NO FORESKIN REGRETS

In reply to Lance Gunderson ( Letters, March 18), male circumcision seems to have its origins in the Middle East/ North Africa at least 8ooo years ago. A possible reason for this is that the sandy environment led to sand under the foreskin producing irritation and infection. This custom, like eating pork, arose from negative health effects and was incorporated as a requirement into the Jewish and Muslim religions.

Gunderson claims there is little medical information on the effect of male circumcision and references a report of John Taylor in 1995 on the possible function of the “ridged band” of the foreskin. On the basis of his study, Taylor said in a letter to Pediatrics News in 2000, “Parents should be left in no doubt that circumcision always removes a large, sexually significant portion of the penis.”

However, since then, there have been many studies on this subject: for example in 2007, in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Kimberly Payne et al stated, “No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups.” In 2015, Guy Cox et al ( Sexual Medicine) surveyed 41 publications and concluded “circumcision would appear to have no adverse effect on sexual pleasure”.

There are also health benefits with circumcision, such as less risk of urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections and penile cancer.

Female circumcision or female genital mutilation is another story. This custom in many parts of Africa is based on gender inequality and seeks to control what might be considered wayward sexual behaviour by women. There are many adverse health effects and no known benefits.

A foreskin’s lament might be by women whose partner is not circumcised. A review ( Lancet Global Health in 2017) of 60 publications concluded male circumcision protected against cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia, herpes simplex virus type 2, chlamydia and syphilis.

Reuben Leberman (Palmerston North)