>
> One can argue that mild genital mutilation is a small price to pay for
> potential future health benefits, as the rest of the article notes.
> But it is a poor argument to counter the proposed fact -- that it
> reduces sexual pleasure -- with a claim that nobody has reported
> emotional distress. Well, duh! I say "proposed fact" because it would
> be legitimate to counter by questioning that fact, but that is not
> what Dr. Patrick offers either.
How on earth could we possibly determine if uncircumcised men experience more pleasure from sex than circumcised men do? (--A serious question.)
Miles