UK to Consider Male Circumcision as "a potential form of child abuse"

[PeterRS]

Well, here's something I thought i would never see! We know that roughly 40% of men around the world are circumcised, the majority for religious (Jews and Muslims) and cultural (The Philippines, many African countries etc.) reasons, and the remainder with many allegedly for health reasons (prevention of HIV etc.).

An article in today's Observer/Guardian newspaper states that the UK Crown Prosecution Service has issued the draft of new guidance for prosecutors under which male circumcision would be classified as "a potential form of child abuse."

The draft CPS guidance states that, unlike female genital mutilation, “there is not a specific criminal offence of carrying out male circumcision”.

“However, this can be a painful and harmful practice, if carried out incorrectly or in inappropriate circumstances. It may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person,” it adds.

It goes on to illustrate its findings with a number of cases where boys under 18 have died as direct resut of the procedure, the most recent being a 6-month old baby in 2023. The article continues -

Jonathan Arkush, a former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and co-chair of Milah UK, which promotes and protects the right of the Jewish community to carry out religious circumcision, said the wording in the draft CPS guidance was misleading.

“To suggest that circumcision is in itself a harmful practice, is deeply pejorative and misplaced,” he said. “Any procedure that is carried out inappropriately or without proper controls, including piercing a child’s ears, could be a harmful practice and a possible case of child abuse.”

He added: “We shall certainly be talking to the CPS. I would very much expect that final draft not to include it, as it is so obviously incorrect and/or misleading.”

Arkush, who is also a barrister, accepted that if performed incorrectly, circumcision could constitute abuse, but he insisted the “stringent standards” applied by the Jewish community ensured this did not happen.

“The incidence of complications in circumcision performed in the Jewish community is vanishingly rare,” he said.“Circumcision is a core part of our identity. I have never met any Jewish man who thinks they’ve been harmed by circumcision.”

I hardly think that piercing a child's ears can be equated with the excision of part of a male child's God-given anatomy. But I  have always wondered why it is that those who practise circumcision on males for religious reasons regard it as "a core part of their identity." What has this to do with religion? I have heard Jewish friends tell me that the foreskin is an unnecessary part of the body, so why have it? Others suggest why interfere with nature.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/10/circumcision-classed-as-possible-child-abuse-in-draft-cps-document

[Blah]

No child should be mutilated; let them decide as adults if they wish.✂️

 

[Keithambrose]

4 hours ago, Blah said:

No child should be mutilated; let them decide as adults if they wish.✂️

 

One problem  with that is that circumcision as an older male has more risks, as I understand  it. Though  I assume that if you are over 18, you  have accepted any risks. 

[jimmie50]

5 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

One problem  with that is that circumcision as an older male has more risks

Not to mention that pain factor.  I know a couple of people who had it done as a young adult and they talked about how painful it was.  I guess I never really gave it much thought until this post.  Not sure I would have ever equated male circumcision to childhood mutilation.  Wasn't really something I had a choice in...back in those days in the small town where I grew up, the local hospital just automatically circumcised infant boys.  As a matter of fact, I don't know that my parents were even given a choice.  It was just SOP back then.  

[Riobard]

The vocal minority endlessly pushing the abuse narrative, consent vitiated, etc, always has a leg to stand on because getting to zero sum and putting the debate to rest is impossible given that procedure pros and cons exist across variable categories of reality and meaning. They are mainly qualitative and not amenable to quantity ratings that can be positioned either side, although epidemiology can measure certain incidence and prevalence aspects. No complete adult male referendum will easily shift the practice to the point where age of majority choice is the default.

Sexual sensitivity impairment can only be within-person evaluated pre- and post surgery in later life as no other male matched demographically is a valid comparator. A developed male’s subjective impression of altered (ie, attenuated pleasurable sensation), only subjectively accessible at same cognitive developmental level such as young adult intervention, cannot stand as proxy for the up or down regulation of infants in general latent sexual function years subsequent. It’s not as disparate as losing baby teeth and wisdom tooth extraction but it is apples/oranges. 

