 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Malecircumcision has been a subject of controversy for a number of reasons includingreligious,ethical,sexual,legal andmedical.[1][2][3][4][5]
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in a rapidly changing medical and surgical world, circumcision rose in popularity as a means ofprophylaxis in theAnglosphere.[6] Its primary justification was to promote cleanliness,[7][8][9] as well as reducing and preventing the incidence ofdisease.[10][11][12] Many medical professionals and advocates of the procedure also believed that it would reducepleasure and the urge tomasturbate, which was considered a social ill of the era, although their belief is considered false in modern times.[1][4][13][11][14][9]
Circumcision 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]
InClassical andHellenistic civilization,Ancient Greeks andRomans posed great value on thebeauty ofnature,physical integrity,aesthetics, harmonious bodies andnudity, including theforeskin[20][21][22] (see alsoAncient Greek art), and were opposed to circumcision, an opposition inherited by thecanon andsecular legal systems of theChristian West andEast that lasted at least through to theMiddle Ages, according to Frederick Hodges.[20]
Traditional branches ofJudaism,Islam,Coptic Christianity, and theEritrean Orthodox Church still advocate male circumcision as areligious obligation.[23] It is common in theEthiopian Orthodox Church as a cultural practice despite the liturgy recommending against it.[24]
TheBook of Genesis explains circumcision as acovenant with God given toAbraham,[25] InJudaism it "symbolizes the promise of lineage and fruitfulness of a great nation,"[26] the "seal of ownership and the guarantee of relationship between peoples and their god."[27] Some scholars look elsewhere for the origin of Jewish circumcision. One explanation, dating fromHerodotus, is that the custom was acquired from theEgyptians, possibly during the period of enslavement.[28] An additional hypothesis, based on linguistic/ethnographic work begun in the 19th century,[29] suggests circumcision was a common tribal custom amongSemitic-speaking peoples (Jews,Arabs, andPhoenicians).
The Jewish andIslamic traditions both see circumcision as a way to distinguish a group from its neighbours.[30] TheBible records "uncircumcised" being used as a derogatory reference for opponents[31] and Jewish victory in battle that culminated in mass post-mortem circumcision, to provide an account of the number of enemy casualties.[32] Jews were also required to circumcise all household members, including slaves[33] – a practice that would later put them into collision with Roman and Christian law (see below).
In 167 BCEJudea was part of theSeleucid Empire. Its ruler,Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–165 BCE), smarting from a defeat in a war againstPtolemaic Egypt,banned traditional Jewish religious practices, and attempted to forcibly let the Jews acceptHellenistic culture.[34] Throughout the country Jews were ordered, with the threat ofexecution, to sacrificepigs toGreek gods (the normal practice in theAncient Greek religion), desecrate theShabbat, eat unkosher animals (especiallypork), and relinquish theirJewish scriptures. Antiochus' decree also outlawed Jewish circumcision,[34] and parents who violated his order were hanged along with their infants.[9][35] According toTacitus, as quoted by Hodges, Antiochus "endeavoured to abolish Jewishsuperstition and tointroduce Greek civilization."[20]
According torabbinical accounts, he desecrated theSecond Temple ofJerusalem by placing a statue of OlympianZeus on the altar of the Temple;[36] this incident is also reported by thebiblicalBook of Daniel,[36] where the author refers to the statue of the Greek god inside the Temple as "abomination of desolation".[36] Antiochus' decrees and vituperation ofJudaism motivated theMaccabean Revolt;[37][38] the Maccabees reacted violently against the forcedHellenization of Judea,[37] destroyed pagan altars in the villages, circumcised boys, and forced Hellenized Jews into outlawry.[39] The revolt ended in the re-establishment of an independent Jewish kingdom under theHasmoneans,[37][38] until it turned into aclient state of theRoman Republic under thereign ofHerod the Great (37–4 BCE).
