Isn the circumcised penis more normal?
“Techniques for performing neonatal circumcision.” Am Fam Physician. 1996; 53(8):2440. To the editor: Over the decades, and particularly in the recent past, perhaps more heat than light has been shed on the issue of neonatal male circumcision. The recent series of letters offers what can only be viewed as confusing interpretations of normalcy. The language used in these letters is revealing: Dr Reynolds opines that his method “removes the foreskin in an anatomically correct fashion.” Dr Taylor boasts of a “superior cosmetic result” and “a more natural appearance of a penis without the foreskin.” Dr Philgreen describes a “normal appearance.” Dr Hopper claims a “nicer looking” outcome. Clearly these writers are basing their interpretations of “normal” on some construct of aesthetics different from one based on natural, unaltered anatomy. A penis without a foreskin may be seen as “nicer looking” by some persons, but it is in no way natural, and it is hard to think of a situation in which
