I am sorry that you have, according to you, received a lot of hate mail because you have defended circumcision as a means of reducing HIV infection.

I do not here wish to say anything about the pros and cons of that debate, but rather to focus on your attitude to circumcision. Some of the things that you say seem to betray a certain conviction of the undoubted superiority of circumcised status which could be irritating to those who prefer their bodies to remain the way that nature intended. Perhaps this is the reason why you have been the recipient of vitriolic letters, rather than because you believe there is a case for reducing the incidence of HIV transmission.

Some of the things you have written include “prepuced Europeans” (as opposed to superior Americans?), “defenders of the prepuce” and recently you seem to dismiss the notion that circumcision “cuts off the full potential of (a man’s) full sexual gratification” as “utter rubbish”.  You see the tone of your journalistic style, don’t you. Mr. Hall?

The only people qualified to talk about the difference, from a sexual gratification point of view, between the uncircumcised and circumcised penis, is mature men who were circumcised for various reasons at an age when they already had a significant amount of sexual experience under their belts. These reasons should not include those circumcisions performed because of phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) or  because of other such impediments to proper performance, because naturally the patients would in most cases find that their capacity for sexual gratification had improved after the operation.  So you can see that the number of mature, sexually experienced men who have been circumcised at a late age is likely to be very small indeed.  There are reasons for such an operation at that age, such as accidental injury, or even burning, of the foreskin.

There is no doubt that the foreskin serves a purpose which is easy to see; that is that it preserves a delicacy and sensitivity to the skin of the glans (head) of the penis which matches the delicacy and sensitivity of the labia minor in the woman. When the foreskin is removed the skin covering the glans undergoes a distinct change, appearing rough and leathery when the penis is in the flaccid state. (And considerably darker in those of the majority of Caribbean men who are of African descent.) It seems perfectly reasonable to assume, therefore, that its capacity to transmit to the nerve endings those exquisite sensations of pleasure is reduced.

I hope that so far you have seen nothing “quaint” or “sentimental” in my reasons for preferring The Full Monty?  As you might not know, despite your Turks and Caicos forbears, 99.9% of Caribbean men are uncircumcised. As an American it is extremely likely that you yourself are circumcised, since most American men are, and indeed I feel that it is mainly from the circumcised that we get these attitudes of the superiority of circumcision. Circumcised fathers tend to want to circumcise their sons, and so on.

Throughout the history of Western art, from Ancient Greece to more recent times, the nude male is always portrayed in the natural state. There can be no doubt that circumcision is a form of mutilation. Those in favour of circumcision often tend to view the foreskin as something to be removed; as serving no purpose.  However, although our earlobes serve no purpose, their removal would be regarded as a mutilation.

Now let me say that if it should be proven that circumcision really does reduce the incidence of HIV infection I would be the last person to resist it. But before we start sharpening our scalpels, let us be sure beyond any doubt that it does reduce it. I do hope that you will not refer to this letter as “blather” and that you will not regard it as a waste of your editor’s time. I would prefer him to be the one who decides that.

Gregory Charles
Grenada