Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes

Roger Collier
CMAJ November 22, 2011 183 (17) 1963-1964; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4014
Roger Collier
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

When a product slips in status from “must have” to “don’t need,” it is generally tossed on the scrapheap of consumer history. Just ask the people who invented the floppy disk. According to some health experts, the foreskin is the floppy disk of the male anatomy, a once-important flap of skin that no longer serves much purpose. But the foreskin also has many fans, who claim it still serves important protective, sensory and sexual functions.

“Every mammal has a foreskin,” says Dr. George Denniston, founder of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, an organization based in Seattle, Washington, with members across the United States and in other countries, including Canada. Many people “don’t understand the value of the foreskin,” adds Denniston.

Medical professionals have been debating the value of the foreskin for many years. In 1949, British physician Dr. Douglas Gairdner explored the “fate of the foreskin” in an oft-cited paper in which he noted that some of the health problems prompting adult men to seek circumcision, including phimosis (trouble retracting foreskin) and balanitis (inflammation of the glans), do not apply to infants (BMJ 1949;2:1433–7).

He also weighed the existing evidence supporting claims that circumcision prevented other medical conditions, coming to the conclusion that, at the time, a reduction in cases of penile cancer was the only medical reason “commonly advanced for the universal circumcision of infants capable of withstanding critical scrutiny.”

Furthermore, Gairdner noted, the foreskin plays an important protective role in newborns. “It is often stated that the prepuce is a vestigial structure devoid of function,” he wrote. “However, it seems to be no accident that during the years when the child is incontinent the glans is completely clothed by the prepuce, for, deprived of this protection, the glans becomes susceptible to injury from contact with sodden clothes or napkin.”

That was hardly the final word on the foreskin in medical research. Fast-forward several decades, to the 1980s, and you’ll find influential research that suggested neonatal circumcision could reduce urinary tract infections in male infants by a whopping 90% (Pediatrics 1985;75:901–3 and Pediatrics 1986;78:96–9). This data prompted other researchers to ponder if the prepuce was a mistake of nature (Lancet 1989;1:598–9).

Figure

Is the foreskin a redundant piece of skin useful only to viruses, or does it still serve important protective, sensory and sexual functions?

Image courtesy of © 2011 Thinkstock

The pro-prepuce crowd, however, says these and other health problems are better addressed through such activities as education on proper hygiene. And there is much to lose, they claim, when the penis ditches its hood, not the least of which is sexual satisfaction. Though research in this area has yielded inconsistent results, Denniston, for one, has no doubt that the foreskin contains tissue with erogenous properties.

In particular, an area called the “ridged band,” the wrinkly skin at the end of the foreskin, is loaded with nerve endings that are stimulated by motion during intercourse or masturbation. If a man is circumcised as an infant, says Denniston, he has been robbed of sensitivity without his consent.

“The ridged band is important for sexual joy. No one has a right to take that away from someone.”

The foreskin also protects a man’s female sexual partners, says Denniston. First, an intact penis glides in the foreskin during intercourse, reducing friction. Second, the exposed glans of a circumcised penis becomes coarser over time, a process known as keratinization, and is more abrasive to the internal mucous membrane of the vagina.

“You take the foreskin away and let the glans callus and you end up irritating the hell out of the vaginal mucosa,” says Denniston. “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”

Some medical researchers, however, claim circumcised men enjoy sex just fine and that, in view of recent research on HIV transmission, the foreskin causes more trouble than it’s worth. Data from a series of high-profile clinical trials in Africa suggest that men cut their chances of contracting HIV by more than half if they are circumcised (PLoS Med 2: e298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298 and Lancet 2007;369:643–56 and Lancet 2007;369:657–66).

There is still no consensus, however, on exactly how the foreskin promotes the transmission of HIV.

One hypothesis is that the foreskin simply provides more surface area and therefore more cells that are susceptible to infection, as Dr. Minh Dinh, assistant professor in medicine–infectious diseases at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, posited in a recent review of prevailing theories (Am J Reprod Immunol 2010;65:279–83).

“The virus needs to find a cell to infect,” says Dinh. “It has to find target cells.”

Another theory is that viruses much prefer the damp area under the foreskin to the dryer surface of an exposed glans. “You have this layer of skin that retracts,” says Dinh. “That creates an environment that is dynamic. It is also a warm, moist environment that may allow viral particles to linger longer on the penis, which give the cells there more time to take in the particles.”

The foreskin may also have certain structural characteristic relating to its barrier function and permeability that make it more susceptible to viral infection. Whatever the reason, the benefits of circumcision are apparent, says Dinh, while the benefits of the foreskin are anything but.

“There are no health benefits to having foreskin,” says Dinh. “Not that I’m aware of.”

Editor’s note: Second of a six-part series:

Part I: Circumcision indecision:

The ongoing saga of the world’s most popular surgery (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4021).

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (17)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 17
22 Nov 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes
Roger Collier
CMAJ Nov 2011, 183 (17) 1963-1964; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes
Roger Collier
CMAJ Nov 2011, 183 (17) 1963-1964; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4014
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Form and function
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What the U.S. overturning Roe v. Wade means for Canada
  • Is one-way masking enough?
  • XE, XD & XF: what to know about the Omicron hybrid variants
Show more News

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire