Sunday, July 26, 2009

Universal Circumcision Reduces HIV Dramatically

Did you catch this latest gem of a story? The Phillipines, where universal circumcision is practiced and encouraged, has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.

A story from ABS/CBN News is worth a moment:

"Dr. Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, has praised the Philippines for having one of the lowest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the Asia-Pacific, which she attributed to the country's practice of almost universal male circumcision." [my emphasis].

"One of the major reasons for the Philippines' low HIV prevalence rate is the fact that it practices almost universal male circumcision. We know that male circumcision protects against HIV partially, about a 60 percent reduction for men and eventually that means Filipino women are less likely to encounter men who are HIV positive so they have lower rates of HIV," Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, told abs-cbnNEWS.com.

"The Philippines, in adopting male circumcision despite the fact that it is primarily a Roman Catholic country has meant a better control of the epidemic."

"She said various studies have shown the benefits of male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections in male infants who are circumcised; lower risk of penile cancer and lower prevalence of some sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2)."

Now we've known this medical evidence for some time now, but what is interesting is that the Phillipines is a perfect "case study" of what happens when every male is clean-cut. Of course, there is some HIV & STDs & HPV, but the cultural desire to be circumcised has greatly cut the rates of those awful diseases there. In the Philippines to be "supot" or "pisot" (meaning uncircumcised) is not only unhealthy but it's also socially unacceptable. Indeed, to call someone supot or pisot is a great insult, meaning not only are they uncircumcised but they are dirty, unclean, and child-like.

I hope Dr. Hankins has talked to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) so that they, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, can forcefully call for universal circumcision in America.

31 comments:

  1. I'll deal with these one at a time:

    "She said various studies have shown the benefits of male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections in male infants who are circumcised;
    PLEASE:If you have a daughter, what parts of her genitals would you have the doctor remove? Given that girls get UTI's at approximately five times the rate that boys do, this is a fair question to ask. Boys don't have disposable genital parts any more than girls do. All of the parts of the penis are highly sensitive and necessary to normal sexual functioning, just as in girls.

    Lower risk of penile cancer: citation please before making false claims.
    "However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis."

    "In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners."

    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp

    and lower prevalence of some sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2)."

    In regards to HPV: HPV viruses are spread through contact with infected genital skin, mucous membranes, or bodily fluids, and can be passed through intercourse, oral sex and kissing. Why aren't you speaking out against oral sex and kissing , as they too transmit HPV?

    Herpes is transmitted through moist skin. For this reason, if you advocate removal of the foreskin then surely you must advocate vulvectomies - the removal of all or part of the moist external female genitalia?

    Please stop the scare mongering and misandry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I hope Dr. Hankins has talked to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) so that they, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, can forcefully call for universal circumcision in America."

    What is you basis for this forced circumcision? Citations please?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You should also note this study:
    ---
    Aidsmap
    July 23, 2009
    Antiretrovirals and condoms will have more effect on HIV in South Africa than circumcision, model finds

    In preliminary results from a mathematical model set up by researchers from the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, male circumcision was found to have a considerably lower impact than condom use or antiretorviral therapy (ART) coverage on new HIV infection rates and on death rates in men in South Africa.
    ---
    Interestingly, the method of "circumcision" commonly used in the Philippines is just a dorsal slit that removes no tissue (One reason the can get away with doing it to boys on the brink of puberty). Since all the dreaded Langerhans cells are still there, how can that prevent HIV? And in Lesotho where the HIV rate and the circumcision rate are both high, circumcisionists get their favourite operation off the hook by saying they use a method that removes less tissue than other methods - yet they still remove more than the Philippines.

    Plenty of other countries (including RC countries like Ireland and Poland) have lower HIV rates than the Philippines, but they don't circumcise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To address Booloo's points:

    PLEASE:If you have a daughter, what parts of her genitals would you have the doctor remove? Given that girls get UTI's at approximately five times the rate that boys do, this is a fair question to ask.