Isolated outlier deleterious consequences don’t reinforce the soapbox. The absurd comparison of female genital mutulation is an insulting disservice to the female population subject to that horror. 

[10tazione]

19 minutes ago, Riobard said:

as no other male matched demographically is a valid comparator.

why?

[Riobard]

20 minutes ago, 10tazione said:

why?

Because while both in possession of a both a penis and grey matter, that is, two head sizes, they do not share them or the same subjective impression of tactile stimulation. There would be no valid objective measurable gradient of pleasurable sensation. 

[10tazione]

You cannot test pleasurable sensation, but you could test sensation, no? Like a hearing test for your sausage...

[Riobard]

12 minutes ago, 10tazione said:

You cannot test pleasurable sensation, but you could test sensation, no? Like a hearing test for your sausage...

There’s a rabbit hole somewhere, I’m sure, whose inhabitants have ordered one from UberEats, and prolly a seminar on this tailored just for you. 

[unicorn]

Comparing "female circumcision," which carries only deleterious effects, and no health benefits, with male circumcision is simply factually wrong. The health benefits of male circumcision, particularly in substantially reducing the risk in urinary tract infections in infants and toddlers, far outweigh the risks--and that's a solid fact. While I certainly wouldn't characterize it as abuse not to circumcise male infants, the science definitely states that benefits far exceed the (very minimal) risks. Opponents of circumcision only use factually disproven arguments to support their emotional preferences. As suggested by a prior poster, studies of men who've had circumcision as adults have been done, disproving the bogus allegation that sexual pleasure or sensitivity of the glans decrease after circumcision. Any comparison to "female circumcision" is baseless. 

AI Overview

 

 

Male circumcision offers several health benefits, including reduced risks of urinary tract infections (UTIs), sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like HIV, HPV, and herpes, and penile cancer, while also preventing foreskin issues such as phimosis (inability to retract foreskin) and balanitis (inflammation), and simplifying hygiene. Medical bodies like the AAP state benefits outweigh risks, though it's not universally recommended, with neonatal circumcision carrying lower risks than later procedures. 

 

Key Health Benefits:

• Reduced UTI Risk: Significantly lowers the risk of urinary tract infections, particularly in infancy. 
   

• STI Protection: Decreases the risk of acquiring HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. 
   

• Penile Cancer Prevention: Lowers the risk of penile cancer, though it's already rare. 
   

• Foreskin Problems: Prevents conditions like phimosis (tight foreskin), paraphimosis (trapped foreskin), and balanitis (inflammation). 
   

• Improved Hygiene: Easier genital hygiene and prevention of smegma buildup. 
   

• Partner Health: May reduce risks of bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and cervical cancer for female partners. 
   

Considerations:

• Procedure Safety: 

  Generally safe when done by a trained professional with pain management, with lower risks in newborns. 

   

• Not Essential: 

  These benefits are significant, but circumcision is not considered medically necessary for all males. 

   

Organizations' Stance:

• The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concludes that benefits outweigh risks, supporting parental choice and insurance coverage, while the American Urological Association (AUA) highlights its safety and benefits in preventing certain conditions. 

[PeterRS]

Accepting that @unicorn is a doctor and I believe also American, it is hardly surprising - in my view - that he argues in favour of the standard American practice of male circumision. But the fact is that it is in the USA where the practice is most prevalent in terms of percentage of male children when the reasons are neither religious or cultural.

I find it interesting that when the USA essentially took over South Korea for a time after the Korean War, it was American doctors who manned most of the hospitals, for which I am sure the Koreans were very thankful. Understandably, though, they followed the standard American practice of circumcision, a procedure never performed in South Korea until that time. In 1945 less than 0.1% of Koreans were circumcised. When I first visied Seoul at the start of the 1980s, the young men I met (admittedly not very many) were virtually all circumcised. Today, though, the rate of circumcision of babies and older children has dropped dramatically. In a study performed in 2002, it was found that 88.4% of young men in the 14-16 age group had been circumcised. Ten years later the percentage had dropped to 56.4%. And it has since dropped considerably further. Most studies on the issue are done in Seoul plus perhaps one of the larger cities. The assumptiom is that the numbers are less than official figures because analysis is rarely done in the countryside. Two papers illustrate the reason for circumcision having been so prevalent in South Korea.

