To Cut or Not to Cut...
By PePe A. C.

Richard A. “abhors uncut dicks,” he says, adding that “I always find it disturbing, an uncut dick, like there’s something wrong with it.”  Obviously, he, himself, is cut; and no, “I did not have any traumatic experience (for being uncut, as many young Filipinos tend to have) since I was circumcised at birth.”  Alas, no, “I am unable to trace why I feel so, but I just do.”

Such strong emotions towards getting or not getting cut is what’s driving discussion on male circumcision to come to the fore, actually.

UNDER DISCUSSION. Circumcision should be decided by the man when he is old enough to do so, not by others.

THE BIG CUT

Circumcision, from the Latin circum (meaning: around) and cædere (to cut), is the procedure involving the removal of some or all of the foreskin (also called prepuce) from the penis.  As of end-2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 30% of all males in the population (some 670 million), aged 15 and over, are circumcised – two-thirds (70%) of the cut penises owned by Muslims, with a “near universal prevalence in the Middle East and Central Asia,”   specifically noting that "there is generally little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines.”  Less than 1% of the circumcised are of Jewish faith, and 13% are non-Muslim.

Globally, the WHO’s assessment of prevalence of circumcision among male populations include: Universally low in Spain (less than 2%), Colombia (less than 2%), Denmark (less than 2%), Finland (less than 13%), and Thailand (less than 13%); Widely prevalent in the US (75%) and Canada (30%); and Near universal in West and North Africa (from 20% to 100%).

No matter the prevalence, the aim of various circumcision procedures (e.g. involving clamps like Gomco, Plastibell and Mogen, used to cut blood supply to the foreskin, thus limit bleeding while protecting the glans) remain the same: To remove the foreskin protecting the glans, usually surgically, thereby baring it.

Repeatedly, circumcision has been seen as the rite of passage to mark a boy’s entry to adulthood (manhood) – though, according to Wikipedia.org, it “is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons,” such as the “germ theory” prevalent in the US in the 1900s (the concept was that the body was a conveyor of germs, so, by association, the penis was considered dirty, and circumcision was seen to remedy the dirtiness); a method to deal with masturbation [AIDS 9 (8), 1995]; protection against syphilis, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (Ibid.); and to deal with “attitudes of peers (of young men), and their self concept in the future."

In the Philippines, UNAIDS.org notes that “circumcision is almost universal and typically occurs at age 10 to 14, (with) a survey of boys found two-thirds of those surveyed choosing to be circumcised simply ‘to avoid being uncircumcised,’ and 41% stating that it was ‘part of the tradition.’”

MEDICAL MINDS

Interestingly, according to the British Medical Association (BMA), and as quoted by Wikipedia.org, “There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral, or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”

In fact, there are risks involved in circumcision – albeit very low – including, according to the American Medical Association (AMA), blood loss and infection, urinary fistulas, ulceration of the glans, meatal stenosis, cysts, chordee, necrosis of all or part of the penis, and removal of too much tissue to cause secondary phimosis.  Yet, these may be avoided in the hands of experienced medical practitioners.

A little known fact is that, according to Anastasios Zavales, who presented a paper (Male and Female Circumcision, Human Rights, and the Restoration of Spiritual Integrity and Freedom) to the United Nations as early as 1996, circumcision is actually considered genital mutilation, a violation of human rights.  “Genital mutilation affects more than... 13.5 million boy-child victims annually throughout the world.  The global proliferation of genital mutilation by circumcisers torturing child-victims incorporates atypical human rights violations: body-dysmorphic disorders, genital destruction, psycho-social impairment, and spiritual death,” Zavales states, adding that the practice actually “denies millions of children their reproductive rights to genital integrity and restitution, and sexual liberation.”

	1 | 2