    Wouldn't it be sensible to first establish that removal of parts of her genitals would make any difference? Otherwise, fair or not, it's a somewhat pointless question to ask. (Of course, even if it was established that it would make a difference, one would still need to weigh that benefit against the known risks and harms before concluding that it was a good idea. But let's take one question at a time.)

    Boys don't have disposable genital parts any more than girls do. All of the parts of the penis are highly sensitive and necessary to normal sexual functioning, just as in girls.

    These are questionable assertions, and I think easily shown false via counterexample: given that millions of men have perfectly normal sexual functioning without a foreskin, your assertion seems to be false.

    Lower risk of penile cancer: citation please before making false claims.

    This is well-established. Let me help:

    Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, Daling JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jan 6;85(1):19-24

    Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby C, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):E36.

    Tsen HF, Morgenstern H, Mack T, Peters RK. Risk factors for penile cancer: results of a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001 Apr;12(3):267-77.

    Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, Schwartz SM, Shera KA, Wurscher MA, Carter JJ, Porter PL, Galloway DA, McDougall JK, Krieger JN. Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease. Int J Cancer. 2005 Sep 10;116(4):606-16

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have seen plenty of naked Philipino men, and whilst it is true that they are not as tightly circumcised as American men I have never seen one with just a dorsal slit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, Schoen EJ, has a circumfetish. He writes poetry about circumcision. He was cited in one of your studies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To address Booloo's points:


    PLEASE:If you have a daughter, what parts of her genitals would you have the doctor remove? Given that girls get UTI's at approximately five times the rate that boys do, this is a fair question to ask.

    Wouldn't it be sensible to first establish that removal of parts of her genitals would make any difference? Otherwise, fair or not, it's a somewhat pointless question to ask. (Of course, even if it was established that it would make a difference, one would still need to weigh that benefit against the known risks and harms before concluding that it was a good idea. But let's take one question at a time.)


    Considering that the argument that pro circ's use is that the foreskin harbours infection (due to it being a moist, warm environment) the same must be concluded about the labia and clitoral hood. By removing them, you reduce infection - not rocket science.



    Boys don't have disposable genital parts any more than girls do. All of the parts of the penis are highly sensitive and necessary to normal sexual functioning, just as in girls.

    These are questionable assertions, and I think easily shown false via counterexample: given that millions of men have perfectly normal sexual functioning without a foreskin, your assertion seems to be false.


    Many woman make the same claim after being cut.

    http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752

    Read this article and try to keep an open mind. When you've finished reverse the gender and read again. This is why all people should be allowed to make their own decisions about cosmetic/"prophylactic"/ritual procedures. They are irreversible after all.



    Lower risk of penile cancer: citation please before making false claims.

    This is well-established. Let me help:

    Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, Daling JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jan 6;85(1):19-24

    Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby C, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):E36.

    Tsen HF, Morgenstern H, Mack T, Peters RK. Risk factors for penile cancer: results of a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001 Apr;12(3):267-77.

    Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, Schwartz SM, Shera KA, Wurscher MA, Carter JJ, Porter PL, Galloway DA, McDougall JK, Krieger JN. Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease. Int J Cancer. 2005 Sep 10;116(4):606-16


    Then why do the Canadian Cancer Society, American Cancer Society, UK Cancer Society all disagree with you? - and these are "real world" statistics not studies.

    "In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners."

    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris Willbanks: when a youth is dorsally slit before puberty, the foreskin fails to grow as much as it would, so it looks like a loose circumcision, but the tissue is still all there. It can be stretched to cover the glans. There are probably regional variations, so you would need to have seen your "plenty" all over the country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Isn't the US circumcision rate dropping because of the large- and growing- birth rate of hispanics, which is vastly outpacing caucasian birth rates? Hispanics historically haven't circumcised due to lacking health care in their countries. I have yet to see a study, solely of caucasian babies, showing circumcision is declining among white baby boys. All of the (white) friends I've known who've had boys have circumcised them; while all of the non-white friends who've had boys haven't. I'm wondering if circumcision status is going to becoming synonymous with race soon (if it already hasn't).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for good comments, even from some of you foreskin lovers. Keep 'em coming!

