All Episodes
Aug. 16, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:33
2453 The Truth About Circumcision

Stefan Molyneux breaks down the truth behind circumcision, including details on the procedure, it's history, rate of occurrence, claimed medical justifications, relation to masturbation, negative consequences and it's morality.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
This is the truth about circumcision, and please, please, if you are going to have children or you have any influence over people who are going to have children, particularly boys, I strongly urge you to take a few minutes, please, and watch this presentation.
It is very, very important.
So, a lot of people, of course, don't really know what circumcision entails.
It's not the mere removal of the foreskin, it's the separation of the foreskin from the glands.
So, this is a nurse who was witnessing, as a student, what was involved in the circumcision.
And she said, we students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread eagle to a plastic board on a countertop across the room.
He was struggling against his restraints, tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly.
I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him.
He began to relax and was momentarily quiet.
The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream, the baby's reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed, as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis.
The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glands, tearing the two structures apart.
The baby started shaking his head back and forth, the only part of his body free to move, As the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise which he then cut.
This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument the device used to protect the glands from being severed during the surgery.
The baby began to gasp and choke breathless from his shrill continuous screams.
During the next stage of the surgery the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then finally Amputated it.
In general this is done, at least until recently, when doctors denied that babies were able to feel pain at all, which is quite mad.
It was performed without anesthetic, now often what is used as a topical anesthetic which does almost nothing to prevent the trauma of this kind of agony and leaves the baby with long-term psychological and physical problems.
So with that in mind, let us start with the introduction.
Male circumcision, of course, is the removal of the foreskin from the human penis.
The foreskin, of course, is evolved or is designed to protect the head of the penis, to enhance sexual pleasure for the man and for the woman, and facilitate intercourse.
The foreskin, on the average adult male, is about 12 square inches of highly erogenous tissue.
Now, of course, for the man, the sensual pleasure is enhanced with the protection and the sensitivity of the foreskin but for the woman as well there's less friction and less discomfort from an uncircumcised penis or a natural penis than there is from a circumcised penis.
This is fairly well established.
Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures Traditionally undertaken as a mark of cultural identity or religious importance, circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed on newborns in the United States.
There has been some controversy, it tends to be diminishing now, about the efficacy and medical value of circumcision.
At no time in its 75-year history has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
Significant legal and ethical questions have been raised concerning informed consent and autonomy over circumcision.
Do we have the right to remove a highly sensitive and incredibly painful to remove body part from a baby without their consent?
So we're going to have a look at the history, ethics, justifications, and prevalence of circumcision.
Let's start with some facts.
So between 70 and 80 percent of the men in the world are intact, are not circumcised.
Most circumcised males are Muslims.
There's no national medical organization in the world that recommends the routine circumcision of male infants.
According to a comprehensive study, newborn responses to pain are, quote, similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects.
They can measure cortisol, other kinds of stress responses and so on, heart rate elevation and so on.
Circumcision for infants is incredibly painful and traumatic.
Some infants do not cry because they go into a traumatic shock from the overwhelming pain of the surgery.
No existing or experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants.
And, of course, you have to remember that baby boys are peeing into diapers, thus putting uric acid against the surgical wound, which is why they scream when placed on their bellies or scream when they urinate.
Various studies have found that short-term effects of circumcision include changed sleep patterns, activity levels, and mother-infant interaction, more irritability, and disruptions in feeding and bonding.
Long-term effects have not been studied.
Changes in pain responses, though, have been demonstrated at six months of age.
So six months afterwards, the boys who were circumstances show changes in pain responses, which means that it has permanently changed Or at least, pretty permanently rewired their neurological system to undergo circumcision.
The rate of complications occurring in the hospital and during the first year has been documented as high as 38%.
So, almost 4 out of 10 boys have some sort of complication.
These include hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death.
Adults, problems with premature ejaculation.
When you don't have a foreskin, I imagine you have to thrust a lot harder and faster to achieve sexual pleasure.
The lack of a foreskin also makes using a condom even worse because you lack sensitivity to begin with.
You lack sensation to begin with.
You're less likely to use a condom.
And circumcised men, probably as a result of this, are over four and a half times more likely to use erectile dysfunction drugs as they get older.
Circumcision removes up to one half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft.
That is catastrophic.
