In Africa, circμmcision is fairly widespread. According to the World Health Organization, most of the content falls within the 80-100 percent bracket. As to how long this has been the case, is unclear. In South Africa, various indigenous peoples still practice traditional circμmcision. Aberrations of this form, however, have often publicised in local media for their mortality rates and pεnilε injuries.
But what is clear is that these customs have been in existence for a long time and were there for a reason.
In many parts of other African countries, traditional circμmcision is still practised. These practices have been around for centuries, in most cases. It makes one wonder what significance the forεskin may have held for them. Could the ancients have known of some health benefits before the emergence of Western medicine?
Now many African countries are rolling out medical circμmcision programmes as a preventative tool for H!V transmission. In Uganda, an innovative rubber device has been introduced which removes the forεskin without a blade, a means to encourage men to go for the snip.
Prof. Morris’s findings have created some discontent in cyberspace as the matter remains contentious. Though, most men who were circμmcisεd from birth are likely to not remember or care too much on what the difference is. What is well-known is that the snip does appear to decrease the chances of STIs, coupled with other preventative measure such as c0ndoms. If circμmcision was really proven to cause a slight decrease in sεxμal sεnsation, it would be interesting to see the number of men willing to pay this cost to lessen their risk of contracting infections.