As an answer to: Sensitivity... written by AJ at 04 Apr 2002 17:09:18:
>Here's an alternate perspective of the sensitivity "sale" of the anti-circ community use as propoganda. I found it at the Circlist site as brought to my attention by a post on a previous thread. It's certainly refreshing to get a non-fanatical perspective on this "issue".
>http://www.circlist.org/csensitivity.html
AJ, these 5 letters should be read by anyone wanting to get a non-fanatical perspective on circumcision, sensitivity and such. I've never seen super-sensitivity advocated (or even admired) by any recognised authority on sexual behavior. Rather there seems to be a general agreement among the non-fanatical who are familiar with the subject that the MUTUAL satisfaction of both partners is the chief desired objective of sexual intercourse. I myself had a girlfriend who spoke pityingly of acquaintances of hers she termed members of the 'Jackrabbit Club' (I'm not one!) who often reached orgasm before the sex act was well under way. I've never heard a woman express regret that her partner was circumcised, and most of the circumcised men I know (myself included) share the opinions expressed by Paul, Badger, Lawrence, Loren, and Henri. Furthermore, if these 5 opinions are considered invalid because they are not substantiated by a body of supporting evidence, valid (dare I say hard?) supporting data are presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that there is less sexual dysfunction among circumcised American men than among their unshorn brethren (see ).
This is not to urge circumcision on any and all--I'm no fanatic--but to agree with the broad body of opinion that it is one--not the only--viable solution to many foreskin problems. Keep up the good work!