I was having a discussion about why MGM on infants wrong. So I was looking for an article that argued against it, in case I had forgotten to add one of the bulletpoints to my post. Then I came accross this:

It is Less Sensitive and Therefore the Sex Life of Your Son's Future Partner will be More Enjoyable

There is no reason to make decisions when your son is an infant that will affect the sex life of his partner. Every individual is going to be different in bed and some men intact and circumcised may climax earlier then others. With this kind of thinking you are ultimately saying that you are circumcising your son so he will not enjoy sex to the fullest potential.

Now, this entire bit just got my brain spinning. When you actually think about it, everything this small exchange implies is completely horrendous. Cutting off the foreskin causes decreased sensitivity in the penis, and they want to do this to their son, so the future partner might enjoy sex longer? In our culture, male sexual pleasure apperantly matters so little, that we're willing to cut off our son's foreskins, just so women can enjoy longer orgasms!

This is some parents son we're talking about. And rather than give him, the more natural experience, they want to lessen his pleasure, because they think the woman will get more out of it by making sex last longer. You could argue that the constant focus on how long men last, and how they perform in bed, etc. etc. is understandable to some degree. But when it comes to the point, where it actually merits cutting foreskin off, just to 'increase the pleasure of his future partner' or whatever nonsense it is, then I think we have gone too far. Are men not entitled to their own sexuality?

Sorry about the rant, but this is just the latest in a series of thoughts I've had about male sexuality. Men are always depicted like these complete egotistical brutes, who don't care about women's orgasms, and just do whatever they want sexually.