My wife and I are expecting a baby boy. Soon we will face the prickly question: to circumcise or not to circumcise? As far as we can determine, the dispute has not been settled which is healthier. As youngsters we heard that circumcision fosters cleanliness. Then we heard that this argument is feeble in a society familiar with the concept of soap. Then we heard of correlations between uncircumcised penises and cancers of the prostate and vagina. Then we heard that these reports are bunk. If you can resolve these questions, great.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
But it’s the sexual angle that most intrigues us at the moment. Which choice is the right one in terms of the sex life of the boy and a future partner? Some argue that circumcision is cruel because a circumcised penis is less sensitive, providing the man less sexual stimulation. Others counter that this is a good argument for circumcision: a reduction in sensitivity delays male climax, providing both partners more satisfaction. What say you, Cecil? –J.B., Chicago
Of the two satisfied customers, one was circumcised because he had a tight foreskin that split and bled copiously during his first attempt at intercourse–mercifully not a common problem. The other guy just didn’t like the way his stalk looked. Now, he says, he’s not only more sensitive, but he doesn’t have problems with odors, splash when urinating, or get his foreskin caught in his zipper. Your kid’s prospective partners (in a moment of heterosexism, Cecil assumed they would be women) were also divided in their views; several said an uncircumcised man had more to play with, while others preferred the streamlined look.
