But back to old Louis. Some sources claim that because King Louis suffered from phimosis, he rarely had sex with his wife. Frustrated, she indulged in all kinds of debauchery, from orgies to incestuous relations with her own son. True or not (and most likely untrue) stories like these provided fodder for rabble-rousing Jacobin revolutionaries; the anti-monarchist French press of the 1780swas full of scandalous stories of the unbecoming behavior of the (soon-to-be-headless) heads of state. But why am I rambling on about phimosis and foreskins? Phimosis can be cured with circumcision and lately circumcision has been the subject of some cutting-edge research. (Groan, sorry, can’t help myself.) Recent randomized trials in Africa found that the risk of acquiring HIV infection were 50-60% lower in circumcised men, as opposed to uncircumcised men. One theory proposed to explain this phenomenon hypothesizes that the inner aspect of the foreskin contains more cells with HIV receptors, as compared to the glans (the area of the penis that lies under the foreskin). Thus, removing the foreskin, and these cells that are extra susceptible to HIV, can have a protective effect. In addition, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of penile cancer, and the rate of urinary tract infection in male infants. You can read all about it in the article “Decreased Incidence of Urinary Tract Infections in Circumcised Male Infants” by Dr. T.E. Wiswell. (I swear that is really the author’s name. You can look him up!) Snip away, you say? Some folks would disagree—passionately. There is an entire community who fervently oppose circumcision, despite the pretty strong supportive medical evidence. Those who are strongly anti-circumcision may refer to themselves as followers of the “Genital Integrity” movement, or claim they support “Intactivism.” Some anti-circumcision websites seek to shock with stories of what they claim is an “international foreskin-smuggling cartel”. I’m not exactly sure who would be involved on the purchasing side of said cartel, but I’ll leave that subject for another time . . . Other websites, seeking a visceral response from the viewer, instead rely on gory pictures of screaming babies, all bloody genitalia and tears. Some anti-circumcision believers claim that men lose sensation with the loss of the foreskin. Luckily, there is a new product on the market, great for those who feel forsaken without a foreskin —the artificial retractable foreskin, a flesh-colored latex slip-on device. (We Americans surely do not lack for ingenuity in product development.) I guess it’s a good option for guys who don’t have the connections to get in with those dastardly foreskin-smugglers. So I apologize, this article won’t help you make light conversation at the next office party, (unless you have very progressive and open-minded co-workers or you work for a mohel, the man whose duty it is to perform a bris, the Jewish circumcision ceremony.) But whether you are pro- or anti-circumcision (and as you may have guessed, I’m pro-, based on the medical literature) you’re sure to find someone who shares your views. And if not . . . to take a French saying completely out of context—vive la difference! Welcome to The Doctor Is In. Medicine and the biomedical sciences are chock full of the bizarre, the fantastic, and the downright disgusting. As a medical student with a peculiar sense of humor, I’d like to share some of my favorite examples of weird and wild stories of the human body, health and disease. Check out the entire series at popsci.com/thedoctor where you can also grab the RSS feed.
