Circumcision controversies

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Male circumcision has been a subject of controversy for a number of reasons including religious, ethical, sexual, and medical.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in a rapidly changing medical and surgical world, circumcision rose in popularity as a means of prophylaxis in the Anglosphere.^[6] Its primary justification was to promote cleanliness,^[7][8][9] as well as reducing and preventing the incidence of disease.^[10][11][12] Many medical professionals and advocates of the procedure also believed that it would reduce pleasure and the urge to masturbate, which was considered a social ill of the era, although their belief is considered false in modern times.^{[1][4][13][11][14][9]}

Traditional proponents say that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases and confers sexual benefits.^{[1][15][4][2][16]} By contrast, the majority of modern opponents, particularly of routine neonatal circumcision, question its preventive efficacy and object to subjecting non-consenting newborn males to a procedure that is potentially harmful with little to no benefit, as well as violating their human rights and possibly negatively impacting their sex life.^{[1][2][4][5][3][17][18][19][20]}

In Classical and Hellenistic civilization, Ancient Greeks and Romans posed great value on the beauty of nature, physical integrity, aesthetics, harmonious bodies and nudity, including the foreskin^[20][21][22] (see also Ancient Greek art), and were opposed to circumcision, an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West and East that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Frederick Hodges.^[20]

Traditional branches of Judaism, Islam, Coptic Christianity, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church still advocate male circumcision as a religious obligation.^[23]