Classical,Hellenistic, andRoman culture found circumcision to be cruel and repulsive.[20][22][40] In theRoman Empire, circumcision was regarded as a barbaric and disgusting custom.[20][41][40] The consulTitus Flavius Clemens was condemned to death by theRoman Senate in 95 CE for, according to theTalmud, circumcising himself andconverting to Judaism. The EmperorHadrian (117–138) forbade circumcision.[20][41][42] Overall, the rite of circumcision was especially execrable inClassical civilization,[20][41][40] also because it was the custom to spend an hour a day or so exercisingnude in thegymnasium and inRoman baths, therefore Jewish men did not want to be seen in public deprived of theirforeskins.[20][34][41][40]
As for the anti-circumcision law passed byHadrian, it is considered by many[who?] to be, together with his decision to build a Roman temple upon the ruins of theSecond Temple and dedicate it toJupiter, one of the main causes of theBar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), which was brutally crushed;[43] according toCassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.[43][44] He claimed that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to theSenate, 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.'"[43] Because of the great loss of life in the war, even though Hadrian was victorious, he refused atriumph.
Hadrian's policy after the rebellion reflected an attempt toroot out Judaism: he enacted a ban on circumcision,[20][42] all Jews were forbidden to enterJerusalem upon pain of death, and the city was renamedAelia Capitolina, whileJudea was renamedSyria Palaestina. Around 140, his successorAntoninus 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 theirslaves andproselytes.[20][42] Jewish nationalists' (Pharisees andZealots) 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 andsocial integration of the Jewish people in theGreco-Roman world favourably,[20][38][41] and pursued a completely different approach: accepting the Emperor's decree and even making efforts torestore their foreskins to better assimilate intoHellenistic society.[20][21][34][38][41] The latter approach was common during the reign of Antiochus, and again under Roman rule.[20][41] 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 physicianAulus Cornelius Celsus in his comprehensive encyclopedic workDe Medicina, written during the reign ofTiberius (14-37 CE).[41][45] The surgical method involved freeing the skin covering thepenis by dissection, and then pulling it forward over the glans; he also described a simpler surgical technique used on men whoseprepuce is naturally insufficient to cover their glans.[41][45] The second approach, known as "epispasm",[20][22][41][45] was non-surgical: arestoration device which consisted of a special weight made of bronze, copper, or leather (sometimes calledPondus Judaeus, i.e. "Jewish burden"),[20][41][45] was affixed to the penis, pulling its skin downward. Over time, a new foreskin was generated, or a short prepuce was lengthened, by means oftissue expansion.[20][41][45]Martial also mentioned the instrument inEpigrammaton (Book 7:35).[45]
TheApostle Paul referred to these practices in hisletters,[20][41][45] saying: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised."[46] But he also explicitly denounced theforcing of circumcision upon non-Jews, rejecting and condemning thoseJudaizers who stipulated the ritual toGentileChristians, labelling such advocates as "false brothers"[47] (see below). In the mid-2nd centuryRabbinical Jewish leaders, due to increasing cases of foreskin restorations in Roman Empire, introduced a radical method of circumcision, theperiah, 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.[45] 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 underJustinian. These restrictions on circumcision made their way into both secular andCanon law and "at least through theMiddle 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]
Circumcision has alsoplayed a major role inChristian history andtheology.[48][49] While the circumcision of Jesus is celebrated asa feast day in theliturgical calendar of manyChristian denominations.[49]There was debate in theearly Church on whetherGentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the communities; someJewish Christians insisted that it was necessary. As such, theCouncil of Jerusalem (50 CE) was held, which decreed that malecircumcision was not a requirement for Gentiles, which became known as the "Apostolic Decree".[50] This was one of the first actsdifferentiating Early Christianity from Judaism.[51]Covenant theology largely views the Christiansacrament ofbaptism as fulfilling the Israelite practice of circumcision, both being signs and seals of the covenant of grace.[52][53]
Today, manyChristian denominations are neutral about ritual male circumcision, not requiring it for religious observance, but neither forbidding it for cultural or other reasons.[54] Followers of someAfrican andEastern Christian denominations (such as theCoptic,Ethiopian, andEritrean Orthodox Churches) commonly practice male circumcision shortly after birth as arite of passage,[23][55][23] despite the churches themselves not mandating or encouraging the practice.[56][57][58]
