The Data, Visualized
Risk, benefit and losses
Anatomy & trauma
Pediatric outcomes, out of 1,000 boys
Five childhood outcomes: each redrawn as real counts out of 1,000 boys instead. Every one of these is an outcome that can happen, if it happens at all, before a boy is old enough to have been asked. Pick an outcome below to see its grid.
Choose an outcome
Out of every 1,000 boys circumcised to see the effect.
See the full discussion and sources on the Bodily Autonomy page →
Penile problems by age 5, intact vs. circumcised
A broad claims-data category — adhesions, infection, bleeding and similar problems coded in the first five years of life, not broken out by severity in the source. ~850,000 circumcised boys were matched against ~850,000 intact controls in a US commercial claims database
Fine-touch sensitivity, by region
In 2007, Sorrells and colleagues tested 19 sites across the penis with calibrated monofilaments, in both intact and circumcised men.[2] Five regions, ranged from each region's most to least sensitive site. Expand any region for every individual site Sorrells measured in it.
Foreskin & inner mucosa
0.093g – 0.353g
8 individual sites — click to expand
Most sensitive: rim of the preputial orifice (dorsal, 0.093g) · least sensitive: outer prepuce (ventral, 0.353g). Exists only on an intact penis — every site here is removed by circumcision.
Frenulum remnant & coronal sulcus
0.371g – 0.710g
3 individual sites — click to expand
Most sensitive: preputial mucosa near the corona (dorsal, intact, 0.371g) · least sensitive: coronal sulcus (circumcised, 0.710g). The frenulum is "frequently removed or divided during circumcision, sometimes without that being discussed in advance" — these are the sites Sorrells could still measure in both groups.
Shaft & coronal ridge
0.562g – 1.127g
4 individual sites — click to expand
Most sensitive: shaft, proximal to corona (ventral, circumcised, 0.562g) · least sensitive: coronal ridge (ventral, circumcised, 1.127g).
Glans
0.911g – 1.180g
2 individual sites — click to expand
Most sensitive: glans, at the meatus (circumcised, 0.911g) · least sensitive: middle of the glans (dorsal, circumcised, 1.180g). Not removed by circumcision, and the region where the two groups differ least — with one exception, below.
The circumcision scar
0.192g – 0.333g
2 individual sites — click to expand
Most sensitive: scar (ventral, 0.192g) · least sensitive: scar (dorsal, 0.333g). Circumcised men only. The one genuine surprise in the dataset: the scar itself tested as the single most sensitive site on a circumcised penis — more sensitive than the glans, and not far off the intact foreskin's own numbers.
Bar position is normalized across the full 0.093g–1.180g range Sorrells measured, so every bar on this page is directly comparable to every other. Lower gram-force means a lighter touch was enough to feel it, so bars further left are more sensitive. Raw values from Table 2 of the source paper.[2]
Support falls with every generation
A 2015 YouGov poll asked American adults whether circumcising male children should be routine and support rises in lockstep with age: every generation younger than the last is less sold on it.
Note: 'Routine' in this case means chosen to be performed on healthy newborns even when there's no medical reason for it, not that all boys should be.
What happened when ten states stopped paying for it
Between 2002 and 2005, ten states dropped Medicaid coverage for newborn circumcision within a five-year window — a natural experiment a 2021 study used to isolate the policy's real effect on behavior. The design has a built-in control group: privately insured births in the same states, over the same years.
Circumcision rate, Medicaid-covered newborns only
Same ten states, same years
The ten states, and the year each dropped coverage
Both bars above are the rate among Medicaid-covered newborns specifically, before and after their state stopped paying for the procedure — not a statewide or national average. The much smaller move in the privately-insured control group, same states and years, is what makes the case that this drop tracks the policy itself rather than a broader cultural shift that would have shown up in both groups equally. Source: Torosian T, Quint JJ, Klausner JD, “Decline in Frequency of Newborn Male Circumcision After Change in Medicaid Coverage Status in Selected States in the United States,” Public Health Rep. 2021;136(3):338–344.[4]
Physicians who skipped pain relief entirely
A national survey of US physicians performing newborn circumcision, mailed in 1997–98, found that a majority used no pain relief of any kind — not "no general anesthesia," no pain relief at all. The gap by specialty is the sharpest single number in the data.