    First, the Phillipines is nearly 100% circumcised, and while the dorsal slit was popular years ago, today boys are circumcised in a more complete manner. There are plenty of videos on youtube showing that. Chris, you're right on.

    Booloo, Dr. Schoen is a highly recognized pediatrician. I'm not sure what a circumfetish is, although it sounds like some made-up word by you foreskin lovers. After years of work in this arena, Dr. Schoen is a strong advocate of universal newborn circumcision. If that's his fetish, then we should applaud him.

    Anon, you may be right about the racial split in the USA on circumcision, but most blacks and many hispanics are circumcised. It's true that almost all American whites are circumcised, usually at birth, and others later on after they discover their "oddity." Blacks were not circumcised at first, but after Medicaid (public health for the poor) paid for it, the practice spread. Unfortunately, a few ignorant states have stopped Medicaid payments. That will only increase the racial divide. With hispanics, while the practice is not common in the first generation, by the third generation most hispanics are circumcised. Just ask Desi Arnez Jr. America is a circumcised nation, and those who wish to be true Americans catch up eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't debate circumcision with people who:
    (1) really want to remain ignorant due to their own disturbed fascination w/ cutting boys penises
    (2) have circumfetishes
    (3) are too intellectually challenged to understand valid medical studies vs. propaganda, read empirical research, or study health-related topics in depth w/ 1/2 a brain.

    It is just too exhausting and those are the rabidly pro-cutting people who are bound and determined to repeat the abuse no matter how unfounded it is. They are those you just hope do not have sons...(or girls if they are in a country that cuts the prepuce organ fr girls). And it is for these little ones that the MGM Bill is so vitally necessary in the United States. http://www.mgmbill.org/

    Although I don't waste my time arguing with those who fit the above-mentioned categories, I DO give them and everyone who brings up the topic ample resources to accurate, factual information and well-done empirical studies. I make sure they have access to learn all they can, and dig into the literature and experience of the topic further on their own. I encourage them to watch circumcisions being done - to become WELL VERSED in the prepuce organ - all its many functions and purposes for existing. To thoroughly know the statistics and facts on the matter. I provide the starting point in research on the topic (it isn't difficult when there is SO much of it). www.circinfosite.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. And to address Booloo's comments again... (Booloo, could I request that you make a clear distinction between my comments and yours? For example, you could put the comments to which you're responding in italic, as I'm doing. Thanks.)

    Considering that the argument that pro circ's use is that the foreskin harbours infection (due to it being a moist, warm environment) the same must be concluded about the labia and clitoral hood. By removing them, you reduce infection - not rocket science.

    Plausible or not, a proposed mechanism by itself is a fairly feeble argument. Theories need to be supported by evidence. To make a strong case, one has to establish that the risk is actually lower among persons who've had the procedure. In the case of penile circumcision, there have been at least 12 studies, of several different designs including a randomised controlled trial, and they have quite consistently shown a protective effect of circumcision.

    Ref: Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child. 2005 Aug;90(8):853-8

    Incidentally, even if the labia and clitoral hood were removed, there would still be a warm, moist environment.

    [I wrote:] These are questionable assertions, and I think easily shown false via counterexample: given that millions of men have perfectly normal sexual functioning without a foreskin, your assertion seems to be false.

    Many woman make the same claim after being cut.

    http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752

    Read this article and try to keep an open mind. When you've finished reverse the gender and read again. This is why all people should be allowed to make their own decisions about cosmetic/"prophylactic"/ritual procedures. They are irreversible after all.


    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe some (or perhaps most, though I'm not sure how one could tell without a more objective sample) women who've been exposed to female genital cutting do make the same claim. Your point remains unclear.

    Then why do the Canadian Cancer Society, American Cancer Society, UK Cancer Society all disagree with you?

    The Canadian Cancer Society don't seem to mention circumcision at all on their website:

    http://google.cancer.ca/search?q=circumcision&site=Canada-wide&client=Canada-wide&proxystylesheet=Canada-wide&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0

    And the UK Cancer Society seems not to exist:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=uk+cancer+society&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

    The American Cancer Society seem to contradict themselves on the subject. On one of their web pages (that which you cite), they essentially claim that circumcision isn't protective against penile cancer, but on another (see below), they claim that it is. Unfortunately they don't provide references for either page.