It's catastrophic.
In a survey of those with comparative sexual experience, i.e., circumcised and intact penises, women preferred the natural penis over the circumcised penis by six to one.
Also, I think they preferred having sex with men rather than robots.
So with circumcised partners, this is important because an intact penis is much more pleasurable for the woman sexually.
A happy sex life is pretty foundational to a happy romantic relationship.
With circumcised partners, surveyed women were more likely to feel disinterested, frustrated, and discontented.
When their partners were not circumcised, women were more likely to feel intimate with their partners, relaxed.
They felt warmth, mutual satisfaction, and complete as a woman.
And The greatest sexual satisfaction benefited the relationship.
This of course is not to say that circumcised men cannot have happy and fulfilling sexual relationships.
Just in general and on average, they tend to be more satisfying with an intact penis.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said in 1999, relative to this question of can you keep an uncircumcised penis clean, of course you can, there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.
Not a good name for a punk band.
The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean.
Caring for your son's uncircumcised penis requires no special action.
Foreskin retraction should never be forced.
Babies, of course, are born with a foreskin, baby boys, and it should not be retracted through force.
Now, we'll get into this in a sec, but I wanted to mention it up front that babies who are circumcised show significant behavioral changes, fundamental, almost, you could say, personality changes.
Extended crying after the circumcision lasted for hours each day and can persist for up to a year.
This behavior is often called colic.
Colic remains something that people don't know exactly what causes it, but one thing that has been hypothesized and for which there is some correlation is circumcision.
Circumcision leads to repetitive crying.
It rewires the baby's pain mechanisms.
In one of the most important studies, the behavior of nearly 90% of circumcised infants significantly changed after the circumcision.
Some became more active and some became less active.
The quality of the change generally was associated with whether they were crying or quiet respectively at the start of the circumcision.
This suggests the use of different coping styles by infants when they are subjected to extreme pain.
In addition, the researchers observed that circumcised infants had lessened ability to comfort themselves or to be comforted by others.
It's hard to ignore the fact That your caregiver just sliced half of the sensitive nerves off your penis.
That's kind of impossible to ignore at a very foundational animal-like level.
And there have been some preliminary associations done between circumcision and things like autism, circumcision and ADHD. I'll refer you to the links in the low bar to explore this further.
It's not proven, but there are some vague associations that require further research, but worth looking into.
A nurse who has seen many circumcised infants before they go home reported, quote, when you lay them on their stomachs, they scream.
When their diaper is wet, they scream.
Normally, they don't scream if their diaper is wet.
Baby boys who are not circumcised do not scream like that.
The circumcised babies are more irritable, and they nurse poorly.
Let's look at some of the longer-term effects of circumcision.
Researchers at the Children's Hospital in Boston noted changes in sleep patterns, activity levels, irritability, and mother-infant interaction.
They concluded, quote, The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory.
In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parental infant bonding, and feeding schedules.
So, I mean, one of the things that can happen, this is sort of one of the domino effects of circumcision that is hypothesized, though as yet not proven, Is that if the circumcision rewires the baby and causes more crying, persistent crying, colicky behavior, sleep disturbances, poor latching onto the breast, poor breastfeeding, and so on, then this is very frustrating and difficult for the mom or the dad, whoever's there.
And this interferes with the bond.
It can cause postpartum depression.
That's been hypothesized.
So it is a significant domino effect to hack off an incredibly sensitive part of your baby's body.
The fact that this needs to be said is amazing to me.
A team of Canadian researchers produced evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects.
An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet Reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination.
The researchers tested 87 infants at four months or six months of age.
The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys.
It's a rewiring.
Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.
You're permanently changing the pain response.
Of the boy, it seems.
The authors believe that, quote, neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant's central neuroprocessing of painful stimuli.
They also write that, quote, What more can I say?
So let's look at some of the history.
So people who say, well, all these medical benefits and so on, well, circumcision was developed a long time before these medical benefits were known, and people still believe that putting leeches on eyeballs could cure migraines.
The origins of circumcision are disputed, but the earliest documented evidence in ancient Egypt artwork dated around 2400 BC, So writings range from describing circumcision as a way to increase social status and improve cleanliness to a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood.
Judaism adopted circumcision from the Egyptians through Moses, who left Egypt with the Hebrew slaves.
