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
2007-01-11 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) -