In 1994, R S Kirby reviewed Bigelow's work, "The joy of uncircumcising!"[1]. In brief, Bigelow's book made the claim that following circumcision the glans penis keratinises causing a substantial decrease in sensitivity. Bigelow also asserted that by "restoring" the foreskin, this sensitivity can be regained. Kirby expressed doubt at these, and suggested that the newfound sensitivity reported by some of these men is effectively a placebo.
Almost a decade later, it seems appropriate to examine the new evidence.
Szabo and Short have raised doubts[2] about the keratinisation of the glans, finding that the epithelium of the glans was equally keratinised in circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Bleustein et al. have studied the sensitivity of the glans penis[3], and have found no significant measurable difference in the sensitivity of the glans penis of circumcised and uncircumcised males. This confirms the earlier work of Masters and Johnson[4].
Perhaps in light of these findings, it is fair to conclude that Kirby was correct in thinking the effect on sensitivity described by "uncircumcising" men is indeed a placebo.
References
- Kirby RS. Views and Reviews: The Joy of Uncircumcising! Restore Your Birthright and Maximize Sexual Pleasure. BMJ 1994; 309: 679a
- Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity. AUA 98th Annual Meeting: Abstract 1260. Apr 2003.
- Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ Jun 2000; 320: 1592-1594.
- Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1966: 189-191