Circumcision is claimed to be healthier for men. But is it really?

Some parents believe circumcision is the right choice. Here are common myths—and why letting the child decide later makes more sense.
 

Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

Reality check: The foreskin actually supports female sexual pleasure. It helps retain natural lubrication and creates a smooth gliding motion during intercourse, reducing friction and allowing internal stimulation. Intact men also tend to make shorter, more connected thrusts, maintaining contact with the clitoris—which supports orgasm (O'Hara, 1999). A circumcised penis moves like a piston: the exposed head removes vaginal lubrication with each stroke, often causing dryness and discomfort (O'Hara, 1999; Bensley, 2001). Far from improving sex, circumcision decreases pleasure. It removes sensitive tissue and causes the glans to toughen, reducing sensation. Many men circumcised in adulthood report a clear loss in sexual enjoyment (Fink, 1988). A Danish study found circumcised men were three times more likely to have difficulty reaching orgasm. Women with circumcised partners were twice as likely to be sexually unsatisfied, three times more likely to struggle with orgasm, and eight times more likely to feel pain during sex. The loss of the foreskin’s gliding function plays a key role in these outcomes (Frisch et al., 2011).

Myth: A circumcised penis is easier to keep clean.

Reality check: Hygiene is one of the most common reasons given for circumcision, but the experience of 85% of men worldwide who are intact shows that cleaning an intact penis is just as simple. Imagine thinking that surgery is the solution to poor hygiene — that’s not cleanliness, it’s laziness. A man who doesn’t wash his penis will have a dirty penis, whether he’s circumcised or not. Washing a penis takes seconds, regardless of whether he has a foreskin. If that’s too much trouble, circumcision isn’t the answer. A shower is. Circumcision doesn’t clean a man — washing does.
 

Myth: Everyone is circumcised.

Reality check: Circumcised men are a global minority. Worldwide, only about 30% of men are circumcised, and most of them are Muslim (WHO, 2007). For example, in Europe, the circumcision rate is around 10–15% (Morris et al., 2016), and a significant portion of those circumcised men are immigrants from Muslim communities. Without the Muslim population, the circumcision rate in Europe would likely be 1-2 %. Simply put, circumcision of healthy boys is not an acceptable practice among Europeans.
 

Myth: Circumcision improves sexual pleasure for the man.

Reality check: This idea often stems from adult men with phimosis, a rare condition where the foreskin is too tight to retract, reducing sexual pleasure. After circumcision, these men may notice a boost because the glans can finally be exposed and make direct contact with vaginal walls during intercourse, which wasn’t possible before. But what if they could regain foreskin mobility while keeping their foreskin? Non-surgical treatments, like steroid creams or gentle stretching, can often loosen the foreskin, restoring exposure and sensitivity while preserving its natural gliding motion and protective role. If those don’t work, a partial circumcision—removing only the tight tip of the foreskin—offers a better alternative to a full circumcision, maintaining more of the foreskin’s benefits.

However, men with a healthy foreskin that pulls back easily report worse sexual experiences after circumcision. A study found that men circumcised as adults felt their sex life worsened years later, with 48% reporting less pleasure during masturbation (Kim & Pang, 2007). Another study showed that men circumcised as adults had reduced sexual pleasure, lower orgasm intensity, and needed more effort to reach orgasm, with effects assessed years after surgery, often beyond two years (Bronselaer et al., 2013). After circumcision, the glans is very sensitive for weeks or months. But because it is always exposed and rubs against clothing, it becomes dry and develops thicker skin, called keratinization, which reduces sensation (Bronselaer et al., 2013). Some men compare sex after circumcision to wearing multiple condoms, needing more stimulation to feel aroused, which can increase the risk of erection problems. A Danish study found that circumcised men were three times less likely to achieve orgasm, with effects persisting years later (Frisch et al., 2011). The foreskin’s inner layer, removed during circumcision, has sensitive nerve endings essential for pleasure (Sorrells et al., 2007). Removing this tissue reduces sexual sensation. The body’s natural design includes the foreskin for a reason, and removing it lowers pleasure. When the foreskin covers the glans, the surface stays soft, moist, and sensitive—like the inside of the cheek. After circumcision, the glans is exposed all the time. The skin becomes dry and thicker—like the skin on the back of the hand.
 

Myth: Circumcision is necessary to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs).

Reality check: UTIs are rare in boys, easily treated, and don’t require surgery. By age 12, about 1–2% of uncircumcised boys get a UTI, compared to 0.1–0.2% of circumcised boys (Oster, 1968). That means between 100 and 200 boys would need to be circumcised just to prevent a single infection — one that is typically mild and easily treated with antibiotics.
Proper care helps prevent infection without surgery. Surgery shouldn’t be the first choice to prevent something rare and manageable.Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.
 

Myth: Circumcision prevents many diseases.