Male circumcision is widely practiced amongChristian communities in theAnglosphere countries,Africa,Oceania, theMiddle East,South Korea and thePhilippines.[59][60][61][62] TheUnited States and the Philippines are the largestChristian countries in the world to extensively practice male circumcision.[63] While countries with majorities of Christian adherents inEurope andSouth America have low circumcision rates.[64]
In the early 7th century,Muhammad welded together many Semitic tribes of theArabian peninsula into the kernel of a rapidly expandingMuslim 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, andJosephus had specifically mentioned circumcision as a tradition amongArabs in the 1st century CE.[29] There are some narrations attributed to Muhammad in which he approves offemale circumcision; many scholars believe that these narrations are weak and lack authenticity.[65][66]
The practice of circumcision is sometimes characterized as a part offitrah as mentioned in thehadith (Prophetic narrations).[67][68]
Around 140 CE, theTannaim madecircumcision requirements stricter, in order to make the procedure irreversible.[69]
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries manyJewish reformers, doctors, andphysicians inCentral andEastern Europe proposed to replace circumcision with a symbolic ceremony, while others sought to ban or abolish circumcision entirely,[70] as they perceived it as a dangerous, barbaric and pagan ritual ofgenital mutilation[70] that couldtransmit infectious diseases to newborns.[70] Thefirst formal objection to circumcision within Judaism occurred in 1843 inFrankfurt.[70][69] The Society for the Friends of Reform, a group that criticized traditional Jewish practices, said thatbrit milah was not amitzvah but an outworn legacy fromIsrael's earlier phases, an obsolete throwback to primitive religion.[69] With the expanding role of medicine came further opposition; certain aspects of Jewish circumcision such asperiah andmetzitzah (drawing the blood from the circumcision wound through sucking or a cloth) were deemed unhygienic and dangerous for the newborns.[69][70] Later evidence thatsyphilis andtuberculosis – two of the most feared infectious diseases in the 19th century – were spread by mohels,[70] caused variousrabbis to advocatemetzitzah to be done using a sponge or a tube.[69] Among the secular, non-observant Jews who chose to not circumcise their sons there was alsoTheodor Herzl.[71]
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.[72] Today theRabbinical Council of America, the largest group ofModern Orthodox rabbis, endorses using a glass tube as a substitute ofmetzitzah.[73]
However, a growing number of contemporary Jews and Intactivist Jewish groups in the United States and Israel, bothsecular and religious, started to question overall long-term effects,psychological and psychophysical consequences oftrauma caused by circumcision on Jewish children,[74] and choose not to circumcise their sons.[75][74][76][77][78] They are assisted by a small number ofReform,Liberal, andReconstructionist rabbis, and have developed a welcoming ceremony that they call theBrit shalom ("Covenant [of] Peace") for such children,[75][74] also accepted byHumanistic Judaism.[77][79]
Circumcision is strongly condemned in Sikhism as it is seen as a violation of the Sikh principle of respecting the body as created by God. Sikh infants are not circumcised, and the practice is criticized in Sikh.[80]
Thomas Aquinas in hisSumma Theologica questioned why, if under Jewish doctrine circumcision removedoriginal 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."[81]
The Jews were expelled from England byEdward I in 1290, ostensibly over social tensions concerningusury. But the public imagination had been gripped byblood 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 hisVindiciae Judaeorum at refuting the claim."[82]
In 15th-century Spain, mostJews and Muslims were expelled and theSpanish Inquisition monitored and prosecutedconverts to Christianity to ensure they were notsecretly practising Judaism, consorting with Jews orengaging in Jewish practices such as circumcision.[83]
In 1521,Cortés defeated theAztec 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 thelost tribes of Israel, with a crucial piece of supporting evidence being that they had practised circumcision.[84]
So influential was this notion that 300 years laterBancroft in his monumentalNative Races[85] 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, includingClavigero, Ternaux-Compans, Carbajal Espinosa, Oviedo y Herrera, and especiallyAcosta, 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 thisblood-letting rite[86] 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 1858Brasseur de Bourbourg reported finding "traces"[87] of circumcision in the sources, despiteCogolludo having reported that "circumcision was unknown to the Indians of Yucatan" (pp279, 679).[85] But in 1864 Brasseur published his French translation ofDiego 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[88] although modern ethnography has long since understood the nature of these rituals.[89] 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,[90] Kaplan,[91] and Weiss.[92]
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'smaster-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."[93]
In 1650, English physicianJohn 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 historianEdward Gibbon, author ofThe 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 andTurks.