    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_penile_cancer_35.asp?rnav=cri

    - and these are "real world" statistics not studies.

    What on earth are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jake, I truly appreciate your efforts to correct the nonsense repeated by Booloo. You do an awesome job. But my experience with these anti-circ fanatics is that, no matter how reasonable you are about the medical evidence for circumcision and the overall societal benefits of being a foreskin-free society, the anti-circs are so blinded by their hatreds that it is impossible to carry on a rationale debate.

    Heaven knows I am trying to do that on this blog, but there are days when I just say WTF. The foreskin lovers are losing the debate of public opinion, and that is making them even more crazy (e.g., accusing us of a circumcision fetish, etc.) instead of debating the health benefits. Ah, well. Just wanted you to know, Jake, that your efforts -- and those of other pro-circ folks -- are appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you, Provoking Debate, for your kind words, which are much appreciated. I hope you don't mind my being picky, but I don't consider myself 'pro-circ', but rather 'pro-parental choice'. I think choosing not to circumcise is as valid a choice as choosing to circumcise. I guess we may disagree on that particular point, though I'm sure that we agree on others. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Pro-pareental choice" sounds appealing, but of course it means "anti-penis-owner's choice". And to answer your first objection, the penis-owner is not just the child for whom "parents must make many decisions" but the man who may justly be mad as hell that his choice was taken from him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Male circumcision is not the same as female circumcision, also commonly known by the term coined as female genital cutting or female genital mutilation.

    Now that this has been brought up, this was where the no-circ movement seemed to gained its highest momentum. When all the horror stories from the media started pouring in about teenage girls in some parts of the world being dragged, held down, and put under the knife.

    Again, stop with the comparing of circumcision for boys to everything else because it's just ridiculous. The two are the complete opposite.

    Most boys who are circumcised at birth or when they were little have little to no memory of it and do not remember any pain, of which anesthetics can be used anyway. Those who have circumcisions later in life definitely gets anesthetics, it's a quick and cleanly done procedure, is painless after quick healing, and carries only benefits with no complications. Sure there were misinformation and myths spread along the way that circumcision is the cure-all for everything like wet dreams, masturbation, insanity. But that was a hundred years ago and we've known so much more about it today that we did.

    Opposed to female genital cutting-the girls are operated on under filthy conditions, by people who are not professionals, they remember ever bit of the excruciating pain and have to live with it, and the whole purpose of doing it was to both make them "marriageable" in the hope they'll be faithful to their partner by controlling their sexuality. Some of these female genital cutting goes as far as using thorns, strings, and rusty wires to "sew" up the vaginal opening for the man to open whenever he wants sex. Many of these girls who's had it done to them live in constant pain, develop horrible infections, or become infertile or more likely to miscarry.

    Totally different than male circumcision.

    Dr. E. Schoen has a circumcision fetish? Maybe we should ask him. A pediatrician who writes poetry, now that is something.

    And there is no "propaganda" for it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As somemone said, because FGC is worse, doesn't make MGC any better.

    Actually, world wide, most MGC is of Muslims, done in childhood and so far as I know with no anaesthetic at all. (So is most FGC, in Indonesia and Malaysia, but it is also minimal, sometimes just a token nick, and often professional. They justify it by reference to MGC.) Then there's African tribal MGC, done under very similar conditions to FGC, and resulting in 52 deaths in Eastern Cape Province alone to date this year. When you compare apples with apples, tribal with tribal, surgical with surgical, they're not all that different.

    I don't know if Schoen is a circumfetishist, but he is certainly a circumcision fanatic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hugh7, to address your points:

    As somemone said, because FGC is worse, doesn't make MGC any better.