Reality check: Most medical guidelines recommend it only as a last-resort treatment for recurrent balanitis and BXO.
Balanitis is an inflammation of the glans (head of the penis), which can occur in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. While more common in uncircumcised boys, the overall risk is low, with a prevalence of less than 1% in school-aged uncircumcised boys (Leung, 2024). Most cases respond well to non-surgical treatments like improved hygiene, topical corticosteroids, or antifungals. Circumcision is typically only recommended for those with recurrent, treatment-resistant infections. To prevent just one case of recurrent balanitis, more than 100 boys would need to be circumcised (Leung, 2024).
BXO (Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans), or penile lichen sclerosus, is a rare condition affecting about 0.1–0.3% of males (Andrich & Mundy, 2020). While circumcision may be necessary for severe cases, it is not recommended as a routine preventive measure. To prevent one case of BXO, over 333–1,000 boys would need to be circumcised (Andrich & Mundy, 2020).

Foreskin infections, like balanitis, are rare and can be easily treated with antibiotics or better hygiene, similar to infections in other body parts. The idea that circumcision is required to prevent these infections is like claiming teeth should be removed to avoid cavities. Routine circumcision to prevent rare, treatable infections is unnecessary and removes a healthy body part that most men worldwide retain without issues (Milos & Macris, 1992).

So, do we really need to circumcise hundreds of healthy boys to possibly prevent one from developing a condition that may never occur—or could be treated effectively if it does? Wouldn't it make more sense to let those few individuals decide for themselves later if needed?

 

Myth: Circumcision prevents penile cancer, making it a necessary procedure for health.

Reality check: Penile cancer is extremely rare—fewer than 1 in 100,000 men are diagnosed each year in the U.S., whether they are circumcised or not (Snyder, 1989). Worldwide, the age-standardized rate is about 0.8 per 100,000 men annually. Over 99% of these cancers are squamous cell carcinomas, the type most often linked to high-risk HPV infection (Gellis, 1978). Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a key driver of penile squamous cell carcinoma. After HPV vaccination—which can prevent approximately 40–50% of HPV-associated penile cancers—the risk drops to around 0.4–0.5 cases per 100,000 men per year, effectively cutting the original rate in half (Frisch et al., 2013).

You can further reduce your risk by:

• Quitting smoking
   

• Getting the HPV vaccine (part of standard childhood immunization programs)
   

• Maintaining good genital hygiene—washing the penis takes only seconds, whether circumcised or not
   

• Ensuring the foreskin can be retracted and the glans rinsed with water during showering; if the foreskin is too tight (phimosis), it can usually be treated with a prescribed steroid cream or a minor non-surgical procedure, rather than circumcision
   

More men die each year from complications of circumcision than from penile cancer itself (Gellis, 1978). Approximately 20 newborn deaths occur annually in the U.S. due to circumcision complications, such as hemorrhage or infection (Earp, 2015). With 1.166 million circumcisions performed each year, this equates to 1.72 deaths per 100,000 circumcisions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010; Martin et al., 2011). Globally, by comparison, an estimated 4–6 deaths per 100,000 circumcisions occur. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement suggesting that infant circumcision may offer health benefits, including a reduced risk of penile cancer. However, international medical professionals criticized the report for lacking strong scientific evidence and for being influenced by cultural norms in the U.S. rather than sound medical reasoning (Frisch et al., 2013). They also pointed out the obvious: infants do not get penile cancer.
Bottom line: Circumcision is not a medically justified solution for preventing penile cancer. Real protection comes from HPV vaccination, good hygiene, and appropriate medical treatment—not from removing healthy tissue unnecessarily.
 

Myth: Circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Although most sexually active men in the U.S. are circumcised, the country still faces high rates of STIs, including HIV. Promoting circumcision as disease prevention sends a flawed message—removing healthy tissue is not a substitute for safe sex. Consistent condom use remains far more effective. The belief that circumcision lowers HIV risk comes from three sub-Saharan African studies (Auvert et al., 2005; Bailey et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007), which found up to a 60% reduced risk in heterosexual men. However, these trials had major limitations: they were stopped early, involved adult volunteers, and their findings and don't reflect HIV transmission patterns in countries like the U.S (Connolly et al., 2008; Jameson et al., 2009). Alarmingly, media coverage of these studies led some men to believe circumcision replaces the need for condoms, which may actually increase HIV transmission (Westercamp & Bailey, 2007). A 2020 meta-analysis confirmed circumcision offers little to no benefit in low-prevalence regions with access to HIV education and prevention tools (Mao et al., 2020). There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and of course no one would ever advocate doing this to a baby. In contrast, the global lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall, 2008). How, then, can we justify performing circumcision on baby boys as a preventive measure?
 

Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

Reality check: Studies show women don’t always prefer circumcised men, and some suggest uncircumcised partners are better. A US study found 85% of women who had sex with both types of men liked uncircumcised men more, saying it caused less pain, dryness, and trouble with orgasm (O'Hara, 1999). Women were also twice as likely to orgasm with an uncircumcised partner (Bensley, 2003). A Danish study found women with circumcised partners had twice the chance of not feeling satisfied, three times the chance of often struggling to orgasm, and eight times the chance of pain during sex. These issues came from the missing foreskin, which helps sex feel smoother, more enjoyable, and less painful (Frisch et al., 2011). Even women who said they preferred circumcised men felt less dryness and pain with uncircumcised partners (O'Hara, 1999).
Conclusion: The myth is wrong. Women often say sex with uncircumcised men feels better, with less pain, more wetness, and easier orgasms, based on several studies.