Emeritus professor of physics at Seoul National University, Kim Dae-sik, has been at the forefront of research on the history and social perception of circumcision in Korea. He is one of such critics [of the procedure]. Professor Kim has been a staunch advocate for abolishing the surgery as a widespread practice. He’s written multiple theses on the subject and co-written a book called “Korean Circumcision Reconsidered,” released in 2014.
 
“I thought it was odd at the time that the activity was becoming so widespread in the 1970s, and later during my studies abroad, I realized that Korea had a strikingly high circumcision rate — and all because of misconceptions.”

As Professor Kim put it, “It was as if society as a whole was under a trance for dozens of years. The newspapers at the time weren’t writing about why people should get circumcised. They were writing about when.”

"Koreans came to believe that practicing circumcision was ‘advanced and modern,’ just like the American soldiers,” U.S. sexologist Robert Francoeur wrote in “The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality” (1997). “If Americans did it, it must be good,” he said.

The reason for the drop in numbers is partly the reduction in the influence of American doctors and partly the centuries-old Confucian belief that a body should ideally be buried whole. Partly for such reason, in China and Japan few males as a proportion of the population are circumcised. During the Imperial system in China, the eunochs who formed the vast majority of those who inhabited the Forbidden City in Beijing, always had their genital organs placed in a jar with preservative fluid, These would then be buried along with the bodies on death. Strangely, perhaps, the maladies listed by @unicorn seem to be rarely found in north Asian countries.

Several countries have already called for the banning of elective childhood circumcision - Iceland Sweden and Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands have said they are ready for a ban but have concerns that might drive the practice underground. Routine circumcision is already banned in public hospitals in Australia - and this is a country where about 90% of males were themselves circumcised. @unicorn failed to state that the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend considering circumcision only for individuals in high-risk areas for HIV or sexually transmitted infections, or for those with specific medical conditions. The Canadian Paediatric Society recommended even earlier in the late 1990s that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The USA is slowly becoming isolated on this issue.

For @unicorn even to suggest that these countries have got the arguments against circumcision wrong when he wrote "The health benefits of male circumcision, particularly in substantially reducing the risk in urinary tract infections in infants and toddlers, far outweigh the risks--and that's a solid fact," is in fact qute wrong! Maybe fine for the USA, but not for the medical authorities in many other parts of the world. So it can hardly be FACT!

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3526493/

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/health/20250719/should-you-circumcise-your-son-parents-weigh-pros-and-cons

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2024-04-20/national/socialAffairs/WHY-To-snip-or-not-to-snip-Korean-society-and-circumcision/2029413

[Keithambrose]

16 hours ago, Riobard said:

The vocal minority endlessly pushing the abuse narrative, consent vitiated, etc, always has a leg to stand on because getting to zero sum and putting the debate to rest is impossible given that procedure pros and cons exist across variable categories of reality and meaning. They are mainly qualitative and not amenable to quantity ratings that can be positioned either side, although epidemiology can measure certain incidence and prevalence aspects. No complete adult male referendum will easily shift the practice to the point where age of majority choice is the default.

Sexual sensitivity impairment can only be within-person evaluated pre- and post surgery in later life as no other male matched demographically is a valid comparator. A developed male’s subjective impression of altered (ie, attenuated pleasurable sensation), only subjectively accessible at same cognitive developmental level such as young adult intervention, cannot stand as proxy for the up or down regulation of infants in general latent sexual function years subsequent. It’s not as disparate as losing baby teeth and wisdom tooth extraction but it is apples/oranges. 