So according to the book of Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household, and his slaves as an everlasting covenant in their flesh.
Those who were not circumcised were to be cut off from their people.
So I guess God didn't have a problem with slavery just with slaves' foreskins.
Well, that's good.
It's good to get your moral priorities straight.
In the Jewish religion, male infants are traditionally circumcised on their eighth day of life, though it is quite interesting to note that a fairly significant number of Jews, including Jews in Israel, are no longer circumcising because they recognize that it is barbaric.
The Jewish tradition of circumcision was challenged when Alexander the Great conquered Jewish lands between 334 BC and 331 BC. Circumcision was counter to Greek beliefs as it violated the natural human form, and thus Greek and Jewish cultures collided, causing fierce debates from Jews and non-Jews alike.
Jewish rabbis argued that the foreskin itself was an imperfection that needed to be cut off to reveal the correct male human form.
Which is interesting because that means that God created something imperfect that a knife needs to fix.
Theology is confusing.
During the early days of Christianity, circumcision was required for all converts, which meant you really had to love Jesus to say goodbye to that.
But Evangelist Paul did not require circumcision, with baptism taking its role as a more universal ritual for both men and women.
So it's a little bit more civilized.
It was also believed that Christianity would have more appeal to people such as the Greeks and the Romans if circumcision was not required.
And, of course, the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire, through the conversion of Roman emperors, was important.
The role of circumcision within Christianity is still debated.
Both the Torah and the Old Testament are still considered the word of God and advocate circumcision, yet it is argued that the new covenant provided by Christ was meant to release the people from such confining rituals.
The Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, two of the oldest surviving forms of Christianity, still retain many of the features of early Christianity, including circumcision, but hopefully not stoning to death atheists and witches and sorcerers but hopefully not stoning to death atheists and witches and sorcerers and wizards and homosexuals and
Now, circumcision came to America in the 1870s as a way of combating masturbation.
There's really no nicer way to put it.
In the 19th century, non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose due to negative attitudes towards sex, especially masturbation.
Masturbation was, of course, believed to be responsible for a wide range of mental disorders, commonly referred to as masturbatory insanity, I guess which was an early name for the Internet.
The term self-abuse was often used to describe masturbation and a wide range of preventative treatments were recommended.
These treatments included things like a strict diet, moral exhortations to not touch yourself, hydrotherapy, which is, I think, submersion in cold water, and marriage, as well as more drastic measures like surgery, physical restraints, and punishment for masturbation.
Some doctors even recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris.
I think that's also what happened with Jimi Hendrix as well.
Or covering the penis with leather or rubber.
A cauterization making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings and at times even castration.
So circumcision is actually a step forward from the 19th century.
Of course everybody understood that the foreskin was central to erotic sensation and they wanted to cut it off because they considered it a major factor leading boys to masturbate.
Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed.
This, of course, goes back to male disposability, which is one of the reasons why male circumcision is not particularly frowned on, whereas female circumcision is enormously frowned on.
So, okay, so some people say, well, you might get a urinary tract infection.
Dun-dun-dun!
Oh, my God!
So a decrease in the risk of these UTIs, one of the most common medical justifications for circumcision of newborn males.
The frequently debated correlation between intactness and UTIs was only discovered in 1982, long after the custom of circumcision was well established within the United States.
So when it starts because you hate people masturbating and you don't have access to soap, whatever comes after that may be considered ex post facto justifications, to say the least.
During the first few months of life, uncircumcised male infants are at increased risk for UTIs, but thereafter, UTIs are predominantly found in women, of course.
The rate of urinary tract infection in males under two years old is about 1%.
To prevent a single male urinary tract infection, an estimated 111 circumcisions need to be performed.
Now, for those of you in the audience who aren't women, when a female gets a urinary tract infection, they don't cut off her clitoris.
What happens is you get antibiotics, and the same treatment works exactly the same for males.
You don't actually need to hack off half the erogenous aspects of the penis.
Penile cancer.
Oh, this show's getting more entertaining by the moment, isn't it?
Some studies seem to indicate that circumcision during infancy or childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer.
The same protection is not seen when circumcision is performed in adulthood.
So we say, okay, well maybe it'll possibly help reduce penile cancer.