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.[94]
The ethical view of circumcision varies by country. In the United States, which has a high circumcision rate, theAmerican Medical Association stated in 2011 that they "will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients".[95] In 2012, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics and theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a joint 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 journalPediatrics and theJournal of Medical Ethics.[96][97] In 2013, a group of 38Northern European pediatricians, doctors, surgeons, ethicists, and lawyers co-authored a comment stating that they found the AAP's technical report and policy statement suffered fromcultural 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 ofno-harm towards infants and respect for theirrights ofbodily integrity andage of consent.[17] Two authors stated that, in their view, the AAP's 2012 analysis was inaccurate, improper, and incomplete.[97] The AAP received further criticism from Intactivist groups that oppose circumcision.[98][99]
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.[100]
In 2017, the American Medical Association'sJournal of Ethics published two articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.[101][102]
Circumcision spread in several English-speaking nations from the late 19th century, with the introduction ofanesthesia andantisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice.[6] Doctors such as SirJonathan 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, wroteHistory of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present: Moral and Physical Reasons for Its Performance (1891), to promote circumcision.[103]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][104] 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.[104]
An early British opponent of circumcision wasHerbert Snow, who wrote a short book calledThe barbarity of circumcision as a remedy for congenital abnormality in 1890.[105] But as late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[106] The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949, when the Scottishneonatologist andpediatricianDouglas Gairdner publishedThe Fate of the Foreskin in theBritish Medical Journal;[107] according to Wallerstein, this began to significantly affect the practice of circumcision in theUnited Kingdom.[4]
According to Darby and Cox, the persistence of circumcision in the US has led to more vigorous protest movements.[108] A 1980 protest march at theCalifornia State Capitol was reported in anAssociated Press article.[109] 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, andintersex 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.[110] According to Milos and Donna Macris, "The need to defend the baby's right to a peaceful beginning was brought to light by Dr.Frédérick Leboyer in his work,Birth Without Violence".[110]
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%), genitaldysmorphia (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 insexual dysfunction.[111] Prominent men known to be unhappy about being circumcised includeSigmund Freud,[112]A. E. Housman,W. H. Auden,Geoffrey Keynes and his brotherJohn Maynard Keynes, the economist.[108] 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".[108]Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903 – 1998), whoseBaby 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.[113]
In the United States, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), theAmerican Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which collaborated to produce the 2012 statements issued by the AAP, position paper as of 2012 stated:[114]
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.[115]
In 2017, the filmAmerican Circumcision was released, taking a critical look at the medical and societal effects of circumcision. The movie features prominent circumcision advocates likeBrian Morris and intactivists like Marilyn Milos.
On 26 September 2021, the largest and longest-running study on circumcision was published by Dr.Morten Frisch and Jacob Simonsen. The study found that circumcised men had a 53% higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than uncircumcised men: anogenital warts were 1.51 times higher, gonorrhea was 2.3 times higher, and syphilis was 3.32 times higher. The researchers said the risk was “statistically significantly higher” in circumcised men than in men with intact foreskins. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of HIV.Penile cancer incidence in countries where circumcision is rare is significantly lower than in theUnited States, where most men are circumcised: 1 in 100,000 in theUnited States, 1 in 250,000 inAustralia, 0.82 in 100,000 inDenmark, and 0.5 in 100.000 inFinland. Furthermore, penile cancer is extremely rare, accounting for only 0.1% of all cancer deaths.[116]
The term "genital integrity" refers to the condition of having complete and unaltered genital organs. Genital integrity is the norm inLatin America and the Caribbean; all European states, except for three countries in theBalkans with large Muslim populations (namelyAlbania,Bosnia and Herzegovina, andKosovo); and in most Asian countries.[117]
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".[111]Many opponents[who?] of circumcision see infant circumcision as unnecessary, harmful, and unethical;[citation needed] some want the procedures prohibited.[118]
Others also see the genital cutting of children as ahuman rights andchildren's rights issue,[119] opposing thegenital modification and mutilation of children, including circumcision,female genital mutilation (FGM), andintersex genital surgeries; a number of anti-circumcision organizations opposesex assignment surgeries on infants withambiguous genitalia.[118][120][121][122][independent source needed]
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.[123][124][125]
.jpg)