Isolated outlier deleterious consequences don’t reinforce the soapbox. The absurd comparison of female genital mutulation is an insulting disservice to the female population subject to that horror. 

Oh dear, missed out on the pills again?

[Moses]

Three out of the three circumcised men I know regret being circumcised. All three cite a significant loss of sensitivity and now feel that they were robbed of a fulfilling sex life.

Two of these three were circumcised in infancy due to religious influence on their parents from older family members, and they now perceive this as an act of violence.

The third man was circumcised at the age of 14 and regrets giving in to his grandmother's persuasion, because the loss of sensitivity has resulted in him often failing to reach orgasm during sexual intercourse.

[a-447]

41 minutes ago, Moses said:

Two of these three were circumcised in infancy due to religious influence on their parents from older family members, and they now perceive this as an act of violence.

I disagree with circumcising babies - let guys decide for themselves when they are older.

But I wonder how you would know about reduced sensitivity if you were circumcised just after you were born? You would have nothing to compare it with.

[Riobard]

3 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Oh dear, missed out on the pills again?

No, in fact, what a boring vocal minority and pill you are, still trolling here, generic Aubnocksius, brand Ahzwhole, streetname ‘Keethqueef’ for its noteworthy hit of induced boredom. As well as an apt intrafamilial reference point for an inlaw’s take on a presidents’ personality. Yet easy for any smart person to exposed to metabolize.

Nice try to distract from your actual relatability to the topic and reality that the proportional age-associated weighting of your personal genital observation in a LMIC would add another layer to her psychodiagnostic formulation. Tell her I had a Keethqueef slipped into my caipirinha and see her knowing nod, the one distinct from nodding off to the Nobody 1 & 2 film series streaming on Apple. 

[Riobard]

35 minutes ago, a-447 said:

I disagree with circumcising babies - 

—-

Well as long as they have basic training and certification, a-447, no?

[PeterRS]

53 minutes ago, Moses said:

Three out of the three circumcised men I know regret being circumcised. All three cite a significant loss of sensitivity and now feel that they were robbed of a fulfilling sex life.

I have heard about lack of sensitivity several times before, but how does anyone know unless a man has chosen - or been persuaded - to be circumcised after becoming sexually active. The Old Testament tells us Abraham was circumised at the age of 100. Pity he did not leave any notes on sensitivity or lack thereof!

For Christians, circumcision was never prescribed and this goes as far back as the Apostle Paul and the New Testament. Indeed at the Council of Florence in the mid-15th century, the Roman Catholic Church specificallly forbade the practice. Going further back, the Greek and Roman civilisations were basically revolted by the idea.

The much more modern practice got a major boost in the mid 19th century when a British physician Jonathan Hutchison was searching for either a cure or means to control the rampant spread of syphilis. He had noted that Jews in paricular had a lower incidence of syphilis. This led to the belief that circumcision was a major help and this view quickly spread to the USA. But another as comelling reason helped spread that popularity for the good people of the USA. Hurchison and his colleagues believed that absence of the foreskin would reduce the sensitivity of the organ and hence reduce the prevalence of masturbation in males. In his later 1893 article titled On Circumcision as a Preventive of Masturbation, he wrote -

"I am inclined to believe that [circumcision] may often accomplish much, both in breaking the habit [of masturbation] as an immediate result, and in diminishing the temptation to it subsequently."

This was prticularly appealing to certain US Churches which very quickly promoted circumcision amongst their members. Although I believe not true today, Hutchison continued to preach this 'doctine' for the next 50 years. 15 years after Hutchison, an American orthopedic surgeon Lewis Sayre latched on to this view about circumcision being effective in promoting good health. 

With the end of World War 2 and the establishment of the National Health Service in Britain, a 1949 article The Fate of the Foreskin by Douglas Gairdner in the UK argued that evidence showed the risks outweighed the benefits. In the USA however, the popular physician Benjamn Spock was an outspoken proponent of the procedure. His book The Comon Sense Book of Baby and Child Care led to a huge rise in demand from parents, all this while Europe was slowly turning away from circumcision and it had never caught on in Central and South America.