 

Myth: Being circumcised doesn’t affect my sex life.

Reality check: Circumcised men may last longer in bed, but this comes with a downside: they are 4.5 times more likely to face erectile dysfunction and rely on drugs like Viagra (Bollinger, 2010; Tang, 2011). This happens because circumcision removes the foreskin, which protects the sensitive head of the penis (glans), keeping it sensitive, and contains nerve-rich areas like the frenulum and ridged band that heighten sexual pleasure (Cold, 1999). Without the foreskin, the glans is constantly exposed, leading to a process called keratinization, where it develops a thin layer of hard, dead skin over time, much like a callus (Fink, 1988). This makes the penis less sensitive as men age.

This reduced sensitivity explains why circumcised men may last longer during sex, but it also makes reaching orgasm harder. Some men thrust more forcefully to compensate, which can cause pain or discomfort for their partner (Frisch et al., 2011). This sensitivity loss affects not just sensation but overall sexual function. For example, men circumcised as adults report weaker erections and less pleasure, and their partners often feel less satisfied with sex (Kim, 2007; Solinis, 2007).
Some men choose foreskin restoration to regain the foreskin lost in circumcision. This process aims to restore the foreskin, which results in a sensitive, glossy glans, a sensitive inner foreskin, and easier erections, helping recover some of the natural sensation and function of the penis.
 

Myth: The foreskin is unimportant, so circumcision is no loss.

Reality check: The foreskin is essential for protecting the penis at all ages. In infants and children, it forms a snug hood that shields the sensitive glans from urine, fecal ammonia, and diaper irritation, helping prevent inflammation and meatal stenosis.  In adults, it continues to protect the glans from chronic abrasion, keeping the glans sensitive over a lifetime. Around 70% of men worldwide have foreskins and see them as a sensitive, essential part of the penis. Choosing circumcision for your son repeats a loss you experienced, denying him a natural part of his body.
 

Myth: Women with circumcised partners have a lower risk of cervical cancer.

Reality check: This claim originates from flawed studies in the 1950s. Modern research shows no consistent link between a man’s foreskin and his partner’s cervical cancer risk. In fact, earlier studies, such as those by Wallerstein (1980), found that Muslim women—whose partners are typically circumcised—had higher rates of cervical cancer than non-circumcising groups like the Parsis of India. However, a more recent study from 2012 contradicts this, showing that Muslim women actually have lower rates of cervical cancer compared to Hindu women, suggesting that factors other than circumcision may play a role. These conflicting findings indicate that research on this topic is not yet settled. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, evidence linking circumcision to reduced cervical cancer is unclear (AAP, 2012).

 

Myth: All circumcised men are happy with their circumcision and have no issues.

Reality check: Many circumcised men feel a deep sense of loss and dissatisfaction over what was taken from them. While those circumcised in infancy have no baseline for comparison, men circumcised later in life often describe a significant loss in sensation and sexual enjoyment. Intactivist groups, including NORM, Intact America, and Doctors Opposing Circumcision, work to end non-medical circumcision of boys and provide information to parents. Many men choose to restore their foreskin through manual techniques or foreskin restoration devices—an ancient practice aimed at regaining sensation and a natural appearance. Notably, men who were circumcised as adults and later chose to restore their foreskin using devices or manual tugging often report regaining around 70–90% of their original sensitivity. Once the glans and remaining inner foreskin are re-covered and protected, they tend to become significantly more sensitive again. Men who restore often report improved self-esteem and sexual function, showing that not all circumcised men are satisfied (Rubin, 1980; Bigelow & Griffiths, 1991).
 

Myth: “Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma”.

Reality check: Smegma is a natural substance produced by both male and female genitals during the reproductive years and serves to lubricate the foreskin and glans in men, as well as the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. With normal hygiene, smegma is easily washed away and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.
 

Myth: Circumcision can't cause the baby long-term harm.

Reality check: The procedure carries both immediate surgical risks and lasting consequences. Short-term complications can include:

• Bleeding: Infants have a lower total blood volume, making them vulnerable to life-threatening blood loss.

• Infection: Poor hygiene or technique can lead to necrosis or sepsis.

• Glans amputation: Surgical error may result in partial or total loss of the penis head.

• Difficult follow-up: Small children can’t express pain or symptoms, making infections harder to detect.

• Meatal stenosis: This is a narrowing of the urethral opening that can make urination difficult. In some cases, it requires surgery to correct.

• Adhesions: Circumcised infants can develop adhesions, where the remaining foreskin tissue sticks to the head of the penis in places it shouldn't, potentially causing complications.

