of Islamic scholars in 1987 stated that pro-circumcision medical studies "[reflect] the wisdom of the Islamic statements" (Gollaher, p. 47).
1 2 3 4 5 6 Epstein, Lisa (2008). The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe. United States: Yale University Press. ISBN9780300119039. Archived from the original on 28 July 2018. Retrieved 28 July 2018. In the first half of the nineteenth century, various European governments considered regulating, if not banning, berit milah on the grounds that it posed potential medical dangers. In the 1840s, radical Jewish reformers in Frankfurt asserted that circumcision should no longer be compulsory. This controversy reachedRussia in the 1880s. Russian Jewish physicians expressed concern over two central issues: the competence of those carrying out the procedure, and the method used for metsitsah. Many Jewish physicians supported the idea of procedural and hygienic reforms in the practice, and they debated the question of physician supervision during the ceremony. Most significantly, many advocated carrying out metsitsah by pipette, not by mouth. In 1889, a committee on circumcision convened by the Russian Society for the Protection of Health, which included leading Jewish figures, recommended educating the Jewish public about the concerns connected with circumcision, in particular, the possible transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis and syphilis through the custom of metsitsah by mouth. Veniamin Portugalov, who—alone among Jewish physicians in Russia—called for the abolition of circumcision, set off these discussions. Portugalov not only denied all medical claims regarding the sanitary advantages of circumcision but disparaged the practice as barbaric, likening it to pagan ritual mutilation. Ritual circumcision, he claimed, stood as a self-imposed obstacle to the Jews'attainment of true equality with the other peoples of Europe.
↑ Weiss, Charles (1966). "Motives for male circumcision among preliterate and literate peoples". The Journal of Sex Research. 2 (2): 69–88. doi:10.1080/00224496609550503.
↑ Paige, Karen Ericksen (May 1978). "The Ritual of Circumcision". Human Nature: 40–48. Archived from the original on 9 March 2016. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
↑ "Home Page". National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. Archived from the original on 13 September 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
↑ J4MB (2015). "Manifesto". Official Site. Archived from the original on 10 July 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2019.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
