Abstract
Tye and Sardi present an extensive critical overview of the sparse and inconsistent literature on the psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual impact of penile circumcision (PC) with a clear aim of achieving a framework for policy considerations and future research. With this perspective I humbly propose to step back and ask some deeper questions about PC, being this a politicized topic we should ask ourselves whether we can engage with a literature so full of polemical publications and polarized opinions. Even when presenting “straightforward” empirical data we can stimulate very different interpretations based on the previous beliefs or convictions of the reader, generating an undesirable sociocultural division. While PC is becoming a hot topic, we are falling far from reaching a consensus towards a medical policy framework to counsel families and individuals searching for answers; it actually seems to become a politicised philosophical battle between medical and health providers, researchers, psychologists, anthropologists, and activists. At this point, can we disentangle this ball of twine, asking the same questions and searching for the same answers—or should we call for a time-out and revaluate what we want to figure out about human sexuality in relation to cultural modifications of the genitals?