John Podhoretz describes this post, which refers to a new scientific study on the effects of male genital mutilation, as a "psychotic diatribe." I know it's a stretch for JPod, but what part of the argument does he disagree with? That circumcision has a profound effect on sexual pleasure? That many men may not to want to have a part of their body mutilated without their consent? I'm not saying it should be illegal. I am saying it's wrong. Maybe JPod could actually craft an argument against mine. If it's not too much work.