is BORING!

Sorry, everyonr, since there are quite a few fans of this issue. And I'm asure to get flamed. Don't bother: i get it. You like penis as-is.

Male circumcision does not deny men orgasm, ejaculation or sexual pleasure. I hear these rumors about a circ'd penis being less sensitive than a natural penis, and therefore the pleasure is lessened. But, I've yet to meet a male who was uncirc'd, had lots of ery pleasurable sex, then had the procedure and was disappointed at a great loss of sexual pleasure. (Since most procedures are done in infancy, or in some cultures at early puberty, age 13 or so. Most guys at 13 are *too* sensitive, so by 18 or 25 or 30, they are bound to be less "sensitive" regardless of procedure).

But, circumcision is not a practice driven by women out to emasculate men. The practice of circumcision is driven by men: Abram's/Abraham's covenant with Yaweh, as recorded by the male authors of Genesis. Sarah did not insist on this (I'm guessing she laughed). So please stop blaming women for male circumcision.

As for circumcision being "mutilation" ... I agree we are changing the body men were born with by removing this flap of skin. But we do all kinds of "mutilations" from ear-piercing and body piercing to lip plates and neck bangles to tattoos and corsets.

None of the above procedure comes close to the mental and sexual *harm* caused by "female circumcision" which would be the equivelant of castration in males. We're not talking about "decerased sensitivity" real or imagined, we're talking the end of sensitivity for all time. The pleasure center is gone. Forever. The *only* "cosmetic" procedure that approaches this in its horror is foot-binding.

Both foot-binding and female circumcision were cultural practices forced on women by (particular! not all!) men in societies that were extremely paranoid about female power. By making "golden lillies" beautiful (can you imagine? Gag!) society ensured physical control over their women: how could she live independently if she couldn't walk without extreme pain? By insisting on female circumcision, societies ensure that their women will not become independently sexual: why bother, without orgasm?

This is a *far* cry from male circumcision, even if you feel it's an unfair practice. I've yet to meet a man who's circumcision limited his sex life, or his *life* life, in any way, shape or form.

As for these ridiculous women who think their labia are sub-par: they need therapy, not a scalpel. And shame on those who would encourage them.

Yes, women performed the foot-binding, just as some women take their daughters to the "clinic" for female circumcision, but the reason was because without abnormally tiny feet, a girl was unlikelyto get a good marriage proposal. In other words, men at that time and in that place said: "nice girl, but her feet are too big (as in, what feet are supposed to lo like)", or "Hey! Tiny feet! She's on my short list!" And while it would be nice to think the women of pre-industrial China could rise up in solidarity and say "Screw you! We need big feet to chase after children and perform jobs!" we can *hardly* be surprised that they didn't. Because women at that time and in that place who spoke out were cast out of the home, left to starve in the streets, and denied the (believed) rewards of the afterlife.

And, sorry if my previous post didn't connect all the dots, but women who sign up for nip/tucking their labia and vulva shouldbe made to look at picture and read stories ofwomen who have undergone female circumcision. (Because isn't the procedure the same, though to a lesser degree since the clitoris is spared, and with better pain meds?)

As for "nutcase" and "unsuitable," I disagree: unless you are talking about comparing labia reductions (or WTF they are calling this procedure which is actually a form of femalecircumcision) to male circumcision.

This was a fantastic article. Thank you!

I also really enjoyed the article a few weeks ago about Barbara Kingsolver's "nimal, Vegetable, Miracle": it inspired me to read the book. I think thatshould be required reading for every aspiring national political candidate.

I second the pp who suggested a regular science feature.

In the meantime, let's fund any research we can to solve this problem fast.