I suppose it is not really possible to discuss circumcision without a note on religion. The Old Testament mentions it being an essential covenant between God and man. - hence its particular appeal to those of the Jewish faith. Trying not to be flippant about a serious subject, I wonder how excision of the foreskin can be regarded as an essential "covenant". Christianity has basically replaced this with baptism for two millannia. Yet in the same NT volume, the Book of Genesis mentions God creating man in his own image. Does this mean God had no foreskin? If not, why was man created with one? I have had little interest in religion but find much of its teachings, shall we say, strange.

[Suckrates]

I have ALWAYS enjoyed an UNCUT penis more......

I am a big fan of having "a little SKIN in the game".....

Its just so much fun to Play with !  👍

[Riobard]

I haven’t met a circumcised man in my personal life incapable of robust orgasm. I have met uncut men incapable of arousal and orgasm. I haven’t treated a man in my practice who proclaimed an association between circumcision status and sexual response … yet inquiring about sexual function was boilerplate in my practice. The substantial majority of men in my practice presenting with function concerns had exercised the adult autonomy of doing shit do their bodies. Some went on to pursue major invasive surgery, costly rehab, etc etc, in attempts to mitigate the sequelae of that shit. 

I have about half of foreskin tissue residually present at about complete lower circumference, a little less aesthetically idiosyncratic than if it were 21:00-03:00. The northern boreal doc must have been abruptly called to an emergency mid-procedure that left my southern half unexposed. Not one iota of sensitivity differential. Sensitivity is too uniformly high to discern a difference. I don’t add this to make a case, as anecdotes aren’t worth the splash of half and half in your coffee while the trajectory of my emissions is not governed by hemispheric variables.

[Riobard]

On 1/11/2026 at 5:42 AM, Keithambrose said:

One problem  with that is that circumcision as an older male has more risks, as I understand  it. Though  I assume that if you are over 18, you  have accepted any risks. 

Just over 17? One would think some think it’s more flexible. I’m not one of them. They are also sad cases hiding behind an arbitrary age setpoint when some areas of autonomy are undermined by the expediency of access to life’s necessaries. Forced choice. As you know, and as some sex tourists integrate sensitively into opportunistic play. 

[Riobard]

39 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

I have ALWAYS enjoyed an UNCUT penis more......

I am a big fan of having "a little SKIN in the game".....

Its just so much fun to Play with !  👍

I find the difference impossible to gauge due to where the member is predominantly positioned. 

[Riobard]

On 1/11/2026 at 12:49 AM, Blah said:

No child should be mutilated; let them decide as adults if they wish.✂️

 

That you describe it as mutilation is a thing. I need to know the BMI of anybody weighing in on this topic … that and other adult variables influence my response.

[Riobard]

Try not to get too sucked in, @unicorn

[Riobard]

2 hours ago, a-447 said:

I disagree with circumcising babies - let guys decide for themselves when they are older.

But I wonder how you would know about reduced sensitivity if you were circumcised just after you were born? You would have nothing to compare it with.

Like the man said. The notion of deprivation is primed more robustly when  something is taken away, but it’s both a flimsy argument and accompanied by the absence of comparability in such a way as to circle back to the deprivation narrative. That additionally contributes to the perception and assertion that the practice is essentially heinous. Yet if it shoulda coulda woulda been limited or restricted there’d be no additional data to support the same idea regarding sensitivity and function. Only a ratio shift in terms of the circumcision binary. An extant sufficient proportionality among billions globally has yet to yield consensus.

Anchored beliefs are hard to crack. We know this as well based on other platforms whose language and imagery supports the concern that  paedophilia adjacency is subtly if not overtly endorsed to the extent that interested members are turned off and refrain from explicit descriptions of trade experiences due to the risk of inadvertent association with perversion. 

[thaiophilus]

6 in a row! Is that a record?