In light of the CDC's latest report on the HIV epidemic in D.C., a reader suggests that local gay men participate in Hope Takes Action, an effort to recruit men for clinical trials of a possible HIV vaccine. The study is looking for HIV-negative, circumcised men who have sex with men and who live close to one of the study locations. The closest site to D.C. is at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda. One vague note on that whole circumcision thing: "Participants must be circumcised because of safety information learned in a previous vaccine study."

Last week, readers theorized as to why art students avoid drawing the penises of nude models. Both David Quammen and John Hammack attest to students avoiding their genitalia by inserting an obscuring shade or a set of imaginary shorts over their crotches. Is homophobia and sexual repression to blame, or is free penis sketching a matter of training and experience? Discuss.

Amy says a drawing of the hand is easier than that of the bush:

having been an artist in a figure drawing class, I can tell you that the ‘tender parts’ tend to be just as difficult to draw as a hand (especially if you’re circumcised). Perhaps more difficult than a hand. I can practice drawing hands from observation by looking at my left hand, but only the guys in class can practice drawing male junk without a model—and even that they can’t practice while doodling in their notebooks during other classes.

So the avoidance of drawing your tender parts may be less shyness than lack of ability.

Stephen Kosciesza says he routinely gets snipped:

Amy, funny you say that about “it” being hard to draw, “especially if [we're] circumcised” I’ve been a model for 15 years. I’m an uncircumcised man. And I’ve seen it over and over: in college age classes, the young women tend to draw my “it” circumcised. I have to wonder if they’re not comfortable actually looking at “it” (especially on an older man), and they draw what they expect. And of course, here in the USA, if you haven’t seen many, there’s a good chance you’ve only seen circumcised.

PL suggests that the penis is "taboo":

I can appreciate that Mr. Quammen might attribute an amateur male artists reluctance to work with a male models to homophobia. However, it would seem to me that this is using a rather broad brush. There could be several reasons that amateur male artists are not comfortable with depicting male models, probably the most reasonable being that depiction of male genitalia in popular and modern culture is practically taboo.

I would suggest to Ms. Hess that she could have been more careful in illustrating that it is Mr. Quammen’s opinion that she is reflecting, and that not all male artists that have struggled to attempt to depict male models suffer from homophobia.

Saurs disagrees:

“There could be several reasons that amateur male artists are not comfortable with depicting male models, probably the most reasonable being that depiction of male genitalia in popular and modern culture is practically taboo.”

Yeah, the phallus as an architectural shape, for example, is so seldom used, I’ve forgotten what they look like.

Jon explains what "homophobia" is:

PL, Mr. Quammen is using the real definition of homophobia, not the more popular but incorrect definition (not liking gays). Homophobia is pretty much exactly what is described in the article, not wanting to draw or look at male junk (if you are male) basically being uncomfortable looking at or being close to those who are the same sex as you.

Stephen Kosciesza insists that genital avoidance is no homo(phobia):

I’ve been a male art model for 15 years. I suppose you might say that I’m a charter member of the Guild. I believe that explaining a man’s reluctance to draw a nude male model—and to draw a penis—as “homophobia” is just way too simplistic.

Nudity among non-intimates is something that most people in our society are not used to, and there’s bound to be discomfort and uncertainty at first. I’m sure many men AND many women feel some nervousness and discomfort when faced with drawing from the live nude model for the first time. No doubt, the nature of that discomfort would depend first on who they are themselves. And then it would likely depend on whether the model happened to be of their sex or of the opposite one.

A woman might very well feel awkward drawing the nude man in front of her, too. And a man might feel uncomfortable the first time actually looking at the nude woman modeling in front of him.

It’s human nature, and as with everything about human nature, there’s rarely one, simple explanation. And since when we’re talking about human nature, we’re talking about individuals, generalizations are noteworthy mainly for their exceptions.

I think to boil male reluctance to draw the male nude as homophobia is way too easy and dismissive an answer.

Adrienne:

Stephen K, it’s human nature to feel uncomfortable with the human body? Really? It seems to me a clear case of the exact opposite, of a reflection of how societal constructs and expectations actually inhibit true “humanity” (whatever that is).

There’s no “natural” reason for men to be uncomfortable with the sight of a nude male body. I wouldn’t go as far as to say every man who is uncomfortable is homophobic (I don’t think the article was saying that, either) but there is an idea pervasive among many in US culture that for a man to look at another man’s body is “gay” and therefore wrong. We don’t have a cultural space for the appreciation of the male form as a work of art (certainly not like, say, the ancient Greeks), so to see a nude male body is jarring for many people. The biological penis has so much cultural weight as a tool of sex that it’s hard for a lot of people to get out of that mindset, and for some men this manifests as homophobia.

This is the exact opposite of “human nature” which, if anything, would dictate that people be, by default, comfortable with nude bodies of all genders.

I know we probably agree on a lot of this (being uncomfortable with nude men not being an exclusively male trait) but it bugs me when people bring out “human nature” to justify/explain away behavior that is actually learned and socially constructed.

Sketch, with penis intact, by Keli Anaya

The Centers for Disease Control is currently weighing whether to recommend the circumcision of boys and men in the United States. If the CDC finds that a circumcision recommendation would reduce the risk of HIV among American men, I think that's swell. Providing people with information to help protect themselves from disease is a wonderful thing. But a CDC recommendation would likely come with one major adverse side-effect. For women who already find uncircumcised penises disgusting, wrong, or unfuckable, the recommendation will also provide more fuel for their ignorance.

