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!)