We didn’t have to think about circumcision with Jillian obviously (because in that case it’s also frequently called female genital mutilation), but that hasn’t stopped me from thinking about the topic generally. If you’ve not read my 2003 essay on the subject (“You’re Cutting My What?!?“), you can get my full opinion there. The latest evidence from the British Journal of Urology here.

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

In my mind the only remaining argument for circumcision is the reduction in the transmission of AIDS and related sexual viruses. Nonetheless, the caveat I made in 2003 continues to apply:

…Robert Van Howe, a study team member at Michigan State University, thinks such claims are somewhat overblown. “The [health benefits] that have been consistently shown are very small, and there are less aggressive, less invasive, less expensive ways of dealing with the problems [circumcision] is supposed to address,” Van Howe told LiveScience.

Other practices, such as choosing sexual partners wisely and using condoms consistently, are far more effective in protecting against diseases, he added.