But in all of these reports, despite their disagreements, we see very little discussion about the foreskin itself. This research is born out of a deep curiosity about these debates and how we might reframe questions so as to focus on the foreskin instead of circumcision. This project, therefore, asks that scholars of gender and sexuality turn attention to the foreskin. What might it mean to think explicitly about the foreskin rather than circumcision? What does it mean to think about “normalcy” and the “abnormal” in these discussions? How do we measure or construct a normal penis? What do we mean by “normal” when we speak about the penis and what makes it “normal”? How do we go about theorizing the foreskin? How do we account for and think about representations of the foreskin in popular media, scientific and academic research, and the parenting advice we accept and give? If “the penis stands in for and up for the man” (Potts 85), what then can we say about the place of the foreskin?
"turn attention to the foreskin" - erst mal gar nicht verkehrt.
Hört sich aber doch ziemlich nebulös an. Besonders:
What does it mean to think about “normalcy” and the “abnormal” in these discussions? How do we measure or construct a normal penis? What do we mean by “normal” when we speak about the penis and what makes it “normal”?"
Sind zwei Beine überhaupt "normal" bei Menschen, wenn es doch welche mit einem oder keinem gibt? Ist eine Klitorisspitze normal? Was sollen solche Fragen weiterhelfen?
Mir schwant so einiges, aber warten wir's ab.