Just have to respond to the recent disc of genital mutilation in relation to pleasure from sex. This is an area where I've done some reading although not an expert on the subject by any means. However, I do have VERY strong opinions about it so here goes my soapbox: The comparison I find hard to resist relates to our acceptance in the US of cutting off a healthy piece of infant male anatomy but our strong reaction against a somewhat similar action on females in other cultures. Both are culture-bound phenomena. Both are surgical alteration of/removal of healthy tissues without the consent of the person on whom they are being performed. Neither has strong scientific support in terms of medical NECESSITY as they are currently done. Yes, in the US many people (HCP and gen. public) point out that circ'd males have fewer cases of penile CA (rare), possible lower risk of transmission of STDs, and by some studies, fewer UTIs (not usually a life-threatening conditon that requires surgery). However, close examination of the research and publication on these issues carry the theme that, since we want to justify what we do.... The numbers would not support *initiation* of a surgical practice if it were not already being done. AND THERE ARE RISKS! The truth of it is that most infant male circumcisions in this country are done out of habit (ignorance not informed consent), because we think baby "ought to look like dad," because we think circ is easier to clean (removal of fingernaails would also be easier to keep hands clean..... )and looks prettier since that's how we've seen most penises, that's what we think they ought to look (cosmetic surgery, like breast augmentation?). You know I'm always tempted to say that outer ears are sort of hard to keep clean, too and really are ugly on some people and serve a sort of marginal purpose, maybe we should remove them too. Or on the penile CA justification, breast cancer is much more prevalent so let's remove that bothersome piece of tissue that can lead to cancer, too. Now if insurance companies would pay for elective mastectomies.... This truly defies all scientific rationale and logic. Maybe the circ rate in US will finally begin to change if/when our ins. companies quit paying for it. BTW, most only pay if it's done in newborn hospital admission, not if done a week (or more) later in office...or if it's done > 1 month later when GOLLY we have to use anesthesia!!! Like FGM, male circ is based on cultural BELIEFS (myths?) and involves the removal of healthy sexually sensitive tissues that God/nature put there for a purpose...(it kind of reminds me of our culture's belief that formula is an appropriate *elective* feeding substance for infants). Yet we say "oh how awful" when we think about FGM. There are some places in this country where circ is not universally accepted anymore. And there is some international action to discourage FGM. I can only hope that in future generations, both genital surgical alteration and formula are in the same category of "Look at the strange things we used to do!" BTW did you know that in victorian times circ of males were purported to prevent/cure mental illness (as well as a host of other maladies) by decreasing masturbation. Exposure of the exquisitely sensitive glans to drying, clothing, urine, etc. definitely does decrease sensitivity of this tissue, which in it's uncirc'd form is a moist mucous membrane. That must decrease pleasureable sensation. I think we need to rethink genital surgery (mutilation) of either sex. OK so I'm hyperventilating from how thin the air is up here. Off soapbox. Phyl (who has worked around newborn nursery circ rooms too too too long, mom of an intact son... and THOROUGHLY BIASED!)