Interview with Paul Festa about circumcision

The latest interviewee in my Best Sex Writing 2008 contributor series is Paul Festa, who wrote a piece on circumcision called "How Insensitive." And again, you have until January 6th to win your very own copy.



You write, "Apart from bypassing a few Craigslist ads stating a preference for intact dick, I've never been aware of being discriminated against for lacking one." When was the first time you considered being circumsized possibly something that was disadvantageous?

I suppose it was when I started hearing murmurings--at that point unsupported by scientific evidence--that the foreskin wasn't just some extra piece of useless flesh like the post-partum umbilical cord, but the source of a great deal of erogenous pleasure. As I went to bed with more men I became envious of their ability to get off without pouring tubes and bottles of sticky, expensive, possibly unhealthful lubricants on their dicks. I also started having one of those reorienting conversations with myself about what my circumcision represented. It's one thing to think of it as a hygiene-justified medical procedure (although the research supporting the hygiene issue is controversial, as a follow-up story I did for Nerve emphasized). It's quite another to consider that part of my genitals were amputated for dubious medical reasons and before I could give my consent. It's not at all clear to me why parents--*even religious parents*--have the right to decide this for their children in a society that respects a separation of church and state. Do we let parents authorize clitoridectomies? If someone came forth with a compelling medical or religious justification for lopping off that or any other sexual organ, would we say go ahead, sharpen your scalpel?

Read the whole interview