Similarly, between 2002 and 2005, a study was conducted in Kenya where over 2,784 men participated. Of these, 64% reported an increase in pεn!lε sensitivity and 54% attested that achieving cl!max was significantly easier.In spite of these findings, a significant portion of people still have their doubts. They believe that circμmcision does not prevent STI’s, decreases sε’xμal sensitivity and is an act of violence on the body – deprives the owner of the pεn!s the choice, especially when it comes to infant circμmcision. Intactivists, for example, consider infant circμmcision as a violation of the baby boy’s basic human rights to freedom and choice.
With a growing number of followers on social networks, groups like Intact America express disagreement to Prof. Morris’s findings. Interestingly, intactivists are few and far between in areas with high STI infection rates like South Africa.In some parts of Europe, it’s been condemned for its supposedly harmful effects on an infant’s body. Anne Lindboe, Norway’s Children’s Ombudsman, called it “violence against children”.“With good information about risk, pain and lack of health benefits of the intervention, I think parents from minorities would voluntarily abstain from circμmcising children,” she said. Her counterparts in Sweden, Finland and Denmark seemed to echo the sentiment.
Circμmcision may have little effect on heterosεxμal s’εx but maybe not so much in homosεxμal s’εx. The removal of the forεskin would negatively affect d0cking. ‘Docking’ is when two ε’rεct men shεath the one pεn!s head in the forεskin of the other man. In this scenario, the forεskin is an important participant but it may be too early to assume some parents would make allowances to achieve those ends.
The world is generally still divided about circu’mcision.
Graph: World Health Organization