You have lobes, they're just attached to you. Think of it like this: some kid who stretched the shit out of his ears to the point that they are so thin and just rip one day. He is left without lobes. That is when he would need this weird surgery.

They could technically just sew it up, let the skin regrow and have him live without earlobes. Wouldn't make a noticeable difference most likely anyways, not to mention that they're biologically useless either way. Just seems like a strange thing to call a "great idea" when applicable cases are that few. My guess is that she probably just realised the connection between "earlobes=erogenous zone" and "genitals=massive erogenous zones", then strained herself to come up with anything that could make use of this.

I doubt that there's much nerve connectivity.

He would still have earlobe's, just ripped, that can be sewed back together with the existing material. I know I have earlobe's that are attached, which is why I used that term rather than lobeless, but when most people talk about having an earlobe and not having one, they mean attached, and not.