Discourses on sexual pleasure after genital modifications: the fallacy of genital determinism (a response to J. Steven Svoboda)

Abstract

This is a reply to: Svoboda, J. Steven 2013. "Promoting genital autonomy by exploring commonalities between male, female, intersex, and cosmetic female genital cutting." Global Discourse. http://dx

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

“…'risks'), some of which may be subjective in nature and therefore difficult to quantify (see e.g. Adams & Moyer, 2015;Darby & Cox, 2009;Johnsdotter, 2013). 3.…”

“…van Duyn & Warr, 1962;Krill, Palmer, & Palmer, 2011;Thorup, Thorup, & Ifaoui, 2013)? The answer to these questions cannot be 'objectively' determined (see Johnsdotter, 2013). Instead, they will depend upon such factors as how much value one places on having intact versus modified genitalia, how willing one is to engage in safe sex practices (even if one is circumcised), and how much risk one feels comfortable taking on when it comes to a surgery performed on a physically and symbolically sensitive part of one's body (Adams & Moyer, 2015, p. 723; see also Earp, 2016).…”

“…Moreover, at least some of these potential harms are likely to be subjective in nature (e.g. feelings of loss or resentment; see Darby & Cox, 2009;Goldman, 1999;Hammond, 1999), and therefore highly variable across individuals, as well as difficult to quantify in a meaningful way (Darby, 2015;Darby & Cox, 2009;Johnsdotter, 2013).…”

“…It is rich in specialised nerve endings and sensory structures involved in the normal functionality of the penis (Cold & Taylor, 1999), and it comprises up to 100 square centimeters in adult men, with reported mean values between 30 and 50 square centimeters (Kigozi et al, 2009;Werker, Terng, & Kon, 1998). While the scientific literature on the 'average' sexual consequences of circumcision is inconclusive and contradictory (Bossio, Pukall, & Steele, 2014Johnsdotter, 2013) and granting that circumcision is likely to affect different men differently, even when it is properly performedat least two outcomes can be known with certainty due to the inherent nature of the procedure: first, any sensation in the foreskin itself is necessarily eliminated; and, second, any sexual (e.g. masturbatory) functions that require its manipulation are also of necessity precluded (Earp, 2015a(Earp, , 2016.…”

“Damaged genitals”—Cut women's perceptions of the effect of female genital cutting on sexual function. A qualitative study from Sweden

“…Villani (2022) notes that questions of pleasure and desire are largely embedded in social expectations and norms, which should be considered when studying the sexual consequences of FGC. It has been argued that cut women's encounter with Western values-which tend to assign higher significance to women's sexual rights to desire and pleasure, and to the importance of the clitoris in securing these things -affects their perceptions of their own sexuality and its relation to FGC (Johnsdotter, 2013;Ziyada et al, 2020;O'Neill et al, 2021). A more thorough understanding of the complexity behind cut women's understanding and meaning-making of the potential connection between FGC and sexual experiences, including the socio-cultural-symbolic nexus (Esho, 2012), could inform care providers, sex counselors, policy-makers, and others aiming to provide healthcare for this group of women.…”