• Buried penis: If too much skin is removed during circumcision, it can cause the penis to become trapped or pulled inward into the body—a condition known as a buried penis (Thorup, Thorup, & Ifaoui, 2013).
   

Over the long term, circumcision may lead to decreased sexual pleasure, erectile dysfunction, and reduced sensitivity for the man, while women with circumcised partners often experience painful intercourse and vaginal dryness (Frisch et al., 2011). 
 

Myth: Circumcision only removes a tiny bit of skin.

Reality check: The foreskin isn’t just a small flap—it actually makes up about half of the skin on the penis. It consists of two layers: an outer layer that covers the glans (head) and an inner layer that becomes visible when the foreskin is pulled back. When fully retracted, it’s clear how much skin it really is—much more than most people think.
 

Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it’s hard to keep a baby’s penis clean.

Reality check: In infants, the foreskin is naturally fused to the head (glans) of the penis, protecting it from feces and infection. It should never be retracted—just gently wiped like a finger. Trying to clean underneath can cause pain and injury, comparable to cleaning inside a baby girl’s vagina.

The foreskin usually separates on its own between age 3 and puberty. Once it becomes retractable, boys typically rinse underneath during baths or showers. No soap is needed—plain water is enough. After rinsing, it’s important to gently dry the foreskin and glans to prevent moisture buildup that could cause irritation. This basic hygiene routine is followed by 85% of men globally who remain uncircumcised (Wallerstein, 1985), showing that intact penises are easy to care for. As one parent put it, “It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than care for their penises”

 

Myth: Circumcision doesn’t hurt babies, and it’s better to do it young because they heal faster and feel less pain.

Reality check: Many people think circumcision hurts more as an adult than as a baby, but that’s not true. Babies can’t express their pain, but studies show it affects them physically and emotionally, with effects lasting beyond infancy (Milos & Macris, 1992).
Babies feel intense pain during circumcision, especially without proper anesthesia. Studies show newborns cry more, have higher pain scores, and react strongly to later vaccinations, indicating lasting stress (Taddio et al., 1995; Taddio et al., 1997). While children’s skin may heal quickly, complications like bleeding, infection, and excess tissue removal occur in 5–10% of cases, higher than the 2% rate in adults.  The open wound hurts for up to two weeks, especially during urination, diaper changes, or when held tightly. Adults benefit from better anesthesia, can communicate pain, and follow care instructions, making circumcision less risky and painful for them (Thorup et al., 2013; World Health Organization, 2020). Most men never need circumcision, so the assumption that it’s inevitable is wrong. If circumcision is needed later for medical reasons, adults can give consent, understand the procedure, and benefit from being able to tell when they need painrelief. Infants, however, feel intense pain without the ability to consent or cope, making newborn circumcision less justified (Milos & Macris, 1992). Adult circumcision is very common and proves that the procedure can always wait until a person is an adult, as there’s no evidence at all to suggest it’s better to circumcise a child when they’re young.
 

Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult."

Reality check: In the past, many doctors incorrectly advised parents to forcibly retract a baby’s foreskin and clean underneath, which caused injury, scarring, and infections. This misinformation, especially common in the mid-20th century, likely contributed to the problems often cited in stories “about someone’s uncle.” In reality, the foreskin is self-cleaning and should be left alone in early childhood—just like no one would clean inside a baby girl’s vagina.
 

Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it’s hard to keep a baby’s penis clean.

Reality check: In infants, the foreskin is naturally fused to the head (glans) of the penis, protecting it from feces and infection. It should never be retracted—just gently wiped like a finger. Trying to clean underneath can cause pain and injury, comparable to cleaning inside a baby girl’s vagina.

The foreskin usually separates on its own between age 3 and puberty. Once it becomes retractable, boys typically rinse underneath during baths or showers. No soap is needed—plain water is enough. After rinsing, it’s important to gently dry the foreskin and glans to prevent moisture buildup that could cause irritation. This basic hygiene routine is followed by 85% of men globally who remain uncircumcised (Wallerstein, 1985), showing that intact penises are easy to care for. As one parent put it, “It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than care for their penises”

 

​Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised.

Reality check: Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children's foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. In young boys, the foreskin is usually still adhered to the glans and should not be forcibly retracted. This natural attachment gradually loosens over time — by around age 10 most boys can retract the foreskin, and by age 16, nearly all can. Forced retraction can lead to pain, injury, and infection. Gentle washing with warm water on the outside is enough; there’s no need to clean under the foreskin in young children. Once the foreskin separates naturally, simple rinsing under warm water and drying it thoroughly afterwards is all that’s needed for hygiene. Phimosis among adult can be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin or a partial circumcision, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003).
Kids’ foreskins open naturally over time, so phimosis isn’t a real issue in boys and circumcision is an unneeded, harmful step
 

Myth: A boy should be circumcised to look like his circumcised father or brother.

