Junking up junk

Without giving away too much, Andrew Sullivan thinks I'm mutilated.

Longtime readers will know that I have long opposed the genital mutilation, aka circumcision, of male infants. New studies showing that it can be very effective against the transmission of HIV may well tip the balance of the argument. Nonetheless, it behooves us to be honest about what is being done and has been done to millions of men without their consent. They are having their capacity for sexual pleasure drastically reduced. A new study shows exactly how serious the mutilation can get....

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision — all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

When your most intense sexual pleasure comes from scar tissue, something has gone wrong. My own view is that forcing boys to have most of their sexual pleasure zones destroyed without their express permission is a form of child abuse. If men want to have mutilated penises, that is their choice as adults. It shouldn't be their parents'. And mercifully, many more parents seem to be agreeing.

I think the argument he's making is fine, but also sort of hyperbolic and out of proportion to the issue. It's easy enough to say that "When your most intense sexual pleasure comes from scar tissue, something has gone wrong," but there are studies out there showing that men who have circumcisions during sexually active periods of their lives notice little diminishment in sexual pleasure after the procedure (and, of course, after what must be a miserable healing period). This tells me that, though circumcision is an ugly-seeming procedure, and one about which the conventional wisdom (at least in the United States) should be questioned, it doesn't exactly amount to destruction of male "sexual pleasure zones," which, all us guys will happily admit, would be a far more serious problem.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

Here's a not-serious proposal for Andrew and like-thinkers:

Circumcision is not required, but if the individual is found to be HIV positive at any time, then the penis (not just the foreskin) is lopped off.

HIV transmission is not just a matter of of a person's pleasure, but the potential loss of life for their partners. They also have a stake (at least some not-proven to matter in sexual satisfaction bit of skin) in the outcome.

Andrew is very selfish, and this illustrates the syndrome.

[anon]

The studies regarding HIV transmission are not "new". Also, I do not know any circumcised males who complain that sex is not pleasurable enough. If A.S. does, then maybe it's about HIM!

[Daniel]

What does he think about female genital mutilation? No opininon, I would imagine.

[Tony]

You're right to acknowledge that we should question circumcision beyond the obvious "it's accepted, so it's good" non-thinking. But to assume that the study you linked and anecdotal evidence demonstrates that it doesn't "amount to destruction of male 'sexual pleasure zones'" isn't compelling. It's simply not possible to deny that circumcision destroys male sexual pleasure zones. It removes much of the foreskin, which is packed with erogenous nerve endings.

What's at stake is how to value that destruction. I don't have the answer, although the clear evidence that intact adult men almost never choose (or need) circumcision indicates that whatever the foreskin contains must be acceptable to them. The value of that change in sexual sensation is subjective. But the male himself is the only person qualified to judge how to value that subjective benefit. Males clearly lose this choice when circumcised as infants.

For what it's worth, Circs.org has a heavily pro-infant circumcision bias. What they present and don't present is influenced by that, so a linked study only carries so much weight.

P.S. Mr. Sullivan is consistent with regard to genital mutilation, unlike too many people. He's spoken out against FGM repeatedly.