Many attempts to justify a practice that has already been happening are well documented. This practice is the removal of tissue covering the glans penis. Some are born without tissue coverage of the glans (referred to as “Aposthia”).
The Hygiene Claim for Male “Circumcision”
There is the original, which is about hygiene. The concern here is that bacteria and such can get trapped inside the prepuce.
The space between the glans and inner mucosa is adhered during infancy. The synechia that makes the connection breaks down later in life. There is no known reason that infers that this process needs to happen by any specific age. You will find that different authorities have different ideas about this. Beware of those who diagnose this situation as phimosis. There is physiological phimosis (what has been described here) and there is pathological phimosis. Pathological phimosis is when the prepuce is so tight that it is causing pain, cutting off blood supply, restricting urination, or some other abnormal issue. Pathological phimosis is usually resolved with stretching and/or creams, not cutting. If cutting is prescribed, make sure the physician is aware of options that do not require full removal of the prepuce. The following is a visual of such a procedure.
For more information about phimosis: https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/phimosis-balantis/
Since the space is NOT an open space (because of the adhesions) and the phimotic ring at the distal end acts like a one-way sphincter, the concern about hygiene during early childhood is unfounded. As the person with the penis grows older and the adhesion breaks down, the person can easily pull back and rinse off any build-up. It is less difficult than mouth hygiene. Avoid the use of soaps as they may disturb the pH balance and healthy bacteria.
The “Masturbation is Bad for Health” Claim for “Circumcision”
In the late 1800s, during the puritanical era, a belief in the medical field arose that individuals should avoid sexual activities to stay healthy. It was proposed to harm children’s genitalia to reduce their desires to handle their genitalia. While we now know that sexual activity is healthy (although still carries risks), many other theories were proposed.
Recent Medical Benefits Claims for “Circumcision”
STIs are a common claim that is referenced. In 2021 studies from Denmark and Canada show that they are unfounded claims. In fact, some STIs could happen MORE often. Even if there was a truth to this, condoms and other safe sex practices are far more successful. When you remove part of a child’s genitalia for this reason, when you don’t know what kind of sex practices they will exercise, you are making an assumption that the individual may not appreciate.
Before addressing other benefits, just consider this: a suggestion is being made that a body part, that the individual may wish they had later, be removed to avoid issues that may never occur. And, none of the issues are completely prevented. AND, the issues are usually treatable without surgical intervention. No other body part with a similar or higher value is suggested for pre-emptive removal.
For more detailed criticisms of the claims consider:
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/
Page last updated February 8, 2022