Introduction
Circumcision is defined as the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis. It is a common procedure that is practiced in many cultures around the world for a variety of reasons. However, there are some cultures that do not practice circumcision. This article will explore what cultures don’t circumcise, the reasons behind this decision, and the potential health benefits associated with not circumcising.
Exploring the Reasons Behind Cultures Who Do Not Practice Circumcision
There are a number of cultural and religious beliefs that lead to a culture choosing not to practice circumcision. Many cultures have different views on the procedure, which can affect whether or not they choose to practice it.
Religious Beliefs
In Judaism, circumcision is a fundamental part of their culture and religion. It is believed to be a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. As such, it is seen as a sacred ritual and an important part of Jewish identity. On the other hand, Islam does not require circumcision, although it is sometimes practiced for cultural or hygienic reasons.
Cultural Norms
In some cultures, circumcision is seen as a rite of passage into adulthood and a symbol of manhood. In other cultures, it may be seen as a way to reduce the risk of certain sexually transmitted infections. Additionally, some cultures may view circumcision as unnecessary or even harmful.
Examining the Health Benefits of Not Practicing Circumcision
Not practicing circumcision has a number of potential health benefits. Studies have shown that there is a lower risk of infection and disease when men are not circumcised. This includes a reduced risk of urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and penile cancer. Additionally, uncircumcised men have been found to have improved sexual performance due to increased sensitivity and reduced risk of premature ejaculation.
Investigating the Impact of Non-Circumcision on Men’s Sexual Performance
Studies have shown that uncircumcised men experience higher levels of sexual pleasure due to increased sensitivity. This is due to the presence of the foreskin, which provides a protective barrier and contains a large number of nerve endings. Additionally, uncircumcised men have been found to have a reduced risk of premature ejaculation due to decreased stimulation.
Analyzing the Social and Cultural Implications of Not Circumcising
Not circumcising can have both social and cultural implications. Acceptance of different practices is important in order to foster respect and understanding between cultures. Additionally, respecting cultural diversity is essential in order to ensure that no one group is discriminated against or judged for their beliefs or practices.
Comparing and Contrasting Circumcision Practices Around the World
The prevalence of circumcision varies widely around the world. In Europe and North America, circumcision is much less common than in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In these regions, circumcision is often seen as a necessary part of religious and cultural beliefs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has explored what cultures don’t circumcise and examined the reasons behind this decision. It has also looked at the potential health benefits of not circumcising and how it affects sexual performance. Finally, it has compared and contrasted circumcision practices around the world. Overall, it is clear that not circumcising can have a number of positive health benefits, and it is important to respect cultural diversity when it comes to different beliefs and practices.
(Note: Is this article not meeting your expectations? Do you have knowledge or insights to share? Unlock new opportunities and expand your reach by joining our authors team. Click Registration to join us and share your expertise with our readers.)
This article is quite misleading. In fact, what Happy Sharer states is the opposite of the highest quality scientific evidence. Our team has evaluated all of the evidence produced by scientific studies and that published by anti-circumcision intactivists. Our systematic review was published in a peer-review journal. We concluded that Arguments opposing male circumcision are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31496128/
J Evid Based Med. 2019 Nov;12(4):263-290. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12361.
Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review
Brian J Morris 1 , Stephen Moreton 2 , John N Krieger 3
1 School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
2 CircFacts, Warrington, England, UK.
3 Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
PMID: 31496128 PMCID: PMC6899915 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12361
Free PMC article
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).
Methods: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.
Results: Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.
Conclusions: Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.
Keywords: complications; public health policy; sexual function; sexually transmitted infection; urinary tract infection.
You should be aware that Professor Morris’s views are very different from those of most actual doctors. National medical organizations in Germany and Sweden have called for a ban on elective infant male circumcision, and the Danish and Dutch said they’d support a total ban if they didn’t think it would drive the practice underground.
In Australia (where professor Morris is from), “routine” infant male circumcision *is* banned in public hospitals (almost all the men responsible for this will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. It’s now under 10%.)
Lyndon, thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Mark Lyndon has a long history of trolling the Internet peddling anti-circumcision pseudoscience and misinformation. The largest paediatric body in the world, the American Academy of Pediatrics, conducted the most extensive evidence-based review at the time (2012) and concluded that the benefits of infant circumcision outweigh the risks, and the procedure should be available. Later, the CDC agreed. In each case anti-circ campaigners “intactivists” attempted to “rebut” the science only to have their arguments comprehensively debunked in the scientific literature. The position statements of the European bodies Lyndon refers to are not evidence-based, but are ideological statements and contrary to the science. In high-HIV settings it is consensus amongst all professional bodies that medical circumcision is effective at curbing female to male HIV transmission.