Well, the American Cancer Society acknowledges the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Now, the lifetime risk of penile cancer is estimated as 1 in 1,437 for men in the U.S. Let's compare that to breast cancer, which is 1 in 8 for women in the U.S. So then, for a woman who's not going to have kids, or for a woman who has finished breastfeeding, surely we should remove the breasts, because that's a much higher risk.
So this is the nonsense that people say.
This is only indicated, not Exactly proven.
And it's a much, much lower risk.
And so it's really not...
I mean, your appendix may blow too.
Does that mean we should take out the appendix of babies as well?
And maybe one of their kidneys in case they get kidney cancer?
And all other sorts of nonsense that might occur?
Should we take out their tonsils in case they can...
What about...
Anyway.
So, HIV transmission.
So, recent years there have been some studies claiming that circumcision both does and does not have an impact on the rate of HIV transmission.
Most of the studies claiming circumcision provides a benefit against HIV investigation have been conducted in Africa due to the regions, of course, this terrible epidemic that's occurring there, thanks Pope.
There are many issues at play, of course, in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
It's kind of hard to generalize.
In the U.S., during the AIDS epidemic of the 80s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised, which was much higher.
HIV still spread.
Some of the studies say...
Oh, we'll get to that in a sec.
Okay.
That being said, the American Medical Association states that behavioral factors are far more important So consistent condom usage found to reduce the risk of HIV infection between 69 to 95 percent In various studies, far higher than anything that has been claimed or certainly proven for circumcision.
Of course, the most reliable way to not get STDs, including AIDS or HIV, is to be abstinent, to masturbate, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.
Yay, love!
So let's look at these study floors.
African national population surveys in eight countries found a higher rate of HIV infection among circumcised men compared to men who were not circumcised.
One of the reasons for this is if you believe that being circumcised means that you're bulletproof to HIV transmission, you're less likely to use a condom.
And also because you're circumcised, you don't want to use a condom because it's that much less sensation for your poor wood-based penis.
So you're more likely to get infected if you believe that and are not as willing to use a condom, then that's a problem.
There are at least 17 observational studies that have not found any benefit from male circumcision in reducing HIV transmission.
As we mentioned, among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest circumcision rate and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV. Other countries have lower rates of HIV infection than the U.S. and do not practice circumcision.
And look at the math, for heaven's sakes.
The cost of one circumcision in Africa can pay for 3,000 condoms.
Now, the studies say even if you are circumcised, use a condom.
So, because of the superior effectiveness of condom, circumcision adds little additional protection.
Unlike circumcision, condoms also have the advantage of also protecting women.
And there are, of course, no surgical risks and complications.
So, what is the prevalence?
It's going down in certain areas, thank heavens, right?
So the World Health Organization has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim.
Male circumcision is nearly universal in the Middle East, Central Asia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
It is very prevalent in parts of Southeast Asia, North Africa, West Africa, South Korea, India, the Philippines, Israel, and the United States.
In comparison, circumcision is uncommon in Latin America, Europe, parts of Southern Africa, and most of Asia and Oceania.
Yay, German mom for me.
The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand have generally seen a steady decline in male circumcision, while prevalence is increasing in Southern Africa.
Actually, when my daughter was born, they said, if you have a son here in Canada, we don't circumcise.
We won't do it.
I guess they finally picked up on the do-no-harm thing.
In the U.S., three-quarters of American adult men are circumcised.
There are over 640,000 procedures each year, or around one, every 49 seconds.
It's like a combine harvester of dicks.
Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, show that in 2010, approximately 32% of newborn boys in the U.S. were circumcised in hospital.
These numbers are down from a high of approximately 85% in 1965, 79% in the 80s, 65% in 2002, 56% in 2006, and 54.5% in 2009.
Do you see that?
We check these numbers.
The researchers, we check these numbers six ways from Sunday.
It means that from 2009 to 2010, the prevalence of circumcision in the U.S. declined from 54.5% in one year to 32%.
Oh, Mama's Who Slice, you're going to have a lot to answer for in the future.
Don't do it.
At a state level, the differences in circumcision rates are very dramatic.
About 86% of boys born in Michigan had a hospital circumcision in 2009, compared with only 13% of boys born in Nevada.
So if you meet a boy from Nevada, 87% likelihood you can have a great time in bed.