Reality check: There’s no need for a boy’s genitals to match his father’s or brother’s for bonding—mothers and sons bond without it. Parents can explain differences by saying, “When your dad was born, people thought circumcision was needed, but now we know it’s not.” Many families stop circumcising after one son, realizing it’s not needed. If you circumcised your first son but not the second, you can explain it the same way.  If the father is fine with being circumcised, he can’t know how his son will feel about circumcision as an adult because he never experienced having a foreskin and is likely operating from a psychological position of needing to believe that what was done to him was beneficial/ important. Parents have a duty to research circumcision and make informed choices for their child’s well-being, not just follow what was done to them. Choosing circumcision to match the father’s penis or to avoid trusting the boy’s future judgment prioritizes the father’s ego over the boy’s rights. It’s the boy’s body, so he should decide when he’s old enough.


 

Cultural Circumcision: Global Perspectives

Circumcision practices widely across the globe, shaped by historical, cultural, and medical influences. Below is an overview of circumcision in key regions, highlighting prevalence, cultural drivers, and current trends.
 

United States

In the USA, circumcision became widespread during the 20th century, largely due to campaigns promoting it as a means to improve hygiene and control sexuality, including as a so-called "cure" for masturbation, promoted by figures such as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. At its peak in the mid-20th century, newborn circumcision rates reached 80–90%. Today, the rate has declined to approximately 55–60%, with regional variations—higher in the Midwest and lower on the West Coast. This downward trend reflects growing skepticism about medical necessity and increased awareness of bodily autonomy. More parents are choosing to leave their sons intact, mirroring a global trend away from routine circumcision.
 

Canada

Canada’s circumcision history parallels that of the USA, with rates peaking at 60–70% in the mid-20th century due to similar medical and cultural influences. However, the Canadian Paediatric Society has not recommended routine circumcision since the 1970s, emphasizing that it lacks medical justification for healthy boys. Current circumcision rates are around 30–40%, with significant regional variation—lower in Quebec and higher in Ontario. Public health campaigns and a multicultural population have contributed to a steady decline, with many parents opting against the procedure in favor of bodily autonomy.
 

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, circumcision is not a cultural norm and is primarily performed within religious or ethnic communities, such as Muslim and Jewish populations. Historically, circumcision was more common in the early 20th century, but rates dropped after the National Health Service ceased funding non-medical circumcisions in 1948. Today, the circumcision rate is estimated at 5–10%. The NHS does not offer routine circumcision for healthy boys, and the British Medical Association recommends it only in rare medical cases—such as recurring infections or BXO unresponsive to treatment—and only with parental consent.
 

Australia

Australia historically followed the British model, with high circumcision rates (around 70–80%) in the mid-20th century due to colonial influence and medical recommendations. Since the 1980s, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has stopped recommending routine circumcision, citing insufficient medical benefits for healthy boys. Today, circumcision rates are low, around 10–15%, with higher prevalence in private hospitals and among certain cultural or religious groups. The broader trend shows a significant decline as parents increasingly view circumcision as unnecessary.
 

France and Germany

In France and Germany, circumcision is rare outside religious contexts, primarily among Muslim and Jewish communities, with an overall circumcision rate of 1–2% among non-religious populations. In France, the procedure is not covered by public health insurance unless medically necessary. In Germany, a notable legal development occurred in June 2012, when the Cologne Regional Court ruled that circumcising young boys constitutes criminal bodily harm, even with parental consent. This decision sparked controversy, with religious groups arguing it infringes on religious freedom and parental rights. However, many Germans contend that true religious freedom for a child includes the right to choose their own religious beliefs when they are older, rather than having irreversible decisions imposed in infancy. The German parliament later passed a law in December 2012 allowing circumcision for religious reasons when performed by trained practitioners, effectively overturning the Cologne court’s ruling. No major medical organization in either country recommends routine circumcision for healthy boys, and both the German Medical Association and French National Consultative Ethics Committee discourage non-therapeutic circumcision, emphasizing bodily autonomy.
 

Europe’s Medical Stance

No medical organization in any European country recommends routine circumcision for healthy boys. Organizations like the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and the Danish Medical Association discourage non-therapeutic circumcision, citing ethical concerns about bodily autonomy and minimal health benefits. Some mistakenly believe that circumcision is widely recommended for preventing infections, but medical circumcision is only recommended in rare cases, such as rare cases of tight foreskin after puberty that don’t respond to creams or stretching, repeated infections like balanitis that can’t be managed with hygiene or medicine, or a chronic skin condition called Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans. These conditions affect less than 1–2% of boys, and non-surgical treatments are typically effective. In countries like Denmark and Sweden, proposals to ban non-medical circumcision for minors have been debated, though not enacted, due to pressure from Jewish and Muslim organizations. The European consensus prioritizes that there must be a clear medical indication for the procedure and informed consent.
 

Global Trends

Globally, about 30% of men are circumcised, primarily in Muslim-majority countries, the USA, and parts of Africa. Outside of religious contexts, the practice is increasingly questioned, and routine circumcision is losing ground in many Western countries in favor of medical ethics and personal choice.
 

