On Male Infant Circumcision

Ooh, a controversial topic, this.

Male infant circumcision when there is no immediate medical requirement is, to my mind, a barbaric practice; a relic from the bronze age that has no place in the 21st century. I will not say and do not believe that people who circumcise their child are barbaric. Rather, they are woefully misinformed, misled, or in some cases didn't do adequate research into the issue before making the decision to have their son's foreskin removed. We are so used to the idea of male circumcision that we inadvertently trivialise it and don't see it as a big enough issue.

Here is a basic overview: male circumcision removes 15 square centimetres of the single most sensitive organ in the body. According to every major study (to which I will be happy to link on request) the sensation of pleasure during orgasm for circumcised males is dramatically reduced. The foreskin contains the largest concentration of sensory nerve endings found in the body (between 10000 and 20000 per square centimetre).

There are, however, health benefits to circumcision. Numerous studies have shown that circumcised men have a slightly reduced chance of contracting HIV. The HIV uses certain cells in the foreskin as binding sites to infect the host. Also, the many folds in the foreskin allow the virus to linger on the penis, increasing the chance of transmission. Naturally, however, there is no adequate substitute for using a condom.

Circumcision also slightly reduces the chances of urinary tract infection, as the foreskin can trap dirt and debris which can introduce infection-causing micro-organisms. Simply spending a couple of seconds cleaning the area in the shower all but removes the additional risk.

Male circumcision is not on a par with female genital mutilation. Female genital cutting usually involves removing the clitoris and clitoral hood. The closest approximation for a male would be to remove the foreskin as well as the glans. If any males reading this winced at the idea, they will understand why female genital mutilation is internationally illegal.

That said, the closest approximation to male circumcision is the removal of only the clitoral hood. Women who undergo this procedure (also internationally illegal) claim a loss of sensation, but still come to orgasm with the same frequency. Bear in mind that the removal of the clitoral hood comes with its own health benefits that almost mirror those for males circumcision There is, shockingly, a pro-female circumcision crowd who frequently cite such findings. In fact, some of them go so far as to claim it is sexist to allow males the medical benefits but not females.

This blog post is not intended to in any way trivialise the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. I do not and would never advocate the legalisation of such a barbaric practice. Rather, I am advocating that male circumcision be made illegal. I hope that within my lifetime, many countries will go down that road as public awareness increases.

Comments are-naturally-free and anonymous.