The strange case of Circumcision in South Korea

Policy Statement For the record, the author of these pages is firmly opposed to all involuntary circumcision, the Korean variety no more or less than any other, and has no issue with any other aspect of Korean culture. - HY

Circumcision in South Korea is interesting for several reasons:

• It is of recent origin - less than 50 years - making it almost rootless
• It is performed (for "medical" and sexual reasons) in late childhood
• It is very much taken for granted, and assumed to be universal
• Religious circumcision is almost unknown.

Circumcision itself was almost unknown in South Korea before before the US trusteeship, 1945-48, and the heavy US involvement in the Korean War; 1950-53. Older men report not having heard of it (except in a biblical context) before then. It seems an inescapable conclusion that it was adopted because of US cultural influence. It is reported to have greatly increased in the 1960s, with many articles in newspapers promoting it. Since then it has become almost universal. An estimated 14 million South Korean men are now circumcised. While circumcision has declined in the United States over the last two decades, in South Korea it has not. In fact, circumcision of adults currently makes the circumcision rate higher than the birthrate!

The exceptions to this nearly universal circumcision are interesting. In a survey of men in Seoul streets, a majority (69%) of the 92 intact men said they did not need to be circumcised because they were "naturally circumcised". This might be taken to mean they had either a very short foreskin or none (aposthia). But in fact, Professor DaiSik Kim found:

There is no medical term that corresponds precisely with this term; its meaning could differ among different individuals using the term. By 'naturally circumcised', a Korean man can be saying any one or several of the following; (i) he does not have 'phimosis'; (ii) he has a relatively short prepuce [foreskin] but not 'phimosis'; (iii) his prepuce is fully retractable when the penis is erect and therefore looks the same as a circumcised penis; (iv) his penis looks more or less the same as a circumcised penis even when not erect.

(In fact, no-one is naturally circumcised. Even the shortest foreskin contains the same tens of thousands of highly sensitive nerves as the longest, which are always removed by real circumcision.)

Only three of the 92 men surveyed remained intact because of any objection to circumcision.

The main reasons given by the 480 circumcised men for having it done were medical (41%), peer pressure (26%), and claims of sexual benefits (16%), including prevention of premature ejaculation (a reason seldom offered in the US) and a bigger penis. This last is of course fallacious.

One teacher is reported to have said "apparently there is something in the Korean genotype [hereditary makeup] that causes problems with penile phimosis". A moment's thought shows this to be nonsense, since there is no evidence of any such genotype or problems among North Koreans. A 1971 study of men aged 19-31 entering military service found only 5% to be circumcised; fewer than 1% of the intact men had phimosis, a similar figure to the rest of the world. 90% of them, however, were diagnosed with "redundant prepuce" and set down to be circumcised. The view that 90% of men have "too much" foreskin apparently persists today.

Another reason given is "Most Koreans circumcise because they think it makes them better Christians. They also think all great Americans are Christians so it's very important to be a good Christian and circumcise." Circumcision is not a requirement of Christianity.

Apparently this late age for circumcision compared to the rest of the world persists (as does the operation itself) just by force of habit. It has come to be accepted by Korean boys as a rite of passage to manhood.

Circumcision is widely believed by South Koreans to be universal in the world (192 out of 194 men asked thought it was) or even compulsory. This is mistaken. Most of the world's men are intact. (See the map.) Articles about it focus on "when it should be done", not on "whether". Medical claims for it are presented without evidence, often for the good reason that there is none.

What is interesting is the complete takeover of South Korean thought in the last 50 years by the circumcision meme (virus of thought).

What is to be done? It may be news to parents of boys how big the normal foreskin is, how it works, and what it is for. On that basis, they may decide not to have their sons circumcised. Boys may need to band together to refuse the operation in a group.

Prof. DaiSik Kim

Prof. DaiSik Kim says:

By all standards, circumcision should have no place in Korea in terms of culture, history, and geography.... Since the circumcising of South Korea was so sudden, I remain hopeful that, if bare minimal facts about circumcision become known ... Korean circumcision might start to decline as rapidly as it has in the rest of the world that once practiced it without any religious reasons. If I were to take a more pessimistic point of view, without definite and timely actions, Korea will be circumcising its boys and men long after the American circumcision practice dies out....

Considering how desperately and irrationally USAmericans hold on to infant circumcision, the second course of events could mean that unnecessary and harmful circumcision persists in South Korea for a very long time indeed.

- based on two articles by DaiSik Kim

Dr Kim has now put up a website in English and Korean (ÇÑ±Û - Æ÷°æ¼ö¼ú 114:) focussing on the statistical information, and illustrating much of it graphically.

A Canadian working in Korea writes:

A site in Korean: http://cafe.naver.com/nocircum

Back to the Intactivism index page.

Male circumcision: a South Korean perspective, D. S. Kim and M. G. Pang British Journal of Urology Vol 83, January 1999,

The South Korean Circumcision: Why the Heck do we do it? by D. S. Kim, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea