I'm going to re-post a comment from a couple of weeks ago regarding male circumcision, because for some reason that earlier posting behaved oddly (the number of listed viewings declined with time).

--------------------

As a biologist, I find the debate about whether male circumcision is damaging to be frankly bizarre. Like every other part of the body, the genitalia have been shaped by strong selective pressures. Circumcision removes a substantial chunk of highly innervated genital tissue, so of course there are effects on sexual function and sensation. This fact has been appreciated for centuries. The reduction in sexual pleasure was actually considered a benefit in Victorian times because it was thought to divert young men’s attention to more productive pursuits.

The common justification for male circumcision is that it helps to protect against urinary tract infections and HIV. There may be some such protection, because removing a body part will inevitably cause changes, some of them beneficial. But what is the cost? Apart from the damage that is done to every circumcised male, some circumcisions are “botched”, causing permanent disfigurement. The percentage is small, perhaps 1 in 1000... but more than a million circumcisions are performed each year in the U.S., so there are probably hundreds or thousands of such cases annually. A vaccine that caused permanent side effects at that rate would not stand a chance of approval. Therefore, the argument that circumcision is like a vaccine does not pass muster.

Saletan does seem to have a pro-circumcision bias. But he wrote a nice piece recently about “liberals” and “progressives”, where he claims that he keeps an open mind and is always willing to modify his opinions... so maybe he will reconsider his support for this little barbarism.