Letters: April 19, 2001

Thanks for the furries

I was surprised and pleased to read your story about the furries ["Welcome to the jungle," April 12]. It's rare in this day that Montreal media dare to go where larger, more reputable American media go (like Vanity Fair) and it works. The really bizarre subject was treated with sensitivity and intelligence. Congratulations to Siobhàn O'Connor for breaking down a few barriers, potential stereotypes and misconceptions without being boring or patronizing.

--Jon Witness

As far as what people do in real life, I don't care as long as it's not hurting me, I don't fuss. The furries and furverts sound like the gays and bis--both part of the same community, but doing certain things differently. I say live and let live because in the bisexual world we're not a group. So, I hope the furries and furverts play nice!

--Male Dolphin, aka Bi Dolphin

Anti-circumcision

It is hardly surprising that someone who hates penises ["Revolting cocks," Kristian Perspective, April 5] hates foreskins even more. (Does he hate his own, I wonder? Poor man.)

Among the many egregious errors in his article, let me point out only the worst: citing Masters and Johnson's work as proof that the foreskin has no sexual function. They considered the foreskin only as a covering for the glans, not at all as sensory tissue in its own right. They listed "uncircumcised" with "penile pathology," so their bias is manifest. Masters died recently, his notes are lost and even his colleagues can't explain what "exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination" is supposed to mean. If mobile skin on the end of the penis is not useful sexually, what was God/evolution thinking about?

--Hugh Young, New Zealand

Kristian Gravenor admits to not spending much time thinking about penises. Many of us, however, spend a large part of our lives thinking about, researching and educating our respective communities on the anatomical and sexual functions of this and other parts of human genitalia.

The study cited by Masters and Johnson is an old study which would not stand the scrutiny of current research in this area. I don't know the porno movies containing only circumcised men--it must be those unfortunate American and Canadians who have been subjected to this practice. As for the cited survey, I can assure her [sic] from my own personal experience of a largely uncircumcised European culture, that having sex with an uncircumcised male is vastly more pleasurable for both partners.

Uncircumcised penises are the norm and the idea that an uncircumcised penis can prevent spontaneous sex or cannot be kept clean is ludicrous. The circumcision of minors is a contravention of their human rights and is an unethical medical practice which violates the Hippocratic oath. Perhaps her [sic] stated dislike of penises could also explain ignorance of the facts. In most parts of the world, routine circumcision doesn't occur and men and women love their foreskins and know that they are there to enhance sexual pleasure.

-Linda Massie, Northern Ireland

Mr. Gravenor's comments regarding circumcision were ill-informed and failed to take into account the ethical and human rights issues pertaining to forced sexual reduction surgery on unconsenting minors. Circumcision of normal, healthy children violates the first dictum of ethical medical practice "First do no harm." Partial penile amputation deprives the male of highly erogenous tissue which has important mechanical, lubricating, protective and sexual functions. The issue of stolen body parts is now becoming prominent in discussions around the world, with victims seeking legal redress.

Only recently, a young Australian man was paid $360,000 damages from the doctor who circumcised him as an infant, for the lifelong physical, sexual and psychological harm caused by this totally unnecessary destructive genital surgery.

Mr. Gravenor may have a psychological hang-up with normal anatomy (perhaps because of his own mutilated status?), but he has no right whatsoever to promote the genital mutilation of normal, healthy, but defenseless baby boys--which really amounts to child sexual abuse (see www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1).

-Dr. G. Boyle, Bond University, Australia

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to: Letters to the Editor, Mirror, 400 McGill St., Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 2G1. You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, e-mail your comments to letters@mtl-mirror.com, or visit our Web site at www.montrealmirror.com.

Letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.