Horizontal Navigation Bar w/Rollover Effect
P H O T O G A L L E R Y O F D A M A G E - Page 4
Images here reveal both routine and extraordinary damage from circumcision in infancy or childhood (physical damage only).
It does not account for adverse sexual, emotional/psychological, spiritual or self-esteem outcomes from the physical damage.
While the extremes of male and female genital cutting may differ in the effects upon individuals, one common denominator is the fact that no matter how "serious" or "minor" the public may perceive the differences in harm to be, the damage is often an all-consuming issue to the individual who must live with the loss of their inherent genital integrity, especially when the genital loss and scars were imposed on them when they could not consent, refuse or escape.
Types of Physical Circumcision Damage (indicated by letter under each photo) From "proper" circumcision
[all circumcised men have a scar on the penis; photo at right depicts one possible position. More scar photos at Wikipedia.]
Some circumcised men deny this "damage" and learn to accept it as "normal" anatomy, especially in cultures that tell them the appearance is "aesthetically pleasing." This damage is nearly universal among all men circumcised as children; the sexual, self-esteem and psychological effects of which have never been systematically studied.
From "proper" circumcision
Anecdotal evidence suggests these are common among men circumcised in infancy. Some come to accept this as a "birth defect". Others seek professional help for these problems, but there is no systematic effort to document these. Variety and incidence of these types of damage have never been quantified by the medical community.
From "improper" circumcision
Men rarely reveal this damage and often remain sexually reclusive or 'virgins'. Surgical mishaps occur at a rate of 2-10% [Williams & Kapila, 1993], but are usually concealed by lawsuits. Religious/tribal circumcisions have higher mishaps that sometimes become newsworthy, but often go unreported. Variety and incidence never quantified by the medical community.
A. Foreskin destroyed (resulting in nerve/sensation loss)
B. Ridged bands destroyed (resulting in nerve/sensation loss)
C. Frenulum destroyed (resulting in nerve/sensation loss)
D. Dry, keratinized, pitted glans (resulting in sensation loss)
E. Prominent or uneven scar
F. Drastic skin tone variance (either side of scar)
G. Meatal stenosis (can restrict urine/semen flow)
H. Skin tag(s)
I. Skin bridge(s) (resulting tethering can cause pain during erection and sex)
J. Loss of skin mobility (causes tight, painful erections; abrasion during sex)
K. Glans gouge(s)
L. De-gloving (partial/total loss of penile dermis)
M. Unnatural curvature (from uneven skin removal; sometimes painful)
N. Other (described)
Photo Submissions Received by Survey Respondents: 16 January 2012 - 15 March 2012
[ additional photos will be posted on subsequent Gallery pages at the next posting of survey results ]
A, B, C, D, E, F, J
A, B, C, D, E, J
A, B, C, D, F note dry, discoloured appearance of glans
A, B, C, D, G note stenosed urinary opening
A, B, C, D, F note scars and striations on glans surface Independent of our survery respondents' photos, Circumstitions.com has 9 pages of images of circumcision damage.
Copyright 2011-2016 Tim Hammond - Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. All Rights Reserved. Web hosting by Tilted Planet.