Wow, we didn't lose him.
Andrew's stance on circumcision as of even a few months ago rather reminds me of an R.S. teacher at school who used to run an Amnesty International club but may not any more as the Catholic Church issued a statement opposed to the group for reasons I am probably best not mentioning. He was crest-fallen and clearly hated having to choose but eventually the out-come was inevitable.
And thus when it came to calling between AIDS and circumcision, two of his hottest topics, Sullivan was clearly in agony but could only have gone one way.
Recently he was suggesting that circumcision was a valid parental choice to make and seemed to have lost his edge when it came to this issue, something that I found deeply saddening considering that he was the very man who's words on this topic had refined my viewpoint on the issue from the basic logical opposition {not your body, not your call} to a more developed and passionate form of opposition.
But not long back he once again referred to it as MGM {something that he never stopped even at his nadir} and posted with blatant horror that story of a young boy whose father wanted him cut regardless of his own wishes on the matter.
And now this:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...enital_mu.html
"Male Genital Mutilation Update
20 Jun 2007 03:15 pm
Longtime readers will know that I have long opposed the genital mutilation, aka circumcision, of male infants. New studies showing that it can be very effective against the transmission of HIV may well tip the balance of the argument. Nonetheless, it behooves us to be honest about what is being done and has been done to millions of men without their consent. They are having their capacity for sexual pleasure drastically reduced. A new study shows exactly how serious the mutilation can get:
Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a "penile sensitivity map" by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.
For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision - all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.
When your most intense sexual pleasure comes from scar tissue, something has gone wrong. My own view is that forcing boys to have most of their sexual pleasure zones destroyed without their express permission is a form of child abuse. If men want to have mutilated penises, that is their choice as adults. It shouldn't be their parents'. And mercifully, many more parents seem to be agreeing."
Just...Wow.
Such passion and such strength in his prose and such a large readership for his blog {it's easily one of the biggest} that will be seeing this.
It never rains, it pours huh?
Andrew's stance on circumcision as of even a few months ago rather reminds me of an R.S. teacher at school who used to run an Amnesty International club but may not any more as the Catholic Church issued a statement opposed to the group for reasons I am probably best not mentioning. He was crest-fallen and clearly hated having to choose but eventually the out-come was inevitable.
And thus when it came to calling between AIDS and circumcision, two of his hottest topics, Sullivan was clearly in agony but could only have gone one way.
Recently he was suggesting that circumcision was a valid parental choice to make and seemed to have lost his edge when it came to this issue, something that I found deeply saddening considering that he was the very man who's words on this topic had refined my viewpoint on the issue from the basic logical opposition {not your body, not your call} to a more developed and passionate form of opposition.
But not long back he once again referred to it as MGM {something that he never stopped even at his nadir} and posted with blatant horror that story of a young boy whose father wanted him cut regardless of his own wishes on the matter.
And now this:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...enital_mu.html
"Male Genital Mutilation Update
20 Jun 2007 03:15 pm
Longtime readers will know that I have long opposed the genital mutilation, aka circumcision, of male infants. New studies showing that it can be very effective against the transmission of HIV may well tip the balance of the argument. Nonetheless, it behooves us to be honest about what is being done and has been done to millions of men without their consent. They are having their capacity for sexual pleasure drastically reduced. A new study shows exactly how serious the mutilation can get:
Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a "penile sensitivity map" by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.
For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision - all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.
When your most intense sexual pleasure comes from scar tissue, something has gone wrong. My own view is that forcing boys to have most of their sexual pleasure zones destroyed without their express permission is a form of child abuse. If men want to have mutilated penises, that is their choice as adults. It shouldn't be their parents'. And mercifully, many more parents seem to be agreeing."
Just...Wow.
Such passion and such strength in his prose and such a large readership for his blog {it's easily one of the biggest} that will be seeing this.
It never rains, it pours huh?