55% used no pain relief of any kind · 45% used something
Used any pain relief, by specialty
Reasons given for using none at all
Obstetricians, who performed a large share of newborn circumcisions in this era, used any pain relief barely a quarter of the time — less than half as often as pediatricians. Source: Stang HJ, Snellman LW, “Circumcision practice patterns in the United States,” Pediatrics 1998;101(6):e5.[3]
Newborn pain can change later pain responses
A 1997 prospective study followed 87 infants into three groups: intact, circumcised with anesthetic cream, and circumcised with no pain relief at all. At the next routine vaccination, months later, their pain response stepped up in exactly that order — the strongest single finding on the page this chart comes from.
Sources cited on this page
- Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. "Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination." The Lancet, 1997;349(9052):599–603. DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)10316-0. PMID 9057731..
- Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis." BJU International, 2007;99(4):864–869. See the full discussion on the Anatomy page.
- Stang HJ, Snellman LW. "Circumcision practice patterns in the United States." Pediatrics, 1998;101(6):e5. PMID 9606247. A national survey of US physicians performing newborn circumcision. See the full discussion on the History page.
- Torosian T, Quint JJ, Klausner JD. "Decline in Frequency of Newborn Male Circumcision After Change in Medicaid Coverage Status in Selected States in the United States." Public Health Rep., 2021;136(3):338–344.
- Moore P. "Young Americans Less Supportive of Circumcision at Birth." (opens in new tab) YouGov, February 3, 2015.
- Fendereski K, Horns JJ, Driggs N, Lau G, Schaeffer AJ. "Comparing Penile Problems in Circumcised vs. Uncircumcised Boys: Insights From a Large Commercial Claims Database With a Focus on Provider Type Performing Circumcision." J Pediatr Surg. 2024;59(11). PMID 39084960. ~850,000 circumcised boys matched against ~850,000 intact controls; penile problems in the first five years of life, 1.7% vs. 0.5% (2.9-fold higher, 95% CI 2.8–3.0, p<0.001).
- Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. "Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies." Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):853–858. OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.08–0.20) against a ~1% baseline risk in infancy; NNT≈111.
- Van Howe RS. "Incidence of Meatal Stenosis Following Neonatal Circumcision in a Primary Care Setting." Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006;45(1):49–54. 24 of 329 circumcised boys (age 3+) diagnosed; single-practice study.
- Shabanzadeh DM, Clausen S, Maigaard K, Fode M. "Male circumcision complications – a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression." Urology. 2021;152:25–34. Pooled 351 studies, ~4.04 million participants; nontherapeutic (elective) circumcisions at 3.34%. No CI reported for this subgroup.
- Nayan M, Hamilton RJ, Juurlink DN, Austin PC, Jarvi KA. "Circumcision and Risk of HIV among Males from Ontario, Canada." J Urol. 2022;207(2):424–430. Population cohort, n=569,950 (203,588 circumcised, 366,362 comparison), 1991–2017. Adjusted HR 0.98 (95% CI 0.72–1.35) — not significant. Quote: “We found that circumcision was not independently associated with the risk of acquiring HIV among males from Ontario, Canada. Our results are consistent with clinical guidelines that emphasize safe-sex practices and counseling over circumcision as an intervention to reduce the risk of HIV.”
- Frisch M, Simonsen J. "Non-therapeutic male circumcision in infancy or childhood and risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections: national cohort study in Denmark." Eur J Epidemiol. 2022;37(3):251–259 (published online 2021). National cohort, n=810,719 (3,375 circumcised, 807,344 intact), 1977–2013. Adjusted HR for any STI: 1.53 (95% CI 1.24–1.89), driven particularly by anogenital warts (74 vs. 7,151 cases; adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.20–1.90) and syphilis (4 vs. 197 cases; adjusted HR 3.32, 95% CI 1.23–8.95). Gonorrhea trended higher but wasn’t statistically significant (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.95–5.57). HIV specifically: 0 cases among circumcised vs. 321 among intact — too few circumcised-group events for a stable estimate. Quote: “…non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy or childhood did not appear to provide protection against HIV or other STIs in males up to the age of 36 years. Rather, non-therapeutic circumcision was associated with higher STI rates overall, particularly for anogenital warts and syphilis.”
- Larke NL, Thomas SL, dos Santos Silva I, Weiss HA. "Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Cancer Causes & Control, 2011;22(8):1097–1110. PMID 21695385. Childhood/adolescent circumcision vs. invasive penile cancer: OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.13–0.83, 3 studies). Restricted to boys with no phimosis history (2 studies), the protective effect “no longer persisted.” Same source already discussed as Tactic 10 on the Claims & Rebuttals page.