Medicine: The Foreskin Saga

Circumcision, the ancient rite of Jews and Moslems, is now performed on 80% of all American male infants. Several doctors have recently revived an old question: Is this snip necessary? In learned articles the skeptics argue that removing the foreskin is neither hygienic nor otherwise helpful. They also claim—but have not proved—that it reduces male sexual pleasure.

Now comes Jack Harnes, a Manhattan internist, who persuaded, the staid Journal of the American Medical Association to publish what may be the last word on the subject. In "The Foreskin Saga," Harnes puts the "debate" into perspective in a strikingly successful spoof of the ponderous,reports that usually appear in medical publications (among earlier titles of serious articles: "The Rape of the Phallus," "Penile Plunder"). Believing that the circumcision controversy is ludicrous and the sensual argument unprovable, Harnes merely concocted some insights and phony research.

Some Kind of Nut. Why, he ruminates, did his physician-father have him circumcised? "Did this represent an unconscious attack by my father on my Oedipus complex? Was he aware of the future decreased pleasure the operation would incur, and did this represent hatred of me? Did he, with my mother's consent, subconsciously want me castrated?" Philosophically, Harnes concludes that "what was done was done." Anyway, he notes, neither plastic surgery nor prosthetic technology can alter matters where he is concerned.

Pressing on in a more empirical manner, Harnes reports that he attempted to "study" men who had been circumcised as adults; the result is that his practice now consists mostly of women and a few men with "certain psychological problems." Harnes claims to have sent questionnaires to 135 urologists explaining the nature of his research and asking for their cooperation. Only 29 replied at all, and of this number, 24 asked: "What are you, some kind of nut or something?"

Next, Harnes imagined trying to determine whether women who had intercourse with both circumcised and uncircumcised partners noted any differences in the men's pleasure. His efforts, which began with questions to his wife and his nurse, once again proved futile. "Readers requesting reprints should note my new address" (Maiden Lane, of course). Nor were "interviews" with prostitutes any more successful. He tells of questioning 15 "experienced prostitutes from all walks of life." Fourteen gave him the same answer as had the majority of urologists. The 15th may have known all, but "did not speak English or French."