Religious Circumcision – What You Might Not Know

 

Circumcision In Islam

For many Muslim families, male circumcision has long been viewed as a religious obligation. However, a close examination of Islamic sources shows that circumcision is neither commanded in the Qur'an nor part of the Five Pillars of Islam.
 

There is both theological and ethical space for Muslims to choose not to circumcise their sons—out of faithfulness to Islam and respect for the child’s bodily integrity.
 

Qur’an Does Not Require Circumcision

While the Qur’an clearly commands prayer (ṣalāh), fasting (ṣawm), charity (zakāt), the declaration of faith (shahāda), and pilgrimage (ḥajj), it never mentions circumcision.
 

Instead, the Qur’an emphasizes the perfection of human creation:
 

"We have certainly created man in the best of stature."
— Qur’an 95:4 [¹]
 

"It is He who formed you and perfected your form."
— Qur’an 40:64 (also 64:3) [¹]
 

These verses remind us that the human body is already beautifully and perfectly made by God. Performing surgery on a healthy child without medical need may contradict this principle.
 

A Practice Rooted in Hadith — Not in the Qur’an

Support for circumcision mainly comes from hadith—the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. However, hadith are secondary sources in Islamic jurisprudence, and their interpretation differs among scholars.

For example, the Hanafi school, the largest Sunni legal tradition, classifies circumcision as recommended but not mandatory (mandūb). This means a Muslim can opt out without compromising their faith [²].
 

Children’s Rights and Bodily Integrity

From both an Islamic and ethical standpoint, a growing number of scholars and thinkers argue that a child’s body should be left intact until they are mature enough to make an informed decision.

Scholars such as Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic law at UCLA, emphasize the importance of bodily autonomy and ethical restraint within Islamic jurisprudence, stating that:
 

“There is no justification in Shari'a to impose a permanent bodily change on a child unless it is medically necessary.” [⁶]
 

Similarly, the organization Muslims for Progressive Values advocates for individual consent in bodily matters and argues that religious rituals such as circumcision should be deferred until the individual can choose freely, in line with Islamic principles of dignity (karama) and the legal maxim of no harm (la darar wa la dirar) [⁷].
 

Islamic reformers such as Hassan al-Turabi and Dr. Mohammad Al-Haj Yousef have also supported re-examining traditional practices through the lens of modern ethical standards. Through ijtihad (independent reasoning), they argue that the objectives of Sharia (maqasid al-sharia)—which include the protection of life, dignity, and bodily integrity—may justify postponing non-therapeutic circumcision until adulthood [⁸].
 

Circumcision carries medical risks such as glans damage, infections, sepsis, and gangrene. Removal of excessive foreskin can lead to painful, tight erections due to insufficient skin to accommodate an erection. It is also well documented that the absence of foreskin causes the glans to become dry, resulting in a significant reduction in sensitivity and an increased risk of erectile dysfunction. Islam teaches the principle:
 

“There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.”
(Hadith: la ḍarar wa lā ḍirār) [³]
 

Internationally, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 24.3) calls for the end of harmful traditional practices affecting children’s health [⁵]. Today, male circumcision is part of broader discussions on bodily autonomy and freedom of religion [⁴].
 

A Muslim Identity Does Not Require Circumcision

Your child is still a Muslim without circumcision. Belief in God and His Messenger, prayer, fasting, and good character are what define Islamic faith.
 

Circumcision is not one of Islam’s Five Pillars, and not mentioned in the Qur’an. It is a cultural and historical tradition—not a divine command. In modern times, choosing not to circumcise can be a conscious and ethical choice—guided by faith, reason, and compassion. It does not distance you or your child from Islam.

 

Circumcision In Judaism

 

For many Jewish parents, circumcision (brit milah) may seem like an unchangeable tradition. However, history reveals that the ritual has not always been performed as it is today. The original Biblical circumcision was far less invasive, involving only the removal of the protruding tip of the foreskin, the small part extending beyond the glans, leaving the rest of the foreskin intact. Over time, this symbolic act evolved into a more extensive procedure. This change was not commanded in the Torah but was introduced by later rabbinic authorities in response to cultural pressures. Today, a growing number of Jewish families are choosing Brit Shalom, a peaceful, non-cutting covenant ceremony that preserves the spiritual meaning of the tradition while respecting the child’s bodily integrity.
 

The Original Circumcision: Milah

In the time of Abraham, circumcision (milah, מִילָה) involved removing only the protruding tip of the foreskin, the small part that extended beyond the glans. The glans remained essentially covered, with just the tip visible¹. This fulfilled the symbolic covenant without radically altering the body.
 

This minimal procedure was consistent with cultural norms at the time. In fact, Michelangelo’s statue of David—crafted during the Renaissance—depicts the Biblical hero with the glans covered except at the tip. Scholars have argued this is exactly how David would have looked following an infant milah².
 

Hellenistic Influence and Foreskin Restoration

During the Hellenistic period (circa 300 BCE–100 CE), Jewish men lived among Greeks and Romans, where modesty norms required men to keep their glans fully covered. A long foreskin was considered aesthetically proper, especially in public bathhouses and athletic spaces³.
 

