October 27th, 2005

Temple of the golden ass

Dan Savage is vindicated, sorta.

Dan Savage long ago said that, cultural bias or not, he just prefered circumcision for his partners on aesthetic grounds. He got a bunch of mail from places his column didn't run (this was in the pre-being able to read it on the internet days) yelling at him for supporting "mutilation", etc. He did not relent, though he would later decline to have his infant son circumcised on the grounds that 1) circumcision seemed to be falling out of favor in the US and might no longer the norm by the time his son was an adult 2) His son could always choose to have it done later if he wanted, but couldn't unchose it 3) Since Dan's preference was based on selfish aesthetic pleasure rather than hygiene or religious tradition, and his son's was one of the few dicks in the world (besides his father's and brother's) he was SURE he'd never suck, the preference was moot.

now there's this: circumcision cuts the risk of HIV infection dramatically, which I guess is vindication/an excuse for those of us who have a cultural bias in favor of circumcision.

How about you?
Poll #599446 to cut or not to cut?

What do you think of circumcision for your male partners?

I don't sleep with men, so I don't really care.
7(24.1%)
I prefer it, with no guilt.
4(13.8%)
I prefer it but feel a little guilty about it because of cultural bias/injury issues.
3(10.3%)
I do not like it.
1(3.4%)
I don't care one way or another.
14(48.3%)



Also, the article contains the great phrase "phallic culture war", which I urge everyone to casually drop into a conversation before the month is over.