I've been reading about circumcision and some of these claims are directly contradictory to what I've read, and to what I've experienced first hand. Of these claims are:

​

" Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head (glans) of the penis. It is an ancient practice that has its origin in religious rites "

Uh, no, it's not. Circumcision is the removal of excess foreskin that's fully covered the head and is hanging from it as well. Circumcision was abolished permanently following the New Testament, and it's practice was condemned by the apostles. The gentiles were NOT to be circumcised as the jews were during the period of the First Testament.

The surgical removal of the foreskin and permanently exposing the head is called genitalia mutilation, resulting in permanent damage, and excruciating pain and torment on newborn males as anaesthesia cannot be administered, and the small dose that IS administered is not enough. The pain is excruciating enough that an infant may scream enough to collapse their lungs. (Read)

​

The foreskin contains large amounts of nerve endings, is greatly innervated and protects the head of the penis.

​

With it's permanent mutilation, the head of the penis is permanently exposed. Nerve endings will start dying quickly as Keratinization occurs, irreversibly thickening the head leading to additional permanent, irreversible loss of sensitivity and permanent reduction of pleasure. The amount of nerve endings either lost or permanently destroyed sums up about 55% of the entire nerve endings in the area. (Read)

​

The procedure has a probability of causing severe issues, infections, permanent castration of the head glans, permanent deformation of the penis or death. Depending on how it's done the results vary. (Read)

​

The pain produced by the procedure is usually excruciating and torments a newborn for about 3 days, this can easily be mistaken as "the baby is just crying, it's what they do". Anaesthesia and pain killers are not administered, because they would kill the baby or not produce enough results. (Read)

​

While parents are all too trigger happy to plunge head first into circumcising their newborns, are the benefits real though? I know the doctors and hospitals recommend circumcision, it's about 1000$ per newborn, it's free money for them basically. (Depends on country / state).

​

​

Let's check the Pros and Cons of circumcision and compare them to my real life, real world experience (I am not circumcised as far as I know).

• Less risk of urinary tract infections

I'm 24 years old and haven't had a single urinary tract infection once. And I really DON'T focus on cleaning my penis.

• A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men

This actually doesn't make sense to me from a logical point of view. Diseases don't care whether you're circumcised or not, If you're worried about STD...either don't have sex with that person or go both and perform a test to make sure you're clean.

• Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners

This claim doesn't make sense either. How can permanently exposing the head glans lead to reduced penile cancer or lower the risk of cervical cancer?

• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)

Never happened to me. Inflammation doesn't just magically appear because you're uncircumcised.

• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)

This is about the only real claim I see here, I happen to have some form of phimosis and paraphimosis, it's difficult for me to retract the foreskin and once it is retracted it's again difficult to return it back to it's original location.

​

Well, let's see the cons:

• Pain
• Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
• Irritation of the glans
• Higher chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
• Risk of injury to the penis

Ah, they forgot to mention a few. Let me add them real quick.

- May permanently reduce sensitivty by up to 55% due to nerve endings loss, keratinization and other factors. Studies are bashing each other's heads about this one.

- May result in death. (Happened, apparently)

- The penis can be permanently deformed.

- The head can be severed. (Might not happen often, but depending on the situation it's very plausible)

​

​

Alright, this was a bit of a rant. I'm not sure which study is true or false, because well absolutely no one at all cares to study what modern circumcision (which is really just partial castration or mutilation) actually does to a penis, and there aren't volunteers lining up for studies either.

​

BUT, I'm quite confused as to who gives the parents the right to decide whether their boys get their penises cut at birth for the sake of....ah....I mean you could say that God would order it but that's false too since the New Testament.

​

​

BTW, I've been wondering on this one, if you happened to unfortunately have your penis severed, idk, say your partner went crazy, and it's surgically re-attached, do you actually gain back sensitivity? Doctors say "functionality", functionality only means the ability to pee and ejaculate though, they NEVER talk about sensitivity.