Medicaid funding for infant circumcision used to be available in every state, but starting with California in 1982, 18 states have eliminated Medicaid coverage of routine circumcision.
By July 2011.
Researchers have found a difference in the neonatal male circumcision rate of 24% between states with and without Medicaid coverage.
That's shocking and appalling.
That, oh, I have to pay for it myself?
Well then, you know, culture, religion be damned.
I'm not going to spend a couple of hundred bucks for a circumcision.
Okay, no circumcision, because a hundred bucks or two hundred bucks or three hundred bucks makes all the difference in the world.
In Arizona in 2001, one year before the Medicaid provision was cut, 41% of males born in the state were circumcised in a hospital.
Two years later, that number had fallen to 26%.
That which you subsidize increases.
About 117 newborn males die each year in the U.S. as a result of their circumcision, most from infections or blood loss.
This accounts for about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.
5.1% of males will have significant complications from circumcision, and the rate can be as high as 55% for all complications.
Myatal stenosis, narrowing of the urinary opening, has been found in 20% of circumcised boys.
Anesthesia is used in only 45% of circumcisions.
The most effective anesthesia does not eliminate all pain, and the most common type used, a topical cream, does almost nothing to reduce it.
And it sure doesn't help when you're peeing into your open wound later.
A major clinical test of the various types of anesthetics used during circumcision was stopped for humane reasons due to the intensity of the pain that was observed.
So, we'll stop studying circumcision because it's inhumane, but for a lot of people, it's still worth continuing.
Circumcision often removes 75% of penile sensitivity through the removal of the ridged band foreskin Lips and often the entire frenulum.
In studies, a higher percentage of circumcised males also describe experiencing discomfort, pain, numbness and unusual sensations during sexual intercourse.
As adults, males circumcised in infancy are approximately five times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction.
You hack it, you break it.
Now, this ultra-Orthodox, you've probably read about this in the New York Times and other places, but it's worth mentioning.
A controversial religious ceremony within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community called Metzitzah Bepeh, oh, sorry, that's Klingon, adds another layer of controversy to the circumcision discussion.
After performing the ritual circumcision, the rabbi, or Mohel, draws blood away from the newborn baby's freshly circumcised penis using his mouth to create suction.
The CDC has determined that 20,493 newborn males born in New York City may have had direct oral suction during the almost six-year period in which statistics were monitored.
The risk of contracting a form of herpes following this ritual with confirmed or likely direct orogenital suction is estimated to be 24.4 per 100,000 cases which is 3.4 times higher than for babies who did not have direct orogenital suction.
The 5,000-year-old religious practice has infected at least 13 newborn males with the herpes simplex virus.
Ten of the infected babies were hospitalized, two suffered brain damage, and another two died due to the infection.
Let me just remove the religious context from this, and it is unspeakably appalling.
How is it for the ladies?
Well, the World Health Organization classifies any removal of the external female genitals as female circumcision or female genital mutilation.
See, it's not male genital mutilation when you remove a half to three quarters of the sensitivity of the penis and create significant problems down the road.
It's called circumcision.
It's got to be called genital mutilation for the women because, in general, women are more important than men in these sorts of situations.
An estimated 140 million females across the globe have experienced or had inflicted some form of female genital mutilation, with over 100 million of these instances occurring in Africa, where the practice is the most frequently occurring.
Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting include hygiene, disease prevention, sound familiar?
Hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance.
And these are similar to these of course offered by those who promote male circumcision.
And you will look as barbaric to the future as we think of those who perform female genital mutilation today.
Why is it so different?
Why is it female genital mutilation and not male genital mutilation?
All children should be spared this inhumane and unnecessary surgery.
Whatever the justifications, I mean, let's be honest and let's be real about this.
Forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child, male or female, is unethical, immoral, and evil.
It is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.
Thou shalt not initiate force against others.
It is the initiation of force.
It is the severing and cutting of healthy tissue that has evolved for very specific reasons.
And all of these supposed problems that are loosely associated and possibly associated with intact penises are very easy to deal with through monogamy, through condoms, through washing, And through antibiotics should the very rare UTI occur.
So this is all nonsense.
This is simply a cycle of trauma that repeats over and over and over again.
And the degree to which this harms the minds and bodies and souls of children is incalculable.
So please, please, please leave your children's peepees alone.
Export Selection