Innumerable parents to newborn boys are frequently faced with a tough decision as they weigh the pros and cons of circumcision. For those who do not know, circumcision is a procedure involving removing the foreskin from the penis, thus exposing the glans. This was originally done to prevent young boys from partaking in (what was then considered) the sin of masturbation, much like how young girls in Africa have their clitorises ripped out to thwart cheating.
A whole storm of controversy surrounds the practice as people assert circumcising young boys is neither right nor required and that the cons of circumcision far overshadow the pros. However, others are led by cultural, religious, or social pressures to have their sons’ foreskins removed. Here, we’ll check out the pros and cons of circumcision, for the readers who have little boys, for men who are not cut, or for those who are and who wonder why.
Let’s start off with the benefits of being circumcised. It is stated that those who have undergone circumcision are at a lessened risk for developing male-specific cancers, UTIs, venereal disease, and transmission of HIV. In addition to lowering the chance of contracting disease himself, a man with a circumcised penis is far less likely to infect his partner with carcinogenic strains of HPV.
A few painful conditions can develop in an intact man, such as phimosis, balantis, and paraphimosis, all of which deal with the inability to retract the foreskin. Sometimes, these become so severe that the boy or young man may need to be circumcised at an age when he’s more sentient than what he was as an infant.
Some boys and young men may not know how to properly take care of their junk if they’ve not endured circumcision, which can become a probable breeding ground for infection. Aesthetics is another major aspect of the entire circumcision process. Most men today have no foreskin, and some parents are concerned about their child’s self-esteem. They worry their sons will elicit funny looks from their peers in the locker room or from future girlfriends if their penises look like snakes in turtlenecks.
One of the largest cons in this sense is that there really is no absolute, serious medical reason for circumcision to be executed in the first place, and scores of people feel it’s something needless to subject their sons to. Numerous people feel that parents are infringing upon a boy’s rights if said mum and dad choose to cut off a part of their child for any reason. We can’t really say ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ to this because it’s an opinion-based statement.
The alleged loss of sensitivity is up for debate since some claim circumcision decreases sexual pleasure and others say it increases it. It’s likely something that differs on an individual basis,.
Finally, like with any procedure that involves cutting, there’s always a chance the affected site will heal improperly and begin nursing an infection. This is a pretty tiny risk, but it’s still present. Even smaller is the risk of death; it’s surmised that about one in every 500,000 baby boys die every year due to circumcision—more specifically from possible hemorrhage, adverse reaction to the anesthesia, or infection. However, this is a very rare risk and one that’s not higher than dying from any other medical procedure. And even then, it’s not due to the process of circumcision itself, but to doctors who are a bit on the negligent side.
In short, the cons of circumcision seem like largely minor complaints or based exclusively in opinion or religion and not fact. Some people leave their sons intact and allow them to make the decision themselves when they are older, and some choose to get it over with since being subjected to possible medically-compulsory circumcision at an older age can be traumatic for young boys and men.