    Whoever said that made the implicit assumption that "MGC" (by which I presume you mean circumcision) is bad at all. That's argument by assertion, which is not a valid argument technique. What I would suggest is that you show that circumcision is bad in the first place, by establishing through rational weighing-up of the risks and benefits that circumcision is a net harm. It's fairly easy to show that this is the case for FGC: with no benefits and non-zero risks and harms, it could hardly be otherwise. Zero minus a positive non-zero number is negative.

    Saying that "MGC" (again, presumably you mean circumcision; I don't know why anti-circumcision posters so often seem to feel the need to invent terminology to replace perfectly satisfactory terms that already exist) is mostly done on Muslims, or that it's mostly done in childhood completely fails to establish that it's a net harm. Saying that it's mostly done with no anaesthetic is certainly regrettable, if true, but even so there's a difference between what circumcision is and how it may often be performed - there is nothing inherent in circumcision that requires it to be performed without anaesthetic.

    Finally, I'm perplexed by the ongoing claims about Dr Schoen. Calling him a "circumcision fanatic" has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his work. This is an example of argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. booloo is a foreskin lackey. They cant attack the facts so they try and attack the person, and they always point to female circumcision like its the same as male circumcision. Its done by the nocirc and icgi crowd.
    Cervical cancer is lowest among jewish women. Cancer of the penis is lowest among circumcised men according to the american urological association.

    And by the way, circumcision is not mutilation, I dont see circumcised males having a problem breeding. Just take a look at the muslim world.

    Bare is best, Helmets protect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It amuses me that Provoking Debate accuses "anti-circ fanatics" of blind "hatreds", but is so taken with his own prejudice against the foreskin that he fails to see the log in his own eye. And why all these claims that science is on the side of the circumcision lobby? There are MANY medical studies showing no benefit to routine circumcision - at least in terms of STDs.

    One such recent study comes from New Zealand (and is backed up by large studies from the USA and the UK) performed by Nigel Dickson et al, based on a cohort of about 400 New Zealand men (see J Pediatr 2008 Mar; 152:383). The study found that the non-circumcised group of men was no more likely to have an STD than the circumcised group. Note the study's conclusion: "Our findings agree with other similar recent medical studies from developed countries... it appears unlikely that circumcision has a significant protective effect against common STDs".

    As for the low incidence of HIV in the Philippines, very well, but then how do you explain that UNCIRCUMCISED central Europe has just as low a rate of HIV infection? The USA and Canada (the majority of whose sexually active men are circumcised) have a higher incidence of HIV than most of genitally intact Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MGC stands for Male Genital Cutting (of course). It is neither indirect (like "circumcision" which doesn't say what is cut) nor a dysphemism (like "mutilation"). It just tells it like it is, and it is striking that circumcisionists can't stand to have it told like it is - male and female genital cutting described accurately with the same words.

    "Whoever said that made the implicit assumption that "MGC" ... is bad at all. That's argument by assertion"
    One can hardly make an argument by assertion implicitly. "Better" and "worse" are (duh) relative terms. The orgiginal statement is about the logical fallacy of promoting MGC by condemning FGC.

    The onus is not on intactivists to prove that circumcision is bad at all. It is on circumcisionists to justify a surgical removal being done to non-consenting people, who may grow up to bitterly resent that they had had a healthy, erogenous (and that is for them to decide and no-one else) part of their own bodies cut off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Having pointed out that circumcision provides no protection at all against STDs in developed nations, I should add that male circumcision removes highly specialised tissue containing thousands of complex, fine touch receptors and nerves. This is confirmed by anatomical studies (e.g. by researchers Winkelmann and Taylor), which circumcision activists have been unable to refute - much to their frustration! The removal of functional tissue renders the routine circumcision of minors or individuals highly unethical without their informed consent.

    Circumcision will also tend to impact negatively on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men usually prefer INTACT. See O’Hara: “The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female”. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1:79–84.

    According to this comprehensive study, the women reported more vaginal dryness with the circumcised penis. 85% reported more likelihood to orgasm with uncut men. The thrusting motions of the circumcised guy tends to put him out of sync. with his female partner.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To respond to both of sandz's comments:

    One such recent study comes from New Zealand (and is backed up by large studies from the USA and the UK)

    Or, more accurately, it has similar findings to some, but not others. The problem with selecting studies to "prove" a point is that it doesn't actually prove anything about the subject. It just proves your own ability to select studies.

