Circumcision is simply wrong. Saletan has a long history of approving this barbarism - perhaps that's why he reported the least compelling study of genital sensation (the Kim research, studying only two points on the penis, neither of which was on the foreskin) but totally ignores the far more thorough Van Howe study (which found that, of the 19 points on the penis studied, the five most sensitive were on the foreskin itself). Selection bias, anyone? Perhaps Saletan chooses his studies and his reportage to justify his predetermined conclusions...

eshu21,

I don't completely agree with you, but I do find it striking that not just Saletan, but Slate has a whole seems to have incessant support of circumcision.

The most notable support is William Saletan's own "The Case for Genital Mutilation," but it doesn't end there. When Emily Bazelon launched her mini research project on circumcision, she wasn't as vocal, but I still got the impression she was skeptical of criticisms of the procedure. And in one Explainer column, Daniel Engber writes about the "sleeve resection" technique, saying "the remaining portions of foreskin can be pulled together and sewn up, with very attractive results." (emphasis mine)

And I'm sure there are more. So though I wouldn't call it barbarism, I sure would like to see a Slate article that's a tad more speculative of circumcision.