An ancient Egyptian fresco depicting a circumcision ceremony. Source: Wikipedia

Circumcised men experience significantly lower levels of sexual pleasure and orgasm intensity compared to those uncircumcised, according to a recent study from Belgium.

For us gents in the Middle East and for male Muslims all around the world, who make up nearly 70% of the world’s estimated 1.3 billion circumcised men, the question naturally arises: Just what have we been missing out on?

According to the study, based on a survey of 1,369 men responding to leaflets handed out at railway stations across Belgium, we are missing out on anywhere between 0.2 and 0.4 points in reduced sensitivity and sexual pleasure when the penis’s head — the glans — is stimulated during arousal.

But what do these numbers translate to in the bedroom?

The survey asked participants whether they were circumcised and had them rate how sensitive their penis was on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher numbers corresponding to higher sensitivity.

For instance, the researchers report that in regards to sexual pleasure on the “dorsal side of the glans”, those uncircumcised averaged 3.72, while circumcised men were at 3.31.

Orgasm intensity was similarly reported as higher among the uncircumcised men, who averaged 3.37 compared to 3.13 for those circumcised — hence the 0.2 to 0.4 point difference noted above.

The findings contrast with a 2007 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine that found no loss in sexual sensation among circumcised men.

Some scientists have criticized this latest study, published in the peer-reviewed journal BJU International, as lacking proper scientific and editorial review.

For instance, the researchers’ depiction of their results in Table 3 of their paper conveys the exact opposite of their conclusions, showing circumcised men to have greater sensitivity and orgasm intensity.

While this is likely a mere editorial mishap, the study also features other curiosities.

For example, among its findings is that “circumcised men indicated lower orgasm intensity at the dorsal and lateral sides of the glans.”

Such a conclusion was derived from answers to questions asking participants to assess the degree of orgasm intensity from the stimulation of the lateral shaft of the penis, and alternatively the dorsal and ventral sides.

As the owner of a penis, I have absolutely no idea how one might begin to answer such questions.

Pinpointing orgasm intensity to particular dimensions of the penis sounds like asking a victim of an explosion whether they felt the thrust of the bomb impact more on the side of their body or its front. It seems a borderline comical question.

Moreover, the researchers indicate that 23% of the respondents were circumcised, meaning the sample was not representative, as circumcision rates in Europe are generally much lower. This raises more questions about the motivations of the circumcised individuals who decided to respond to the researcher’s leaflets, calling into question the reliability of their self-assessments.

But why snip at all?

Ultimately, even if these findings are inaccurate, this would be irrelevant to the justification of a — on the face of it — quite bizarre practice. Indeed, it is tempting to wonder what depraved, if not altogether insane, parent first decided it might be a good idea to rip off a part of their son’s penis.

In the context of the Middle East, Judaism, the Coptic church and Islam all prescribe circumcision. In the latter faith, the practice is known as tutheer, or purification, and while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is considered essential to lawfully make the pilgrimage to Mecca.

But is there something to be said for circumcision beyond the dictates of dogma?

Historically, the first recorded circumcisions date back to 2300 BC, when ancient Egyptians removed the foreskin — according to one theory — in order to avoid infections of the glans resulting from sand under the foreskin.

Others suggest that circumcision predates human history, with the practice potentially arising even prior to the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa. Based on this, one study argues that if it had no survival advantage, it would be unlikely for the practice to persist so long.

In the modern age, the most consistently reported advantage of circumcision is its potential role in combating HIV.

“The evidence showing a major, statistically significant protective effect of male circumcision against HIV infection is irrefutable,” says Roger Short, a reproductive biologist and HIV prevention expert at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

“[This is] the reason why the World Health Organisation  is promoting male circumcision throughout Africa in its efforts to reduce the incidence of HIV infection,” he says.

Short explains that it appears to be the inner aspect of the foreskin that is richly supplied with HIV receptors, making it the main site of HIV entry into the penis. Hence, removal of the foreskin may reduce the risk of HIV by 60 percent.

Other evidence suggests that circumcision can also cut the risk of herpes by 28 percent and penile cancer causing genital warts by up to 35 percent.

Whether this justifies perceiving circumcision as a kind of weak vaccine against these conditions is a debate that’s slowly garnering more attention — particularly after a German court banned circumcision last year on the grounds that it constitutes bodily harm to children.

Ultimately, while a simple resolution may be to argue for keeping this a matter of parental discretion, just what rights parents should have over their children’s bodies is likely a subject with even greyer ethical boundaries.