Current mood:

amused

Foreskins and peenies and brises - oh my!
Yay for Salon.com. While many of their articles (on such topics as the Iraq war, socioeconomics in the far East, and the latest electronic gadgetry flying out of Steve Jobs' ass) generate letters that are interting, thoughtful and even civil, when they put up what are commonly called "lifestyle" articles, the splooge can fly so thick and fast you could very well drown in it.

Herein a tale of a Jewish husband caught in the Circumcision Wars.

A rather amusing story of what can happen when your wife and your parents Do. Not. Agree. on something you really don't care about one way or the other. (Since it's a Salon link, you have to click an ad to get the whole article.) But the real fun happens in the Letters section.

352 letters so far. We got it all here -

"Circumcision is barbaric!" "No, it's clean and healthy!"

"It's religious, so it's idiotic!" "Don't you DISRESPECT MAH JEWISH AUTHORITAH!"

"It's nothing compared to female circumcision!" "That's not relevant, you hairy feminist!"

"It's no big deal!" "It's traumatic and scarring!"

"I did it to myself!" (No, I'm not making that one up.)

And the occasional appearance of a few head-scratchers wondering why people get so freaked out about this. (That included me, by the way, but since I posted my reply very early and nobody responded at all, I don't think it counts in the splooge explosion, which took a while to gather steam.)

NOTE: In order to get the wank stream flowing correctly, remember to click the "Oldest First" button on the first page of the letters, otherwise Salon will list them in the reverse order.

Boy, nothing like an article about bodily functions to make the crowd at Salon go APESHIT.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

queencallipygos
2007-01-10 04:40 pm UTC (link)

I have said it before during the circumcision arguments, and I will say it again --

the "it loses sensitivity" argument doesn't hold water with me, because every one of the men I have been intimate with has attained orgasm, and all but one were circumsized. So I can only conclude that the circumsized male is plenty sensitive enough, because while I'm confident I'm good in bed, I don't think I'm that good.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	symbeline 2007-01-10 05:02 pm UTC (link)
	IAWTC. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	queencallipygos 2007-01-10 07:33 pm UTC (link)
	...Actually, to totally blow a hole in the argument, I think the uncircumcized guy actually had trouble getting off. Granted, that may have had more to do with us both having just come from a lengthy dinner with much wine and a free apertif from the restaurant in question, but it does give me a lot of fun anecdotal evidence that I could have a blast monkeying around with. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	serai 2007-01-11 02:50 am UTC (link)
	Yepyepyep. I've actually never had sex with an uncut guy, and all the guys I've know had no complaints whatsoever regarding sensitivity. So I've never really bought that argument at all. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mistressrenet 2007-01-11 03:42 am UTC (link)
	But how would they know if they'd lost sensitivity if they were cut as infants? No one's arguing (at least what I've seen) that they are unable to orgasm-- just that they've lost sensitivity. (Reply to this)(Parent)

dragonfangirl
2007-01-11 04:19 am UTC (link)

Not saying I out and out disagree with you, but sensitivity isn't a binary issue. It isn't a question of being "sensitive enough to come, or not." You know that sex for circumsised males is enjoyable enough that he comes -- but how can you know if it's as enjoyable as it could be?

Is reproductive functionality really the only thing that matters? Though circumcision and female genital mutilations are seperate issues, you could make that same argument for both cases -- as long as they can do the baby-making job, who cares if they're getting the most out of sex?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

queencallipygos
2007-01-11 09:25 pm UTC (link)

Good points, yes; it's true that there could have been empirically more sensitivity in the uncircumsized male. I am not denying that. But what I am denying is the degree to which some who make this argument are saying that the circumcized males have been deprived; from their tone, it sounds like they're saying that uncircumcized men that are unable to feel any genital sensitivity at all. I'm just saying that they seem to imply that the difference between cut and uncut guys is like the difference between ten and zero, and I'm saying it's like the difference between ten and eleven, and that most guys I've met would say ten is just dandy with them, actually.

Is reproductive functionality really the only thing that matters? Though circumcision and female genital mutilations are seperate issues, you could make that same argument for both cases -- as long as they can do the baby-making job, who cares if they're getting the most out of sex?

This is ultimately my point -- that I think if you went to most circumcized men and asked if they were getting satisfaction out of sex, 99% of them would either say "yeah, I am," or would make some wink-wink, nudge-nudge joke about how no, they weren't getting enough of it. My point is that the only people I hear complaining about how circumcized men are less sensitive are...people in circumcision wanks, while the actual circumcized men are all saying, "uh, I'm actually okay with my dick, thanks."

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -