We’ve been meaning to blog about circumcision for some time; we were sure the right hook would come along.
We weren’t expecting a literal hook. (Link shows pictures of cut and uncut dicks.)
But wait! There’s more!
Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle, in a review of The Book of the Penis by Maggie Paley (which looks like an excellent book), focuses on circumcision and quotes Kristen O’Hara, owner of the maniacal anticircumcision (and accompanying book) linked above.
O’Hara could hardly be more over-the-top. Her website lists “ten ways circumcised sex harms women,” starting with the harpoon-like hook that “scrapes the vaginal walls, causing irritation, redness, discomfort (even pain).”
O’Hara continues through various repetitions and enhancements of this theme, finally getting to two “proofs” that women can’t achieve orgasm if their lovers have circumcised penises (something both of us were, well, astonished to see) and culminating with the claim that a missing foreskin “deteriorates the relationship,” implying, we suppose, that men not only think with their penises, they also do relationship maintenance with their foreskins.
O’Hara shows no interest in penis size, which would have to affect the points she’s making (size does matter), penis shape or vagina size and shape. Worst of all, she never mentions a lover’s skill and technique, the things that really do matter.
And it’s no surprise that she doesn’t speak to the real scientific reasons why circumcision is looking more and more like a good idea: “… circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent — a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.” This finding has also been shown to apply to some other STDs.
So we’ll leave you with a crucial question: if foreskins enhance the woman’s experience so hugely, why aren’t the good sex-toy stores full of dildos with simulated (and stimulating) functional foreskins?
Thanks to Jonquil for the pointers to the article and O’Hara’s website.