A pleasant exception has been the recent letter by Mr Gregory Charles. I would, however, like to correct Mr Charles, when he states that 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."¹  Mr Charles no doubt refers to what authors often describe as post-circumcision keratinisation (or 'toughening') of the glans.

Coincidentally, when early observational studies indicated that circumcision might play a protective role against HIV, this keratinisation was cited as a likely mechanism.²  However, the existence of it had not been put to the test: it was merely an assumption. In 2000, the hypothesis was finally tested and no difference in keratinisation of the glans was found between circumcised and uncircumcised men.³  The researchers suggested that the removal of the relatively thin foreskin, rich in HIV target cells, was responsible instead. Later investigation by others confirmed this suggestion.⁴

Turning to the sensitivity issue, again, every study to investigate this has found no difference in glans sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men.^5-7  Sadly, the fact that the only available evidence lends no support to these hypotheses has not stopped anti-circumcision authors and websites from continuing to state it as fact.

Mr Charles and others would be well-advised to treat such claims with the cynicism that they deserve. Judging by the available scientific evidence, Mr Hall is indeed correct to describe them as 'utter rubbish'.

Jake Waskett
Founder, Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service
Manchester, UK

1. Charles G. Circumcision and HIV transmission. 11 Sep 2006. Carribean Net News. Url

2. See, for example: de Vincenzi I, Mertens T. Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention? AIDS 1994 Feb; 8(2): 153-60. Abstract

3. Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ 2000; 320: 1592-1594. Url

4. Patterson BK, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep; 161(3): 867-73. Url

5. Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1966: 189-91. Excerpt

6. Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity. Paper read at the American Urological Association 98th Annual Meeting at Chicago Illinois, April 26-May 1, 2003. Publishing ID 1260, Abstract ID: 100769. Abstract

7. Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation. Urology. 2005 Apr;65(4):773-7. Abstract