Comparingmale circumcision to FGM is highly controversial. Many organizations involved in combating FGM have been at considerable pains to distinguish the two, as thisUNICEF 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."[126] This stance has been largely echoed by Western medical and political authorities.[citation needed] ARoyal 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 outerlabia are stitched together and theclitoris is removed. However, there are less extreme forms of FGM, in which only the foreskin of the clitoris is removed."[127] This type of mutilation that removes the prepuce, also known as theclitoral hood, is called Type Ia.[128]
In the United States, the organization MGMbill.org has sent a proposed bill to theUS 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 andintersex children.[118]
Though the issue of infant circumcision is generally not discussed by U.S. politicians,[129] 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.[130] 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 theAmerican Civil Liberties Union and theAmerican 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.[131][132] 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 governorJerry Brown signed a law preventing localities in California from banning circumcision.[133]
In 2019, then-candidate for the2020 Democratic presidential nominationAndrew Yang declared himself "[a]gainst the practice" of routine infant circumcision.[134] 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.[129]
The Voluntary MedicalMale Circumcision (VMMC) anti-HIV programme started in 2007 aims at administrating medicalised male circumcision as an anti-HIV policy. Between then and 2023 more than 35 millionadolescents and men had been circumcised via the program in 15 countries -Botswana,eSwatini,Ethiopia,Kenya,Lesotho,Malawi,Mozambique,Namibia,Rwanda,South Africa,South Soudan,Uganda,United Republic of Tanzania,Zambia andZimbabwe.[135] Researchers from different disciplines have raised concerns regarding the way the policy has been communicated, for example by presenting the practice as a socially neutral “technical” act despite it producing (potentially problematic)social norms.[136]
For example, researchers criticize the idea that some doctors have suggested that VMMC is ‘as good as theHIV vaccine’[137] or works as a ‘naturalcondom’.[138] More broadly, scholars show that the communication of VMMC is unethical and contradicts medical evidence. For example, in their analysis of “Stand Proud, Get Circumcised”, apublic health campaign promoting circumcision as anHIV-prevention strategy in Uganda, Rudrum et al. found that the campaign's materials “exploit male anxieties about appearance and performance, drawing onhegemonic masculinity to promote circumcision as an idealised body aesthetic”.[139] In their work combining atransnational history of medicalised male circumcision and an analysis of International Organisations documents promoting VMMC, Alejandro and Feldman show that medicalised male circumcision “is represented as an enhancer ofvirility, sexual pleasure and sexual performance”.[140] For instance, they cite a ‘creative brief’ in Swaziland (noweSwatini), Population Services International that emphasises the interest in saying circumcised men ‘can last longer during sex and please their girlfriends, their penises look larger, etc.’:
While at this point, we certainly don’t want a campaign that promotes this as the sole reason to go for circumcision, it would still be nice to be able to use this pre-existing perception to our marketing advantage.[141]
Opposition to circumcision[142] exists amongJews inIsrael. Protests for children's rights have occurred there.[143] Even though there is often pressure from family on parents to circumcise their sons, "more and more families" are preferring to abstain from circumcision.[144] The alternative practice toBrit milah that does not involve circumcision isBrit shalom.
In theXhosa areas ofSouth 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 theEastern Cape Province alone, 80 boys died and hundreds were hospitalized after attending initiation schools.[145] The controversy looked set to spread in 2010 to theZulu, whose present-dayking Goodwill Zwelithini has called for the reintroduction of customary circumcision after it was banned by Zulu kingShaka in the 19th century.[146] Similar issues, though on a smaller scale, have arisen with traditional circumcision ofAborigines in remote areas of centralAustralia.[147]
On 26 June 2012, a court inCologne, 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".[148] 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"[149] published byHolm Putzke, a German law professor at the University of Passau.[150][151] 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.[152] A broad majority of German lawmakers passed a resolution askingAngela 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, theBundestag adopted a law explicitly permitting non-therapeutic circumcision to be performed under certain conditions by a vote of 434–100, with 46 abstentions.[153]
Muslim men's opposition against male circumcision in Turkey maintains a strong connection with religious responsibilities and masculinity construction in Turkey.[154][155] It's illegal in Turkey to perform circumcision on boys between the ages of two and six to prevent psychological trauma.[citation needed]
 | This section'suse ofexternal links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Pleaseimprove this article by removingexcessive orinappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate intofootnote references.(August 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Anti-circumcision activists, sometimes calledintactivists (a portmanteau ofintact andactivist),[156] consider circumcision to be genital mutilation, and celebrate the foreskin as a natural, beneficial, and functional part of the penis.[156] Various organisations have been set up specifically for the purpose, and other organizations have stated their support for the movement.
