This is the second time William Saletan has written a pro-circumcision article on Slate in the face of contradictory evidence. The last time, he wrote how parents "lovingly" circumcised their children while minimizing the pain, danger and lack of utility of the practice. Many analysts have criticized the African Aids studies for their shortcomings (and further, the results of these studies have not been reproduced in other cultures). In this case, Saletan reports a single tiny study that compared only two points on the surface of the penis and made absolutely no reference to foreskin tissue that had been removed; oddly, the author (nor the study under discussion) took any note of Robert Van Howe's very recent and much larger study of the exact same subject, printed in the British Journal of Urology. Van Howe studied 19 points on the penis (including the foreskin) and found the 5 most sensitive points ALL on the parts that get removed. For Slate to print a tiny inadequate study and completely ignore more complete research indicates sloppy reporting at best - or at worst, an attempt to manipulate public opinion to support their predetermined conclusions... I suggest anyone thinking about circumcising a child remember that it is his body and it should be his decision, as an adult, to determine how he should be without coercion or misinformation. Anyone happy with their infant circumcision is welcome to their beliefs, but consider that there is no right to force this mutilation on the body of anyone else.

I happen to like my penis and I don't think "circumcision" qualifies as "mutilation."

No, of course not. Mutilate is a loaded word and good parents would never do that to a child. Stll the practice, in the view of most of the world, is a little creepy.

I'm an un-circumcised gay man and a lot of gay men have preferences one way or another. Aesthetically a cut penis, if well done, can be a great turn on. Sometimes a bad circumcison is unattractive. But an uncut one is something exotic and exciting. To each his own....

Another flaw in the study is that it only relates to pleasure as experienced by men. Where are the studies into the comparative pleasure felt by women with circumsized and uncirsumsized men?

I am not circumsized, and Ive frequently dealt with two reactions from women:

1) An initial scepticism, as among American women my age (I am 34) I am typically the first uncircumsized male theyve been with, and then

2) This scepticism usually turns into enthusiasm. Once the unfamiliarity fades, most of my partners have told me they prefer my "natural" penis. Of course, this could just be polite pillow talk, but the frequency of the reaction leads me to believe there's truth there.

Intuitively, it makes sense to me, since uncircumsized sex by its nature entails less friction (which is probably why foreskins exist in the first place).

But an uncut one is something exotic and exciting. To each his own....

I never thought I'd hear a gay dude say "to each his own" in references to penises. "To reach his own" perhaps......"To each his neighbor's", certainly.

But "to each his own"? What's the point of being gay with that kind of philosophy?

Well I was referring to prefrerences and not to penises but I understand your inference.

There's an old ditty:

I wish I was single again, I wish I was single again!

For when I was single my testes could mingle,

I wish I was single again!

I

Well, [clear throat] as an unrepentant heterosexual practitioner and additionally, unrepentant bisexual voyeur, i can only say that i enjoy seeing an uncircumcised penis, and often wish i had one, so that when i gaze on my unclad form in the mirror after my shower, i could admire myself even more than i do now.

i also find it interesting how many people have responded to this topic...it is obviously "well-covered" in these discussion threads...

Why are you bothering to talk about women when we're busy discussing the all-important penis here?

Seriously though, thanks for bringing it up. Seems like everyone forgets that the penis is not a stand-alone organ, it's intended to function in unison with something else... usually a vagina (my apologies to gay men everywhere, but I can only speak for myself).

Women are willing to get their genitals sliced up with vaginal reconstructive surgery, to enhance both their pleasure and their partner's pleasure (hey, if it works, have fun). Seems perfectly logical to assume that altering the structure of the penis will affect both partners as well.