These calls for circumcision are terribly misleading

I WOULDN’T HAVE VENTURED into the sensitive debate on circumcision if it did not have direct consequences for my children, and the posterity of the Luo community and other non-circumcising communities around the world.

However, the debate has been fuelled by research carried out in Kenya and Uganda and published in January in BJU International.

Had it not acquired political overtones that sought to authenticate an otherwise lop-sided research whose methodology, validity, plausibility and veracity are in doubt, I would not have wasted time debating it.

Yet, this issue touches on the very nerves of the communities that do not practise circumcision. It is an old time debate that has been misguidedly used to show cultural superiority among different communities.

Scientific research has rejected that line of thinking. It is therefore surprising that none other than Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who has suffered the wrath of cultural purists, went out prescribing the new medicine for the “uncut”.

I WON’T QUESTION MR ODINGA’S wisdom, but this is a very sensitive cultural issue that a person of his standing in Luoland and Kenya in general cannot afford to discuss it as casually as he did. The endorsement for circumcision among the Luo community is totally unacceptable!

I don’t intend to argue here that our culture is superior. There are certain cultural practices that need to be eradicated without legislation. These include inheriting a widow whose husband probably died of Aids. These are issues that have to be addressed and a common position adopted, not for one community, but for the entire society.

Abstention and regular use of condoms is the surest way to avoid contracting HIV, and national leaders should be advocating this instead of advocating something which is meant to portray the Luo culture as inferior.

It is for this reason that most members of the community have felt provoked by an assault directed at our culture. Yet, the research is so hollow there is no knowing whether the sample group and control group had been subjected to a full-blown situation to validate the findings.

I have no problem with those who wish to practise circumcision, for they regard it as a rite of passage marking a boy’s entrance into adulthood. Sometimes it was performed as a means of suppressing the sexual urge, or as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical.

At other times, it is performed as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbours, to increase a man’s attractiveness to women, or as symbolic castration.

The Luos have used and abandoned other cultural practices that mark the passage of a boy to adulthood. We have refused to embrace circumcision for various reasons.

First, circumcision is not part of our culture. Second, it reduces physical sensitivity. This is backed by research.

A 2007 study funded by an organisation which opposes circumcision and published in BJU International found a difference in fine-touch sensitivity between men who were circumcised and those who were uncircumcised.

This same study also compared the sensitivity thresholds at various points on the male organ and concluded that the most sensitive part of the uncircumcised organ was more sensitive than the most sensitive parts of the circumcised organ. The authors argue that the parts of the organ removed by circumcision represent the most sensitive parts.