Andrew Sullivan is on a tear about male genital mutilation (aka circumcision). He posts a new study showing that uncut penises are more sensitive than the cut variety.
Speaking as, to use Sully's phrase, a genitally mutilated male, this doesn't help me. It's too late for me. It only serves to rub my, er, nose in it. He acknowledges that new studies showing that circumcision may help reduce risk of HIV transmission may win the argument.
Meanwhile, cut or uncut, big or small, it's what you do with it that counts.
2 comments:
Yeah I don't get the point. Either you are or you aren't. Anyone who isn't is not likely to make the voluntary choice to do it. Those of us who already are have no choice to be made. I don't remember when it happened and while I think its brutal and unnecessary, it really isn't a big deal in my book. Frankly I don't need the extra sensitivity and it makes showering a lot easier. And honestly most people in my age bracket, including sexual partners, find uncut and bit freaky. Plus it's just cuter without the hoodie.
I've dated some guys who were "mutilated" as a child, and there have been some who still had their scarves. I'm not partial to one or the other.
That being said, Ms. Carrie (I really like your blog, by the way, and I plan on adding it to my blogroll when I get home), I thought you would've referenced the episode of S&tC when Charlotte dates the uncut man who decides to have a circumcision. Just my two cents.
Post a Comment