To avoid social stigma, many Hellenized Jews began non-surgical foreskin restoration (epispasm) by stretching the remaining tissue over time. This method allowed them to “pass” as uncircumcised without violating Jewish identity⁴.
 

This trend concerned rabbinic authorities, who feared that restored foreskins undermined the covenant. As a result, in the second century CE, rabbis introduced a new, more extreme surgical step: periah (פריעה), meaning “to uncover”⁵.

This added step removing the whole foreskin, fully exposing the glans and making restoration nearly impossible with the restoration methods available at the time. Historian David Gollaher writes:

“Once established, periah was deemed essential... If the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient... Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations.”⁶
 

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion confirms that periah was a later innovation, probably introduced to stop men from reversing the appearance of circumcision⁷.
 

The Torah Does Not Require Periah

Importantly, the Torah only commands milah—the original, minimal circumcision. The shift to full foreskin removal came centuries later through rabbinic expansion, not divine law¹.

For parents seeking to honor the covenant as written in the Torah, modern circumcision may go far beyond what is required.
 

Brit Shalom: A Modern, Ethical Alternative

Today, many Jewish families are choosing Brit Shalom—a covenant ceremony without cutting. It retains the spiritual elements of brit milah—such as blessings and naming—while protecting the child’s bodily integrity.

Brit Shalom:

• Welcomes the child into the Jewish people

• Honors Jewish tradition

• Avoids permanent bodily change

• Reflects values of compassion and autonomy
   

Many Reform, Reconstructionist, and secular Jewish communities offer Brit Shalom as a beautiful and ethical choice.
 

Jewish Identity Does Not Depend on Circumcision

A child is fully Jewish without circumcision. Jewish identity comes from community, culture, ethics, and belonging—not surgery. Circumcision is not part of the Ten Commandments, and periah is not found in the Torah.
 

Choosing Brit Shalom allows parents to stay true to Judaism while respecting their child’s right to an intact body. It's a way to embrace the covenant peacefully—and faithfully.

 

References for "Myth/Reality Check"

• American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. (2012). Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics, 130(3), e756–e785.

• Andrich, D. E., & Mundy, A. R. (2020). Balanitis xerotica obliterans. Australian Journal of General Practice, 49(5), 272–275.

• Ashfield, J., et al. (2003). Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. Journal of Urology, 169(3), 1106–1108.

• Auvert, B., et al. (2005). Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Medicine, 2(11), e298.

• Bailey, R. C., et al. (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 369(9562), 643–656.

• Bensley, G. A., & Boyle, G. J. (2001). Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: An exploratory survey. In G. C. Denniston, F. M. Hodges, & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Understanding circumcision: A multi-disciplinary approach to a multi-dimensional problem (pp. 207–239). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

• Bensley, G., et al. (2003). Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. New Zealand Medical Journal, 116(1181), 595–596.

• Bigelow, J. D., & Griffiths, R. W. (1991). Foreskin restoration from Celsus to the present: Reasons, techniques, and results. Syllabus of Abstracts, The Second International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco, April 30, 1991, 15.

• Bollinger, D. (2010). Lost Boys: An estimate of U.S. circumcision-related infant deaths. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 4(1), 78–90.

• Bronselaer, G. A., Schober, J. M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F., T’Sjoen, G., Vlietinck, R., & Hoebeke, P. B. (2013). Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort. BJU International, 111(5), 820–827.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Trends in in-hospital newborn male circumcision—United States, 1999–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60(34), 1167–1168.

• Cold, C. J., & Taylor, J. R. (1999). The prepuce. BJU International, 83(Suppl. 1), 34–44.

• Connolly, C., Shisana, O., Colvin, M., & Stoker, D. J. (2008). HIV and circumcision in South Africa. PLoS Medicine, 5(11), e263.

• Earp, B. D. (2015). Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks? A critique of the proposed CDC guidelines. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3, Article 18.

• Fink, A. (1988). Circumcision: A parent’s decision for life. Mt. View, CA: Kavanagh.

• Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., & Grønbæk, M. (2011). Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: A survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(5), 1367–1381.

• Frisch, M., Aigrain, Y., Barauskas, V., Bjarnason, R., Boddy, S. A., Czauderna, P., de Gier, R. P. E., de Jong, T. P. V. M., Fasching, G., Fetter, W., Gahr, M., Graugaard, C., Greisen, G., Gunnarsdottir, A., Hartmann, H., Havranek, P., Hitchcock, R., Huddart, S., Janson, S., … Romer, T. (2013). Cultural bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision. Pediatrics, 131(4), 796–800.

• Gellis, S. S. (1978). Circumcision. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 132(12), 1168–1169.