| Name | Founded | Region served | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bloodstained Men & Their Friends (BSM)[157] | 2012 | United States | Known for public protests in white overalls with bloodstains around their crotches.[158] |
| Children's Health and Human Rights Partnership | 2012 | Canada | Application of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
| Circumcision Resource Center | 1991 | United States | "Our nonprofit educational organization raises awareness, helps healing, and informs about sexual, psychological, and traumatic effects, medical issues, and cultural bias." |
| Circumstitions — The Intactivism Pages | 1994 | New Zealand | The focus is on the intact male. |
| Doctors Opposing Circumcision | 1995 | United States | Publishes medical information regarding non-therapeutic male circumcision. Based inSeattle, Washington. |
| Genital Autonomy America (GAA) | 1985 | United States | Merged with Intact America in 2021. Previously called National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC). Based inSan Anselmo, California. |
| Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF) | 2022 | United States | Genital autonomy advocates and legal professionals pursuing impact litigation to protect children's bodily integrity rights. |
| Intact America | 2008 | United States | Intact America is the largest organization working to end child genital cutting. Based inTarrytown, New York. |
| Intact Australia | 2012 | Australia | Defense of human rights of boys |
| Intaction[159] | 2010 | United States | Based inBrooklyn,New York. |
| IntactiWiki | 2014 | World | Information resource. |
| intaktiv e.V. – eine Stimme für genitale Selbstbestimmung (German: A Voice for Genital Autonomy) | 2013 | Germany | Is a registered charity since November 2013 Based inMainz.[160] |
| Jews Against Circumcision (JAC) | 2011 | World | |
| Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them) (J4MB) | 2013 | United Kingdom | 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.[161] |
| Men Do Complain (MDC)[162] | 2012 | United Kingdom | Based inLondon. |
| NORM-UK, operating as "15Square"[163][164][165] | 1994 | United Kingdom | Based inStone, Staffordshire.[166] |
| Seminal Church | 2020 | World | The Seminal Church actively opposes both male and female circumcision worldwide. It commits time and funding toward ending the practice of circumcision worldwide.[167] |
| Your Whole Baby | 2014 | United States | "Your Whole Baby's mission is to provide parents-to-be and healthcare providers about the functions and care of the foreskin..."[168] |
| Genital Autonomy Collective | 2022 | United States & Global | Focus on solidarity in resistingFemale,Male, andIntersex Genital Mutilation. Explicitlytransgender inclusive. |
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[permanent dead link]{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)Circumcisedbarbarians, along with any others who revealed theglans penis, were the butt of ribaldhumor. ForGreek 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 asepispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
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.
Henceforth, let us not be circumcised like the Jews. We know that He who had to fulfil the law and the prophets has already come.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involvednudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ("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 ofAntiochus 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.
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.
it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision
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.
إلا أنه قد جرت العادة عند الأقباطحتى اليوم أن يتم ختان الذكر قبل تعميده بغية منفعة صحية، وليس تتميمًا لشريعة دينية. وتذكر قوانين البابا كيرلس ابن لقلق (1235-1243 م) هذا الأمر
And concerning circumcision, we are not circumcised as the Jews, because we know the words of Paul the spring of wisdom, who saith, 'Circumcision availeth not, and uncircumcision availeth not, but rather a new creature, which is, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.' And again he saith to the men of Corinth, 'He that hath received circumcision, let him not receive uncircumcision.' All the books of the doctrine of Paul are in our hands, and teach us concerning circumcision and uncircumcision. But the circumcision that is practised amongst us is according to the custom of the country, like the tattooing of the face in Ethiopia and Nubia and the piercing of the ear amongst the Indians. And what we do (we do) not in observance of the Law of Moses, but according to the custom of men.
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
male circumcision is still observed among Ethiopian and Coptic Christians, and circumcision rates are also high today in the Philippines and the US.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 inFrankfurt 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 formetsitsah. 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 outmetsitsah bypipette, 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 astuberculosis andsyphilis through the custom ofmetsitsah 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.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Media related toAnti-circumcision at Wikimedia Commons