Mark Lyndon has a long history of trolling the Internet peddling anti-circumcision pseudoscience and misinformation. The largest paediatric body in the world, the American Academy of Pediatrics, conducted the most extensive evidence-based review at the time (2012) and concluded that the benefits of infant circumcision outweigh the risks, and the procedure should be available. Later, the CDC agreed. In each case anti-circ campaigners “intactivists” attempted to “rebut” the science only to have their arguments comprehensively debunked in the scientific literature. The position statements of the European bodies Lyndon refers to are not evidence-based, but are ideological statements and contrary to the science. In high-HIV settings it is consensus amongst all professional bodies that medical circumcision is effective at curbing female to male HIV transmission.
For readers interested in wondering why Happy’s post is at odds with other reports may I suggest that they read an evidence-based appraisal of the topic in the Journal of Evidence-based Medicine:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31496128/
Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review
I am truly appreciative of your insightful feedback on my blog post. Your suggestions and comments are incredibly helpful in ensuring that the content is informative and engaging for my readers.
Readers wondering why Professor Morris’s views are at odds with those of most actual doctors may also be interested in what PZ Myers said about him:
“But then, that’s Brian Morris all over the place. He actively tries to suppress work that doesn’t support his conclusions, he inflates any evidence that suggests circumcision might have a few benefits (there are some!), and dismisses any evidence to the contrary…or worse, twists it around to claim it supports the opposite of the author’s interpretations. All this in defiance of worldwide statements from pediatric organizations that say the evidence for health benefits from circumcision are weak, and that routine circumcision is not recommended.”
PZ Myers knows nothing about the topic (witness his false statement about pediatric organisations that ignores the world’s largest – the AAP) and just parrots the intactivists’ claims. Claims which are pure projection as it is the intactivists who commit the academic sins they accuse Morris of. Also, as a militant atheist I wonder if Myers just sees circumcision as a stick to bash religion with. As an atheist myself I can think of plenty of better sticks to use than circumcision. The fact is Morris gives preference to the best quality research (RCTs, meta-analyses etc.). Intactivists, on the other hand, cherry-pick weak studies, often their own, ignoring rebuttals of those, and ignoring anything that contradicts them, whilst passing off speculations as fact.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends male circumcision in infancy and later for disease prevention, stating that benefits exceed risks by “100:1”.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) new male circumcision policy documents posted to the CDC website at end of August 2018.
Go to https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html
1) Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes*
This document is intended to assist health care providers in the United States who share information with men and parents of male infants during decision making about male circumcision conducted by health care providers (i.e., medically performed) as it relates to the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, sexually transmitted infections, and other health outcomes. A brief bulleted summary of the health benefits and risks of elective medically performed male circumcision is provided at the end of the document.
Appendices I and II provide a grading scheme and grading of the evidence for key statements made in the document.
a) Appendix I. Grading Scheme and Criteria for Inclusion of Citations, for Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes
Appendix 1 includes the grading scheme and criteria for inclusion of citations and specific considerations for use of the scheme for Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes
b) Appendix II. Grading of Citations, for Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcome
Appendix 2 includes a list of key statements in Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes and the consensus grade applied to the citation supporting that statement. Descriptive information for each citation is also provided including methodology (randomized clinical trial, observational study, case control, expert opinion, etc.), outcome of interest (HIV/ sexually transmitted infection, penile cancer, urinary tract infection, etc.), effect of circumcision on outcome of interest (increase, decrease, no change, not applicable), study population (location, risk behavior, gender, race/ethnicity, age group, and any additional comments).
2) Background, Methods, and Synthesis of Scientific Information Used to Inform Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes**
This is a companion document to Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes that describes the methods for evidence review and provides a description of the evidence about the preventive health benefits, safety, and risks of medical male circumcision; the acceptability of, provider attitudes towards, access to, and cost-effectiveness of male circumcision; and related ethical considerations. The data examined are mainly in the context of the United States, but data from other countries are included to inform the U.S. experience.
3) Peer Review Comments and CDC Responses for Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes* and Background, Methods, and Synthesis of Scientific Information Used to Inform “Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes”**
This document presents a compilation of all the comments received and the corresponding CDC responses during the first peer review comment period for a) Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes* and b) Background, Methods, and Synthesis of Scientific Information Used to Inform “Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes”**
4) Summary of Public Comments and CDC Responses to Public Comments for Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes*
This document presents a compilation of all the comments received and the corresponding CDC responses during the public comment period for the document Information for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes*
5) Summary of Peer Review Comments and CDC Responses to Second Round of Peer Review Comments for Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes*
This document presents a compilation of all the comments received and the corresponding CDC responses during the second peer review comment period for the document: Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes.*
CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention encourages you to share information about these documents with fellow colleagues. We thank you for joining CDC in our commitment to HIV/AIDS prevention in the United States.
Whatever reasons you might like to give for infant or child male and female circumcision remains a violation of my right to the body I was born with and anything that is done to it which is not a life-saving requirement should be for me to decide