    I should add that male circumcision removes highly specialised tissue containing thousands of complex, fine touch receptors and nerves. This is confirmed by anatomical studies (e.g. by researchers Winkelmann and Taylor)

    Actually, very few of these claims have been confirmed. The number of receptors, for example, has never been established. They might number in the thousands, or might not. What has been established is that one part of the foreskin (which Taylor named the "ridged band") is more densely populated with one specific type of receptor (Meissner's corpuscles) than another part of the foreskin. Despite rampant speculation (usually presented as fact) by anti-circumcision activists, there remains no evidence that the removal of the foreskin adversely affects the sexual experience.

    Circumcision will also tend to impact negatively on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men usually prefer INTACT. See O’Hara

    Why? Why not see Kigozi G, et al., who found just the opposite? (Sexual satisfaction of women partners of circumcised men in a randomized trial of male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. 2009 Jun 12) Or Williamson ML, Williamson PS. Women's preferences for penile circumcision in sexual partners. J Sex Educ Ther. 1988; 14: 8?

    ReplyDelete
  24. To respond to Hugh7:

    MGC stands for Male Genital Cutting (of course). It is neither indirect (like "circumcision" which doesn't say what is cut) nor a dysphemism (like "mutilation")

    "Circumcision" has a well-established meaning (the removal of the foreskin). "Male Genital Cutting" would presumably refer to any form of cutting of the male genitals, including frenuloplasty, circumcision, glansectomy, subincision, orchidectomy, penectomy, and probably several other procedures that I haven't thought of. If you're going to argue that "circumcision" 'doesn't say what is cut', then by that same standard "MGC" would be far worse.

    It just tells it like it is, and it is striking that circumcisionists can't stand to have it told like it is - male and female genital cutting described accurately with the same words.

    I don't know. Perhaps we should find a "circumcisionist" (whatever one is - I couldn't find it in the dictionary), so that we can ask him/her? In the meantime, it seems contrary to the usual purpose of communication to generate phrases just because you want to use the same words: if you need to tinker with language to make some obscure "point" then maybe it's not a very good point.

    One can hardly make an argument by assertion implicitly.

    Sure one can. Consider: "so we have to ask, why are anti-circumcision activists so idiotic?" The implicit assertion is that anti-circumcision activists are idiotic.

    The onus is not on intactivists to prove that circumcision is bad at all.

    As long as they don't claim that it is bad, I agree. But as soon as they claim that circumcision is bad (which, in my experience, rarely takes long), they bear the burden of proof. That's how debate works.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The onus is on circumcisionists (anyone who advocates circumcision, eg by posting more than ten times in support of circumcision) to prove that circumcision is sufficiently better (more beneficial, less harmful) than leaving the penis alone to justify doing it without the penis-owner's consent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And the onus is on anyone who posts more than ten times in a manner that is critical of circumcision to jump up and down on one leg while holding a large, pink feather duster.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh is that how debate works?

    ReplyDelete
  28. [i]Did you catch this latest gem of a story? The Phillipines, where universal circumcision is practiced and encouraged, has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.[/i]
    So does Denmark.

    ReplyDelete
  29. circumcision is wrong in any form whether it be for females or males. foreskin is a completely normal and healthy part of the penis. i bet if we removed girls' labia, it would be easier for them to keep their vagina clean, but does that make sense?? hygiene, education and condoms prevent disease, not circumcision. circumcision is rare in europe, yet european countries have the lowest rates for std's. why do you think that is??

    ReplyDelete
  30. Where are you getting these "facts"? If this article was true, then AIDS would be non-existant in America since 80% American men are circumcised. There are men dying in USA right now of AIDS that have NO foreskin. I'm calling bullshit on this!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. This blog is run by a sick idiot. Just follow the links of his "followers." This site is run by a sexual deviant. As I said follow the links.

    ReplyDelete