• Gray, R. H., Kigozi, G., Serwadda, D., Makumbi, F., Watya, S., Nalugoda, F., Kiwanuka, N., Moulton, L. H., Chaudhary, M. A., Chen, M. Z., Sewankambo, N. K., Wabwire-Mangen, F., Bacon, M. C., Williams, C. F. M., Opendi, P., Reynolds, S. J., Laeyendecker, O., Quinn, T. C., & Wawer, M. J. (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: A randomised trial. The Lancet, 369(9562), 657–666.

• Hall, H., et al. (2008). Estimating the lifetime risk of a diagnosis of the HIV infection in 33 states, 2005-2005. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49(3), 294–297.

• Jameson, R. (2009). Circumcision and HIV: A flawed theory. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30(3), 320–328.

• Kim, D., & Pang, M. (2007). The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU International, 99(3), 619–622.

• Leung, A. K. C. (2024). Care of the uncircumcised penis. In T. W. Post (Ed.), UpToDate. Wolters Kluwer.

• Mao, L., Kippax, S. C., Holt, M., Prestage, G., Zablotska, I., de Wit, J. B., & Grulich, A. E. (2020). Male circumcision and HIV prevention among men who have sex with men: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS and Behavior, 24(1), 121–135.

• Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Osterman, M. J., Kirmeyer, S., Mathews, T. J., & Wilson, E. C. (2011). Births: Final data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 60(1), 1–72.

• Milos, M., & Macris, D. (1992). Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue? Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 37(2), 87–96.

• Morris, B. J., Wamai, R. G., Henebeng, E. B., Tobian, A. A. R., Klausner, J. D., Banerjee, J., & Hankins, C. A. (2016). Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Population Health Metrics, 14(1), 4.

• O'Hara, K., & O'Hara, J. (1999). The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International, 83(Suppl. 1), 79–84.

• Øster, J. (1968). Further fate of the foreskin. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 43(228), 200–203.

• Rubin, J. P. (1980). Celsus' decircumcision operation. Urology, 16(1), 121.

• Snyder, J. L. (1989). The problem of circumcision in America. The Truth Seeker, 1(3), 40.

• Solinis, I., & Yiannaki, A. (2007). Does circumcision improve couple's sex life? Journal of Men's Health and Gender, 4(3), 361.

• Sorrells, M. L., Snyder, J. L., Reiss, M. D., Eden, C., Milos, M. F., Wilcox, N., & Van Howe, R. S. (2007). Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU International, 99(4), 864–869.

• Taddio, A., Goldbach, M., Ipp, M., Stevens, B., & Koren, G. (1995). Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. The Lancet, 345(8945), 291–292.

• Taddio, A., Katz, J., Ilersich, A. L., & Koren, G. (1997). Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet, 349(9052), 599–603.

• Tang, W. S., & Khoo, E. M. (2011). Prevalence and correlates of premature ejaculation in a primary care setting: A preliminary cross-sectional study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(7), 2071–2078.

• Thorup, J., Thorup, S. C., & Ifaoui, I. B. (2013). Complication rate after circumcision in a paediatric surgical setting should not be neglected. Danish Medical Journal, 60(8), A4681.

• Wallerstein, E. (1985). Circumcision, the uniquely American medical enigma. Urologic Clinics of North America, 12(1), 123–132.

• Westercamp, N., & Bailey, R. C. (2007). Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV infection among men and women in Kenya. AIDS and Behavior, 11(3), 427–437.

• World Health Organization. (2007). Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. Geneva: WHO.

• World Health Organization. (2020). Preventing HIV through safe voluntary medical male circumcision for adolescent boys and men in generalized HIV epidemics. Geneva: WHO.
   

• References for "Circumcision In Islam"

• [¹] Qur’an: 95:4, 40:64, 64:3
  [²] Kamali, M.H. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Islamic Texts Society, 2003.
  [³] Rahman, F. Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1979.
  [⁴] Gatrad, A.R., & Sheikh, A. (2001). Medical ethics and Islam. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 84(1), 72–75.
  [⁵] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Article 24.3.
  [⁶] Khaled Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001), p. 224.
  [⁷] Muslims for Progressive Values, “Circumcision: A Child’s Right to Bodily Integrity,” , accessed April 2025.
  [⁸] Mohammad Al-Haj Yousef, Islamic Philosophy of Science and the Maqasid al-Shariah Framework (Istanbul: Ihya Publishing, 2018); Hassan al-Turabi, Tajdid al-Fikr al-Islami [Renewal of Islamic Thought] (Beirut: Dar al-Saqi, 1980).
  
   

• References for "Circumcision In Judaism"

• ¹ Shaye J.D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism, University of California Press, 2005.
  ² Darby, Robert. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain, University of Chicago Press, 2005.
  ³ Hodges, Frederick. “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 75, No. 3 (2001), pp. 375–405.
  ⁴ Gollaher, David L. Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery, Basic Books, 2000.
  ⁵ Ibid., pp. 20–25.
  ⁶ Gollaher, ibid., pp. 25–26.
  ⁷ Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. Adele Berlin and Maxine Grossman, Oxford University Press, 2011, entry: “Circumcision.”
  ⁸ Wikipedia contributors, "Brit milah," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah (accessed April 2025).

​​​