Women who shun uncircumcised penises has always struck me as short-sighted. These are the women who will glibly deem their sex partner's genitalia unacceptable if, several decades ago, his parents did not predict her sexual preferences and subject him to newborn penis surgery accordingly. Sound familiar? We're women. We know what it's like to be unfairly judged on impossible physical standards! And yet, even women who are well-informed about sex—women who like it, talk openly about it, and even get paid to write about it—are keeping the genital snubbing alive.

Yesterday, the Frisky's Annika Harris wrote: "Uncircumcised penises repulse and scare me, so my sons are getting cut whether it’s PC or not." And she writes for a sex blog.

On the Simple Life, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie laughed over catching sight of some uncircumcised dick at a nudist beach, with Richie calling uncircumcised penises "fucking disgusting." And they're Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.

In circumcision documentary Partly Private, a woman on a Sex and the City bus tour announced that "Ninety-nine percent of women in America would be shocked if they got in bed with someone and they were like: Oh! Huh!" (Watch her genital superiority, above, at the 1:33 mark). And she was standing outside of a sex toy shop while paying homage to a television show almost exclusively devoted to having sex with men. Note that this woman doesn't just express her extreme dislike of uncircumcised penises—she attempts to justify her position by extending the disgust to her entire gender. In the Sex and the City's circumcision episode, incidentally, the girls' penis preferences were split about 50-50.

Whenever I've encountered women like this—women who find uncircumcised penises inherently gross—various medical statistics will doubtlessly be raised in defense of their penis discrimination. Uncircumcised penises, they'll say, have a higher risk of contracting HPV—plus, they look weird. Uncircumcised penises have a higher risk of contracting penile cancer—also, what the fuck do you do with it? Uncircumcised penises have a higher risk of spreading HIV—and none of my girlfriends would ever fuck an uncut guy. These women are interested in sexual health, but they're more interested in protecting their own prejudice against unmodified genitalia. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if the guy's clean of STDs—to these women, he will always be unclean.

Again, facts are great. And when the CDC gets around to making a recommendation, we'll all be better informed about just what the risks of circumcision are. But no matter what the HIV link to uncircumcised penises turns out to be, you will never be able to determine a man's status by examining his genitals. (And in some cases, you wouldn't notice the difference anyway). So if you're one of those women who dislikes uncircumcised penises because you consider them to be "unclean," you would be better served to reserve that reaction for penises that don't have condoms on them, or any sexual conduct initiated before you and your partner undergo fresh STD tests. No matter what style of penis you prefer, those two little accessories are a lot more likely to keep you safe than an irrational repulsion to unmodified dick.

This week, I screened two documentaries for the City Paper's Silverdocs film fest coverage. Unsurprisingly, I was assigned the two films in the festival about circumcision. Beyond the slang term "female circumcision," the tradition of female genital mutilation has little to do with that of male circumcision. But both practices are cause for serious debate about who should be able to wield control over a child's body—and whether age-old practices can still hold any modern value.

In Partly Private, an expecting mother goes on a wacky world tour of circumcision traditions in an attempt to decide whether to circumcise her baby boy. In Mrs. Goundo's Daughter, a 22-year-old Malian immigrant goes on a significantly less wacky tour of the U.S. legal system in an attempt to prevent her two-year-old daughter from being deported back to Mali, where she would almost certainly face female genital mutilation.

In some Malian villages, parents often have no choice whether or not to "excise" their daughters—even children whose parents oppose the tradition can be excised unexpectedly by grandparents and neighbors. In the United States, the genital cutting of male babies has become so normalized that the decision often comes down to a parent's aesthetic concern.

Still, both films are about mothers who want the best for their children—even if one mother is protecting her daughter from a dangerous and sexist tradition, and the other from a busload of moronic Sex and the City devotees. Read the in-depth circumcision coverage here.

* Slate is all over the sex & gender beat this week! First, Jack Shafer debunks the New York Times Sunday Styles "dudes love cats" trend piece:

How to write a bogus trend story: Start with something you wish were on the rise. State that rise as a fact. Allow that there are no facts, surveys, or test results to support such a fact. Use and reuse the word seems. Collect anecdotes and sprinkle liberally. Drift from your original point as far as you can to collect other data points. Add liberally. Finish with an upbeat quotation like "My cat takes priority over the new relationship. Realistically, unless there's something absolutely amazing about [the woman I'm dating], he wins."

* Then, Explainer explains how to tell whether your 13-year-old kid actually wants a circumcision—or whether you could be pressuring him to have one. Is it so wrong to ask kid owners to err on the side of "foreskin intact"?

* And the XX Factor's Melinda Henneberger probably doesn't want your flowers. Henneberger lays out the rules for flora-purchasing significant others:

- A dozen for no reason: You shouldn't have!
- A bouquet on an actual occasion: No, really, you shouldn't have.

Speaking from my estimable position as "local blogger who sleeps on a mattress on the floor of a group house flanked by two squatter-occupied abandoned properties and counts among her possessions a bunch of old newspapers stacked in milk-crates recovered from darkened alleyways"—I, too, may never understand women.

Photo by Robyn Gallagher